Reasoned Audacity

~Daily commentary on public policy and culture ~
Ranger Handbook

"Achieve maximum effect
by exhibiting
Reasoned Audacity."

Finalist Link

To Subscribe

Enter email address:

Must Read

Jack's blog!

Ipso Facto Comic

Speaking

Charmaine Speaking

Need a speaker? Click here to bring Charmaine to your event.

Recent events:

MOPS, Truro Church, Fairfax, Virginia

September 8th

Washington & Lee University, Washington D.C. Program, "Women and Politics"

May 13th.

Trinity Fellows, Charlottesville, VA, "Gay Marriage"

May 26th.

Cedarville College, April 14th.

Extra

Sex Trafficking PPT

Blue Star Banner

For Josh, Michael and Will.

Be safe.

MarchTogether

We Surf For You

Main

January 01, 2006

George Bush's New Year's Resolution?

According to the Jerusalem Post, the United States is "planning [a] strike against Iran."

That's very interesting.

Of course, the article goes on to explain that the U.S.: "reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack . . ." And "coordinating plans" is not quite the same thing as "planning a strike."

The Pentagon is always planning. That's their job. It remains to be seen whether these are just garden-variety war games -- or game on.

November 18, 2005

101st Airborne Message for John Murtha

airborne.bmp

A letter from a soldier to his mother:

Mom,

Be my voice. I want this message heard. It is mine and my platoon's to the country. A man I know lost his legs the other night. He is in another company in our batallion. I can no longer be silent after watching the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans everyday. . .

Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. . .

Freedom is not free, but yet it is everyone's right to have. Ironic isn't it? That is why we are here. Though you will always have the skeptics, I know that most of our military will agree with this message. Please, at the request of this soldier spread this message to all you know. We are in Operation Iraqi Freedom and that is our goal. It is a cause that I and thousands of others stand ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for because, Cindy Sheehan, freedom is worth dying for, no matter what country it is! And after the world is free only then can we hope to have peace.

SGT XXX and 1st Platoon
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)

Read the whole letter at Sgt Hook's.

November 17, 2005

Bill Clinton on WMD's

Don't want to take the word of a former UNSCOM weapons inspector about WMD's in Iraq?

How 'bout Bill Clinton then?

clinton98speech.jpg

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. . .The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Ian, the Political Teen, has the VIDEO.

(Thanks to Bryan Preston, of Junkyard Blog, guest-blogging at Michelle's.)

Why We Didn't "Find" WMD's in Iraq

tierney.jpg
John Tierney
Former Weapons Inspector

John Tierney was an UNSCOM weapons inspector in Iraq. Today, FrontPage carries a lengthy interview with Tierney.

Why didn't we find WMD's? Here's Tierney's response:

On finds, the key word here is "find." UNSCOM could pursue a lead and approach an inspection target from various angles to cut off an escape route, but at some point, the Iraqis would hold up their guns and keep us out. . .knowing that as long as there were armed guards between us and the weapons, we would never be able to "find," as in "put our hands on," the weapons of mass destruction. The western press mindlessly took this up and became the Iraqis' tool.

So where did the WMD's go?

Tierney gives a detailed answer which can be summarized in a word -- Syria:

In Iraq's case, the lakes and rivers were the toilet, and Syria was the back door.

(Via Powerline.)

November 16, 2005

John Stuart Mill on War

jsmill.jpg

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.
John Stuart Mill

November 09, 2005

Enlist in Soldier's Angels

Cross-posted from Yoest.org.

Yesterday my family buried our Uncle Joe Carr. He served as a Sergeant in WWII in Germany. Combat Medic Badge. He's seen the sacrifices. He would be proud to see his country really support the troops.

soldiers_angel_logo.gif


Soldiers' Angels

Project Valour - IT

We are asking for donations for Project Valour - IT. "Valour" is the acronym for "Voice-Activated Laptops for OUR Injured Troops."

The Project Valour - IT Site describes the initiative as follows:

Project Valour-IT, in memory of SFC William V. Ziegenfuss, provides voice-controlled software and laptop computers to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand and arm injuries or amputations at major military medical centers. Operating laptops by speaking into a microphone, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages from friends and loved ones, surf the 'Net, and communicate with buddies still in the field without having to press a key or move a mouse. The experience of CPT Charles "Chuck" Ziegenfuss, a partner in the project who suffered hand wounds while serving in Iraq, illustrates how important this voice-controlled software can be to a wounded servicemember's recovery.


Parkway Rest Stop writes:

Project Valour - IT has injected a friendly inter-service competition into the mix to see which military branch team can produce the most donations. So, you are asked to pick a "team," and go make your donation. I again stress that this is a friendly rivalry, as the real winners here will be our wounded soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines.

Team Leaders

Army: BLACKFIVE (This is my team and Uncle Joe's)

Navy: The Indepundit (This would be my dad's team)

Air Force: The Mudville Gazette

Marines: Soldiers' Angel - Holly Aho (This would be Grandpa Shaw's team)

Parkway Rest Stop continues:

I'm making a special appeal to Jersey Bloggers who are active military, vets, those who have friends or family in the military and generally to all those who really do "support our troops." You need not make a large donation. Every single donation helps!

Uncle Joe now rests in his beloved Jersey ground. My donation is in his memory.

funeral_flag_army.jpg
The Army Flag outside the funeral home
November 7, 2005, Riverside, New Jersey

###

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a bookmark for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Most of the above verbiage is borrowed from Parkway Rest Stop

A Salute to John and Beth Donovan of Argghhh! for reminding Your Business Blogger of this mission. This is what makes America good...and great.

###


BlackFive
has Valour IT Keep Army on top.

The Indepundit has drive info.

Balance Sheet
has getting short.

SeaWitch has congrats.

Soldiers' Angel
has goodies to bid on.

MacStansbury knows the players.

Basil's Blog has meals.

Political Teen
has Open Trackbacks.

Stop the ACLU
has mid-week trackbacks.

NIF where everyday is open trackback day.

Adam's Blog
has Midweek Open Trackbacks.

Outside the Beltway also got mentioned on MSNBC today. Traffic Jam.

Mudville Gazette has Open Post.

August 21, 2005

Soldiers Tribute

Wonderful photo tribute to our soldiers from Free Republic.

freepers.jpg

Thanks to Andi's World, who also has a great post with pictures covering a Support the Troops rally in front of the White House.

July 27, 2005

Live-Blogging "Over There"

over_there.jpg

"Over There" tonight at 10 EST. The new television series about the Iraq war. I'm skeptical. So I've decided to live-blog it. If you're watching, too, send comments.

***
2201 Sex in the kitchen for starters? Oooh. That's subtle.

2209 Women in combat already and we're not 10 minutes in!

2210 Squad is digging in (Ranger grave). She says: "Jesus I can't do this."
Two male soldiers rush over to help the damsel in distress. "Hey Dan, let's give her a hand."
"I can do it myself. . ." she whines.
Scene interrupted by combat action. (Badge to follow.)

Very interesting. And surprising. I can't imagine that Steven Bochco wrote this to underscore the problems with women in combat. But hey, there you have it. Of course, PREDICTION: I'm sure by the end we'll have Amazon Woman enter the scene. Wait. I bet this very same woman will turn out to be mega-warrior. Bet on it.

2217 "Praise in public; reprimand in private." Captain in charge berates the lieutenant in front of sergeant and men, undermining chain of command. Hollywood always get military leadership wrong.

2220 Closeup of the chick. Nice eyebrow pencil.

2227 Okay. Where are they going with the women in combat issue? This I was not expecting. Synopsis: girl wanders off in search of privacy to answer the call of nature (whatever). After finding just the right spot and dropping her drawers and flack jacket, an Iraqi sneaks up, pears over the berm and spies her. He is momentarily flummoxed, then regains his senses, and tries to shoot her. (Just like all the bad guys in the movies, he has terrible aim in close quarters with an automatic weapon. . . ) Again, combat action ensues. . .

2236 "She's alive!" Of course she is. Note: he carries her off the field.

2238 Commercial break. Question: could she have carried him off? With all his gear? Shoot, even without his gear?

2246 So now one of the women is doing a video for her kid at home . . . woah, the women in combat issue is a huge theme in this show.

