The Foxhole Philosopher

The Cost of War for your Average Soldier

2006-07-19T02:39:00.000-06:00

I realize that is has been sometime since I have written. These past few weeks have been a crucible through which I have unfortunately had to pass. Since most of this is of a personal nature, I will not elaborate in this forum. Suffice it to say that neither I nor those under my leadership have committed a crime, and that seldom in my life has there been a time where I would rather have not lived those days at all, as bad as they may have been, but that is true of the past month. I would gladly sacrifice all those days to the colossal garbage disposal, and perhaps other better days in the bargain, just to not have lived them.

Perhaps it is for the best that such things are not possible. Now I have a true test of character, and I will know more about myself than I did before. While I feel as though I am utterly abject, and must now start again from scratch. Well, at least I still have my knowledge and my name, but little else that I valued.

This is a good opportunity for me to discuss what makes this war so hard on the soldiers. I am not the first to find myself in just such a situation, nor will I be the last. When soldiers deploy they leave behind a world that keeps going on without them. In essence, we are only progressing in the military, and everything else we have gets put on hold.

This is the product of a volunteer military, and has not been true in any conflict of the last century. Panama, Grenada, the Balkans, and so on were all of short duration. In the case of the Balkans, the conflict lasted a while, but soldiers were only gone for six months, which is not too bad. Viet-nam, Korea, and WWII were longer wars, but were fought by the whole country. In WWII every able-bodied man deployed, so while you were gone, so was everyone else. You did not have to worry about coming home and competing for a job that other people had been working at for the last four years, because the only people who stayed behind were viewed as either weak or not patriotic. While the same was not true with Korea and Viet-nam, pretty much everyone of a certain age was pulled to participate in the military at one time or another, so it was sort of a right of passage.

The advantages of a volunteer military are manifest. Compare the execution of this war at the tactical (Battalion and below) level, as opposed to Viet-nam. Even better compare the Iraqi army (pre-invasion) with the American Army. But many of the soldiers, myself included, are returning alive, and sane, but have no life when they get back. That is no big deal for those whose life is the military, which is true of senior planners. But the construct of the military, volunteer or not, assumes that there will be a high attrition rate. (There are three private positions for every sergeant position in an infantry platoon.) Most soldiers are still citizen soldiers, and when they give their lives and have to come home to nothing, it becomes a much harder sell.

The bottom line is, I will survive as I always have until now. And hopefully someday soon I will become my old optimistic self. But I am not optimistic about the future of the military, especially the Army. I am the Foxhole Philosopher, but I will not be in the foxhole much longer. And many are coming with me. There is an old adage that if it is truly important, it will staff itself. We shall see.

Ken Lay and the NYT

2006-07-10T11:03:00.000-06:00

I have been out of the loop, but I thought I would comment on two things that have happened recently. While it is presumtious of me to speak for the Almighty, Ken Lay's death does almost seem as though someone was not pleased with the verdict and took matters into his own hands.

Also, I hope the New York Times is pleased with itself. It has now singlehandedly deprived not just the President, nor America, but the entire free world of a very useful tool in tracking terror and criminal funds. While I do not necessarily think that they have commited any crime by publishing it, (they may have commited a crime in obtaining that information, but that is neither here nor there) they definitely should not have. For an organization that so assiduously counts the deaths of soldiers, I wonder if they will tally the ones that they could have prevented. The problem isn't that loose lips sink ships, its the people that drown when the ships go down.

More Media: Part II

2006-07-09T06:46:00.000-06:00

The first issue is that Iraqi’s don’t pose very sympathetic figures. I don’t mean that there aren’t heart wrenching stories out there, and I am sure journalists would find them, but if you contrast your average Iraqi with past countries and cultures with whom we have done battle, then they don’t come off looking to good. In many ways, Iraq is like a colossal ghetto, in the sense that everyone is somewhat involved in criminal activities, or knows someone who is. Therefore they are reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement, both out of a misguided sense of loyalty or a fear of repercussions. While many countries we have invaded have had a problem with kleptocracy, none that I know of have had as wide spread criminality.
The most annoying, and damning habit of Iraqi’s is their lying. In America, and probably most of the world, the idea of honor boils down to honesty: don’t lie. In Iraq, however, honor is almost exactly the opposite. Anytime something goes wrong, it is imperative that you never admit complicity, or guilt, no matter how obvious that your complicity or guilt is. And even if someone else does something wrong you never point the finger at them if they are a relative, which most of them in town are. Therefore, Iraqis not only feel it is O.K. to lie, they feel that they are obligated to lie.
A perfect example of this is the former-Iraqi Public Relations Minister during the initial, invasion. Even though what he was saying was obviously wrong, he continued to say it. And the people expected it of him. In fact, even though many on the left accuse President Bush of lying about WMD, most Iraqi’s are surprised that he has admitted that we are not likely to find them, when he could, at least in their mind, easily continue to claim that they are there and we just haven’t found them yet. While moral relativists may say “it is just culture, and we need to be accepting,” most Americans would get really upset at constant lying. Proof of this is the fact that we hate even the appearance of dishonesty in our politicians.
These issues are very difficult to see when you are around for ten minutes of an interview, and then hop on a plane and fly out. This is especially true since Iraqi’s have become masters of ‘journalistic manipulation.’ They have all learned the catch phrases of “where are the terrorists,” “is this democracy,” and “they only bring death.” Try and find a negative interview with an Iraqi that doesn’t include one of those phrases. They play western for ten minutes, and it gets play all over the media, but it is a dishonest portrayal of what they are and what they want. I believe that if we had journalists on the ground with us they would begin to see the cultural mores, and moral corruptness that we deal with every day. This would accurately illustrate the Iraqi’s to the decision makers back home and the populace as a whole.
While many people in American look at soldiers and say that “We just don’t understand,” the truth is that many, and especially I, do understand. Almost daily an Iraqi will tell me that I actually belong in Iraq; that I am an Iraqi at heart. Of course, that is a result of my business ‘face’ if you will, but this is part of professionalism, and working with other cultures. The truth is that ‘back home’ doesn’t understand.
I am not saying that this is impossible to deal with. However, it is by far the largest hurdle, which almost no one takes into consideration. We are trying to plug Iraq into the larger civilized world, without changing the fundamentals, which are crucial to our civilization. Honesty and hard work is the basis of Western, and in reality, human civilization. The paradigm is like plugging a 110v lamp into a 220v socket without a step down.
Soldiers on the ground understand this, because they see it every day, but people in America and the world do not. But the problem is larger than can be fixed on the ground, or even dealt with. We need a political solution as well, and in order for that to happen the political bodies in the coalition need to be properly informed. That means the people as well as the leaders.

Good News

2006-07-03T04:16:00.000-06:00

I thought I would post a little good news. I would first, however, like to retract the generalization that Iraqi's are lazy. (In my defense the word lazy appears but once in this blog.) However, that speaks to motivation, and I cannot possibly know the motivation of Iraqi's apparent unwillingness to work on their own.

Secondly, that is an unfair generalization. I alluded to the success of neighboring areas, and that is actually more generally true. (The extrapolation of the worst case scenario to the general is a perenial problem for soldiers, police, and such, since people who fix things only see when they are broken.) Actually, in the area, outside of the city where I normally work. The police and army do their jobs quite well. In fact, I would say that even in this city it has turned a corner.

I just returned from a mission where the Iraqi Army was the main effort, and while it was not a flawless execution, and the style was distinctly Iraqi, they were very good. I am heartened by this.

I would like to conclude by pointing out that, at least on the local and practical level, no one is trying to turn Iraqi's into Americans. All we want is for them to do things their way, but do something. As soon as that is done, we will leave. The problem is that they may not do things until they have to. JV never plays while varsity is on the field.

Selflessness is the key to Greatness

2006-06-29T05:19:00.000-06:00

I could be wrong but Warren Buffett's tremendous generousity is an example of what has made America great. The fact is that he is not the first, but a tradition of generosity from American citizens that has strengthened America, and the world. Carnegie libraries brough books to millions, and changed our world. Bill Gates is trying to cure HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Even those who held onto their wealth, donated to universities, or museums (e.g. the Huntington Libraries and Gardens)

Perhaps more important is that this is part of the general spirit of Americans: giving. People willingly, without being taxed give millions of dollars and even more precious time. I think this is what has allowed us to become the nation we are. If we ever lose that, then we are in serious trouble.

How More Media in Iraq Would Help

2006-06-27T09:30:00.000-06:00

This is partially a response to a quotation of my blog at http://thoughtsopinionsrants.blogspot.com/. I have left a comment there as well, which I will not rehash here. I highly encourage crossreferencing, so that the Weblog community can be a true dialogue, even and especially if you disagree with me.

I wish that we had more media and not less here in Iraq. While in the past I have said that the Mass Media is not our ally, and I stand by that, at least somewhat, I have come to believe it is the absence and not the presence thereof that is the problem.

Right now, journalists rely on stringers, or at best show up for a few days in a year and they don't really have a firm grasp on the situation. The solution would be to have embedded journalists over the long haul. We could easily protect them, and they would really know what is going on.

A perfect example of this is a recent journalist visit that I was in charge of security for. This was good journalist who asked a lot of questions, but clearly did not understand the cultural differences. She was asking aggressive questions of a General in the Iraqi police, asking why he was unable to provide security. Most Americans would respond with a plan, or an apology, or a statement of "this is merely an outlier..." However to him, and I am pretty sure to every Iraqi, this was a question he didn't understand at all. His only responsibility was to justify himself, and he just made a lot of excuses, and didn't even care when she tried to nail him down. If she had been here for a month or two, she would have adapted to that already.

There are three things that direct media coverage will solve, and I will address each of these in a later blog:

1) Iraqis have a different sense of honesty than we do. Therefore it is perfectly alright for them to tell journalists what they think they want to hear. Quality of reporting and honesty will go up. (We experience this problem in the military as well, when Iraqi's tell us what they think we want to hear.)

2) Arab culture does have similar roots to western culture, but religion, politics and history have taken it down a different path. Many people rely exclusively on the media's portrayal of the conflict, which is flawed. Arabs have mastered pretending to be Western for a few minutes during interviews. Therefore more direct media coverage would allow a more accurate portrayal of the cultural issues, and values with which we are dealing.

3) Finally, it used to be that everyone had been in , or was related to someone that had been in the military. This is no longer true. Therefore, many people have mistaken concepts about soldiers and the military. The Blogosphere tries to help with this, but its very diverse nature and the ability of people to pick and choose to whom they listen leaves us without an authoritative voice. Therefore, more direct media coverage would paint a better picture of the military.

I think each of these topics could probably take up whole books, but stay tuned...

A Caveat from the Future (or maybe the past)

2006-06-26T05:12:00.000-06:00

Once upon a time, Iraq was a prosperous nation, that spanned huge swaths of land, produced all it needed, and was the envy of all around it. Actually, three times upon a time. The first was the long period during which alternatively the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Babylonians (again), and Medes (which many Kurds believe that they are descendents of) ruled what is now Iraq, and they were arguably the most prosperous and advanced nation during this time. From that time, until the rise, and arrival of the Arabs, Iraq was ruled by a succession of foreign invaders, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Parthians, Sassanians, and so on. But once the Arabs did arrive, they found in Iraq a vast repository of knowledge from the previous civilizations, and they raised Iraq and specifically Baghdad to its height of power. There was another brief interlude following first Turkic, and then Mongol invasions, where Iraq slid into ill repair, but during the 1600’s during the Ottoman Age, Baghdad was a jewel of the crown, and wealthy beyond compare.

