military

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Before proceeding it is only right to say that as a 22 year veteran, I am by nature a "hawk" and support all efforts to stop the enemies of America. However, I already saw one war - the Vietnam War - mired down by bureaucracy and lack of direction. [For those who prefer using the term "Vietnam Conflict," tell it to the American families, friends of the veterans who served and lost 58,159 comrades in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia plus all those who died from war related issues after that "conflict."]

Most career military have served under Presidents with whom we did not politically agree. Some Presidents were more competent than others. Most Presidents and Defense Secretaries who had not served in the military have made decision or failed to make decisions that resulted in the wasting of military resources and lives. Although not always understood by the general population, military leaders clearly understand that the military is both a tool in defending America including America's economic interests and a tool of diplomacy. However, when a president lacks declared interest or focus during a time of war - or major deployments with people at risk, military casualties increase and troop morale suffers and leads to more losses.

The Times Online is reporting a story about "American troops in Afghanistan losing heart." It is like "deja view" - a scene from the past when leadership and adequate direction was not shown by prior Commander-in-Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense. A few excerpts from the article:

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban [sic, Taliban]. Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, . . . “They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” . . . “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can . . . admitted that their morale had slumped.

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” . . . “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.” . . . Asked if the mission was worthwhile, . . . “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.” The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.

The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban [sic, Taliban].

They have been targeted by at least 300 roadside bombs, about 180 of which have exploded. Nineteen men have been killed in action, with another committing suicide. About a hundred have been flown home with amputations, severe burns and other injuries likely to cause permanent disability, and many of those have not been replaced. More than two dozen mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) have been knocked out of action.

Living conditions are good — abundant food, air-conditioned tents, hot water, free internet - but most of the men are on their second, third or fourth tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, with barely a year between each. . . . The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban [sic, Taliban], because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” . . .

“It’s a very frustrating mission,” . . . “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.” "We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.” . . . The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. . . “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.” . . .

The constant deployments are, meanwhile, playing havoc with the soldiers’ private lives. “They’re killing families,”. . . “Divorces are skyrocketing. PTSD is off the scale. There have been hundreds of injuries that send soldiers home and affect families for the rest of their lives.” The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” . . . “If we make it back with ten toes and ten fingers the mission is successful,” . . . “You carry on for the guys to your left or right,” . . .

Lieutenant-Colonel Kimo Gallahue, 2-87’s commanding officer, denied that his men were and insisted they had achieved a great deal over the past nine months. A triathlete and former rugby player, he admitted pushing his men hard, but argued that taking the fight to the enemy was the best form of defense. . . . Above all, Colonel Gallahue argued that counter-insurgency — winning the allegiance of the indigenous population through security, development and good governance — was a long and laborious process that could not be completed in a year. “These 12 months have been, for me, laying the groundwork for future success,” he said. . . .

These reported comments depict more than just complaints by G.I.s. They are a clear signs of bigger issues both at the DOD, in the force structure and support of today's military, and with the direction of the war as defined by the President of the United States. As for the field commander on the record comments about his belief in the mission, this was expected but it is not a measurement of success. However, while failing morale and expressions like "you carry on for the guys to your left or right" are both true and admirable, they are also a definite indicator of failed purpose and direction.

As heads up, the following comments are directed to what appears to be an often AWOL (absent without leave) Commander-in-Chief: Mr. Obama, you choose to run for President of the United States. And, the American people elected you to be president. Most Americans know that a "chief" responsibility of the president is being Commander-in-chief of the military. It is not being the commander of the American people. While you have "fiddle around" tripping off to other countries expressing your regrets about the United States or to another location to promote or sign a bill that could have been done efficiently right in the Oval office; while you wasted time trying to recruit the Olympics or taking time for another sports event or White House party; while you expend a disproportionate amount of your time on agendas which have or will send the United States further into debt and on efforts to reshape the social fabric of America, you are not focused on your primary responsibility of being Commander-in-Chief.

American military are dying or at risk because of your lack of leadership. Members of the military understand sacrifice and giving their lives for a greater cause. However, they do not understand dying without purpose or a clear objective. Often they die for their comrades but they do not wish to die for absentee leadership or an undefined mission.

