War is All Hell

The U.S. Marine Corps is launching an internal investigation into the culture of the Corps in response to a video that purportedly shows troops urinating on the corpses of suspected Taliban fighters, a Marine official told ABC News today.

The probe will attempt to answer the question “What happened in the Marine Corps that this happened?” according to the official.

–Lee Ferran, ABC News

There has been a lot of criticism of the 4  U.S. Marine’s accused of urinating on Taliban corpses.  I would like to spend a little time trying to put this into perspective.  I don’t condone this behavior, but I don’t necessarily condemn it either.  This is a war, and this happened on the battlefield.  Theoretically, these Marines killed these same fighters.  I think that may have bothered the Taliban fighters more.

Let’s also remember that while these Marines are being condemned, I don’t remember any condemnation coming from Afghanistan or the Taliban when Al-Quedea members beheaded Daniel Pearl on video, then released the video for everyone in the world to see.  The Wikipedia entry describing the video of Pearl’s death says that at the end:

A few more images are shown near the image of Pearl’s head. The last 90 seconds of the video show the list of demands scrolling, superimposed on an image of Pearl’s severed head being held by the hair.

Which of these behaviors sounds more barbaric to you?

During World War II, Marines fighting the Japanese often took golden teeth as souvenirs.  Some Marines took Japanese skulls.  They would boil the flesh off, then mail the skull home to family and loved ones.  There is an image online from Life Magazine that shows a lady looking at a skull her boyfriend sent her from overseas.   This practice was so common that it was discussed in magazines and newspapers during the time.  President Roosevelt is reported to have had a Japanese skull on the White House desk that was presented to him by a soldier.

We can always look for more ways to make war humane.  At the end of the day, War is all Hell.  These Marines may have crossed a line we don’t like, but both former Marines, and the enemy these kids are fighting have done much, much worse.

Is it Time to Leave Afghanistan?

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, is there a reason to stay in Afghanistan?  I read an article last week by Larry Kudlow of National Review that asked this very question.  The article has had me re-evaluating my personal opinion of the War in Afghanistan.  Kudlow asks:

The original post-9/11 goal was to kill bin Laden and wipe out al-Qaida. Now that we’ve killed bin Laden and dismantled so much of al-Qaida, do we really need to trudge through an even longer war in Afghanistan?

I think this is a very valid question.  If our original objective was to remove the group that provided cover for Al-Queda’s planning and training for the 9/11 attacks, we have achieved that goal.  If our original goal was to bring the mastermind of 9/11 to justice, we have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in custody and have killed Osama bin Laden.  If our original goals for using the military in Afghanistan have been met, then its time to reevaluate our course of action in Afghanistan. Every foreign policy decision our government makes should be guided by the theme “What is best for the United States?”  This is no different.  I believe there are three courses of action currently available to the United States.

Stay the Course. If you are hawkish, like myself, this option sounds appealing.  However, if we keep spending blood and treasure in Afghanistan, what are we trying to get out of that investment?  What goals do we now have for the nation?  I think we are now (and probably have been for some time) in a nation building role.  If we are to build a nation in Afghanistan, it will have to be a reflection of the Afghan people.  I don’t think a new nation in Afghanistan will look anything like Iraq.  I think a new nation there will look like some sort of tribal-islamist-fudamental hodgepodge.  That type of nation is not a benefit to us, and it won’t be friendly with us.  If we decide to continue our presence in Afghanistan, I believe in another 5 to 7 years, there will be a government in place that we won’t agree with and that won’t really like us.  Do we want to spend money and the lives of US soldiers creating that?

Leave Now. I think we can realistically say we have accomplished our original goals in Afghanistan.  We could begin withdrawing our troops now and label this war a victory.  We would have to recognize that the government that is there may or may not continue to be there after we leave, and we have to accept that if we remove 100% of our troop presence in Afghanistan that we are willing to let whatever happens within the borders happen after we leave.

