Flying into Iraq - a Soldier's Tale

I was just made aware of Michael J. Totten’s Middle East Journal which is now linked to the right in my BlogRoll.

I highly recommend that you follow the account of his on-going journey through Iraq. He seems completely dedicated to describing exactly what he witnesses during his experiences in Iraq without bias. Mr. Totten seems bent on defying generally accepted media practice of reporting a twisted view of Iraq as a chaotic battleground that leaves its citizens no where to turn to escape the violence.

In fact, he perceives an entirely different circumstance:

"You’d think explosions and gunfire define Iraq if you look at this country from far away on the news. They do not. The media is a total distortion machine. Certain areas are still extremely violent, but the country as a whole is defined by heat, not war, at least in the summer. It is Iraq’s most singular characteristic."

I encourage you to follow Mr. Totten’s travels.

During his latest blog, Mr. Totten describes his plane flight into Iraq:

"This was not United Airlines.

The funny thing about the steep corkscrew dive is that I couldn’t feel it. Anyone who says it is scary, as some journalists do, is talking b.s. If you can’t look out the window or see the instruments in the cockpit, you’ll have no idea if the plane is right-side up, flying in a straight line, upside down, sideways, or even spinning into a death spiral. I’m not sure how the others knew when to put on their helmets. Perhaps someone signaled. No one could hear anything over the roar of the plane through their ear plugs.

The landing was smooth and felt no different from an American Airlines touch down in Los Angeles."

I absolutely had to comment on Mr. Totten’s site concerning this passage. And now I want to share that comment with you. You may find the story below interesting as I attempt to describe the details of an event that most of our soldiers face today when they travel to Iraq. However, this event isn’t one that will cause political upheaval or sell newspapers, so I doubt you will ever be privy to it unless some boredom-stricken soldier like me decides to share it with you. Nonetheless, I can confidently say that it is a pretty amusing story… It is amusing for me to tell in retrospect. Enjoy.

Again, the following was originally posted as a comment to another site, in response to the passage above, so if some of the terms used seem to be directed towards an individual reader, it because of the text’s original purpose.

C-130 ROLLING DOWN THE STRIP….

That being said, I felt absolutely compelled to tell you of my experience of flying into Iraq and how it differs quite noticeably from yours.

First of all, I consider myself a pretty thoroughly battle-tested individual. This was also the case the first time that I had to fly into Iraq. I was involved in the invasion during my first tour, so flying into Iraq for my second tour was quite a different experience.

I quote you:

“The funny thing about the steep corkscrew dive is that I couldn’t feel it. Anyone who says it is scary, as some journalists do, is talking b.s.”

Man, do I ever humbly disagree!!

I flew from Kuwait to Al Anbar province, Iraq en route to a year of battle in Ar Ramadi. My flight experience nearly caused me to piss myself. Check that – I am quite sure that I did, in fact, piss myself.

You see, the Air Force personnel on my flight had assured us that the flight would be completed in something like an hour and forty minutes. So I quickly dozed off as the plane traveled towards its destination. Well short of the estimated hour and forty minutes, our plane began its descent. And, unlike your description, I most definitely noticed it!!

Of course, no one took the time to inform me that such evasive landings were necessary. Furthermore, no one took the time to make sure that I was aware that such an evasive landing might take place well short of the mentioned time of landing. I was pretty sure that we were crashing. This is when I think I lost control of some limited bodily functions – but it’s hard to say as my uniform was pretty thoroughly caked in a mixture of fresh perspiration and dried sweat that had accumulated over the long and varied travel that you described so meticulously in your post.

Thankfully, the plane landed safely and I was afforded the opportunity to serve my country in Iraq for a second time. I would end up getting the opportunity to see several other planes land in the same airfield that I did and I can assure you that the occupants of those aircraft surely noticed their landings as well.

Assessing the Strategic Value of the Military Troop Surge

First, a little Fred Thompson Controversy

The news on the street tonight, at least as much as I am concerned is about Fred Thompson and the already initiated attacks from the Left. Apparently, the L.A. Times is reporting that a firm that Thompson used to work for did some lobbying on behalf of a Pro-Choice organization. And, apparently, Thompson was directly involved in working on behalf of this organization. This seems to be a lethal blow to the fledgling Thompson for President Campaign that bills itself as one developed sturdily on strong conservative values…

…Save for the fact that the L.A. Times article is significantly stricken by holes, fails to hold any water and falls victim to being out-witted, out-foxed, and out-reported by a “lowly” blogger. The concerned blog is "Ruminations of a Christian Geek" and its L.A. Times retaliatory piece (which is extraordinary) can be accessed HERE. I highly encourage you to follow the link as the blog is a great example of exactly why people take the time to publish independently.

Without blogs like Ruminations, one might be inclined to take news delivered by big media as ground truth (which is something that I cautioned against during yesterday’s Manifesto (Part One)). One must realize that news can be skewed by the way it is presented. Consider a line graph that depicts great growth (or decline) when the graph is seen at near focus. Step back from the graph and distance depicts the movement of the line up or down as much less dramatic. The L.A. Times article tried to deliver its Fred Thompson story at its maximum level of zoom. When the complete story is considered (and the brevity of the entire issue taken from a distance), Fred Thompson’s participation on behalf of the Pro-Choice organization becomes much less significant. However, I suggest that you simply check out Ruminations- I am not giving the intelligence of their assessment credit by drowning it in my babble.

I will merely, state, however that I think it is a positive indication of just how seriously the Democrats are taking Thompson’s not-yet official campaign when they are already lobbing premature attacks. They realize that once the vehicle that is the Thompson campaign gets to rolling, it will be tough to stop by Republican candidates or Democrats alike. Their only alternative is to attempt to sabotage the campaign in weak tire-slashing manner before it officially launches. And this is the best that they could come up with? Senator Thompson, himself, brushed the issue aside with ease via his Blog. If petty attacks like this are the worst that the opposition can dig up, future sailing may smoother then anticipated.

