If you didn’t believe me before about Guantanamo and why it was a remarkably dumb idea, will you believe these guys?

From Politico:

“It’s up to all of us to say these arguments advanced by Cheney and his acolytes are nonsense and that really what they’re doing is undermining our national security by delaying the date at which Guantanamo is closed,” retired Brig. Gen. James Cullen, a former chief judge of the Army’s Court of Criminal Appeals, told POLITICO Tuesday.

“Some of the fear issues that are being raised in this are really unfortunate. It gets people excited about things they shouldn’t be excited about and impedes doing what is critical to this country. Get that damn symbol off the table,” said retired Gen. David Maddox [pictured above], a former Army commander-in-chief for Europe. “We take a setback every time somebody, whether it’s the vice president or his daughter comes out and says the things that they say….We have to get out there again and just keep pounding.”

Also, the following quote in particular is gratifying to hear, especially when people act as if terrorists are somehow the most dangerous criminals in the history of the world and their presence in a community would somehow make it ridiculously unsafe…

“Can you imagine getting a terrorist from Guantanamo convicted and put in a federal penitentiary in your town?” Maddox asked. “Have you ever checked who the hell’s in there already? Have any of them gotten out? The person who we’re putting in is probably a heck of lot less dangerous than most of them who are already in there.”

Agreed. Now it’s time to convince the rest of the US.

Let’s get started…

But they promise that detainees won’t be abused. More on why I think that’s nonsense later on in the post.

But first, more from NY Times:

The announcement, by President Obama’s Interrogation and Transfer Policy Task Force, seemed intended in part to offset the impact of the release on Monday of a long-withheld report by the C.I.A. inspector general, written in 2004, that offered new details about the brutal tactics used by the C.I.A. in interrogating terrorism detainees.

Though the Obama administration previously signaled that it would continue the use of renditions, some civil liberties groups were disappointed because, as a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama had strongly suggested he might end the practice. In an article in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 2007, Mr. Obama wrote, “To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people.”

Mr. Obama continued, “This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.” In January, the president ordered secret prisons run by the C.I.A. to be shut down.

And here are the changes proposed so people aren’t tortured…

The administration officials, who discussed the changes on condition that they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would operate more openly and give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.

“The emphasis will be on ensuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent overseas,” said one administration official, adding that no detainees would be sent to countries known to conduct abusive interrogations.

While these are at least movements in the right direction, we’ve seen how people have been kidnapped from their homes, detained for years and then released because they shouldn’t have been picked up in the first place.

Here’s the thing…stealing people from their lives still constitutes abuse in my book. Perhaps not the classic definition of torture, but think of the mental torment those folks went through. So if it happens again, well, shame on the Obama administration.

Truly disappointing…

So if you desert you should die? I understand being brought up on charges if you leave and then lie about it, which is possible what’s going on here, but the last time I heard anything about a court martial for deserting, the punishment didn’t include death.

There are few things I hate, but this type of nonsense is one of them.

Ugh.

Because we overreached so much during the past eight years, the practice of stop-loss was an unfortunate and common reality for many soldiers who would have otherwise left the military.

Now we’re honoring their forced service with more than a pat on the back.

From AP:

WASHINGTON -The House and Senate reached a compromise Thursday to give a $500 retroactive bonus to soldiers for every month they were forced to stay in the military beyond their enlistment term since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Rep. John Murtha, chairman of a key subcommittee that funds the military, said $534 million was allocated under the deal. His office says a total of 185,000 military members qualify because they have experienced “stop-loss” since 9/11.

Those eligible would have one year to claim the payment. [...]

Earlier this year, Congress funded similar payments to about 12,000 troops who were currently under stop-loss orders, but the payments weren’t retroactive beyond Oct. 1.

So why was this bill even needed? Why did they have to work on retroactivity now?

Because some opposed it last time around, and my guess is they weren’t Democrats. I could be wrong about that, but the initial legislation was proposed by Dems, and Repubs still hadn’t suffered that crushing 21 seat loss in November or lost the rest of their subcommittee leadership positions.