Mr. President, above all else, (except possibly for those who feel they must engender themselves to you for their jobs and their agendas or who happen to hate America) people on both sides of domestic issues expect you to complete your primary duties as president. The United States of America has men and women in harms-way risking America's chief treasure - American blood. For "Pete's sake" - Wake-up! You are the Commander-in-Chief! It cannot be delegated; nor should it continue to be ignored! It is a lonely sacred responsibility. Mr. President, no matter how important you believe your other agendas to be, you must focus on your primary responsibility as Commander-in-Chief!

A fundamental part of political campaigns is that they mobilize constituencies and groups. Presidential campaigns are particularly interesting because they bring like-minded people into networks across the country. The level of awareness is huge, so the size of the networks are huge. Much has been made of the Barry Goldwater organization which, until very recently, has been literally the core of the conservative movement. Much has also been made of the left-over organization of the Pat Robertson campaign, which became the Christian Coalition.

John McCain’s campaign may be found to have had a lasting impact that will be comparable to Goldwater's and Robertson's in the network of veterans, military families, and their allies, who came together around McCain and propelled his campaign, especially in the darkest times in the second half of 2007. At any McCain rally, you would encounter vets of all ages who had gotten involved in politics because of him. These guys are often conservative, but not quite as ideological as Republican activists, just as McCain was. Frankly, it was with this base of new people that allowed McCain to bypass state and county parties that despised him.

While McCain did not become President, a new group of activists have been brought into Republican politics. They know how to work together.  They trust each other. They recognize their local and national leaders through 2 years of emails. And they have taken sides, already, in a number of state-level intra-party fights.

Let's mix this with something Patrick had suggested: one consequence of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be that we will have candidates for Congress, just as the Dems have been doing. My additional point is that there is a national organized and mobilized network that these candidates will have natural affinities with, regardless of ideology. This network may help propel these guys through primaries. 

Let's look at where people are already happening.

In Idaho, Vaughn Ward, who was McCain state director in Nevada and has done some tours in Iraq, is running for Congress against Democrat Walt Minnick, who managed to defeat Republican Bill Sali in one of the most Republican districts in the country. In 2008, Sali almost lost a Republican primary to another Iraq vet, Matt Salisbury, even though Salisbury raised only 5-digits of money, while Sali was an incumbent.

In Colorado, there are several candidates running. In CO-04, you have Diggs Brown, a Fort Collins City Council member and ... Green Beret.  Brown is on active duty, but has been around the district on a book tour. There is a draft movement. I have heard rumors of a couple of more, including at the Senate level.

In Illinois, Adam Kinzinger is running against Debbie Halverson. All indications on the ground are that he has been incredibly savvy early on, locking up key political and party support, in addition to donors. I have heard DC operatives express astonishment at how effective he has been early on. 

In KS-3 there is John Rysavy. In OH-15 there is Steve Stivers. In GA-12, there is Wayne Mosley. And there are many more in the recruitment pipeline.

Everywhere one turns there are examples of a forced equality where all unique distinctions and achievements of individuals are discarded. The recent bailouts, both of citizens and companies, is one case of the lack of differentiation between those individuals who were responsible and those who were self-serving, as the latter were rewarded and artificially elevated to a similar status of the former.

Not content that in America today there are equal opportunities for all, groups that declare they are disadvantaged are demanding equal outcomes. This misplaced emphasis on a superficial comparison of results clouds the correlation of contribution to consequences. Rather than looking at successful outcomes and tracing through the efforts that produced this, self-interested groups choose to focus on a demographic difference to cry discrimination.

Forced equality to make everyone equal in all ways is mutating us into an androgynous country where no one is distinguishable. This androgyny is the result of feminism, which sought to remove distinctions between males and females to create a gender-neutral culture, and then other groups emulated this pattern to move us toward an artificial egalitarian society.