Leave Now, But… This option is similar to the one above, the one I favor most, and the one I think the current leaders in  Washington have the least stomach for.  We announce that we have met our goals in Afghanistan now that bin Laden is dead, and begin a troop pullout.  However, we also inform the Afghanistan government privately, and the world publicly that we will continue to monitor the situation in Afghanistan from afar.  If any development reaches a point we consider a threat to our national security, we will come back in and take that threat out, and return home.  We leave our successful raid into Pakistan as the last reminder of what our military is capable of.  We remind the Afghanistan government that we have the ability to do that in their country as well.

I can’t claim to know everything about Afghanistan and the current situation there.  However, from if we believe we have accomplished our goals in Afghanistan, then we need to identify what to do next.  Any new mission in Afghanistan needs the support of the American public and the US congress.  I don’t think either of those are likely to happen.  Therefore, I think it’s time to go.

Why I Rejoice at Osama’s Death

‎”I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King, Jr

I saw the above quote posted a number of times yesterday on Facebook.  While none of the ones I saw directly criticized those who celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden, I think that was their underlying message.  I think this sentiment is somewhat misplaced when it comes to Osama bin Laden.

Let’s assume the quote is accurate.  I am not a MLK, Jr. scholar, so I can’t verify it is.  However, the words are consistent with what I think he would have said.  In most cases, I would even agree with them.  However, bin Laden was a dark spot of Evil on the face of the planet.  You can not believe that light can drive out darkness as the quote says without believing in Good and Evil.  And if someone like bin Laden doesn’t qualify as Evil, then nothing does.

So today I rejoice in his death.  I believe the world is a better place without that spot of Evil on it.  I believe Osama bin Laden is receiving his eternal reward today.  Whether God will show him forgiveness or eternal damnation, I don’t pretend to know.  Either way, I am sure he is receiving what God intends him to have today.

I also rejoice in the knowledge that bin Laden can never again kill one person, let alone another 3,000 people like he did in September of 2001.

I may be wrong in this belief.  It may be wrong to rejoice in bin Laden’s death. If so, I can only beg the forgiveness of a flawed human living in a flawed world.  However, I am very thankful that bin Laden is no longer part of that world.

Bad News in Egypt

A few days ago, I wrote about the recent developments in Egypt.  You can read it here, if you aren’t following this story very closely.  In that post, I gave some recommendations for how we should proceed forward.  Since that time, there have been some very bad developments.

First, the protests have turned more violent. Pro – President Mubarak supporters have clashed with protesters.  Shots have been fired, and there have been fatalities and injuries.   Fires have been started at a few places throughout Cairo.  Additionally,  a number of foreign reports have been attacked and beaten inside Egypt.  There are reports of the media getting beaten and stabbed.

Second, ElBaradei has shown himself to be the wrong guy for Egypt. Mohammed ElBaradei was (and in some circles still is) considered to be a replacement for President Mubarak.  Last time, I noted that he has been very friendly to the terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood.  However, ElBaradei has stated open support for the Brotherhood.  Joel Rosenberg writes on his blog:

In an interview picked up by Politics Daily, ElBaradei “said the Muslim Brotherhood, which had the largest organized opposition to the government, did not pose the threat of turning Egypt into another Iran. ‘This is totally bogus,’ ElBaradei said. ‘They are no way extremists. They are no way using violence. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people. They will not be more than maybe 20 percent of the Egyptian people. You have to include them like, you know, new evangelicals, you know, groups in the U.S., like the orthodox Jews in Jerusalem.’”{emphasis mine}

He equates evangelicals in the United States to the Muslim Brotherhood.  I stress this not to point out that ElBaradei shouldn’t be believed, but in case you hear anyone in the administration say this same thing over the next couple of days.  The Brotherhood has been involved in numerous terrorists acts, and has spawned other groups that have killed Americans.  To say they are the same as evangelicals would be funny if it weren’t so deadly.  It is an insane statement whether it comes from ElBaradei or anyone in the administration.

