Tuesday, April 03, 2012
A letter last month was sent to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta by two congressmen and seventeen law enforcement leaders from Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The letter asked Panetta to consider donating some of the millions of tons of military equipment to bolster the ongoing war against Mexican drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The fight has been escalating in recent years, claiming more than 40,000 lives and spreading deep into the U.S. heartland as narcotraffickers clash with American law enforcement and border patrol officers. In many cases the good guys are outgunned, perhaps due in part to the Fast and Furious fiasco that is still being investigated in Washington.
In Arizona, we've interviewed local sheriff's deputies who spend their own money to buy weapons and bulletproof vests to try and even the odds a bit. If Panetta's office agrees to the request, an infusion of military equipment would prove helpful.
But more equipment and even more money won't solve the problem without politicians willing to display a concrete will to secure the border. Locals along our southern frontier say they are on the front lines of a war that has been effectively ignored by the Obama administration.
The ranchers who live in this war say it'll take more than the cast-off equipment from the war in Iraq to solve the problem. It'll take troops, too.
But for now, they'll take all the help they can get.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
When Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales allegedly went on a murderous rampage in the Panjwai district of Afghanistan on March 11, the world reacted with shock and outrage.& That is completely understandable. But should we be surprised?
I've been saying it privately for some time - the stress level our troops are facing in Afghanistan is at an all-time high. Pressure from the American public to bring the war to a speedy conclusion, more than a decade of back-to-back deployments, an increasingly risk-averse chain of command, and constant meddling from our leaders in Washington all serve to make the pressure in theater thicker than it's ever been.
All this is compounded by the media's excitement every time American troops make a mistake, and an increasing number of "incidents" - Afghan soldiers and police turning on their U.S. mentors...and it would seem the war in the shadows of the Hindu Kush is all but lost.
The war may well end badly. There is still much to do. But when you hear about the latest outrage on the evening news, please keep in mind that U.S. and Afghan troops are working side-by-side in ever increasing numbers as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) prepares to hand the country over - bit by bit - to its own people.
Afghan soldiers and policemen are being trained in the tens of thousands. For every time an Afghan attacks his American trainers, there are literally hundreds of times when Afghan troops put themselves at risk in combat alongside our men and women.
When I last visited the country in the summer of 2011, we met a young Afghan policeman who had been gravely injured fighting off a suicide bomber intent on blowing himself up in a meeting of village elders and American leaders. The Afghan policeman thwarted the attack on the district center in Marjeh, saving the lives of many Ameircans. When he needed a blood transfusion, many American troops and even contractors answered the call.
An American soldier murdering innocent Afghan villagers definitely damages the trust these American trainers have labored to build. It damages the relationship between soldiers of both nations who have covered each other on the field of battle. But let's be careful not to spend too much time focusing on the "one step back" when we are also taking many steps forward.
Monday, February 06, 2012
Let me rant for a minute.
In 2003 I went to hear a speech given by then-Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin. It was given as the evening service in a large evangelical church in Derwood, Md., and in it the general spoke while in uniform. It wasn't uncommon at that time for military officers, especially general officers, to give speeches while in uniform, since by Army regulation an officer is authorized to wear his dress uniform for any "special occasion."
You can listen to a recording I made of the general's speech that night, here.
Not long after that, the L.A. Times ran a hit piece against the general, taking much of what he said out of context and painting him as rabidly anti-Muslim and about as dangerous as the Islamic jihadists who had killed nearly 3,000 of our countrymen only two years before.
In response, Gen. Boykin called for an investigation into his own activities to determine whether he'd violated army regulations. The media dutifully reported that Gen. Boykin was "under investigation" but neglected to disclose that he'd called for the investigation himself.
Fast forward to 2012. Gen. Boykin is now retired after 36 years of service to our nation. In that time he was wounded several times and literally shed his blood defending the freedoms we hold dear, among them the right to free speech.
Today, Gen. Boykin is as busy as ever, and makes his living on the speaking circuit, speaking in churches around the country. Unfortunately, 2003 continues to haunt him, and the lies originally posited by the L.A. times have been repeated so often that they are now routinely quoted as fact by journalists who think a quick Google search constitutes good journalism.