The first feminists advocated for equal voting rights, and when this was achieved they sought equal education and economic prospects. But once women entered the workforce in large numbers their emphasis shifted from equal access to an outcome-based standard of salaries as a measurement of equality. The feminists equated differing dollar amounts with discrimination. The presence of men already in the workforce, and the subsequent seniority and skill they had achieved over time, was dismissed in favor of a salary-based comparison to validate effort rather than result. This started to destroy merit-based systems and compensation based upon individual achievement.

Personal accomplishment then began to be discouraged in the very place where the perception of males and females being androgynous began: our public schools. Feminists shrieked that the lower participation of girls in math and science was a sign of discrimination rather than a sign of disinterest. They encouraged the teachers unions to change the curriculum to boost the number of girls taking hard sciences, ignoring how these feminizing changes began to disenfranchise young men.

The motivation or natural interest that produced a higher participation of males in math and science became the impetus for the feminists to start altering fundamental systems such as education to ensure, even to the disregard of its impact upon males, an increase in the number of females in each academic area. This became the model for increasing the number of girls who compete in school sporting events. Rather than creating more opportunities for females who desired to be on an athletic team, feminists decreased the number of boys playing sports so the number of athletes would be equal for both sexes.

A quota system, while destructive in schools and places of work, has potentially catastrophic consequences for our national security when it is applied to our armed services. Even the last bastion of masculinity, our military, was not immune to the feminist assault upon unique identities.

The feminists have practically achieved their goal of a gender-neutral military. In 1992 a Presidential Commission on women in the military discovered that only 1 out of 100 female soldiers were capable of achieving the same physical fitness standards as 60 out of 100 male soldiers could. But because test scores were “gender-normed,” with the grade of “A” for a woman being the equivalent to a “D” for a man, females were prevented from failing. The same Commission heard evidence from top military officials that between 40 and 50 percent of enlisted women were not physically capable of performing their specific occupations. But servicewomen were promoted and advanced alongside the men regardless of their physical ability to do their job.

Feminists have gone beyond manipulating physical fitness scores to ignoring the misdeeds of women soldiers that should warrant some disciplinary action. Beginning in the Persian Gulf War, servicewomen who got pregnant in the war zone and were sent home were still awarded a badge for combat service, and allowed to have equal recognition with their brothers and sisters-in-arms who remained in combat during the duration of their deployment. This diminished the perseverance of soldiers who remained at war, and endangered the mission due to manpower shortages.

Once the mandatory equality of men and women were instilled in our armed services, the next step became an androgyny for all soldiers. Beginning in 2001 black berets, traditionally worn only by Army Rangers, one of the army’s most elite all-male units tasked with doing impossible missions with near-impossible odds, were issued to all soldiers as an attempt to make everyone feel equally important. The years of gallant effort it took to wear a black beret was something to aspire to, and distributing them to everyone in the Army reduced the value of the Ranger unit who deserve to be distinguished.

Gender-norming is not as apparent in professions where physical capabilities don’t underlie measures of performance and contribute to readiness. But in the military, and those in the public safety such as fire and police officers, the measure of physical capabilities of women which are being manipulated to ensure androgyny demonstrate how far radical feminists are willing to go to prove there exists no distinctions between men and women.

For the past fifty years, feminists never remained satisfied with equality but continue to demand special rights and a glorification of everything feminine with a suppression of men and masculinity. The classical feminism of the suffragettes is not recognizable in its modern form of forced androgyny through gender-norming.

Where emotion makes logic leaps, the product is rarely rational. The aggressive feminization of our schools, workplaces, and military has fractured our society into diverse entities all competing for special rights rather than the betterment of our country. The distinctions which make us valued as unique individuals are disappearing, and the result is a society that is less productive, less cohesive, and less capable of advancing.

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Is the doctrine of Posse Comitatus coming to an end? The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 and has been an important law. Wikipedia reflects:

"The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services ... from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain 'law and order' on non-federal property. . . . The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. . . . The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement."

Gina Cavallaro at the Army Times announced reports: 3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army.

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home. Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or man made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas. But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities. . . .

