Change? How About Changing This Ad?

I hardly ever watch network TV anymore. But I do love "Lost." As I was watching last night's episode, I saw Barack Obama's Washington State caucus 30-second ad on KXLY out of Spokane.

Towards the end of the ad, you hear Obama stating:

And I'll be a President who ends this war in Iraq and finally bring our troops home.

On the screen, we see first Obama with a soldier, then a homecoming scene. In that homcoming scene, (at about 0:26), notice the solider is wearing the 6-Color Desert Battle Dress Uniform, informally known as the "chocolate chip." That particular uniform was phased out around 1994. This means that the scene was probably shot during 1991 after Gulf War I. If anything demonstrates the Obama crowd's lack of military knowledge, this is it.

I'd like to see our troops come home too, but I would prefer it to be after they had finished the job like in Desert Storm versus some arbtitary deadline set by George Soros and MoveOn.org.

Appeal for Courage

Speaking of petitions....

An Appeal for Redress petition is currently being circulated in the military. An Appeal For Redress is an authorized means for active duty military to submit a grievance to Congress. It can be signed by Active Duty, Reserve, or National Guard military personnel. It is authorized by DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6.

The wording of the Appeal is:

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy

If you are active duty, reservist or National Guard, you can sign here. I would imagine contract ROTC cadets could sign as well.

"Why I Joined"

This was posted by a young Army Second Liuetenant on his MySpace blog on October 29, 2006:

Sunday, October 29, 2006
WHY I JOINED
Current mood: optimistic

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

2LT Mark Daily was killed in action by an IED in Mosul, Iraq on January 19, 2007. God rest his soul.

HT: Michelle Malkin

Hannity and Colmes: OUTSIDE the WIRE!!!

The executive producer of OUTSIDE the WIRE will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight at 8:40pm. They are going to talk about the documentary, what is really going on over there and they even might talk about the showing at WSU that we did. I hope all of you tune in.

Quote of the Day

"For every bad thing that happens 500 good things also happen. We helped a lot of people and I'm proud of that."

Iraq combat vet and Purple Heart winner Lance Corporal Riley F. McNeal, USMCR, as quoted in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

"Opposing viewpoints; WSU students who have served in Iraq have different opinions on war, reasons behind it"

Even though Amy Gray did not make it to the screening of "Outside the Wire" last month, I'm glad she did follow up with two of the vets that spoke that night in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News (although I wonder why she did not mention the event by name). These guys need to have their stories told, and thanks to the CRs, they have had that opportunity.

Brian Schafer will graduate from Washington State University on Saturday, but he won't get to rest for long. Next month, he and fellow WSU student Isaiah Bryant will return for their second tours of duty in Iraq.

Schafer and Bryant are among 93 current WSU students who are Iraq war veterans. They agree that most students don't think about the fact that soldiers are in a war zone and that four WSU graduates have been killed in the war.

"People think they have life so tough here," Schafer said. "It's hard to get along with the student population."

Frank Boothby, veterans coordinator for the WSU Office of Veterans Affairs, said he's sometimes surprised when he talks to civilian students who come to his office doing research for a political science or comparative cultures class.

"They do tend to be relatively unaware of what's going on over there," he said. "It's probably youth. I'd hate to say ignorance, but a lack of hearing much in-depth about what's going on over there."

Schafer and Bryant recently took part in a campus discussion about the war in Iraq, with a goal of educating their fellow students about their experiences. Another WSU student, Dell Hogge, 59, also has spoken publicly about his experiences in the war-torn country, although his views contrasted with those of Schafer and Bryant.

Seeing it first-hand

Schafer, a 24-year-old psychology student from Auburn, Wash., is a corporal in the Marines for the Papa Battery, 5th Battalion of the 14th Marine Regiment from Spokane. The all-male regiment was providing security at the Al Asad air base in the Al Anbar province of Iraq between August 2004 and February 2005. They were stationed in northern Iraq, about 124 miles west of Baghdad.

"We were the quick-react force for the area, on a two-minute standby," Schafer said.

He and six other men were on two-day rotations that required being 12 hours "at the ready." They then had 12 hours of downtime, although they were on alert around the clock. They stayed in portable storage units and could be out the door in four minutes with all their gear.

"We would hear the explosions and we could deploy the whole platoon," Schafer said. "When we got in the vehicles, they'd tell us where we were going."

Everyone from Schafer's group returned home safely, although he remembers hearing a Humvee drive off a 30-foot cliff in the dark because it was driving with blackout lights. Schafer helped rescue the men, who were taken by MedEvac to Germany.

Schafer was in Iraq on Jan. 30, 2005, the day the Iraqi people voted for the first time since the current American occupation began.