However, now, Iraq is a basket case, and it has nothing to do with George W. Bush’s policies, or military mistakes. Iraq has slowly been ruining itself over the last two hundred years! I don’t know when it started but I know what the problem is: selfishness.

Of course, Americans are proverbial for materialism, and that reputation is well deserved, but I have never seen a more self centered culture in my entire life. Earlier this week there was an IED that killed several people at a certain location. Were the people who lived nearby concerned about the death toll? Did they care about those who had been killed, who were actually their relatives? Did they look for a way to stop the carnage? Did they look for ways to help their neighbor? Did they even ask what we were going to do to fix the problem? NO! All they were concerned about was how military activities attempting to make the area more secure were going to affect them. One woman even said that she didn’t care what happened as long as we didn’t disturb her.

This attitude is what ensures that Iraq will remain a third world country. When disaster strikes there are two options: help out, or rip off. If society chooses rip off, even once, it risks destroying itself. On a grander scale, everyday, people have to choose whether to look out for themselves, or the greater good. The simplest example is a line, at a bank, or for gas, or whatever. If you look out only for yourself you are going to try and cut, but if you look out for the greater good, you will stay and wait your turn. The irony is that if you try and cut, you might get gas sooner, but it is more sure if everyone waits their turn.

Of course, this is an example of the tragedy of the commons problem. Every society deals with it, but the more blood and treasure that is spent trying to ensure that people are following the basic rules the less money is available for other things like national security. Here, an entire Army company must secure the gas station to prevent riots! This of course leads to all kinds of corruption, and kick backs, but most importantly it diverts important resources away from other more critical problems. (Can you imagine if there had to be thirty US soldiers at every gas station, how colossal a goat rope that would be.) The biggest issue is that no one sees themselves as part of the problem. As I said before, everyone thinks they are the exception to the rule.

This should really be taken as a warning. We don’t seem to have lost our sense of civic responsibility in the United States, yet. But it only takes a generation, and once it is gone, it will take a generation and probably more to get back, if that is possible. Perhaps we should start teaching Civics in High Schools again. Maybe these are some moral values we can all agree on.

What is hard Part II

2006-06-19T00:50:00.000-06:00

This second instalment of what is hard is brought to you by stress. Working under stress is very hard. This may seem abvious to most people, but frankly, I used to thrive under stress. Part of this was a relative concept. Not much stressed me out, and therefore, it wasn't that I was that good, but that I was not nearly as stressed as those around me, and therefore comparitively I was good.

However, in combat it is difficult to not be stressed. If I remember back to my psychology class, the maximum measurement for stress was a wedding, which was considered pretty much the greatest stressor that anyone was likely to go through. While that is probably generally true, I wonder how combat stacks up?

The effects of stress are numerous, but to me the biggest is the distraction that it produces. You are always tired, and don't want to eat, sometimes I can't sleep (although that is more situational that psychological, people have a tendency to wake me up because I sleep in a high traffic area), and you just aren't happy. The distraction in turn impairs judgement, and makes decision making hard. This is dangerous because of what we are doing, and that in turn increases stress.

On the plus side, I think that my net stress threshold has increased significantly. I am pretty sure that in the long run I will be able to deal with more urbane high pressure situations much better. I hope that this is so, because there are so many things that are important, and that are high pressure, and you cannot prepare for those things. I hope that I am learning skills now, that will aid me in the future.

What I do Every Single Day!

2006-06-15T02:36:00.000-06:00

I said that a description of the day would beforthcoming, and indeed here it is.

Basically our days are a lot the same and a lot different. We always have to be around because, frankly, the Iraqi's are lazy. They will not do anything, sometimes, not even for they family. (Oddly, they are very protective of their family, if harm should come to them, but will not move a finger to protect them in the first place.) Therefore, I will spend the majority of my day checking on the Iraqi's to see if they are actually doing there job. Of course, they are not, because if they were we would leave.

I will move from police station to army checkpoint, and police checkpoint, and so on for most of the day. Then, eventually, something will go wrong. Whether it is an attack of some sort, or things as trivial as a disaggreement between two tribes over gasoline they will inevitably come to me.

Sometimes, I have to do something. If it is a simple problem I tell them to fix it on their own. Sometimes, I cannot trust them to do it though. For example, when Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was killed, we closed several streets, because we believed there was a heightened threat of attack. That would be a simple task, requiring only some concertina wire and a couple of guards, but guaranteed, the Iraqi's will let people through.

This is not always malicious. Sometimes it is just naivete on their part. For example, if someone is dressed as a woman (you can't tell with Burkha's) they will not have them get out of a car. Nevermind that there are men in those clothes, or that there have been female suicide bombers. And if we arrest someone, that we caught in the act, invariably they will tell me that person is a good guy. They no doubt believe it in some cases, but they are unwilling to accept the social cost of being a lawful society. Basically, they all think the rules don't apply to them.

So this is what makes my day so long, and hard. Basically, I am running a special education school where the students are heavily armed. They all want my personal attention, and they all want exceptions to every rule. I lose my voice almost every day because of talking, and sometimes I think if I have another conversation about why you have to search every vehicle when there is a threat of a VBIED, I am going to scream. But then I guess that would just make me lose my voice sooner. It could be worse though.

Support for the Troops

2006-06-09T07:10:00.001-06:00

I am heartened today for two reasons. The first is actually a comment by Elizabeth, which should be allowed right now on the previous post. I was sincerely touched by her interest in my personal well being. In answer, I am not depressed, and a post on my day to day activities will be forthcoming soon, but I wanted to comment, and thank her for her concern.

The second is the article on support of the troops in America. It is joyful to me to hear that people at home still look at us as individuals responsible on an individual level, and as basically moral people trying to do our best in difficult times. Most soldiers are good people, although all of them have their weaknesses. And I am glad that even though there are bad things that happen here, people realize that, and look at us as people doing our best.

We received a package from some organization that I do not recognize, but they concluded that they hoped to continue to send things to soldiers until "All the soldiers come home." It occured to me that this could very well be an organization opposed to the war, but nevertheless, they are truly supportive of us here. That is great.

Finally, if anyone wonders what they could do to support soldiers, I think the biggest thing is respect them. Not as gods, or saints, because that we surely are not, but as people. And maybe listen to their stories, (I know they are boring, but sometimes they just want to tell them to someone :-))

Support for the Troops

2006-06-09T07:10:00.000-06:00

What is Hard

2006-06-06T07:47:00.000-06:00

Whoever said that the hardest step is the first one, never walked very far.

I am starting to learn what the meaning of hard really is. I know that sometimes that the hardest part is getting started, but at the same time that is because my parents taught me that you should never quit until you are done. As a result, I am one of the people who view tasks like tunnels without doors until you are complete.

There are however, many other people who do not see tasks in the same way. They look at them as options, and to consider the work done as sunk costs. In that way, a more economic way to be sure, tasks can be abandoned at any time.

The reason this is on my mind, is that pretty much every day I don't want to get up. I am not all that tired, usually, and the tasks aren't that pleasant. By the same token, the results aren't that visible, and so it is hard to feel like I am doing anything.

I think that this is why most great undertakings are so easily abandoned. Anything large is going to progress relatively slowly, and therefore it will be discouraging to any participants. However, be it raising a child or fighting a war, the hard things have to get done. Sometimes, we need to just ignore our fears, and our feelings, and do the right thing. That is really hard.

Racism in Iraq

2006-06-03T03:16:00.000-06:00

I apologize for not being more regular in my writing but I have been on an exhaustive schedule for last little while. I am back to normal, so I may be able to post more often. This schedule has allowed me to spend more time with the Iraqi's though.

On the one hand this is heartening, because I have see their humanity, which I never really lost track of, but it is always nice to see again. Most of them are just nice people who are doing the best they know how. I also have been able to convince most of them that I really do want things to be good for them.

On the other hand though, I have seen the deep seeded racism that exists in this country. Oddly, the worst is between Sunni and Shi'ite who are both Arab, and neither are really all that religious, not to mention that most have relatives of other sect. In fact, it isn't ever personal that I have seen, it is a fear of organizations. Nevertheless, there is a hatred of groups associated with the other religion that is seemingly unsurmountable.

However, as I talk to them it is also really easy to point out to them how silly their hatreds are. Iraqi's are childlike and teachable in many ways. They also need constant supervision in order to accomplish simple tasks. I suppose that is why working in the community is often like working in an elementary school with guns.

Disparity in Courage

2006-05-25T12:33:00.000-06:00

One of the things that strikes me is the tremendous disparity in courage between American Soldiers and others around them. Every day soldiers do things that are extremely dangerous. They don't ask for justifications or examine root causes, they just do them. I am always amazed to see soldiers race towards a fight, instead of away from it.

The most obvious difference is between American Soldiers, and the people with whom we work over here. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the courage of Iraqi's is amazing. Some of them shame me into being a better person, but on the balance, at the first sign of trouble, they look for help instead of solutions. The worst of them won't stand for anything at all.

The secondary difference is between them and people who they left back home. Many Americans have faced difficulties, and so the contrast is not so obvious. But for the many who have never fought for their lives, or had something that they were willing to die for our actions seem like those of a mad-man. It is sad, because to me it seems that it is a lack of courage to face things like death. I am also tired of hearing about people who "courageously fought" in court, or in protests, as though that is a threat. I am surrounded by true courage who truly fight and these men deserve to be recognized as the heroes they are.

Iraq is a Third World Country

2006-05-17T02:32:00.000-06:00

Sorry the internet has been out.

This is not an idea original to me, but actually a very legitimate point, brought up by a soldier I work with, and added upon with my own ideas. There seems to be a standard that we need to make Iraq better than it was. We are trying to reverse some of the damage done by years of dictatorial reign and warfare. But there is one thing that we cannot reverse and that is likely the root of all the problems in the first place. Iraq is a third world country.

This may seem “American-“ or “Euro-centric,” but third world is as much of a mindset as it is a state of being. The reason that the U.S., (or Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Germany, etc.) went from being a backwater country, to industrial powerhouses was that as a culture they decided that they would. This meant hard work for everyone, and fundamental honesty, if not perfect honesty. Those are the only things that can change a nation and it has to happen at the basic level.

Iraq, however, never had that. Sloth and corruption pre-date Saddam, although he exacerbated it greatly. Even though there are many honest and hard working people they are undercut by the rampant corruption and sloth of their fellows. Can you imagine having to run, lets say a road construction business, where you had to monitor everything? Even the simplest task would become nearly impossible. You could not accept that a truck of gravel was full, or would even be delivered if you did not inspect it yourself.

These are the obstacles Iraq faces everyday. They get through them somehow, but I have no idea how. They will always be a third world country, until they decide to be otherwise. We can’t help them with that, but we have made them a decent, mostly free, third world country. It is really up to them to climb onto the top rung themselves.

