Terrified by Santa 2009

Here's a seasonal reprise of a wildly popular article:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18, 2009 -- Nothing says Merry Christmas quite like a photo of sweet little toddlers screaming at Santa.

A few years ago the Chicago Tribune asked readers to send in their "Scared of Santa" photos. Those photos are included at the Web site linked below, including additional photos sent in by SouthFlorida.com, Sun-Sentinel.com and Chicago Tribune readers in subsequent years.

Enjoy!

Link: Click here to see the Scared of Santa gallery.

Wire Commentary: Without Bush, Media Lose Interest in War Caskets

Commentary:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29, 2009 -- As part of the blog's ongoing coverage of military and national security issues, I'd like to bring attention to an editorial written by Byron York, The Washington Examiner's chief political correspondent.

With casualties mounting, the debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan is sharp and heated. The number of casualties is increasing. But the journalists who once clamored to show the true human cost of war, York observes, are nowhere to be found.

Often times when researching news for the blog, I have found media reports of U.S. casualties buried behind unrelated headlines and listed within compilations. The life of these reports is but a brief flash in the news cycle.

On thing is true, however. While you cannot read the details journalists decide to edit or omit, the bias is actually very easy to read through their behavior.

Remember the controversy over the Pentagon policy of not allowing the press to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets of American war dead as they arrived in the United States? Critics accused President Bush of trying to hide the terrible human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"These young men and women are heroes," Vice President Biden said in 2004, when he was senator from Delaware. "The idea that they are essentially snuck back into the country under the cover of night so no one can see that their casket has arrived, I just think is wrong."

In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.

But after that, the impassioned advocates of showing the true human cost of war grew tired of the story. Fewer and fewer photographers showed up. "It's really fallen off," says Lt. Joe Winter, spokesman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where all war dead are received. "The flurry of interest has subsided."

That's an understatement. When the casket bearing Air Force Tech. Sgt. Phillip Myers, of Hopewell, Va., arrived at Dover the night of April 5 -- the first arrival in which press coverage was allowed -- there were representatives of 35 media outlets on hand to cover the story.

[. . .]

Fast forward to today. On Sept. 2, when the casket bearing the body of Marine Lance Cpl. David Hall, of Elyria, Ohio, arrived at Dover, there was just one news outlet -- the Associated Press -- there to record it. The situation was pretty much the same when caskets arrived on Sept. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23 and 26. There has been no television coverage at all in September.

[. . .]

So far this month, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 -- more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.

[. . .]

The number of arrivals at Dover is increasing. But the journalists who once clamored to show the true human cost of war are nowhere to be found.

See link below for the full article.

Source: Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets

Pentagon Commentary: Revisiting Afghanistan on 9/11

WASHINGTON -- Aftermath from terrorist attack on the Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001. (U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Robert Houlihan.)

Commentary:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2009 -- On this eighth anniversary of the worst attacks on U.S. soil in nearly 200 years, and with some Americans skeptical of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, it is helpful to remember how the U.S. military commitment there evolved.

Asked by reporters at a Sept. 3 press briefing about the U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was unequivocal: “I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan.”

“The fact is that 9/11 represented the first foreign-based attack on the continental United States, with significant casualties, since the War of 1812,” Gates said. “That attack emanated from Afghanistan under Taliban rule. The Taliban did not just provide a safe haven for al-Qaida. They actively cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaida. They provided a worldwide base of operations for al-Qaida.”

If some Americans have forgotten the connection between Afghanistan’s dusty terrorist training camps and the tragedy that was 9/11, the connection is not lost on the countless servicemembers who say they enlisted because of the terrorist attacks. It also isn’t lost on those servicemembers, mostly Special Operations forces, who arrived first in Afghanistan.

Among those early U.S. servicemembers in the Afghan theater, one group stands out. On Dec. 2, 2001, soldiers with the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) raised the American flag at the U.S. embassy in Kabul. It was the culminating moment in a whirlwind campaign that toppled the Taliban and sent al-Qaida terrorists scurrying for their lives.

The Green Berets placed rubble from the Twin Towers at the flagpole. Later, they placed a plaque at the site, which says: “In honor of the victims of 11 September 2001, the men and women who have given their lives in the war against terrorism, and the enduring freedom that will survive.”

The soldiers understood that the reason they were in Afghanistan was because of terrorists in that country who killed 3,000 American men, women and children back home. The terrorists used the ungoverned areas of Afghanistan to plan, stage, train for and finance the 9/11 attacks.

Rise of the Taliban

Intricately tied to the terrorism in Afghanistan is the country’s abject poverty and lack of resources. It became apparent early on that it was going to take more than military power to defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban. Afghanistan needed government institutions and economic help to wrestle control – and hold it – from extremists.

A crossroads between Central and South Asia, Afghanistan has few resources. Thirty years of war devastated the economy and government. The Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 1979, and set up a puppet communist government. The United States helped the Afghan mujaheddin in their fight against the Soviets. The Soviets admitted defeat and the last Soviet soldier left in 1989.