We just had a scene where a bunch of Iraquis were dragged away and thrown into a truck while hollering about Abu Ghraib. . . were we supposed to sympathise with them?

2249 UnderArmour (product placement - cool though)! Milblogs, is this standard issue now? The Dude would love that! He's mad that I wouldn't let him watch this with me. . .

2255 Is that the football player who just lost his leg in the roadside bombing? Man I hate when they set you up like that. Oh is this the end? More reax in a minute. . .

2301 It was the football player. Previews tell us that they'll be following him through coping with his loss and rehab. I felt emotionally manipulated when he was the one who got hurt. (I wish I'd written down my prediction that he would be the one who died -- it was so obvious that they were setting us up to care about him.) But, having said that, if this story line resulted in people appreciating the sacrifices and suffering of our military, then it would be a good thing. . .More on another angle in a minute.


2327 The intellectual character from Cornell said in his video home: "We are savages; war turns us into monsters. . ." Victor Davis Hanson would like this part. He says democracies are the most vicious/brutal fighters and that when we go against other cultures it's a slaughter. Hanson views that as good though. Hard to say completely from this single episode, but I'm guessing this show will go the other way -- it seems like all Hollywood renditions of war turn into anti-war screeds. They're going to focus on the angst of the individuals in order to tell the story. They won't take the time to portray grateful Iraqi's, or mention Saddam's brutalities. . . and the character who says he "loves the Army" will be portrayed as a doofus.

I hope I'm wrong. But it's not really worth watching. . . and our soldiers deserve better.

UPDATE: Swanky Conservative live-blogged, too. He had much the same reaction I did. Here's one observation he makes: "After a firefight, do troops loll around staring at the dead enemy?" Well, exactly! What was that about? Went on forever. Check it out; he picked up on a couple of funny things that I missed.

* * *
To the guys who really are Over There . . . Mudville! Open Post!

The indirect fire Argghhh! has the cliches.

See more outstanding analysis at Target Centermass on Over There. And the best thermal image in the blogosphere.

The Milbloggers are fighting back! Check out Blackfive's report -- great comment thread.

And Eric's Grumbles Before the Grave gives us his negative reax, but also a list of good war movies. It's short!

1 August, Ballon Juice has an update.

July 23, 2005

"Beauties in Shoulder Straps": Miss Russian Army 2005

miss_russian_army.jpg

Miss Russian Army 2005
Kseniya Agarkova, winner

Here's a good rule of thumb: gay jokes -- not funny. Miss Russian Army -- funny.

In late June, the Russian army held a beauty contest, "Beauties in Shoulder Straps," and picked Kseniya Agarkova out of 18 other soldiers to wear a crown along with her combat boots and Kalashnikov rifle.

Kid. You. Not.

But wait. It gets better. In addition to the contest, there was choral entertainment: a group of school children singing "Our Army is the Strongest," while dressed in army fatigues.

Quick. Somebody alert Rummy. . . The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!

###

Always besting the Russians at Mudville Gazette and Open Post

July 14, 2005

No, Honey, I'll Chase the Intruder. . .

man_feel_like_woman.jpg

So, I don't know, what do you think? Would you go with the pearls, or would they be too much with this . . .?

(From Martha. . .)

June 29, 2005

Bush: War Without Angst

Bush has a hard sell on his hands: War without Angst. The President is on the difficult ground of FUD politics.

potus_ftbragg.jpg

Speech at Ft. Bragg

In his speech last night from Fort Bragg, the President was the confident cowboy leading us as The War Time President. As it should be; as it must be.

Nevertheless, Bush is using a sales tactic that works with products . . . but is much more difficult with politics. IBM trained a generation of sales reps to eliminate FUD's: "fear, uncertainty and doubt." In the private sector, in business, this communication works.

Less so in the public sector. Selling war in America requires Angst, Worry, Concern, Reluctance, Victimhood.

As Victor Davis Hanson reminds us in his outstanding article The Politics of American War, there's a huge gulf between the politics of war for liberal and conservative presidents:

clinton_lip.jpg

To end the dictatorial and genocidal plans of Slobodan Milosevic, liberal Bill Clinton was willing to bomb downtown Belgrade, commit American forces to a major campaign without U.S. Senate approval and bypass the United Nations altogether. Few accused him of fighting an illegal war, contravening U.N. protocols, or cowardly dropping bombs on civilians. In all these cases, public opposition was pretty much muted, despite the horrendous casualties involved in some of these past conflicts.

George W. Bush, as a conservative President, however, will never be given such leeway. Why not? Because he doesn't bite his lip:

. . .it is very difficult in general for a conservative to wage war, because the natural suspicion arises that his tragic view of human nature and his belief in the occasional utility of force, makes him seem to enjoy the enterprise far more than a lip-biting progressive, who may in fact order far more destruction.

So that's what the President was up against last night. He is a President, who is, apparently, uniquely suited by temperament for eliminating FUD and waging a War Without Angst. Many of us think resolute words like these from his speech last night are his great strength:

. . .we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won. (Applause.)

America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom entrusted to us in a special way, and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.

Audacity. Emphasis mine.

The proper response when confronting an enemy's audacity is not retreat. And I, for one, am glad he didn't bite his lip as he stated that human freedom is entrusted to us in a special way.

We must meet audacity with audacity. But ours is a Reasoned Audacity.
###

Read fearless patriots on Open Post at Mudville Gazette.

Outside The Beltway always knows what's up in Your Nation's Capital at Traffic Jam

Thank you to the lovely ladies BlogWhoring over Shakespeare's Sister

e-Claire has a terrific overview of The Speech.

June 26, 2005

Heather Thibault Part One: Women in Combat

My dear, Heather. It's not about YOU.

Heather Thibault was a medic in Iraq with the Army National Guard and recently returned home from Camp Anaconda, north of Baghdad. A profile of her in yesterday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter was titled Limits on combat upset female medic. The subtitle: "Ready, willing and unable to fight."

Because, of course, it's all about Heather. Heather is, "upset." Heather is, "feisty." Heather is, "buff." Heather is, "angered."

Why is she angry? Because Heather has, according to the paper, "Right uniform, wrong chromosome."

femalesoldier_heather_thibault.jpg

Heather Thibault
Photo Credit:
Meryl Schenker
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Well, before we get too worked up about that wrong chromosome, here's another thing Heather is:

Heather is, "barely 5 feet" tall. Doesn't say whether that includes her combat boots. It does say that Heather is, all of 125 pounds.

Her service to our country should be honored -- the article says she has nightmares from her experiences caring for the wounded in Iraq. Her hands were bloodied in the care of wounded, as nurses did during Vietnam, and other wars.

But battlefield medics are charged with evacuating wounded. While the reporter is busy venting spleen over the big, bad "military policy" keeping Heather out of combat -- as if engaging the enemy is some glorified Disneyland ride that they kept her from experiencing -- the article doesn't express any interest in Thibault's ability, or not, to carry a 180 pound soldier (plus 80 lbs of battle rattle) out of harm's way.

The article snears at this concern as a "weaker sex" argument. So be it. I wouldn't bet my son's life on her upper body strength.

NO one has a "right" to go into combat. We're facing a relentless drumbeat from the media, with stories of individual women who "should be allowed" to go into combat. But it's not about them. It's not about the individual. Combat is about the mission, unit cohesion and survival.

Those men we do ask to risk their lives -- and the hopes and dreams of all those who love them -- by going into combat have the right to expect us to do everything humanly possible to give them the best chance of coming out alive.

That's the only right we should be concerned about.

* * *

There's a subtext to this story that is worth mentioning. The article mentions that since returning from Iraq, Heather has been visiting local schools to talk with young people. Here's what she has to say about the war on terror:

We're throwing rocks at a hornet's nest, turning moderates into religious fanatics, and you're going to inherit the problem. ...

It kind of sucks when you piss off the whole world.

Maybe she forgot that whole World Trade Center meltdown thing. . .

* * *

Thanks Mrs. Greyhawk for Open Post at Mudville.

And check out Wizbang's Carnival of the Trackbacks. . .

Then dance over to Beth's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and her Open Trackbacks. . .

More women a-fighting at Shakespeare's Sister at BlogWhoring.

Knowledge is Power has some thoughts and appreciation for sacrifice women make.

