The Coffeespy

Ralph Peters published an op-ed in USA Today (also found on Yahoo!) that would have been better if it had started with the words “Once upon a time…”  In his fairyland retelling of Wilsonian statemanship, Peters naively states ”significant population groups” with a “unique identity” deserve their own state:

Dismissed as a naive dreamer by the Washington establishment, President Woodrow Wilson got it right nine decades ago: Significant population groups who possess (or assert) a unique identity must be given a chance at statehood.

So, what makes a group “unique?”  I don’t know.  And neither does Peters.  Also, what kind of numbers amount to “significant?”  Again, I don’t know.

After reading the article, I wonder if 12 million people displacing from south of the border and dispersing throughout the United States counts as a “significant population group” and I also wonder if Hispanic culture is a “unique” identifier.  If so, by Peters’ reasoning, don’t they deserve their own state here in the U.S.?

Peters fumbles on, blaming Europe for all the world’s woes, but never comes close to addressing the real problem around current borders: intolerance and breeding.  As some population groups grow (Albanians, for example) others will struggle to maintain their national boundaries (Serbs).  Muslim Albanians wouldn’t adjust to Orthodox Serb laws within Serb borders and the conflict took on a genocidal tenor.

Now we have new borders for Serbia… until the next time the Albanians decide to expand and immigrate.  This isn’t a pattern I’d like to establish globally, especially considering our own nation’s immigration problems.

Back to Peters:

We consistently choose the expedient option over the more difficult, but ultimately more promising, course in foreign policy. Without self-determination for major population groups that feel themselves wronged by history, we shall continue to fall short of our noblest goals

News flash: EVERY population group feels themselves wronged by history.

Let’s be blunt here, what Peters approach will foster is a thousand tiny fascist states.  Statehood is easy when everyone has the same thoughts, needs, and values.  Another thing that’s easier is war.  When everyone’s in agreement, who’s left to dissent?  Even more important, who’s brave enough to dissent?

Peters’ support of Wilsonian foreign policy ideas is half-witted.  Nations with an almost completely pure ethnic identity have proven to be some of the greatest global threats ever: Iran, North Korea, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and the grand-daddy of them all, Nazi Germany.  Unique cultural identities didn’t stop oppressive regimes from asserting their will over the people as Peters opines.  The entire idea Peters supports flies in the face of over 200 years of American history - where we’ve successfully struggled to maintain peaceful equilibrium in a changing landscape of diversity.

From an Early Birded op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

CBS’s hit series “Criminal Minds” recently aired an episode entitled “Lessons Learned,” where FBI agents traveled to Guantanamo Bay and coaxed a confession from a known terrorist detainee that led to the prevention of an anthrax attack on a Northern Virginia shopping mall. The point of the story was that the regular interrogation tactics (pictured as brutal assaults on the prisoner) were not working, and that the military should adopt the enlightened methods of the crack interrogators from “Criminal Minds.”

Having served as an Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer in Gitmo, a legal adviser to criminal investigators pursuing leads in the war on terror, and a Military Commissions prosecutor, I have first-hand knowledge and experience about what happens there. And here is the ironic truth: The military has outlawed some of the “Criminal Minds” interrogators’ tactics — in response to pressure by the international community.

On TV, an analyst observed the detainee’s behavior from an adjoining room behind two-way glass for revealing body movements and language. Subtle movements and body language signaled which statements were true and which were false, leading to a breakthrough that saved lives. In reality, when such a tactic was used at Gitmo the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called it “torture.” Gitmo authorities used to employ Behavior Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs, pronounced “biscuits”), trained psychologists/psychiatrists who did exactly what the TV analyst did: used psychology to help interrogators learn the truth. But the ICRC considered their role in planning and assisting with interrogations “a flagrant violation of medical ethics.” The military responded by curtailing the role of BSCTs.

