Comments Posted By Andrew
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 58 Comments
WHY COOLER HEADS MUST PREVAIL ON IRAN
Rick,
Good post as always. I see this is a discussion we've both visted before:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/01/19/thinking-the-unthinkable/
And to just correct Freedom Fighter, a suitcase nuke is not "relatively easy to make" - it's actually quite difficult and will be beyond Iranian capabilities for many years. The Iranians will have enough problems putting nukes onto their missiles. A suitcase radiological weapon is much easier to make, but won't be nearly as effective as a larger weapon.
Also, I don't believe the Iranians are as crazy as some think. They want nukes for the same reason that most others want them - to guarantee their security. Once they have a deliverable weapon, they can be reasonably certain that we and the Israeli's will not attempt to militarily topple their government. Also, they see Russia to the north, Pakistan to the east and Israel to the west as competitors for influence and a nuclear Iran will certain be more influential in some ways. Finally, there is National Prestige and the prestige that comes with being "in the club" even if it's covertly.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 5.04.2006 @ 18:01
IT'S TIME: MEDALS OF HONOR FOR THE PASSENGERS OF FLIGHT #93
Based on the comments here and Rick's update, I have to say a few more things, and this is from someone who has served in the US Military for 13 years and continues to do so.
First of all, I do agree that the civilian status should not be a hindrance. However, the fact remains that giving everyone on the plane a MOH is not appropriate because it is an award that is specifically for individuals based on their individual actions. Read the DoD official history, and you'll see that it was always meant as an award for individual gallantry. Issuing MOH's to everyone on the plane would fly in the face of this history and dramatically change the nature and meaning of the medal. It would be the equivalent of issuing a Presidential Unit Citation to an individual. I can certainly see, and would definitely support, the idea that certain individuals on the plane are deserving of the medal for their individual actions and leadership, but the evidence we have of what happened on the plane certainly does not support giving it to everyone.
The process for awarding a MOH is very stringent about evidence of action, and for the majority of people on the plane, there is simply no evidence of what they did or didn't do. You cannot award the highest and most prestigious medal of the greatest nation on earth on the assumption that everyone on the plane participated in the attempted retaking with the honor and gallantry required for a MOH.
More problems arise if we look at the details and delve a little further. Would the flight crew who were murdered at the beginning of the flight be elidgible? Would their families receive a MOH? If not, then that is a slap in the face of those families. If they do get a MOH, then the minimum requirement for receiving it becomes not gallantry or heroism beyond the call of duty, but tragic death in a combat situation. I cannot see how this would not lessen the importance and significance of this award.
Finally, there is the issue of the citations. MOH citations must be very specific and completely accurate. How would each person's citation be worded? Would they all be the same, even if, as is obvious, each persons actions were not the same. Which medals would be struck? The Army, Navy, or Air Force version?
Now I in no way wish to demean or lessen the significance of what the people on flight 93 did. They acted heroically and forced the terrorists to crash the plane into a field instead of the Capital, White House or CIA. They certainly do deserve special recognition for their actions. But the CMOH is not appropriate in this case for the reasons I've already stated. One alternative is for Congress to authorize a group award of similar stature to the CMOH. It could even be based on, or a derivitive, of the current MOH, with it's own medal design and rules for a written group citation.
Finally, I'd like to close with an actual CMOH citation that I've picked at random:
Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Marine Corps, 2d Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Rein), FMF. Place and date: Quang Nam Province, Republic of Vietnam, 4 July 1967. Entered service at: Cleveland, Ohio. Born: 27 September 1948, Wellsville, Ohio. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a machine gunner attached to the 1st Platoon, Company F, 2d Battalion, on 3 and 4 July 1967. Pfc. Newlin, with 4 other marines, was manning a key position on the perimeter of the Nong Son outpost when the enemy launched a savage and well coordinated mortar and infantry assault, seriously wounding him and killing his 4 comrades. Propping himself against his machinegun, he poured a deadly accurate stream of fire into the charging ranks of the Viet Cong. Though repeatedly hit by small-arms fire, he twice repelled enemy attempts to overrun his position. During the third attempt, a grenade explosion wounded him again and knocked him to the ground unconscious. The Viet Cong guerrillas, believing him dead, bypassed him and continued their assault on the main force. Meanwhile, Pfc. Newlin regained consciousness, crawled back to his weapon, and brought it to bear on the rear of the enemy, causing havoc and confusion among them. Spotting the enemy attempting to bring a captured 106 recoilless weapon to bear on other marine positions, he shifted his fire, inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy and preventing them from firing the captured weapon. He then shifted his fire back to the primary enemy force, causing the enemy to stop their assault on the marine bunkers and to once again attack his machinegun position. Valiantly fighting off 2 more enemy assaults, he firmly held his ground until mortally wounded. Pfc. Newlin had single-handedly broken up and disorganized the entire enemy assault force, causing them to lose momentum and delaying them long enough for his fellow marines to organize a defense and beat off their secondary attack. His indomitable courage, fortitude, and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of almost certain death reflect great credit upon himself and the Marine Corps and upheld the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service
Comment Posted By Andrew On 5.04.2006 @ 14:42
For several reasons, I don't feel the CMOH is an adequate award for the brave passengers of flight 93. I think some other award would be more appropriate.
