Political Frenzy

At an “Ask Mitt Anything” forum today a woman asked presidential candidate Mitt Romney of his 5 sons, “If none of them are (in the military), how do they plan to support this war on terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?”

First of all this question is horribly phrased and backs Romney into a corner. But like a true politician he waltzed his way out by discussing how his niece’s husband, who is in the National Guard, was called up, how his sons chose different career paths and are supporting the military by campaigning for him to be president.

It is a dumb question, but I feel that it needs to be addressed. Must someone be enlisted (or an officer) in the military to be a supporter? What do you think?

The notion that you must be IN the military to be a supporter, is ridiculous. I support the military with all my heart, but I’m not heading off to basic training any time soon. However, if we ever have a draft I will be the first guy at MEPS with my head shaved. The United States is the greatest nation on earth because of sacrifices Americans have made while serving in the military. We would be nowhere without them today.

Military service is not for everybody, just like all careers. Some of the most successful people I know are in the military, but it is not for everybody. To support your country in a time of war you should be doing the things that you are best at, not what someone else is best at. The guy who makes M-16s might not be the best to shoot them, and vice versa.

It is naive for someone to think that to support the military you must be in it, and it is even stupider to try to trap a professional politician by asking such pointed questions.

President Bush (remember him?) met with the President of Afghanistan today. They debated the conditions in Afghanistan and the role of Iran in the current wars.

President Bush is playing defense (just like our troops) on these issues. When the US invaded Afghanistan is seemed that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were defeated and Osama would be captured. Fast-forward 6 years, the Taliban has rebuilt and Osama is wasting perfectly good oxygen in some dark cave (what a hero). On top of that we have an unstable Iraq, and a hostile nation, Iran, building nuclear weapons. Are we back at square one?

No, we are back at square -5.

Karzai, the Afghani President, says that Iran has played a “helpful role” in Afghanistan. Considering that Iran is providing the IEDs that are killing our troops daily in Iraq, I would say that Iran is being “less than helpful.”

President Bush said, it was up to Iran ‘to prove it is not a “destabilizing force” in the region.’ I agree with this, Iran is secretive and blatantly hostile towards the US. Iran needs to show that it is being helpful, and President Bush needs to find out why President Karzai thinks that Iran is.

It is always nice to know if you are in bed with the enemy.

Today GOP Senators blocked an Amendment that would allow our troops to actually have breaks between tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Amendment, sponsored by Senator Webb, a Vietnam veteran who wore his son’s combat boots during his entire campaign, fell 4 votes shy of being voted on, you read that correctly. They had a vote to vote, very productive. As much as I love Congress sometimes they just makes me shake my head and say ‘what?’

The Amendment states, “No unit or member of the Armed Forces…be redeployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom unless the period between the deployment…is equal to or longer than the period of such previous deployment.”

The Amendment was supported by the Military Officers Association of America saying in a letter to Senator Jim Webb, “MOAA is very concerned that steps must be taken to protect our most precious military asset – the all-volunteer force – from having to bear such a disproportionate share of national wartime sacrifice.”

Seven Republicans voted for the Amendment, six of which are up for re-election in 2008… big surprise.

An editorial in the Army Times discussed how the current deployment strategy doesn’t work. “It means more mental health problems for soldiers, more stress on families and less support for the mission at home….This is a bad policy.” Longer tours, they discuss, threaten the very strength of the Army. It was found that, “…mental health issues increase in direct relation to the length and frequency of deployments and the amount of combat experience soldiers endure.” The Army Times realized that the Amendment would not pass but said it “would force a debate on how to answer the call in Iraq without destroying the Army in the process.”

The current re-deployment policy states that soldiers may have 12 months at home for every 15 months in a war zone. This is not true. I have friends who are currently in war zones in the Middle East. I can guarantee you that after their 15 month tours they got nowhere close to 12 months at home before they were sent back to the sand.

I always like to see Senators voting against their party, it shows that they are thinking for themselves. Re-evaluating the redeployment policy is a great idea. Our soldiers are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we cannot overuse them.

The White House is now seeking a “war czar” to take over administration of the Iraqi and Afghani wars, in order to co-ordinate efforts between traditionally rival organizations in the United States war machine, such as the CIA, NSA, and Armed Forces.

First of all, the US should never have an anything “czar”. That’s just weird. But we do. (Google “drug czar”)

Second of all… good idea! If only we had had such a position earlier, we might have caught Osama!

When the CIA had Osama trapped, they didn’t receive the military back up they wanted because Donald Rumsfeld thought that the CIA was incompetent, and refused to endorse their action. When the military needed help and had Osama just in their grasp, the CIA failed them because Cheney thought that CIA efforts would be better placed elsewhere. If only we had, like, one guy running the whole thing.