On TV, CIA and FBI interrogators used the detainee’s religion to gain leverage. The CIA interrogators refused to allow the detainee to pray; then the FBI allowed the prayers but adjusted them to manipulate the detainee’s sense of time. Because of the manipulation, the detainee admitted responsibility for an attack that he incorrectly believed had already occurred, allowing the attack to be thwarted. In reality, the U.S. does not manipulate detainee’s religious practices. In Gitmo, everything stops, including interrogations, so detainees can pray. The Islamic call to prayer is broadcast, several times a day, over loudspeakers. Everyone in and around the detention camp is forced to listen.

On TV, the interrogators give the detainee a prayer mat and point out the direction to Mecca to win his gratitude. In reality, the U.S. gives religious items such as prayer mats, prayer caps, prayer oil, prayer beads and Qurans to all detainees. They don’t need anyone to point out the direction of Mecca because the U.S. paints black arrows on the ground pointing toward Mecca in every cell and around the camp.

In fact, at Camp Bucca, a U.S.-run detention camp in Iraq, the U.S. erected a tent as a makeshift mosque and designated it off-limits to prison guards so that detainees could pray in solitude. The detainees used their privacy to turn the “mosque” into a weapons cache, and then attacked the prison guards. This led to a battle for control of the camp that lasted four days.

Despite the debacle at Camp Bucca, the military still designates some items (such as the Quran) as “off-limits” to prison guards, even though detainees misuse the Quran to conceal illegal contraband, including prescription pills. U.S. forces in Gitmo go to these great lengths despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions provide for POWs to practice their religion only “on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by military authorities.”

On “Criminal Minds,” the detainee glanced toward bottles of water lining a table, and said, “They line it up to show what I cannot have.” In reality, detainees at Gitmo receive ample food and water, including Halal meals and imported seasonal fruits and nuts from their native countries for special occasions.

While the crime show’s creators must resort to fiction to depict interrogations, they don’t have to fictionalize the contempt that most detainees show for Americans. Hollywood gets that part right. On TV, the fictional detainee said of killing innocent Americans: “There is no such thing, they were infidels . . . they hurt me by existing! The infidels will fall at the hands of the righteous, and that is when the jihad will end.”

In reality, according to Gitmo’s Web site, one detainee said, “The people who died on 9/11/2001 were not innocent . . . my group will shake up the U.S. and the countries who follow the U.S.” Another told military police officers that he would “come to their homes and cut their throats like sheep.” Yet another detainee threatened, “I will arrange for the kidnapping and execution of U.S. citizens living in Saudi Arabia. Small groups of four of five U.S. citizens will be kidnapped, held and executed. They will have their heads cut off.” These real statements make one thing clear: life in Gitmo has not broken the detainees’ spirits.

Hollywood sets unrealistic expectations for many things. The “Criminal Minds” episode represents one instance where truth is tamer, and many would argue stranger, than fiction.

I read a post over on Common Sense Political Thought the other day on doing honest work when it’s available rather than dishonest work, like selling drugs:

What a statement about the culture in drug-infested Philadelphia: “What do you want them to do? Work at McDonald’s?” Yes! Absolutely! So what if life hasn’t handed you a legacy admission to Harvard, so what if you grew up poor, so what if not everything has worked out your way? People can still do the right thing, and they can still succeed.

This morning in an Early Birded story from the Houston Chronicle, it was never more evident that people can overcome anything if they don’t allow themselves to fall into the “world owes me for my pain” line of thinking:

As a professional soldier, John Fairbanks wasn’t about to let what he calls “a medical procedure” end his military career.

But the Army told the 38-year-old sergeant that the procedure — a heart transplant — precluded him from service.

Now, nearly two years after the surgery, Fairbanks’ fight to save his life and his job has paid off: He’s been given a clean bill of health and a post in the Army Reserves.

Now what’s harder?  Being born into a poor part of town and refusing to be part of the problem when the choice needs to be made or having your chest ripped open so someone can stick another man’s heart in there and refuse to stop living the life you’re used to?

People whining about the inadequacy of minimum wage jobs to explain why they’re selling drugs in the face of a man who overcame having his very heart removed kind of tells you how wide the spectrum of American “can-do” attitude really is.

Major honor points go out to Sergeant First Class Fairbanks.