June 16, 2005

USS Bonefish, Lost June 18, 1945

Sixty years ago on Saturday, June 18th, 1945, the Japanese sunk the USS Bonefish, with the loss of all hands. A young torpedo-man, John Yoest, received transfer papers some time prior to her last voyage, and walked off the submarine, safely. His son, John Yoest, Jr. is my husband . . . and the following is a tribute Jack wrote several years ago to the men of the Bonefish. This piece was originally published by The Virginian Pilot and the Courier Post.

DEBT OF HONOR: REMEMBERING THE USS BONEFISH

My father, then only a teen-ager from Jersey, left high school, went to war and was assigned to the submarine, USS Bonefish. Just before the final mission of the Bonefish, my father walked off the gangplank - transferred to another assignment. Another man took his place.

bonefish_223ReturnFromPatrol4.jpg

USS Bonefish,
Returning from her 4th patrol.
Sailors, rest your oars.

On its eighth mission, on June 18, 1945, the Bonefish was lost fighting the enemy in the Sea of Japan, with the loss of all 53 officers and men. It was the last U.S. submarine sunk in World War II. Dad eventually went back to high school and married my mother. The other man is "on eternal patrol," as the veterans say.

A half-century later, after fighting in and surviving two wars, my father was buried in Arlington Cemetery. He had the chance to raise a family and devote 30 years to the armed services, and pin second lieutenant bars on my shoulders. He didn't talk much about the Bonefish or the man who replaced him. Still, I imagine in some Navy Valhalla my dad and this other sailor linked up together and asked the Creator, “Why?”

“Why him? Why me?”

jack_dad_sailornew.jpg

John Sr. with John Jr.

War forces these questions on us, and they echo for generations. My father had me, and I now have a 4-year-old son, John, who carries his grandfather's name and his love of battle and discipline.

john_dad_sailornew.jpg

John III with John Jr. (Jack)

John, like all children, often asks, “Why?” Like all fathers, I struggle to answer. But there are questions mere human reason cannot fathom.

Why was my father not on that submarine that fateful day?

And the answer does not come. Only that John now lives. With a purpose and a destiny still unknown.

When my wife was pregnant with our first child, someone asked her, “What is your greatest fear?” She answered that it was losing her husband; she feared the possibility of facing the awesome responsibility of motherhood alone. But now, several children later, as I reflect on that same question, my fear is not of losing her, or even one of our daughters. I fear losing my son. In my masculine pride, I believe I can protect my wife and girls, but in my heart lurks the dread possibility that I must one day send my son to war.

My boy loves my cavalry saber and my dad's medals. Wearing a military uniform and military service runs in our family. My son's bloodline is traced through the Civil War and the Revolutionary War to William Penn to Charlemagne of ninth century France. His great-grandfather helped build Virginia Military Institute. I pray the time never comes, but if it does, I expect that he will fight for God and country like his fathers before him.

Buried at sea, there are no headstones. I cannot mark the grave of the man who took my father's place, so I mark the date. I pay silent homage in remembrance of June 18, 1945, when the sea smashed through the bulkheads and turned a warship into a coffin. There have been many such coffins, and if history is any teacher there are many yet to come.

When I think of future wars, I pray that a doomed high-tech Bonefish will not carry my John. The fear of this nearly unendurable loss humbles me. That young man who walked on the Bonefish to take my father's place was another man's son. Another man's dreams lost at sea. War turns civilization on its head. In peace, sons bury fathers. In war, fathers bury sons.

It is a weighty debt. A debt of honor due. I expect to instill in my son a sense of history, of purpose, of his mission. That his body is not entirely his own, that he has a high calling. I hope that I can teach him the lessons of his forefathers, those men now called the Greatest Generation.

It is my prayer that instilling this sense of mission will drive out the distractions, temptations and destructions of his growing generation. That drugs will not cloud his ambition. That he will see the hand of divine providence moving in his life. That he will know he has so much to be thankful for. Like his fathers before him.

I pray he will be grateful, like his grandfather. It is my charge to tell my son that another man took his grandfather's place. My son has the duty, and like me, the obligation to his family and to that other man, to live with a sense of purpose and awe. To live with a sense of respect to the tomb of that other young submariner.

This June 18, I want to salute the man who died for me and the men who died for us all. I want my son to know his debt of honor. And, God willing, my son will bury me.

# # #

Since this was first published a few years ago, we've been honored to hear from other veterans who served on the Bonefish and naval historians. There were actually 85 men lost aboard the Bonefish and another boat holds the distinction of last sub lost in the war.

And, since this piece was written, we've added John's brother James to the family -- here he is in the same sailor suit that Jack's dad sewed by hand while at sea.

james_sailor.jpg

James and Jack

See here for our recent visit to Arlington Cemetery.

Thank you for the inter-service support to Mudville Gazette on Open Post

June 13, 2005

And the Left Wonders Why the Country Thinks They Are Anti-Military?

Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have a problem. Hillary joined the Armed Services Committee in order to establish some military cred for her 2008 Presidential run. But her peeps on the Left keep popping out of the closet to prove just exactly why the right wing thinks they are against the military.

"Oh yes," they say (when pressed), "We support our troops. It's those nasty recruiters we don't like. . ."

fuckthearmy.jpg

Exhibit A: Here's a picture from a demonstration at the University of California, Santa Cruz on March 5th specifically targeting the on-campus military recruiters. The caption underneath the picture read: "Direct, unambiguous language is helpful for making your point clear to everyone." Yeah, I'll say. "FTA" used to be seen only as latrine graffiti.

So it's just one ungrateful girl with a potty mouth. Well, no. Here are a few of the comments underneath:

Malgoska: "I also hope your actions are highly contagious. Hey, other universities - are you listening?"

Drew Nelson: "That's just beautiful. . . We need more brave and fiery souls such as those at UCSC."

Anonymous: "awesome!! There are still folks around with heart who have the b**ls to stand up against what is so wrong with todays world...f**k the military industrial complex and the biggest terrorist on the planet Bush and his corporate buddies, well done people...people of the earth tribe rise!!!!"

Iwantyou.jpg

Banned on Campus?

And it's not just on campus. An anti-recruiter diatribe, "Reading, Writing and Recruiting," took up some valuable real estate right in the middle of Saturday's Washington Post op-ed page.

Diane Paul, identified as a writer who "worked for Human Rights Watch in Bosnia" and as a consultant to UNICEF and the UN (of course), wants military recruiters out of the publically funded education system. "The military should not be permitted to use our schools as vehicles to send young people to war," she argues. Here's my favorite part of her polemic:

. . .we have to ask ourselves whether children between the ages of 14 and 17 have the maturity to make what may be life-or-death decisions based on promises of easy cash and a college education

I would bet you 30 cents that she also believes that these same "children" do "have the maturity" to make life-or-death decisions about sexual relationships and abortion without parental guidance. Bet me. Condoms yes. Cadence no.

She then goes on to conclude that: "the government must also ensure the protection of our children and safeguard the role of public schools as places of learning." Hey, now there we agree!

If you're in-step with me on this, then you'll not want to miss Scott Ott's satirical take on recruiters over at ScrappleFace. It's funny, but in that sock-you-in-the-gut kind of way. It's a "news release" entitled "Army Offers New Recruiting Incentive: Duty."

Journalists at the news conference, baffled by the terminology, unleashed a barrage of questions about why anyone would volunteer to fight for a country that runs a gulag at Gitmo, invades peaceful sovereign nations like Iraq and has no respect for the most Holy Koran.

Hoo-ah! People of the earth tribe . . . unite for Hillary 2008!

***

March over to Mudville Gazette, American Flag Open Post. . .

See more on the Left at Blogwhoring on Shakespeare's Sister. (Odd convergence: My dissertation was entitled, "Empowering Shakespeare's Sister.")

Also see my earlier post on "Would You Sell Out D-Day . . . for a Pulitzer?"

A salute to Outside The Beltway for Beltway Traffic Jam for a terrific selection of contributors.

More insight on Military Recruitment Down at La Shawn Barber's Corner.

Update: Other news headlines at Wizbang's outstanding round-up The 10 Spot - Headline Edition.

Update: Get into the Beltway Traffic Jam on Outside the Beltway.