"To see them with their purple fingers (indicating they had already cast a ballot) waving Iraqi flags and American flags at the same time - it was a great feeling," he said. "Now they could vote for whoever they wanted, not just Saddam Hussein. They were crying and to see them waving both the flags - it was wonderful."

A different take

Not everyone who has served in Iraq shares Schafer's sentiment. Hogge, a former National Guardsman, returned from Iraq in July 2003.

"The people who serve us are good people who went in for good reasons," Hogge said, explaining that most soldiers enter the service for the many benefits, both financial and educational, and to serve the country. They also join the military because it's a family tradition.

"They're wonderful people in a no-win situation," he said. "The day we arrived in Kuwait, (President) George Bush told us that the war was over. He said that all was left to do was to clean up and go home. As soon as I found out we weren't hauling in food to help people, but concertina wire and ammunition, I wanted out."

Hogge has read dozens of anti-war books and encourages people to read them, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

"We are a mercenary army in the employ of oil companies," he said, wearing a T-shirt with the words "REFUSE ILLEGAL WAR."

One of the four WSU graduates who have been killed was an ROTC cadet from Hogge's platoon, Jamie (Campbell) Krausse. The others were Brian Freeman, an undergraduate, and alumni Damien Ficek and James Schull. Ficek was from Palouse and graduated from Palouse High School.

"I'm not trying to talk anyone out of going. They're doing what they were trained to do," Hogge said. "I just think it's wrong. Jamie's life was lost in vain, so that Exxon could make $39 billion last year - and it really ticks me off."

Hogge is studying Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the hopes he can help other veterans who are returning from Iraq. He speaks openly in support of other soldiers - and against the war. He said he knew soldiers who had nervous breakdowns, becoming highly anxious and hitting the ground when a cloud of dust stirred.

"They thought it was nerve gas," Hogge said. "I'm invested. This is personal."

Schafer's degree also is in psychology. He has done two reports on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and said he may pursue a graduate degree to continue his studies in that area.

"There's guys who came back with us who we don't see much. I don't know if it's deployment depression or PTSD," he said.

To those who lobby against the war, Schafer's eyes twitch in a quick roll. He tells of an Army friend whose job is so classified that Schafer does not know what he does.

"He told me, 'If the American public knew half of what I know, they'd be glad we're over there,' " he said. "When you go, you put your opinions to the side and just go."

Headed back

Bryant was in the infantry with the 792nd Chemical Company based in Yakima. He worked mainly with the military police, guarding prisoners.

"We're trying to win the hearts and minds of the people there. Nowhere in the history of civilization has the goal been to help people. We were there to help people," he said. "The Iraqi people are very supportive. There was huge resistance four years ago, but it's the insurgent groups that are causing the problems."

Bryant's contract is up in October and he intends to re-enlist for another three years.

"I love the uniform; I love serving. Even with some of the crappy stuff that happens, it's great. You make great friends and get opportunities you wouldn't get otherwise."

Schafer said he does not allow himself to think about the dangers.

"I just put it to the back of my mind. I never try to think about it much. You just deal with it when it comes, wake up the next morning and keep going."

Thoughts from an evening at Outside the Wire: What It Means to Truly Support the Troops

In the context of the contemporary university campus, it takes bravery to present the particular side of things the WSU College Republicans showed to the WSU campus by screening Outside the Wire. It certainly is not bombs and bullets that our CR's have to face, which they admitted before the film rolled, but it would be wrong to dismiss as insignificant the social toll that comes with speaking truth to the left-indoctrinated around these parts. It’s an ugly job, but someone’s got to do it.

More than anything else I witnessed last night, it was this frank admission on the part of the CR’s - that they have not fought in the war they support – that struck me, bringing into sharper focus for me the importance of each individual's contributions to a war effort. Having been an infantry soldier, I was for a long time given to believing that only those of us of the "we've put up, the rest of you shut up" set had a legitimate say in and contribution to war efforts. I was wrong.

This is exactly what many of the leftist/unreasonably-pacifist set will often claim, particularly against individuals like our CR's. But the leftists do not say so because they've been in my boots, but only because they perceive this attack as being an all-undercutting criticism of individuals and their support of our nation’s various wars, individuals who have not carried arms in defense of our nation. It is a cowardly ad hominem the leftists know to have some force because of the weight typically given to it by veterans.

That is exactly why I have consciously stopped endorsing that line of reasoning: it only has a hint of legitimacy so long as we warriors also endorse it, which is unfortunate as its most frequent users are those who would do us harm. Veterans – do not endorse this thinking; those who use it are at best not our friends, they are otherwise our enemies, and the notion itself is false!

When one considers everything that goes into winning a war, it is plainly obvious that there is more to it than beans and bullets. No army of any democratic nation will ever win any war in the absence of supporting ideals and individuals; the idea of doing such a thing is meaningless to us. We do not make war for the sake of war.