Armageddon

2006-05-13T06:19:00.000-06:00

Well, I haven't seen Armageddon, but I think I now know how I will feel if I do. The other day was the sort that nothing seemed like it could go right. Thankfully none of my guys were hurt, but they were sure wore out after such a long day. I am starting to believe that a lot of the conflict in the world is coming from childish behavior, although, in fairness, sometimes we resort to our inner child when times are worst.

I am sorry that I have not been writing a lot, but I have been away from the internet, and only have a few moments here now.

The Morality of War (in Summary)

2006-05-04T09:34:00.000-06:00

This is a difficult question to answer, and I do not claim to have all the answers, so rather than babble on I will give a concise answer. War is not intrinsically good or bad, although the cost of war is always high. Instead of looking at the tool to determine morality, we need to look at the overall goals of the war. In general, by your fruits ye shall know them. Look at what they try to accomplish, even if they fail. After all that, you will have a good idea of the morality of war.

How culpable soldiers are in their role in the war depends upon their span of control. Basically, if you have a way of influencing the outcome of the decision then you are culpable. Therefore, a single platoon leader is responsible if he carries out a platoon mission which is otherwise immoral. However, a platoon leader is not responsible if there is a corps level mission, which turns out to be immoral. Not only is he unable to change the nature of that mission, whether or not it is immoral is difficult to see from his position. In many cases, he cannot even tell what the objective of the whole mission is.

Most of the immoral actions were done on a minor level in the American military. My Lai, and Abu Ghraib are the two largest level actions I know of where people set out deliberately to do something illegal. Generally, it is something like individuals choosing to something bad, like rape, pillage, or murder, and for that the individuals and those who allow them to do it are responsible.

On Killing

2006-05-01T08:56:00.000-06:00

A recent comment about the morality of killing made me realize that I have failed in a goal of mine in the weblog. Namely, that I would bring subtle issues of the military to the “masses.” The comment actually primarily addressed the issue of the level of responsibility that military leaders and soldiers bear in the decision to take a life, at least in my mind. I will treat that in a later post, but I will accept opinions on that in this post as well. However, it is apparent to me that many people do not realize the mechanics of killing someone.

Towards the end of my training, I was talking with another soldier, and the subject came up of things we wish we never knew. I said I wish I never knew how to kill someone. He said everyone knows that, but I replied that while everyone knows the process not everyone knows how. Somewhat like everyone knows the process of kicking a field goal, but not everyone knows how to do it.

A built in mechanism prevents people from taking another persons life. One of three things can overcome that mechanism: extreme emotion, psychological dysfunction, and conditioning. Psychological dysfunction results in socio- or psychopathy, and such people are very dangerous to society. Because being under extreme emotional stress indicates that a person is not a psychopathic threat, jealous rage is considered a mitigating circumstance in law cases. Conditioning is what we do in the military. (There are two books for people who are really interested in topic: On Killing & Men Under Fire)

The military’s conditioning is exclusively reactionary. This means that we are only conditioned to fire when we are threatened. There is a practical reason for this. If you do not condition people to be reactionary, they will: 1) Kill a lot more of your own people, and 2) Not be able to respond quickly when they are threatened, which is much more time sensitive than a pre-planned attack.

What this means in practical terms is that we almost always kill in self defense. There are times when we falsely perceive threats and those are tragedies. However, I know of no instance in my area of operations where a soldier has set out to kill someone (which is what I was talking about with the wrath issue). Even, and especially, the soldiers who talk about it all the time, do not do so. Simply put, there are not many psychopaths in the military. (We have them though, but we do our best to limit the damage that they do, and eliminate them from our ranks as quickly as possible.)

I suspect, as well, that this is usually the case in most militaries. It is even true of the insurgency. When they shoot at us, they often do not even look, just pointing in our general direction and pulling the trigger. This is why casualties are generally quite low, when compared to the number of engagements. (A funny example of what happens when two not well conditioned units come into contact, an Iraqi Army Unit and a terrorist group fought each other for two hours of constant gun fire with no casualties at no more than 50m distance.) I also believe that this is why IED’s are the preferred method of attack. It is no safer than shooting and running away, which was the tactic of guerilla warfare until this time, but it is much less humanizing of your enemy, especially at night.

Bottom line is, American soldiers are not cold-blooded, and usually not even hot-blooded killers. Surprise them, or startle them at your own risk. Threaten them, or shoot at them, and you will have a bad day. But in our raids, most come off without a shot fired, even when it is Saddam Hussein. An operation is truly a success when nobody dies.

Cheerleading for America

2006-04-28T02:43:00.000-06:00

I accept responsibility for this! My post was misunderstood, and that is my failure to communicate. This was compounded by the fact that as it was reposted the links were lost, and therefore my citations with them. Let me clarify what I mean.

I do not mean to criticize higher education, or film, or the media (OK, maybe a little, but not in the way that it is getting rebroadcast). My complaint is not that everyone is not %100 behind the war. We live in a free country, and everyone is free to believe what they want about the war in general, and that means you will never agree with everyone all of the time.

My complaint is that people who are Americans don't publish how great America is! They aren't always negative, although I did reference some negative examples, if the link is preserved. When people watch American movies or go to American colleges they should come away with the idea "Dang what a great country. I want to be like that!" Maybe not everything or all the time of course, I don't want to dilute cultural differences. Nevertheless, they should at least be able to see our virtues. That is all that I am asking.

Like I said, I have no problem fighting when it comes to a fight. All I want is some better movies and a little more supportive academia. Is that too much to ask?

Finally, my real goal of writing here is to improving my writing. All comments are welcome, but especially if you have a comment on writing, such as unsupported statements, non sequiturs, even spelling etc. please comment here, meaning this page. I really will appreciate it.

By the way, I do not think that we are in Iraq because of Sept. 11th. We might not be in Iraq without Sept. 11th, but as near as I can determine, Saddam Hussein had no more to do with Sept. 11th than a Cheesehead does with Brett Favre; he just cheered. And effite is spelled effete, and I am not.

Discourse and Dialogue

2006-04-27T02:35:00.000-06:00

I have been thrilled to receive numerous comments from my latest commentary. I am replying to them and publishing them as quickly as possible. I especially appreciate the people who have written with their support of the soldiers (after all it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside). But I very much appreciate those who dissent from my opinions, and want to encourage you to continuel.

I try to not be derisive, or insulting in my commentaries. I think that discourse and dialogue are very important. Not only that, I want to be able to reach as large an audience as possible. I suspect that we, as Americans, often believe the same things, but are approaching it from two different directions. Discourse is the way to discover where we diverge, and work to find either solutions to problems or compromises with which we can live. Otherwise, we end up with perceived (falsely) colossal differences which demagogues tend to exploit.

I will publish any comment that is not vulgar or deliberately insulting. The primary reason I moderate comments is because of bots, and people who try to "spam" Weblog's, so write away, and feel free to link to this Blog. Send me your blog, and as soon as I can figure it out, I will return the favor. Please don't be insulted if it takes me a while to respond or publish you comment, there is a war on.

Thanks for writing, and keep it up. The only way we get better is by challenging each other.

Soldiers Cannot Fight Against Backstabbing from Home

2006-04-26T04:28:00.000-06:00

As soldiers, we have two enemies that should our allies in the war on terror. I am not referring to the negative nature of journalism, or the sedition of those who release classified information. Although those do complicate our lives, they are to be expected. After all treason was old when Alcibiades defected, and even the best battles in war are going to look bad in full color, live. Instead, there are two former allies that have defected: higher education, and mass media (specifically film).

Let us treat these one at a time. Higher education is at its pinnacle in the United States. Not only do places like Yale and Harvard still hold tremendous power in our collective consciousness, but also pretty much every town in the US, of any size, has a college of some sort. As much as CNN would try and spin it negatively, even the Chinese Communist People's Daily admits that the United States is still a place many serious foreign students come to learn, especially for advanced degrees, with more that half a million foreign students studying here every year. If those students were fed a serious education that included the value of American society, and an honest look at our virtues that would be roughly 120,000 non-Americans that would have a pro-American, and presumably anti-terrorist outlook on the world. Instead, they are fed Anti-American and ant-Western vitriol such that on American Campuses they welcome and defend former members of the Taliban while ejecting American military recruiters. Who do they want to win anyway?

The second should-be, once-was ally is American film. While there are many Arab films, they do not achieve the notoriety in their own country that American films do. American films, and to a lesser extent television, are pervasive throughout the Middle East. How do I know that? Because Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi keep complaining about it, and even referring to them! And why not? American movies are generally more numerous, and often better produced than films in the Middle East and elsewhere (although we are starting to see more, and better films from all over the world). This should be a huge advantage to us, since it could portray the Americans positively, an American perspective if you will. Instead, what do they get? Terrorists as the real victims, even heroes! Americans as the enemy of Democracy! Americans are racist! American’s hate gays! Americans hate Muslims (admittedly this one is a stretch, but it is not lost on the locals)! Americans want to impose a Christian Theocracy on Britain (also only by implication)!

I realize that educators and filmmakers fear that they could be perceived as propagandists of America. But right now they are viewed in America as propagandists for Islamofascism, and is that any better? (Have some values!)

This would not be hard to do either. There are lots of things that are really good about America. After all American film and higher education did spring up there, and they seem to have a pretty high opinion of themselves. Look at all the great things that have happened here, and the great things that we have done. If you have a hard time thinking of them then perhaps your education is lacking.

I am not saying to overlook the bad things either, but the real story there is that bad people ultimately lose in America. Afterall we started out with slavery, patronage, and property requirements for voting, and those are all gone. And we are still a work in progress, but we have made more progress in American society in 200 years of history, than much of the world has in 2000. You could even still tip a hat to all those wing bat causes (and be a little forward thinking in you preemption of problems) by making a movie about Chavez’s hero, Simon Bolivar, and how he idolized George Washington so much he wore a medal of his image whenever he made a public appearance. How great would that be!

All I am saying is this: we are in a fight to the death with Osama and his ilk, and actually most people seem to realize that. This is a fight that the army cannot win alone. I am a soldier, and frankly I do not want amateurs and draftees fighting with me. We do just fine on the battlefield as professionals. But is it too much to ask that these industries contribute what they are good at to the war effort. If the media and academia are so worried about losing the freedoms that America provides for them, is it too much to ask that they do their part to defend them, by telling the world how great those freedoms are, and what they need to do to get them? I can fight terrorists ‘til the cows come home, but I have no idea how to fight hatred of America, especially when it comes from Americans.

Hatred

2006-04-25T05:26:00.000-06:00

There is something that I have been mulling in my mind, and this is no doubt something that will either be controversial or popular depending on who reads it. I think, that there is something different between killing someone, and killing them in wrath. Throughout the world, people die every day, and for the most part we accept it. Occasionally, people kill other people, and we sometimes accept that, depending on what the intent of the killer was. Even in the vicious times of Babylon, and Mosaic Israel there was a distinction made between murder and killing accidentally or in defense.

In war, killing necessarily comes up all the time. It is a fundamental function of a soldier that from time to time, you take a life. I think that even in that aspect, killing in wrath is bad. Of course, you kill for many reasons, to stay alive, to accomplish the mission, to save lives, and in the military we accept those. I think, however, that we also need to make the distinction that as professionals, killing out of anger is not acceptable. Not because there is a change in the death, or the outcome, but because of the negative effect that it has on us.