Update June 22, 2005 e-Claire has pic

June 08, 2005

Carrie French, 19, Killed in Iraq

Another woman has been killed in Iraq.

carrie_french.jpg

Carrie French

Carrie served as a Specialist in the National Guard's 145th Support Battalion, which was attached to the 116th Brigade Combat Team. She was killed by a roadside bomb explosion in Kirkuk, Iraq.

Who is in charge here?

The President said last January, emphatically, no women in combat. But clearly, women are in combat. The military has saluted the Commander-in-Chief, said "Yes, sir," and then turned right around and sent women into combat. By using the word "attached," they get around the regulations that say women can't be "assigned" to a unit with a combat mission.

I support this President; I support this war; I support our troops, both the men and the women. What troubles me is this fiction of saying our policy is one thing -- no women in combat -- and then doing another -- deliberately sending female troops in harm's way.

In addition to her Purple Heart, Carrie will qualify her for a Combat Action Badge, awarded posthumously. And her death in harm's way continues General Schoomaker's Boiling the Frog strategy of legalizing women in combat.

A Thank you to Mudville Gazette's Open Post

June 03, 2005

Arlington National Cemetery, John Wesley Yoest, USN, BMCS

Every time we've made the left turn onto Eisenhower Drive, and passed through the imposing brick gates of Arlington National Cemetery, I've been overwhelmed with emotion. Family members of those buried at Arlington National Cemetery are given a special pass and may drive onto the Hallowed Grounds to visit the grave of their loved one. It's an enormous honor which makes me feel humbled.

posse_at_arlington.jpg

The Penta-Posse
at Arlington National Cemetery

My husband's father served thirty years in the United States Navy, and died the year I married into the family, so I didn't know him well. And the fact is, after a lifetime of nine-month Mediterranean tours, wars, and rumors of war, there is a lot my husband doesn't know as well.

However, over the 15 years that we've been married, I have gotten to know my mother-in-law well. She doesn't talk either about the sacrifices she made, but there is one story that she has told me several times.

Once, when my father-in-law was out on tour, and she was home with three small children, the car broke down and, of course, she had to take care of it. My husband marched up and said, "Don't worry, Mom, I'll fix it." He was about five years old at the time.

My mother-in-law laughs. . . the little man, takin' care of things. But it makes me cry.

We owe a lot to our military families.

When we visited Arlington this past week, we passed at least three funeral ceremonies on the way to Section 64. I lost track of the fresh graves and the still-standing tents, either just vacated by other grieving families, or awaiting the afternoon's fresh, raw sorrow.

As we pulled up on Bradley Avenue, an Air Force honor guard was marching precisely back to their bus after a ceremony for an airman who had been a POW in Korea. While we searched for my father-in-law's headstone, an empty horse-drawn caisson lumbered past, and settled briefly in the shade nearby, awaiting their next assignment. . .

mom_dad_uniform.jpg

We found my father-in-law's headstone: The front has the Christian Cross with the old Chief's Curriculum Vita. Chief Yoest cut high school to catch World War II. He retired with rows of ribbons and a "v" device, and pinned butterbars on his boy. He now has a grandson, The Dude, who bears his name and wants to be a Navy pilot.

The reverse of the stone is blank, awaiting the inscripton for Chief Yoest's high school sweetheart, his wife, Jack's mom, "Babcia" (Polish for Grandmother), who is still with us. In the end, they will be buried together, an honor she earned.

As we turned to go, the Diva took her jingle-bell necklace from around her neck, and left it on the headstone. A fitting tribute for a warrior.

jingle_bell.jpg

Sailors, rest your oars.

We drove back down Bradley Avenue -- past a fresh grave covered by a tarp. In front of us, sparkling in the bright sunlight of a gorgeous day, stretched row after row of white marble markers, orderly, peaceful, some weathered, others new and crisply chiseled . . .

I turned to the Penta-Posse. "I want you to look," I said. "I want you to understand, that each one of these headstones represents someone who gave their life so that you could be free."

They were quiet and solemn. The weight of it is beyond measure.

The Dreamer said, "Don't cry, Mom."

We made the right turn onto Eisenhower. We drove slowly toward the exit, passing the drive to the Tomb of the Unknowns to our left, until we came to a crosswalk thronged with tourists. The guard on duty motioned to the crowd to stop, and we drove through, passing through the gates, back to a busy day, leaving behind -- the curious crowds, the chattering school children. . . and the silent stones.

Other Memorial Day Links:
Blackfive with "Opening the Gates of Heaven."
Intel Dump

Marine Corps Moms

LaShawn Barber's Corner

See Traffic Jam

June 01, 2005

Combat Action Badge, Unisex Design

Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker, Peter, J., has unveiled the design of the new Combat Action Badge, according to Military.com. It is a bayonet and hand grenade on a wreath.

The real significance of this new badge is that women are now eligible, too.

cab_image.jpg

New Combat Action Badge

If Google searches leading to this blog are any indication, the award is much anticipated.

"Warfare is still a human endeavor," Schoomaker, Peter, J. reports. "Our intent is to recognize Soldiers who demonstrate and live the Warrior Ethos."

And women are now "classified" as warriors as Schoomaker deliberately places women in combat after Congress went French on us and surrendered (without firing a shot) in a recent effort to address the issue.

President Bush has stated that women will not be placed in combat; Congress has stated that women will not be placed in combat.

Too bad. The Army says differently. And now, they get a Combat Action Badge to prove it.

(What's next? We voted "non;" the Army elites say "oui." The US Army thinks like the EU . . .)

The boiled frog strategy is rolling along . . . And they wonder why their male recruiting numbers are down??

LINKS:

Can't tell if he'll agree with me on the unisex issue, but Watch Your Six says "we don't need no stinkin' badges" for another reason. . .

Mudville, Open Post -- (gosh, Greyhawk, did TCOverride survive the live grenade??!)

And Outside the Beltway, Traffic Jam.

See PatriotVoices

May 31, 2005

John Doe, Son of a Gun

In the 17th century women were frequent visitors to warships to comfort the crew. And these relationships produced children, some legitimate, some not. The fathers were sometimes known, sometimes not. Babies on board were birthed out between the cannon on the gun deck providing some measure of privacy. The baby's paternity might be noted as "son of a gun."

gun_deck_uss_constitution.jpg

Gun deck USS Constitution
Image Credit

Our military heros have been siring sons for centuries; men who did the right thing for their country but, perhaps, could have done better for their women.

Let me tell a story, a true story . . . but no names, no links. I want to honor the young man of whom I speak, while yet grieving over a wound left behind. . .

In a very public event, in a very public place, our young man was laid to rest in the Hallowed Grounds of Arlington National Cemetery. He gave the last full measure of devotion defending our country and our way of life.

As the military honor guard moved through the sad ritual of folding the casket flag -- snap and crease, smooth and fold -- a young woman sat solemnly holding the young man's son. But the young woman was not his wife; the little boy did not carry the young man's name: he's a 21st century son of a gun.

The little boy received the folded flag, honoring his father. Another flag went to the mother of the fallen soldier. . .not the mother of his child.

Scriptures teach us that there is no greater love than that a man give his life for another. There is no greater love, but might there be some regrets, some good not done? Is our soldier in the warrior's Valhalla wondering now what he might have done differently? As he passes the streams at Fiddler's Green does he wonder what he could revisit on this side of eternity?

Stories about the young man's death said that he joined the military to provide for his son; he wanted to be an honorable man. And he eagerly planned to return to the young woman and care for his son.

The young man gave his life for us all. And the Nation is grateful. But I wonder if our grieving would be more complete if, as he gave his life for us, he had given his name to his son.

God bless him, and his son of a gun.


And a salute to Outside The Beltway

May 25, 2005

The Death of Private Sam Huff, Cutie Pie

DODc-small.gif

IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 19, 2005
DoD Identifies Army Casualty

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Pfc. Sam W. Huff, 18, of Tucson, Ariz., died April 18 in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries sustained on April 17 in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near her HMMWV. Huff was assigned to the 170th Military Police Company, 504th Military Police Battalion, 42nd Military Police Brigade, Fort Lewis, Wash.



