Panic in the Pulpit

Evangelical Christians are alarmed that teenagers are abandoning their faith. In recent leadership meetings in 44 cities, 6,000+ pastors were given ominous forecasts based in part on a claim that trends indicate only 4% of teens will be “Bible-believing Christians” as adults, a precipitous drop from prior generations. A poll by an evangelical pollster found that only 5% of teens are Bible-believing Christians.

While some church leaders think these stats are exaggerated, the National Association of Evangelicals, representing 60 denominations, declared the problem to be an “epidemic”. One national youth leader said, “We’ve become a post-Christian America ... everyone in youth ministry is working hard, but we’re losing.”

Why? Evangelicals point to just about everything possible outside the church. They blame: casual sex; MTV and risqué videos; teenage Web sites; hip-hop, rap and rock music; divorced parents and dysfunctional families; Internet porn; and alcohol and drugs. Some or all of those things may be contributing to the “epidemic”, but there are other things pushing kids out the church doors.

At a recent youth rally, called “Acquire the Fire”, teens were asked to write down the “cultural garbage” that they plan to toss from their lives. They filled trash cans with pieces of paper on which they wrote things like Ryan Seacrest; Louis Vuitton; the “Gilmore Girls;” “Days of Our Lives;” Iron Maiden; Harry Potter; the “need for a boyfriend;” and “my perfect teeth obsession.” Others threw away lighters, brand-name sweatshirts, Mardi Gras beads and CDs. The kids were told to “strip off the identity of the world and clothe yourself with Christ, with his lifestyle.” Asking teens to abandon essentially all modern cultural influences and to simultaneously adopt the 30 A.D. lifestyle of none other than the Savior of Mankind is also contributing to the teenager exodus.

By the way, just exactly what is the lifestyle of Christ? Jesus was an itinerant prophet who withdrew to the wilderness alone for an extended period; challenged the prevailing religious authority while still rendering unto Caesar that which was his; performed miracles including healings, walking on water and raising people from the dead; spoke to thousands at a time; confronted people who made money from religious services and rituals; willingly submitted to painful humiliation; and then allowed himself to be crucified even though he could have prevented it. Is that what the teens of today are supposed to do?

Of course not, evangelical leaders would say. What the teens should do is follow the moral and ethical lifestyle of Jesus. Okay. That would be the lifestyle that emanated from Jesus being the sinless Son of God who was in constant and perfect communication with his Father at all times. That would also be a lifestyle that included never marrying or having children. “Be ye therefore perfect,” kids. Is that what the teens of today are supposed to do when “clothed with Christ?” Gee, why would they want to walk away from that mildly challenging opportunity?

Evangelicals get closer to the root of the problem when they cite another cause – “a pervasive culture of cynicism about religion”, a culture that “trivializes religion and normalizes secularism.” This culture, they conclude, leaves their teens feeling “alone in their struggle to live by ‘Biblical values’”, like “a tiny, beleaguered minority.” Indeed, they are; and there’s not a lot of appeal to being a beleaguered teenager.

Why would anyone be cynical about religion; why would anyone trivialize it? Read the newspaper. Almost every day brings another account that could make Mother Teresa cynical. The latest stone-tablet proclamation from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson or the Family Research Council will drive the merely skeptical into the comforting arms of cynicism, because if they weren’t allowed to be cynical their heads would explode. Then add a dose of the special weirdness that emanates from tent men like Benny Hinn, with their traveling Pentecostal circus that “slays people in the spirit” and the cynical will quickly morph into people who trivialize and marginalize this can of nuts.

Take, for example, the infamous Westboro Baptist flock in Topeka, Kansas. These are the people who protest at funerals for servicemen and women killed in Iraq because they believe that God is killing our troops because the country they serve is supporting the gay agenda. They scream “God hates fags” into bullhorns while families try to bury their sons and daughters in peace. This pack of fanatics intended to demonstrate for the same purpose at the funerals for the five Amish schoolgirls killed in Pennsylvania, which defies even their twisted logic, but they were bought off by an intervening talk show host who offered 55 minutes of on-the-air infamy if they would not show up at the Amish funerals. Thank God, literally, the wackos accepted the offer.

How is a teenager supposed to react to something like that? Most of them will get as far away from it as they possibly can. Most Christian and non-Christian adults are well aware that any small cult like the Westboro clan doesn’t represent the rest of Christianity. Teens, however, may not be that discriminating, and even if they are they don’t want to be associated with anything that even bears the same name – uber-conservative, Bible-thumping, hellfire-spewing zealots.

Why would anyone regard a secular orientation as normal? Because it is normal! The world is, and always has been, secular at its foundation. The secular foundation is where we find our commonality, where we relate to one another, where we work and where we play. Sectarian orientation is an add-on, and an often slap-dash one at that. Sectarianism is the realm of personal belief. The fact that people who share a certain belief get together and institutionalize their beliefs in the form of religion, with its variegated denominations and dogmas doesn’t make the sectarian world normal. In fact, the harder the sectarian world tries to separate itself from the secular world around it, the more abnormal it becomes. Kids see that and they don’t like feeling abnormal.

Even though teens can be terribly harsh on one another they’re generally more tolerant and forgiving in nature than adults. Most of them haven’t figured out where they stand on a highly controversial issue like abortion, and most of them are baffled or amused by all the conservative Christian rancor about the nefarious “gay agenda”. The more their adult leaders insist on conformance to hyperbolic church dogma on social or moral issues of this nature, the more the teens are likely to be put off and walk off.

While many Christian teens probably do want to avoid the traps of casual sex and drug use, and may not be inclined to party as hard as other kids, they aren’t interested in shunning all the cultural influences around them. They don’t smell the same “garbage” that their church leaders smell. On the whole, they’re simply not willing to regard the Gilmore Girls and Harry Potter, much less their brand-name sweatshirt, as a threat to their spiritual well being. They can recognize nonsense when they see it.

The evangelical church needs to look at itself if it wants to understand why its teens are leaving in droves. There’s a very good chance that those kids are trying to get away from something inside the church as much as they’re being drawn to something outside the church.

Dinner with the Phantom

My wife and I dined with the Phantom of the Opera in a downtown art gallery last night and we’ll remember it forever. The occasion was a party to celebrate the 13th birthday of my oldest grandson. It was a masquerade ball and catered dinner with linen-covered tables adorned with silver candelabras, to which we had been summoned by engraved invitation. My grandson presided over the event as the Phantom. Several dozen masked people in evening dress, young and old, enjoyed every minute of it.

Anyone who doesn’t know my grandson might assume that this party was planned by his mother. Not so. The evening was planned by the Phantom, himself. My grandson is no ordinary 13-year old. He is an amazingly imaginative young man, who walks through life on his own path while the rest of us among his family and friends watch and enjoy.