After the Soviet retreat, the United States lost interest in the region and turned elsewhere. The struggle among rival warlords devastated the nation even more than the Soviet occupation. All government institutions died, and generations of Afghans came of age with no idea how a government should work. With an average per capita income of $300 per year, Afghans had become desperate.

While the warlords fought each other, the Taliban took control, initially gained favor among Afghans by efforts to suppress local warring factions and to stamp out corruption.

At the same time, the Taliban imposed an extreme interpretation of sharia, or Islamic law, imposing public executions and amputations. It became illegal for girls to be educated, for women to work outside the home, or to even leave their homes without being fully covered in a burka and with a male family member. It was illegal to watch TV programs not cleared by the Taliban, listen to music, dance or sing. Ancient art and artifacts were destroyed.

Driving Out Terrorists

The Taliban-ruled Afghanistan sheltered Osama bin Laden, the man at the center of the attacks. Following 9/11, the United States made no distinction between the terrorists and the nations that harbored them. The United States gave the Taliban leaders of Afghanistan time to turn over the terrorists, close the terrorist training camps and open the camps to United Nations inspection. They did not.

On Oct. 7, 2001, the United States struck back at the terrorists. Air Force and Navy aircraft struck at al-Qaida and Taliban targets throughout Afghanistan. Later in the month, U.S. special operations forces joined with the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance and used U.S. airpower to rout the Taliban. A small number of Americans using 21st century technology, but riding on horses, made the difference.

While driven from power, al-Qaida was not eliminated. They looked for other havens and the Taliban exploited the border with Pakistan as a bolt-hole. The United States began building an international coalition to confront the terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Information gleaned in the country led to terrorist arrests in Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

Building Toward Peace

In 2001, there was no functioning government at any level in the nation. Agriculture is the major industry, but much of it has been in the form of illegal poppy crops, which produce much of the world’s heroin and funds terrorist networks.

The road network has been improved by international forces, but remains largely broken and is still non-existent in many areas. One U.S. patrol in the early days, followed what they thought was a road, only to discover it was a dry river bed. The soldiers considered the river bed, by far, the best “road” they had seen in the country.

The United States and its allies introduced the idea of provincial reconstruction teams to Afghanistan to try to stimulate governance and economic progress. A combination of military and civilians now make up 26 teams that work with local governments and village elders to build roads, bridges, schools, government buildings and anything to stimulate the economy, often using local contractors.

NATO, too, has emerged as a force in Afghanistan. In 2003, NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force established by the United Nations the year before.

Originally limited to Kabul and its environs, ISAF now commands security forces throughout the country. The force started with 5,000 and now number 64,500. There are 42 nations contributing forces to the effort, with the United States being the largest contributor with 30,000. There are 9,000 British soldiers in Afghanistan. Other leading contributors are Germany, Canada, France, Australia and Poland.

Switching Gears to Iraq and Back Again

Defense officials admitted that once Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March 2003, Afghanistan became a secondary theater. “In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq we do what we must,” Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in December 2007.

The focus on Iraq allowed the Taliban to regroup and mis-steps by Pakistan allowed the extremist group to find sanctuary there. Conditions in Afghanistan have deteriorated, and a new strategy put in place in March aims to reverse the decline.

The new strategy calls for a regional approach to include Pakistan, and increased training for Afghan security forces. There are more American and NATO troops in country heading into areas that were Taliban strongholds. The forces hold areas and stop Taliban re-infiltration, allowing localities to flourish in peace.

Military leaders have said that Afghanistan will be a long, tough fight. There are numerous obstacles to peace in the nation, including widespread illiteracy, tribal and ethnic divisions, a lack of infrastructure and corruption. Lack of money is a problem. In comparison to Iraq, which has a similar population and a national budget of about $66 billion per year, Afghanistan’s budget is about $600 million.

But despite the difficult road ahead, it is not hard to understand the secretary’s conviction as Americans recall the devastation of eight years ago today.

(Report by Jim Garamone, with contributions by Lisa Daniel American Forces Press Service.)

Tags: DOD, Military, War, United States, U.S., Commentary
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Wire: Obama Resuscitates VA 'Death Book' Directive

Off the Wire:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21, 2009 -- In an article published on August 19, The Wall Street Journal discusses the ‘Your Life, Your Choices’ document that is given to veterans regarding their ‘end of life care.’

The article says last year, officials at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices."

The document was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its network of hospitals and nursing homes.

After the Bush White House examined how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, the article points out, under President Barack Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

This ‘end-of-life’ planning document is now being distributed to all Veterans receiving care:

"…a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better."

Linked below is a copy of the ‘Your Life, Your Choices’ document.

Within the document exists a checklist that specifically asks questions about 'What makes your life worth living?'.

