VD at the VA

This week the Veterans Administration has been having its annual National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans, and as part of that program my state reserve unit went to the Atlanta VA Medical Center on Valentines Day yesterday to distribute thousands of hand-made Valentine cards that area elementary school students had made for the patients at the VA. It was hard not to choke up when a wheelchair-bound vet's eyes lit up when reading the scrawled messages of love and hope from the kids. It one of the most special Valentines Days that I've ever experienced.

Unfortunately I couldn't take a camera to the patients' rooms, but I did manage to get a pic with a couple of Atlanta Falcons cheerleaders, who were also there to hand out the cards (a volunteer experience can be rewarding in more ways than one!).

Goodbye, Charlie

I've just learned that my U.S. Congressman, Rep. Charlie Norwood, died of cancer today at the age of 65. I've had occasion to deal with Rep. Norwood and his staff in the past, and he always came across as sincere and willing to help, especially when it came to supporting our men & women in uniform.

Charlie was an outstanding representative for my district and a great friend to the military. He will be terribly missed, and I wish his family the best during this tragic time.

Balkan Bombs

On Friday the US Embassy in Sarajevo issued a Warden Message warning Americans about a series of bombings in Mostar. It reminded me of when I spoke to an NCO who served on the KFOR mission in Kosovo with Task Force Falcon last year. The Sargeant was disappointed that the hardships and risks the 2,000-odd troops of TFF have endured (not to mention the soldiers from other contributing NATO countries) over the years go almost wholly unnoticed by the media. He had a point: just this weekend, for example, Kosovo was wracked by violent - and deadly - protests. A search of Google News today turns up only 337 total news items about the protests. Meanwhile, Google News shows there are about 4,000 news stories concerning the late Anna Nicole Smith. Which is really more important in relative terms?

The photo here shows a trooper with a subunit of TF Falcon, Task Force Thunder, teaching an "unexploded ordnance awareness class" to elementary school kids in eastern Kosovo earlier this month (imagine having to have such a class at your own kids' school). US troops with KFOR are doing good works that most Americans are completely unaware of - so take a moment today and remember our men and women serving in the ever-volatile Balkans.

Hollow Posturing

Sen. Joe Lieberman was eloquent as ever when speaking on the Senate floor earlier this week against the putrid piece of moral exhibitionism known as the Warner-Levin resolution (which, thankfully, is stalled in the Senate at the moment):

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them.

We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out.

We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking.

And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility.

It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

Irresolution, indeed. Sen. Lieberman goes on to point out the inherent contradictions of the Senate's position, should it pass Warner-Levin:

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle.

This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Yes, one Commander in Chief, not 535 of them. If some members of Congress want to vote to defund the war, then have a binding vote on defunding the war. Anything else is "hollow posturing" that undermines our troops, our allies, and our credibility.

Kudos to CBS

Michelle Malkin had a nice post yesterday about the Baghdad Bowl, a CBS-sponsored flag football game in which two 15-man teams composed of troopers from the 2nd "Black Jack" Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division put on Indianapolis Colts and Chicago Bears jerseys, serving as a "preview" to last night's Super Bowl. The Baghdad Bowl was the brain-child of All-Pro NFL veteran Randy Cross, who hoped the event would "to bring some degree of normalcy to the troops". The game was played on Feb. 3rd, and the event was indeed a nice boost to the morale of our combat soldiers:

I think it's a really great thing," said Staff Sgt. Michael Rathbun, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, who played for Team Falcon. "Many of us are living out on combat outposts, so it's the first time we've been on a FOB for a while."

During the game, t-shirts and hats provided by CBS were passed out to the crowd by Team Falcon cheerleaders, Spc. Erin Braun and Spc. Shaunette Buntain, both medics with the 15th Brigade Support Battalion....

After the game, the players once again gathered midfield, where Cross presented both team captains with a game ball. Another ball autographed by CBS' entire NFL Today crew, to include NFL greats Dan Marino, Boomer Esiason and Shannon Sharpe, was accepted by Black Jack Brigade Commander Col. Bryan Roberts on behalf of the entire brigade.

Cross himself went to Iraq for the game, and served as the referee. The Colts were represented by troops based in the International Zone, while the Bears were represented by a team from FOB Falcon, which is located in southern Baghdad. And the result? The "Colts" won the Baghdad Bowl, downing the "Bears" 32-25 - not too far off the actual result from last night of 29-17.

"It's not about us or CBS," Cross said, "It's about you guys and getting a chance to come out here and do this for you. We appreciate everything you guys do." Kudos to CBS Sports for sponsoring this event and bringing some fun and normalcy to our soldiers in harm's way.

Holy Sukhoi, Batman

For many years during the Cold War era Russian tactical fighters were badly outclassed by their American counterparts, as demonstrated every so often when US-built Israeli fighters came up against MiGs supplied to Arab countries by the USSR, resulting in a turkey shoot for the IAF. That time is no more, now that the Russians have the amazing Sukhoi Su-30MK.

A friend shared a video demonstration with me of the Su-30MK's incredible performance capabilities, noting with amazement that "the fighter can stall from high speed, stopping in less than a second. Then it demonstrates an ability to descend tail first without causing a compressor stall. It can also recover from a flat spin in less than a minute. These capabilities probably don't exist in any other aircraft in the world today."

