And swords and guns and uniforms, Were scattered on the ground

We watched the season closer for Grey's Anatomy last night. No apologies, it's a good show. But they screwed up, IMHO.

A significant sub-plot had one character, mild-mannered George, enlisting in the Army to become a field surgeon. Two other characters argued this issue, and one made the overused point:

They're fighting to protect our freedoms.

Thing is, they're not.

I know it's not PC to say that, but in my life, I can't remember one war, one police action, one armed incursion, one invasion, that was to protect our freedoms. Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, all wars of choice, dreamed up by ideologues and executed by the brave, the foolish, and the desperate.

For the men and women who, for whatever noble and/or tragic reason find themselves in the armed forces, I have the utmost respect. For their own reasons, they did what I chose not to (1st Viet Nam draft, my # was 13. I didn't have to go, and I don't think I would have). And our government, and our population should support them in their sacrifice.

But we don't, by and large. We don't march on Washington to protest conditions at military hospitals, from rats to meal charges. Yes, we march to protest the war, but how does that help the returning soldiers who gave up jobs, whose families had to ask for food stamps?

They aren't defending out freedoms except in their own hearts. And that we should value. My Mom, before she died, was making knitted goods for the Long Beach VA Hospital, because she grew up during WWII when the entire population sacrificed to support the war effort and the soldiers. And Pam has done the same, because her dad was changed and formed by his participation in WWII.

So those of you enamored of the war, or who fetishize the military, what have you done? Have you done one thing that would get our soldiers out of deadly combat? Have you done one thing to help their transition back to a civilian life? Because if you haven't, you're part of the problem.

Clearly we need a defense force, and may sometime need an offensive force. But Iraq, and most likely Afghanistan are not those situations. So if you truly believe we need a military to "defend our freedoms", bring them home, equip them properly, heal them appropriately, pay them fairly, so that when a real threat occurs, they can do the job they volunteered for, the job we trust them to do.

Country Joe still makes sense:

The Bush Doctrine Formula; Jus ad bellum

Bush Secret Order To Send Special Forces Into Pakistan

A secret order issued by George Bush giving US special forces carte blanche to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistani territory raised fears last night that escalating conflict was spreading from Afghanistan to Pakistan and could ignite a region-wide war.
[...]
Following Bush's decision, US navy Seals commandos, backed by attack helicopters, launched a ground raid into Pakistan last week which the US claimed killed about two dozen insurgents. Pakistani officials condemned the raid as illegal and said most of the dead were civilians.
[...]
The move is regarded as unprecedented in terms of sending troops into a friendly, allied country.

This latest invasion, against a country that Bush has said:

- July, 2008 "Pakistan is a strong ally and a vibrant democracy."

- July 2008 Pakistan has been a strong partner in the fight against violent extremism

-September 2006 This President is a strong defender of freedom and the people of Pakistan, and I appreciate your leadership.

The Bush Doctrine specifically delineated the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan as 'preemptive war' when they stated that

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent."

Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate. They never said there was an imminent threat.

Bush would have done well not to make that distinction, since it is the difference between a just war and "Due to the speculative nature of preventive war, in which the adversary may or may not be a future threat, preventive war is considered an act of aggression in international law"

If there is not an 'imminent threat' it is a "Preventive war", which is illegal.

And now Bush has taken his doctrine to a whole new level by attacking what he has said is a sovereign, democratically elected, ally in the war on terror.

Preemptive war v. Preventive war.
This is not just semantics, it is the definition of the difference between a international war crime of aggression and defending your country against an imminent threat.



(h/t to The Vidiot for the inspiration for this post.)



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

I, and I am sure some of you also, have been watching the latest Presidential world tour fan dance, regarding the recent NIE and some of its broader implications, to wit:
that the causes for a new preemptive war on Iran being pressed by the Bush administration as punishment for Iran's perfidiously daring to exist are somewhat specious in nature.

And as this Newsweek article references, President Junior is suitably apologetic toward those who headbob wholeheartedly with his premise of Iran being the Big Electric Satan of our times that "...he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views".