The word most often applied to him is, unique. That’s a word that can be spoken with several intonations and can carry a number of meanings. But in this case it’s spoken with nothing by genuine admiration by everyone who uses it to describe this young man. The admirable form of uniqueness is hard to come by, and in teenagers it can sometimes seem to be a seriously endangered characteristic.

Many if not most teenagers desire the relative anonymity of sameness. They want to blend with the pack; they don’t want to stand out or be seen as “different”. There are exceptions, of course, and those exceptions lead to that array of intonations and meanings when they’re described as “unique”. So when we see uniqueness that is manifest as potential in a young man or young woman we sit up and take note. We have the feeling that we should pay attention because we might learn something from them. We might remember what it means to dream and to pursue those dreams with single-minded vigor.

My wish for my grandson is that he will stay the course and remain true to the calling that he hears. Right now, he wants to make movies, but not as an actor. He wants to direct them, something he’s been saying for several years. It’s not unusual for a young person to want to become a movie star. But not many 10-year old kids have a vision of becoming a movie director. Just the unique ones.

And the ones that do probably direct wonderful stage plays in various forms at various times in their young lives. Last night my grandson set a stage and directed a play with a cast of dozens. And a good time was had by all.

I’m grateful for the birthday gift that the rest of us received last night, from the Phantom of the Opera, no less.

The Body Count

A controversial study by American and Iraqi public health researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimates that 601,027 Iraqi civilians have died violent deaths since the U.S. invasion in March 2003 – about 15,000 a month or 500 a day.

The study says the mortality rate since the war began is 3.6 times higher than the rate before the war. Gunshots accounted for 56% of the violent deaths, the largest cause; car bombs accounted for 13%. Coalition military action is reportedly responsible for 31% of the violent deaths since March 2003. That percentage has declined from 2003 to 2006, which indicates that as time goes by the sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites is causing an increasingly higher loss of life than the military operations.

U.S. and Iraqi officials dispute these findings. The John Hopkins monthly estimate is four times higher than the monthly estimate issued by the Iraqi government for July, which was the highest month for civilian deaths since the invasion. The most recent U.S. military report estimates the daily casualty rate rose from 26 a day in 2004 to almost 120 a day in August 2006. The most recent U. N. figure assumes a daily rate of about 97.

The Johns Hopkins researchers claim that the new study is statistically more valid than an earlier and equally controversial study published in The Lancet. They point out that this study used a method similar to the one used to estimate violent deaths in Darfur and the Congo. The New York Times reports that U.S. statistics experts who have reviewed the Johns Hopkins study say the methods used appear to be legitimate. But, the researchers acknowledge that the study is not a precise count and has a margin of error ranging from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.

We don’t need to accept the 600,000 number to be stunned by the study. If the study is two to three times as high as it should be, and the number of violent deaths is “only” 200,000 – 300,000, that’s stunning enough. In fact, if the correct number of violent deaths in Iraq is “only” 100,000 that is twice the number being used in various government estimates.

The Johns Hopkins study can be far off the mark and still be a stark reminder of the full cost being paid for the unabated violence in Iraq. The value of the life of an innocent Iraqi is the same as the value of the life of an innocent American and we can’t ignore the fact that the cost of the war and resulting sectarian violence in Iraq isn’t measured by just the number of Coalition forces who are killed. The latter number continues to grow and is bad enough, but if Iraqis are dying at the rate of 50:1 or 100:1, much less 200:1, then we must unite around a new course of action in that country as soon as possible.

Mr. Baker, please send us that report of yours quickly, if you don't mind.

Is the Sun Rising or Setting?

Yesterday, I wrote about the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan 10-member commission that was established by Congress with the approval of the president and is headed by James Baker, former secretary of state and chief of staff for Bush I. This commission has been asked to assess the war in Iraq and recommend a new strategy there. To say there is a great deal of political anticipation regarding the commission’s findings and recommendations is an understatement.

Because these findings are politically volatile the panel has agreed to hold them until after the November election. Baker says the panel is likely to present its findings in December. Well, that was the plan. Yesterday, a draft of the commission’s report was leaked to The New York Sun and the primary finding is beyond significant – the Baker commission concludes there is essentially no prospect of achieving either victory or democracy in Iraq.

It’s important to understand two options that the commission has ruled out: 1) making minor fixes to the current war plan but keeping the long-term vision of a democracy in Iraq with regular elections; and 2) having coalition forces focus their attacks only on al-Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

The commission is apparently focusing on presenting Congress and the president two options, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," each of which are contrary to the idea of establishing a democracy in Iraq. The "Stability First" option is probably more acceptable to the president. It says the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while U.S. diplomats work out a “political accommodation” with the insurgents. The goal of building a democracy is abandoned. The recommendation to accommodate the insurgents is about as far from the current policy as it can possibly be. People like Cheney and Rumsfeld must regard that as the epitome of “emboldening the enemy” and damn near treasonous.

The "Redeploy and Contain" option calls for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, though no timetable has been agreed to. According to the Sun, this option says our top priority should be minimizing U.S. casualties while making it clear that “U.S. redeployment does not reduce our determination to attack terrorists wherever they are." It’s not clear how both of those objectives are to be met.

The president said yesterday that he’s looking forward to seeing what the commission has to say "about getting the job done." The president also said he isn’t against changing direction in Iraq, but he reiterated that his strategic goals are to build "a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself," and “to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate."

Extend the caliphate? The Caliphate was abolished by official action of the Turkish government in 1924 and has been dormant and gone unclaimed since. Someone in the Islamic world may have visions of reestablishing the Caliphate, but there’s nothing to extend at this time in history. That presidential utterance is another attempt to paint a picture of a monolithic Islamic movement that seeks to dominate the world. What would this administration say and do if it couldn’t peddle fear on a daily basis?

In any event, the president’s goals are at odds with the commission findings, which dismiss the idea of victory in Iraq. As noted, the "Stability First" option says, "The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory." Even the Democrats haven’t dared to utter words like that, so it will somewhat stunning if the Baker commission actually ends up speaking in such terms.

On the "Charlie Rose Show," Mr. Baker distinguished between a Middle East that was "democratic" and one that was merely "representative," saying, "If we are able to promote representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, it will have been a success." That’s no small distinction, and it’s the first time that someone close to the president has suggested that that “representative” should file for divorce from its partner “democracy”.

Reportedly, both options being advanced by the commission require the U.S. to communicate directly with Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration has been loath to do. "Stabilizing Iraq will be impossible without greater cooperation from Iran and Syria," the "Stability First" option paper says. This option also says that the U.S. must solicit support from the European Union and the U.N., something that has been more than problematic for this administration.

