Thursday, May 28, 2015

Reflections on Ramadi




Reflections on Ramadi

Editor's Note: This analysis was written by Stratfor's lead military analyst, Paul Floyd, who served in the U.S. Army's 75th Ranger Regiment, a core component of the United States Army Special Operations Command. He deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan in a combat role. This piece was written for the American holiday called Memorial Day, commemorating the lives of U.S. veterans killed in combat. 

The Iraqi city of Ramadi has fallen again into the hands of the Islamic State, a group born of al Qaeda in Iraq. That this terrorist organization, whose brutality needs no description, has retaken a city once fought for by American soldiers troubles me. I served two deployments in Ramadi, fighting al Qaeda. Comrades died in that fight. I was shot in Ramadi. My initial reaction, like that of many veterans, is to ask what the hell it was all for, when nothing seems to change. The whole endeavor was a costly bloodletting and it seems the price we paid yielded no actual benefit. Yet, Memorial Day is as much a day for reflection as it is for remembrance and commemoration. And in reflecting, I have had to sit back and define exactly what we are memorializing on this day.

Memorial Day is about honoring those who died fighting for our country. Often those memories — and the honor we attribute — are anchored to a specific place. It makes sense: soldiers fight and die in a physical, tangible environment, invariably somewhere that is far from home. Human nature makes us hold onto that tangibility for memory. Okinawa, Antietam, the Chosin Reservoir, Ia Drang and Belleau Wood are just a handful of names that evoke the weight of battles long since past. I have a reverence for those names, those places. We all do to a point: We bestow these places with an unconscious solemnity based on how many died there. As imperfect as it is, this is the way we measure any particular fight. Certain places become emblematic, normally where the fighting was at its most ferocious. I am often asked where I was wounded. I always respond Ramadi, though technically it was in the middle of farmland between Ramadi and Fallujah. Giving the technical answer, however, loses something in translation. Saying Ramadi instills a sense of significance in people's minds. Our mission that day was a function of what started in the city, but had spilled out into the periphery. 

Memorializing a place because of the weight associated with it is problematic on two fronts — it sets up a partial fallacy while ignoring what I believe to be another critical component that is often overlooked: Time....

The partial fallacy is in how we tie the significance of a soldier's last valiant action to the place where it happened. A soldier might die taking or defending a critical hill, for example, but they do not lay down their life just for the hill. No one joins the military to fight for a specific piece of terrain, city or inanimate object. We join to serve our country, which is accomplished by finishing the missions we are called upon to take. Viewing warfare as an extension of diplomacy by other means, soldiers are the ultimate executors of the national political will. A specific mission may well include the taking of a particular hill, but the soldier is not there for that specific piece of ground. They are there because the mission required them to be.

The other component we ignore is time. Once death is attached to a place and its significance established in our minds, it is meaningful from then on. It is hard to think of a permanent, physical place as having only temporary relevance in time when blood has been spilt there. There is a reason why the World War I battlefields of a century ago have such special relevance. The problem is, holding permanent unyielding sentiment for a place can override better judgment.

I ruminate on all of this when I hear calls to reintroduce U.S. combat troops to Iraq because of recent events in Ramadi. Many of the justifications for such action are not centered on military strategy, U.S. foreign policy or what would be best for Iraq. Instead, they are invoked by the fact that American lives were spent to win Ramadi in the past. The question remains: If Ramadi is back in the hands of militants, what did American soldiers die for in the first place?

My initial thoughts were informed by that exact reasoning. However, further questions immediately sprang to mind. I settled on two. Does the enemy's taking of a place that people died fighting for disparage their memory, and, should we let it influence our actions? For the first question I concluded no, though it is painful. The soldiers who gave their lives accomplishing a mission had an effect. Those effects were not limited to a single place. Wars are waged over an area and influenced by all the infinite actions that occur in that space at that time in history. An enemy's success in the present, even if it is in that same place, does not take away from a soldier's effect in the past. In this light, I find it hard to justify sending more soldiers to fight, where some will inevitably die, solely in an effort to protect the memories of those already dead.

Those memories do not need physical protection. This is why we have a day like today. Memorial Day is our formal acknowledgement of our comrade's sacrifice. We remember their actions and their willingness to give all to accomplish the mission. These memories are of course tied to place, but it should not be the defining feature. What happens now in a location such as Ramadi does not debase the past actions of those that fell there. They defined themselves outside of place, in service to country, and that is what I personally want to memorialize.

"Reflections on Ramadi is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

Friday, May 22, 2015

Democrats Say: We Fear Marco!


Democrats Say: We Fear Marco!
John Hinderaker, Powerline

The New York Times headlines: “Prospect of Hillary Clinton-Marco Rubio Matchup Unnerves Democrats.” As well it should:


They use words like “historic” and “charismatic,” phrases like “great potential” and “million-dollar smile.” They notice audience members moved to tears by an American-dream-come-true success story. When they look at the cold, hard political math, they get uneasy.
An incipient sense of anxiety is tugging at some Democrats — a feeling tersely captured in four words from a blog post written recently by a seasoned party strategist in Florida: “Marco Rubio scares me.”