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.” . . . they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it. They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

Obviously, we would appreciate the military's assistance if we had a massive terrorist attack in the United States; especially with the taking out the "bad guys."  But do we want the military doing police actions related to routine national, regional or even local "civil unrest and crowd control"? When did the transfer of authority occur which granted military control within the the borders of the Unites States? Before proceeding, let me note that military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In the study of military doctrine and history, military officers confront the theory and past applications as to the extent military officers and the people under their command may be or have been called upon to intervene in domestic affairs. However, Posse Comitatus has provided a clear line in the sand.

Presidents have used the military to enforce their will within the United States. For example George Washington, our first president, used his authority as commander-in-chief in 1794 to call out the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. President Andrew Jackson ignored the 1832 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and forced removal of Native Americans from East of the Mississippi which lead to the infamous Trail of Tears. In 1878, after the bitterness of the Civil War and the quartering of Union troops in the South, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act. However, Presidents continued to use the military and the National Guard to enforce their will on the citizens of the Unites States.

One of the worst examples of the use of the military was in the summer of 1932 against 43,000 fellow military veterans, their families and affiliated groups who had assembled in Washington D.C. in what became known as the famous Bonus March. Skipping the merits of the Bonus Army and moving to the conclusion, we find President Herbert Hoover using the military led by General Douglas MacArthur to suppress and disburse fellow veterans. By the time the events ended, hundreds of veterans were injured and several were killed. In this situation, "The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not legally because Washington, D.C. is a federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17)."

In 2005, we saw National Guard assist in the aftermath of Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi. However, the National Guard and the New Orleans police overstepped their legal authority, per the U.S. District Court, and illegally confiscated the personal firearms of vulnerable civilians after the hurricane's devastation left property and lives subject to looters and other criminals. Have we and our leaders accepted that Constitutional Rights granted by the US constitution are sacrosanct?

Apparently not! Currently, individual rights may be more at risk as we address the potential of terrorist threats against the United States. The effects of the infamous terrorists attacks on 9-11 continue to ripple through our country. For example, in 2006, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 passed and was signed into law. The Act included a section titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." This section provided that "The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines...." However, in 2008, Congress while passing the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, restored the restrictions of Posse Comitatus. President George Bush signed the Act into law but he also attached an Executive Order identifying that the Executive Branch does not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal of the use of armed forces to restore public order in the United States. As previously presidents have done, Bush signaled that he does do not feel bound by Posse Comitatus.

We are now brought full circle to the announcement of the assignment of an Army brigade as well as other service units to enforce the will of the President and or the Department of Defense with regard to homeland security. Even if military units are not used for several years to respond to domestic threats and are not used in any way for several years to restrict the rights of Americans, the result will still be the continued implied transference of authority as troops continue to be assigned to a domestic charter and the leaders of these units develop a comprehensive doctrine designed to cope with domestic situations. Historically, the year 2008 may become identified as the year that the doctrine of Posse Comitatus ceased to have authority.
---------------
William (Bill) Smith, Ph.D. is editor of the ARRA News Service and National Political Director of Let's Get This Right. He is a conservative political activists working for limited government, traditional family values, individual freedom and responsibility. He is a retired Air Force officer who served as Director of the $2 billion European F-16 co-production program. In his career, he also taught military political science and spent a 3 year tour with the U.S. Army. After retiring, he was a graduate professor and held varied administrative and faculty positions. He has authored professional journal articles on varied topics. He also blogs as Ozark Guru.

One of the biggest issues with this Russian/Georgian conflict is the fact that there is a lack of verifiable information. One minute you hear that the conflict has ended and the fighting has stopped the very next, you hear that the fighting is still happening, and that the Russians are not honoring the cease-fire agreement. It is all rather confusing, and it makes for a very frustrated blogger. Because the last thing a blogger wants to be, is wrong.

However, more than that is the lack of the Main Stream Media’s ability to look at this entire conflict in a historical context. Many are pointing to the actions of Ronald Reagan for dissolving the Soviet Union Empire, as being the cause of this conflict. I happen to disagree with that notion. I believe personally that it was the foolish actions of President Harry Truman, that is the cause of this conflict or shall I say the harvest of seeds planted by Harry Truman’s actions.