It’s hard to overstate the significance of these potential findings, especially if they’re advanced by someone like James Baker. Add to them the content of the recently released NIE and the comments by John Warner and other congressional Republicans, and you have the makings of a palace coup. Only this time the emperor may get dressed and go with the rebel flow so he can save face and still claim to be “getting the job done”.

Then, toss into this mix the comments on Thursday from British Army Chief of Staff General Sir Richard Dannat, who said that the continued presence of Western troops in Iraq is exacerbating the security problem there and elsewhere and that those troops should get out of Iraq “sometime soon”. British troop levels in Iraq have been quietly reduced from a high of 40,000 to only 7,000 now. If the Brits pack up and leave, either before or after Tony Blair steps down next year, the coalition, which has been mostly a Potemkin village since its inception, will be a thing of the past. I have to believe the administration will take some kind of decisive action, i.e., a new strategic direction, before that happens.

The next couple of months, if not weeks, if not days, should prove to be very interesting.

Friday the 13th - What a Day!

A brief second posting is in order today because it’s Friday the 13th – my lucky day!

On Friday the 13th in February 1970, I graduated from basic infantry training at Fort Ord, California, and left “the Hill” for the last time. I never so much as glanced over my shoulder. From that most fortuitous day forward, Friday the 13th could never bring bad luck. All such silly superstition subsided into a sublime embrace of that February felicity.

Later that day I reported “under the Hill” for four weeks of “clerk” school before shipping out to Fort Harrison in Indianapolis to attend Army Finance School. The quirk in the February calendar meant I would depart Fort Ord on March 13, 1970 – yet another fantastic Friday. Only Fort Ord could turn leaving the Monterey Peninsula into a joyful occasion.

Back-to-back bliss and good fortune on Friday the 13th! In the ensuing 36 years I have never failed to thank the Powers That Be for the bounteous blessings bestowed on me on this beatific day.

The over-the-top language above is meant to convey the utter giddiness I experience in recalling those two wonderful days in early 1970. I await my next lucky day in April 2007 with great anticipation.

Daylight through the Crack

At his press conference on Wednesday the president seemed to crack open a heretofore locked door on the subject of changing the U.S. strategy in Iraq. I think there was daylight coming through that crack. He said that if the American strategy in Iraq was not working, American would adjust and change the strategy.

The “if” in that statement is big, of course, but buried in the president’s comment is a recognition that our current strategy might not be working. The president certainly didn’t admit that the strategy is flawed and he may still believe that we’re pursuing the proper course, but changes are often made in Washington only by taking very small steps; sometimes those steps are forward and sometime they’re sideways.

The president may be responding to recent cracks in the Republican armor that has consistently protected his position regarding Iraq. Last week Senator John Warner, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a staunch supporter of the administration’s policies in Iraq, returned from a visit to Baghdad and detonated his own IED on the subject by saying the situation in Iraq is “drifting sideways” and that the U.S. should consider a “change of course” if the violence there doesn’t diminish within the next 60 – 90 days.

“Sideways” movement can come in various forms, some positive and some negative. “Drifting” sideways is negative because there is no intention or direction in it. What I sensed in the president’s comments yesterday was an intentional move to the side that could be a precursor to a new direction. The questions are: how long will it take and will the situation in Iraq allow that timeline? Warner may have kick-started an accelerated reassessment.

Republican Senator Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, responded to Warner’s comments by noting a “growing sense of unease” among her Reb colleagues because the development of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and security forces have not led to any reduction in the violence. In fact, new reports yesterday indicate that sectarian violence has tripled since February, and reports this morning indicate that attacks on U.S. forces are up 43% since the summer.

Two days after Senators Warner and Collins spoke out, former Secretary of State James Baker, a stalwart Republican, stepped to the microphone and calmly pulled the pin on a grenade. He didn’t throw the grenade but now everyone knows that it’s going to roll from his hand sometime relatively soon.

Baker is the co-chair of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which was formed in March with the support of Congress and the somewhat reluctant acceptance of the White House. This group has been tasked to reassess the Iraq strategy and is expected to issue its report to congress and the president shortly after the election in November. Mr. Baker offered a sneak preview of the coming attraction.

Baker said he expected the commission to depart from the president’s repeated admonition to “stay the course”, noting that the panel “believes there are alternatives between the stated alternatives…of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run’.” Baker added that he agreed with the timetable suggested by Senator Warner regarding the consideration and implementation of an alternative strategy in Iraq.

Baker touched off another loaded discussion by strongly suggesting that the White House should conduct direct talks with countries that it has been unwilling to meet with face to face, including Iran and Syria. (He didn’t mention North Korea, but it’s impossible to leave them off this list, especially given developments of the last week.) Baker concluded that such talks should be “hard nosed” and that, “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

Take that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld. A comment like that makes me wonder what would have been different if the president had accepted the twice-offered recommendation of his former chief of staff, Andrew Card, to replace Rumsfeld with Baker.

Media outlets are reporting that members of the Iraq Study Group and White House officials have privately indicated that Baker has been talking on a regular basis with the president and his national security advisor, Steven Hadley. Those sources are saying that Baker is unlikely to publicly discuss possible commission conclusions that don’t have the president’s tacit approval.

The political debate about the Iraq Study Group turns on the timing of its report. Conventional wisdom is that the Dims want it released before the election in order to bolster their campaign criticism of the administration’s policy in Iraq, while the Rebs want it delayed until after the election for obvious reasons. Baker may have rendered that debate somewhat moot and the suggestion that he did so with the president’s blessing is very interesting.

While the Dims were quick to jump on the Warner and Baker comments as an indication that “even the Republicans don’t support the president’s position on Iraq,” the president may be thinking that this discussion will blunt the Dims position that the administration is intractable and that the only path to change is by booting the Rebs out of power. The president is a shrewd politician and no one should jump to the conclusion that longtime allies like Warner and Baker are jumping ship on the commander-in-chief. They may be out front clearing the path for the president’s new direction in a way that allows him to save face after three years of chanting the “stay the course” mantra.

For the moment, I’m going to regard these developments as daylight in an otherwise darkening situation.

Semper Fidelis

I’ve written a lot about Iraq recently and there’s more to come. But, no matter how you feel about the administration’s policies regarding the war in Iraq, there remains one constant in the equation – universal respect and gratitude for the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. They’re an inspiring cross-section of America. They fulfill their duty to their country with honor, courage and commitment.