These questions are being asked to all Veterans receiving treatment, including 19 and 20 year-olds who have been severely wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Listed below are all of the checklist questions:

a. I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair.
b. I can no longer get outside—I spend all day at home.
c. I can no longer contribute to my family's well being.
d. I am in severe pain most of the time.
e. I have severe discomfort most of the time (such as nausea, diarrhea, or shortness of breath).
f. I rely on a feeding tube to keep me alive.
g. I rely on a kidney dialysis machine to keep me alive.
h. I rely on a breathing machine to keep me alive.
i. I need someone to help take care of me all of time.
j. I can no longer control my bladder.
k. I can no longer control my bowels.
l. I live in a nursing home.
m. I can no longer think clearly-I am confused all the time.
n. I can no longer recognize family/friends
o. I can no longer talk and be understood by others.
p. My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family (such as feeling worried or stressed all the time).
q. I am a severe financial burden on my family.
r. I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”

These questions are followed by the questions below:

"If you checked "worth living, but just barely" for more than one factor, would a combination of these factors make your life "not worth living?" If so, which factors?

If you checked "not worth living," does this mean that you would rather die than be kept alive?

If you checked "can't answer now," what information or people do you need to help you decide?"

See source link below for details, discussion.

(Report from newswire sources.)

Source: WSJ: The Death Book for Veterans

Document: Your Life, Your Choices (pdf)

Tags: Wire, Headlines, DOD, Military, War, United States, U.S., News
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Commentary: Soldier Chooses Journalism, Finds Academia's Contempt

Commentary:

One of Us

WASHINGTON, July 30, 2009 -- In May 2007, Matt Mabe was a junior U.S. Army officer who had completed two tours of duty in Iraq and was leaving the military to pursue a career in journalism -- or so he thought.

In "One of Us," an article that appears in the new issue of the Columbia Journalism Review, Mabe reveals that of his journalism school colleagues, "most, it seemed, had never met a veteran," although that didn't stop them and their teachers and lecturers from hostile stereotyping of military members as troubled, poor, scheming, and stupid.

In Iraq, Mabe said, he had come to admire "the few reporters who took extraordinary risks to venture out our way" and had decided "that the next time I came to Iraq, it would be as a reporter."

He went to Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism (the publishers of the Columbia Journalism Review) and left with sharp criticisms of academia's attitudes toward the military:

Columbia was a fresh start. No uniforms, no one to salute. At first, I relished being among students from different walks of life: lawyers and businesspeople, teachers and activists, creative people with strong convictions and a range of views on every issue. Few of them, however, had any experience with the military. Most, it seemed, had never met a veteran.

Some of their notions about military culture and the conduct of the war typified the simplistic views prevalent in the mainstream media. For example, there was a perception that military service was merely a last resort for poor kids or immigrants; all veterans, some people assumed, suffered some degree of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It signaled to me that the cultural rift between the institution I had left and the one I was joining was more hardwired than I had realized, and I increasingly found myself defending the military against stereotypes.

As the semester progressed, I felt a creeping sense of isolation. I had my own criticisms about the failed strategy that plunged Iraq into chaos, but I was resentful of the hostility from prominent panelists and lecturers at the school that year. One evening, an award-winning photographer presented work he'd done in Iraq to my war correspondence class. During his talk, he ridiculed the hapless officers and scheming NCOs he'd dealt with on his various embeds, caricaturing them with tired labels and silly voices. He even delivered a mocking impersonation of one dim-witted private assigned to protect him.

These were extreme views, yet as some of my classmates laughed that evening, images of the soldiers my unit had lost swirled in my head. Brave men who had died serving a cause they believed in didn't deserve such desecration, I thought. I sought advice from a professor about how to manage the raw emotions these interactions provoked. Her response, as she later wrote in my performance evaluation, was hardly encouraging: "I would advise that Matt refrain from working in Iraq until he feels comfortable maintaining an emotional distance from his old life, so as not to impair his journalistic judgment."

Mabe's tale ends with the soldier-turned-journalist-turned-involuntarily-soldier-again, being called up as a reservist for a tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Click here to read Matt Mabe's full article at the Columbia Journalism Review Web site.

(Report from a Newsbusters article.)

Tags: DOD, Military, United States, U.S., History, Open Thread, Commentary, Headlines
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Commentary: A Life of Worth, Overlooked

Commentary:

WASHINGTON, July 7, 2009 -- Army 1st Lt. Brian N. Bradshaw was killed in Afghanistan on the same day that Michael Jackson died prompting a letter to the Washington Post from Bradshaw's aunt, Martha Gillis, who shared her thoughts on the media's misplaced priorities.

In the letter the Post headlined, "A Life of Worth, Overlooked," Gillis, a resident of the Washington, DC suburb of Springfield, Virginia, fondly recalled her nephew and asked a question for which the media has no meaningful answer.

It seems fitting to reproduce her letter here today, on a day when the media are transfixed on Michael Jackson's public memorial service, on a day when the media's misplaced priorities are once again on full public display:

A Life of Worth, Overlooked
Sunday, July 5, 2009

My nephew, Brian Bradshaw, was killed by an explosive device in Afghanistan on June 25, the same day that Michael Jackson died. Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media. Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week? There were several of them, and our family crossed paths with the family of another fallen soldier at Dover Air Force Base, where the bodies come "home." Only the media in Brian's hometown and where he was stationed before his deployment covered his death.