Let's let that linger in the air for a moment, like the atmosphere of a freshly flatus-filled elevator.

'He can't control what the intelligence community says...'
...Well, of course, and there are probably a few salient reasons for that - not least of which is that in order to conduct international affairs successfully and expediently, an administration must have access to truthful intelligence analyzed by professionals, not fictive 'blow out the candles and make a wish' doctrinal reinforcement.

Additionally, if this intelligence community was under his complete control...And nobody is saying that at certain key points in the narrative (at minimum in the case of the Vice-President) it wasn't at least manipulated somewhat...
It would no longer be an 'intelligence community', but an arm of the propaganda wing of government.

And "...the conclusions don't reflect his own views"?
Well, of course, redux.

After all, to him it's just some sort of reality-based plot to make him negotiate with himself...How can one stay the course when inconvenient truths impose themselves on predetermined fictions, I ask you?

I envy George Bush his talent for self-deception. Living is much harder without such a gift.

;>)

Addendum:

Fred Kaplan at Slate brings up the irony factor a notch.

In decades past, the CIA has often lost credibility as a result of its own failures and scandals.
Now President Bush is splashing doubt not just on the CIA, but on all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, simply because their judgments are out of synch with his policies.

There are two further ironies.
First, this NIE is the product of reforms that President Bush himself signed into law—the creation of a director of national intelligence and various other procedural changes—designed to keep intelligence analysis free of political interference.

Second, the NIE contains plenty of passages that could legitimately justify a less-than-optimistic appraisal of Iran's intentions and capabilities.

More at the link.

Am I in my cabin dreaming, or are you really scheming,

The current greatest threat to the US
Fiction: The Pentagon released an audio clip of a radio transmission received on the bridge of one of the US ships during the incident in which a voice is heard to say in accented English: "I am coming at you ... You will explode in a few minutes."

Fact: But Pentagon officials now say they do not know the source of the radio transmission, backing off a previous claim that it came from one of the boats.

Additional (sort of) fact: Pentagon officials insist that they never claimed Iran made the threat. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats. [Cough, bull$hit, cough]


Fiction: It appears from the video tape that the Iranians ignored repeated requests by radio from the American ship to identify themselves, to state their intentions and to stay clear of the ship's path.


Fact: Iran yesterday released what it asserted was an abridged video of the same incident, which shows a calm exchange. "Slowly get a little closer . . . can't make out the ship number,"
[...]
The Iranian commander is heard to say, "Coalition warship 73, this is Iranian navy patrol boat." He then requests the "side numbers" of the U.S. warships.
[...]
The Pentagon said it does not dispute anything in the Iranian video.


Fiction: The U.S. ships were within seconds of opening fire on the Iranian speedboats when the boats turned and headed toward Iran, Pentagon officials said.

Fact: "I didn't get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats," said [Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of the 5th Fleet].


Fiction: Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman described the Iranian boats as "highly maneuverable patrol craft" that were "visibly armed,"

Fact: The Pentagon released the full 36-minute video of the encounter yesterday.
[...]
None of the boats appears to have any mounted weapons.


Fiction: yes, it's more serious than we have seen," Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, head of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said at a briefing on Monday.

Fact: The U.S. Navy says 1 of its ships fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat in 1 of 2 serious encounters last month.


Fiction: ""When you get a bridge-to-bridge call, you have no way of knowing where it came from," [Rear Adm. Frank Thorp IV,] said.

Fact: Ship-to-ship Channel 16 is in the VHF band which is short range and line of sight. The US Navy ships are equipped with Common High Bandwidth Data Link which would allow instantaneous triangulation of any radio signal. Even simple radio direction finding equipment would easily confirm if the signals were coming from the boats.


Fiction: U.S. officials said the Iranians dropped objects in the water around the American ships and threatened to blow them up.