On December 7, 1941, the empire of Japan attacked the United States naval base in Oahu, Hawaii. This act of brazen hostility brought the United States of America into World War II, despite President Franklin Roosevelt’s pledge to remain neutral in the ever-growing conflict. As history would show, The United States fought the war and finally Hitler was defeated, and Japan surrendered. However, the method used to end the war, is in my opinion the underlying cause of this conflict.

It is a known fact that the United States soundly defeated Hitler by fighting them on the ground and air, using conventional weapons. However, we stopped the war, and to end the conflict with Japan, we used atomic weapons. This I feel was a tragic mistake. This is because Truman was a different kind of a Democrat than Roosevelt. Roosevelt was an “old line” Democrat, who saw the Communist threat, knew what the Communist doctrine was truly about, the repression of freedom and he stood to defeat it. No matter how long it took.

However, Truman was another matter entirely. President Truman represented the “new line” of Democrats who felt that war was unneeded and that peace was a better path. This was a precursor to the “peacenik” Democrats of the sixties. This was evident when President Truman gave his infamous “Military Industrial Complex” speech, at the end of his term. * - See below, please.  With Hitler out of the way, Truman, feeling the ever-increasing pressure to end the war and return the country to pre-war status, devised a plan to end the conflict with Japan.

While using the Atomic bomb might have been an effective means of ending a war, its impact and stain upon the United States would be long ranging, to this very day, is to be considered a very poor decision by the United States. On many websites in Japan, including those in English, denounce America as being brutal for dropping the bomb. However, those who had friends and relatives that died at Pearl Harbor felt that Japan got what it deserved.

It is in the opinion of this writer, that the United States should have fought the war, all the way to Russia, until communism was soundly defeated. Furthermore, The United States of America, should have never dropped the atomic bomb on the empire of Japan, but rather, should have fought that war on the ground, until Japan surrendered. This would have resulted in the total defeat of communism. However, as we all know, this never happened.

Because of this obtuse neglect, the United States of America began a “Cold War” with the empire of the Soviet Union that lasted until a Conservative President, a real conservative President, whom came on the scene in the eighties to plant the seeds that would eventually bring down the soviet empire. However, as we have seen here in the last few days, Russia is not a free and democratic society; it is simply a police state, without the outright communism.

Putin, a man who is sympathetic toward the old soviet empire, filled to the brim with communist doctrine, is wagging his finger in the face of the United States and making a mockery of the supposed democracy in the European continent. This is the harvest of the neglect of the Democratic Party of the forties.

* Update: Oops! I blew it, Truman did NOT give the military-industrial complex speech, Dwight Eisenhower did. My bad. I blew it, I should have checked. But my point about the Democrats and the cold war as it relates to Russia still stands.

Podcast Show Notes

Conservatives and liberals alike go after the late Jesse Helms for political gain.

Why a Democratic-led Congress will most likely be re-elected despite a 9% approval rating and what that shows about the success of purely negative campaigns.

Obama still using seal imagery. Forget about Balancing the Budget under a President Obama, despite a massive tax increase proposal, he doesn't even know if he can reduce the deficit. That's his real change.

Common sense citizens stand up against one a radical school board crusade against JROTC. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)  

Is it getting time to leave Iraq? (Hat Tip: Crunchy Cons.)

An abortion doctor claims to be doing God's work.

Pro-Life members of the NEA ask the national leadership to stop focusing on abortion and other issues not related to education.

Hypocrisy on the march: homosexual dating site discriminates against transsexuals. (Hat Tip: Pam's House Blend.)

Click here to listen, click here to download.

This media clown show over comments about John McCain's military sevice by Wes Clark and JIm Webb has really gotten out of hand.  They didn't attack McCain's military service, they attacked the relevance of that service.  The relevant questions - e.g., the relevance of military service to Presidential candidates, the 180 these guys are making on that issue - are being ignored.  The media should be smart enough not to fall for the manufactured controversy they're currently covering.  Instead, reporters should be asking Wes Clark and Jim Webb when they suddenly decided that military service wasn't such a big deal and shouldn't be mentioned.  I addressed Gen. Clark's previous comments yesterday; Ramesh Ponnuru patiently explained the appropriate take on the Clark story today.