I remember Brian as a toddler wandering around in cowboy boots and hat, not seeing the need for any other clothing. He grew into a thoroughly decent person with a wry sense of humor. He loved wolves and history. Most Christmases, I gave him a biography or some analysis of the Civil War. He read such things for pleasure.

He had old-fashioned values and believed that military service was patriotic and that actions counted more than talk. He wasn't much for talking, although he could communicate volumes with a raised eyebrow.

He was a search-and-rescue volunteer, an altar boy, a camp counselor. He carried the hopes and dreams of his parents willingly on his shoulders. What more than that did Michael Jackson do or represent that earned him memorial "shrines," while this soldier's death goes unheralded?

It makes me want to scream.

MARTHA GILLIS

Tags: DOD, Military, United States, U.S., History, Open Thread, Commentary, Headlines
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Commentary: Flag Day -- "Old Glory"

Commentary:

The following commentary was written by deployed U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Clinton Payne, 737th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron.

SOUTHWEST ASIA, June 14, 2009 -- Patriotism, simply defined, is devotion to one's country. In some nations this devotion is expressed more passionately and openly than in others, but loyalty to one's homeland is a natural and common emotion. Such patriotic feeling often lies quietly within the breast of a population and may not have a highly visible expression until times of national tragedy or threat.

For example, America's patriotism sat lightly on the sleeves of a citizenry that had come to feel complacently secure within its borders, but it gained massive public display following the national threat perceived after 9/11.

America's armed forces have always served patriotically and courageously, sacrificing bravery with valor for the very price of freedom. Freedom is never given. It must be taken, protected and preserved for generations. In the struggle for freedom, great deeds have been accomplished, lives have been given and honor has been sustained. Nothing speaks greater to the tradition of the United States military than flag and drill ceremonies.

As a proud Air Force member, I had numerous opportunities to contribute to the legacy of the red, white, and blue Star Spangled Banner. From various human remains, or HR, ceremonies on a C-130 Hercules and C-5 Galaxy, to my almost two years serving on the Travis Air Force Base, Calif., Honor Guard, I have always ensured the time honored tradition was carried out to the fullest of my ability.

My times with the honor guard were some of the greatest in my career. One thing is evident, each ceremony hit home in a different way. The HR ceremonies done throughout the AOR touch base on the reality of war and the fortitude these service members, civilians and even foreign nationals fighting for the same end result have contributed. These particular individuals have made the ultimate sacrifice, their own life, so those after them can continue to flourish freely.

With the honor guard, these funeral ceremonies took in account the members who survived the preceding wars. These are the individuals whom allow you and me to walk freely down the streets. I believe they deserve the best honor and dignity we can give them. Each funeral was tough in its own way. Most who receive the flag of the deceased were young children or young adults. Knowing these persons would be growing up without the individuals recently laid to rest was disturbing and tearful at times, but knowing the honor behind the passing of the flag was an emotional event. Military bearing definitely plays a big role in these times.

The U.S. flag is flown at all installations at home and overseas. It is our greatest symbol of patriotism to the country. We fly it proudly and boastfully. We ensure it takes the lead as it should and always will. When remembering the flag, I am reminded for what it stands. Sure the direct symbolism is 50 states represented by the 50 stars and the red and white horizontal stripes symbolizing the original 13 colonies that rebelled against the British and became the first states in the union. It is also a remembrance of those sacrificed before us, those who put forth the blood, sweat and tears to make this great country what it is today. We are a democracy that votes on the people for the people of this nation. Without those who served before you and me, these privileges would never exist. This in my heart is the meaning of "Old Glory."

When encountering a conversation about patriotism with any U.S. military member, I am surely aware some emotions will differ here and there. I guarantee we will all have a strong patriotism to the country, flag, military and civilians making up this nation. These are some of my ideas, thoughts, and personal personality into patriotism.

(Commentary by Staff Sgt. Clinton Payne, 737th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron.)

Tags: Headlines, DOD, Military, War, United States, U.S., Commentary
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Commentary: The Justice Department’s Torture Hypocrisy

Commentary:

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2009 -- As part of the blog's ongoing coverage of national security issues, I'd like to bring attention to the Justice Department’s hypocrisy concerning torture.

Columnist Andrew C. McCarthy says it is a case where the Obama Justice Department investigates Bush lawyers’ torture analysis one day, then cites it favorably the next.

Let me start by telling you about McCarthy.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

He was most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.

McCarthy also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, resigning from the Justice Department in 2003.

McCarthy is currently a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, serving as the director of the FDD's Center for Law and Counterterrorism. He has served as an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, and is also a conservative opinion columnist who writes for National Review and Commentary.

