From the Huntsville Times:

U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Adam Loggins, son of new Huntsville Fire Chief Danny Loggins, was killed in Iraq on Thursday.

The family was notified during a city picnic.

I haven’t blogged much about Iraq.  It’s not that I don’t care; it’s just that it is hard to parse fact from fiction and politics from policy.  I see politicians in Washington on both sides of the isle using our military in some absurd game of chicken.  It’s difficult to tell when reporters, especially admitted pacifists who think war should be illegal, are giving us the straight story.  In that spirit, I have asked a friend who is about to begin another tour in Iraq to submit blog posts from the frontlines.  I want to hear about the real conditions from someone who I personally know.  His position in the command chain, job function, and/or physical location (he won’t be sitting around in the Green Zone) may preclude him from being able to contribute, but the offer has been extended.  This is my way of gently nudging him! 

I read an editorial by Rod Dreher yesterday that did a very good job of encapsulating my feelings on the Iraq war in just the opening lines.

Four years ago, I sat on a bar stool in Manhattan and watched President Bush on TV announce the beginning of war with Iraq. It was, quite honestly, thrilling. Shock and awe, baby. Payback time. The chance that my brother-in-law James, a National Guard officer, might have to go gave me slight pause. But the cause was just, the war was necessary, and that was that.

Or so I thought, back when I trusted in the credibility and competence of my government.

Read the rest for yourself.

Any time the media reports on anything slightly technical they merely prove that they are journalists not engineers.  The current stories about EFPs (explosively formed projectiles^*) highlight their lack of sophistication at relating technical material.

The first thing to notice is how they say it: “EFP or (very slowly) e-x-p-l-o-s-i-v-e-l-y f-o-r-m-e-d p-e-n-e-t-r-a-t-o-r,” as if it is some foreign language.  Then comes the ham handed explanation of how it works and why it is used.  NBC even threw together a goofy graphic that showed the liner (read below) installed backwards.

An EFP is very simple to describe, but difficult to make.  It is essentially a cylindrical canister filled with explosive.  On one end of the canister is a thin metal sheet (typically copper), usually formed into a shallow dome, with the dome “pointing” into the canister.  When the explosive is detonated the sheet, called a liner, inverts as it is propelled away from the bomb by the rapidly expanding pressure.  As the liner is propelled it collapses into a slug that moves at speeds over one kilometer per second.  If the EFP is properly designed (big if) the slug can travel many meters and strike a target at high speeds, penetrating very robust armor.  Think back to high school physics.  Kinetic energy equals one half times the mass of the object times the velocity squared.  What that means is that a relatively small, light quantity of metal traveling at very high speeds contains lots of kinetic energy.

In addition to being difficult to design, EFPs also require much more precise usage than does a regular bomb.  A bomb throws its energy out in all directions, which is not a terribly efficient way to attack a specific target at a known location; too much wasted energy.  It is a great way to attack a widely dispersed target set, though.  An EFP allows you to direct a significant amount of the weapon’s energy towards your target in the form of the kinetic projectile.  Where the traditional bomb allows for crude fuzing mechanisms, the EFP requires very exact timing.  If your projectile misses its target, then there will likely be no, or very little, damage compared to what could have been inflicted with a larger, traditional bomb.

If the media can’t do a good job explaining something as simple as a can of explosive with a metal cap how much do you think they’re screwing up the presentation of complicated things like “global warming?”

^*You may hear the term explosively formed penetrators being used, but I’ve always heard and used projectile.

Hmmmm…

Starting Monday afternoon, peace advocates say they will occupy U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer’s Pratt Avenue office one hour a week for two months.

It’s part of a nationwide effort to encourage Congress to halt future funding of the war in Iraq.

…

Protests are planned at 4 p.m. on every Monday in February and March, “assuming Cramer’s continued support for the war,” [local organizer Peter] Engstrom said.

Monday, the protest will include two anti-war advocates standing in Cramer’s Huntsville office, the first 20 minutes spent in silence, “in honor of Mohandas Gandhi.”

“Then they might sing or read a list of names of the war dead,” Engstrom said.

The group also has a permit to stand outside Cramer’s office during the time of the protest inside. There is no permit to stand inside, and Engstrom said there is the possibility of arrest during the nonviolent demonstration.

I meant to highlight this story a couple of days ago, but as usual it slipped my mind.

Abdullah Mizead, an NPR reporter in Baghdad, is still waiting for news of his kidnapped father after negotiating for his release and paying a ransom. Stories of abduction are common in the chaotic Iraqi capital.

I ardently encourage you to listen to the story; it will be sure to evoke strong emotion.