Other than Bush, of course.

What a buttload of silliness.

Khaled el-Masri, a German national of Lebanese descent, had his claims against the CIA thrown out of American courts. According to Masri, he was on vacation in Macedonia when he was abducted by Macedonian officials and taken to Afghanistan where he was placed under scrutiny of CIA officials who tortured and beat him even after he was discovered to be innocent of any wrongdoing. He says that he was flown to Albania where he was dumped on the side of the road by CIA agents.

German Parliament, having little-to-no diplomatic sway on the United States, vocally supports Masri, but cannot do anything to pursue charges against the CIA. Masri was in illegal custody for several months, something that drew the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union, which handled Masri’s case. But even the ACLU has abandoned hope for further prosecution.

The case was not thrown out based on lack of evidence. In fact, the case was thrown out because the only way to link anyone with Masri’s arrest and alleged torture is to reveal major points of the CIA’s structure and name the operatives involved. This would result in catastrophe for the CIA, and the court decided that the safety of CIA protocol was more important than the suffering of a single foreign national.

What a world we have come to where the pain and suffering of a man is swallowed by the covert needs of the masses. This country was founded on the principles of individual liberties, and crimes by government officials against any man or woman of any nationality - foreign or American - should never be dismissed for any reason by anyone. Let us all take a minute to reflect on the emotional future of the abused man, a man who must have thought at some point he would die simply for being a Lebanese German in Macedonia.

Middle East, Europe, United States, Afghanistan, CIA, Lawsuits, Macedonia, Germany, Lebanon

Australian David Hicks, aka Abu Muslim al-Austraili, has just been slated for trial after five years in Guantanamo Bay. Most recently Mister Hicks has been accusing the United States of torturing and abusing him. He is currently seeking British citizenship, citing his mother’s British citizenry to help his case. His hope is that if he becomes a British national the UK will free him.

Hicks became a soldier of fortune in the Kosovo War after a sordid resume of kangaroo skinning, car stealing, shark fishing, and meat-packing. After returning to Australia from his short and unsuccessful stint in Serbia, he converted to Islam. In order to capitalize on his recent foray into combat and his conversion to Islam, he went to Pakistan-controlled Kashmir where he trained with Lashkar-e-Toiba, the eastern ally of al-Qaeda. There he was recruited by al-Qaida and, according to handwritten statements by his peers there, became a favorite student of the terrorist leaders. When his camp was visited by Osama Bin Laden, Hicks reportedly asked Bin Laden about the lack of English in training materials. In response, Hicks was prompted to translate the Arabic to English, which he did.

Later, Hicks would return to Kashmir and fight alongside Pakistani forces against India’s military in the ongoing conflict. However, once Lashkar-e-Toiba was denounced by the Pakistani government as a terrorist organization - in spite of popular opinion, which heavily supported them - Hicks and his compatriots broke down and began infighting.

Once news of the September 11th attacks reached Hicks, he armed himself with an AK-47 automatic rifle and grenades, and headed to Afghanistan. There he joined al-Qaeda forces against the Northern Alliance, the Afghani group supported by the United States. His involvement in the civil war would be short, however, as a warlord captured him and presented him to the Northern Alliance, who then offered him up to the United States.

Hicks’ story is a sordid and bizarre epic tragedy. Not a stupid man, Hicks has no sense of identity and shows little ability to keep himself grounded. Even his attempt at finding a foundation for himself in a religion led him to a life of violence, a sign of a seriously disturbed individual.

But it is not that his story is so outrageous nor that it is unique; this reporter believes that his story is not all too different from most at Guantanamo Bay. It is the color of his skin that has captured media attention. If this man had been another Middle Easterner, a “towel-head” in most bigoted racist eyes, no one would have printed a word of him.

Unpopular Australian Prime Minister John Howard has tried to jump ship from his former chumminess with the Bush White House, and demand the speedy trial of David Hicks. He reportedly pestered Vice President Dick Cheney during his Sydney visit, and has constantly brought up the issue in the media.

The surging popularity of the Labor Party in Australia has led the nation on an anti-war tangent, and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has been railing the Australian government to pull out of the middle east. The apprehension of David Hicks, and Australian national, by US Forces, has become a hot-button issue in both countries.

How should this go forward? How should this be handled?

No differently than if he were from any other nation. David Hicks is not special. He is just another Muslim. And the fact that he happens to be white is no reason to exempt him from any punishment, nor give him more than any other prisoner. Because no matter what faith you are, God should never care what color you are. And isn’t justice blind?

News, Middle East, Australia, Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Australian Labor Party, David Hicks, Dick Cheney, Islam, Serbia, Kosovo, al-Qaida, Lashkar-e-Toiba, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Osama Bin Laden, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan