Guantanamo is Eeeeeviiiil

I'm going to go out on a limb here...I don't think torture is going on at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I haven't looked into it a great deal, but a lot of what I have seen is based on hearsay and assumption that the Bush administration isn't telling the truth.

Guantanamo Bay is one of the poster children of those who are against the war in Iraq. Allegations are thrown left and right that people at Guantanamo are being tortured. Matt Lauer, in a one-on-one interview with President Bush, clearly conveyed he thought the president was lying about torture when the President refused to discuss the way we interrogate terrorists. Let me say two things about that:

1. I don't believe it
2. If someone can convince me with evidence I will change my mind

Until then, I will believe administration officials, those US congressmen who have been there, and those military members who have served there that torture is not occurring in Guantanamo. I will not believe the United Nations, who has NOT been there.

Here's an attempt to impute evil to the Americans at Gitmo. To me it is not convincing.

The story linked above admits that the United Nations never even visited the facility to view the situation for themselves before stating that the United States is engaging in torture.

The healthiest claim made in the story is that we are force-feeding some people. Why? Because they are on hunger strikes, and if one of them successfully kills himself from lack of nutrition, you can guarantee that will be all over the news as 'proof' that Americans are torturing terrorists.

The story claims that because we are not at war we cannot hold enemy combatants for extended periods of time without trial. Hmmm... I'm pretty sure when I was over there I was in the middle of a war. From the looks of things, which happen to be improving, there are still a lot of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists who are trying to kill coalition forces and innocent Iraqi civilians.

I'm only hazarding a guess, but I'd call it war.

Rhyme and Reason Restored

It seems like the war in Iraq has been somewhat of a generally muddled mess since the thunder runs of early 2003. It appears that that might be changing in one of the most difficult areas of the country--Ramadi in the Anbar province.

When I was in Ramadi, Iraq, it seemed like there was little rhyme or reason to the way we conducted operations. Patrols would go out and patrols would return to the operating base. Observation posts were always manned, but for the most part they were just observation posts--there was very little positive contact with the people. On a higher level there seemed to be progress; battalion and brigade commanders met with sheikhs and mayors and planned for the phased withdrawal of coalition forces.

But the results never seemed permanent.

In Ramadi today there is a different feeling. Coalition troops, including Iraqi military forces, as well as Iraqi police are beginning to see the fruits of labors that have a rhyme and a reason.

"When they told me I have to go to Ramadi, I told myself 'this is not good,' but now I believe it is better here than in Baghdad," said Alaa Mohammed, one of the Iraqi soldiers.

"The battalion is moving east, where the danger comes from. Building observation posts deny freedom of movement for the enemy," said Captain Kyle Sloan, Alpha company commander.

As a result, people within the ever-expanding safe zone are beginning to be able to live lives of increasing normalcy. Iraqi police are now able to operate with a modicum of order and independence. According to proven counter-insurgency tactics, American soldiers are developing relationships of trust with not only Iraqi military and public safety officials, but also with many other Iraqis.

To one side of the post, a school has reopened, and Marines say that more people are daring to venture out into the streets and that their attitude towards the Americans has changed for the better.

"Every squad has a favourite family. When on patrol, they are making a point of going to the house, see if they need anything, give stuff to the kids," said Corporal Joshua Barrett.

Excellent. That is what Serving Iraq is all about.

A New Low in Car Bombings

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have never cared whether children were in the blast zone of one of their car bombs. Why should we be too surprised that children have now for the first time been in the car that was used as the car bomb?

Whenever I participated in foot patrols while I was in Iraq, I had a sense when things were wrong by the fact that there were no children around. If there were children laughing and playing I had--right or wrong--a sense of ease that I wasn't about to be sniped or blown up.

That sense of ease can no longer be trusted.

Most car bombings are simple intimidation tactics, not to intimidate Coalition Forces personnel, but to intimidate Iraqi civilians. Car bombings occur on a regular basis in Iraq because terrorists can see the controversy in America (on their satellite TVs) about whether American forces should or should not stay in Iraq and whether they should be funded by Congress. Another car bombing adds a little more emphasis that the terrorists want us to leave so that they can rule with unrestricted blood and horror.

It's hard to be surprised at the immoral tactics of the Iraqi terrorist insurgency, because the only thing that makes sense is that their tactics are immoral. It is good, however, to be incensed at their cowardice, as I think far too few Americans are, their only focus being that George W. Bush lied to the American people to get American forces into Iraq in the first place.

It's time to be fair in our indignance. Since coming home, I have learned a great deal that frustrates me about the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. However, I have never changed my opinion that to kill innocent civilians, Iraqi terrorists are cowards. I would appreciate it if those who are focusing on the sins of George W. Bush would balance their viewpoint by admitting that there is no justification for Iraqi terrorists to indiscriminately kill innocent people.

For the first time (as far as I know), children were inside a vehicle that was used as a car bomb. The two children inside the car were killed along with 3 other innocent bystanders. The two adults in the front seat of the car were able to run from the vehicle before it exploded. They were unharmed. They are pansies.

It's been time for a long time to stop giving the terrorists a free pass, blaming it on the American military presence in Iraq. Hopefully this new reminder will convince many who have looked the other way for far too long.

Women in the Military in Iraq

Women have their place in the military. But they can also cause problems. Here's one problem that would likely never have occurred had women not been there.

I was eating lunch with co-workers the other day, and one of them asked me if I would encourage my daughters to join the military. After what I saw in the US army females in Iraq, I would not encourage my daughter to join. If they wanted to, I responded, I would warn them about a plethora of problems that they would face, the greatest of which is the likelihood that most male military members would think my daughters were there to provide comfort to the male soldiers, if you know what I mean.

When I served in Iraq, it was pretty obvious that a fair number of the females (there were probably 25 in the brigade) were there for more than one purpose. I was embarrassed by a couple of them one time in the base PX as they asked each other loudly in front of me if they would look better in this bra and panty set or that one. I was naive enough to wonder why such outlandish underwear was even available in a war zone.

There are certain situations in which males and females should not serve together. Combat is one of them. I was reading in A Deficit of Deficiency by Zell Miller tonight, when I came across this paragraph on pages 143-144:

Also in Spring 2004 came the unbelievable stupidity of a few American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison. Again this proved highly divisive. The sadistic sex games and torture pointed out what many of us have long believed, but most are hesitant to talk about because of political correctness. The truth is that there are certain kinds of military missions that male and female soldiers should not serve together.

I will admit that until now this conclusion not once had crossed my mind, but I think it remarkably true. If there had been no women prison guards at Abu Ghraib, would there have been torture? Probably, because there were not enough guards there and because at the time a lot of division and brigade policies were to round up huge swaths of men as insurgents and dump them off at Abu Ghraib. What makes the torture so demeaning and angering to Iraqis, though, was not that it was run of the mill torture.

It was sexual. This is perhaps the worst form of degradation for a Muslim man--to be sexually tormented in front of a woman.

Military men pride themselves (at least in public) as being as heterosexual as the day is long. It is not to me conceivable that the sexual torture to which these Iraqi prisoners were put would have happened if only male prison guards had been at Abu Ghraib.

Wow! It Might Be Working!

Recent events in Iraq leave reason for optimism that we can ultimately be successful there. Civilian body counts are down. Car bombings are trending downward. And as is detailed here, civilians are providing more help to coalition troops as they develop relationships of trust.

I've stated here before that I don't think the Bush Administration has done a very good job in their plan for the post-invasion occupation of Iraq. I've also mentioned that I don't think adding 21,500 troops will improve much our ability to maintain security in the areas we have cleared in Iraq. I've mentioned my optimism that, if anything might work, it's the fact that General David Petraeus is now at the helm.

It may be a premature statement, but the Petraeus way of doing things appears to me to be paying dividends. In two recent incidents, increasing cooperation of Iraqi citizens has led to significant reductions in the ability of the insurgency to terrorize the Iraqi people.

Cybercast News Service reported today that

[] soldiers [] uncovered two underground rooms being used to store some 50 completed IEDs and materiel including grenades, end caps, blasting caps, welding equipment, 20 lbs. of bulk explosives, 200 bags of fertilizer and more than 1000 lbs. of urea, used with fertilizer in the production of car bombs. The rooms also contained shackles, apparently for restraining prisoners.

In another incident, an informant's tip led Iraqi police officers U.S. forces to a large cache of IEDs, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft rounds and other weaponry in the Baqubah area.

The idea of working with the civilian population to provide security (read: "Serving the People of Iraq") is the only way it's going to work. It appears that it just might be working. And a lot of the credit can likely go to General Petraeus. Said a US representative:

...the fact that the information leading to the raids was provided by local residents is an encouraging sign of the success of our efforts, based on increased presence of coalition forces in local neighborhoods, to build relationships and ties of confidence with Iraqi citizens.

Regarding the violence in Baghdad, an AFP report states

Iraq's spokesman for Fardh al-Qanoon, Brigadier General Qassim Atta al-Mussawi, at a separate press conference listed the successes of the security plan, involving 90,000 Iraqi and US forces.

"A total of 265 civilians and 57 militarymen, including nine officers, have been killed since the plan kicked off on February 14," Mussawi said. This compared with the preceding month when 1,440 people were killed.

He also said that 94 "terrorists" were killed by Iraqi and US forces since the launch of the plan, compared to 19 in the preceding month.

Security forces had arrested "713 terrorists and 1,052 terrorist suspects compared to 169 terrorists before the plan was put into action," Mussawi said.

Al Qaeda is Busy in the United Kingdom

What's al Qaeda been up to lately? Quite a bit in the United Kingdom. The United States should take some pointers with how the Brits are beefing up security around critical infrastructure.

Scotland yard has discovered a plot to destroy Britain's largest internet hub in London. Several suspects have been arrested.

In a series of raids, detectives have recovered computer files revealing that terrorist suspects had targeted a high-security internet “hub” in London.

The facility, in Docklands, houses the channel through which almost every bit of information on the internet passes in or out of Britain.

The suspects, who were arrested, had targeted the headquarters of Telehouse Europe, which houses Europe’s biggest “web hotel”, containing dozens of “servers” , the boxes which contain the information that makes up the web.

Recently, public safety officials in Britain discovered a plot against natural gas delivery in the UK.

Last year MI5 uncovered intelligence which suggested that Islamic terrorist suspects had carried out reconnaissance of the huge Bacton complex of gas terminals on the Norfolk coast. The threat led to the deployment of armed guards around the plant.

Britain has taken substantive action to protect their infrastructure in ways that does not infringe on people's liberties.

The discovery led Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of MI5, to set up the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure last month. It is a special MI5 unit to help to protect “infrastructure” sites from terrorist attacks, such as telecommunications, the internet and key utilities such as oil, gas installations and nuclear power stations.

I wonder if the United States is paying attention. All of the terrorists are not in Iraq. Some of them, unfortunately, could be here.

Deja Bush

They knew exactly what they wanted to accomplish in the initial invasion. Yet as part of all the planning, they had virtually no idea what they wanted to do once they had the upper hand over Saddam Hussein. George W. Bush, you're thinking? Nope. His dad.

What are the odds that an American administration would make fools of its military by not having a plan of what to do once it conquered Iraq? Better yet, what are the odds that it would happen twice? Now for the impossibility--what are the odds that it would happened twice in the same family of leaders? Yet it did happen to both George H. W. Bush and to George W. Bush. Does that suggest something to us about whether we should vote for establishment republicans (or establishment anyone) for president?

I read the following paragraph from Barry Lando's remarkable work, Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, and for just a moment I thought I had skipped a few pages and about 12 years into the future.

It became obvious that, though the US had meticulously planned the military campaign against Saddam Hussein, the Bush Administration had no plans for the aftermath. Thomas Pickering, who was then US Ambassador to the United Nations, revealed later, "We had wonderfully prepared combat activities, and we had absolutely no idea what to do in the post-combat phase. There was no policy, no examination of what we should do; no examination of how we should deal with the future..." (page 166)

When I served in Iraq, I was often irritated by what I saw in the news media about supporting the troops but not supporting the war. My opinion has changed somewhat now that I am home and have begun to investigate what has happened. The ones who are really against the troops are the ones who did virtually nothing to plan for their ultimate success.

It is perhaps forgivable that one President Bush would not have thought far enough into the future to decide what to do after he attacked Iraq. In that case, provocative statements the elder President Bush made led to massacres of thousands of Iraqi people. But how could the exact same thing happen to his son? "No plan" once again has led to the death of more thousands.

Have father and son not spent any time together in the last 15 years? I'm sure they have.

Serving Iraq on "The Right Balance"

Greg Allen has one of the most thoughtful and provocative radio programs in the United States today. It was my good fortune to be on his show this morning. In the segment (included below), we talked about my service in Iraq and my feelings about how things are going. Greg's show is called The Right Balance. Click the image at right to go to his website.



About 3 or 4 months ago, I began listening to the Accent Radio Network. One of the shows I still listen to in the mornings while getting ready for and driving off to work is The Right Balance with Greg Allen. I was immediately impressed by the show because it was not bombastic and it interviewed a wide variety of well-spoken and very interesting people. Almost every day I hear on The Right Balance of a web site that I want to check out or a book that I want to read.

A few days ago I e-mailed Greg and told him how much I like his show, and told him a little bit about my service in Iraq. An e-mail conversation ensued, followed by a telephone conversation in which he asked if I would like to be on his show. My only radio experience is having called in to two talk shows in my life, but I decided it would be a fun thing to do.

It was. If you'd like to hear the interview, click on the player below. Check out Greg's show as well. I think you'll be impressed. Then drop him a line and tell him you think he has one of the best radio talk programs in the country. Because he does.

Walter Reed and the Abilene Paradox

The "Abilene Paradox" revolves around the fact that everyone in a group or organization is in such a state of agreement that they cannot manage needed change. As I watched the re-creation of the true story of the Abilene Paradox today, I thought that it probably applies in part to the Walter Reed hospital fiasco.