In an article published on the National Review Web site today, McCarthy says even as the Justice Department considers the discipline of former Bush administration lawyers over their legal analysis drafted to justify harsh interrogation techniques, the Justice Department is relying on the very same legal analysis in order to urge a federal appeals court to reject torture claims.

Paraphrased in part, I have included below pertinent segments of McCarthy's article:

The case involves John Demjanjuk, a Nazi collaborator who has been fighting his removal from the United States for years. In a last gasp, Demjanjuk now claims that his extradition would violate U.S. and international torture law. Given his advanced age, failing health, and expectations of abuse, he contends that extradition to Germany for trial and incarceration will cause him severe pain and suffering.

This claim may seem frivolous, but the government nevertheless undertook to respond to it. In so doing, prosecutors argued to the court that even if Demjanjuk were put in severe pain, there could be no torture unless he could establish that government officials had an evil motive to inflict severe pain and suffering on him.

The Justice Department says that, even accepting for argument’s sake all his claims of anticipated physical abuse, Demjanjuk had failed to state a legal torture claim because he had not shown that German officials had deliberately created and maintained conditions that were specifically intended to cause severe pain and suffering.

This is precisely the theory that Bush lawyers outlined in the memos that the Justice Department is now citing as a premise for subjecting them to ethical rebuke -- and that Obama and Holder have intimated may be grounds for prosecution.

McCarthy concludes that given that the Bush DOJ memos in question display a careful effort not to cross the line into torture -- i.e., they demonstrate the very opposite of the evil motive to inflict torture that the Obama DOJ has just told a top federal court is necessary to establish a violation -- it is simply shameful for the Justice Department to be pursuing this partisan witch-hunt.

Source: The Justice Department’s Torture Hypocrisy

Tags: DOD, Military, United States, U.S., History, Open Thread, Commentary, Headlines, Wire, al Qaeda, al Qaida, Taliban, GWOT, terrorism, 9/11
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Commentary: A History Lesson for Jon Stewart

Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet,” which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the warning is quoted within the article below. (Photo: CIA Web site.)

Commentary:

WASHINGTON, May 3, 2009 -- Historians have debated the issue for decades. However, Jon Stewart has no question about it: former President Harry S. Truman is a war criminal for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945.

Stewart said as much on Tuesday's "The Daily Show" with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' Clifford May in an exchange about interrogation procedures.

While viewers were not subjected to the whole conversation, the entire interview was posted at Comedy Central's Web site.

Stewart said this:

Here's what I think of the atom bombs. I think if you dropped an atom bomb fifteen miles offshore and you said, "The next one's coming and hitting you," then I would think it's okay. To drop it on a city, and kill a hundred thousand people. Yeah. I think that's criminal.

What was not discussed was how the Truman administration entertained a threatening trial bombing run offshore, but this was scrapped due to a number of concerns including the possibility that the weapons might not have worked and that Japan might not have surrendered -- even after witnessing an atomic blast off the coast.

Stewart has since apologized for his comments, but his remarks continue to evoke criticism and rebuttal.

One of those who took Stewart to task is PJTV's Bill Whittle who created a video on Friday, fully fact-checking the history involving America's decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

Whittle discussed how Japanese citizens were indeed warned about the coming bombings by millions of leaflets dropped on Japanese cities by the U.S. Office of War Information (OWI).

Included below is the translated text printed on the leaflet (pictured above):

Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.

Further research gleaned the following details at the CIA's Web site:

On 26 July 1945, the heads of state of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, meeting in Potsdam, Germany, agreed to give Japan an opportunity to end the war.7

Their terms called for the disarmament and abolition of the Japanese military; elimination of military influence in political forums; Allied occupation of Japan; liberation of Pacific territories gained by Japan since 1914; swift justice for war criminals; maintenance of non-military industries; establishment of freedom of speech, religion and thought; and introduction of respect for fundamental human rights. The final section demanded that the government of Japan “proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces.” The alternative for Japan was “prompt and utter destruction.”8

By 7:00 p.m. on the very day of the Potsdam Proclamation, OWI’s station KSAI began broadcasting the surrender terms to the Japanese nation at regular intervals. OWI also printed the full text of the offer in the Japanese language and dropped over 3 million leaflets by B-29 aircraft. Thus Japanese officials learned of the Potsdam conditions a day ahead of the official communication sent through diplomatic channels.

Japan’s Cabinet and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War were immediately called into joint session. They met almost continually from 26 July through 14 August. Arguments over whether, when, and under what conditions Japan should surrender continued right through the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On 27 July, after a routine meeting not attended by Japan’s civilian Foreign Minister, the militarists released notification to the world’s media that Japan rejected the Potsdam offer. 9

Following this rejection, the U.S. began warning Japanese citizens of imminent bombing missions despite the dangers created to airmen by the warnings:

By noon on 28 July, OWI’s presses on Saipan were rolling with notices warning civilians to evacuate 35 Japanese cities scheduled to be bombed within the next few days. About 1 million leaflets fell on the targeted cities whose names appeared in Japanese writing under a picture of five airborne B-29s releasing bombs. Given the extent of the effort, it is extraordinary that many Americans are not aware that Japanese cities were warned prior to being bombed. Even today, members of the B-29 crews recall their fears that the warnings would make them easier targets for Japanese planes and antiaircraft artillery. However, they concurred with Gen. Curtis LeMay’s proposal at the time.10 Military newspapers featured the unprecedented action under such headlines as “B-29 Command Now Calling Its Shots” and “580 B-29s Follow Up Leaflet Warnings With 3800 Tons Of Fire And Explosives.”11 Visualize what it must have been like for people in the targeted cities to look up and see more than 100 B-29 “Superfortresses” overhead. The image lends understanding to the Allies’ decision to warn civilians, even at their own risk.

