We are halfway through a story that is about to turn winter in one of the most beautiful places in the world profoundly ugly.
Just like in a Cecil B. DeMille movie, we have a cast of millions, we have epic scenery, and we have made acquaintance with someone who will go on to perform a heroic act.
Unlike your typical Hollywood production, however, this movie is not going to have a happy ending-in fact, you could make the argument that it's not over yet.
So wrap yourself up in something comfortable, grab something to drink...and when you're ready, we're packing up and heading to the Alps.
We have another one of those "amazing history" stories for you today-and this one's a real doozy.
We're going to spend the better part of four years in the Italian Alps (or, to be more accurate, what was intended to be the Italian Alps), and by the time we're done, nearly 400,000 soldiers will have been killed-and 60,000 of those will have died as a result of avalanches that were set by one side or the other.
In the middle of the story: a mountaineer and soldier who was so highly regarded that even those who fought against him accorded him the highest honors they could muster, creating a legend that lives on to this very day.
And even though a young Captain Erwin Rommel fought in these battles...it's not him.
Oh, by the way: did I mention that there are also some handy object lessons for anyone who might be thinking about fighting a war in Afghanistan?
Well, there are, Gentle Reader, so follow along, and let's all learn something today.
I can't tell you the number of times I began a story with a plan for where it would go, only to discover that the plan isn't going to work.
The stories sometimes seem to write themselves...but other times, the research seems to do the writing instead; this being one of those times.
When the production of this story began it was with the intention of trying to explain what should be the "controlling authority" in terms of defining torture, a precedent set by the European Court of Human Rights, or Title 18 of the United States Code.
Having reviewed both statute law and numerous judgments in law courts worldwide as well as the recent Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of Professor Jeffrey Addicott, and having conducted an interview with Dr. Addicott personally, I've come to two rather surprising conclusions:
It may not really matter whether waterboarding is torture...and although neither I nor Dr. Addicott might have seen it coming, it's starting to appear that he and I might agree on one thing:
Waterboarding, whether it's torture or not, is a war crime.
After President Obama's election and the adoption of the nineteen month withdrawal plan, the war in Iraq has faded out of the public debate. However, the war in Iraq is far from fading on the battlefield, and the violence in Iraq could be on the verge of increasing.
According to Casualties.org 4,299 American military service members have died in Iraq and March was the lowest level of American casualties (9) since the war in Iraq began. However, last month was the highest total of American casualties (19) since September of last year, and this month 17 service members have died in Iraq.
The Washington Post reported yesterday, that three United States soldiers were killed and nine were wounded while on patrol in a marketplace in western Baghdad. Also, early that day eight Sunnis where killed in a suicide bombing in Kirkuk.
In northern Iraq tensions between the Kurds and the Sunni Arabs are mounting. According to an article in the New York Times earlier this week, the Kurds have refused to recognize the Iraqi government's sovereignty over the Kurdish occupied Nineveh province. The newly elected Sunni Arab governor was not allowed to enter a Kurdish controlled town, a Sunni Arab Nineveh police chief was not allowed to cross a bridge into a Kurdish controlled area, and there have been other similar incidents in the last several weeks.
Early this month the New York Times reported on a bombing in Sadr City; that kind of violence had not been seen in the city since November of 2006. The report stated that sectarian violence had increased recently, and the victims of the attacks expressed the possibility of retaliation against those they felt where responsible.
"...the people were angry and they started talking about reacting. Some of them said that they were ready to return back to the old days, and sink deep into a sectarian war again. Until last week I would not have believed that Iraqis dared to think that there is a possibility of returning to hell."
Why the United States must look towards the future and not the past in Iran.
With the economic stimulus and recovery package set to pass a final vote and subsequently to be signed by President Obama, hopefully the new administration can begin to shift their focus in different areas. The present economic crisis has presented a difficult situation for the new administration; the entirety of the message coming from the White House has been about the economy and the stimulus plan. Most of the rhetoric that has filled the media environment and the blogosphere has been about the economy and the stimulus plan. The problem is that the economic problems facing the United States and the rest of the world are the largest stack of papers on an already cluttered desk.
One of the priorities of President Obama during the campaign was to change the tone of foreign policy; specifically Obama promised to change direction in dealing with countries such as North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. Iran should be the highest priority simple because of the volatility of the Middle East and because of the difficulty that an unstable Middle East places on our ability to eliminate terrorist networks.
The politics in Iran are not necessarily unlike the politics of any other country; there has always been a dynamic between the more moderate leaders and the hard line leaders. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uses political rhetoric to speak to his base in the same way that any other politician speaks to his base; while the rhetoric that Ahmadinejad uses to focus on the United States and Israel is offensive and repressible it is not done without political calculation.
Apparently feeling there's no other way to win, the McCain campaign is now trying to "go negative" in an effort to make Obama unelectable.
Obama has tried to stay above that sort of thing...and while Obama may be a better human being than that...I'm not.
We will divert away from the usual high minded conversation about issues today-and we will instead lay out a few unpleasant facts John McCain would rather you forget about.
Some of today's discussion reveals McCain's financial corruption...then there's McCain giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" back in his Vietnam days...and for those who may have forgotten, a few words about ugly divorces and near-bigamy and the ending of McCain's friendship with Ronald Reagan.
It has been but a few hours since Sarah Palin took the stage to have a conversation with Joe Biden, and of course the Nation has a ton of questions.
What will happen now?
How will we view all this in a few days?
How will it affect McCain and Obama?
I don't know...and I'm not even going to try to figure it out right this minute.
Instead, we're going to take a trip halfway across the world to a country that has been essential to understanding the Middle Eastern story, has been at the center of international conflicts time and time again...and has lessons to teach us that, if we learn them well, could make us a much smarter "Foreign Policy Nation" than we are today.
The country? Egypt.
So grab your virtual passport...and after we arrive, there are a few people I want you to meet.
It has been an extraordinarily bad week for John McCain, what with his interest in Sarah Palin's boobs apparently keeping him from being sufficiently aware of the "fundamental soundness" of the economy...but luckily for McCain, the news cycle turns; and a hotel bombing in Pakistan might be the opening his campaign thinks it needs.
With that in mind, expect the next week leading up to Friday's Presidential debate to be full of references to McCain's favorite subject..."the transcendent challenge of our time-Islamofascism"...or something eerily similar.
His campaign is convinced this is the strongest place for him to make his argument for election-but what if it is not?
As we anticipate what is coming next from McCain, let's remind ourselves just how much of a foreign policy expert McCain really is-and let's do it using McCain's own words.
I guess he has no choice. Like W., McCain has always believed war and force are major and viable options to face down an enemy, any enemy, really, whether real or imagined. Indeed, Pat Buchanan of all people said Dick Cheney seems like Ghandi when compared to where McCain stands on the use of force. This is a rather horrifying notion. Certainly the last thing the United States needs is another war monger President and reckless, perilous and irresponsible cowboy diplomacy.
Check out the chilling clip where Pat Buchanan made his alarming observation.
Endless wars will most certainly require a military draft.
Why military command experience does not translate into Commander-in-Chief judgment.
When running for public office few things lift a candidate's standing in public perception as military experience. This is not unique to Republicans or Democrats, both parties tout military veterans as experienced leaders. So, the question can be asked if military experience translates to being Command-in-Chief?
(Another appalling abuse of our veterans. - promoted by boadicea)
We come together today to discuss one of the more disturbing things that the Administration has done recently...and for a President who claims he "supports the troops", this story is even more disturbing than usual.
It has his fingerprints all over it, however: laws ignored, rules rendered irrelevant, secrets kept from those who need to know-and ultimately, the cost of his bad decisions are being borne by those who have already paid about a high a price as could be possible in the service of this Nation.
Follow along, my friends, and I will treat you to a magic trick: one in which "Support The Wounded Troops" magically becomes "Screw The Wounded Troops" right before your very eyes...and while you probably won't feel like applauding at the end, it's nonetheless a trick you don't want to miss.
When last we met we had a conversation about the challenges the Air Force faces in providing a capable bomber force. We discussed the age of the existing bomber fleet's backbone, the B-52, the limitations of the B-1, and the fact that the B-2s is limited by the age of the aircraft's electronics from participating in the "network-centric warfare" model most appropriate for the 21st Century military.
We also examined the probability that future air-defense systems will likely soon raise the threat level to a point where existing US aircraft will no longer be able to operate safely in the highest threat environments.