The upshot is that Gen. Boykin is literally being followed around the country by Muslim activists and liberal atheists who are actively trying to get him fired or un-invited for every speaking engagement he's given. Most recently he was asked to speak at the annual prayer breakfast at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York.
The CAIR activists went into full-on screech mode, saying it would somehow harm any Muslim students at USMA to have Gen. Boykin speak at a Christian prayer service. Not sure how that works.
Anyway, since Boykin's intent was never to cause embarassment for his friends at USMA, he quietly decided not to accept the speaking request.
That Gen. Boykin is now being refused the very rights he fought and bled to defend is beyond despicable. Boykin is a Christian. His views are unabashedly so. He has every right to speak his mind, no matter how politically incorrect his opinions may be.
CAIR and their ilk have the same freedom. It is a bitter irony that they enjoy it because of men like William G. Boykin.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
I have a beef with Ron Paul.
While I might find some of the libertarian candidate's political positions appealing, a recent clip which aired on CNN of a Paul political rally put a very bad taste in my mouth.
At the rally, Paul introduced Army Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, an "active duty" soldier who proceeded to stump for the candidate, in uniform.
Okay, first of all, this Thorsen fellow is a very poor representation of the U.S. Military. He's wrong for being there in uniform because engaging in political activity so dressed is a clear and flagrant violation of Army policy.
And how about that enormous neck tattoo? Army Regulation 670-1 was recently updated to allow tattoos on the BACK of the neck, as long as it isn't visible from the front.
The new regulation clearly states, however, that throat tattoos (from the earlobes forward) are prohibited. According to current Army policy, Cpl. Thorsen should be given the option of having the tattoo removed or being discharged from the service.
Thorsen claims to have served 10 years in the military. According to a little digging done by The Atlantic Wire, soldier Jesse is actually a reservist (not active duty) and has only actually served six years, (in two stints). He also conveniently failed to mention that his second term of enlistment was precipitated by a burglary conviction, in which Thorsen was given the option of that or several years of probation.
What's worse is this: Ron Paul should know better. Paul is a former Air Force officer, and should be smart enough to know that by allowing an Army corporal to speak at his campaign rally, heads would roll, specifically those of Thorsen and his immediate commanders. In addition, Paul misspoke by claiming Thorsen had served in Afghanistan and Iraq (he's only been twice to Afghanistan).
Besides, if he wanted to find a military hero to speak at his rally, he could likely find a better example than Cpl. Thorsen. And as long as that person didn't do his stumping in uniform, there wouldn't have been a problem.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Just before Christmas, the last combat troops arrived home from Iraq to a joyous welcome by friends and family. Every one of them was, no doubt, very glad to be home. They left behind a country vastly changed by eight years of conflict - infinitely better in many ways, but with a future never more in doubt.
I'm not so concerned about the wave of new violence being reported in Iraq in the wake of the U.S. pullout. That was to be expected as the remnants of the Iranian-supported insurgency make a bid to fill the power vacuum left by our departure.
What is more dangerous is the power struggles taking place in the highest echelons of the Iraqi government. Iraqi President Nouri Al-Maliki might be the democratically elected president of the country, but he's beset by infighting within his administration and, as some reports attest, he's having major trouble bringing together the varied tribal factions that make up his country.
The truth is, though Maliki himself called for the Americans to leave, and the Obama administration is busy congratulating itself on "ending" the war in Iraq, the Maliki government has a long way to go before Iraq will be on anybody's list of tourism hot spots. And as our president may soon discover, ending the war is not the same as winning it.
History may very well record that Barack Obama presided over the snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Rememberinig the 70th anniversary of the now second worst attack on American soil, perpetrated by a foreign entity which, in retrospect, didn't work out so well for them.
Take a moment and watch this rare color footage of "the victory which lost Japan the war."
Saturday, November 26, 2011
I was in Panama on Jan. 3, 1990 when Manuel Noriega, the dictator we'd gone to depose, surrendered to U.S. authorities and was promptly flown to Miami for trial.
Since that trip, I've been back to Panama nearly 30 times, most recently a few days ago. Manuel Noriega has spent the intervening years in a federal prison in Miami, convicted of drug-related charges and money laundering.
After 21 years in U.S. custody, he was transferred to France, where he was sentenced to seven years in prison for similar charges. But this coming week, Manuel Noriega may finally return to the country of his birth. A French judge granted a request by the country of Panama that he be returned.