The Louder they talk ...

2006-04-24T08:49:00.001-06:00

Three major things happened in the last few days. I want to comment on each of them directly and all together as well. First the President of Iran claims that what Iran has done, cannot be undone, but he forgets, to paraphrase, "The atom giveth and the Atom taketh away." Second, Osama Bin Laden has issued another tape, somehow relating the genocide between Muslims as an attempt of the west to impose western values on Sudan, and calling for support in that cause. Maybe this well help some to see that he is just a fascist in a dishdasha and no holy man after all.

Finally, on the good side, Iraq finally has a new prime Minister. But during the debates I noticed that the people who represented the smallest parties were the ones who shouted the most. In contrast Jaafari, Talabani, and now al Maliki were almost never seen or heard from. Then I remembered the counsel of a wise politician who once told me this. "Those who have power simply do what they intend. Press conferences are a tool for the weak." It seems that especially in the Middle East, the more they talk the weaker they are.

What is 'initiative' and 'tactical'

2006-04-23T06:03:00.000-06:00

Since Condoleeza Rice “admitted” that “tactical errors” occurred in Iraq there has been much confusion in the MSM and the blogosphere about this. Part of this comes because when Condoleeza Rice uses the words “tactical error” she means them in the sense that they have passed into the civilian lexicon: basically a miscalculation. However, in the military, tactical is the lowest level of operations below operational and strategic, and saying tactical errors implies that decision makers on the ground have made errors.

Then in the article, “The junior officers debate Rummy” on “News Blog” (also referencing “Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld”) seems to muddy the waters even more by introducing a flawed definition of initiative. It implies that simply because you are attacked you have lost the initiative.

Just because you can shoot your way out of a mess does not make it a victory. In some messes, the enemy had the initiative.

I have no knowledge of any time since the invasion where we have lost the initiative. We did give it up in the First Battle of Falluja, and there have been times where, for whatever reason, we have stopped our advance, but we have never been stopped. Merely being attacked does not cause you to loose initiative.

We have free movement throughout the country. People would have you believe that because there are IED’s; that is not true. An IED is an obstacle. Obstacles are not permanent impediments, but only slow you down. We ship tremendous quantities of materiél and manpower throughout the country. There are huge bases built in some cases from scratch, and our operations may not always catch the people that they are after, but it is only because they leave.

We drive the enemy before us everyday. They cannot fight us, and do not try. The only reason it may not seem like it, and the major problem with local based insurgency, is that they have nowhere else to go. Therefore, since surrender is not an option, they will fight on. This gives finality minded people in America conniptions, because they want closure. But you do not get it. However, that does not mean we do not have initiative. We set the tempo, and we dictate the battle. The only reason that we cannot determine the terrain is because they have already gone to ground, in the last places that they can hide.

I am trying to crack the "trackback" nut. If this link works, yea, if not, and you know how to do this please leave a comment.

Privates

2006-04-21T07:37:00.000-06:00

While I respect CSM Pendry and his opinion as expressed in his opinion piece, Generals, I must disagree with him on one critical point. He states:

What these men are doing is more damaging to Soldier morale and the war effort than anything the likes of Kerry or Fonda ever mustered during Vietnam.

My fundamental disagreement stems not from the comparison to Sen. Kerry and Jane Fonda, although I disagree with that as well, but instead from the assertion that it poses a threat at all to the morale of soldiers.

To follow CSM Pendry’s example there are two types of privates in the army. The first type is the one that is portrayed in the media the most, but is actually less common. They are the simpletons, the ones who could not succeed academically, or perhaps just wanted to make things go boom. These soldiers do exist. They do not care what some general, active or retired says, and I would be willing to bet that they do not know what these generals said.

The second type of soldier is actually more common, but not viewed as genuine by the media. These soldiers are relatively well educated, many of whom have some college or have graduated college altogether. We have a soldier who has a PhD and is now a corporal in the U.S. Army. This is the type of soldier that eventually goes on to become either officers or non-commissioned officers. They may know what is going on with the “General’s Revolt” they either do not care, much like the privates, or realize that this is something in the political realm. They understand politics, at least enough to not get swept away by it.

In the end, soldiers are far more concerned about mundane things than they are about politics and Generals. Even I do not really much care about what a bunch of retired generals have to say, or who is the secretary of defense. In reality, most soldiers just care about going home as soon as possible, and all they really want is for people to think that they did a good thing. They are doing a good thing too. I hope you know that.

Cultural Myopia

2006-04-17T08:49:00.000-06:00

In preparing to come to Iraq, I and my fellow soldiers underwent extensive "culteral awareness" training. While this may have raised 'awareness' I don't think that many people are capable of seeing through the lense of another culture. It is sort of like the question "Do I percieve the same color that you percieve when I say blue, or if I could see through you eyes, would the world look different than it does through mine." Culture is the framework through which we judge everything. The only people that I have seen who are even moderately successful at understanding other cultures are also eccentric. That is to say the only people who can somewhat understand other cultures are the people who never really accepted the rules of their own culture.

Rummy's Woes, and the Military Establishment

2006-04-16T08:05:00.000-06:00

What with all the brouhaha surrounding the "coup de Rummy" I thought I would weigh in with a little perspective of military organization, and why you seldom hear dissent from the military. Famously, and unconfirmedly every person is only seven steps away from any other person. Why the steps are more numerous, in the military they are more concrete from the lowest ranking officer to the halls of policy. Even a platoon leader is only seven direct steps from the Secretary of the Army, and nine direct steps from the President is he goes directly through his chain of command.

Being in such a heirarchical system may seem restrictive but it is also very empowering. Every officer in the Army knows exactly whom he must convince to bring about a policy change. Now truthfully, most officers will never be concered about anything other than the tactical level. It is only as generals that strategic decisions get made. Those generals do rely upon the input of tactical level commanders to develop the situation. As a result, every military policy is the sum total of the input of basically every officer, directly or indirectly

However, when general officers leave the military, they suddenly loose all of their explicit power. To be sure the connections that they maintain and their knowledge gives them considerable influence. However they are deprived of direct and regular input.

A very wise an experienced politician once sat me down in the legislative chamber and told me, "The press is the weapon of the weak. If you have power you will use it to get what you want, if you don't you go to the press." This is never more true than in the military. Those who are still in power still have the influence, and they use it. Some of them may feel like they are not listened to and resign rather than continue with a policy that they disagree with, but other than that, most go along, until something better comes along. Occaisionally, some will have a chance to reassert their influence, to a diminished degree through the press. This is why you don't hear opposition from generals much, and occaisionally from retired generals.

Where is the love?

2006-04-10T03:40:00.000-06:00

It has been a little while since I commented on anything. I recently had a though that could be summed up by a line from a Black-Eyed Peas song, (which is not normally a source of quotation for me). “Where is the love?”

Admittedly, in the song, and in many protest signs, and slogans, things of this ilk are usually used in absence of an argument, and to imply that a paucity of affection is what ails the United States. I would agree in principle, that you can never have too much love. However, this reflects more directly on the situation in which I find myself now. Apocryphally Golda Meir once said, “Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”

Now it seems that the Arabs, indeed the entire Arab world is consumed by people who hate so much that they will hate anyone, for any reason. Whether it is Jews, for whatever imagined power they have, or the Americans for their real power, or the Danish for freedom of speech, hate is almost omnipresent. I don’t know why this is.

In reality, my limited personal experience has been that most Arabs are, personally, very loving. They care deeply about the well being of everyone that they know. While I may be naïve, most of them do love. But the problem is that they don’t love enough to go to the same extremes for love that the haters go to for hate.

It is also easy to fight for hate. Most countries demonize their enemies so it is easy for their soldiers to fight them, and even when countries don’t do that, soldiers often do. But in the American Army we have a saying that goes, “You don’t fight because you hate what’s in front of you, you fight because you love what’s behind you.” If that is your motivation then success is almost guaranteed, because you will do what ever it takes to win. Sometimes that is killing, but usually it is something else.

So I say, where is the love, Iraq? If you love your children, or you neighbor then you will not rush to civil war, or more immediately, store a 155mm Artillery shell in your back yard. If you want a better future for your family you don’t have to work with the Americans, but at the same time, you won’t do things that will provoke. Build a new store; work as a teacher; run for office; all of these things will make a better future and are not pro- or anti- US, or western, or anything. It is not that hard to make a choice, and you will see the future.

Soldiers are Not Idiots

2006-04-05T03:29:00.000-06:00

When I first read this article, I though "You have got to be kidding me." The idea of banning military recruiters from campus is absolutely ridiculous, since the military is a branch of the government, not to mention the largest branch of the government. Recruitment is part of its job. Imagine banning the EPA from schools. How would that come. But as I sat back and thought about it, this is not real surprise. It is the extension of the prejudice that the socialists in this country make a determined attempt to force down students throats about the military. Contrary to popular believe, soldiers are not mentally challenged animals, who merely follow orders, and join the military because it is the only opportunity available to them.

I will admit, that as the child of teachers, and growing up in Southern California, that enlisting in the military was very difficult for me. I had the prejudice that the the military was something that only the losers did. That prejudice was helped along by the fact that most of the people I knew who enlisted I did not like. I had to swallow my pride as a college graduate, and be willing to listen to the counsel, and orders, of people who were in many cases much less educated than I was. However, they were not idiots.

I have since gone on to get my commission, and I have learned many things. One of them is that education comes in many forms. I am still a champion of the University education, but only getting an education in the University is unidimensional. It creates an ivory tower mentality, that causes many to roundly criticize today's universities. Also, there are many life skills that can only be learned by practical experience. Every soldier I know of, even the ones that are for all intents and purposes illiterate, have a far greater understanding of ideas such as honor, integrity, and just plain work than the average American.

That doesn't fit well with people who oppose Democracy, the Free Market, and other things that America, for good or for ill, has come to stand for in the minds of 'the chattering classes.' Soldiers are willing to die for America, and by proxy those causes, that they cannot benefit from if dead. If that cause is not good then either they are morally depraved, insane, or stupid. The chattering classes tried to depict soliders as morally depraved in Viet-nam, but that backfired. The tremendous charachter of the soldier made that impossible to stick. Insane would be convinient, and to a degree that has worked by painting Viet-Nam vets with the homeless/insane brush, and it is being attempted now with a large number of articles on PTSD.

But in the end, stupid works well, because it is so subjective. Who is to say, if someone is stupid. The only thing you can do is point to a degree in your defense. But apparently degrees from Harvard and Yale aren't what they used to be for refuting claims of stupidity. Just ask George W. Bush about that. So now by claiming college not combat the military is the antithesis of education.

Never mind that the military is a gateway to greater opportunities of higher learning than could be found anywhere. Nevermind that all officers have college degrees. Nevermind that a successfull career in the military will almost always include at least one graduate degree. But then again evidence was never really a problem for the socialists and anti-americans. After all objectivity, and evidence are the realm of the "dead white men" and not of the oppressed masses. Nevermind that the military itself is an education in accountability, sociology, linguistics, politics, and leadership the likes of which are unequaled anywhere.