From an Early Birded story in the New York Daily News (bold text mine):

Democratic policymakers searching for a winning argument for why it’s time to get out of Iraq have ditched expert advisers - and appealed to the public for help.

Rank-and-file supporters have been asked to explain to the party why the troops should be brought home. And the best grass-roots tacticians could replace politicians as the public face of the Democrats.

“We want people like you to explain why it’s time to end the war and bring our people home, because most experts don’t see it our way,” party spokeswoman Karen Finney said in a circular sent to members.

“Rather than react to these out-of-touch Republican remarks with sound bites from Washington, D.C., consultants, who have the benefit of years of experience and training in this issue, we want our response to reflect the views of the people who matter most, those who will vote for us because they don’t have the aforementioned experience and training.”

The input of armchair politicians will be used in a campaign advertisement aimed at appealing more to voters than Washington experts would, Finney said.

“[Howard] Dean came to the [Democratic National Committee] with one goal, to put the Democratic Party in the hands of its grass-roots supporters White House by any means necessary,” she said.

“Instead of stating the case ourselves, because we have no rational basis, we want people like you to explain why it’s time to end the war so we can pander and exploit your ignorance for our own political purposes.”

Go Democrat(ic)s.  Next up - 5th graders to give DNC their views on global warming and the economy to forge new Dem platform.  “We’re doing it for the children,” commented Democrat #17.

Let’s pick on the Washington Post this morning.  Early Birded story from Page 1 courtesy of the Free Internet Press:

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

That’s what the story is about.  But we all know this, so let’s look at some of the other things in the piece:

As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10.

Democrat(ic)s are holding backroom meetings?  Hm, I don’t like that.  There won’t be a public transcript.  Ok, ok, that’s low… almost as low as shifting testimony, but I digress.  Why backroom?  What are they hiding?  Sounds like paranoid ramblings, no?  That’s because they are.

Anyway, here’s the bald truth:

“You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we’re going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory,” said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a group that opposes the war.

You keep hearing “new direction.”  It’s a euphamism for “retreat.”  It’s stated plainly above.  Whenever you hear “new direction,” insert “retreat” and you’ll understand the position better.  More:

Bush and congressional Republicans have done their best to exploit the divisions, repeatedly mentioning that the Democrats are not united.

I did some searching on Bush playing up the divisions.  I didn’t find any.  That’s not to say they’re not out there, but the characterization is false.  It looks like the writer just threw Bush into the mix because, after all, he’s the source of all evil.  Remember, this is journalism - the unbiased reporting of facts.  Heh.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday that if Congress does not pass the supplemental war funding bill by April 15, the Army may have to slow the training of units slated to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, or halt the repair of equipment. If the funding is delayed until May, he said, the tours of Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan might have to be extended “because other units are not ready to take their place.”

Let’s be plain here.  The Dems held this bill off long enough that there’s almost no time to renegotiate if Bush vetoes.  They added strings they knew he wouldn’t like.  It’s a set up for a Bush veto so they can point the “support the troops” finger like something out of a Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd scene.  It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

• Right Wing Nuthouse talks about how hate has defeated the principles of the Democrats.  I thought hate WAS a principle to the Dems at this point…

I’m a little confused by an Early Birded Washington Post article this morning (reprinted by the Free Internet Press):

The U.S. government was unprepared for the extensive nation-building required after it invaded Iraq, and at each juncture where it could have adjusted its efforts, it failed even to understand the problems it faced, according to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

In a stinging, wide-ranging assessment of U.S. reconstruction efforts, Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said that in the days after the invasion, the Defense Department had no strategy for restoring either government institutions or infrastructure. And in the years since, other agencies joined the effort without an overall plan and without a structure in place to organize and execute a task of such magnitude.

Lines of authority remained unclear in the reconstruction effort. With a demand for speed and a shortage of government personnel, much of the oversight was turned over to the contractors doing the work. There was little coordination among the various agencies. The result was a series of missed opportunities to address the unraveling situation, Bowen said.