The warnings and bombings continued, Japan refused to surrender even after the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima:

At 2:45 a.m. on 6 August, the Allies’ B-29 “Enola Gay” left the island of Tinian near Saipan. Its primary target was Hiroshima, where the 2nd Japanese Army stood poised to defend against an expected Allied invasion of their homeland. At 8:15 a.m., the “Enola Gay” destroyed Hiroshima with a single atomic bomb.

Back on Saipan, the OWI presses were turning out leaflets that revealed the special nature of Hiroshima’s destruction and predicted similar fates for more Japanese cities in the absence of immediate acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam agreement. By 9 August, more than 5 million leaflets about the atom bomb had been released over major Japanese cities. The OWI radio station beamed a similar message to Japan every 15 minutes.

The bottom line? Japanese citizens after the Potsdam offer were continually notified by the OWI of imminent bombings, which is certainly far more than American forces at Pearl Harbor were afforded on December 7, 1941.

(Report from a story that appeared at the NewsBusters Web site and CIA sources.)

Suggested Reading:
CIA: The Information War in the Pacific, 1945

Tags: DOD, Military, United States, U.S., History, Open Thread, Commentary, Headlines, Wire
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Commentary: Saying No to Justice

Commentary:

WASHINGTON, May 1, 2009 -- As part of the blog's ongoing coverage of national security issues, I'd like to bring attention to a letter written by Andrew C. McCarthy, of the National Review Institute, to Attorney General Eric Holder, explaining McCarthy's decision not to participate in a roundtable discussion of the president's detention policy for terrorism suspects.

It is a scathing critique of the decision to shut down Guantanamo.

Let me start by telling you about McCarthy.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

He was most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.

McCarthy also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, resigning from the Justice Department in 2003.

McCarthy is currently a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, serving as the director of the FDD's Center for Law and Counterterrorism. He has served as an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, and is also a conservative opinion columnist who writes for National Review and Commentary.

In an article published on the National Review Web site today, McCarthy explains why he declined to meet with the President’s Detention Policy Task Force.

The letter to Attorney General Holder is in the public record so I have included it below.

However, it is most enlightening to read McCarthy's National Review article, as he has an empirical view of how President Barack Obama and Attorney General Holder have created an untenable situation for lawyers asked to advise the government on policy matters, and what it means for America's war on terror.

Read McCarthy's National Review article by clicking here.

Read McCarthy's letter to Holder below:

Andrew C. McCarthy

May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President's Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants--or what the Department now calls "individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations." I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear--most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany--that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president's first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers--like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy--may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America's "commitment to the rule of law." Indeed, you elaborated, "Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration's] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.... President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]" (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism--a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that's what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities--like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of "Dirty Bomber" Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs' impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration's propensity to deride its predecessor's purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno--as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the "blind sheikh" would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I've always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I've made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who've thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy

cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section

Source: Saying No to Justice

Tags: DOD, Military, United States, U.S., History, Open Thread, Commentary, Headlines, Wire, al Qaeda, al Qaida, Taliban, GWOT, terrorism, 9/11
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Commentary: Moving Past the F-22

F-22 Raptors on a training mission. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Kevin J. Gruenwald.)

Commentary:

EDITOR'S NOTE: The op-ed column below appeared in the Washington Post on April 13. It was written by Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2009 -- The debate over whether to continue production of the F-22 Raptor has been one of the most politically charged and controversial budget issues in recent memory, spawning lobbying efforts that include contractor-sponsored newspaper ads and letter-writing campaigns.

The F-22 is, unquestionably, the most capable fighter in our military inventory. Its advantages include stealth and speed; while optimized for air-to-air combat, it also has a ground- attack capability.

We assessed the issue from many angles, taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs and alternatives, all balanced within the context of available resources.

We are often asked, 'How many F-22s does the Air Force need?' The answer, of course, depends on what we are being asked to do. When the program began, late in the Cold War, it was estimated that 740 would be needed. Since then, the Defense Department has constantly reassessed how many major combat operations we might be challenged to conduct, where such conflicts might arise, whether or how much they might overlap, what are the strategies and capabilities of potential opponents, and U.S. objectives.