The following letter was sent to me by a retired Army colonel who was one of the first men into Iraq in Desert Storm in 1991. The letter is from a Marine officer serving in Iraq now. The intro in blue was written by one of the original recipients of the letter. It’s long, but it’s insightful and worth reading. It’s about people who are always faithful – Semper Fidelis.
_______________________

This letter is legit; it is recent; it is poignant; it is accurate; it is thought provoking; it is from the heart. The author has been trained to observe, absorb, and reflect with words and images. He is intelligent but without the arrogance and aloofness normally attendant. His soul is Irish - emotional, big and melancholy by nature. His love of his Marines is unabashed; his thoughts are always of home; and his priorities are his mission, his men, and somewhere below the level of existence, himself.

SF
_______________________

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

All: I haven’t written very much from Iraq. There’s really not much to write about. More exactly, there’s not much I can write about because practically everything I do, read or hear is classified military information or is depressing to the point that I’d rather just forget about it, never mind write about it. The gaps in between all of that are filled with the pure tedium of daily life in an armed camp. So it’s a bit of a struggle to think of anything to put into a letter that’s worth reading. Worse, this place just consumes you. I work 18-20-hour days, every day. The quest to draw a clear picture of what the insurgents are up to never ends. Problems and frictions crop up faster than solutions. Every challenge demands a response. It’s like this every day. Before I know it, I can’t see straight, because it’s 0400 and I’ve been at work for twenty hours straight, somehow missing dinner again in the process. And once again I haven’t written to anyone. It starts all over again four hours later. It’s not really like Ground Hog Day; it’s more like a level from Dante’s Inferno.

Rather than attempting to sum up the last seven months, I figured I’d just hit the record setting highlights of 2006 in Iraq. These are among the events and experiences I’ll remember best.

Worst Case of Déjà Vu - I thought I was familiar with the feeling of déjà vu until I arrived back here in Fallujah in February. The moment I stepped off of the helicopter, just as dawn broke, and saw the camp just as I had left it ten months before - that was déjà vu. Kind of unnerving. It was as if I had never left. Same work area, same busted desk, same chair, same computer, same room, same creaky rack, same . . . everything. Same everything for the next year. It was like entering a parallel universe. Home wasn’t 10,000 miles away, it was a different lifetime.

Most Surreal Moment - Watching Marines arrive at my detention facility and unload a truck load of flex-cuffed midgets. 26 to be exact. I had put the word out earlier in the day to the Marines in Fallujah that we were looking for Bad Guy X, who was described as a midget. Little did I know that Fallujah was home to a small community of midgets, who banded together for support since they were considered as social outcasts. The Marines were anxious to get back to the midget colony to bring in the rest of the midget suspects, but I called off the search, figuring Bad Guy X was long gone on his short legs after seeing his companions rounded up by the giant infidels.

Most Profound Man in Iraq - an unidentified farmer in a fairly remote area who, after being asked by Reconnaissance Marines (searching for Syrians) if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied “Yes, you.”

Worst City in al-Anbar Province - Ramadi, hands down. The provincial capital of 400,000 people. Killed over 1,000 insurgents in there since we arrived in February. Every day is a nasty gun battle. They blast us with giant bombs in the road, snipers, mortars and small arms. We blast them with tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, our snipers (much better than theirs), and every weapon that an infantryman can carry. Every day. Incredibly, I rarely see Ramadi in the news. We have as many attacks out here in the west as Baghdad. Yet, Baghdad has 7 million people, we have just 1.2 million. Per capita, al-Anbar province is the most violent place in Iraq by several orders of magnitude. I suppose it was no accident that the Marines were assigned this area in 2003.

Bravest Guy in al-Anbar Province - Any Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician. How’d you like a job that required you to defuse bombs in a hole in the middle of the road that very likely are booby-trapped or connected by wire to a bad guy who’s just waiting for you to get close to the bomb before he clicks the detonator? Every day. Sanitation workers in New York City get paid more than these guys. Talk about courage and commitment.

Second Bravest Guy in al-Anbar Province - It’s a 20,000 way tie among all the Marines and Soldiers who venture out on the highways and through the towns of al-Anbar every day, not knowing if it will be their last - and for a couple of them, it will be.

Best Piece of U.S. Gear - New, bullet-proof flak jackets. O.K., they weigh 40 lbs and aren’t exactly comfortable in 120 degree heat, but they’ve saved countless lives out here.

Best Piece of Bad Guy Gear - Armor piercing ammunition that goes right through the new flak jackets and the Marines inside them.

Worst E-Mail Message - “The walking blood bank is activated. We need blood type A+ stat.” I always head down to the surgical unit as soon as I get these messages, but I never give blood - there’s always about 80 Marines in line, night or day.

Biggest Surprise - Iraqi Police. All local guys. I never figured that we’d get a police force established in the cities in al-Anbar. I estimated that insurgents would kill the first few, scaring off the rest. Well, insurgents did kill the first few, but the cops kept on coming. The insurgents continue to target the police, killing them in their homes and on the streets, but the cops won’t give up. Absolutely incredible tenacity. The insurgents know that the police are far better at finding them than we are - and they are finding them. Now, if we could just get them out of the habit of beating prisoners to a pulp . . .

Greatest Vindication - Stocking up on outrageous quantities of Diet Coke from the chow hall in spite of the derision from my men on such hoarding, then having a 122mm rocket blast apart the giant shipping container that held all of the soda for the chow hall. Yep, you can’t buy experience.

Biggest Mystery - How some people can gain weight out here. I’m down to 165 lbs. Who has time to eat?

Second Biggest Mystery - if there’s no atheists in foxholes, then why aren’t there more people at Mass every Sunday?

Favorite Iraqi TV Show - Oprah. I have no idea. They all have satellite TV.

Coolest Insurgent Act - Stealing almost $7 million from the main bank in Ramadi in broad daylight, then, upon exiting, waving to the Marines in the combat outpost right next to the bank, who had no clue of what was going on. The Marines waved back. Too cool.

Most Memorable Scene - In the middle of the night, on a dusty airfield, watching the better part of a battalion of Marines packed up and ready to go home after six months in al-Anbar, the relief etched in their young faces even in the moonlight. Then watching these same Marines exchange glances with a similar number of grunts loaded down with gear file past - their replacements. Nothing was said. Nothing needed to be said.

Highest Unit Re-enlistment Rate - Any outfit that has been in Iraq recently. All the danger, all the hardship, all the time away from home, all the horror, all the frustrations with the fight here - all are outweighed by the desire for young men to be part of a 'Band of Brothers' who will die for one another. They found what they were looking for when they enlisted out of high school. Man for man, they now have more combat experience than any Marines in the history of our Corps.

Most Surprising Thing I Don’t Miss - Beer. Perhaps being half-stunned by lack of sleep makes up for it.

Worst Smell - Porta-johns in 120 degree heat - and that’s 120 degrees outside of the porta-john.

Highest Temperature - I don’t know exactly, but it was in the porta-johns. Needed to re-hydrate after each trip to the loo.