Now let's examine whether Jim Webb really believes that McCain needs to "get the politics out of the military [and] have our political arguments in other areas."   Here's a review of Webb's own record.

• In his own 2006 Senate campaign, Jim Webb touted the importance of military experience...
  

  [W]hat you’re seeing here is, is a split between the theorists, who have controlled so much of the policy in this administration, theorists who have never been on a battlefield, who have never put a uniform on, and who are looking at this thing in a totally different way from people who have had to, to worry about their troops and themselves possibly coming under enemy hands.

•  And again...
  

  “I know what it’s like to be on the ground. I know what it’s like to fight a war like this..."

•  In 2004, Jim Webb criticized "those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served..."
•  In 2000, during McCain's Presidential campaign, Jim Webb wrote an article about John McCain's military service and its relevance in the campaign.
• In 1998, Jim Webb gave a speech in which he questioned the "new notion: that military service during time of war is not a pre-requisite for moral authority..."   He disagreed, calling lack of military service a "problem".
  

  I ... subscribe to a different view, in effect the reverse of that syllogism, because when it comes to leadership ... the logic is indeed the reverse: the hotter the fire, the tougher the steel, and the more reliable the leader. It has also created a vacuum of true understanding in the highest places. Today, for the first time since the United States became a major world power, none of the principals in the national security arena .. have served in the military. This problem might recede ... but it is unlikely to go away.

The media should not be trying to read "smears" into what Clark and Webb said.   Instead, they should be asking why they have suddenly reached these politically convenient new conclusions.

The hoopla over McCain’s military service has been spinning like an out-of-control top.

No… military service alone does NOT qualify one to be President. However, let’s place all this in context.

Since John McCain started running for president, the media has declared him their darling, including show great reverence for his military life……. until recently.

Since McCain became the GOP’s presumptive candidate, the main stream military seems to have forgotten that he served in the war in Viet Nam with distinction and honor. He survived a naval disaster that killed 134 and yet decided to do his duty and stay to fight for freedom in that unforgettable war.

Nope, that doesn’t qualify McCain to be president. However McCain’s honor goes to the point of surviving the Hanoi Hilton; honor that promulgated itself further by him voluntarily staying a POW when offered a chance to leave because of his relation to his father in the Admiralty. John McCain refused to leave as long as his fellow POWs were forced to stay. He stayed in that hell-on-earth for five and one half years. In circumstances so degrading and decimating, John McCain displayed leadership and integrity to not only his fellow POWs, but also to his captors. McCain was tortured repeatedly and placed in solitary confinement for 2 years!

What life or career experience has Barack Obama gone through that even remotely compares to that?

On Sunday, June 29, 2008, retired general Wesley Clark, an Obama supporter, downplayed McCain’s military service on a Sunday talk show. Clark even criticized McCain’s squadron command post. In 1976, after post war rehabilitation and a return to flight status, McCain became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida. He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation. In other words, he showed executive experience by leading a group that was less than average and turned it around to one of success.

What life or career experience has Barack Obama gone through that even remotely compares to that?

In 1981, McCain turned down an Admirals star in favor of running for congress where he felt he could do more good for the nation. He moved to Arizona and became a Vice-President of Public Relations for a large beer distributorship. Gaining the trust of the residents and leaders of his newly adopted home state, he won the election soundly. In other words, he left his chosen, life-long career and all its benefits and prestige and then an executive position in favor of serving as a representative to the people of Arizona.

What life or career experience has Barack Obama gone through that even remotely compares to that?

Now, in context, if you take each of those things, would they automatically qualify John McCain to be the President of the United States? Nope. But, if you take them together, again in context, and add them to the rest of his life and experience, does that qualify him to be President? Nope again. And yet, since McCain does meet the constitutionally listed requirements, if you apply his life experiences to that, he is abundantly qualified and experienced and even desirable and president.