I have resisted the temptation to drift into annecdotal evidence here, because that is not really evidence at all. Unfortunately, I don't have actual statistical evidence to support this. However, look around at the veterans that you know. If you know a lot them then you have a better frame of reference. I would be willing to bet, though that you would count many of them among the better people you know.

In the end, I would ask those people in Seattle, and everyone who opposes the military, "What are you afraid of." It can't be death, because the majority of soldiers lead productive lives, and death stalks everyone everywhere. If can't be that they fear the current war. It too will end, and some day there will be another one, and so on. It can't be that they are afraid these kids won't go to college, because if they stay in it is almost mandatory, and if they get out they have tremendous advantages in admissions and tuition provided by the VA and the military itself. Maybe they are afraid that they will learn that responsibility, accountablity and hard work are the key to success, and not complaining, protesting, and government aid. Maybe that is what makes our soldiers smart, after all.

Iraq is not going to have a Civil War

2006-03-31T01:29:00.000-07:00

I know that Iraq is not going to have a Civil War. It is in the midst of a very uncivil conflict, but that is really nothing new. I have noted before that conflict in this region is nearly unceasing since Hammurabi and Shamshi-adad. But in the sense of an all encompassing civil war, even one like the Spanish Civil War that merely simmers along, just shy of boiling over, is not likely. And what is my proof for this? My own eyes.

As I drive through the little city nearing the base where I am stationed I see many things. The most numerous by far is trash, since waste disposal is a foreign concept to most of the cities here. Second to trash, is building materials. There are building materials everywhere. Whether bricks, mortar, or wood, you cannot drive ten feet, literally without encountering something being built or repaired.

Now admittedly this is a city which has planted its flag firmly with the Americans, and therefore has received a large portion of money from rebuilding efforts. But we are only a scant distance from places that are not friendly to Americans. This means that in a civil war, even a low order one, this city would get shelaqued. If they thought that were coming, they would not be building shops, they would be building bunkers. They are not, and neither is anyone else.

So there you have it. The Iraqis do not believe there will be a civil war. Let us hope that they are right.

Release of Jill Carroll

2006-03-30T06:34:00.000-07:00

I just learned of the release of Jill Carroll. No further information has been available, but I am truly elated that she has been freed apparently unharmed. I hope that she will return to her family with only increased wisdom of the human experience. Good luck. I wish you the best. I hope that this modicum of humanity shown by terrorists active in Iraq will soon spread so that the people of Iraq can enjoy true peace.

We can help the Iraqis by defining democracy with our example

2006-03-29T06:02:00.000-07:00

A little while ago I sat in on a meeting between several Shaykhs and Mullahs of a particularly troublesome region in our area of operations. One Mullah, who is vehemently anti-western and has praised Saddam publicly many times, recounted a story, which is probably an amalgam of stories that occurred in the area. The Americans and the Iraqi Army raided a house, woke everyone, and detained a few people. I do not remember clearly, but he may have said we may have killed someone. This is likely not far from the truth, since this is a problematic area with many raids, bombings, and an occasional death. At the very end, he said a phrase that I hear over and over again, “Is this democracy?”

This is something to which many Iraqis, especially criminals, appeal. Whether it is the recently detained terrorist or the screed of an angry Mullah, repeatedly they appeal to democracy. It is not that they actually want democracy; they could care less. They believe that our love of democracy is so great that this is the strongest appeal to us that they can make. Yet every time they ask if democracy means people crashing into your house at night and arresting you, or bombs blowing up houses, I always want to scream, “Yes!"

Many Iraqis and Americans have made the mistake of confusing democracy with the right to do whatever they want, no matter what they want to do. Not only is this not true, strictly speaking, democracy is the tyranny of the majority; majority rules, period. In the west, we have limited the majority’s power by guaranteeing rights. Nevertheless, we cannot do whatever we want. We cannot build bombs. We cannot kidnap. We cannot shoot at the Police. We cannot fire mortars into the neighboring town. If we do, the majority will beat us down. The same is true in any democracy.

In fact, this is democracy. We all want peace, but if you will not live by the rules, then you are breaking the peace and it is not incumbent on the ‘powers that be’ to refrain from restoring the peace over your dead body. Iraq is struggling to figure this out. Most people want to do whatever they want. That is not possible in civil society, and they simply do not understand that. This is in large part because America is setting a bad example. Both parties are guilty. If they do not get their way they sulk, instead of move on, or act as legitimate loyal opposition. We in America need to set the example.

We need to show that actions have consequences. Whether it is the vice-squad raiding your house, or a raid by the U.S. Army, there will be repercussions for violating the law. We chose our laws in the United States and Iraq is choosing its laws too. It is fine to oppose the government, but it is not fine to blow people up. Otherwise, you get to taste the swords edge of democracy and that is never as pleasant as you think it will be.

Note: This is no justification of the abuse of power either. The political and military powers need to be judicious in the use of their authority; otherwise it is no longer a democracy.

The importance of hope

2006-03-27T08:48:00.000-07:00

I noticed today that there is a fundamental difference between Americans and Iraqi's. Americans have a great deal of hope for the future. Not to say that Iraqi's don't but it is a different hope. Americans hope that one day things will be OK, like they are in the United States or something. Iraqi's hope that someday everyone will leave them alone. They don't think that it will ever be OK.

This makes for a huge problem when dealing between Iraqis and Americans. Americans get frustrated because Iraqis won't turn in their neighbors who are criminals. The Americans think that it makes sense because they will have a better neighborhood. But the Iraqis just want to be left alone. They have always had criminals for neighbors, and as long as they mostly leave them alone, no big deal.

Iraq has never been more than barely holding on. Whether it was the Assyrians and Babylonians, or the Sunni's and the Shi'ites there has always been conflict. They see no reason to believe that they can ever have a stable life. That hope is what is holding up the whole process. Everyone is hedging their bets, but democracy has no room for hedging bets.

Mixing Religion and Politics is Good

2006-03-26T06:45:00.000-07:00

As we consider the issue of Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan, or the formation of the Iraqi Government, or for that matter, the role of the Christian Right in American politics, it is worth looking into the proper position of religion within politics. Many in America state as fact that combining church and state is fatal to both systems. It is. However, it is good to have a little religion in politics. The real mistake is to put politics into religion. That ultimately leads to the mixture of church and state, as opposed to politics and religion. Allow me to explain.

When you inject religion into politics, you are introducing morality, and the worldview of a religion into the political arena. That is not only good, because hopefully it results in moral government, but also inevitable. The only people who even claim that they don’t do this are those that deceive themselves to believe that their humanism, socialism, or environmentalism is not a religion. In the end, all moral systems appeal to faith, and take on a basic religious value whether housed in a church or not. But with religion placed into politics, the main goals of the political structure remain political, and not religious: stability, community, and prosperity to name a few.

The error comes when you introduce politics into religion. The most dramatic example of this is Wahhabism, but there are others out there. In this case, political goals and aspirations are injected into a religious system. The critical distinction is when religious organizations become concerned with enforcement of political goals. Religion is appealed to for law, order, and stability, and therefore dissent is heresy. You end up with judicial punishments for religious crimes. At that point, you have mixed church (a group as opposed to a belief structure) and state. The religion has taken over the politics, or politics has taken over the religion and they are both worse off for it.

The distinction has to be made between religion and politics. Religions need to be free from political intervention, and likewise should shy away from intervention in politics. The only involuntary punishment churches should be allowed to inflict is expulsion from their group. If they truly believe that they speak for God, he will take care of all the real punishment eventually. This is not to say that moral systems with appeals to faith should not exist, but issues of faith should not be legislated. Leave government to practical concerns. As long as government is primarily concerned with stability and prosperity, things like Catholic and Protestant, Shi’a or Sunni, Muslim and Christian become unimportant. God will take care of it in the end…or maybe not.

Iraqi Perceptions of Time

2006-03-25T02:09:00.000-07:00

I have heard a lot about Iraqi, or rather Arabic perceptions of time, and that it varies greatly from our cultural ideas of time. There are two things that I have seen for myself. First is that the people who are successful have the same perception of time as we do in the high-strung United States. The second is that people who run on their own time line, are not universally late. When it comes to them actually accomplishing anything, they are late. Whenever, it comes time for them to get paid though, they are always early, and they expect you to be on time.

This leads me to a few conclusions. First, the so-called 'western' conception of time is not exclusively western at all, but either a product of or prerequisite to successful business and politics. Second, is that within the sociologists and anthropologists who make an excuse that this is just a cultural difference is actually a justification for inferior performance. Finally, to behave in a way which is manifestly insufficient to achieve excellence, or even adequacy in this case, and expect the same level of success is both self defeating and part of the problem that we are experience in the area. Basically, many people are genuinely surprised that they cannot behave as they always have and get the same results as the Americans.

Convenient Cowardice and False Justification

2006-03-21T04:03:00.000-07:00

Recently there have been a large number of articles commenting on the poor quality of reporting on the situation in Iraq. Of course, this is not new. From the quagmire at the invasion that never materialized, to the civil war that fizzled, the mass media have hyped, and misreported all kinds of things in Iraq. I think that there may be a simple cause for all of this.

At the beginning of the war in Iraq, after the invasion was completed, but as the insurgency began winding up, there were many comments that journalists no longer felt safe leaving the compounds, and safe areas. Although you do not see this in print much any more, the idea is still out there. It has become an article of faith that journalists cannot leave the highly guarded areas in the Green Zone, unless escorted by American military. However, this is a red herring, which distracts from the fact that journalists are using their own cowardice to justify their conclusions.

This is no conflict in the minds of the media. Media personnel from actors to journalists are more confident of their own personal courage than perhaps any other group of people on earth. Films are regularly described as “courageous,” or “brave.” Broadcasts are not just relevant but ‘ground breaking.’ Some of this is deserved, and some is dramatic hyperbole, but one needs only hear the description of a respected journalist by another to realize that they are replete with words that in their strictest denotation are reserved for people who actually take action not report on it.

Here I must dismiss the danger to media, or at least cast significant doubt upon it. Iraq is a country of over 20 Million people. But by and large, it is the Coalition forces the terrorist targets. The media calculates that there are roughly 160 thousand American Service Members (not including civilian contractors, State Department etc.). Of that, 160 thousand approximately two die every day from violence or accident. How does that correspond to a city of similar size in the United States? Honestly, I do not know, and I am fairly sure that there is no city of 160 thousand that has 700 plus homicides.

That looks pretty bad, but I would note a few other things as well. It is a war zone, after all. I am not discounting completely the threat. The numbers of dead reflects all Americans in Iraq that are treated in the American hospital system, whereas the total number of Americans only reflects the number of American Service Members and not other Americans on ground. A conservative estimate of other Americans here could double that number, easily, thereby cutting the rate in half. Also, the most deadly threat is the roadside bomb, which is usually only effective against people who drive around in conspicuous vehicles, like a HMWVV, instead of the inconspicuous type that are available to journalists. Finally, even with these numbers that are more dangerous than your average day at home, tens of thousands of American soldiers get out there everyday for no other reason than it is their job, and they do it without six figure pay checks, or a drink at the end, or a possible Pulitzer Prize.