So what are we to do?
Today we'll consider several options, including some that change the nature of the heavy bomber fleet in very fundamental ways.
I come today with a message many of you will not want to hear, particularly in a time when we are looking forward to ending a war...and in a time where we are already struggling to provide enough money for military funding, the last thing you want to hear from me is that we need to send a couple hundred billion more to the Air Force-and that we need to do it soon.
Nonetheless, we have a problem we need to fix.
Of course, I hate to present a problem without a solution...and today I have two ideas that can help with the problem-and maybe save the taxpayer a mess of money in the process.
There is a lot of debate in the public space this week over the impact of the United States Supreme Court's ruling that gives detainees in a "holding pattern" at Guantanamo Bay access to the United States Courts for the purpose of presenting petitions of habeas corpus.
It is a generally accepted misunderstanding that the Court's ruling gave new rights to the detainees, which seems to be the issue that is the most controversial.
The purpose of today's discussion is to explain why that view of the ruling is dead wrong...and to offer some thoughts on why this ruling might actually be one of the most important "restraint of government" rulings to have come down the pike in some time.
The new GI Bill that has been advocated by the IAVA and VFW passed the House last week, despite Ralph Hall's opposition. Today it passed the Senate (with a Yea vote from Kay Bailey H) despite a Nay vote from Bush's bitch Johnny Cornseed. Honestly, how can Cornyn and Hall look themselves in the face each day? They have both wrapped themselves in the American flag so many times that they have stripes on their chests and stars on their asses. You would think that given their eagerness to send our troops on such a hopeless, grinding and terrifying mission they would want only the best for them when they returned home. You would be wrong. Sure they approved every Iraq spending bill they ever saw like it was a blue light special at Wallyworld. And who could stop Corny from shrieking hysterically about the lack of patriotism of anyone who had the temerity to question his master's wisdom for the past 5 years?
But he and Hall don't care how hypocritical they look or how contradictory their positions are. Like Bush they reside in an unaccountable place in their own minds where not planning a war means it was wise, where not giving the troops armor is the troops problem, where failure is success and the hard work of active diplomacy is referred to as a refuge for cowards. Welcome to the Ministry of Peace and the rest of George Orwell's prediction of the future in 1984. Already, Rovian thought-bots of the administration, like Douglas Feith are drenching the airwaves with Newspeak lies aimed at making our whole society recall their failvictories. I say let's all join the revolution and remember what these unhonorable men actually did do, especially on election day this November. And let's make damn sure the Democratic Party doesn't forget these crimes once they have control of the reigns of power.
The Dem caucus was split between those who voted for it, and those who refused to continue funding the Iraq invasion and occupation.
You might guess that gleeful House Republicans jumped to vote with the first group to split the Dem caucus, right?
Wrong.
These brave chickenhawks are so wedded to their obstructionist agenda, they all chose to vote "present". Meaning, we're here, but we won't vote for or against this measure, which allowed it to die on the floor of Congress.
So, when you see the ad telling you Dems are going to strand our troops in Iraq without support, remember these names Texas.
How you vote in November will likely decide the fate of our troops in Iraq. Both Democrat candidates favor troop withdrawal on the basis that this war was waged on false pretenses. It was not, but I suspect many readers and contributors to this site have espoused this view so frequently expressed by Senators Obama and Clinton.
Regardless of how we entered Iraq, decisions must be made moving forward with proper context as to how our actions might affect world events directly related to our economic and national security. This context cannot be obtained without an accurate historical perspective as to the events and relationships which led to the overthrow of Saddam's regime.
Immediately following the attacks of September 11th, this country adopted what became known as the Bush Doctrine: We will make no difference between those who committed these acts of terrorism and those who harbor them. We also made a commitment to treat terrorism not as a criminal act, as the Clinton administration did, but as an act of war. In short, the United States began to treat terrorism as the serious threat to national security that it is.
A discussion recently took place on this site (refinish69's May 2nd solar energy post) which is far too important to be buried somewhere in the comments section of a forgotten post. I was told by boadicea that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor was Al Qaeda a presence there until after the American invasion-which gutted the military presence in Afghanistan that was intended to secure that nation while it was rebuilt and hunt down Osama Bin Laden."