# # #

Sam Huff was, says her grieving father, a "cutie pie."

sam_huff.jpg

Sam Huff
High School Graduation

Paul Hogue at My Dogs Are Smarter draws our attention to the story of Sam's recent death in Iraq . . . and her father's comments about women in combat.

Paul comments that "subjecting women to the vagaries of combat" is not just an issue of military readiness, but is also inherently immoral. He also adds movingly that this issue is "about how civilized societies treat their wives and daughters, their moms and sisters."

I agree. But Barbara Eakins does not. She recently wrote, in response to the post I wrote about the draft, to ask:

Why is it unacceptable to draft my daughter but not my son? I am opposed to war and have no desire for either of them to go to die. But why is it fair to send my son to his death and not my daughter?

Sam Huff's dad said much the same thing, arguing that any child's death is a great sorrow: "It doesn't make a difference whether their kids are male or female, young or old."

Of course, he's right about that.

As the mother of three daughters, and two sons, I've thought a lot about why we send our sons, and not our daughters to war. There's no easy answer to this question: it's like Sophie's Choice.

Let me respond in this way. At Sam's funeral, they played the song "Butterfly Kisses" a song Bob Carlisle wrote, he says as a "private love letter" to his daughter Brooke.

The song is about "daddy's little girl," and they played it at the funeral of an 18-year-old 110 pound cutie-pie, KIA. USA Today quoted Martha Kleder, formerly an Air Force enlisted, and a policy analyst for Concerned Women for America, who observed: "You don't play Butterfly Kisses at the funeral of a warrior."

Why our sons, and not our daughters? It's hard to express why, but it is unutterably sad to hear "Butterfly Kisses" lingering in the air, along with the sharp crack of a military rifle salute, and the mournful notes of Taps. . .

God bless the Huff family in their loss.

Butterfly Kisses(Listen here.)
There's two things I know for sure

She was sent here from Heaven

And she's daddys little girl

As I drop to my knees by her bed at night

She talks to Jesus and I close my eyes

And I thank God for all of the joy in my life

Oh but most of all

For butterfly kisses after bedtime prayer
Stickin little white flowers all up in her hair
Walk beside the pony daddy
It's my first ride
I know the cake looks funny daddy
But I sure tried
Oh with all that I've done wrong
I must have done something right
TO deseve a hug every mornin
And butterfly kisses at night

Sweet 16 today
She's lookin like her mama
A little more every day
One part woman
The other part girl
To perfume and make up
From ribbons and curls
Trying her wings out in a great big world
But I remember

Butterfly kisses after bedtime prayer
Stickin little white flowers all up in her hair
You know how much I love you daddy
But if you don't mind
I'm only gonna kiss you on the cheek this time
Oh with all that I've done wrong
I must have done something right
To deserve her love every morning
And butterfly kisses at night

All the precious time
Like the wind the years go by
Precious Butterfly
Spread your wings and fly

Continue reading "The Death of Private Sam Huff, Cutie Pie" »

Women Lose Women in Combat Vote

donnelly.gif

Elaine Donnelly
Center for Military Readiness

Today, the House of Representatives dropped a provision in the Defense spending bill that would have codified the military regulations which prohibit assigning women to units with a direct land combat mission, or support companies that collocate with combat units. This was an important amendment that addressed the Army's recent "boiled frog" strategy of moving women into Forward Support Companies, that you've been reading about here.

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, who has been working on this issue, was upbeat about today's development on the Hill. She says that having the Congress begin a debate on women in combat represents real progress:

This was the first time in 10 years that women in combat has been on the legislative radar screen.

Nevertheless, Francis the frog is still a-boilin'. And more sisters, daughters -- and mothers -- are in harm's way.

** Check out the other great posts at Mudville, Open Post.

May 21, 2005

We Salute You! Armed Forces Day 2005

To all of you serving our country in the military today -- and your families -- we salute you! We thank you. We pray for you. And to Josh, Michael, and Will, in particular . . .We Love You! Be Safe.

armed_services_day.jpg

Voluntaries

By Ralph Waldo Emerson

***

In an age of fops and toys,
Wanting wisdom, void of right
Who shall nerve heroic boys
To Fathom all in Freedom's fight -
Break sharply off their jolly games
Forsake their comrades gay
And quit proud homes and youthful dames
For famine, toil and fray?
Yet on the nimbler air benign
Speed nimble messages
That waft the breath of grace divine
To hearts in sloth and ease
So nigh is grandeur to our hearts
So near is God to man
When Duty whispers low, Thou Must
The youth replies, I can.


Thanks to Paratrooper.net for the moving poem.

Matt at Blackfive, says that there are protests scheduled today at recruiting offices around the country (how dare they?), and suggests buying a recruiter a cup of coffee instead! He also provides a link to events honoring the military around the country.

May 17, 2005

The Politics of the Draft

Why worry about women in combat? Why not just let the Pentagon go ahead with boiling the frog? After all, proponents argue, it is an all-volunteer army now.

Let me highlight one reason, among others: the draft.

This argument is often dismissed automatically as being politically untenable. "They'll never bring the draft back!" But that is short-sighted and naive.

If women in the military begin serving in combat, voluntarily, and the ban against women in ground combat is lifted, then there will be no legal basis for maintaining their exclusion from the draft.

gibby_sarah_airforce.jpg

Not My Little Girls

This is just common sense. As further evidence of how plausible this scenario is, here's an article in this month's Washington Monthly, "The Case for the Draft," arguing for a reinstated draft now, that would include both men and women:

A better solution would fix the weaknesses of the all-volunteer force without undermining its strengths. Here's how such a plan might work. Instead of a lottery, the federal government would impose a requirement that no four-year college or university be allowed to accept a student, male or female, unless and until that student had completed a 12-month to two-year term of service. . . They would be deployed as needed for peacekeeping or nation-building missions. They would serve for 12-months to two years, with modest follow-on reserve obligations.

The authors do hedge their bets a little by including "national service programs" like tutoring with AmeriCorps as part of their draft program. But there is still the legal issue: on what legal grounds would you exclude the rest of the female population from mandatory combat service once some women are serving voluntarily, should the need arise?

We face an unknown future, so our policy decisions today should be guided by wisdom informed by yesterday's history. One thing we do know is that nation's must be prepared to protect themselves against the unexpected. Any other posture is sheer foolishness.

Some of the wisdom of yesterday includes knowing the politics of the draft. One of the legacies of Vietnam was General Westmoreland's strategy of using the draft to fill ranks. Instead of calling up the standing army, reserves, national guard, then finally the general population, Westmoreland bypassed this cascade -- we went from standing army directly to the civilian population. His rationale was that he could keep the draftees longer.

We all know the domestic political tension that resulted, and continues to haunt us today. How much worse would that political conflagration be if Uncle Sam comes after our daughters?

The politics of "allowing" women in combat lead remorselessly toward drafting women. And a feminine mobilization leads directly to political gridlock right at a time when self-defense requires prompt, resolute, decisive action.

We simply cannot afford to advance on the assumption that we will never again need a mass mobilization to defend our country. In some sad tomorrow, we may need to call up civilians, but not now, not today.

And not women.

LINKS:
See Outside the Beltway for info on tomorrow's vote on women in combat in the Armed Services committee.

And Intel-Dump for a pro-women in combat argument. . .

Thanks for the link to Mudville's Open Post and to OTB's Daily Linkfest.

May 16, 2005

Sergeant Christopher Pusateri: Who was with him when he died?

We've been following the Pentagon's "boiled frog" strategy related to women in combat. . . the plan has been to simply go ahead and put women into combat, present it to the American people as a fait accompli, knowing that the media would then do profiles on the women as hero(ine)s. . .

As predicted, that's exactly how it has unfolded.

jennifer_guay.jpg

Specialist Jennifer Guay
82nd Airborne

An article by Amy Scott Tyson, "For Female GIs, Combat Is a Fact: Many Duties in Iraq Put Women at Risk Despite Restrictive Policy," in Friday's Washington Post lays it all out. They aren't even pretending.

Many commanders in Iraq say they see a widening gap between war-zone realities and policies designed to limit women's exposure to combat.

Although the Army is barred from assigning women to ground combat battalions, in Iraq it skirts the ban with a twist in terminology. Instead of being "assigned," women are "attached in direct support of" the battalions, according to Army officers familiar with the policy. As a result, the Army avoids having to seek Pentagon and congressional approval to change the policy, officers said.

