Remembering Rick Eaton

Rest easy, Staff Sergeant.

Gone But Not Forgotten: SSG Rick Eaton

Gone But Not Forgotten: SSG Rick Eaton

re: "What do you do with a "problem" like Peter Van Buren? Take away his badge, escort him out, bar the door, throw away the key and ...."

Domani Spero at Diplopundit (" one of the best niche blogs for Foreign Service folks ") considered Mr. Van Buren's situation last October.

Money quote(s):

"Mr. Van Buren was escorted out of the State Department on Monday and barred from returning while officials there decide what to do next with him. Our own source said that Mr. Van Buren has been placed on administrative leave for the next couple of weeks. Admin leave is like “we’ll pay you so we don’t have to see you.” I supposed that’s until they can find the citation in the FAM that would fit this “problem.” Mr. Van Buren’s current assignment reportedly had also been curtailed. If true, that means they just took away his desk and chair, too. So even if he is allowed to return after his admin leave, he won’t actually have a job to return to."

&

"Mr. Van Buren’s book is highly critical of the State Department’s work in Iraq, the accompanying blog, just as critical. Not sure if the punishment is for the book, the blog, or for both. No one would speak on the record. The suspension letter did not cite the book, but did cite as one of the author’s faults, “an unwillingness to comply with Department rules and regulations regarding writing and speaking on matters of official concern.”

This is the first time, as far as memory goes, that the State Department had actually yanked somebody’s clearance over “publishing articles and blog posts on such matters without submitting them to the Department for review.” Whereas, in the past, I was aware of the shock factor in threatening bloggers with this in-house version of the “nuclear” option, this is the first time where somebody actually pushed the red button. And in a very public way. "

&

"(A)lthough Mr. Van Buren is the first ever blogger escorted out of the building, he was only the latest casualty in the tigers can bite you escapades inside the State Department. Some FS bloggers have been unable to get suitable ongoing assignments – or even normal responses to their bid lists. As one recently told me, “these officers have not asked for extraordinary favors: just regular, humdrum postings that fall comfortably within the bidding rules, that are not heavily bid or bid on by superstars, and for which they are completely competent. ….they have heard only silence.”

Assignment issues, blogger disappearances and PVB’s case undoubtedly will bring a big chill to the FS blogosphere. Don’t be shocked if folks go back to the 50′s and start hiding their journals under their pillows, as was quaintly suggested elsewhere."

CAA has not, to date, suffered any noticeable adverse career impact due to blogging.

"I think it must be said that the State Department handled the book clearance badly. Somebody should have owned up to the snafu instead of gunning after the author. The 30-day timeline for clearing the book lapsed. It was not the author’s fault regardless of whether or not the person responsible for clearance had a meltdown, a baby, was sick or was on vacation. But State like any old and cumbersome bureaucracy is loath to admit to its own mistakes. They cleared Condi’s book within the 30-day timeline, yet Mr. Van Buren’s book was not afforded the same courtesy. The State Department, in short, broke its own clearance procedure. And when Mr. Van Buren published the book as allowed under its own regulations in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State accused him of “unauthorized disclosures of classified information,” and asked his publisher for redactions six days before the book hit the stores. Can you imagine them doing that to Secretary Rice’s book? Nope. Big fry, small fry; are there different rules?"

Different spanks for different ranks. It's sort of like the Air Force that way.

"(G)iven the potential fallout from a book about reconstruction in what has always been an unpopular, contentious war, and given how much money we’re spending on reconstruction projects over in Iraq, somebody higher than a Deputy Assistant Secretary should have read the book, cleared his/her calendar and spoke privately with the author. Instead of sending the tigers with sharp teeth. I have not meet Mr. Van Buren in person, and he may be far from cutesy and cuddly, but he has written a vivid, engaging account of our reconstruction debacle in Iraq seasoned with absurdities, great and small. To dismiss him as nothing but a disgruntled employee is just plain brainless. Public opinion is already against the Iraq war. Add to that the rest of the domestic headaches that the American taxpayers have been suffering in the last several years. And what do you get? A public relation disaster, with the State Department as the big, bad growling tiger in a starring role. It does not help that State appears to be acting like a big, bad growling tiger trying to eat an angry mouse. "

Overkill much?