These assessments have concluded that, over time, a progressively more sophisticated mix of aircraft, weapons and networking capabilities will enable us to produce needed combat power with fewer platforms. As requirements for fighter inventories have declined and F-22 program costs have risen, the department imposed a funding cap and in December 2004 approved a program of 183 aircraft.

Based on different warfighting assumptions, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.

First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.

This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; command and control; and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.

It was also prudent to consider future F-22 procurement during the broader review of President Obama's fiscal 2010 defense budget, rather than as an isolated decision. During this review, we assessed both the Air Force and Defense Department's broader road maps for tactical air forces, specifically the relationship between the F-22 and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stages of production.

The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.

Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.

We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet. But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.

Make no mistake, air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.

(Commentary by by Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.)

Tags: Headlines, DOD, Military, War, United States, U.S., Commentary
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

New Obama National Security Advisor Says Cold War Models Are Obsolete

News in Balance:

EDITOR'S COMMENTARY: Since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has reexamined the utility of both nuclear deterrence and nonproliferation.

A use-of-force doctrine developed calling for preventive military action against so-called "rogue states" seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. However, some military strategists feel that credible nuclear deterrence remains effective against rogue state use of WMD, if not against attacks by fanatical terrorist organizations.

Preventive war, some would argue, is contrary to American traditions. Evidence suggests that credible deterrence is effective; rogue states have critical assets subject to the threat of devastating retaliation and no rogue state has ever used WMD against an enemy capable of such retaliation.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 2009 -- The U.S. National Security Council and NATO must break out of their Cold War designs and adapt to 21st century challenges, National Security Advisor James L. Jones said this week.

Speaking at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy in Munich, Jones underscored the need for the council and NATO to continue adjusting to the modern security climate.

“To be blunt, the institutions and approaches that we forged together through the 20th century are still adjusting to meet the realities of the 21st century,” he said. “The world has definitely changed, but we have not changed with it.”

Jones, a retired Marine general who President Barack Obama tapped to head the NSC, said the symmetric and conventional global security arrangement that existed during the Cold War has yielded to a host of broad and diverse challenges. Threats now encompass the realms of economics, energy, asymmetric warfare, narco-terrorism and weapons proliferation, which are exacerbated by porous borders and a more rapid pace of life.

“It is hard to overstate the differences between the 20th and the 21st centuries,” he said.

Jones said the president’s national and international security approach identifies the following key problems:

• Terror and extremism have taken many lives on many continents across the globe;

• The ongoing struggle in Afghanistan and the activity along the Pakistani border is an international security challenge of the highest order;

• The spread of nuclear, chemical, biological and cyber-technologies that could upset the global order and cause catastrophe on an unimaginable scale is real and is pressing;

• Overdependence on fossil fuels endangers security, economies and the health of the planet;

• Protracted tribal, ethnic and religious conflicts constitute a major concern;

• Poverty, corruption and disease stand in the way of progress and cause great suffering in many parts of the world;

• Narco-terrorism provides the economic fuel for insurgencies; and

• An economic crisis erodes the foundations of strength.

“To move forward, we must understand the terms national security and international security are no longer limited to the ministries of defense and foreign ministries,” Jones said, referring to the era in which the strategic environment was “fairly consistent and predictable.”

Accordingly, Jones said, he plans to model the NSC after Obama’s desire for the United States to use balance and integrate all elements of national influence. These include military, diplomacy, the U.S. economy and intelligence, law enforcement, cultural outreach and moral leadership.

“Given this role, the NSC is, by definition, at the nexus of that effort,” he said. “It integrates on a strategic sense all elements of our national security community towards the development of effective policy development and interagency cooperation.”

Jones said the NSC’s mission is to perform the functions that it alone can perform, serving as a strategic center for the president’s priorities. To achieve this end, he said, the council must be strategic, highly coordinated, transparent, agile and adaptive.

Jones, a former NATO supreme allied commander for Europe, said international partnerships must change to adapt to modern-day challenges, and NATO must become more essential to the collective security of its partners.

“We know that NATO is a strong alliance, perhaps the strongest the world has ever known,” he said. Its capacity does not just come from the strength of its arms, he explained, but from the enduring democratic values that bind its nations together and from the commitment that ensures collective security.

“But I also know this: NATO must also change,” he continued. “It needs to become less reactive and more proactive. I think it needs to become less rigid and more flexible. It needs to become less stationary and more expeditionary.”

Jones said NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan poses an enormous task for the alliance, and that Obama is working closely with NATO, Afghan and Pakistani officials to forge a comprehensive strategy.

“Given the nexus of terror and extremism, drugs and proliferation, we cannot afford failure in Afghanistan,” he said.

(Content of report written by John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service.)

Tags: Open Thread, Wire, Headlines, DOD, Military, War, United States, U.S., News in Balance
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Commentary: Support for the Troops

Commentary:

SOUTHWEST ASIA, Nov. 25, 2008 -- One of the most surprising and humbling aspects of my current deployment to this air base in Southwest Asia has been the support from people and organizations back home.

I used to cringe at the saying "We support the troops." I believed it was used by many as a shield when they in fact did not support the mission, but it is no longer a phrase that causes me to recoil.