Biggest Hassle - High-ranking visitors. More disruptive to work than a rocket attack. VIPs demand briefs and “battlefield” tours (we take them to quiet sections of Fallujah, which is plenty scary for them). Our briefs and commentary seem to have no affect on their preconceived notions of what’s going on in Iraq. Their trips allow them to say that they’ve been to Fallujah, which gives them an unfortunate degree of credibility in perpetuating their fantasies about the insurgency here.

Biggest Outrage - Practically anything said by talking heads on TV about the war in Iraq, not that I get to watch much TV. Their thoughts are consistently both grossly simplistic and politically slanted. Biggest offender - Bill O’Reilly - what a buffoon.

Best Intel Work - Finding Jill Carroll’s kidnappers - all of them. I was mighty proud of my guys that day. I figured we’d all get the Christian Science Monitor for free after this, but none have showed up yet. Talk about ingratitude.

Saddest Moment - Having the battalion commander from 1st Battalion, 1st Marines hand me the dog tags of one of my Marines who had just been killed while on a mission with his unit. Hit by a 60mm mortar. Cpl. Bachar was a great Marine. I felt crushed for a long time afterward. His picture now hangs at the entrance to the Intelligence Section. We’ll carry it home with us when we leave in February.

Biggest Ass-Chewing - 10 July immediately following a visit by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Zobai. The Deputy Prime Minister brought along an American security contractor (read mercenary), who told my Commanding General that he was there to act as a mediator between us and the Bad Guys. I immediately told him what I thought of him and his asinine ideas in terms that made clear my disgust and which, unfortunately, are unrepeatable here. I thought my boss was going to have a heart attack. Fortunately, the translator couldn’t figure out the best Arabic words to convey my meaning for the Deputy Prime Minister. Later, the boss had no difficulty in convening his meaning to me in English regarding my Irish temper, even though he agreed with me. At least the guy from the State Department thought it was hilarious. We never saw the mercenary again.

Best Chuck Norris Moment - 13 May. Bad Guys arrived at the government center in the small town of Kubaysah to kidnap the town mayor, since they have a problem with any form of government that does not include regular beheadings and women wearing burqahs. There were seven of them. As they brought the mayor out to put him in a pick-up truck to take him off to be beheaded (on video, as usual), one of the bad Guys put down his machinegun so that he could tie the mayor’s hands. The mayor took the opportunity to pick up the machinegun and drill five of the Bad Guys. The other two ran away. One of the dead Bad Guys was on our top twenty wanted list. Like they say, you can’t fight City Hall.

Worst Sound - That crack-boom off in the distance that means an IED or mine just went off. You just wonder who got it, hoping that it was a near miss rather than a direct hit. Hear it every day.

Second Worst Sound - Our artillery firing without warning. The howitzers are pretty close to where I work. Believe me, outgoing sounds a lot like incoming when our guns are firing right over our heads. They’d about knock the fillings out of your teeth.

Only Thing Better in Iraq than in the U.S. - Sunsets. Spectacular. It’s from all the dust in the air.

Proudest Moment - It’s a tie every day, watching my Marines produce phenomenal intelligence products that go pretty far in teasing apart Bad Guy operations in al-Anbar. Every night Marines and Soldiers are kicking in doors and grabbing Bad Guys based on intelligence developed by my guys. We rarely lose a Marine during these raids, they are so well-informed of the objective. A bunch of kids right out of high school shouldn’t be able to work so well, but they do.

Happiest Moment - Well, it wasn’t in Iraq. There are no truly happy moments here. It was back in California when I was able to hold my family again while home on leave during July.

Most Common Thought - Home. Always thinking of home, of Kathleen and the kids. Wondering how everyone else is getting along. Regretting that I don’t write more. Yep, always thinking of home.

I hope you all are doing well. If you want to do something for me, kiss a cop, flush a toilet, and drink a beer. I’ll try to write again before too long - I promise.

Semper Fi

Truth - Badly Beaten and Left to Die

Truth has been taking a severe beating in Washington, DC lately, not that that’s such an unusual occurrence.

Condoleezza Rice can’t get her story straight about a meeting she held with George Tenant, former director of the CIA, on July 10, 2001, two months before 9/11, in which Tenant gave her a direct and specific warning about an impending attack by al-Qaeda. First, she said that she had no recollection of the meeting. Then, she said that she recalled the meeting but that the discussion had no domestic information in it. Then, she said that she recalls that there was domestic information in the discussion but that information was not new. Of course, with that admission she hoists herself on her own petard by suggesting that she knew of a possible attack before July 10.

Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, can’t get his story straight about what he knew concerning Rep. Mark Foley’s unfortunate penchant for nasty chat with congressional pages and when he knew it. I won’t map the various iterations of that truth-impaired string of stories because the bob and weave employed is quite intricate. Suffice it to say, at the end of the day the speaker blamed everything on ABC News and Bill Clinton. Case closed.

We should impose a new rule on our national leaders: three inconsistent recollections on the same topic in less than a week and you’re outta there.

Speaking of case closed, now the FBI, the agency charged with protecting truth, justice and the American way, has decided that it, too, can spin whatever tale it wants to spin and that we’ll just say, “Okay”.

On July 21, 2006, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent the FBI copies of some of the emails Foley sent to a male page. The FBI did nothing in response. Well, better said, the FBI did nothing to investigate. Rather, it spun a story about why it did nothing.

The FBI claims that the emails provided by CREW were “heavily redacted” and didn’t contain the name of the page involved or the name of the person to whom the page forward the emails. The FBI also claims that it contacted CREW and asked for more information so that it could follow up but that CREW refused to provide anything further. The FBI apparently thought that CREW could not verify what it sent to the FBI.

CREW has now sent a letter to the Department of Justice attaching exact copies of the emails CREW sent to the FBI on July 21. Both the former page’s name and the person to whom the page forwarded the Foley emails were clearly visible. After sending the emails to the FBI, CREW claims that the only subsequent contact with the FBI was one call from the agent to whom CREW sent the material confirming that the emails were from Foley. CREW said the FBI asked for no other information because the emails revealed the further information the FBI claims it was seeking.

Ala Rice and Hastert, this explanation from the FBI for failing to investigate the Foley matter isn’t their first explanation. The Washington Post reported that an FBI official told the Post that they decided not to investigate because the emails “did not rise to the level of criminal activity.” As CREW is quick to point out, “The FBI cannot have it both ways; either it failed to investigate the Foley emails because they did not rise to a level of criminal activity or because it did not have adequate information to do so. Pick one.”

Yeah, everyone in Washington needs to pick one story out of the grab-bag of possible stories and then stick to it, lest they fall prey to the new rule regarding three inconsistent recollections in less than a week.