And, besides wasn’t the L.A. Times informed? It doesn’t matter on whose behalf Senator Thompson lobbied. It’s a voting record like this that does:

Senator Thompson in one Congressional session voted in accordance with the National Right to Life organization on the following issues:

• Ban on abortions in military medical facilities
• Ban on abortions in military medical facilities
• Ban on federal employees' abortion coverage
• Killing Roe v. Wade endorsement
• Roe v. Wade endorsement 8 - Baby body parts ("fetal tissue")
• Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

If Thompson’s competition expects to be taken seriously, I suggest they no longer attempt to attack futilely on issues where the Senator is especially strong. As Thompson would surely say, “It just doesn’t make good sense.”

Assessing the Troop Surge as Strategy

Tonight’s blog may be especially lengthy because the Fred controversy was simply the introduction topic. I really wanted to write tonight about the current troop “surge” that is being implemented in Baghdad. I want to assess the tactic for its strategic value. I also want to suggest what I feel would have been a better, more likely successful approach. And, finally, I want to suggest why I feel that the Bush Administration and its key ground commanders were backed into implementing the surge.

First, let me be clear that I feel that the surge has the opportunity to be successful. That being said, my assessment will be, for the most part, negatively critical. This is mostly because I feel that there were better options “available;” available in the sense that we had the personnel available to complete them, but maybe not totally feasible because of the negative response that I think that my option would have garnered from the media and, thus, the American people. I also want to declare that United States military generals are the best at what they do. They have years of experience and advanced education at the doctorate levels. It isn’t likely that the common man would be seriously critical of a surgeon in the act of operating on a brain because the common man’s knowledge level doesn’t warrant such an opportunity. In the same sense, the lay man shouldn’t expect to know better then specifically trained military generals. What I suggest tonight is simply based on my limited perspective.

With those preludes aside, I think it is unwise to describe a troop buildup as normal doctrine in a counter insurgency affair. I have seen it deemed as such. This is simply untrue. There is a specific method practiced in dealing with guerrilla warfare- a method that I am sure General Petraeus is quite familiar with.

From my knowledge, the best possible way to quell an insurgency is via a method known in the military as Foreign Internal Defense. This is the act of delivering specially trained American troops, in relatively small numbers, to embed directly with the local nationality’s defense forces in the effort to encourage and teach them how to defeat the enemy directly. The United States military has a group of individuals who are selected specifically and trained thoroughly for just this action. They are the Army’s Special Forces, the so-called “Green Berets.” The Marines are also developing a group to conduct Foreign Internal Defense; however, their operational status is reported as being not fully capable until October.

To quell the conflict in Baghdad, I feel that we should have increased the number of Special Forces in the capital city. Furthermore, we should have taken those already stationed in lesser-violent areas of the country and directed their participation to Baghdad. Leave the conventional troops, for the most part, at their big bases. As I know all too well from past experience, even the best of conventional troops have trouble dealing with foreign militaries with the precision that Special Forces offers.

Allow the Special Forces to complete the mission that they were designed to do. They thrive on this stuff. Many of them speak the language and they have the cultural skills to permit them to get the most from their Iraqi counter parts.

The Special Forces soldiers could then fight beside their Iraqi brethren and defeat the enemy where its loss will have the most impact- in Baghdad.

This is the option that I advocate. I feel that the troop surge may be a military blunder. Conventional forces are great at a wealth of activities. For the most part, Foreign Internal Defense is not one of them. Instead of developing Iraqi forces to their greatest ability, conventional forces are more likely to take the lead in killing the enemy. In the short term, this is an effective means of defeating opposition, but – in the long term – it can be unfortunately counter productive. Iraqi citizens need to see pro-Iraqi forces taking the fight to the enemy. The Special Forces have proved since their development from the Office of Strategic Services in World War Two, through Vietnam with the actions of MACV-SOG that they are exceptionally equipped at exactly this mission.

However, the beauty of the Special Forces is also their downfall in this case. They have a small footprint. They rather not take center stage. And, the Bush Administration needed a new strategy in Iraq that would be obviously evident to all outsiders. They needed visible activity. The troop surge provided such a prospect. The troop surge works well in the sense that one can point to tangible numbers and data. They can suggest that an increase in X amount of troops has directly led to a decrease in X amount of enemy action. The secrecy of the Special Forces mission would not afford the administration such a publicity-concerned value.

This is all simply based on the little that I know of the military. I don’t claim to be an expert. In fact, I trust the judgment of generals like David Petraeus. Unfortunately, I feel that the General’s hands may have been tied in this situation by a media that, in my mind, occasionally digs too deep and a public that simply knows too much.

Personal Manifesto (Part One)

I feel compelled to write. My Windows Media Player is on random and Albinoni, of all options, just began to gently resonate. I have a Venti Sumatra from Starbucks and there is slight rumbling thunder outside my fraternity house. The scene seems perfectly developed for the incessant slamming of keys as one types madly. I have this 18^th century mental image of a prolific classical writer, rambunctiously applying ink to paper; his big wig of gray/white perm hair dominating the illustration. His quill pen is topped by a sagging, light white feather.

But I canvassed the deepest corners of my mind and temporarily found no worthy topic of such a momentous setting. While I *admittedly* watched much of the Senate’s 24-hour filibuster debacle a few days back, I prohibit myself from commenting any further because of the complete futility of the entire act. All other current issues seem tirelessly beaten to the ground. This moment is simply too special to waste in an endeavor convincing you why we must finish our mission in Iraq, for example. Frankly, I am going to continue that enterprise tomorrow and the day after, and probably many following days after that as well. Something larger beckons tonight…

After much internal struggle, I am left with a single recourse. While I believe that I may have attempted something similar before, tonight I am going to begin my “manifesto” of sorts. While the contents may be a bit abstract and sporadic, bear with this style as it is my chosen technique. There will be an overriding point, however; to express what exactly it is that I am trying to accomplish via the publication of this blog and, further, what I expect out of life as pertains to topics at hand here at Educated Soldier. I foresee this work to be decidedly broad, encompassing much more length then can be swallowed during a single post. So, tonight is the beginning; the beginning of something that I hope to be personally special.