To the contrary, it is abundantly clear to me that the people and organizations back home that provide support to the troops are not only sincere in their efforts, but also care deeply about our country and its success.

The amount of support over the last couple of months that all of us have personally witnessed is tremendous. Whether it was grade school children and their classes writing letters to servicemembers, churches providing care packages and spiritual support, comedians giving all of us the opportunity to have a real belly laugh, steak houses cooking up familiar flavors and providing a good meal or musical entertainers such as Bo Bice visiting to thank us for our service, the support from our country and its citizens has been unwavering.

Moreover, the support has provided servicemembers an avenue of escape from the reality of where they are for a brief moment, or the chance to reflect on what they are doing in the larger scheme of history and world events.

Whether or not America has always been so generous and supportive of its servicemembers is open for debate, but having spoken to veterans of many different wars suggest, for the most part American citizens and organizations maintain a tradition of generous support to servicemembers.

However, in comparison to my experience during my deployment to operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the support today far exceeds my experience from then. At that time, support was stalwart from the average citizen, but from my perspective was limited from others, especially the entertainment industry.

I must concede; however, that to compare the support from then and now is probably unfair. The experience in those operations was so quick and decisive that the opportunity to display sustained support was extremely limited.

As such, the most convincing evidence that today's support from home is selfless, true and unique is that the support has been sustained, steady and strong for over five long years, with absolutely no signs of letting up. That support from American citizens and organizations alike is truly amazing.

For all the supporters back home, I extend a sincere, heartfelt "thank you" for all you do. Your kind gestures provide smiles, warmth and memories of a lifetime for all servicemembers. Moreover, please know that the support you provide does indeed make a difference to those that serve.

If you could see the faces of the servicemembers, the young and the not so young alike, when they are on the receiving end of your tremendous support, you would have no doubt that you have made a qualitative difference in the lives you have touched. Rest assured that you have carried the torch of "support for the troops" proudly, and we will never forget what you have done.

(Commentary by Lt. Col. Carl Reed, 386th Air Expeditionary Wing judge advocate.)

Tags: DOD, Military, United States, U.S., History, Open Thread, Commentary, Headlines
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension

Commentary: The Price of Deployment

Commentary:

KANDAHAR AIR FIELD, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Nov. 24, 2008 -- Most young lance corporals live their lives day-by-day, just waiting to see what tomorrow may bring. Most take orders as directed while waiting for the weekend. Being a young lance corporal stationed in Okinawa, Japan, I was the exact same way until I received a knock at my barrack’s room door on the morning of Friday, Oct. 24.

It was my day off and, as I opened the door, the noncommissioned officer on barracks duty told me I had a phone call. I thought it might be a call from one of my friends. But as I picked up the phone, I heard my master sergeant tell me something I will never forget.

“Pack your trash, you’re going to war.”

I didn’t know what to feel. I didn’t know if I was happy, sad or angry.

I knew how dangerous it was in Afghanistan and there was a chance of me not making it back home alive. I knew my job would most likely take me outside the safety of the compound and directly in the line of danger. I knew I might see things that most Americans can only read about in the newspaper or see on television. But I had to regain my composure quickly because I was going to be on a plane to Hawaii four days later to link-up with my new unit for the deployment.

A lot of Marines have been to combat and have felt the joy, excitement and nervousness of deploying, but I knew that in less than two weeks I would be in a combat zone, so I didn’t have time for feelings. I had no choice but to be ready.

It was hard telling my family and friends that I would be going to war, so I just told them not to look at it as a deployment but more like a seven-month camping trip in the mountains.

As I touched down in Hawaii on Tuesday, Oct. 28, I was more anxious than I had ever been in my life. I was very confused, but I was lucky enough to be deploying with a great master sergeant and second lieutenant, so I knew I was in good hands.

While at Marine Corps Base Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, I was in a mad rush to ensure my gear was ready and I had everything I needed to get me through the next seven months.

We were scheduled to leave Hawaii exactly one week and five days after I found out I was deploying.

The day we departed on our 30-hour trek around the world I was calmer than I had ever been, but my training and determination overcame my fear.

Now, I am at Kandahar Air Base in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. I have survived my first rocket attack and have finally become accustomed to the dry, barren, dusty terrain. I can finally look into the mountains and see their true beauty. But more important than the terrain and surviving insurgent attacks, I can finally see the true price for a Marine deploying to a combat operation:

• Size 13 combat boots - $70-$250.

• 100 pounds of Operation Enduring Freedom field gear – issued.

• Pre-deployment gear checks - countless.

• The chance to fight for such a great country with the best service members the world has to offer – priceless.

(Commentary by Lance Cpl. Monty Burton, Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Afghanistan.)

Tags: DOD, Military, United States, U.S., History, Open Thread, Commentary, Headlines
Global Tags: Washington DC, News and Politics, News, Politics, Current Events, Current Affairs, Life, Culture, Buzz, Tension