In our staff meeting today at work, we watching a very interesting re-enactment of a true story, narrated by the guy it happened to. He, his wife, and her parents were sitting in the sweltering heat playing dominoes, and obviously every one of them were bored and irritated at the current situation. The father-in-law suggested that they get in the car and drive to Abilene, Texas, 53 miles distant, to have dinner at a restaurant. The looks on the faces of all (even the father-in-law) suggested that, as bad as things were, none of them wanted to do it, but none felt comfortable speaking out. Such inability to speak out when it appears that all are in agreement has come to be known as the "Abilene Paradox."

Four or five hours later they returned from what every one of them had endured as a not-fun time. But it wasn't until they got back that they realized that no one had wanted to go, but that all felt pressured to toe the line of propriety.

So it goes in large organizations as well. I don't know much about the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, even though it's been in the news quite a bit lately. But I'll bet there were a lot of people who knew that things were wrong, and they didn't have the courage to speak out.

People are afraid to speak out because of the fears they conjure up about what might happen if they do divulge their feelings. Ironically, however, the ultimate result, is that much worse things do happen when people don't speak out.

In large organizations, when the poop ultimately hits the fan, everyone really knows it is going to hit and scatter everywhere, but they hope that they can either push the inevitable off as long as possible or avoid getting splattered on.

Part of the Abilene paradox is that when the splattering finally occurs, there is always a search for a scapegoat (ergo General Janice Karpinski as the fall gal for abu Ghraib). In reality, however, the problem is systemic, and the problem cannot be solved by blaming just one person. Most everyone knows what's going on, but doesn't speak out.

Those who have been scapegoated at Walter Reed thus far are responsible. But so are probably a lot of other people. I suspect that scapegoating won't fix the problem this time either. Honesty and speaking out will, however.

The Best Kind of Surge Would be Moral

Why will a surge of military forces in Iraq not be successful? Thomas Friedman says because we don't have the moral high ground. Until we have a "moral surge", we can't hope for success.

When a suicide bomber blows him- (and now even sometimes her-) self in a crowded marketplace, university campus, or funeral procession, why doesn't George W. Bush speak out about it. It's very likely because President Bush has very little capital--at least with the rest of the world--according to Thomas Friedman.

Maybe because there is in the eyes of others around the world some sense of moral justice when these things occur. There is definitely moral outrage at the Bush administration.

Friedman discusses some of the recent grisly mass murders by suicide, and then wonders:

Stop and think for a moment how sick this is. Then stop for another moment and listen to the silence. The Bush team is mute. It says nothing, because it has no moral authority. No one would listen. Mr. Bush is losing a P.R. war to people who blow up emergency wards. Europeans are mute, lost in their delusion that this is all George Bush’s and Tony Blair’s fault.

But worst of all, Muslims, the very people whose future is being killed, are also mute. No surge can work in Iraq unless we have a “moral surge,” a counternihilism strategy that delegitimizes suicide bombers. The most important restraints are cultural, societal and religious. It takes a village — but the Arab-Muslim village today is largely silent. The best are indifferent or intimidated; the worst quietly applaud the Sunnis who kill Shiites.

Nobody in the Arab world “has the guts to say that what is happening in Iraq is wrong — that killing schoolkids is wrong,” said Mamoun Fandy, director of the Middle East program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “People somehow think that killing Iraqis is good because it will stick it to the Americans, so Arabs are undermining the American project in Iraq by killing themselves.”

What would it take for President Bush to gain the moral upper hand? Let's assume just for argument that it's not too late. How about apologizing to the Iraqi people on Iraqi television for the atrocities that American soldiers have committed? How about coming clean about the sins of several previous US administrations and how we have helped over the last several decades to cause the morass that is Iraq? How about apologizing to the Iraqi people for never really having looked at them as equals? How about condemning these murder bombings and making it for once clear to the Iraqi people on Iraqi television that America's purpose is no longer wasting our and their time, but to leave Iraq when they want us to? How about asking them if they still want us there, and respecting their wishes? How about encouraging the American media to show and discuss the grisly truths?

President Bush yesterday appointed a commission to look into the Walter Reed hospital fiasco he said, because it is our moral imperative to provide good care for our injured soldiers. He is correct, but he can go much further.

George Bush, besides not having a plan for the first nearly 4 years of our less than noble endeavor, is conspicuously absent when it comes to morals. For the rest of he world, and for an increasing number of Americans, that is becoming painfully obvious. It's as though most of the time he's been hiding in vice president Cheney's undisclosed 9/11 bunker.

I agree with Thomas Friedman. At this point, even if we did have the 250,000 additional troops necessary to create the appropriate troop-to-populace ratio, we would still very likely fail.

Unfortunately, even wars are 'moral'. In other words, he who has the moral upper hand usually wins. And the Bush Administration currently does not have the upper hand.