"(S)omebody from the Seventh Floor should have attempted to speak with him. He, after all, spent 23 years with the State Department and cared enough to write the Iraq Experience down in a book. With his name on it. Not even the folks interviewed by USIP were willing to put their names down in that Oral History Project. But no one bothered to speak with him. A DAS alleging his disclosure of classified info did eventually write to him, albeit belatedly, and not really to listen to what he had to say.

It’s as if the State Department is proud of all its smart people except for those with the guts to speak up, or write a critical book. Or are they only proud of our smart diplomats when they dissent in private, in a channel that the American public never ever gets to hear, and that which the organization is free to ignore? The guy who talks too much not only gets a good hearing in my book, he or she should be afforded an opportunity to contribute in fixing the problems that he cites. No, we do not shoot the messengers in our book. Most especially if they are bearing bad news. But that’s us. Unfortunately, that is often the case in the bureaucracy, the State Department perhaps more so than most. A dead messenger is a good messenger, no news is good news. "

BTW, the "Seventh Floor" is the part of Main State where all the under secretaries, deputy secretaries, and the secstate have their offices.

10/28

re: "SQUIRREL!"

Mike at Cold Fury ("Harshing Your Mellow Since 9/01") might be one of thosepeople who actually know what WMD are.

Money quote(s):

"Hey, remember those Iraqi WMD stockpiles that didn’t exist, that Saddam never ever pursued getting and didn’t use on his own people and in the war with Iran, that Bush lied us into his phony war for oil over?"

These aren't the WMD you're looking for?

"(T)hey’re still not there, and the Brits are not going to be helping out with not destroying them. Because they don’t exist, and never did. So shut up, awright?"

Shut up, he explained.

7/31

Remembering SSG Rick Eaton

About Staff Sgt. Richard Eaton Jr:

Staff Sgt. Richard Eaton was awarded the Bronze Star for his service during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition to numerous other medals and citations, Staff Sgt Eaton received the Thomas G. Knowlton Award from the Military Intelligence Corps Association which recognizes those individuals who have significantly contributed to the promotion of Army Intelligence. For more information about Staff Sgt. Rick Eaton, please visit: http://www.chinapost1.org/divisions/korea/Eaton.htm or

http://www.militarycity.com/valor/256727.html.

re: "Obama's Misplaced Mideast Optimism"

Daniel Pipes at danielpipes.org (" Opine briefly on diverse topics ") provided some thinkery on likely fallout from the Arab Spring.

10/25

re: "In post-Qaddafi Libya, there's still a lot of work to be done"

Dov Zakheim at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") contrasted post-Qadhafi Libya with post-Saddam Iraq, based upon remarks by Amb. Paul Bremer.

Money quote(s):

"It is noteworthy, and not a little bit ironic, that Ambassador Paul Bremer, he of the late and unlamented Coalition Provisional Authority, identified several criteria for ensuring that the departure of the dictator does indeed lead to a fundamental change in the governance of Libya. He argues, in bold typeface, that "the population must believe that the political change is real and lasting;" that "someone has to provide security;" that "a new political order must be established quickly."

It is difficult to argue with Bremer's main points."

&

"He adds that "unless some system is put in to demobilize the fighters, there is sure to be trouble." But who exactly should be the "someone" who provides security? What plans have been drawn up for a "system" to demobilize the fighters? And who will implement the plan for such a system. Surely not the United States, I hope. We have enough on our plate, both domestically and internationally. The military and financially exhausted Europeans? The Arabs? The United Nations?"

CAA doesn't see that happening, everyone's distracted by what's happening in Syria and what could happen in Iran.

"(W)ho will constitute that political order and what sort of political order will it be? There is no evidence that the current Interim Government has in mind the kind of democratic, pro-Western political order that Bremer seems to be calling for. Nor is it clear that, democratic elections notwithstanding, Iraq is pursuing policies that align with America's interests -- and that is before all American troops have left his country."

10/24

re: "Negotiations"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor (" The Original Blog and Daybook. ") posted some thoughts on the Middle East and the Occupy movement.

Money quote(s):

"The Israelis have traded 1,000 well treated prisoners for one mistreated sergeant.