"What has changed? Nothing," said Lt. Col. Bob Roth of the 3rd Infantry Division. "You just want someone to feel better by saying we don't allow women in dangerous situations."

Although the Army is banned . . .it skirts the law . . .?!! And now, because what they are doing is in line with The Washington Post's opinions, the media just goes along as cheerleaders? What happened to a little healthy media skepticism?

Continue reading "Sergeant Christopher Pusateri: Who was with him when he died?" »

May 12, 2005

Chastity in Iraq; Chastity for Top Gun -- Katie Holmes, Tom Cruise and Enduring Values

Sex and virtue . . . Men across cultures: Are good-girls back still in style? Maybe there are some customs so enduring they sell in both Hollywood . . . and Iraq.

Army Colonel John R. Martin writes from Iraq:

One of the servicemen here married an Iraqi woman working for us. Even in the twenty-first century, American soldiers are supposed to ask permission before doing such things. He didn’t, but we’re still trying to help him get his war bride home.

I took the issue to the consular officer at the embassy today, so I got to look at the application. The marriage certificate included certification that a dowry had been requested ($25,000) and excused by the bride’s family.

Also had a statement of the bride’s chastity. Wonder if those things would sell in the U.S.

Well, yes, Col. Martin, they just might.

The tabloids are all agog with word that Katie Holmes has stated to the world that she will remain a virgin until she marries.

katie_holmes_father_mother.jpg
Katie Holmes
with her parents

And now she's dating Tom Cruise (not really a Top Gun, but played one in the movies).

katie_holmes_tom_cruise.jpg
Tom and Katie together in Rome

The tabloids have reported breathlessly that Cruise filled Katie's room with dozens of red roses.

I wish I could tell Lynndie England she could have done so much better than having sex with a dud.

Of course, we've seen this scenario before with other starlets. But my vote is with Katie. Why? Look at that picture of her with her parents. Both of them. While other reporters are fixated on the wolf with red roses, I'm interested in what she has to say about the other man in her life -- her father: She consults him on every major decision, and "He always tried to intimidate boys who wanted to date me," she says (according to Sky Showbiz, link above.)

It's a dad thing. In every culture.

On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?

Would he offer me his mouth?

Yes

Would he offer me his teeth?

Yes

Would he offer me his jaws?

Yes

Would he offer me his hunger?

Yes

Again, would he offer me his hunger?

Yes

And would he starve without me?

Yes

And does he love me?

Yes

Yes

On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?

Yes

You took the words right out of my mouth. . .

© by MeatLoaf


Thanks to alert readers, Stan H., and the Brilliant Brother.

Link to Mudville's Open Post

Attaboy to Attaboy

See Jackson's Junction

Outside the Beltway has news and pic

Update: Blogger 11D also thinks the couple is odd.

Update: Common Sense Runs Wild is making sense

Update: See what the Professor thinks at Daniel W. Drezner about Katie Holmes/Cruise

Update: Steal The Bandwagon presents another question at Katie Holmes...

Update: Michelle Malkin has pic of the Death Grip

update 22 June 2005: The Owner's Manual has more wisdom/wit at Tom Cruise: The Movie

The Anchoress has an excellent opinion as always

Update July 14: The Movie Star Blog says Cruise Gets Results.

May 11, 2005

Breaking News: Congress Addressing Women in Combat

Just got word: Congressional Republicans are finally moving to address the problems we've been highlighting with the new Army policy of assigning women to Forward Support Companies. I wrote about the FSC issue here. And the women in combat posts on one page can be found here.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Women soldiers in the U.S. Army would be barred from serving in combat support units under language added to a defense bill Wednesday. Proponents of the measure said it would affect only a small number of women, while opponents said over time, it would drastically alter the face of the modern army.

The amendment sponsored by Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's military personnel subcommittee, would prohibit women from combat support and combat service support units.

``The current policy does not serve women well,'' said McHugh. ``The current policy places them in a company and treats them as equal until it's time to move forward and then they have to be left behind.''

The subcommittee voted along party lines to approve the amendment. The bill, setting Defense Department policy for next year, is expected to be debated by the full Armed Services Committee next week.

Full article from Newsday, here.

Thanks, Greyhawk, for Open Post and Outside the Beltway, for Traffic Jam.

May 10, 2005

Abracadabra at Abu Ghraib: the Tragic Story of Lynndie England, Charles Graner and Megan Ambuhl

A reader, Martha, a former Air Force enlisted, who has been following the thread on women in combat with concern, writes to explain the "Abracadabra" issue:

I have heard horrid stories from deployed friends about the attitude toward women in the ranks. Even unattractive girls have a throng of men around them all the time when they are in "Bad Guy Land". The names they give those women is crass. "Golden P**sy Syndrome" and similar things.

Then, on the flight home, "abracadabra" they are ugly again. The rejection is as sudden and violent as an IED attack. How can men be allowed to treat fellow soldiers like this, then turn around and treat them with respect on the battlefield?

Sadly, I didn't have to go further than today's New York Times to get a real-life illustration of why this kind of thing is no small matter. In an article, Behind Failed Abu Ghraib Plea, a Tangle of Bonds and Betrayals about Lynndie England, Charles Graner and Megan Ambuhl, the reporter, Kate Zernike lays out a tragic story that puts an even sorrier twist to the already sordid tale of Abu Ghraib.

lynddie_england_charles_graner.jpg
Lynndie England and Charles Graner

megan_ambuhl.jpg
Credit: L.M. Otero/Associated Press
Megan Ambuhl,
Graner's new wife

The short version of the story is that Charles Graner was treating the United States Army like his own personal harem, carrying on overlapping affairs with both Lynndie England and Megan Ambuhl. Then, when Lynndie got pregnant, and sent home, they broke up. Graner sent an email to his father: "I stopped seeing her back in january but when all this garbage came out i started seeing her again," he wrote. "chances are very good that it is my child....o well....daddy what did you bring home from the war????"

That's some war souvenir.

With Lynndie sent home, Graner focused on Ambuhl. The two co-conspirators recently married at Ft. Hood, a surrogate groom standing in for Graner, who is already in prison.

A few quotes from the NYT piece:

Continue reading "Abracadabra at Abu Ghraib: the Tragic Story of Lynndie England, Charles Graner and Megan Ambuhl" »

May 09, 2005

Women in Combat - Elaine Donnelly on NRO Today

For those of you following the women in combat issue, you'll want to be sure to see Elaine Donnelly's piece on women in combat on NRO today:

The blueprint appears to be a “Women in the Army Point Paper” prepared by the office of Army Secretary Francis Harvey on January 24, which includes a subtle but significant change in the wording of Defense Department regulations.

Current directives exempt female soldiers from direct ground-combat units such as the infantry and armor, and from smaller support companies that “collocate” (operate 100 percent of the time) with land-combat troops. The new, unauthorized wording narrows the “collocation rule” to apply only when a combat unit is actually “conducting an assigned direct ground combat mission”.

General Schoomaker recited Defense Department regulations, but claimed (without justification) that the Army has separate rules that exempt female soldiers from collocation with land-combat battalions “at the time that those units are undergoing those operations”. By adding the words “conducting” or “undergoing” (a direct ground-combat mission) to the collocation rule, the Army has created a new regulation that has not been authorized by the Secretary of Defense, or reported to Congress in advance, as required by law.

May 05, 2005

The Stuffed Animal Raid

stuffedanimalsmarine.jpg
Photo: Sandra Jontz
Chief Warrant Officer 2
Jill St. John
Combat Logistics Battalion 8

Here we go. Again. From the Stars and Stripes, "Marine raid breaks gender barrier." (From Lucianne.)

erin libby.jpg
Photo: Sandra Jontz
Lance Cpl. Erin Libby
"Rocking on the front line"
Handing out toys in Karmah

The Stars and Stripes is reporting that this past Saturday, the Marines took 14 women from the Combat Logistics Battalion 8 with them on a raid 15 miles northeast of Fallujah. The women's usual jobs involve "supplying ammunition, food, water, fuel and mail." The reason for the change in job assignment?