But his trouble with the courts is not over. Once he returns to Panama, Noriega will face decades-old murder charges for the deaths of several of his political rivals.
The country Noriega left has changed dramatically since 1990. Gone are the U.S. bases that dotted the canal zone. The Panama canal is expanding under Panamanian control, and the country has the highest standard of living in Central America. What were once bases that belonged to the Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF) are now high-rise condominiums and five-star resorts.
One spot, however, has been untouched since Noriega left. His home in a wealthy suburb of Panama city has remained eerily empty, and has fallen into disrepair. Once the deposed dictator returns, he may want to refurbish the old place, because by Panamanian law, if Noriega is convicted of the crimes he faces there, he can serve his sentence at home because of his advanced age.
Most people I've spoken to in Panama see Noriega as a relic of a distasteful period of their history. It will be interesting to see the reception he gets when he arrives back on his home turf.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
I hope you got a chance to watch this story I did recently on the Alaskan Oil Pipeline being threatened with closure.
If the EPA continues with its pattern of crushing regulation and draconian permitting practices, we may well see the end of the Alaskan Oil pipeline in the next few years. This would spell disaster for our country's bid to become independent of foreign oil.
And while nobody in Congress or the White House can seem to decide if we should allow drilling in the arctic, our "competitors," that is, Russia and China, are putting together plans to do just that.
So while the United States dithers and argues about sustainability and green energy, we may soon watch while Russia pumps oil from the Arctic that we could have pumped ourselves, then sells it back to us.
On a more cheerful note, the planned community Russia is building in the Arctic is the stuff of science fiction movies. I would love to visit once they get the dome in place.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Mexican President Felipe Calderon took the stage at the UN last week to ask for more help in combatting the violence that has painted his country as a war zone for the last several years.
Even though the violence is actually less widespread than most Americans realize - 85 percent of the drug violence in Mexico happens in only five cities - four of them along the US-Mexico border.
But that doesn't make much difference when cartels are dumping dozens of headless bodies in the streets in broad daylight.
Nevertheless, Calderon went on to claim that the drug problem is mostly America's fault. We need to do more to reduce the demand for illegal drugs. That's true, though I'm afraid the solution he proffered - legalization - would not help.
There isn't much likelihood that cartels would suddenly become law-abiding and begin to pay taxes on something they've never paid on before. I could be wrong on that, however, one thing I know for sure - the only thing that will make a lasting difference in the demand for drugs is to change the heart of our nation from a self-indulgent culture back to one of selfless service.
Of course, Calderon couldn't suggest that. Instead he fell back to beating his tried and true dead horse - quoting the absolutely false statistic that 85 percent of firearms found in Mexico are purchased in America.
Do some study about the source of this number, which is often quoted by politicians on both sides of the border, and you'll see how it is really an attempt to blame our Second Amendment for the violence in Mexico.
In Mexico, while there is a constitutional right to bear arms, that right has been legislated away to the point that owning a firearm legally is all but impossible for the law-abiding citizen. Criminals can aquire them easily, of course, because they are criminals. All the laws on the books don't stop them.
Here in America, your average citizen is still able to defend himself legally. I believe this is the biggest reason we don't yet see the kind of violence they have in Mexico. An armed citizenry is much harder to victimize.
In Mexico, citizens will just have to continue to hope - and wait - for their government to get their act together.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
If you happened to read my post a week ago about the e-trace scandal waiting to happen, you'll be interested in these recent developments in Colombia.
I raised the issue of the ATF sharing its e-trace databases with more than 70,000 non-U.S. citizens in more than 30 foreign countries as a huge potential security threat, since these databases contain reams of personal information on millions of American citizens.
Many of these foreign governments are as corrupt as the day is long, and that makes for a huge potential threat of massive identity theft.
Now reports from Colombia (one of the countries with access to E-trace) that government officials have been sharing classified documents with Narco-cartels should make every American shudder.
The U.S. government should lock down these databases immediately and cut off access to foreign governments. All it takes is one corrupt official who decides to make a little extra income by selling the names, social security numbers, drivers license numbers, addresses, and other personal details to the highest bidder - which may very well be hackers bent on stealing your identity.
Someone needs to do something about this before it's too late.