One day I will be the person in the classical image, furiously delivering thought from mind to computer by feverishly pounding on the keyboard. And, hopefully, this manifesto will go a long way towards the explanation of the rationale of a man who foresees himself in a position much more grand then opposite a screen, constantly analyzing the actions of those in the positions of power.

I’ll begin my elucidation by explaining the motivation that spawns Educated Soldier. Hopefully this will also depict strong reason as to why you should be interested. I will be careful to be absolutely honest.

The only issue that could easily become hidden behind deceit is the original motivation for Educated Soldier. It would be effortless and noble to claim that I began the blog merely for the purpose of engaging in interesting political and military discourse with like-minded individuals. While this reason was certainly core to my decision to begin publishing, it is also akin to dropping ice cream in a mug and declaring that you have a float. The root beer here, in fact, is that I perceived an opportunity to gain a foot into the political field via writing- a habit that I genuinely enjoy.

I have bought into the many stories that I have heard of various bloggers who, through steady publication, found their way into higher circles. While I have not yet achieved such success, it is nonetheless a motivating factor for me. At the very least, it would be particularly fortunate for my writing to become a boon to my continuing path of higher education. This is to say that it is my opinion that, by amassing quality work here, I may potentially use such as part of a larger application package to present to a university of my choice, thus increasing the likelihood of my acceptance.

That’s where it began.

But why Educated Soldier?

I honestly feel that I am in a unique situation birthed by the diversity of my experiences. I took part first-hand in the overriding event of our current times, the War in Iraq. I have a perspective into the situation in the Middle East, born of numerous hours and ferocious violence, which the majority of Americans do not. I feel that the people who most notably lack in this area where I excel, are those that most often “armchair quarterback” the situation. It is nearly no less then a duty for me to write because of this unique viewpoint.

While the majority of citizens do not have this experience, I recognize that there are many that do. So why is my outlook any different then the numerous others who have shed blood, sweat and tears in the Middle East? One reason: I have since left the service and turned my attention to further understanding of the Middle Eastern dynamic through university education. This is to say that I am currently developing a mindset of sorts that is honed not by focused concentration but rather by a broadened field of view. Again, I feel that my knowledge is unique in the sense that I can compare book knowledge to experience that can be gained only by having “been there and done that.” In both cases, I feel that my knowledge is limited. However, the sum of the parts creates an approach greater then the individual components.

Furthermore, I am genuinely interested in the topics that I discuss here. I look for every available method of diversifying my education. I frequent websites such as PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS, SOCNET and SHADOW SPEAR that emphasize the direct word-of-mouth experiences of warriors much more practiced then me. On the other hand, at any given time, I can be found watching CSPAN or conversing intellectually with university friends with similar interests. Some of these friends share my ideals of what is right for this country. The majority of them do not. I dearly want my political, domestic and international knowledge to be a sword sharpened via any number of different tools.

Finally, and this is very important to me, I feel that my opinion is one that is shared by many of my fellow soldiers. However, I feel that this opinion is easily glossed over by a populace that simply doesn’t recognize that they do not know the whole story. This manifesto is not the forum for expressing endlessly the disservice that modern media has been doing for its readership. However, I truly feel that too many of America’s citizens are taking news for being ground truth. I want it to be effectively known that it is not. While I may never be absolutely correct in my judgments, I can assure you that nearly every piece of information delivered via major media is bent to nourish someone’s agenda; whether that someone represents Republican or Democratic Party thought is not important. What is important is that the whole story is rarely being published. I, of course, can not single-handedly remedy this dilemma. I can, however, bring it to attention to the best of my ability. And I can do so while encouraging all readers to truly make informed decisions whether it is at the polls or while leisurely discussing current events. Read beyond the headlines. Explore what isn’t being told. Endeavor to find out why certain events occur as they do. The drive to promote such reader participation is a forthright goal of Educated Soldier.

These are the reasons why Educated Soldier exists. I think that I am going to halt the development of my manifesto for the night. Next time I tackle this project, I would like to explain why my ideology leans so admittedly to the Right. As a taste of this part of the project, I will divulge a sample of the reasons now.

It should be declared that my leaning has less to do with the war in Iraq then what might be expected. Instead, it has much more to do with my continuing fascination with economics especially at the macro level. My conservative philosophy is very much rooted in the economical teachings imparted by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Furthermore, while being religiously agnostic myself, I recognize that values rooted in Christian belief lay the groundwork for the successful establishment of morals as those that make the United States of America such a wonderful place to live.

However, the explanation of my personal values will come in the next continuation of my “manifesto.”

Thanks for your time.

The Boy Who Cried "Wolf"

I can’t say that I put a great deal of thought into the following descriptions, but something just occurred to me in a Mitt Romney-style epiphany. While I have been convinced for a while that the Democratic Party has little chance of winning next year’s presidential voting and I have been sure since last year’s elections that the Democratic take-over of Congress was only an anomaly, it was only tonight that I put my finger on why exactly these phenomena prove true.

You see, I am becoming convinced that the Democratic Party, as it stands today, is a flash-in-the-pan party of impulsive, wannabe-revolutionary ideals.

And this type of stature stands weakly against the Republican Party as I now perceive it.

Here is what I mean. And, as a note, when describing the “current” Democratic Party, I am referring to the Left as it has been organized since about the time that Howard Dean has become prominent.

This current incarnation of the Democratic Party seems to rely on continuous rallying around singular hot-button issues. They take a sole issue and attempt to use it is as a release point to begin a revolution. And, in some aspects, they are successful. However, it is not a strategy that will allow them to continue long term victories.

For example, the rallying issue for the Democrats during last year’s elections was simple: the Republicans are bad. They took this single issue and incorporated entire campaigns on its foundation. This year, the cry for revolution is about the same, but maybe twofold: the Iraq War situation and “global warming.” They hope that these topics will be enough to fire up their constituency.

The Republican Party seems to take the opposite strategy. We depend on individuals who stoically pound on the same principles that have represented the Party for years: lower taxes, national security, and strong morals (derived from, but not dependent upon Christian beliefs).

To me, the Republicans represent the "establishment." The Democrats, on the other hand, are the "movement kids." They want to be revolutionaries. Their failure is that revolution depends on several dynamics to be successful and they are lacking in these areas. Revolutions require monumentally strong leaders. And while there are some Democrats that have been successful, I see none that are able be so on such a grandiose level. Furthermore, revolution also depends on the constituency being decidedly unhappy with the status quo. And while the Left would argue otherwise, I see this unhappiness lacking.

Sure, there are plenty of Americans that want to see the war in Iraq ended. They want to see change in certain areas. But overall, I genuinely feel that the typical American is much too satisfied with his current lot to begin rioting in the streets any time soon.

And herein lays the dilemma for the Democratic Party. Do they truly believe that Americans will rally against the establishment because of the method in which Republicans deal with “global warming?” The Democrats want American citizens to perceive the nation in dire straits. They want to convince citizens that our nation is teetering on crisis. Our healthcare system is beyond repair in its current state, they claim. However, they are patently wrong and I truly think that common sense Americans will see through these deceptions before they hand over any further ground to the revolutionary fatalists that now constitute the Democratic Party.

There will always be groups of Americans who get fired up by these ideals of drastic change. Drastic change, however, is not currently needed. The Republicans have the luxury of depending on staple American principles without having to descend to petty discussion-of-the-moment antics to build their campaigns. Democrats know that on the whole, Conservative principles have done this country well. They only hope that their sideshow tactics will cause enough dissent for people to be duped into voting them into office.

The Left’s stances on abortion, gun laws, taxes, national defense, et al are wrong. So they will attempt to circumvent these shortcomings concerning issues that have always been important in the hope that you will vote for them because of their stances on issues much more impulsive. To their dismay, they will find that the American people are much too intelligent to fall for such weak devices.

In other news, I have an update to my last BLOG concerning Second Life. As mentioned before, there is a Republican “Headquarters” in this virtual world. At this Republican Headquarters, there has been polling stations available to weigh support for the current Republican Presidential hopefuls. Yesterday, I received an email updating the current results of these polls. Users were asked to choose which candidate they would most like to see represent the Republican Party in 2008. While Fred Thompson was not an available candidate (thus leaving me to choose John McCain), it seems that the net-savvy Conservatives really dig Ron Paul.

Here are the current standings as of July 14^th, 2007:

Ron Paul - 57
Rudy Giuliani - 37
Mitt Romney - 20
John McCain - 17
Duncan Hunter - 10
Mike Huckabee - 9
Sam Brownback - 5
Jim Gilmore - 5
Tom Tancredo - 4
Tommy Thompson – 3

Maybe not a terribly important development, but interesting nonetheless. Take it for what its worth.

Thanks.

An Effective Second Life for Fred Thompson

If you have a minute, I would like to politics with you.

More specifically, I would like very much for you to join me in conversation on the already-heated race for the Presidential nominations.

Let’s wax poetic on the issues of immigration, the war in Iraq, and the current American health care system.

Let’s debate the positive and negative aspects of our favorite nominee hopefuls. Tell me why Senator Clinton’s universal health care proposal makes sense and I’ll describe why Conservatives consistently insist that the highest quality medical care exists only on a freely open market.

So let’s talk…

I’ll meet you on Second Life in an hour---

Hold up? What?

Second Life. I will stop short of calling it an internet revolution but it is an application that is making waves. It is also a program that, to me, shows what very well could be the advanced internet of the future. Indeed, Second Life could potentially become the chosen method of high quality, multi-faceted communication in the years to come.

I was introduced to the program probably six months ago. I tinkered around with it then and, ultimately, lost interest. About a week ago, I gave it another shot. While I have not become an addict yet, I have had just enough good experiences in my Second Life during this past week to see its valuable assets.

First of all, let me note that I have zero association with Linden Labs, the company that is responsible for directing Second Life. Nor do I have any financial incentive for encouraging your interest in the program. However, if you are reading this because of your attention to politics, you may see how Second Life could be a very valuable tool; very valuable indeed for a presidential hopeful like former Senator Fred Thompson.

Nor am I going to sit here and describe to you in detail what Second Life is. In general, it is an application that presents the user with a virtual world, ala the Sims, that allows users to create and develop characters, interact with others, buy and sell virtual land, and market items via the system’s cyber economy. If you want to know more, visit here. It’s a free download, although advanced features cost a subscription fee.

The point is this: currently, the Second Life server shows upwards of 40,000 online users. It also states that over 8 million individual accounts have been registered since the inception of the application. Maybe most notably, in the last 24 hours nearly two million real U.S. dollars were transacted via Second Life. While many of these numbers are inflated by inactive members and duplicate accounts, the monetary values are nothing to scoff at.

What’s particularly interesting to the political enthusiast is that several presidential hopefuls have vested “land” in the virtual world dedicated to their campaigns. Whether officially endorsed by the politicians or not, these campaign sites could be a future boon to the politicians’ presidential chances. After a quick search of the Second Life map, I have found advanced campaign areas for John Edwards, Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton, and Mike Gravel. There is also a group dedicated to Republicans of which I am a member.

It was this G.O.P-oriented group that held a discussion last night that proved particularly interesting. Several of our Second Life characters met at the group headquarters and participated in a discussion that lasted over an hour and produced quality arguments that are becoming less commonly found in our First (Real) Lives. Each participant came across as educated and eloquent. Most sides were represented and yet the debate rarely fell victim to mudslinging traps. It was an outstanding discussion. Names like Adam Smith, George Washington, Ayn Rand, and David Ricardo were used as precedent for advanced arguments. There was no junior high conversation but serious intellectual stuff.

And, at its best, this is what Second Life offers. Interested individuals have an area to have such intelligent discourses. Candidates have a place were they can effectively advance their campaign through the program’s plethora of integrated media: video, scripted programs, audio, etc. I, for one, would absolutely love to see Fred Thompson officially endorse and develop a campaign site via this platform.

Senator Thompson has expressed repeatedly his desire to attack his campaign via many different methods, including “old school” grass-root operations and cutting-edge tactics. Second Life offers the latter. By utilizing this program, Thompson would be at the most advanced point of current technology. His charm and charisma would be given yet another podium to shine through and be recognized. This is a great opportunity for such a talented statesmen and I surely hope he seizes the chance to jump on such a valuable tool.

And when he does, my Second Life character, Morrison Huldschinsky, will be there traversing the cyber world, proselytizing his cause.

Sad Times for McCain, Sad Times for the GOP

To your great relief (of this I am sure), I have returned.

I haven’t updated this blog for quite a few weeks now. The hiatus was originally scheduled and began with my vacation to Washington D.C. It just so happens that the break in blogging became a bit more extended then originally anticipated. This was for various reasons, none of which I'm going to get in to right now because, frankly, all responsible reasons are fairly mundane. Before we continue, however, I want to direct you to the photo tour that I threw together using pictures that I took while in the Nation’s Capital.

The D.C. Photo Tour as developed by “DCRunningMan,” as I thought was an appropriate self-title, can be accessed HERE. I really encourage you to check it out. Despite the dire predictions forecasted that I would despise my time spent amongst D.C.’s population of America-haters, I had – admittedly – a great time. For that reason, if none other, I would really appreciate you checking out the Photo Tour. Thanks.

Moving on…

For a lesser man, the dilemma that I currently face would cause an insurmountable obstacle for tonight’s writing: I have no necessary topic in mind. But, alas, it takes a lot more then a lack of focus to prohibit me from writing effectively (although that description may surely be in question). I must admit, though, that I did just complete an epic text that I posted on my personal blog hosted on MySpace. Because of the writing fatigue from that endeavor, I can’t promise the continuity of this blog.

But I’ll try.

One thing that is floating through my head however: I sustain a deeply ingrained sinking feeling whenever I read news concerning Senator John McCain’s failing campaign. I must remind everyone that before learning of Fred Thompson’s presidential desires, Senator McCain was, far and away, my choice for Republican candidate for President. And I still believe that he is an excellent choice for Republicans. He just is not as good a choice as Fred Thompson.

I heard a Democrat pollster on Fox News last night try to attribute McCain’s recent failures to his continued support for the Iraq War. I feel that this is simply incorrect. Republicans have turned from Senator McCain because of the twisted piece of legislation that he presented as solution to our country’s illegal immigration issue that stems from our southern border. This single issue has been “hot-button” in recent times and most Republicans have a very decided idea of, at least, what they do not want to see happen. Much like nearly all Republicans are against abortion, nearly all Republicans are against amnesty for illegal immigrants. And, in the legislation presented by McCain, it sure seemed like he was sitting opposite this view point. It was this issue, and most certainly not the war, that has killed his campaign. This issue also caused Senator McCain to step into a bed occupied by Republican arch-enemy Ted Kennedy. The proposed legislation and the strange bedfellow has been a one-two punch combo strong enough to knock out the most resilient of campaigns.

And that is exactly what happened in this case.

But I argue this: the immigration issue is not a paramount conservative topic. How can I justify this statement? Before justification, let me go a step further: had this topic become hotly debated at any time other then such a pivotal one for presidential hopefuls, I highly doubt it would have such significant prominence.

I know that a lot of people that read here share my conservative beliefs. And because of these conservative values, I am sure a lot of you are probably thinking that I am going mad. But consider this: off the top of my head, there are only a few stabilizing pillars that I believe are absolutely vital for one to build a Republican structure:

• Strong National Defense
• Lower Taxes (or, at least, no raising of existing taxes)
• Pro-Life
• The Right to Bare Arms

In my assessment, one can not claim to be a Conservative or, at least a Republican, without upholding these core values. This list would have been seen as absolutely asinine as little as ten years ago because of the omission of this formerly needed value:

• Limited Bureaucratic Growth

However, the Republican Party has changed. It has reacted to the needs of a nation that is currently being lethally threatened. This has caused the need to develop additional government agencies that I feel can do some good for this country if given the proper opportunities. Certain personal freedoms (and I don’t like putting it this way) may have succumb to the needs of National Defense at the hands of the Republican Party. But this is not exactly the Republican Party of old. It is one that has matured and realized that needed governmental growth can effectively occur. The Party that respects all the freedoms of all of its citizens has been the one most responsible for “intruding” on some of these freedoms recently. But these intrusions have come because of the foremost needs of national security; the first tenant of the Party as it currently stands in my assessment.

In no list, as described now, or as would have been written ten years ago, is illegal immigration an issue that dictates your affiliation as either Left or Right. At the very least, it is far from the top of any list of this kind that it may reach. This issue is simply so powerfully affecting campaigns today because of its timing. And this, in my assessment, is really unfortunate for Senator McCain and really unfortunate for the Republican Party.

Because, after all, Senator McCain is awfully strong and influential on the following issues:

• Strong National Defense
• Lower Taxes (or, at least, no raising of existing taxes)
• Pro-Life
• The Right to Bare Arms

Again, I feel that Fred Thompson is the better choice for the current needs of our Party as the situation stands today. But, really, Senator McCain is not far behind him. And, surely, he is a much better second choice then Giuliani or Romney. Giuliani doesn’t support the Right to Bare Arms (in fact, he has gone out of his way to oppose such a right) and he is admittedly Pro-Choice. And, given Romney’s unscheduled “epiphanies,” it is difficult to gauge where he stands on any of these issues. But I wouldn’t bet the house on the Conservative values of an individual that governed the same state that produces Kennedys.

So, to Mr. Thompson, I say “Run, Fred, Run.” But to the Republican Party, I say “Let’s not put all our eggs in one basket.” There is a lot of campaigning left to do. I would rather see a battle between two vetted Conservatives – McCain and Thompson – that produces a candidate most qualified then I would want a battle between two individuals that most Conservatives are adverse to – Giuliani and Romney – that produces a candidate that is simply the lesser of two evils.

Anyway…

Did I say something about lacking focus tonight? I retract that statement. Thanks for your time.

Into the Dark..

Today’s post may be constituted by a more “rambling” style of touching on many topics more briefly then normal. Then again, it just may not. My reason for such a suggestion, however, is because I have been short on updates lately due to the busyness of my schedule away from the computer. Therefore, I have all these topics in my head that I had intended to delve into during the past week but had not had the opportunity.

The first piece of business is wholly personal but relates in many ways to our normal topics at hand. This week, I get the opportunity to travel to the wretched heart of the evil beast. What does this mean?

On Thursday, I fly to Washington D.C.

Of course, I can’t be completely negative. Despite the lack of common sense and foresight that I attribute to much of the population of D.C. (and I am sorry if the shoe doesn’t fit in particular cases, but it sure seems that D.C. is always ready to surrender to ultra Liberal doctrines regardless of the obviousness of the stupidity of these doctrines to those of us outside of the capitol city’s confines), I am really looking forward to my vacation. In fact, I love D.C. For a student with political interests such as mine, there isn’t a locale more suited for my tastes and desires then D.C. Yet, I often feel that my political leanings make me a minority while visiting.

Yet, I will not allow this to be an obstacle for me. In fact, part of my trip will be dedicated to solidifying my opportunity to transfer to American University. Not only am I willing to submit to an occasional visit to the heart of the Democratic Party’s base (or, at least the base this side of the San Andreas fault), I am also explicitly attempting to move there permanently. Call it my attempt to effectively slay the beast from its most vulnerable area: the inside.

Moving on.

The first topic that I want to comment on, outside of my own personal adventures noted above, is some anecdotes spoken by Bill O’Reilly. I typically agree with much the man says. However, I also recognize his bias despite his claims to be “fair and balanced.” The statements that he made that I am about to reference were uttered about a week ago, so I am not going to attempt to find an exact quote. However, to paraphrase, he made light of Fred Thompson’s pending run for the Republican presidential nomination. One comment that he made in particular struck me as short-sighted.

He suggested that Senator Thompson’s quick accession in the polls is attributed solely to his television celebrity status. He also suggested that those of us who support the Senator do so because of this celebrity status and not because of his political stature.

I, of course, disagree.

What I will concede is that Senator Thompson’s television popularity has brought “automatic” attention to his nomination attempt. To say that his supporters rely solely on this status as our faith of his competency is… well… hogwash.

Senator Thompson’s status only shifted the focus of light from the current candidates to one that many of us feel more wholly represents what we want in the person leading our political party. I don’t support Senator Thompson because he acted well on Law and Order. Instead, I support him because he continually showed support for Conservative ideals while in the political field.

His celebrity status only made me aware of a well-suited candidate whom I might not have considered otherwise. I am thankful for his status, but not ashamed. Nor am I am using this status as a tenant for support.

So, Mr. O’Reilly, I am sorry but your assessment was wrong. Senator Thompson’s candidacy is genuine. The current field of representatives has, in so many ways, already violated my own core of conservative values. While Senator Thompson is not without fault in this regard, I truly feel that in every position that has found himself politically, had I been in his shoes, I would have made the same choices. In the end, for me, there is no better metric for assessing a candidate.

P.S. If you are a Republican and you are running for President, there are certain principles that you can not violate. One of the most important of these principles is that represented by the second amendment. Another principle that, in this day and age unfortunately, precludes you from being my chosen presidential nominee is having the title of former governor of the socialist state of Massachusetts.

So it becomes McCain versus Thompson for me. And as much as I value McCain’s lifelong service to our country, I feel that Senator Thompson is simply a better choice for president.

Okay, so I have more issues in mind.

For example, I wanted to touch on this rumor that some element of the Defense Department was considering research into a so-called “Gay Bomb.” I am surprised that this “news” hasn’t been suggested to be little more than Fark. Did anyone actually read the report? How much money was actually forwarded towards the development of this project? If, very little (I.E. NONE), then why the commotion? Is this news? But, like I said, I wanted to touch on this subject, among other things. However, I have gone on long enough for tonight. I hope to return tomorrow and then, I am sure, there will be another brief hiatus as I travel to D.C.

Thanks for your attention.

The Vet's University Experience

You know, more often than not, I write these blogs out of a sense of duty. That is to say that I write them because I feel I have to write them. Lately, it has become rare that I write about an issue that is being written simply out of my own desire. It is not often that a time comes when an issue so compels me that I feel the urge to simply spew forth words…

Tonight’s blog is one of those peculiar, emotionally charged examples.

I have been witness to two illustrations today that relate to the same phenomenon. Without letting the subject of this blog totally “out of the bag” yet, allow me to give you some source material to whet your appetites. The following are links to outside sources:

Samuel Huntington's The Hispanic Challenge (PDF)

CNN.COM: Suicide Risk Double Among Male U.S. Veterans

The Huntington article is from the journal Foreign Policy. It is a well-cited work and quite the source of controversy. Huntington, for all his faults, is Yale AND Harvard educated. He is a noted political scientist and, whether found agreeable or otherwise, his work drives entire movements within the fields of sociology and political science.