Finally, there’s Foley himself. He decided to dump the entire grab-bag of possible stories in rapid-fire succession. When the story broke he immediately determined that he had an alcohol problem and checked into a rehab center. After all, everyone knows that if you’re an alcoholic then everything you do wrong is because you’re the victim of a disease, rather than being the victim of your own weaknesses. This move had the added benefit of keeping Foley away from the press and the FBI, who would surely be investigating this matter.

But, when the public response to that move was just a tad cynical, Foley then had his lawyer reveal that Foley had been molested as a child. After all, everyone knows that children who were molested grow up to become serial molesters, too. But, not wanting to miss the chance to jump on the prevailing bandwagon regarding that problem, Foley explained that the molester was a clergyman. After all, everyone knows that clergymen really mess up young boys.

Finally, Foley blows the door off a closet that had no others walls around it by this time and lets us know that he’s gay. After all, everyone knows that gay men can’t keep their hands off young boys.

Whew; quite a whirlwind to go through in about 48 hours. The only explanation that we didn’t get from Foley was: “I screwed up big time and there’s no excuse for it.” That one will come when he gets interviewed by Barbara Walters, Larry King or Jerry Springer.

The best quip of the week regarding Foley came from comedian Wanda Sykes on the Tonight Show when she complained that, “Foley is giving alcohol a bad name. Alcohol might make you sleep with a fatty or pee on your neighbor’s lawn, but it doesn’t make you a pedophile!” Well said, Wanda.

Now, a new week dawns. While it may be interesting, it won’t be any fun to sit back and see what comes out of the he-said, she-said grab bag next. Watching truth take a beating in the nation’s capitol isn’t anyone’s idea of a good time.

Did You Feel That?

U.S. intelligence has confirmed that North Korea conducted an underground test of a nuclear weapon today. By all accounts, the president of North Korea is certifiably crazy, and now he has a nuclear bomb.

Iran continues to develop a broad-based nuclear program. It doesn’t hide that fact; it boasts openly about it. The president of Iran is not crazy, but he is exceedingly dangerous, particularly now that there is a predominately Shiite government next door in Iraq.

Iran has always been the biggest threat in the Middle East. That’s why we supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980 – 1988 war between Iran and Iraq. We encouraged Saddam to invade Iran and in 1982 we began providing him weapons and economic support – because President Reagan considered Iran to be exceedingly dangerous.

We invaded Iraq in March 2003 because, we were told, it was the best thing we could do to keep the world safe from the “slam dunk” proliferation of nuclear weapons going on in that country. The president of Iraq ended up defending himself by hiding in a dark and filthy “spider hole” because there were no WMDs or anything akin to WMDs at his disposal. All he had was a disposable army that we routed in little more than a month.

On the world stage, in terms of nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction, we are not any safer than we were in March 2003. Arguably, we learned today that we are considerably less safe.

What will tomorrow bring?

A Comma?

The president has declared in a CNN interview that when history has been written the violence in Iraq will be “just a comma”. Really?

Tell that to the American families who have lost their loved ones in the battle for a mere punctuation mark in the annals of history. I’m sure they’ve hoped for at least an exclamation mark or any other form of punctuation that sets their sacrifice apart from all the other clauses in the story of this war.

Tell that to the Iraqi families who have had their lives ripped apart, probably for several generations, while the president turns their country into a breeding ground for terrorists, probably for several generations, and then in a run-on sentence helps to drive them over the edge of civil war. They’re probably hoping that this administration will start considering the use of a few question marks here and there.

Mr. Bush’s comment is wishful thinking. He should be so lucky as to have his war in Iraq reduced to a pause in the narrative of his time. But it’s the kind of wishful thinking engaged in by someone who wakes up in jail and hopes that nothing really bad happened during last night’s drunken street race. I don't think there's any other time in history when war has been regarded as a comma, and this war won't be marked that way, either.

My hope is that inane comments like this one will become the period that marks the end of this administration. Periods come at the end of a sentence; and I feel like we’ve served our time in the captivity of incompetence and our sentence should end. It’s time to close this chapter in history and begin a new one.

What will tomorrow bring?

8 - 13 - 24 - 42 - 60 - 74

Yesterday I noted the deaths of eight U.S. soldiers in one day. Today we learn that 13 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Baghdad alone since Monday - the highest three-day death toll for U.S. forces in that city since the war began. Attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq have killed at least 24 soldiers and Marines since Saturday.

These losses come in spite of having doubled the number of troops in Baghdad since June in support of the Iraqi government's “new security plan”. Major General James Thurman, commander of the Multinational Division Baghdad, said recently that attacks against our forces in Baghdad have reached an average of 42 a day, an all-time high. Major General William Caldwell says the number of IEDs is at an all-time high.

This disclosure of heavy U.S. losses came on another day of horrible violence for Iraqis civilians – at least 60 people were killed in incidents across the country.

Seventy-four soldiers and Marines were killed in Iraq in September, the highest monthly toll since April, when 76 died.

Our military officials are saying the surge in violence is due to the increased exposure of U.S. forces patrolling Baghdad to try to stop the waves of reprisal killings between Shiites and Sunnis. That doesn’t sound like the U.S. fighting terrorism; that sounds like the U.S. getting caught between the two sides in a growing civil war. That isn’t why we went into Iraq, if memory serves.

General Caldwell also announced yesterday that an entire Iraqi police brigade -- 800 to 1,200 officers -- had been pulled out of service and placed under investigation for complicity with death squads. "There is clear evidence that there was some complicity in allowing death squad elements to move freely when, in fact, they were supposed to have been impeding their movement," the general said.

This is the latest attempt to root out corruption in Iraqi security forces that have been infiltrated by militias and death squads that do more to worsen sectarian violence than protect Iraqi citizens. Caldwell said the brigade will undergo "anti-militia, anti-sectarian violence and national unity training." Say what? This is where we are in the plan to have Iraqis “step up so that we can step down” – training them in national unity?

Why are we still setting all-time highs in troops killed, IEDs planted, and enemy attacks after having been in Iraq for three and a half years? Why are U.S. troops dying in the middle of sectarian violence? What kind of progress are we making in getting Iraqis to defend their country if an entire police brigade has to be taken off the line because they’re making matters worse? It sounds like we still have to step up because they’re still stepping down.

What will tomorrow bring?

Eight Good Men

Very few things would make me post a second entry in one day. But I just learned that eight G.I.s were killed in Baghdad on Monday. Eight in one day in multiple incidents. Eight.

We’ll never know the complete tally of suffering for the day, because we don’t know how many wives, fiancées, children, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, friends, classmates, co-workers, and neighbors just had their lives permanently altered by the pain and grief that comes with each lost life. And, lest we forget, there were other soldiers or marines with these eight good men on Monday; other men and women who will bear the scars of what they saw and heard; other men and women who will endure the loss of close comrades in arms.