Finally, the Obama administration has said something that should be rejected, and perhaps condemned.  From the Los Angeles Times:

The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.

The organization must reject violence and recognize democratic goals if the U.S. is to be comfortable with it taking part in the government, the White House said. But by even setting conditions for the involvement of such nonsecular groups, the administration took a surprise step in the midst of the crisis that has enveloped Egypt for the last week.

This is unacceptable.  No good can come from the United States openly accepting a terrorist organization running, or even being involved in, the government of a major Middle Eastern ally.  Israel is still our ally.  Our acceptance of the Muslim Brotherhood alienates an ally.  Al-Queda is an off shoot of the Brotherhood.  What does this statement say to the families of the victims of 9/11?

If the Brotherhood is involved in Egypt’s future government, they will not accept a secular government.  They will work very hard to get another Islamic government created in Egypt.  How can the administration not realize this?  Or is it they simply don’t care?

Book Review: The Edge of Disaster

A friend of mine recently recommended Stephen Flynn’s The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Nation.  The book argues that in spite of recent disasters our nation is still not prepared for a terrorist attack on US soil.  Worse still, we’re not prepared for a major natural disaster that is likely to occur.

The Edge of Disaster looks at a number of disasters that could happen or that have happened in our past.  Some of these events, such as another Katrina type hurricane, will probably happen again.  Others, like a significant earthquake in the San Francisco area, could happen at any minute.  Both of these events, and others discussed in the book, have happened in our past and are statistically likely to occur again.  Mr. Flynn argues that we haven’t learned from our previous experience with disasters.  For example,  Mr. Flynn writes this:

Located less than seventy-five miles east of San Francisco, the [Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta]is a unique, critical, and dangerous bit of geography…the delta sits along a number of active and suspected geological faults that will eventually trigger an earthquake.  A major earthquake would cause the levees to vibrate, liquefying the mix of sand and peat soil they are composed of.  A 6.5-magnitude earthquake at the western end of the delta would cause at least thirty levee breaches and flooding of sixteen islands.   Within a few days 300 billion gallons of salt water would flow from San Francisco Bay into the delta, contaminating the state’s major water source.  Under the most optimistic conditions, it would take more than a year to complete emergency repairs.

This is an event that we know is going to happen at some point.  However, we aren’t taking any precautions to protect ourselves.  Like many of the disasters Mr. Flynn writes about in this book, state and federal governments are ignoring the problem and aren’t setting aside money to fix these issues.  In a post Katrina, post Minnesota bridge failure world, the public might expect a heightened awareness from the government to problems like this.  That isn’t the case.  While we are willing to spend untold sums of money installing the latest and greatest technology at airports, we aren’t willing to protect these levees, or other areas that are susceptible to  a natural disaster.  A terrorist may try to smuggle explosives on a plane in his underwear in the United States.  A earthquake will hit the San Francisco bay area at some point.

Mr. Flynn is an expert on terrorism and homeland security.  While most of the book is about potential natural disasters, there are a few examples of potential terrorists attacks that Mr. Flynn argues we should be preparing for.  The potential attacks he discusses are chilling.  He includes his list of recommendations to prepare ourselves better for a terrorist attack or natural disaster.  I don’t agree with all of his recommendations, and he seems to fall back to the “raise taxes and spend more” argument to many times.  However, some of his ideas are well worth considering.  For example, he argues that FEMA really isn’t designed to handle a disaster. He argues that the federal agency that should be responsible for managing disasters is actually the Coast Guard.

The Edge of Disaster is a very easy read and will have you re-evaluating your own preparedness level as well as the governments.  He does get into politics for a small portion of the book, but it isn’t to attack or defend one party.  This book would make  a nice Christmas present for the conservative or liberal on your shopping list this year.