Here’s what a former solider who served 14 months of stop loss had to say back in late October 2008…

The original proposal called for $1,500 for each month under stop-loss. Enough legislators balked that the $1,500 soon dropped to $500, which was approved by the House subcommittee. In the Senate, the payments met further resistance. “We thought it was a no-brainer,” a legislative aide who worked on the bill said. “Why would you not want to compensate a soldier who is being forced away from his home and family, and forced to risk his life?” Proponents considered a compromise of $200 per month for those whose stop-loss has already been served, but opted to stay at $500 and work on retroactivity next year. The bill requires that the Pentagon conduct a feasibility study for retroactive payments.

Who here thinks that soldiers should have received the originally proposed $1,500 per month?

From AP:

Gen. David Petraeus said the number of attacks in Afghanistan over the last week hit the highest level since the December 2001 fall of the Taliban.

“Some of this will go up because we are going to go after their sanctuaries and safe havens as we must,” Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, said during a speech at the Washington think-tank Center for a New American Security.

“But there is no question the situation has deteriorated over the course of the past two years in particular and there are difficult times ahead,” he said.

So how much violence?

There were more than 400 insurgent attacks last week, including ambushes, small arms volleys, assaults on Afghan infrastructure and government offices, and roadside bomb and mine explosions. In comparison, attacks in January 2004 were less than 50 per week.

Extremist attacks in the rural nation tend to increase in the summer months, and in part are spurred by military efforts to crack down on insurgents, Petraeus said.

It looks like we’re going to be there for a while. And I think most Americans are fine with that since Afghanistan always has been the central front in the fight against Islamic extremism.

Why we didn’t finish the job when we had the chance will be one of those things historians look back on and shake their heads about. But we’re there now and we can’t allow it, or Pakistan, to descend into chaos. Especially since Pakistan has nukes. That would be bad, bad news.

A man with “political and religious motives” killed a soldier just out of basic training and wounded another Monday in a targeted attack on a military recruiting center, police said. The shootings were not believed to be part of a broader scheme. [...]

William Long, 24, of Conway, died, and Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, of Jacksonville, was wounded and in stable condition, Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. [...]

Police arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, along a crosstown interstate moments after the shootings at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock.

So in the last two days it appears as if we’ve had two acts of domestic terrorism because of horribly misguided religious beliefs. And nothing much to more to say than that until we find out more.

It appears as if evangelical Christians inside the military could be urging troops to give out bibles in Afghanistan…which is strictly forbidden by both the military’s code of conduct and Afghan law.

Here’s the report…

Now, the military denies that the bibles were ever distributed, but there’s no way to really prove if they were or weren’t. But what this brings up is the idea that the religiosity of some in the military is starting to get in the way. Because the faithful seem to have way too much influence right now since blatant prosteletyzing has been happening much too often right out in the open.

For instance, take the Mikey Weinstein situation at the Air Force Academy…

In recent years, accusations of evangelical line-crossing have piled up. In 2005, Fisher DeBerry, then the Air Force Academy’s football coach, was ordered to remove a “Team Jesus Christ” banner from the locker room. Senior officers who were filmed in uniform at the Pentagon for a Christian promotional video were reprimanded. Then in February, again at the academy, three professed exterrorists and reformed Christians were accused of putting a “Jesus saves”
message in a presentation to cadets. Richardson, quoted three years ago in The New York Times as saying chaplains “reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched,” was cited in a lawsuit against the Air Force that claimed there was widespread proselytizing at the academy.

The suit was brought by Mikey Weinstein, a former Air Force attorney and longtime critic of alleged coercive Christianity within the military. (As a result of the suit, a private chaplain association’s code of ethics retaining the “right to evangelize those who are not affiliated” is no longer passed out at Air Force Chaplain’s School.)

And let’s not forget the seriously mixed messages our former POTUS sent…

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.”

Mr Bush went on: “And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East’. And, by God, I’m gonna do it.”

Listen, I have nothing against religion in general or members of the military practicing their faith responsibly. That’s their business.

But strict lines between religion and military must be maintained so our armed forces are not seen as Christian forces. And if that means harsh punishments for those who violate these rules, so be it. Because we can’t allow a cadre of the faithful to undermine our credibility.