Then I just read that the Defense budget for fiscal year 2006, which ended on September 30, included a special appropriation of $20 million to pay for the military participation in a celebration in the nation’s capital “for the commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation called on the president to designate “a day of celebration”. Nice idea; a well deserved recognition of every man and woman in uniform.

But the money wasn’t spent – for obvious reasons – the precondition of “mission accomplished” wasn’t met. Senate Reb leaders insisted that the $20 million be rolled over into fiscal year 2007, which began on Sunday. Still a nice idea; but they should have increased the amount for this event because with each passing year we should be willing to double what we spend in honor of the troops who keep going back to war, tour after tour.

But, what is the definition of success in Iraq; how will we know when to commemorate it; what is the plan for achieving that success this year; how does this year’s plan for success differ from the plan that didn’t work last year, or the year before, or the year before?

One day into the new fiscal year, eight soldiers had their names crossed off of the list of potential military attendees for this future celebration. Each of them deserved to be part of the celebration. Each of them will forever be part of the commemoration. God bless them.

What will tomorrow bring?

The Harvest of Fear

We’ve just suffered through the third fatal shooting at an American school in the last week, one in Colorado, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. It will be a while before we know how many kids will die from the latest shooting (five at this time). It will be much longer before we know how many other kids will suffer from the trauma that comes from witnessing and surviving such brutality.

Buried in a newspaper sidebar yesterday was a story about another student who went to a school in North Las Vegas the day before armed with an AK-47 and an automatic pistol. He was confronted and fled before he used the weapons; so we avoided adding Nevada to this week’s bullet-riddled list. But with the gun-toting kid in Nevada still on the loose, we can’t close the coroner’s books on this bloody week quite yet.

I don’t get it. Why does the United States have 10 or more of these senseless tragedies for every one that occurs in all other countries combined! It is one thing to lead the world in technology development, manufacturing, agricultural production or medical research, but it’s another thing altogether to lead the world in the number of incidents that result in burying school children, teachers and principals. Why are we so goddamn special?

We have to take immediate action to understand and address the cultural or societal drivers that underlie this almost uniquely American phenomenon. What breeds this kind of disgusting violence in our country? Almost automatically I referred to these shootings as “senseless” tragedies, because that’s a very popular word when something like this happens. But we can’t hide behind that word – we have to make sense out of why this is happening here, in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

It’s easy to jump on the gun control bandwagon in the wake of this kind of killing. After all, no one in this country can justify the need to possess an AK-47. Assault rifles are aptly named – they’re intended for assaults. Assaults are conducted by the military and the police. The only assaults conducted by individual citizens are the criminal kind, like those in Colorado, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

I believe that American citizens have the right to bear arms – but – like every other right under the sun, it isn’t an absolute right. Reasonable controls can and must be placed on this right, just as we’ve done with all the other rights we cherish. The freedoms of speech, worship and press are all subject to limitations. We’re only entitled to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. As the saying goes, the right to swing your fist ends where my chin begins.

Reasonable controls are part of the fabric of the constitutional freedom we enjoy in America. These limitations represent the accountability that we owe to one another as fellow citizens in the body politic. So it’s axiomatic to me that guns should be subject to reasonable controls – controls on buying, possessing and using them.

When I listen to the anti-gun control lobby I get a little crazy in the face of their fanatical assertion of an essentially absolute right to bear arms. They’ve conjured up the belief that this right and this right alone is unfettered by any control, reasonable or otherwise. Their reasoning is dripping in fear and they cry out for protection from those fears like a child cries at midnight for protection from the “big, bad monster” in the closet.

They fear a sinister government who they suspect is intent on subjecting them and their families to Communist-like oppression; they fear the evil neighbors who will come to take away their emergency supplies when destruction or anarchy hits; and they’re possessed by the omnipresent fear that roving criminals will bust into their home in the middle of the night to do them and their children harm.

I’ll grant them a measure of that last threat, but it can be handled by a weapon or two of reasonable size and efficacy. Never mind the fact that even those weapons have to be loaded and readily accessible in order to be useful in such a situation, which of course makes them readily assessable for kids to play with – or to take to school. In any event, no arsenal is needed; no assault weapons are needed; no fully automatic weapons are needed.

This is one of those subjects where we’re almost completely out of touch with the rest of the civilized world, yet we proclaim ourselves to be enlightened and proclaim others to be weak and naïve and, of course, confused. I began this posting by observing another way in which we’re completely at odds with the rest of the civilized world. These two matching ends aren’t accidental.

But – no one should think for a minute that gun control is the only answer to the school killings. It isn’t the most important answer. It may not even be in the top five or ten answers. It is a part of the problem and it must be addressed, but we have to address the rest of the problem – what makes someone in this country pick up an available gun and go to a school to kill children?

The answer is: fear. Point blank – fear.

Everyone who uses a weapon is afraid of something or someone. Fear manifests itself in many ways – insecurity; shyness; aloofness; inattention; avoidance; withdrawal; silence; laziness; denial; inaction; drug use; alcohol abuse; arrogance; self-righteousness; criticism; condemnation; cynicism; pessimism; prejudice; dishonesty; deceit; injustice; infidelity; greed; hoarding; possessiveness; stealing; yelling; bullying; bigotry; oppression; abuse; molestation; hatred; torture; and any other form of individual or collective anger, violence or rage, including terrorism and war.

Again, everyone who uses a weapon is afraid, often deathly afraid, of something or someone. We have to address the growing prevalence of fear in America. We love to proclaim our freedom; but there is no freedom in fear, there is only captivity and the need to escape.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was profoundly right when, in his first inaugural address to the nation, he solemnly declared – “Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

It’s time for us to act like we are, indeed, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

A Common Article under Uncommon Attack

HOTS went silent in the third week of September when the highly volatile issues related to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the use of torture by the US arose. The controversy stunned me – just the fact that there was a controversy. I didn’t know where to start or stop talking about it. My mind raced around searching for what to say and when to say it. I couldn’t believe that the United States of America was debating the use of “alternative” interrogation techniques, such as water boarding, sleep deprivation, coerced standing, constant ear-splitting noise, and prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, techniques that almost anyone in the free world would regard as forms of torture, techniques prohibited by the recently reissued Army Field Manual. The US was in effect discussing the abrogation of the core of the Geneva Conventions.