First off, the criteria you list are only the basic criteria. Awarding a CMOH involves a detailed process and investigation before the award is given. Many CMOH applications are reduced to lesser awards for a variety of reasons. The nature of the award is obviously geared toward individual actions. The heroic actions of the passengers on 93 were ultimately a team effort. For example, the CMOH has never been given to an entire crew of a military aicraft or ship or tank. It's consistently given to individuals who distinguish themselves through their individual action. There is no historical justification or precendent for giving so many CMOH's for a single action. Doing so would significantly change the nature of the award. Perhaps individuals on the plane are deserving of the award, but the issue of fairness comes into play, as well as the lack of evidence proving the individual accomplishment. Also, the CMOH is an award clearly intended for individuals serving the the armed forces.
I'm not sure any individual awards are appropriate in this case. Firstly, there is little evidence of what each individual on the plan did or did not do on the flight. I think a group award is more appropriate given the circumstances and evidence we have. After all, it was a group effort to stop the hijackers. The flight 93 memorial is one "award" but I do feel that some other, more personal and unique recognition be given to each person on the plane, just not a CMOH.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 4.04.2006 @ 15:58
A FEW RANDOM THOUGHTS ON BLOGGING, THE MEDIA, AND HOW WE GOT OURSELVES INTO THIS MESS
One point you and most others miss is that the MSM and blogs are driven by those who read and watch them. We live in an age where people crave controversy, conspiracy, and views that reflect their own. Unfortunately, America is more polarized than ever and most bloggers and the MSM are giving them what they want. That is why blogs are not self-correcting and probably won't ever be. The mass of people reading blogs aren't interested in the truth or accuracy of what they read. They aren't interested in debate unless it's like Crossfire or Hannity and Colmes. Notice that H&C and similar shows very rarely have so-called moderate guests. They find the most controversial guests they can find. What are the highest-rated shows on Fox? None are anchored by journalists.
I almost hate to say it, but the only real journalists left are on the News Hour on PBS, and a few in print and radio here and there. It's really sad, because today Americans need accurate news more than ever, but they're too busy getting the latest from Aruba on Fox "News" or watching Larry King interview some has-been celebrity on the Cable "News" Network. I bet most Americans think the O'reilly factor and Hannity and Colmes are news shows. That would be an interesting and revealing poll I think.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 3.04.2006 @ 21:54
HOW I SPENT MY SUNDAY MORNING WITH C-SPAN, TAYLOR MARSH, AND MAPQUEST
Rick,
Mapquest sucks. They were one of the first, but many have passed them by. I think the best mapping site now is maps.google.com. You get readable maps and directions, plus satellite overlays!
Comment Posted By Andrew On 3.04.2006 @ 20:41
I read your story and was about to reply when it dissappeared.
I have to say I agree completely with what you said. Firing him was the right thing to do.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 23.03.2006 @ 12:18
Really good write-up Rick. It pretty much echos my thoughts for the past several months.
You hit upon what I believe is the most important point in this conflict: Winning this war is ultimately not in American hands. This is such a crucial fact that is almost always overlooked by both the MSM and the cons and neo-cons out there, but slowly it is seeping into the American consciousness. President Bush's largest gamble with this war is his belief that Iraqi's will unite under a free, national democracy. The stakes for this gamble are American blood, treasure and prestige, and we can only act as facilitators, and only for so long. It is rare when a President risks so much on a historically unique outcome that will be decided by others who have interests so different from our own.
I can only hope the Iraqis, and therfore America, are successful, but I am pessimistic. Democracy is best served when it comes from the grass-roots level. Given Iraq's history and social structure I can see a lebanese-style deomocracy forming with different parts of the government controlled by different factions (this is already the case in many ways). Tribal influence and loyalty, sectarian tensions, and outside meddling by Al Qaeda, Iran and other countries will be the greatest long-term obstacles. Time will tell obviously if the Iraqis are up to the task.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 21.03.2006 @ 00:15
SEND GINSBURG TO THE HAGUE WHERE SHE BELONGS
I'm no lawyer, but I can see the obvious problems and issues raised by looking to foreign courts for guidance. The most obvious issue is - which courts are appropriate for us to look to for guidance?