Overwhelming force is obviously necessary to win strictly as a matter of physics, but human beings are more than simple mechanisms of action and reaction. We require something to believe in to propel us forward; we require ideas. As such, it is our ideas that are truly powerful, for without them we might lack inspiration to do anything at all with our troops and weapons, much less anything else. We know this to be true because the human race has seen it again and again throughout history - if there is not heart in the fight, the fight will be lost.

Therefore the support of those who are not directly involved in this fight is not only welcome, it is necessary for victory! Conversely, those who oppose this war and who actively work against it, their works will contribute to defeat (particularly by emboldening an enemy who might otherwise be demoralized and defeated); defeat is the only other outcome possible if the outcome is not victory. Human beings, being possessed of free will, can choose what it is that they will individually endorse, so it is then worthwhile to examine what it is that individuals do endorse and why to see which endorsement is moral.

In this fight, we are faced with an avowed enemy who is out to destroy our way of life. They are openly hostile to the core values that our nation is founded upon, and they make no bones about not distinguishing between civilians and soldiers as they kill to achieve their objectives. We have been shown numerous times their willingness to kill innocent people, with the September 11th attacks being the most spectacular, and in other attacks they have carried out against our allies, such as the triple hotel bombings in Amman, Jordan on November 9th, 2005, which saw one of those bombs being detonated in the midst of a wedding reception. In the UK and in Spain, they have deliberately killed hundreds of civilians in separate train bombings. Kenya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel, the Netherlands, India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon… the list goes on.

To support the war on terror, and thus to support our troops, is to oppose these things, to be against the murderers who have set themselves against us. It is to place your personal endorsement on our core values of freedom and justice, to align yourself with the belief that the proper destiny of each person is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It acknowledges that our enemies will not confine themselves to mere words, but do actively seek to kill us, and that they must therefore be destroyed. This is why we fight.

To oppose the war is to endorse the evil committed by our enemies, if not overtly, then at least by a cowardly, passive permissibility, as what they do is without any excuse and can rightly only be condemned and eliminated. The evil acts committed by our enemies do not permit us the space to not act, since their evil is of such a type and degree that it is morally abominable to not fight and defeat them. They must be answered, and they must be made to answer to justice. If you will not do so, or at least agree that this is so, then you might as well be one of them. Weakly throwing in "I support the troops!" as a disclaimer does not redeem you.

With that, I’d like to close with a few words penned by John Stewart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse…A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Thank you for what you’re doing, CR’s. What you’ve done and what I’m sure you’ll all continue to do really does mean a lot to our veterans, both those currently in the field and those of us who have been.

To the protesters… you’re welcome.

VFW Statement On Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill

In case you missed this – please read. Then send a message to your Congressman, Congresswoman or Senator to let them know if you agree with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. If you live in the Washington’s 5th District (Eastern Washington) you may contact Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers at jwmcmorris@yahoo.com. Please forward this message to your family and friends.

Statement by George Lisicki
Senior Vice Commander, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Las Vegas, Nevada
April 3, 2007

VFW Statement

As we all know, President Bush has vowed to veto the war supplemental legislation that Congress recently voted to pass.

Both the House and the Senate funding packages were loaded with extraneous spending not related to the war on terror. The funding packages also contained artificial troop withdrawal deadlines that would ultimately break the morale of our troops in the field and directly jeopardize their safety.

Speaking on behalf of America's largest organization of combat veterans, I am calling on all members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives to, for now, reserve further debate and provide the funds needed by our troops to prosecute the Global War on Terror, Iraq clearly being the centerpiece of that war.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. It's about American men and women tasked with fighting a war and now being told their effort and sacrifice don't matter because a date on the calendar will send them home whether they've finished the job or not.

At this time we ask Congress to never cut or withhold funding for troops deployed or being deployed to a war zone. They must ensure that those who are sent to war have the best equipment and strong support of this congress. Give them the tools necessary to complete the mission you sent them on, and do it without further delay.

When Congress reconvenes, they need to approve funding for war related requirements ONLY and debate the other issues in separate legislation.

Today, there are disturbing reports that the Senate Majority Leader from the great state of Nevada, Senator Reid, has stated that he will introduce legislation that would immediately cut off funding for the war. By proposing this type of legislation, Senator Reid would be abdicating the responsibility he has to help protect and defend our nation and to the men and women serving in our Armed Forces.

Simply put, it's reckless and is tantamount to waving a white flag of surrender to the enemy.

If such legislation is introduced by Senator Reid, he can be assured that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States will strongly urge its membership to work to defeat its passage.

This concludes my statement.

George Lisicki Senior Vice Commander Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.