I once told then Israeli President Weizman that I didn’t know how to govern his country. Of course that was preparatory to my suggestions on what I thought they were doing wrong. I still don’t know how to govern Israel, nor do I have the stake in the outcome that the Israeli government does, but that doesn’t stop me from suggesting a different course of action.

Were it up to me to negotiate for the return of a soldier kidnapped by Hamas, I would simply ask how many Hamas officials they wanted in exchange for my sergeant. “I need to know the number, because I have Mossad standing by to make up the list of Hamas officials we will have the IDF take as prisoners. The sooner I have the number the quicker Mossad and our special forces can do their work. We can then have the exchange. Please tell me the number.” "

I rather like the way Dr. Pournelle thinks.

"I have some sympathy for those who have a lifelong debt in exchange for some years of their lives acquiring an education that is in essence worthless. They learned no history, no economics, and little else of any real value, and they have little prospect of a job until the economy revives. They saw a $Trillion spent on stimulus and bailouts with not much result other than enormous bonuses paid to people whose contribution to the world is to move money around in circles. Not much of it seems to get down to the levels where they live.

Their view of the world is somewhat distorted but their education didn’t show them how to see it all more clearly."

A university education used to mean (correct me if I'm wrong) at least a core curriculum that should have been grounded in some basic humanities (English lit., composition, world history, Western civilization, &tc.) that would at the very least given college graduates the factual and analytical basis from which to think about things and make more-or-less rational decisions.

The proliferation of hyphen-studies courses crowding out the old-fashioned syllabi have lead to this.

"(I)t does seem a bit odd that the NATO air power including a US killer drone were waiting for the cavalcade out of Sirte. It’s unlikely that they stumbled on it, or that they were maintaining air patrols there. This appears to be a reasonably well planned kill operation. As to whether it conforms to the directive of protecting the civil population of Libya I have no idea. One wonders how the Presidents of Syria and Yemen understand the messages here.

Khaddafi’s body has been subjected to practices not permitted under the Quran, so it is clear that Sharia law does not yet govern Libya.

The execution of Qadafi was no more than he deserved, and the desecration of his body echoes that of the founder of united Libya, Benito Mussolini." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"Iraq will probably break up into its component provinces; almost certainly the Kurds will refuse to accept the sovereignty of Baghdad and the Shia. It is not likely that Baghdad has the means for the conquest of the Kurdish province, which may well proclaim its independence and apply for membership in the United Nations. Libya was united under the Italian rule under Mussolini. Just how strong the union between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania has been forged is not clear. There are plenty of reasons for conflict. The stakes are high, and the US has considerable interest in the matter, but it is not clear that the US has any strong influence over the outcome." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

10/24

re: "Springtime for Islamists in Libya?"

Neo-Neocon (" slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon ") is one of those who possess an Inigo Montoya-like sensibility regarding the meaning of words.

Money quote(s):

"The headline reads “interim [Libyan] ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law.”

There’s that word again: expected. But those who thought they knew what to expect in Libya were either arrogant or daft, or both. And one of the many things that was clearly possible there was the ascendance of Islamist elements." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Wishful thinking, like hope, is not a plan. Nor is it a particularly useful analytical tool.

"David Warren contrasts the irony of the relatively orderly Bush-overseen judicial end of Saddam Hussein with Gaddafi’s extra-judicial lynching under forces promoted by Obama."

CAA has nothing but good things to say about Mr. Warren, one of our neighbors in the Great White North.

"Not unexpected at all. That’s why there is something to be said for what happened in Iraq, where—because we invaded and stuck around, despite the huge cost in blood and treasure—that country has at least a chance of coming out relatively well compared to others in the region."

From her keyboard to God's monitor.

10/24

re: "Iraq, Libya, and Imperialism"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor (" The Original Blog and Daybook. ") shared his thoughts on NATO's Libyan intervention.

Money quote(s):

"Qaddafi was likely executed by one or another militia faction, or even by a militiaman, possibly for his possessions. He was shot by rebels, which may have been merciful compared to what they might have done with him. It’s hard to say that beating him to a pulp then shooting him out of hand wasn’t justice. Qaddafi wasn’t quite the monster that Uday Hussein was, but he’d done enough to earn his fate, and indeed the US Air Force tried to kill him with TFX fighter-bombers in the 1986 Operation El Dorado Canyon. They didn’t get him, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. It was an old fashioned harbor bombardment from the old days of Great Powers diplomacy. Reagan acted in retaliation for Libyan terrorist activities after consultation with the Congressional leadership of both parties. Had Gaddafi been killed in the raid the history of North Africa would have been considerably different.