In USAF computer simulations run a few years ago, the Su-30MK beat America's F-15C, our stalwart air superiority fighter, "every time". That's remarkable, given that no enemy has ever shot down an American or Israeli F-15C in combat since the aircraft went into service in 1979. One hopes our F-22 Raptor fares a bit better against the 30MK.

"They want a chance"

We've often seen a disconnect between mainstream media coverage of the Iraq war, and the accounts of military people who, you know, are actually there. We had another example yesterday, when Hugh Hewitt spoke on his radio show with a Chief Warrant Officer who's a three-tour veteran of Iraq. The Chief, who's with Army intel, described how the vast majority of Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a get along together in Iraq, how there are "a lot of relations, marriages, between Sunni and Shia, Kurd and Sunni, Kurd and Shia, interrelations between the different groups".

HH: And Baghdad itself is a network of warrens that sometimes overlap, but are often…you just can’t separate them.

Chris: It’s impossible to separate them. It quite literally is impossible.

HH: All right.

Chris: And in most instances, those people get along quite well.

HH: Yup.

Chris: But we don’t see it in mainstream media, because it’s not popular, it doesn’t sell news. So those are the things that would like to be seen more by us.

The Warrant Officer also describes his strong feelings on the idea of prematurely withdrawing from Iraq:

HH: When you hear people talk about withdrawing and let the chips fall, does that strike you…

Chris: It infuriates me.

HH: Tell me why.

Chris: Because just as in America, Iraq has their bad seeds, their bad eggs, whatever you want to call them. But it’s a minority. It’s a very small percentage, but just like anywhere else, that very small percentage makes the most noise, and therefore, they’re the most noticeable. Most of the Iraqi people that I’ve dealt with would give you the shirt off their back if you ask for it, not even needed it, not wanted it. If you just ask for it, it’s yours. You show interest in something of theirs, it’s yours. They’re very giving, they’re very kind, they’re very smart, and they just, just like us, they want a chance. I’m biased, because I have spent one heck of a lot of time with the Iraqi people. And by and large, they are one heck of a good group of people.

A mixed bag

I heard some of what I wanted to hear in the President's speech last night regarding Iraq - it wasn't everything I'd hoped for, but it was adequate on the whole. I was especially glad to hear this bit (emphasis mine):

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

I only hope that deeds will follow these words...a couple of B-52 Arclight strikes against terrorist staging areas in Syria and Iran would be a good start. The following should also have been done a long time ago:

To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

About. Frigging. Time.

I was also pleased with the sobriety of his statements regarding the impact of the changes:

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents.

However, I'd hoped for about double the announced increase in troop levels, but this is better than nothing. Moreover, he actually mentioned the very thing I was calling for a couple of days ago:

We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century.

But when SecDef Gates announced the proposed increases, he put the number at a paltry 92,000. We need to increase the active duty strength by about 5 times that level, I'd say - but again it's better than nothing. This, by the way, is an issue wholly separate from Iraq, and if the Dems balk at this modest increase then they are even more stupid and irresponsible on national security than I'd feared.

A "moral catastrophe"

In the comments of my last post below, my friend Jeff implies that the 2006 election was some kind of referendum against the Iraq war. Certainly Iraq was a major issue in the election, but myriad other issues were at play as well, including conservative dissatisfaction with the big-spending Republican Congress. To the assertion that the last election was primarily a rebuke to the Bush Administration on the war, I have two words: Joe Lieberman.

Running as an independent, the pro-war Lieberman thrashed a liberal Democrat in a liberal Democratic state who was running on a strong anti-war platform. If Americans were so intensely anti-war, Lieberman would not be returning to the Senate this month.

Speaking of Lieberman, the good Senator had an eloquent op-ed in the WaPo recently about the calamity that a premature U.S. withdrawl from Iraq would bring:

As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields.

More troops needed...across the board

At our monthy drill over the weekend I was able to meet with my friend Captain Jim, who has recently returned from a stint working with the J2 at CENTCOM in Iraq. Capt. Jim says that additional combat soldiers are definitely needed in Iraq (and President Bush is apparently going to announce a troop increase this evening). More than that, however, he noted there is an urgent need to bolster manpower across all the armed forces. Today we have less than 1.5 million men and women in active duty service; during the 1980s the U.S. had over 3.5 million uniformed active duty servicepeople.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, foolish politicans from both parties proclaimed a "peace dividend", and the military was gutted during the 1990s. Today we are still paying the price for this "holiday from history", and the present overall active duty strength (or lack thereof) has made President Bush reluctant to increase the occupation force in Iraq, since it will mean sending units for a third tour of duty in Iraq.

Tonight Bush will announce more troop deployments to Iraq, but will he call for a major increase in personnel authorizations overall? Doubtfull; he has shown no sign of doing this in the past six years, and with the Democrats holding Congress it's now even less likely to happen. Our long "holiday from history" continues...

UPDATE: Got my dates confused; Bush's address will be Wednesday evening. This afternoon I had the displeasure of catching that execrable asshat Ted Kennedy yammering on about the bill he's introducing to deny funds for any troop increase in Iraq. Well good, let's get the members of Congress on record - who is in favor of winning the war, and who is not?