Mizead’s story, especially the part at the end where he mentions that no one gets their kidnapped relatives back, really strikes a chord about how dire the situation is over there.

Tonight president Bush articulated (as only he can) his plan to increase the troop level in Iraq by a little over 20,000.  Personally, I’m not sold on the move.  I think that “going big” - bigger than even what he is now proposing - might have helped at one point in time, but that ship may have sailed.

However, I thought he did an adequate job of laying his plan out.  Al-Malaki’s government has turned a blind eye to the Shiite “death squads” that have fomented the sectarian fighting.  Apparently Bush told al-Malaki to get in line or get run over because it sounds like those death squads that have operated with impunity will now be in the cross hairs.  Bush is taking a hard line against Iran and Syria; all but opening the option of cross border strikes.  I’m sure there will be much hand wringing in the media at his refusal to follow the ISG’s suggestion of diplomacy.

In military parlance Iraq could be labeled a charlie foxtrot.  It’s a bad situation, but it is the situation we created.  The president is 100% correct when he says that simply pulling out of Iraq would be disastrous.  All of the people who lament the atrocities taking place in Darfur would find a new cause célèbre in post-surrender Iraq.  The low level sectarian war would become an unconstrained war ending in the “cleansing” of the losing sect.  Bush’s plan may not be the best, but it at least attempts to avoid this outcome.

Dick Durbin, whom I loathe, was responsible for the Democratic response.  (Every time I see Durbin the word goober comes to mind.)  I’m a little sick of the (insert other party name) response after every major policy speech.  One person says the sky is blue and the responder says it’s red simply to go on record as refuting the first guy.  Anyway, Durbin’s response was pretty sad.  First there was this gem of a line:

“Instead of a new direction, the president’s plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction.”

Well Dick, if the president is moving us in a direction, wrong or right, then it is a new direction.  You may not like it, but it is a new direction.

Whereas Bush offered details, Durbin proffered his preferred option of withdrawal without details as to how and why it will work.  He just said it would work.  He thinks that the Iraqi government, who can’t quell the rebellion with our help, will be able to accomplish that goal without our help.  I’ll agree that our very presence encourages some of the attacks, but that doesn’t mean an abrupt absence would eliminate the violence.

This article is a must read.  A 29 year old U.S. Navy veteran named Donald Vance, who was working as a security contractor in Iraq, noticed that his Iraqi employer was engaged in some shady activities.  He contacted the FBI and blew the whistle.  American soldiers raided the company and detained Vance.  He was held in the same prison complex as Saddam Hussein and labeled a “threat.”  Despite assurances from the FBI that he was not a threat the military continued to detain him, all the while subjecting him to the same treatment afforded run of the mill (alleged) terrorists.  He was not released until over three months had elapsed.

American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.

The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.

It doesn’t sound like torture when the recipient is an alleged terrorist, but when the person involved is an apparently completely innocent American citizen it doesn’t sound so harmless, does it?

What may be even more troubling is this:

Mr. Vance said he made numerous written requests — for a lawyer, for blankets, for paper to write letters home. Mr. Vance said that he wrote 10 letters to Ms. Schwarz, but that only one made it to Chicago. Dated July 17, it was delivered late last month by the Red Cross.

I can understand it if the military needs to surveil all incoming and outgoing mail, resulting in some delays, but only one of ten letters being delivered in a roughly half year time period is unacceptable.

Just think about how many innocent Iraqis might be detained, but don’t have the full force of Congressmen and the State Department lobbying for their release.  We’re losing the moral high ground as we lose this war. 

Headline: Six of 1,000 speak Arabic fluently at U.S. embassy in Iraq.

WASHINGTON — After more than three years in their country, the U.S. military still can’t understand Iraqis.

The Iraq Study Group said the lack of Arabic speakers has hurt U.S. intelligence collection and analysis. The bipartisan panel said the U.S. military and government rely too much on non-U.S. translators, who fail to provide context.

Sheesh.  It took a congressional study group to figure out that there is a problem when only 0.6% of the U.S. embassy employees speak the local language.  I could have told them that.

Who said the following back in 1991 when asked why American troops didn’t invade Iraq and topple the government?

They’d get mired down inside Iraq in a conflict that’s been raging for generations in the interest of trying to dictate who’s going to govern in Iraq. That is not something that we are prepared to see American forces do.

For the US to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as the classic definition of a quagmire.

The answer…

Dick Cheney.

It looks like the nut jobs are organizing something of a letter writing campaign.  Check out these letters to the editor of the HSV Times.