What do you think?

For those who’ve worried that under the command of President Obama, our military in Iraq won’t be able to adjust to realities on the ground, there’s this story out of Mosul. Conditions in the region are not good and our forces are likely postpone the scheduled withdrawal if Iraqi authorities ask us to stay.

Army Colonel Gary Volesky, commander of U.S. forces in the Mosul area, said U.S. and Iraqi officials are now assessing security in the northern Iraqi city to determine whether his troops should leave by June 30, when U.S. combat forces are due to pull back from towns and cities across Iraq.

The deadline is part of a U.S.-Iraqi pact reached last year that also calls for all U.S. troops to depart Iraq by 2012.

Neither we nor the Iraqis want to leave a terrorist haven/destabilized region in Iraq. If Mosul is too violent for the Iraqis to govern effectively, there’s good reason to keep our forces involved. Such flexibility is necessary if we want to withdrawal from Iraq responsibly. At this point, it’s pretty clear Obama supports the responsible withdrawal side rather than the withdrawal-at-all-costs side many feared he’d follow once elected president.

Since taking office, Obama has tended towards pragmatism in military endeavors, even trending somewhat to the hawkish side, particularly in Afghanistan. For those listening closely during the election, this isn’t a huge surprise, but it is welcome.

Quite a nice surprise on this holiday weekend.

From ABC:

A senior US official tells me that President Barack Obama approved a recommendation by Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen to dispatch special forces to the US scene on Friday.

These special forces were authorized to take action “in extremis” against the Somali pirates holding Maersk Captain Richard Phillips, 53, hostage on a motorized lifeboat off the coast of Somalia.

So how did it all happen?

You won’t believe it…

A senior official tells me that when the fourth Somali pirate was on the Bainbridge ship, Phillips moved to side of the lifeboat to relieve himself.

At that point, U.S. special forces saw their opportunity and took other three pirates out.

And that will be the luckiest leak that Captain will ever take.

One US official suggested that this could make one hell of a movie, but what kind of action film culminates in somebody taking a piss off the side of a boat?

Maybe it’ll be a funny action film. :-)

The strategy is simple.

Quit plowing billions into the programs that aren’t working and up the funding for some programs that do.

From Wash Post:

Gates’s aides say his plan would boost spending for some programs and take large whacks at others, including some with powerful constituencies on Capitol Hill and among influential contractors, making his announcement more of an opening bid than a decisive end to weeks of sometimes acrimonious internal Pentagon debate.

Among the programs expected to be heavily cut is the Army’s Future Combat Systems, a network of vehicles linked by high-tech communications that has been plagued by technical troubles and delays; with a price tag exceeding $150 billion, it is now one of the most costly military efforts.

Gates also is considering cutting a new $20 billion communications satellite program and reducing the number of aircraft carriers from 11 to 10, and he plans to eliminate elements of the decades-old missile defense effort that are over budget or considered ineffective, according to industry and administration sources.

Also, contrary to what was previously reported, Obama will actually be increasing the budget by 4%.

Why?

Well, Pentagon officials essentially forced his hand by proposing a ridiculously unrealistic 14% budget increase, but a lot of planning had already begun before Obama was inaugurated so it was hard to unwind.

Don’t expect that to happen next time.

Some good news already from G20:

After a meeting between the two men in London, on the eve of the G20 summit, President Obama also accepted an invitation to fly to Moscow in July, by which time both sides hope negotiators from both countries will have worked out an arms control deal to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) which expires on 5 December. The negotiators were told to begin work at once.

There were no specific figures in the statements issued after the meeting at Whitfield House, the US embassy residence, but the two leaders agreed that the new deal would go further than the Moscow treaty that their predecessors, George Bush and Vladimir Putin, agreed in 2002. The treaty stipulates operationally deployed (ready to fire) arsenals of 1,700-2,200 warheads, suggesting the goal of a new treaty would be to go below 1,700, and a target figure mentioned as a possibility by both sides is 1,500 warheads each.

No doubt these are just first steps, but I find it much more promising than hearing that Obama saw into Medvedev’s soul.