Cultural sensitivities precluded male Marines from searching women, so the female Marines were meant to deflate fears of Iraqi men and women, said the battalion executive officer, Maj. Larry Miller. It was a first in Iraq to have female Marines embedded at the lowest levels of infantry companies and working alongside their male counterparts.

So "cultural sensitivities" now justify violating Department of Defense regulations against taking women into combat and the law which requires Congressional notification before doing so?

The problem with this vignette explodes in several directions. The article uses female suicide bombers to explain why we need to be searching Iraqi women.

girl bomber.jpg

That's a real problem. But let us get this straight: because terrorists encourage their women to blow themselves up, we have to send our women into harm's way? To respect "cultural sensitivities?"

Here's Daniel Pipes on our efforts at cultural sensitivity: "This is probably the most "culturally sensitive" occupation of a country in all of recorded history. . . and is not likely to be rewarded with reciprocal good will."

And then there's the inherent contradictions in the situation -- they're in a combat zone. . . handing out teddy bears. It's like some sort of weird fluffernutter sandwich. They are using this experience to say that women can handle combat as well as men, (see the boiling a frog thread; this is a perfect example) but they have enough leeway to take time and hand out stuffed animals afterward.

Lance Corporal Erin Libby is quoted as saying: “We’re out here, and we’re rocking on the front line.”

Our cultural sensitivities, and our law, includes not sending women into combat. This issue of using female soldiers to pat-down female Iraqui's did come up in our recent Pentagon meeting: it's time for Congress to get serious about women in combat policy.

UPDATE: And one more thing -- what does this example of the Marine's taking female support troops along on a combat raid say about the Army's argument (see here) that their newly gender-integrated Forward Support Companies won't take women into combat?

May 04, 2005

Combat Action Badge - Now for Women, too.

For everyone following the frog. . .I've been writing about the Army's plan (nefarious!) to insert women in combat. Some readers have been skeptical that it is a deliberate plan. But I'm the one collecting coins now.

harvey_schoomaker.jpg
Secretary of the Army, Francis Harvey
looking toward Army Chief of Staff,
General Peter Schoomaker

Here's more evidence of Schoomaker, et.al. "boiling the frog." The Army announced today that it will be issuing a new "Combat Action Badge." (Thanks, IntelDump.) Women will be eligible, even retroactively (quote, Washington Post):

Any Army soldier who has seen active combat while in Iraq or Afghanistan may now receive a new "Combat Action Badge," making tens of thousands of soldiers who are not in the infantry ranks -- including women -- eligible for a combat award for the first time.

Wait one -- there are some really subtle points that need to be made about this decision. I support our women in uniform. And, surely our support goes to the women who have come under fire in Iraq. This really isn't about them.

The issue is the policy decisions being made, and some that are studiously not being made, that are putting an increasing number of women in harm's way. Deliberately. The badge merely comes after as a way of presenting the fait accompli.

This is a case study on path dependence.

A further quote from the Post story helps illustrate my point:

The badge is the first non-medical combat distinction to honor women who are caught in battle during U.S. wars, largely because women are not assigned to frontline combat duties.

Read that carefully. Women are being "caught in battle" because they are being assigned near where battle can, might, will happen. It's that simple.

At the announcement of the new badge, Schoomaker said: “Warfare is still a human endeavor. Our intent is to recognize Soldiers who demonstrate and live the Warrior Ethos.” The Band of Brothers now includes your Sister.

May 02, 2005

American Knight: Congratulations Captain Thunder

Captthunder.JPG
Captain Thunder6

Lieutenant Thunder6 was promoted to Captain in a wonderful, and history-laden, ceremony. It's worth reading the whole thing -- Thunder6 writes beautifully, and his words take you to the scene. But here's his promotion ceremony, in the middle of the desert, in the middle of the night:

...As he finished pinning the rank the LTC half whispered “take a knee”. Once I had dropped to one knee he pulled out his tomahawk and gently placed it on my left shoulder. Then he told everyone assembled “he kneeled a lieutenant, now he rises a Captain” and helped me to my feet.

There was no pageantry in that wretched field. Truth be told there were few witnesses – all eyes were scanning for contact. But I wouldn’t have traded the rugged midnight ceremony for any amount of pomp and circumstance. For an instant that wretched field was nobler then any parade ground - war be damned.

The Majesty. The Gallantry. The Chivalry. The Tradition. . . . there is something about the warrior ethos, so mysteriously masculine, that deserves preservation.

Tradition holds that women were not knighted on the battlefield as Thunder6 was. A Gentlemen would never permit a blade to touch a lady. (With few exceptions.) It was his mission to stand between her and the edged weapon.

Were it so today.

April 30, 2005

What's a Boiled Frog, Anyway??

For those of you who want a little political theory with your Saturday coffee, be reassured, we'll get around to path dependence at the end of this post, after suffering through my analogy. But first, a little frog fun.

frog1.jpg
Recoding the Forward Support Companies

You may wonder, with good reason, why I keep talking about "boiled frogs" . . .You know the old aphorism: if you want to boil a frog, turn the heat up slowly. If the water gets too hot, too fast, the frog will jump out. But if it gets hot slowly, he'll get cooked.

frog2.jpg

I'm arguing that this is precisely what the military is doing with women in combat -- turning the heat up slowly, so that no one notices. If they came right out and announced, "Hey, we're going to start putting women in combat" it wouldn't go over real well. Not to mention being against the President's explicit policy, which he recently reiterated in January, of maintaining the ban on women in combat.

Although he agrees with me on women in combat, Donald Sensing, over at One Hand Clapping, doesn't care for my analogy. He says that I:

seem to assign nefarious motives to the Army’s senior leaders; they are apparently scurrilous minions of the feminist left who have a master plan eventually to infiltrate women into every combat job. In the meantime they have to desensitize moms and dads and other Americans to the idea of women killed, wounded and maimed in battle.

frog3.jpg

A "master plan" of infiltration. . . Yes, yes, that's it exactly! (Plus, he didn't split his infinitives. A good man. Better to be grammatically correct than politically correct.) The funny thing is that when I was at the Pentagon on Thursday, one of the first things that General Schwartz, (Director, Joint Staff, three stars) said was that nothing "nefarious" was going on -- Yes! Yes! "nefarious" the same word! A conspiracy! I think they are on your page, Donald.

. . . "nefarious??" The general doth protest too much, methinks.

frog4.jpg

Here's the Army's plan -- I'd like to hear, particularly from the MilBloggers, if you think it's nefarious, or not. Listen, even if it's not nefarious, I still think it's a stupid plan that "lacks attention to detail."

This is a dicey issue: If anyone active duty wants to weigh in anonymously, I'd love to hear from you and will protect your identity. (Email link on right sidebar.)

Continue reading "What's a Boiled Frog, Anyway??" »

It's Just What Moms Do . . .

If you are coming over from LaShawn's Corner, welcome!

With the writing I've been doing on women in combat, I've been thinking a lot about the differences between men and women, moms and dads. A lot of people want to argue that there isn't much difference.

But my friend and mentor, Steve Rhoads, wrote a book this last year Taking Sex Differences Seriously which lays out all the evidence that, in fact, moms and dads, while equally important, are not interchangeable. (You can find a direct link to get this important book on the left sidebar!) For example, moms are better able to hear their baby's cry than dads are. Strange, but true.

This week was the Dude's tenth birthday, so we had the cousins over last night. The Penta-Posse plus Two were camped out in the family room, including the Dancer, who hasn't been feeling very well this week. The physical space separating us included stairs and a door. . .

In the middle of the night, I woke up, for no obvious reason, so started trying to go back to sleep. But I couldn't. Something felt wrong. I listened carefully. I heard nothing. Or was there something faint?

I decided to check on the kids since I was awake, and as I opened the door to head down the hall toward the family room, I heard the Dancer crying as if her heart would break. She was curled up in a ball on the couch, the blanket on the floor, her body cold, her head hot.

Why didn't you come to me, baby? I asked.

It was dark. . . I was scared. . .

I got her some medicine, took her to our room, and got her settled in snugly. She burrowed in and went to sleep immediately. With the commotion, Jack woke up. What's going on?

Over the years, with five kids, we've had our fair share of multiple kids throwing up, so he's been a part of plenty of night-time traumas.