Responsible plan

Sept. 21 is International Peace Day. Religious and secular organizations and individuals around the world are joining to sign a Declaration of Peace 2006.

We believe the first step toward world peace is a ceasefire in Iraq, to end the U.S. military occupation and to bring our troops home now.

Latest polls show a large majority of the people of the United States now oppose the war and occupation in Iraq. Seventy-three percent of U.S. troops voiced a similar sentiment in another recent poll.

The war has caused at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths, the deaths of over 2,600 U.S. soldiers and the crippling of thousands of others and has consumed billions of dollars of our resources. This will not change until the American people declare peace.

The Bush administration frames the debate about the war as a choice between “finishing the job” and “cutting and running.” In fact, the choice is between:

Indefinite war and occupation, entailing greater death and destruction in Iraq.

A responsible, concrete, and rapid timetable for an end to the U.S. war in Iraq and for a peace process for reconstruction and reconciliation.

The Declaration of Peace is a campaign being organized in every part of this country calling for this responsible plan. It is calling on the Congress to establish by Sept. 21 a concrete and rapid timetable for an end to the war in Iraq.

To learn more, go to declarationofpeace.org.

Reese Danley-Kilgo,

Huntsville, 35802

A better name might be a Declaration of Death, because that is what “peace” will give us.  The Islamo fascists will simply take advantage of what they view as weakness and strike a deadly blow.  Good plan.  I like how she pointed to the slim majority of people who oppose the war in Iraq.  I guess whe would have asked for Washington to order his men to stand down because the Revolutionary war never had majority support in the Colonies.  She also failed to mention that the majority of Americans oppose her plan of rapid withdrawal.

Three options

Our troops are in harm’s way. The United States has but three choices:

Option one is to place 1.5 million troops in Iraq. Declare martial law. Confiscate all weapons. Establish an 8 a.m. curfew. Anyone out after curfew, anyone with a weapon looking suspicious or “glaring” at one of our troops: Shoot between the eyes.

That includes men, women, children, camels and goats. Dogs are OK but only if not wearing a backpack or armor.

Declare a Christian jihad and start concentration camps to incarcerate/eliminate all Muslims who refuse to convert.

Option two is to place strategically 25, 50-megaton nuclear warheads throughout Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Oman and any country ending in “stan.”

Israel will have to be sacrificed of course, but remember they started all this “stuff” in the first place. How dare they object to being bombed on a daily basis for the last 40 years.

The nuclear decay will last for 50 years (baring sandstorms and heavy rains), the entire area will be uninhabitable. Problem solved.

Option three is to get the hell out, and cut our losses before we suffer over 50,000 dead. Remember the “Vietnam rhetoric?” Everything is redundant.

Impeach Bush, apply pork grease (thanks Melvin), deposit him in Iraq, let him wander the desert for 40 years. This will satisfy the Muslim world (we desperately want that) and they won’t go near him. Oil prices will go down immediately.

Joseph M. Phillips,

Madison, 35758

That letter would be funny if I didn’t think he was more than a little serious about the third option.  Mr. Phillips wants to sacrifice our legitimately elected Commander-in-Chief in order to satisfy the Muslim world.  At least options one and two, while unrealistic, might actually work.

For our nation

After Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush was given the green light to do whatever he wanted, never mind the consequences. Well, this election may well be the consequences. Democrats are sure they will take the House, perhaps the Senate, but do they deserve it?

Bush has led us into a war on false premises, known or not, failed to get Osama bin Laden, and been in office as gas prices have hit record highs and the national debt sky rocketed.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and all the Republicans, are claiming we are safer, since there have been no terrorist attacks since Sept. 11. Let’s forget Americans targeted in Bali, etc. Anyone remember being afraid of opening mail because of anthrax?

And how many freedoms has Bush given himself, while taking away ours? In many ways, bin Laden achieved his goals on 9/11.

We have fewer freedoms, our lives have been interrupted and we feel fear again. Sadly, the Bush administration has played on that.

Our forefathers, when making this great nation, saw to it that all but one of the first laws made were protecting the people from the government they themselves were making.

All I ask is that everyone who casts their vote, cast it for America - not for a person, not for a party, or even themselves. Let’s cast our ballots for our nation.

John P. Mason,

Owens Cross Roads, 35763

I’m so tired of people complaining about high gas prices and assuming the President has something to do with it.  He doesn’t and shouldn’t.  Mr. Mason conveniently did not point out that gas prices are falling rapidly.  Also, he didn’t mention which freedoms Bush gave to himself and which were taken from Mr. Mason.  If you read this John, please let me know.  I will say that his next to last sentence is spot on.