The bottom line is that most of the casualties in any given day occur in only one or two places, and usually happen to someone who you can recognize from rifle range. There is a risk that is worth accounting for. Many people have died. But this should not be more than a brave person can handle (like the 18-year-old woman who was in high school just 9 months ago and who drives our chow, for example).

This causes a cognitive dissonance for those who subscribe to the idea of journalistic courage, which drives them to believe that things are worse in Iraq than they are. If journalists are the courageous types that they believe themselves to be then their refusal to seek the truth in Iraq is evidence, prima facie, that the situation in Iraq is unbearably bad. If journalist are not willing to go into an area that is not all that bad, then they must not be brave therefore they are willing to believe at all costs, and against all evidence to the contrary that things are much worse than the evidence supports.

This is no doubt an oversimplification. I have seen first hand the misinformation that can come from relying on local ‘stringers.’ I have even received a call from a supposed Reuters reporter who wanted information, but refused to come in person so we could check his credentialing. That was likely reported as “could not be reached for comment.” All of this contributes to the problem of bad information. But I think that at least one of the root causes is the convenient cowardice.

Stay tuned to learn about the true conflict between those in the foxholes and those out of them (and I don't mean between soldiers and civilians)!

Getting Shot At

2006-03-16T19:19:00.000-07:00

Well, I am sure that many people out there have had the experience of being fired I at. I myself have been on the recieving end of more than a few mortar volleys, and one IED. That is a thrill all it's own. However, today, I had my own little brush with life and death. Because of operational security concerns, and worries over my mothers cardiac health I won't go over the overall operation just yet, but I will comment a little on the experience.

I don't know if it is common, but I was totally unaware of the situation around me. Oh, I knew that people were shooting at us, and I saw the exploding mortars, but my only concern was with what I was supposed to do. I knew that there were possibly Iraqi casualties, and I was looking for them, and I knew the enemy was out there somewhere and I was looking for them too. It was all quite surreal. You do act exactly like you do when you are training also. It is uncanny how much that is true.

Thankfully, there was no one hurt, as far as I know on either side. That makes it all rather like the best ride ever. I am sure I would feel differently if someone were hurt, but the adrenaline rush is incredible.

By the way, I have never seen anyone so glad to see me, or those with me, as the Iraqi's when we pulled up. I hope once time has passed enough for security I can put my story up here, as well.

Why American Media Stink

2006-03-16T00:05:00.000-07:00

I now know why American media stink. A major incident recently happened in the area I work. The coverage from the AP confused it and another incident in a nearby area. Worse yet, they claim that there was a reporter on the scene, however that is not true. Finally, they quote as a source a Captain, which is a relatively low rank, in the Iraqi Police from a neighboring town, which has no jurisdiction in the area. This is literally phoning it in. If the media wants to get Iraq right they have to get out and see it.

Tragedy of the Commons in Iraq

2006-03-14T00:41:00.000-07:00

I am back. Not that anyone really noticed my absence as I know that very few if anyone actually reads this. My lack of writing here is spurred in part by my lack of adequate Internet capabilities, and in part by pure shame that it had been so long. There is often a tendency that after making no or little progress, we abandon a project, no matter how noble. Over the next few weeks, I will go through and comment on things from my hand written journal for the public record.

Today, however, I would like to say that I think we are facing a tragedy of the commons in Iraq. There are groups of people who are far thinking, both in favor and opposed to coalition objectives. However, there is a large group of people who are neither far thinking, nor planning for the future. Many decades under tyranny have taught people that the best-laid plans always go awry. Therefore, all they do is look to the immediate solution.

This can work in our favor, somewhat, because we can offer them money, or other rewards for cooperation. But the draw back is that all they have to do is to the not so distant future. Most of these people have no established means of income. They are dependant completely on the machinations of war and the money that it drops haphazardly along the way. Therefore, it is in the best interest of these people, in the short term, that the war continues ad infinitum.

Whether it is the bomb maker or the informant, once either side finally triumphs their established means of income dries up. Both of them, the people who are actually fighting the war, have nothing to gain by seeing an end to it. Basically, while as much as both George Bush and Osama bin Laden wish to see a successful conclusion to the Iraq war, the immediate aftermath would be to devastating to the fighters of that war, for them to be committed enough to prosecute it to its final conclusion.

Of course, this does not apply to American Soldiers. We want to go home. This is probably why direct American Oversight is required. It is also not as applicable to the Iraqi Army or the Iraqi Police. After all they cannot go back now, and if they want a safe life, (which as they age will become more important), they must end this, soon. So, after all we have a way to win. But!, this may be why we are having such a hard time with the small things in reconstruction.

Terrorism here

2005-12-31T11:29:00.000-07:00

I am finally in Iraq. For OPSEC reasons I will not disclose where I am, but suffice it to say, it is different than home. I have not yet had a lot of interaction with the people around me, but I have talked to a few, and it amazes me that indeed people remain people regardless of their surroundings.

If you talk to someone about their concerns, even to those that are here complaining to the United States about their problems, they don't complain about things like politics. Instead they are complaining about things like they don't have enough gas, or maybe their brother is missing and they think we might know where he is. All this talk about terrorism being inspired by our policies abroad are crap.

The people that we run into who are bad, are bad for totally other reasons. There is no real explanation for why people decide to do it, although I have touched upon personal pain as one possible cause. Terrorists, at least in this area, are just a bunch of criminals who are looking out for number one and think that they can get a little power over their poor brethren by using a gun.

Oh, and by the way, if there are any people out there who can't see the difference between me and them because I carry a gun too, here is a little perspective. I try every day to make the lives of those around me better. I never shoot unless there is someone trying to kill me or someone else. I want to improve even the lives of those people I don't know. This difference between me and them, is that I am trying to do the right thing.

In Kuwait

2005-12-10T13:27:00.000-07:00

I am now in Kuwait. I have very little chance to be on the Internet, but I will say this. We had Steak and Lobster the other night for dinner. If that isn't proof that we are going to win, I don't know what is.

Unknown Greatness

2005-12-04T00:15:00.000-07:00

As I write this, I have the distinctive privilege of sharing a plane with some 300 odd soldiers as we wend our way towards Kuwait. Our ultimate destination is not Kuwait of course, as those days are long gone, but instead Iraq.

I say privilege, and I mean it. While the plane is crowded, and the soldiers smell I count it a singular honor to be amongst them. The coarseness of speech and the caliber of conversation amongst some might appall the refined observer. However, as I look out among these men, and they are all men, I see something that I rarely see in any society: courage.

Earlier today, I witnessed and participated in one of the most difficult things that I have ever had to do. Leaving for war in and of itself is so difficult that I have gained an increased respect for those who do merely that. I saw families, women, and children crying as their soldiers made their way onto the bus that would take them away. The departure is filled with pain and uncertainty, and it is something that most in the world will never share or experience.

However, every man that I now share this plane with, I shared this pain with. And now as we soar above the nation that we are sworn to defend, beneath us sleeps our countrymen, blissfully unaware of the pain that cost of their freedom inflicts upon their fellow man. And every man here, sits, talks, thinks, reads, and waits, as we move ever onward towards our destiny. We came willingly, and all we ask is others remember us. I sit with greatness, and I am blessed.

Leaving for Iraq

2005-12-01T11:21:00.000-07:00

I am off to Iraq in less than 24 hours. It is for this reason that I have been spurious in my writings of late. And likewise, I am not going to write much now.

Keep your head down.

Redundancy

2005-11-22T18:14:00.000-07:00

Congressman Murtha ignited a firestorm and I have no idea why. Of course, everyone wants to play it as if a war hero has called for a withdrawal, and that means that it must be true. However, not taking anything away from the admirable record of Congressman Murtha, the fact that I once worked in a library does not add any legitimacy to me were I to call for improved libraries. Why should Murtha's record be a criteria for judging his comments.

Moreover, although he is unique in calling for immediate change in strategy, his recommended strategy is little different from the one that we are currently following. Although he does want us to leave the country of Iraq, he still wants a rapid reaction force in the region, leaving many soldiers deployed anyway. The current strategy does not call for Americans to remain ad infinitum in Iraq. Instead as the Iraqis take control they fade into the background in Iraq. The only possible difference for the soldiers is based on the assumption that violence follow regardless of where in Iraq the soldiers are, and violence would not erupt in a new environ.

In fact the only real shock is that Congressman Murtha has said what is actually true, only overstating his case slightly. In fact, we have won this war. American and Iraqi forces go where they want and do what they want; the insurgents try to stop them and fail. The insurgency has not even slowed the progress of Iraq in a significant manner. In a short time the Iraqis will be able to fight on their own, and they will succeed, with minor help from us. Instead of looking at this as a call for defeat, we should recognize that we have won. Only our own self conciousness, and and the perverse desires of those in our midst for defeat can turn this unmitigated victory into a mirage of a defeat.

Outrage in Politics

2005-11-21T08:00:00.000-07:00

I saw a bumper sticker that said "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention." For some reason, outrage is the most common tool for political change, at least on the margins. It isn't a particularly effective as a tool, though.

Normal moral outrage arises when people are faced with a patently obvious and egregious violation of their morality. Since personal morality is subjective, this can vary from person to person. Most people don't violate common morality that often, so true occasion for outrage doesn't arise that often. In fact, often the cases of outrage arise because people don't know or understand the actions and the morality that motivates it. In fact, to be accurate enough the bumper sticker might need to read, "If you are outraged, you probably don' t understand the system."

The other major problem, is that true outrage requires from most people more action than mere words. American revolutionaries were truly outraged at the treatment at the hands of the British, and they took up arms. Likewise, if something is truly outrageous, then most likely violence is justified. For example, most people are outraged at child abusers, and few have any qualms at violent means used to brings them to justice.

What with the uncommon nature of truly outrageous actions, and the extreme reprisal required by outrageous actions, outrage fails as a tool of politics. It seems that those who try to use it are more accurately using it to publicize their own moral standing. That may be why they always seem to adopt a sanctimonious and condescending attitude to those around us.

Nevertheless, I am not outraged in the least. It is merely off-putting.

Happiness

2005-11-20T15:09:00.000-07:00

Being as today is Sunday, I thought I would take a break from all this heavy political discussion and talk about something that is really in the foxhole. Happiness seems to be what everyone in the world wants. However, most people seem to be unable to find it.

Of course, happiness has its immediate political repercussions as well. When people are not happy they riot, strike, or revolt. But many people just turn away, and become cold and distant. Those kind of people don't make bad neighbors, but they don't make good ones either. It only takes a few bad neighbors before the whole neighborhood is unliveable. Even worse, what do you do when you have a project that is for the greater good and you can't rely on the people around you.

I find that there are basically two places that people look for happiness. First most people will look outside themselves. That is to say they will hope or believe that when they have a girlfriend or boyfriend, a new car, a new job, a new house they will then be happy. Perhaps those things bring a degree of happiness. However, things, and even other people in our lives are like trees by the side of the river of life. You may wish to stay with them but as life flows on the scenery around us changes.

The people who ultimately find happiness, turn within themselves. They look at who they are, and sometimes discover that there are certain personal changes that are necessary, before they can be happy. They also learn that no matter who you are nad how hard you try you are not going to be happy all of the time. They accept the transitory nature of felicity, and enjoy it when it comes.