The one who should really scare them is Hillary Clinton, as her ineptitude as a candidate becomes more palpable with every passing day. But the strategists quoted by the Times have a point: at this stage, the Republican who poses the starkest and most favorable contrast with Hillary is Rubio:


Democrats express concerns not only about whether Mr. Rubio, 43, a son of Cuban immigrants, will win over Hispanic voters, a growing and increasingly important slice of the electorate. They also worry that he would offer a sharp generational contrast to Mrs. Clinton, a fixture in American politics for nearly a quarter-century who will turn 69 less than two weeks before the election.


Do you think? Are Democrats really figuring this out just now?

Characteristically, even as they acknowledge his potential strength as a candidate, the Democrats can’t resist ripping him. Note the silly stereotypes they engage in while doing so:


“I think they do underestimate him,” [John] Morgan added. “He’s energetic, he’s photogenic, and he will say whatever you want him to say.”


What is that supposed to mean? Marco has always been his own man. He got his start taking on the establishment, in the form of incumbent Republican Governor Charlie Crist. And he has been remarkably consistent on the issues.

This one is equally oblivious:


Mr. Gelber praised Mr. Rubio’s ability to use his family’s story to convey compassion for people marginalized by society, but he said he believed, as many Democrats do, that this was disingenuous.
“It’s a little maddening when his policies are so inconsistent with that,” Mr. Gelber said. “My head would explode.”


The Democrats have been in power for six years, while wages have fallen, unemployment and underemployment have persisted, poverty has increased, food stamp usage has reached unprecedented heights, and economic inequality has widened. Yet they are so thick-skulled that they think it is tautological that their policies favor the poor and the downtrodden. They apparently are unable to comprehend that conservatives like Rubio (and us) actually believe that conservative policies work best, especially for those who are trying to climb the ladder of opportunity.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why Democrats tend to underestimate not just a politician like Marco Rubio, but Republicans in general.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Invading Iraq


Invading Iraq
Mike Walker, Col USMC (retired)

All,

While watching a clip of Senator Marco Rubio being questioned about the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, I could not help but think of Dustin Hoffman in the Marathon Man.

“Is It Safe?” hissed Lawrence Olivier.

“Yes” moans Hoffman followed by painful drilling of teeth sans Novocain.

“Is It Safe?” Lawrence Olivier demanded again.

“No” moans Hoffman followed by painful drilling of teeth sans Novocain.

As a Marine who spent two tours in Iraq, I could empathize with Rubio. What is the answer to the question?

Beyond the ideologues that declared the War in Iraq a success or failure before Day 1, the answer is not so simple and for this veteran, it remains elusive.

Why? Because time has been of no help. 

If you had asked me when I was in Iraq in June 2003, my answer would have been an unqualified “Yes,” going into Iraq was the right call. Having been thrust into the horrors of the Saddam Regime, the idea of ridding the world of such an evil was an unmistakable good (see below if you are interested in my thoughts on that).

If you had asked me in June 2005, after reflecting on the price in blood and treasure – the deaths and injuries suffered by my fellow Marines, some of the greatest men and women I had and will ever know – while an insurgency that did not exist in June 2003 had spread across 13 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, the answer had to be “No.”

If you had asked me in June 2011, my answer was back to “Yes,” it was the right call. Violence was down by 90% and al Qaeda-in-Iraq was on the ropes, a beaten foe. The schools were open and a building boom unlike any since the mid-1970s was in full swing. Iraq was the 6th fastest growing economy in the world, its GPD had quadrupled and unemployment had fallen from over 50% in 2004 to 11%. 

The future looked so bright and then in Syria came the rise of the Islamic State. 

What do I say now? The answer seems an obvious “No” as in 2005 but what about the “Yes” in 2003 and the “Yes” 2011? Nothing seems obvious anymore and what the future will hold is anyone's guess.

So here I sit, hands bracing the chair arms awaiting the question: Is IT Safe? Was IT a mistake?

And like Hoffman, I do not have the answer.

Semper Fi,
Mike
 

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Really...?

Well, sheep are used to taking orders and clinging to their "known" patch of hillside.

A painter friend from Northern California who used to come down for the winters and stay with us, told me while I was complaining about Bill Clinton (while president), "Well, we didn't elect the pope!"

No, we elected the leader of the free world to manage our internal and external affairs. We have to be able to trust our leaders implicitly. Bill's wife and daughter couldn't trust him on a basic level.... Monica was just a year or two older than Chelsea, and he didn't even have to be out of the most public office in the world. If they couldn't trust him on that level how could we on vastly more complex issues? My friend didn't get it. 

There is a fundamental disconnect happening for so many that don't require leaders to be absolutely honest and focused on the role they have assumed. Without a doubt, the Clintons are a breed apart. They are not transparent, are not responsible for their actions, have agendas that supersede those of the citizens that depend on them and are really into having enough cold cash to "pay their bills". In spite of this, they have a following that appreciates the view of the Clinton's giving  the "whatever will float your boat crowd" the thumbs up... and not the rubes they are made.