I’m just saying…

A new type of threat requires new ways of combating it.

Thankfully our Defense Secretary is leading that charge with some needed changes to the Pentagon’s budget.

From Boston.com:

WASHINGTON – As the Bush administration was drawing to a close, Robert M. Gates, whose two years as defense secretary had been devoted to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, felt compelled to warn his successor of a crisis closer to home.

The United States “cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything,” Gates said. The next defense secretary, he warned, would have to eliminate some costly hardware and invest in new tools for fighting insurgents.

What Gates didn’t know was that he would be that successor.

So what will be cut?

Two defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Gates will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this month. Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force’s F-22 fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the offi cials said.

More cuts are planned for later this year after a review that could lead to reductions in programs such as aircraft carriers and nuclear arms, the officials said.

We all knew that somebody had to reign in this spending eventually, and of course it had to be under a Democratic administration. Still, it’s heartening to see that a guy like Gates realized that these cuts had to be made even before Obama won. Because, as stated, our weaponry doesn’t necessarily make us any safer.

More as it develops…

Following up on his campaign promise to have a surge-like push in Afghanistan to see if it could help the country.

From Fox News:

“This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan,” Obama said in a statement. “I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need.”

Obama said the deteriorating security in Afghanistan made the troop increase necessary, adding that the country has not received the strategic attention or resources it needs.

Although 17,000 troops have been authorized to go, the Pentagon identified and mobilized only about 12,000. Of those troops, 8,000 will be Marines and the 4,000 others will comprise an Army Stryker Brigade. The additional 5,000 troops will be identified and announced at a later date.

But sources provided FOX News with the identity of all 17,000 troops: 10,000 will be Marines stationed in the South; 3,800 with an Army Stryker Brigade; 1,000 Special Operations Force trainers and 3,200 force enablers.

Also, according to the following report, Sec of Def Robert Gates wanted 30,000 troops…

My guess is if more troops are needed in Afghanistan, that’ll be an easy case for Obama to make to pull troops from Iraq. And I have little doubt that more forces are required because right now it’s a mess.

More as it develops…

The Telegraph is reporting that fighter planes in the French navy were unable to take off after their computers were infected by a computer virus.

The aircraft were unable to download their flight plans after databases were infected by a Microsoft virus they had already been warned about several months beforehand.

At one point French naval staff were also instructed not to even open their computers.

Microsoft had warned that the “Conficker” virus, transmitted through Windows, was attacking computer systems in October last year, but according to reports the French military ignored the warning and failed to install the necessary security measures.

You would think the French military would get a copy of Norton or McAfee or something. It is simply amazing that one of the world’s most advanced nations would blow it big time on something so basic. On top of it, the havoc was probably caused by a deceptively simple act.

Naval officials said the “infection”‘ was probably due more to negligence than a deliberate attempt to compromise French national security. It said it suspected someone at the navy had used an infected USB key.

Terrorists around the world must be taking note of things like this.

Of course, the French try to pass it off as no big deal.

“The computer virus problem had no effect on the availability of our forces.” The virus attacked the non-secured internal French navy network called Intramar and was detected on 21 January. The whole network was affected and military staff were instructed not to start their computers.

According to Liberation newspaper, two days later the chiefs of staff decided to isolate Intramar from the military’s other computer systems, but certain computers at the Villacoublay air base and in the 8th Transmissions Regiment were infected. Liberation reported that on the 15 and 16 January the Navy’s Rafale aircraft were “nailed to the ground” because they were unable to “download their flight plans”. The aircraft were eventually activated by “another system”.

Sure, no effect as long as the computers aren’t started or the pilots don’t want a flight plan.

Quite possibly the next great war will begin and end like this. Whichever side keeps its anti-virus software up-to-date and runs periodic scans wins. Now someone just needs to explain that to the Generals and Admirals.

(from Foolocracy.com)

As promised, this is one of the first orders of business. And given that we eventually freed the majority of those we kidnapped and held indefinitely without access to legal counsel, this move is yet another signal that America is starting a new chapter.