The second link is to an article that was presented today on CNN’s website. The article cites research completed that may show a correlation between white, college-educated military veterans and the acts of suicide. While the researchers in the article, themselves, claim that their arguments are inconclusive at best, the suggestion that is made is warrant enough for me to discuss what I currently have residing in my mind.

The Huntington text is noteworthy because it was presented in one of my university classes today. This class is a required course for my particular International Studies major here at the University of South Florida. The professor of this class has been hereunto exceptional. For lack of a better term, I have found minute portions of his lectures to be “quirky.” However, I found nothing too alarming. Today’s class may have changed that. The format in which the Huntington text was presented was, for me, appalling.

Before we get to today’s event, though, let me state my thesis. I suggest that the research completed on the CNN link is correct. I believe that it is highly probable that veterans commit suicide at a higher percentage rate then non-military civilians. I am going to go farther, however, and suggest that this high rate of suicide is caused by university’s continued teaching of material in manners that is so completely out of touch and alien to the military-hardened individual. Today’s class was exactly an example of one that could cause a veteran to go crazy.

This particular Huntington text is highly controversial. It’s very title, The Hispanic Challenge, invokes thoughts of racism. However, the points that the author delivers are not only grounded in empirical fact, but they are made with the intention of making a populace aware of a problem that, in Huntington’s eyes, is very real and very dangerous. And for many of us that have served in the military, the ideal of America is something outside of what the everyday citizen understands. And, for this reason among others, the Huntington text proves very much noteworthy.

So, with all this being said, I was very excited to see on my syllabus that the professor had intended on sharing this text with the class today. And he did. What occurred afterwards was disturbing. He allowed the class to critique the text in oral discussion. This is something that the professor had yet to do after citing any previous material. Of course, the class response was as expected: Huntington is wrong, Huntington is a bigot, the current argument of Huntington’s is the same argument that was made many times in the past concerning previous waves of immigration, etc. Basically, the professor allowed the class to conduct a chorus of material-bashing.

All things being equal, I want to again clear the professor of extended wrong-doing. He tried to stay outside of the discussion and present dissenting opinions. However, I do feel that the response he elicited from the class was premeditated. He knew what the students would say and they said it; Huntington is bad. And, worse, students failed to critically analyze the subject because it was so much easier to suggest that such an extreme opinion was simply a bigoted one and a wrong one.

However, I am not on my soapbox tonight to suggest solely the culpability of my professor. I am here, instead, to show the implications that such methods of teaching can have on the returning soldier. Today’s class, for me, was tough. While I should have spoken up and pointed out the shortsighted nature of my class peers in not considering Huntington’s opinion, I chose not to. I can confidently assume that I would have been outnumbered 49 to 1 in my concern for giving the noted political scientist his due. And, while I am not easily swayed from a rhetorical battle, I knew that this was one that would fall on deaf ears.

However, we can’t assume that every returning soldier has the same grip on life’s dirty realities as I do. As egotistical as that sounds, I have to be honest: there are young men, returning from service, who are entering universities intent on turning the entire world-view that they rely on upside down. My honesty outweighs my humility; I suggest that I can handle a situation such as today's better than many of my military counterparts. And I am completely sympathetic, however, to the pain that they are suffering.

The solder’s world is one of necessary moral and values. The ideal of America, as I referred to above, may be abstract but it is something that the soldier relies on daily as motivation to continue grueling through tasks that the average citizen would fail to complete. This is especially true for those of us that have been asked to risk our lives in this cause’s defense. If the soldier’s perspective of America is one that may be considered by others to be shaded by bigotry and racist overtones, then so be it. Soldiers do not discriminate against blacks, whites, or otherwise. Soldiers serve next to, and fight for, their brothers of all races. However, the concept of America is all the soldier has to rely on. And this concept of America is exactly what Huntington perceives as being under attack. To see such an argument so intensely harassed could surely be traumatizing for many a soldier.

Now, all of this was solely my experience. My experience in Tampa, Florida. My experience in a university that has been less “liberal” in its expressions then I have expected. I can only imagine the university experience being had by veterans in the Boulder, Colorado’s or the Ann Arbor, Michigan’s of our country. If my assumptions are correct about the experiences being had in those areas, then I can see how the findings of the CNN.COM report could easily prove true.

That’s it for tonight. Thank you.

Are We Rome? Tell Me: What If We Are.

You know, there are so many issues that are worthy of discussion tonight: the Republican debate that I have yet to analyze, on-going situations in Iraq or the National Geographic documentary Inside the Green Berets which I have finally gotten the opportunity to watch. And there are those issues that have already received more attention then they deserve and Miss Hilton, I am referring to you. So, for the sake of keeping my digesting dinner heading downward and not keyboard-bound, we are going to skip all the above-mentioned and focus on something just a little more obscure.


I want to discuss Stephen Colbert’s guest last night on his Colbert Report.



And that guest was a gentleman named Cullen Murphy. Mr. Murphy has penned a book titled Are We Rome. From what I understand and, admittedly, I am only going to thumb though his book after writing this, Mr. Murphy presents evidence that America is quite similar to ancient Rome. From what I saw during the interview with Stephen Colbert, the author found this to be troublesome. This thesis is not what caused me concern. If my education serves me correctly, between the Roman Republic and its Empire, there existed on this Earth a Roman state of superior authority for about 1,000 years. If only our United States could be so lucky. However, what bothered me was a single anecdotal comment voiced by Cullen Murphy.


Mr. Murphy claimed that one of the downfalls of the Roman Republic was the privatization of the market place. Equating “downfall” with negativity, I immediately disagreed with the author’s assessment. While it may be true that the privatized marketplace led to the end for Rome, it does not necessarily mean the same for the United States.