I thought the job of nation building was on the State Department, not DoD.  Securing the area is on DoD, rebuilding is on State - with DoD assets at their disposal since the Army has the Engineer Corps.  If that’s wrong, why is State advertising jobs for the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office?  From the job posting:

The Iraq Reconstruction Management Office (IRMO) was established by a Presidential Directive to coordinate the U.S. reconstruction program in Iraq, in cooperation with U.S. government agencies and the Iraqi government.

I guess I’m kind of tired of the whole mess being laid at DoD’s feet.  DoD’s responsibility is to examine every angle of the actual campaign (destroy the enemy, provide security).  They’ve failed on security, largely due to planning and the American public’s willpower (in the form of ROE restrictions, to be clear).  State’s job is to plan for the needs of the people and coordinate reconstruction.  They’re conspicuously absent in the stories I read on Iraq.

The report should be an interesting read when it’s released.  If anyone finds the thing on-line, please send the link.

It’s the radicals, I keep hearing.  They’re the ones that do crazy stuff.

Well, apparently the ‘radicals’ have not only cornered the ‘beheading of schoolgirls’ market, they also own the Indonesian judiciary.  From the Jakarta Post:

Panel of judges in Central Jakarta District Court Wednesday sentenced Muslim militants between 14 and 20 years in prison for beheading Christian schoolgirls in Central Sulawesi’s town of Poso in 2005.

Hasanuddin was found guilty for masterminding the beheading, buying the machetes and leaving a handwritten note at the scene vowing more killings to avenge the deaths of Muslims in an earlier conflict on Sulawesi island.

Any guesses whether or not the sentences would have been higher had the girls been Muslim?  More on how the ‘radicals’ treat their children comes from an Early Birded story yesterday:

Insurgents detonated a bomb in a car with two children in it after using the children as decoys to get through a military checkpoint in Baghdad, an American general said Tuesday.

Insurgents are radicals.  Terrorist beheaders are radicals.  And now the people who sentence them are radicals.  Who’s left to be moderate?  Even more important, where are the moderates denouncing these acts?

In the U.S. political spectrum, you have so-called “moonbats” on one end and “wingnuts” on the other with the moderates in the middle.  So on the Islam insanity scale, you have terrorists on one end and on the other you have… on the other end you have…  wait, if there’s no other end, where are the moderates?  It’s like a teeter-totter with only one side, and we can see which way this one’s tilting.

Army policy is designed largely by Army civilians, lifelong bureaucrats who learn the ins and outs of how to play their officers.  The policy is put before an officer who signs or sends it back for a rewrite.  Officers spend a year or two in any given position.

This isn’t a news flash, but the bureaucrats are failing the soldiers.  From an Early Birded story in the Los Angeles Times:

A sniper shot Sgt. Joe Baumann on a Baghdad street in April 2005. The AK-47 round ripped through his midsection, ricocheted off his Kevlar vest and shredded his abdomen.

The bullet also ignited tracer rounds in the magazine on his belt, setting Baumann on fire.

Almost two years later, the 22-year-old California National Guard soldier from Petaluma, walks with a cane, suffers from back problems and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder that keeps him from sleeping and holding a job.

…

The question pending before a military review board at this big Army post south of Tacoma is whether to grant Baumann a military disability pension and healthcare or simply cut him an $8,000 check for his troubles.

…

In a preliminary ruling last month, the three-officer Physical Evaluation Board that is reviewing Baumann’s case decided for the severance check, rating his disability at only 20% and characterizing his post-traumatic stress disorder as “anxiety disorder and depression.”

If he accepted the $8,000, Baumann still would be eligible to apply for Veterans Affairs disability benefits. But VA benefits do not include retirement pay, family healthcare, and military post exchange and commissary privileges. In what many soldiers regard as the ultimate Catch-22, if he were accepted by the VA, he would have to pay the Army’s $8,000 back.

Thanks for taking a bullet, here’s $8k.  Have a nice day.

Fire these people.  Fire all of them.  The reason the bureaucracy is allowed to be this corrupt and careless is because they are secure in their jobs.  It takes a crowbar to get these people out of their positions.  That needs to change.