Happiness, and joy in life is really the only thing that anyone wants. When people look outside themselves it often becomes a driving political force. However, that is another topic for another day.

Withdrawing from Iraq

2005-11-19T12:13:00.000-07:00

This week has been a busy week for opponents of George Bush. One would think from the way that they acted that George Bush was a real threat and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was merely trying to set up an organization for delinquent boys. Of course, I realize that there are people out there that do think in those terms, but they have become blinded by relativism and moral equivalency.

I prefer not to discuss in this forum specific policies, especially those as relate to Iraq. Instead, I prefer to talk about principles that underline those policies. There are several principles at stake here.

First is the principle of unity of a nation when faced with a threat. I will not reargue everything that has been said about the threat of Saddam Hussein. I will merely restate that even if he had no weapons (of mass destruction or otherwise) whatsoever, his very existence marked a threat to the world order, and the rule of law. He stood in ideological juxtaposition with every principle that is the basis of modern society, and was therefore tremendous ideological threat. You can see this by how much the vultures of extremism (the primary beneficiaries of absence of law) have made common cause with Saddam Hussein, whether he supported their particular brand of extremism or not. It is as though they saw writing on the wall in Mesopotamia, as was see so long ago.

However, all that being set aside, previously in most countries, in a majority of situations, people would set their domestic political deliberations aside and fought the battle's at hand, saving historical analysis for after the war was won. This is crucial because of the nature of war.

In order to win a war the formula is simple. You must convince your enemy that you are willing and able to inflict more damage (including death) upon them, than they are willing or able to accept. Of course, on the other side they are attempting to do the same thing to you first. If you publicly announce your opposition to the battle, you give the enemy reason to believe that he is about to succeed in his objective, before you can succeed in yours. This gives him a second wind.

Indeed, it is much like the difference between a runner who believes that the race will never end and the runner who believes that the race will end only a few hundred meters away. Every runner sprints those last few meters. Even in physical training, trainers will often deceive their trainees by saying "just one more." In essence, those who are questioning America's resolve to finish the fight that we began are doing just that. However, if they believe that they are helping someone who sees them, as any more than a patsy they are deceived.

I will not question the patriotism of such people. Patriotism is a state of mind, not a set of actions. Perhaps they really do believe that by undermining American military efforts overseas they will in fact improve the standing of the United States. I cannot read their hearts. However, honesty in this would be refreshing, although wholly unexpected. Nevertheless, as a foxhole philosopher, I do not appreciate aid and comfort being openly paraded before the world as patriotism, and the best thing possible.

When the time comes for us to withdraw from Iraq, then it will be obvious, and will not require the Clarion of one congressman, or even one party. When that time comes, please discuss it in secret. That way we avoid giving any intelligence advantage to the enemy, and the appearance of political opportunism at the expense of the blood of my brothers and sisters at arms.

France's (and the West's) Quandry

2005-11-08T17:10:00.001-07:00

Given that I have so recently commented on post-modernism, and France is perhaps the place where that ideology has most firmly taken hold. I cannot stand by and ignore the problems that are going on in Paris tonight, and for the past two weeks.

France has, at least publicly, spouted post-modernism from every bully pulpit. I do not know how far it has carried its belief but in politics, appearance is reality. Now, a reality has come home to the people in the country who apparently do really believe that all we need to do is not care too much.

This is an inherently weak position. All of the extremism notwithstanding, France is now butting up against absolutes. Either they are the absolute of real or imagined mistreatment, or they are the absolute of extremist motivated ideology. Either way the people in the slums of Paris have a brick wall against their back. They are not rioting over abstracts, they are rioting over concretes.

If, as people claim, the root cause is economic injustice, then these people are not unlike the masses in 1789 who overthrew the Bastille, and they want a piece of the action. If this is an extension of the so-called "Islamic Rage" that has fueled so much of the violence of the past twenty years then the rioters are attempting to complete that which was thwarted by Charles Martel so many years ago. Either way it is for real and substantial change of France that battle is going on in the streets.

If France values its culture as much as it claims, it cannot afford to role over. There can be no concessions made and the point of a gun (or the flame of a torch as the case may be). This is as real a threat to France as the German invasion was sixty-five years ago. I will not take the obvious opportunity to poke fun at a generation of French soldiers that have endured enough ridicule. France, like it or not, is a critical bastion of Democracy. It is the newest front in this war, and the war just got hot for them.

However, the weakness that France has is that it has so thoroughly bought into post-modern ideology. First, all of the major politicians are tremendously critical of states that remain Modern, especially the United States. Second, these same politicians fight to defend the socialist state system that has been established within France, and to which some people attribute the current economic woes. Third, France has publicly and soundly criticized the use of force in other areas, especially the Middle East. (The irony is not lost on the savvy observer that knows that France is currently occupying Sierra Leon, but that is merely in the shadows.)

France will have to completely change its ideas about the world and retrenche on all of these points in order to combat the war that is within its own borders. While it may be able to retain some of the socialist trappings that have produced its current woes, it will need to reform them or else the economics of the situation will remain. It must allow the use of force, because if words were going to dissuade these rioters, then it would have happened long ago. After all, the incedent which caused the riots, probably never actually happened.

Finally, however, France has to realize, and I believe the leadership already does realize, that it must adopt some of the affirmative stances that the United States currently embraces in order to face this ideological conflict. You cannot face someone who believes that they are right regardless of any evidence, with the statement, "Oh, we're all right, and we're all wrong." Only ideas can battle ideas. The wishy-washy muddling about never forwards anything, and self doubt only aids your enemy.

This is not to say that we should all just plow ahead. No doubt in Mobile Bay, more that a few on the ship trembled at the command of "Damn the Torpedoes," and perhaps even Admiral Farragut questioned the wisdom of the order. However, neither the middle of battle nor the middle of war is the time to openly question your actions. A good leader always revises his or her course of action, but all the questioning is done internally. Otherwise you only sap the resolve of those around you.

France currently has a battle on its hands. This is just the first shot to land in France. It needs to awaken France and all of Europe to the fact that there is a Hot World War IV going on right now. War has already been declared on them, whether they like it or not. They have a chance to move the battle outside their borders right now. However, how long do you think that cars can burn in Paris, before car bombs start there. The Islamofascist thugs are just like wolves, they strike when they sense weakness. Fight well Lafayette, this is one battle that Washington cannot help you with, but if you lose, we are all the worse off.

The Impossibility of Difference

2005-11-03T14:04:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting result of believing that all things are absolutely equal. Before long, everything becomes the same. It becomes impossible for people who believe in absolute equality to long believe that everyone is not at same the base.

The first consequence is personal. The person who harbors ill will towards people soon comes to believe that all people secretly do as well, and that they are simply not honest about it. If someone is dishonest, or shifty in their dealings with others soon comes to believe that everyone is just as dishonest. We saw attitude in the political realm with Bill Clinton's travail with Monica Lewinsky. Many people, although to his credit not Bill Clinton, excused this indiscretion with the glib statement of "Well who hasn't."

The second consequence is a political, and social one. This is often the goals of those who use the ideologies of post-modernism. People who espouse absolute equality do not make any moral differentian. This is often called moral relativism, and this is what has the most impact in the political world.

In the modern world, each action is judgable, because there is qualitative difference between both people and actions. Although on the surface it may seem that two things are the same, they actually are not. e.g. There is a difference between withdrawing money out of a bank, and stealing from the bank are two totally different things, even if they have the same result of decreasing the total amount of money in the bank.

In the post-Modern world there are no such distinctions. All things are alike. (Only the very ardent Marxist, however would agree that there is no difference between robbing a bank and taking a withdrawal.) It doesn't matter the reason why you do anything, only the action itself matters. You may or may not love the 'state', or the 'people,' but it doesn't matter as long as you do what you are supposed to.

On a personal level, it doesn't matter what you believe because all beliefs are the same. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as it is good for you. (This doesn't hold absolutely true in practicality.) If you get stoned, and stay in your house all day, or if you go out and work and become an engineer, it is all the same thing. You see this in practice in the countries of Europe which have a collosal unemployment rate and taxes that support a tremendous welfare state that makes no distinction between the value of individuals.

This becomes important in the international realm especially now with the analysis of international affairs. People both in the United States and outside regularly compare so-called mujaheddin to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, to the ignorant there is a superficial similarity. If we only look at the very surface, we see a group of people in an area with people who speak a similar language fighting other people who are different in some way, and not from that same area.

However, these similarities ignore all of the differences. We have to accept the idea that all people are the same, and take it a step further, all Arabs are the same. There are of course fighters from within Iraq fighting coalition forces, but people who make that claim do not differentiate between them. Of course there is a large difference between Iraqis and other Arabs. Also, many of the Iraqi so-called mujaheddin are mere criminals, which actually brings us to the questions of motive.

The critical difference between George Washington, and by extension the modern Americans, and say Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a question of intent. George Washington wanted to establish an independent country where people would be free from the tyranny of a king. Although Washington was not an absolute democrat, insofar as there was still slavery in the nascent country, the nation established at the time was largely free. Likewise, Americans are not fighting to establish a monarchy, but instead a democracy with Iraqis at its head.

Mr. Zarqawi, by contrast has the desire to re-establish the caliphate. This is an actual and literal return to a Middle Ages absolute monarchy, not some organization of Arab, or Muslim states. Make no mistake, while in terms of science the original caliphate was far in advance of European states at the time, it was still a dark ages Monarchy. Brutal repression, secret police, religious fanaticism, with all of the inquisitions that came with it, slavery, and coporal punishment of every kind accompanied that monarchy. Even a return to that monarchy would be a destruction of almost all of the rights that people have come to assume are theirs. However, at least that monarchy allowed people to be Jewish or Christian if they so chose. Zarqarwi has made it obvious that he has no intention of allowing the same liberties today.

How then could people possibly make a comparison between him and men like Washington who ,even given the opportunity to establish a monarchy, did not. Simply put, results and intention have no bearing in the post-modern world. Washington fought, and Zarqawi fought. That alone is enough of a similarity for comparison.

This helps to explain the colosally different world views that we are seeing, and we can see where post-Modern ideas have most taken root. There is plenty of room for disagreement over international policy. Modernism actually would encourage disagreement. However, there is a distinction to be made based on intention. People after all, are different and there is a need to look at the world through that perspective.

Egalite

2005-11-01T17:52:00.000-07:00

There is an idea that I have been mulling around for some time now. Unfortunately, I am not so sure what is right.

The great ideological conflict today has three aspects: pre-modern, modern, and post-modern. Drawing the line between pre-modern and modern is fairly easy. I believe that we could, without a whole lot of controversy, say that Hobbes and Locke are the fathers of Modernity. The line between Modern and post modern is a little hazier. Perhaps it is Hegel, perhaps Rousseau, however the real birth of post-modern though is definitely with Marx, and Nietzche.

It is unfortunate that they are respectively associated with Communism and Fascism, and therefore carry a lot of emotional baggage. People who consider themselves democrats (little 'd', not the American political party) usually are appalled by the implication that they may be associated with such ideas. I suppose that avowed Communists and Fascists are not all that shocked, and perhaps even look to these people as prophets.