In the same venue that we have discussed one’s faith being a qualification, we can really discuss experience. Neither faith nor experience are requirements. However, the things that are mandatory for every voter to judge are integrity and character. And there is not way that anyone can argue with John McCain’s integrity and character.

There are so many things that I, personally dislike about John McCain’s politics. He has been too liberal in some things and too eager to compromise in others. However, when compared to Barack Obama, McCain is a much better choice. Obama has been rated the MOST liberal senator.

And even though I was not happy that McCain became the presumptive GOP nominee, I absolutely trust him over Obama in three key areas.

1. McCain has promised to nominate Supreme Court judges that will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.

2. McCain will deal with the war on terror in a way that will keep America safer than what Obama promises.

3. Of the two candidates, McCain is the only one who would handle another surprise terrorist attack similar to 9/11. Obama has NEVER had to deal with ANY pressure or stress such as that.

Oh, how the times have changed. The main stream media used to carry McCain on a throned litter of heroism. Now, they treat McCain like the enemy he so valiantly fights against.

Promoted by Patrick.

I live and breathe the Internet and computers. Part of my job at Eyeblast TV is to convince conservatives that the Internet is the present and future marketplace for ideas in this information age. For more than two years, I wrote a blog about the impact of political blogs -- you can't get much more invested in all things online than that.

But the notion that the next president can't lead this country without knowing his way around a computer --  being spread by geeks on the left who will find any excuse to attack John McCain -- is ridiculous. The leader of the free world doesn't do diplomacy via e-mail or IM; he doesn't blog executive orders; and he doesn't negotiate with lawmakers in bytes and pixels.

It's true that the next president needs to understand computers and the Internet if he wants to communicate effectively in the modern world -- just as FDR understood and mastered radio and Ronald Reagan understood and mastered television. But it's not a prerequisite for doing the actual work of the presidency. Maybe some day but not now.

The next president's most important role -- every president's most important role -- will be to serve as commander-in-chief. It's far more important that he actually know something about the military than about the mouse on his desk.

The average age of the military man is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances, is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's, but he has never collected unemployment either

He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away He listens to rock and roll or hip-hop or rap or jazz or swing and a 155mm howitzer.

He is 10 to 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk. He has trouble spelling; thus letter writing is a pain for him. He can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and re-assemble it in less time in the dark. He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must.

He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional.

He can march until he is told to stop or stop until he is told to march.

He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity. He is self-sufficient.

He has two sets of fatigues; he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry.

He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth but never to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes and fix his own hurts.

If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low.

He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands.

He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.

He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay and still find ironic humor in it all.

He has seen more suffering and death than he should have in his short lifetime.

He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed.

He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to 'square-away ' those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat or even stop talking.

In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful.

Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom. Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years.

He has asked nothing in return except our friendship and understanding.
Remember him always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.

And now we even have women over there in danger, doing their part in this tradition of going to war when our nation calls us to do so.

As you go to bed tonight, remember this shot. . .

A short lull, a little shade and a picture of loved ones in their helmets.

This came to me through my email from a very dear lady whose husband is a veteran.

Remember these faces. They could be the faces of the boys and girls you watched grow up--except now they are men and women. They are doing a thankless job, due to our traitorous MSM and such seditious and subversive groups as Code Pink, such idiots as Nancy Pelosi thanking Iran for the surge working rather than these men and women, and such moronic head cases as Cindy Sheehan. These are the faces of the men and women who give these traitors their rights--and are spit on, denigrated, called names, disrespected at every turn and, often, who lose their lives due to the actions of the lunatic fringe and those like them by vital information being given to the enemy.

Remember these faces. They are loved and they are protecting YOU and me and our loved ones. Pray for them and their families. And when you see one of them or their sisters and brothers, thank them--and be sincere. Were it not for such raw courage, where would this country be? Were it not for these men and women doing their jobs, and doing them very well indeed, what shackles would US citizens be living under? They fight and bleed, sweat and die for us and our way of life, our freedoms.

Remember these faces. Don't ever, EVER take them for granted.

Remember these faces.