The only area I can see where the supreme court might legitimately examine foreign courts is in decisions related to treaties and international law.
This isn't to say I'm any fan of Originalists either. I feel their interpretations are much too narrow and they remind me of Christians to believe that every word of the bible is literal truth and fact.
An example of this is the 13th, 15th and 19th amendments. Are these amendments really necessary today? (Certainly they were necessary at the time they were proposed and ratified) If these amendments were somehow repealed or didn't exist, does that mean that "strict constructionists" would find laws that promoted slavery and restricted voting by women and non-white races constitutional? I think not. The simple fact is, there must be a certain level of interpretation by the court because the constitution and subsequent amendments are purposly vague in many areas. Interpreting and applying the meaning and intent of the constitution is what the whole judicial branch is for.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 16.03.2006 @ 11:14
WILL THIS BE THE IRAQ WAR'S "MY LAI?"
As someone who has been to Iraq and works in the intelligence community, I can honestly say it's impossible to make a definitive judgment on a case like this based on a couple of press reports. Typically, there are so many factors and facts that reporters publishing an initial story don't have access to that they are often wrong. Unfortunately, it's the original story that usually has the most staying power - the story that is most often incorrect or missing key facts.
That said, here is my analysis based on the information you've presented here. First off, there is no way that Americans executed these people. The original story says that autopsies showed that each had been shot in the head. That is obviously false based on the picture - the children there have no gunshot wounds in the head, and you don't need an autopsy to determine that. I find it very unlikely autopsies were even performed given the number of people killed daily there. There is no need for autopsies when people have obviously been shot or executed, or the circumstances’ surrounding their death is known.
Second, it's entirely possible that the roof of the building did collapse as a result of American actions. The roofs for many buildings, especially in the slum areas of Iraq, are often flimsy sheet metal or are under engineered. A hovering helicopter and/or armored troops fast-roping onto the roof certainly could have caused it to collapse. Obviously ordnance and fire on the house could have caused this as well.
To me this looks like a case where the family was hiding a suspected insurgent, either voluntarily or against their will. When troops came to raid the place, the insurgent probably started shooting. With our inherent right of self-defense, we probably shot back not knowing about the children in the building. Tragedies like this are all too common in this kind of warfare. Insurgents who use the local populace for support inevitably bring death to that populace, despite our best efforts to avoid killing civilians. The blame for the children's deaths lay at the hands of the insurgent, who, knowing he was a target, surrounded himself with innocents. Alternatively, the head of the family invited the insurgent into his family's midst - in that case, he is to blame.
It's certainly possible the US forces made mistakes or did something they shouldn't have done. Despite our best intentions our military is not perfect and this kind of war punishes mistakes in very brutal and tragic ways.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 16.03.2006 @ 10:36
IRAN: HOW LONG DO WE REALLY HAVE?
Another great article Rick.
There are several important challenges when attempting to figure out what the Iranians are doing. First is our lack of data. What we know is like moutain peaks that rise above a layer of clouds - it's an incomplete picture at best. Some of the reason for the various predictions on capability come from the differing assumptions one is forced to make because critical information simply isn't available. That said, I tend to agree with a 2-3 year timeline based on what we know, but it's always possible the Iranians have a separate, covert enrichment program that uses centrifuges or another enrichment technology that may have already given them a crude bomb, or perhaps one this year.
The second, and in my mind, largest, factor in determining the state of the Iranian program is intent. We simply don't have a good idea what Iran's true goals are. I think it is safe to assume that Iran wants a nuclear weapon, but that is only the minimum we need to know. What is their ultimate goal? Do they simply want a handful of weapons to guard against their nuclear neighbors Pakistan, Russia and Israel? Or do they want 30 weapons with a capability to produce several a year? What capacity for production do they want - there is a big difference in how they will prosecute their program depending on these goals.
Another important consideration is how they intend to weaponize these bombs. It's assumed that Iran eventually intends to put weapons on their ballistic missiles, but that goal is a very difficult engineering problem that will take them some time to overcome. Is that their ultimate goal? Or will they limit themselves to another, less challenging (from an engineering perspective) method of delivery. Their options in this area are limited, since their Air Force lacks the capability to reliably deliver a weapon to a target in another country.
The answers to these unknowns will determine how the Iranian's program will manifest, because they will determine the technical aspects of the program.
I'm short on time at the moment and will try to go into greater detail later.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 23.01.2006 @ 11:24