All that aside, the question that I wish to address is the difference in the idea of equality. I cannot yet say what pre-modern thought on this subject is for sure. I would posit that perhaps part of the problem is that no one ever asked the question if people were equal. Plato and Aristotle certainly viewed all people as inherently unequal, and life inherently un-fair. In fact, The Republic basically operates on that fundamental assumption. Later western thinkers seem to believe that while people are inherently un-equal that there is some way that we may become equal, for example entering into the City of God. However, there is a fundamental assumption that those situations are usually outside the natural realm.

Hobbes for the first time propose the equality of man in Leviathan, which seems stark in modern terms, but gave birth to much of modern though. However, it really grew to fruition with John Locke. Indeed, the American Constitution codified the ideas of Locke, and others, such as Montesqieu. You could say that the American Revolution was the first Modern Revolution.

Coincidentally, shortly thereafter, and at least nominally inspired by the American Revolution, came the first post-Modern Revolution, in France. The fundamental difference between the two is their attitudes on equality, value, and ultimately truth.

I will address only equality right now. Modern thought says that all men (and this is meant in the early Modern English sense of Man as opposed to Beast) are equal as men. There is something intrinsic within all of humanity that gives it its special-ness. And, since everyone has that something, they are equal. This is eloquently stated in the American Declaration of independence, which while it is vociferous in its complaints against the King, is very parsimonious in its enumerations of liberties. While every person is equal in worth, there is implicit in the ideas of modernity that not every person is of equal value, at least not to society.

Although some would disagree, I think that it is apparent that this is true. I do not limit it to the crass temporal worth of wealth, but instead I mean value to those around you. A doctor is obviously more valuable than a short-order cook is, because of the scarcity of doctors and the importance to our survival of their work. There is an abundance of short order cooks. In capitalism, we see this reflected in the monetary compensation they receive. (This is in no way meant to denigrate short order cooks. They are very important in society as well. I love my hamburgers, especially without spit.)

I suppose a better way to express this is that some people provide more use to those around them, than others do. While Modernists would say that being more or less useful does not necessarily degrade the worth of a person, insofar as they are not limited by personal ability, they determine their own value.

Post-Modernists would disagree. The banner of the Jacobins spoke of Liberte, Fraternite, and Egalite. (Liberty, Brotherhood (again in the non-gender specific Early Modern English sense), and Equality). Other than liberty, you never heard that during the American Revolution, and that had to do with more than just slavery extant in America at the time. The French Revolution had early communist support, although not Marxist, as he was not even born yet. In France, they believed that indeed everyone was truly equal. Being treated equally like crap by the aristocrats no doubt helped this along. It is difficult to draw examples from the French Revolution on this topic, however, because the economy never recovered until the Revolution was swallowed by nationalism (itself a pre-modern idea) and Napoleon, only a short while later.

However, we have practical examples of more articulated post-modern thought in Marxism, and Fascism. In Marxism, or Communism, all people are totally equal. In Marxism, all work is of the same value, whether a shoemaker or a doctor. Labor determines worth. In Fascism, people are also all equal as cogs of the state. All jobs that people take are, or should serve the state, and are therefore equal.

Now, the waters get a little murky when we take practical examples. Most, if not all, the examples of Fascism and Marxism, when applied injected a lot of practical politics. Nazism was vehemently pre-modern anti-Semitic, which ultimately proved counter-productive, not because it was necessary to rise to power (and maybe because of where the ideology took root). Communism was, at least in Europe, anti-Semitic as well as anti-Western, and anti-Colonial, not because it was an intrinsic part of the ideology, but because it was politically expedient for the survival of the state.

The waters become even murkier when I begin to suggest that people who are practicing members of the democratic community, of all political stripes, have ideas related to these. It is not because they are ashamed of their ideas, but because of the taint of the actions of previous proponents unrelated to thought. Suffice it to say, there are those out there, and they are numerous, who believe that all people are absolutely equal, as opposed to "created equal." The conflict is mutually exclusive, and is one of the major rifts in political society today.

I will talk about this later. Until then, keep your head down.

Self-Awareness

2005-10-30T18:59:00.000-07:00

One of the most hilarious things in occurring naturally is when a dog, often a smallish dog with largish ambitions sees itself in a mirror. The hilarity that ensues is something not to be missed. However, sometimes the dog realizes that it is only a reflection of itself. Most recognize this as an indicator of self-awareness, in the sense that the animal is aware that it is his or her own actions that cause the corresponding action in the image in the mirror.

Of course, this happens in varying degrees in different animals, but it is very interesting that the actual number of people who are truly self-aware are very few. When I talk about self-awareness, I do not mean it in an amorphous, transcendental way but in the literal practical way that a dog is self aware of his own actions when he looks in the mirror. Many people are unable to look at themselves and see that they are taking action and that action has results.

Of course, part of the reason that this is true is the intrinsic nature of the difficulty of seeing your self. You never literally see your own face. The best that can happen is that you see a reflection of it. Likewise in life, you never can really see yourself as a person, for the same reason that you can never really see your own face; you are too close to the subject.

Consequentially we can only view the reflections of ourselves from other people. That is naturally problematic. Others will reflect us back, but also their view of us will taint that reflection. It can be rather like looking at ourselves through a funhouse mirror. If we know how we truly, the image in the mirror tells us more about the mirror than it does about us.

A better method is reflection on our world and the effects that our actions have upon it. This is sort of like how scientists tried to figure out what an atom was like by shooting particles at is and seeing how they behaved when they came into contact with the molecules, and atoms. If we look around at the effect that we have on the world around us, and the effect that it has upon us then we will have a much better idea of whom we are.

However, this is a painful process. I first realized this when I was in basic training. For some reason, every man in America believes he can shoot a weapon. You can tell this because the fellow in the movies who does not know how to shoot is always the butt of jokes, and often portrayed as a nerd. Everyone laughs at how he is inept at working a firearm, because they believe that it is something so simple that they could do it easily themselves, even though many of them never have.

In basic training, however, you must test your belief for real. You actually have to lie down and take real shots at real targets. Many young men, myself included, were embarrassed at first at how poorly on the whole that we did. I had done some, but little shooting before, but I at least had the good sense to swallow my pride, and listen to the Drill Sergeants. Ultimately, I succeeded, as did everyone else. However, for many of them, their natural confidence without basis was destroyed. Ultimately, it was replaced by a real confidence that has a basis in fact.

That moment of realization that you were not what you wanted to be was painful, for two reasons. First, we were faced with the fact that what we had though about ourselves was not true. Second was the realization that if that belief was important enough that we should make it true, we had a lot of work to do. Of course, we had to ultimately succeed because of our condition as trainees.

In real life, there are many such situations. Tied to every man's belief that he can shoot is the belief that he can and will defend his family. Well, soldiers no longer believe that, they know it because the do it every day.

Most people and many soldiers never put themselves into positions where they would have to find out what they are truly made of, because they are afraid of the truth. It is cliché but true to say the truth hurts. It hurts to realize that you are poor because you never worked hard, or you are lonely because you are a jerk. It hurts even more to realize that an undesirable condition is the result of something that is not your fault, but still a part of you nonetheless. The fact that you may not have been born with natural good looks, intelligence, or strength is certainly no ones fault, but they can cause undesirable conditions in our lives.

Many people do not want to look at themselves and see the truth. It is painful, even for the best of us. However, deflecting that truth has its own consequences. That is a discussion for another day.

Suffice it to say, who we are is where we start. We all have an idea of where we want to go, but without a starting point, we have no way to get there.

Get it going

2005-10-29T11:18:00.000-06:00

It has been a long and slow road to here. I have not had nearly the impetus to write that I thought that I would. This has not been because I was unable to think of anything, but because there was so much to write about. I have seen so many blogs that couldn't get over their sense of self-importance enough to focus on one thing, and I didn't want that to happen.

Then again, the primary reason that I wanted to write this was not so that I could expound the truths of the world, but actually to increase my own writing ability. I therefore have decided to start writing a little each day as a sort of exercise. I will naturally drift from one topic to another, but I hope that on the balance my writing improves.

Right now, I am currently preparing for a deployment to the Middle East, and that has preoccupied me for some time. I will later talk about my feelings about war and deployment on a philosophical level, but for now, I will stick to the visceral and temporal aspects of it.

On the one hand, I am a little afraid. I do not fear that I will die, although I realize that is a possibility. But if I were dead then why would I worry about it. I am actually more worried about getting into a car accident or something like that, as I am proverbially clumsy around large things. I have already injured myself once this year, and that was from falling out of a truck. Not a moving vehicle, from which I was pitched mind you but instead a stationary vehicle, which I was dismounting.

No, rather I am worried that I will in some way fail those around me. I know that there are many people relying on me. I know that I can do things well, and that I do have the training and skills necessary to make things happen. However, I have never been in a real life or death situation or at least not one so immediate. There was always a little fudge room. On top of that, I know that it is very likely that I will have colossal periods of boredom, followed by intense moments of terror.

On the other hand, I am a little excited. This is a new experience, and life is nothing if not experience. Sometimes as we get older, we fall into the trap of the "comfort zone." Maybe there will come I time when the whole world is my comfort zone, but I doubt it. This is a new country, a new people, and a new language for me to experience. Even in war, there is a chance to make friends. Already in the military, I have learned a new meaning to friendship; I expect that it will go one step further.

The challenge of the whole thing is exciting as well. I will finally have a chance to pit myself against truly evil men who are trying to do truly bad things to people and I hope that will have expressive benefits. Of course, if I fail I will no doubt feel terrible, but that is part of the risk and the cost.

I hope that I will be able to remain somewhat aloof from the sludge into which many soldiers fall. I hope that it really is perspective. Many soldiers fall into the trap of generalization. The "Kill them all mentality" springs from frustration, and the inability to see the things that are being successful. There is an important military aspect to this as well which I hope to discuss later, but the personal one is what I am worried about now.

Hating too much can destroy the soul. That is why I think that the great men who have served in the military are so great, and why there are so often many social problems, petty and capital, that accompany the military. Many cave to the moral pressure that is put on them while they are preparing to kill, and killing people. The pressure comes form both from the action, but also from the hatred that they allow themselves to feel. It corrupts them, each in a different way. Some are lost forever (although thankfully not many), and some merely begin to compromise and change little by little.

However, those who are great men, and I mean this in the moral and historical sense, overcame the moral pressure. People like George C. Marshall, or Dwight Eisenhower, did not allow it to become personal. They learned to fight not because of the natural reaction of hate, but because it was their job, and it was expedient at the time. Many writers talk about how you fight because of the buddy to your left and right. What they often don't realize is that is the key to saving yourself from the moral degradation of fighting out of hate, or even frustration. There is a saying. "I don't fight because I hate what's in front of me but because I love what's behind me."

I hope I can keep that perspective, and I hope that I do well.

Welcome

2005-01-15T13:40:00.000-07:00

Greetings one and all. While it is highly improbable that there is anyone who will read this, I welcome you all to the launching of this Blog. As this first month goes by I will be publishing several new blogs, and hammering out the details of this whole blog idea.

In the upcoming days and weeks I will lay out what I believe to be the fundamental ideas of this Web log. I hope that everyone will enjoy it, and perhaps we can learn something from each other. Maybe, we can make our little spot on earth a better place.