But, usually, mom is the one who hears the first cry. It's just what moms do.

April 28, 2005

Frog Headlines: Is this what America Wants?

This is Lieutenant Dawn Halfaker. Is this what America wants?

amputee_lt_dawn_halfaker_tim_dillon_usatoday.bmp
Lt. Dawn Halfaker

Today's USA Today carries Dawn's story -- she lost her right arm in combat in Iraq. And here's what USA TODAY quotes her as saying, right next to this picture of her holding her prosthetic device:

'Women in combat is not really an issue,' she says. 'It is happening.'
This is a perfect example of "the boiled frog strategy": the Army wants the American public to gradually "get used to" seeing women in combat. They know if they put it to a vote in Congress -- which they are legally required to do -- they would lose. So the strategy is to just gradually change the regulations, so that more and more women are put in harms way; then, when women like Dawn get hurt, no one can say anything.

But we should.

Just because women can go into combat, doesn't mean they should.

I have a lot more to say about this. But, for now, let me highlight this quote from another female soldier who is currently recuperating from combat wounds at Walter Reed:

[Juanita] Wilson, 31, [Army staff sergeant who lost her hand in Iraq] says she has observed one major difference among amputees at Walter Reed. The men, she says, care much less about their appearance and will often move about without their artificial limbs. She won't. "I just don't think America is ready to see a woman without an arm," Wilson says.

Men and women are different.

I am headed to the Pentagon this morning to talk with the brass about their boiled frog strategy with my friend Elaine Donnelly from the Center for Military Readiness. USA Today quotes Elaine, who explains that this is not about the women themselves -- gosh, we support them -- this about public policy:

'I have nothing but admiration for those women who've been injured,' Donnelly says. 'But I am critical of the Pentagon policymakers.'

Donnelly says the Army, wanting to create more opportunities for women and make them more promotable, is bending rules to push those in support units close to front-line combat in Iraq.

Check back later. I'll report on our meeting at the Pentagon.

Most importantly: God bless Dawn Halfaker and all the other amputees in Walter Reed.

April 25, 2005

Schoomaker 2: Attempting to Rescue the Frog. . .

As a preface to this post, let me ask: as a matter of military strategy, how does one confront an entrenched opponent who has you outnumbered and out-gunned?

Patrick Walsh, a retired infantry Major, writes to tell me that I owe General Schoomaker an apology for last week's post about the General and the Army's move to put women in combat. If the Major is correct, and I have erred, then I will be happy to offer such an apology. On style points, the good Major may be correct -- that post is indeed edgy.

But I would emphasize that it is in no way personal. It's not personal, it's policy. I aim to mix equal parts reason and audacity -- one doesn't take on a four-star general, without giving the matter considerable thought and staff work. So my approach was deliberate.

Another reader instantly understood: "Wow," she wrote, "a little shock and awe." Going back to my prefatory question -- how, exactly, does one take on the Chief of Staff of the Army, when he is deliberately pursuing a back-door change in public policy?

My purpose in that post was to be punchy, and concise. The problem in combatting the Army's current path toward entrenching women in combat is that Schoomaker's plan (which is brilliant), though actually quite simple, is artfully and strategically deceptive and confusing to the lay person (brilliant). So I was aiming for brevity and simplicity.

But the Major complained that I didn't offer enough links (true), didn't fully make my case (see brevity concern above, although elsewhere I've linked to an in-depth piece which lays it all out), and, most of all, dragged Schoomaker's background into the argument illegitimately (I disagree).

Alright then. Fair enough. Let me respond in tortuous detail to the Major's lengthy critique of my post. Lots of links to follow. And a photo finish.

Continue reading "Schoomaker 2: Attempting to Rescue the Frog. . ." »

April 19, 2005

"How to Boil A Frog" by General Peter J. Schoomaker

It needs to be clarified, right at the start: placing women in combat is against the law.

But General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, United States Army, wants to place women in combat, rendering moot the Commander in Chief's orders and the intent of Congress. Not to mention, against the will of the people.

With Elaine Donnelly from the Center for Military Readiness, I recently met with then-Defense Secretary Wolfowitz, Army Secretary Francis Harvey, and Army Vice Chief, General Richard Cody to review military policy on placing women in harm's way. We discussed the challenges of having women under fire and at high risk of capture on the battlefield.

During our meeting, Harvey became agitated, Cody became hostile, and everyone vigorously denied the scenario where women could be, might be, in combat. But women will be in combat. And Schoomaker, Peter J., General, has a plan to make this happen.

So who is this guy?

The Man

Failed in Desert One in Iran under President Carter. He commanded a Squadron in the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment in the botched rescue attempt of embassy hostages in Iran, 1980. Dead soldiers. Ours.

Violated the Posse Comitatus Act in Waco. Working with General Wesley Clark as his Assistant Division Commander, Schoomaker, Peter, J., (very quietly) met with Janet Reno, allowing the FBI use of Fort Hood. (Bloggers didn't exist then.) The Armor and military personnel present at the conflagration were Schoomaker's, Peter J. Dead children. Dead babies. Dead women. Lots of them.

Promoted by Bill Clinton. More General's stars, lots of them.

The Plan

Place women in formerly all-male Forward Support Companies (FSC) training with, and "attached" to combat units. When the balloon goes up, and the troops advance, the women come out. So says General Cody. Only men will then be sent to the front, without the women. So says Secretary Harvey.

The End

When the bullets start flying, and the fog descends and transportation to the rear is mis-routed . . . "I need that truck moving forward" barks the SSGT. The mission will be everything. The women will remain with their units, uniquely embedded. And under fire.

Not many women will be killed, fewer raped. And they will do OK, and made into hero(ine)s by CNN.

Schoomaker, Peter J., will deliver a glowing after-action report, praising the womens' perfomance and will provide Congressional Testimony to allow minor policy wording changes codifying his brilliant use of human resources.

schoomakerpic.jpgGeneral Schoomaker cnn_logo.gif

And we will have women in combat, credit Schoomaker, Peter J., General.

Perfect stealth operation.

April 06, 2005

Get Women Out of Combat

lori3.gif

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness and I were in a meeting recently at the Pentagon with the Secretary of the Army, Francis Harvey and four-star General Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff to discuss women in combat. We discussed with them new Army policies that are putting female soldiers in combat zones.

Ironically, our travels then took us near Tuba City, Arizona, home of Lori Piestewa, Army Private First Class, the first female soldier killed in Iraq. The news was full of coverage of the services commemorating the second anniversary of the ambush in which Lori was captured and eventually killed on March 23, 2003.

Amidst all of the honor rightly due to Lori, no one is asking a critical question. Why? Why was Lori -- a woman and a mother -- close enough to combat to stumble directly into the vicious hands of the enemy?

I'll tell you why. And it's not just because she was a soldier.

We have a noble and honorable tradition of sparing women and children from combat. It's part of being a civilized culture. Some people cite female pilots from World War II as setting a precedent for putting women in combat. However, while those women did serve admirably in the war, they did not fly in combat zones and in combat missions.

President Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, the late Les Aspin, changed Defense Department policy in 1994 by removing "substantial risk of capture" from the regulations that defined a combat zone where women were not to be assigned.

Now, the Army is moving even further in the direction of assigning women to combat zones.

See this important article -- Elaine lays out details.

Watch this space for more. And comments are open below.

Salute to Mudville Gazette

And My View

Charmaine

About Charmaine

Writing

My writing over the years, and longer pieces: click here for more Reasoned Audacity.

Thatcher

"You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning."
~ Margaret Thatcher, 1980

Blog Blurbs

The Penta-Posse

The Penta-Posse

The Occasional Adventures of the Penta-Posse: Diva, Dreamer, Dude, Dancer, and Darlin' Boo . . .


Prev | List | Random | Next
JoinPowered by RingSurf!

Israel

Comments

Email:

comments at charmaineyoest dot com
Messages sent to this email are assumed to be public and publishable.

Amazon Honor SystemClick Here to PayLearn More

Blogroll

The Cotillion

The Cotillion

Site Meter

Powered By

MovableType

Site maintained by

Disclaimer

This is Charmaine Yoest's personal website. The views expressed here are solely her own.

Copyright, All Rights Reserved

Charmaine Yoest, 2006