In any event, NATO has brought the tyrant down, which must have been the mission. The official authorization for air NATO air strikes (including US acts of war) in Libya was a UN resolution mandating the protection of civilians from a Khaddafi massacre, but it’s very difficult – for me impossible – to connect an air strike against a convoy fleeing a city just before it falls to the rebels with the mission of protecting civilians. Even assuming that most of those in the convoy were military – and surely some were not since it was a chief of state and his entourage – there were likely to be civilian casualties from the air strikes, not to mention possible massacres in the looting that followed the convoy’s defeat.

And that does raise the question of whether the President of the United States has the authority to order such acts on his own authority. The UN cover mandate didn’t authorize regime change or execution of the chief of state of Libya. The President did tell Ghadaffi to get out (but apparently wasn’t willing to let him get out alive)." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war. The President has the authority to protect and defend the Constitution, but unlike the King of England he has not the power to make war on whomever he pleases (a right that remains with the Ministers who act for the Crown to this day). In England you must go to Parliament to get the financing to pay for a war, but the King along can declare it. That right was specifically and intentionally taken from the President and given to Congress (along with the power of the purse). Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who passionately believed that the US ought to be involved in the War in Europe that began in September 1939, understood this very well. He could promise Churchill that the US would come to Britain’s aid, but that was restricted to support until December of 1941 when Germany honored the Axis alliance and declared war after the US and Japan were at war. In those days war was considered a serious event.

The problem with going to the rescue of the Libya rebels without any declaration of war is that the US has little say in what happens next. Perhaps we shouldn’t have any say.

On the other hand, we have spent about $1 Billion on our Libyan adventure, and we don’t know what we have put into power in Tripoli. We do know that one faction claiming to speak for the rebels has said that the basis of law in Libya will be Sharia. It is clear that had we not spent the $1 Billion, Libya would either remain unified under Khaddafi or be partitioned, probably at Marble Arch. Whether that would be a better outcome than unified under Sharia law is not clear to me. It is also not at all clear that the White House thought this through before committing us to borrow a billion dollars from the Chinese in order to intervene in the Libyan civil war. Was this outcome worth the cost?"

It certainly was for someone, but not necessarily the U.S. taxpayers who'll have to pay back the Chinese. With interest.

"I am not much in favor of imperialism as a policy for the United States, but I do favor competent imperialism over the present policies. If we must have an empire, should we not be competent at it? Of course there is the problem that Afghanistan has little to nothing that we want.

I was opposed to extending our Afghan adventure beyond the punishment of the Taliban for harboring out enemies; left to me we’d have been out as soon as Kabul fell to the anti-Taliban forces, with perhaps a billion dollars in bribe money squirreled away to be spent at the discretion of whomever we left behind as resident. Our policy in Afghanistan should have been simple: don’t harbor our enemies, don’t let your country be used as a base for attacks on the US, and apply to the Ambassador if you need anything. Been good to know you. A policy, by the way, that would have been as welcome to the Afghans as to the Legions." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA rather likes Dr. Pournelle's punitive expeditionary model for Afghanistan. Of course, it's much too late for that now.

"There is no way that we could leave US troops in Iraq subject to the tender mercies of the Iraqi courts. US troops are not going to be subject to Iraqi law. But can you imagine the Japanese making that sort of demand as part of their surrender in 1945?

The result of the Iraqi war? We have removed Iran’s worst enemy. We have installed a Shiite government in Iraq. We have succeeded in changing the Middle East beyond Iran’s fondest and wildest dreams. This is the result Iran has worked toward since we invaded Iraq. They have their goals. Now we go home." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA)

10/23

re: "The Iraq War Did Not End on December 17, 2011–But the Peace May Be Over Soon"

JOEL B. POLLAK at Big Peace considered the endings of wars.

Money quote(s):

"I am disgusted by the media declarations and the presidential proclamations that the war in Iraq has ended with the departure of US troops. It is an erroneous conclusion, designed with political victory in mind--and heedless of the risk of projecting military defeat. "

Involvement by major numbers of U.S. ground troops has ceased.