Let me remind the author that the world has attempted the alternative method. This was called “socialism.” In all its forms, no matter how large scale or small, the name remains the same. And sometimes, Mr. Murphy, socialism wasn’t exactly "in your face" in its manifestation. Sometimes it hid behind the words of leading economists. Sometimes, it was being led by peaceful-seeming fellows like John Maynard Keynes. Sometimes, it seemed innocent when not being professed by hell-bent government dictators. Ask Europeans, they surely remember the days of state-owned industry. Ask them about the quality of life that such a marketplace ultimately brought upon them.


Let me tell you, Mr. Murphy, your negativity is misdirected. The privatization of the market is the key to capitalism’s very success. And capitalism’s success is vital to the world’s monetary survival. And, alas, I am not an authority on this issue. In fact, maybe you have my number because, after all, you have written a book- I have only a handful of blogs under my belt. But I am pretty sure that Milton Friedman would have agreed with my assessment. And those that award the Nobel Prize seemed to think pretty highly of Mr. Friedman’s economic knowledge. You know who else might have had beef with your analysis, Mr. Murphy? Try Friedrich Hayek. His influence might have been even stronger then Friedman’s. After all, both President Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher thought enough of his opinions that they used them as basis to their financial policies: policies that rejuvenated markets. And, in this case, the markets being rejuvenated were global in scope.


So Mr. Murphy, I hope your book sells well. In fact, I am sure that you present many valid arguments that are worth reading and considering. However, don’t assume that you can go on a show such as the Colbert Report and hope that its tongue-in-cheek nature will save your comments from the wrath of the public. There are watchdogs out there, buddy, and you will not trample on my free-market, capital-driven, democratic happiness.


Thank you.



In other news, I would love to assess Fred Thompson’s interview on Hannity and Colmes the other night. I would also like to speak of a very gracious note that I received a few days ago concerning one of my blogs. However, I think I just blew off enough literary steam for one night. Thanks for sticking around. More to come tomorrow.

On Bin Laden and Political Debates

So, the news is spreading that Osama Bin Laden is alive- or so says Haji Mansour Dadullah. You can read the news report concerning the confirmation of OBL’s current livelihood HERE.

The news report talks of a letter that was sent from Bin Laden to this Taliban commander. While in the gym this morning, I saw this story being discussed on the campus news network. While I couldn’t hear the dialogue, I could read the ticker that was scrolling along the bottom of the screen. It said something that read roughly like this:

“Is Osama Bin Laden Alive?”

Upon considering this question, I came to my own question in opposition:

“Why should I care?”

Honestly.

This, ironically, is also the question that I use in reply to those naysayers that claim that the American effort in Afghanistan is completely lost because we have not yet located Bin Laden. I don’t even want to address in any sort of length just how short-sighted such a comment is. I am sure, with any critical thinking, you can see how a stable Afghanistan with a toppled and abandoned Taliban government is successful despite the fact that Bin Laden remains at large.

None of that, however, answers my original query about why I should care. Let’s go back to the news report as linked in the opening paragraph of this text. In the report, this Dadullah character explains in a very telling fashion exactly why Bin Laden remains hidden. These are his words, according to Al Jazeera:

"(Osama Bin Laden) prefers not to appear because if he appeared in the media or met people he might face danger.”

Exactly. Dadullah continues to claim that Bin Laden continues to order directives from his hidden lair, so to speak. I am calling Dadullah’s bluff on this one. However, he was correct in his assessment that any sort of publicity for Bin Laden would most certainly endanger him.

And that’s just the thing. Bin Laden is hand-tied. He may not be dead and we may not have captured him. It seems unlikely that we ever will given the landscape and human network that he has in the Afghani / Pakistani border region. But, again, I highly doubt that he is causing much harm. Bin Laden knows that showing his face would increase the morale of those that follow his cause greatly. But he can’t. In fact, there isn’t much that he can do.

So, again, I ask you, concerning Bin Laden’s well-being:

Why should I care?

And this brings me to my second topic: tonight’s debate amongst Republican presidential hopefuls.

I am pretty excited to see how it plays out. Well, I am as excited as one can be for such things. I expect it to be awfully predictable. I watched about half of the Democrats’ debate; I was nearly sickened by the constant back-patting that was passed between candidates. I say, “Be a Man- Go for the Throat!” I assume that any of these candidates would throw any of the others “under the rug” in private, yet they feel the need to show some sort of showmanship class in public. Oh well.

I have seen these debates broken down in various media outlets with a pretty tried and true method that I am going to follow below. I am presenting myself with a few questions about what I expect to see tonight. Enjoy my predictions and feel free to add your own.

Who has the most to lose?

I am going to have to go with Senator McCain on this one. I dearly love the guy and, for a long time, he was my choice for the Republican nominee. However, he is going to be walking into the lions’ den tonight. Nearly all the opposing candidates will likely gang up on his decision to sponsor the recent immigration bill that has angered much of McCain’s conservative base. I really don’t see how he can respond to a mob attack concerning this issue without alienating a large portion of his followers.

Who has the most to gain?

Mitt Romney and here is why: Given the number of debate participants, it seems unlikely that enough time will be focused on Governor Romney’s record to really expose his short comings. An example of a glaring shortcoming: His false story about being an avid lifetime hunter and his follow-up explanation that he meant “hunting” in the sense of chasing and killing small rodents. This detail may arise but I doubt these types of issues will gain any focus. Instead, Romney will be able to express his conservative agenda that he apparently has. He’s a smooth speaker and looks presentable on television. This debate should do little but help his chances.

What question do I most want to see posed?

I would love to hear each candidate explain how their campaigns would be altered by the presence of a running Fred Thompson. I fear this question because it presents an opportunity for the candidates to summarily bash an opponent while he’s not present. However, I think that any avenue that gets Thompson’s name into public light is ultimately a positive boon to his candidacy. Additionally, I genuinely want to know how the current hopefuls perceive Senator Thompson’s chances.

And that does it for today. I hope everyone enjoyed the lengthy update. I’ll be back soon!