When I went through Army basic infantry training in 1969 and Navy officer indoctrination school in 1975 I was taught that the United States follows all four of the Geneva Conventions without hesitation, condition or exception. All my life I’ve watched my country steadfastly support the letter and the spirit of these Conventions, quickly condemning any country that employed any form of interrogation that even bordered on cruel or inhumane. American politicians and citizens of both parties were outraged during the war in Vietnam when the North Vietnamese paraded American POWs through the streets of Hanoi, subjecting them to public rage and ridicule. In those days, we regarded that act as an unacceptable violation of the Geneva Conventions, much less the degrading acts that secretly took place inside the Hanoi Hilton.

One of the few justifications still extant for our preemptive invasion of Iraq is the professed need to overthrow a dictatorial government that systematically employed torture in its military operated prisons. Then, in the midst of that mission of liberation, the United States is suddenly disclosing the existence of secret and previously denied CIA prisons in various countries around the world, countries that conveniently lack legal protections against the use of torture. The captives in those prisons were being brought from the darkness of these secret prisons into the dim light of Guantanamo. But that dim light was light enough for the present administration to profess an urgent need to rewrite the rules of conduct for the detainment of enemy combatants. Suddenly, the United States was at general quarters on a subject that had never before been an issue, and its president was staunchly taking hard line positions that no president before him had considered much less supported.

The president stood before the American people and with his trademark smirk and shrug of shoulders pronounced Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to be unacceptably vague and ambiguous. This Article gets its name from the fact that it is the one article that is common to all four of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (when the Conventions were last revised). Common Article 3 provides in pertinent part that:

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all cases be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth of wealth, or any other similar criteria.

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

The president almost ridiculed the vagueness of the references in bold, particularly subparagraph (c), language that has guided democratic governments and their militaries since 1929 when the Third Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners was adopted. If this language is vague and ambiguous, it is no more so than the United States Constitution prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”. Phrases of this nature are written as they are for a purpose – to prevent captives being subjected to treatment at the hands of people who can always find their way around specific limitations on their conduct. Managing ambiguity is one of the skills of leadership.

When the president introduced legislation to cure the problems that he, unlike all other presidents before him, saw in Common Article 3, there was a swift reaction – from Republican leaders. Democrats were outraged, too, of course; but they didn’t matter at a time when the White House and both houses of Congress are controlled by the Rebs. The likes of Clinton, Kerry and Kennedy be damned; but when Senators Warner, McCain, Graham, Collins and Specter speak out, with former Bush administration loyalists, Colin Powell and George Shultz, joining in, then even this president has to slow down for the pause that refreshes.

The Reb rebels quickly went to the heart of the matter. They asked, rightfully so, whether the president’s proposal was an abrogation not just of the Conventions but of American morals and values. Powell said, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.” McCain, reflecting on five long years of torture in Hanoi, said, “This isn’t about the terrorists – this is about us.” All of them said that any unilateral revision or reinterpretation of Common Article 3 by the US would signal a diminished US commitment to human rights, would invite all other countries to do the same, and would put American captives at grave risk. Warner, a staunch defender of the war in Iraq said that our nation’s reputation was at stake.

Major General Scott Black, the senior uniformed lawyer in the Army, took the highly unusual step of writing to Warner and expressing his opposition to the president’s proposed reinterpretation of Common Article 3. No less than five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff followed suit, urging Congress not to tinker with the Geneva Conventions. Their primary concern was simple – to protect US servicemen and women from the same treatment that it appeared the President of the United States was willing to employ against our enemies.

The president’s response was to brand these heretofore supporters of his policies in Iraq, supporters who had become voices of dissent on this issue, as having suddenly become morally and intellectually confused. It’s fair to say that I was suddenly confused, but not about what I thought was right or wrong. I was confused about where this country is headed and what it stands for it it could no longer support the values expressed in Common Article 3.

Unfortunately, the debate surrounding Common Article 3 was only half of the controversy. The other half involved whether to charge and bring to trial, and how to conduct the trials of enemy combatants. The central issue in that half of the debate was, again, long-standing American values and principles of justice. More on that and the resulting compromise on all these issues later.

Listening & Learning - Signs of Intelligence

The recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate regarding the state of jihadist terrorism in relation to the war in Iraq has, as expected, become a political hand grenade. Now we wait to find out if the pin has been pulled and who will be holding it when it blows up. The Dims attacked immediately – no surprise there – and the Rebs countered by declassifying the “Key Judgments” section of the NIE. That section provides ammunition for each party. But, after reading it I think it provides M-16 rifle ammo for the Rebs and M-1Abrams tank ammo for the Dims.

For the Rebs, the NIE offers the following:

§ US-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. [Question: if serious damage to its leadership and operations isn’t enough to keep al-Qa’ida from being the greatest threat to the U.S., then what will alleviate that threat?]

§ Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists. [Question: isn’t this process going to take about the same amount of time it took to embed the lack of pluralism and responsive, sustained and multifaceted systems and programs in the Muslim nations – i.e., many, many generations?]

§ Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight. [Question: is there sufficient comfort in the words “should” and “fewer”?]

For the Dims, the NIE offers the following:

§ The global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts. [Question: when is our strategy going to stem the spread and overcome the adaptation?]

§ A large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in number and geographic dispersion. If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide. [Question: are we heading to a safer America or an increasingly threatened America?]

§ The Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. [Question: haven’t we created a breeding ground in Iraq that will produce several waves of jihadist leadership?]

§ The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. [Question: what does this say about “staying the course” in this “cause celebre”?]

§ Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims – all of which jihadists exploit. [Question: does our political leadership see the ways in which the US is implicated in each of these “fuel” factors; can we simply declare ourselves to be free of any responsibility for the spread of the jihadist movement?]

§ Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.

§ The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. The resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida. [Question: what does this say about the decision to turn attention from pursuing Bin Ladin in Afghanistan to pursuing Saddam Hussein in Iraq?]

§ Anti-US sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. [Question: have we considered that we might be fueling non-Islamic ignition sources in the world?]

§ The underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of the NIE. [Question: isn’t it obvious that we have to do something different to shift this balance?]

The NIE seems to answer this last question by concluding that, “Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.” Given this assessment, when are we going to move beyond “capture and kill” operations and pursue the coordinated multilateral efforts that the entire U.S. intelligence community is recommending?

The NIE also concludes that the jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution – an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari’a-based governance spanning the Muslim world – is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. However, extracting a solution to jihadist terrorism from this vulnerability will require actions outside and beyond those being taken by the US in Iraq. The ray of hope offered by this vulnerability may never break through as long as we continue occupying a Muslim country.

Building on this potential, the NIE says, “Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.”

Mind you, this commentary is not from some liberal think tank, some leftist-leaning East coast editorial page, or some hippie-invested college campus – it’s from the collective, “all-source” U.S. intelligence community – a community that it trying harder than ever to get it right now after having gotten it so wrong between September 2001 and March 2003.

It might be time for us to manifest two essential signs of intelligence – listening and learning.