Remember when they were called public servants?

The media will try to play this up as the administration failing the soldiers.  It’s not.  It’s the bureaucrats failing to alter poor policies and leaving the soldiers out in the cold.  By the way, these policy-making bureaucrats are based largely in DC, where registered Democrat(ic)s outnumber the Republicans 9 to 1.

Steve Chapman’s Early Birded Chicago Tribune op-ed covered the dismissed translators… again:

Many of those soldiers evicted under the existing policy have vital skills that are hard to replace, such as fluency in Arabic or Farsi. At the same time the military is discharging gays, it is compelled to embrace ex-cons. That’s the weird tradeoff we’ve chosen with don’t-ask-don’t-tell.

Actually, between 1998 and 2004 the military dismissed 20 Arabic and 6 Farsi speakers, according to an NBC report on DoD numbers.  In total, over 11,000 troops have been discharged under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  I participated in two of them, personally, and both of them turned out not to be gay - just using the rules to get out.  But that’s kind of an aside.

Anyway, back to Chapman:

But if liberals are often indifferent to practical issues, conservatives sometimes refuse to let facts get in the way of ideology. The argument that gays destroy cohesion and discipline can be evaluated on the basis of evidence. And there is considerable information to suggest that though it may have been true at one time, it’s not anymore.

A recent Harris poll indicates that most Americans now think homosexuals should be allowed to serve without staying in the closet, with 55 percent in favor and only 32 percent opposed. Among those who are ages 18 to 30–the chief recruiting pool–64 percent endorse that approach.

Of active-duty personnel, according to a Military Times poll, only 30 percent support accepting avowed gays. But even in the military, attitudes are malleable.

So… Chapman refutes the “cohesion and discipline” argument by stating poll results for the nation.  This is, of course, a dishonest approach because Chapman knows that the military polls much differently than the public.  Then, when he actually states number relevant to the military, he dismisses them because “attitudes are malleable.”

Here’s a simple solution: If you’re truly concerned about these people who were discharged, find out where they are now.  I bet those language skills are being put to use in other places where they’re just as necessary.  I also wonder how many of those “speakers” were indeed fluent and not simply schoolhouse linguists who washed out of the program of failed to adapt and used “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a convenient ticket out.

Lastly, I wonder why Chapman is so hard-nosed against ex-convicts.  Is he one of those ‘label for life’ types?  Seems so.  Rather than asking me who I’d rather sleep next to, as Chapman did, how about asking me who I’d rather have helping me kill the enemy (you know, the purpose of the military).  I’ll take the ex-con, please.

In an Early Birded story from the Washington Times, we learn that Senator Jim Webb is proposing legislation that, well, doesn’t address any problem.  It’s more of a statement Webb wants to make:

The Webb amendment as drafted outlines that no funds may be “obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress.”

A note for the slow among us: both Afghanistan and Iraq were voted on by Congress.  According to the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

…

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

So what’s the purpose?  It seems symbolic to me.  It’s another move by a spineless Congress.

Aides for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky did not respond to calls for comment, but House Minority Leader John A. Boehner labeled Mr. Webb’s measure as “a solution in search of a problem.”

“We should continue to work with responsible members of the international community to put pressure on the Iranians to dismantle their nuclear-weapons programs and to halt their support for terrorism,” the Ohio Republican said. “I don’t think it is productive or responsible to place arbitrary restrictions on what is now a hypothetical national security scenario, especially since the language — if not carefully worked — could hamstring our efforts against insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.”

I think Mr. Boehner gives the idea too much credit.  It’s not requesting anything not already granted by the Constitution.  It wouldn’t have stopped any of the things Webb is complaining about now.  It’s paper posturing.

• Jules Crittendon says his piece, short and sweet: “Bar funding for the White House.  Blair House, also. Then, Pelosi will be defacto funded president of the United States.”  I still don’t think the proposal does anything.  It’s a public statement of support for the Constitution disguised as anti-Bush propaganda (which gets you political currency these days).