From AP:

The U.S. moved Tuesday to halt the Guantanamo Bay war crimes trials, filing a late-night motion to suspend proceedings until President Barack Obama’s administration completes a review of the system for prosecuting suspected terrorists.

The motion, filed at the direction of Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will be considered early Wednesday by the military judge hearing the case of five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks.

In the motion, a U.S. military prosecutor says the “interests of justice” would be served by a suspension in all pending cases because a review of the system by the Obama administration may result in significant changes.

“The interests of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the interests of both the public and the accused in a prompt trial,” prosecutor Clay Trivett said in the motion.

Trivett wrote that the motion was filed at the direction of the president and defense secretary.

The suspension would be for 120 days while the administration develops a new way to try enemy combatant cases.

More as it develops…

AP reports…

And here’s a partial transcript just in case you can’t see the video…

I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what’s happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I think it’s asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you’d go to the theater and you’d see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for’em. Now everyone’s got an opinion and wants to downer–and down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers.

I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, “Well look at this atrocity,” well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.

I do love Joe’s honesty though, because the fact that he prefers the pro-war propaganda created by the government instead of actual facts is pretty much all you need to know about him.

By the way, I will never forgive McCain for unleashing this guy on us.

However, check out the last question/answer around 4:15 of this video.

All I can say is…it’s about time.

I’ve never understood the claim that somebody disclosing their sexuality would destroy troop morale, especially when it has been well documented that members of our military have served as openly gay and yet admired by their fellow soldiers.

Add to that the fact that openly gay soldiers serve in every single first world military in the world and you have a situation that clearly favors honesty and transparency.

Simply put, “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” is completely outdated and it’s about time we get rid of it once and for all.

Done and done.

The fighting is growing more intense as Israel has started their ground offensive. And if Israel doesn’t realize that they’ve overreached here and are losing sympathy around the world, then they better wake up and realize it soon. You can’t kill this many women and children and not get a ton of backlash.

From CNN:

“Every couple of minutes we hear an explosion,” Safa Joudeh, a Gaza City resident, told CNN early Monday. “We can see tanks coming closer and closer into Gaza.”

She said most residents are confined to their homes, without electricity and running out of food and water.

Palestinian medical sources say Israeli forces have killed 37 Palestinians — both civilians and militants — since moving into the territory Saturday night.

With those deaths, at least 507 Palestinians, including about 100 women and children, have been killed since Israeli airstrikes began December 27, and 2,600 Palestinians have been injured, most of them civilians, sources said.

The question now: what will Obama say? He’s being put between a rock and a hard place because of the whole “there aren’t two presidents” thing, but would it be better for him to say something sooner rather than later?

Looks like it’s a little bit longer than the 16 months Obama talked about during the primaries, but as long as the plan is to get out during his first term I bet he’ll allow the generals more time to execute a plan they think is realistic.

From NY Times:

The plan was proposed by the top American commanders responsible for Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno, and it represents their first recommendation on troop withdrawals under an Obama presidency. While Mr. Obama has said he will seek advice from his commanders, their resistance to a faster drawdown could present the new president with a tough political choice between overruling his generals or backing away from his goal.

The plan, completed last week, envisions withdrawing two more brigades, or some 7,000 to 8,000 troops, from Iraq in the first six months of 2009, the military officials said. But that would leave 12 combat brigades in Iraq by June 2009, and while declining to be more specific, the officials made clear that the withdrawal of all combat forces under the generals’ recommendations would not come until some time after May 2010, Mr. Obama’s target.

This is good news as it signals an end to the Iraq slog.

Now it’s time to let Iraqis figure it all out. Because whatever happens, we’re only delaying the inevitable.

More as it develops…

Shinseki was absolutely correct that more troops were needed back in 2003 and he was punished for speaking truth to power. So there’s certainly some poetic justice that he’s now in charge of helping those who suffered in some small part from the naive strategy he rightly questioned.

Also, one thing I think that was so important about Shinseki’s acceptance speech is he talked about the “unseen” wounds that our soldiers are bringing back with them. Because taking PTSD as seriously as an other injury will be vital to ensuring that our men and women get the care they need if (or when) we call on them again.