That doesn't mean that the few remaining troops, or the U.S. civilians still there, are any less attractive targets for those who continue to wage war in Iraq.

"The Iraq War was a victory for the United States, for our allies, and for the Iraqi people. Our forces toppled Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, and defended nascent Iraqi democracy against Iranian-backed terrorists, including Al Qaeda and remnants of Saddam's regime.

Our soldiers maintained the peace of a country many feared would collapse into civil war--and which some, including our current Vice President, suggested should be divided. Against the plans of foreign enemies, and the pessimism of domestic critics, our forces prevailed.

The idea that the war ended today is absurd. If a war is not over until all your troops have withdrawn, then the Second World War is still being fought. If a war is defined by your withdrawal rather than your objective, you will always face defeat. And Iraq was not a defeat. " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"Victory in Iraq may not have come on May 1, 2003--the day President George W. Bush delivered his "mission accomplished" speech. But it had certainly come by November 11, 2010--the day political parties formed a new government, following Iraq's second democratic election. "

12/17

re: "Today's Reading Assignment"

SPOOK86at In From the Cold (" MUSINGS ON LIFE, LOVE, POLITICS, MILITARY AFFAIRS, THE MEDIA, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAPTURES OUR INTEREST ") expanded upon a recent Commentary article by Max Boot.

Money quote(s):

"(B)oth the U.S. military and much of the Iraqi government favored a continuing American presence, for counter-terrorism operations; as a deterrent against Iranian meddling, and to ensure adequate training for Iraqi security forces.

Boot argues that the U.S. should re-open negotiations on our military presence as soon as the current withdrawal is complete. He believes we need at least 10, 000 troops in Iraq to handle the security and training mission--about half the number recommended by senior American military commanders earlier this year.

Unfortunately, prospects for a short-term U.S. return are virtually nil."

CAA thinks the idea of U.S. troops deploying, for a third time, to Iraq is a non-starter short of a major Mideast conflagration.

10/22

re: "The Iraq Fiasco"

Hugh Hewitt at HughHewitt.Com conveyed a sense of frustration.

Money quote(s):

"The outlines of the Iraq fiasco are becoming clear this morning even to the MSM"

I'm still not seeing that, but individual mileage may vary.

"So much good was accomplished for the people of Iraq but at such a terrible price that this sudden retreat is stunning to the people like the veterans who called yesterday and Kagan who, with a few others, helped craft the successful surge strategy which President Bush adopted.

What must Generals Petraeus and Odierno think, and with them the vast majority of the men and women who served in this long war?

Imagine if the U.S. and Great Britain had simply left Berlin three years after the Berlin Wall went up in 1961. How long could the city have withstood Soviet pressure, and what chance would there have been of 1989 ever arriving?"

CAA can think of historical examples where even the myth of domestic political betrayal of military sacrifice has lead to no good result. As Dr. Pournelle often puts it: "Beware the fury of the legions."

10/22

A Different View: Travels with Team Easy, Iraq 2007

Blog friend (and CEO of Cooking With The Troops ) C. Blake Powers, the Laughing Wolf, and co-blogger at Blackfive, has a new book out:

A Different View: Travels with Team Easy, Iraq 2007

Also available in Kindle.

The official book blurb states:

"A Different View Of Life At The Front Rather than combat, this book is about the day-to-day life with troops in Iraq. The focus is on the 90-99 percent of the time that is tedium or boredom, rather than the one percent that is the focus of most photographs seen on the news. Foreword by Matthew Currier Burden, author of "The Blogs of War" "You can see that in his excellent work here. And I sincerely believe that you will experience something new through his “arch” into a very untraveled world…" Introduction by JD Johannes, author and filmmaker, "Outside The Wire" "Blake’s photography shows the preferred normative, but because it is not news, rarely seen." “Blake has come a long way since his days as an assistant at Playboy Chicago. It’s great to see just how far, by his showing a side of combat that few ever see, or even have the opportunity to see. A super job, I’m glad to say I knew him ‘when’….” David Mecey, former staff photographer, Playboy Magazine. "Blake has generated an outstanding work that reframes the still quiet moments of war. One could easily use this book in reintegrating one's self, family, and life. The parallels drawn between the landscape of war and the landscape of our southern United States (which still bears the scars of past war) are particularly apt. I'm pleased to see this work become available to our community." - Damon Bryan Shackelford, creator of Delta Bravo Sierra military cartoons." (Bold typeface and links added for emphasis and all-around linkery goodness. - CAA.)

Bottom Line At Bottom (BLAB): Both Matty 0'Blackfive (the original "paratrooper of love") and the DBS cartoonist say you should read it.

(I guess I'd better read it too.)

re: "The exit is the strategy"

Kori Schake at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") judged by actions, not words.

Money quote(s):

"(B)oth the White House and Pentagon had been repeatedly emphasizing that negotiations with Iraq were ongoing, that no decision had been made. In truth, the decision was made even before Barack Obama was president: he got elected campaigning that Iraq was the wrong war, not worth the lives and money.

He did what he said he was going to do. He set an end date for combat operations so that he could show "progress" before the midterm elections. Progress not toward consolidating our gains in Iraq, but toward being out of Iraq. Having appointed special envoys for every problem he considered important, there was no special envoy for Iraq, to help build fostering regional relationships and coordinate our policies. He appointed an ambassador who knew nothing about Iraq."

Knowing "nothing about Iraq" is quite an achievement in itself, given the circumstances.

"(T)he withdrawal of troops is a lagging, not a leading indicator of the administration's indifference.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to affirm our commitment to Iraq. The QDDR says "in Iraq, we are in the midst of the largest military-to-civilian transition since the Marshall Plan. Our civilian presence is prepared to take the lead, secure the military's gains, and build the institutions necessary for long-term stability." State grandiosely imagines a wholly civilian mission of 17,000 personnel most of whom will be "third country nationals" supporting 1,750 diplomats and other USG government personnel. Eighty percent of the mission will be contractors. Current plans call for them to operate at five consulates around the country, costing $6 billion a year.

The Commission on Wartime Contracting (including Shadow Government colleague Dov Zakheim), the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee all take a dim view of State's plans for Iraq. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee assessed that "fundamental questions remain unanswered," including whether the scope of the mission in Iraq is compatible with the resources available, including State Department capacity. They question whether the State Department can sustain its proposed presence without military support and the cost effectiveness of consulates requiring 1,400 security and support personnel for only 120 diplomats. They recommended that if a complete withdrawal occurred, "given the prohibitive costs of security and the capacity limitations of the State Department, the United States should consider a less ambitious diplomatic presence in Iraq." This is likely to end badly."

CAA's formula for right-sizing the U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq is akin to what most after-action-reviews of the RMS Titanic's sinking would include: only have as many passengers and crew as you have lifeboat capacity for.

"Members of Congress could be forgiven for wondering why should we provide $5 billion to Iraq in a time of austerity when the Iraqis are so ungrateful. The Wartime Contracting Commission's conclusion that "significant additional waste -- and mission degradation to the point of failure -- can be expected as State continues with the daunting task of transition in Iraq," will also tighten Congressional purse-strings, as it should."

10/22

re: "Il Douche Declares Victory"

Emperor Misha at the The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VWRC.") x.

Money quote(s):

"(N)othing would make us happier than to see Iraq emerge as a totally sovereign, peaceful democracy with no need for foreign assistance."

From his pen to God's ear.

"Perhaps it really is time to withdraw and let Iraq stand on its own feet. We certainly hope so as we, just as the Bush administration, never wanted to have to hang around forever. That wasn’t the mission." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Quite.

"Dear Iraq, we hope and pray that you will emerge as a beacon of freedom in the Middle East and that the sufferings you have gone through will not have been in vain. You truly inspired this American when you stood up to terrorism and oppression and lined up under mortar bombardment in order to, for the first time in the lives of most of you, cast a vote in a free election. You deserve for this to be a success.

Dear men and women of the United States Armed Forces, you have earned, again, our undying and eternal gratitude for the sacrifices you’ve borne for us, the courage you have displayed too many times to count under adverse conditions, the determination, loyalty and devotion to everything our great nation stands for and the example that you have set and continue to set for the entire world.

If this is to be victory, then that victory is yours and nobody else’s.

You paid the price.

The rest of us are left with a debt that we can never repay.

We are proud of you and eternally grateful to you.

We can only hope to ever prove worthy of you."

10/21

re: "Would the U.S. pay Pakistan's military to help murder American troops if the U.S. had military conscription?"

Pundita (" US foreign policy for the 21st Century ") isn't actually in favor of bringing back the draft, but is angry enough to ask the question.

Money quote(s):

"Through it all -- throughout all the deceptions, denials, evasions, rationalizations and insultingly useless advice given over the years by Americans in civilian government, the military and academia -- there is one question relating to U.S. tolerance for Pakistan's proxy war against NATO and Afghanistan that towers above all others. And yet it's the one question that has never been asked of a public figure. So in the title of this post I've put the question to the public."

She continued:

"I don't mean to shift blame to Americans at large, nor am I arguing to restore conscription. I'm simply pointing out that if service in the U.S. military was compulsory, there would have been such a large number of Americans personally involved in the outcome of the Afghan War that there would have been no 'dark' or 'lost' years in the war while the U.S. was fighting in Iraq.

Combine this with the instant era in global communications, and I think the outcome would have been that factions in Washington that managed for the better part of a decade to hide Pakistan's proxy war from the American public would have found their machinations quickly overwhelmed by the volume of complaints from conscripted Americans and their parents -- many of those parents veterans of the Vietnam War, I might add."

CAA questioned, at the time, both the timing and utility of our Iraq intervention back in the 2002-3 timeframe, both before and during his deployment there to.

While the 23 writs of the Iraq War Resolution sufficed as justification for the invasion, whether Afghanistan should have been put on a back burner (as opposed to a more general mobilization, if both campaigns were so urgently needful) is a good set of questions.

"I'm not arguing for conscription but I am asking whether it's possible for the United States to field an all-volunteer fighting force that's not treated as a mercenary army. The question needs to be answered."

Americans, as a people, have not (since Vietnam, when it was even less true) treated the AVF as mercenaries.

That privilege seems reserved to the inside-the-beltway folks, big picture thinkers, whose connections to the folks who do the deploying, fighting, and dying, are tenuous at best.

(The crocodile tears of the national media elite remain wholly unconvincing.)

"If you want to run with the fiend thesis, it's possible the entire problem of the U.S. approach to Pakistan could be solved by deploying a contingent of exorcists around various civilian government and military buildings, lobbying firms and academic institutions in Washington and Brussels.

But if you pooh-pooh the idea that Hell somehow got loose in those two seats of power you might want to opt for the only other proposition I can see that covers all the bases. This is that U.S. soldiers wouldn't be treated with such contempt if they weren't considered disposable; i.e., as mercenary hirelings. And as corollary that this treatment wouldn't occur if U.S. military service was compulsory."

The "fiend thesis" seems to have been that our decision-makers and strategy-setters have come under actual demonic and diabolical influence.

(CAA can neither confirm nor deny that.)

As touched as CAA is by Pundita's solicitousness on behalf of the troops and their welfare, sometimes an army has to be used. That puts men (and women) at risk. Troops understand that, they just ask that their risks be justified and not wasted.

When an army is used in an expeditionary fashion, as a furtherance of some national policy or another, the risks multiply.

12/17

re: "Iraq Pullout - Not A Cause for Celebration"

LONGTABSIGO at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") commented on strategy.

Money quote(s):

"I must have been absent in strategy class the day they taught that you can declare a war over unilaterally."

Well, you can. But normally you destroy their ability to make war and occupy their capital first.

Oh wait, we did that.

At least one bright observer theorized that we've fought at least three wars in Iraq already, since invading in 2003.

So which war is that we won this time?

(Hint: Identify your enemy.)

(Take your time.)

(Another hint: Read the Max Boot quote towards the end of the linked post.)

"But the rationale is not even adversary-based. It is ostensibly because DOD and State Lawyers cannot work out an appropriate Status of Forces agreement such that US Troops would not be subject to the arbitrary whim of Iraqi law (even if taking an action deemed to be "in the line of duty" by US law/standards).

I've heard of "lawfare" as a check against offensive action out of fear of risk or possible bad press. But an inabilty to convincinly negotiate as a rationale for major troop reduction?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

10/21