Congress Suggests Standard Training for All Security Contractors

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

The News

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

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

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

The bill includes the following provision:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Party Debate: The Grades

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

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

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

Now, on with the festivities.

The Winner

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

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

*Drum Roll please*

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

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

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

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

Grade: A+

"Second Tier" Winners

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

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

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

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

Grade: B

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

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

Grade B-

The Losers

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

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

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

Grade: F

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

Grade: F

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

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

Grade: D+

The Rest

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

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

Grade: C

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

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

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

Thus:

Grade: C

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

Democratic Party Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessing the Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meet the Press with the Director of National Intelligence

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

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

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

Tim Russert Interviews Admiral McConnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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.