Fact: Objects From Iranian Boats Posed No Threat, Navy Says


Opinion: Nothing in the original accounts of the Navy, Pentagon or US Gov't has proven to be true. This was just another example of bush's clumsy, reckless attempt to manufacture a casus belli to justify yet another war. And they are stilltrying to spin it that way!

Bush, et al, keep trying to connect it to the USS Cole bombing. But that occurred while a US naval vessel was at dock in a 'friendly' port.

This manufactured incident happened when sailing, with air cover, and during war time, just outside of Iran's home waters.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

People say I'm crazy, doing what I'm doing.

As our Tonstant Weaders know, I frequently cross-post between here and VidiotSpeak.

But this is the first time I've ever quoted and linked to a VS post I was not the soul (sic) author on.

And it's because I and my co-bloggers over there all contributed to creating this and I, in my egocentric way, think it's important to share with SteveAudio's crowd:

Let's not muddy the waters…
posted by Bill Arnett

Updates below

This latest "incident" involving, allegedly, five Iranian patrol boats almost being fired upon by the U.S. Navy begs the question: If the American ships were in international waters available for passage by all ships, why aren't the Iranians allowed to be in international waters just like anyone else?

Why should the Navy have fired on boats in international waters just because they didn't like fellow boaters from Iran tailing their ships?

And, lastly, if the U.S. Navy HAD fired on the Iranian boats would they not themselves be in violation of international law, the laws of the sea, treaty and have, once more, taken aggressive, provocative action against a peaceful nation in order to provoke a defensive reaction as a prelude to another illegal American war?

So, again, we hear all this bellicosity from bushco's navy about boats being where they were lawfully entitled to be and we're supposed to take bushco's representation that the Iranians somehow violated any treaties or obligations by being lawfully within international waters?

Sailor, you probably know more about this than I, but aren't international waters open to all, without regard to political affiliation or country? Hence the name, "International waters?"

Why can't the MSM figure stuff like this out on their own?

Update by The Sailor:The encounter lasted 20 minutes and the US edited it to 4 minutes. The audio and video were recorded separately, edited, allegedly 'synched' and released by the Pentagon.Here's a link to to the heavily edited video.

From the original reports I thought the navy was talking about fast attack boats, (AKA Swiftboats or PT boats), but the Iranian's boats are no bigger than speedboats on my lake. So we're talking about a boat maybe 30 feet long vs a ship 500 feet long that has guns, torpedoes and helicopters!

International waters are open to all, but that doesn't mean you can harass anyone and 200 yards is harassment to a naval warship in international waters, (in addition to all of the Right Of Way Rules that I teach my students is the unlisted 'Law of Tonnage', especially if they have guns;-).

OTOH, according to the Navy, according to the AP

The confrontation with the Iranian boats happened at the eastern end of the Straits, about three miles outside Iran's territorial waters, according to the Navy.

Now that's harassment!

Just think if a hostile country put 3 of the most advanced warships in the world 15 miles from America? And all we responded with were 5 speedboats without armor or heavy weapons.

Jeebus, look at the boat, it's 2 guys sitting in a glorified bassboat with an outboard! And they're not 'dressed in orange' as the AP article says, they're wearing PFDs (life preservers.) As every motor boater should according to the US Coast Guard.

The AP article also states that the US Navy 'faced down' the Iranians.
Pfft. I can 'face down' anyone who shows up to a gunfight with a knife.

So who has the most to gain from this 'confrontation?'

Iran, who could only respond with 5 unarmed speedboats to 3 heavily armed US warships within striking distance of their shores?

Or bush, about to embark on a Middle East 'mission' who insists, despite all evidence, that Iran is a nukular (sic) threat?

Bump & Update II by The Sailor: Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

The list of those who are less than fully confident in the Pentagon’s video/audio mashup of aggressive maneuvers by Iranian boats near American warships in the Strait of Hormuz now includes the Pentagon itself.

Read the whole thing, seriously, even the comments are interesting.

And The Vidiot noted something I missed on a letter board she reads:

The voice from the 'speedboat' does not appear to include background engine or wind noise - WHY? Outboards are noisy, fast moving craft on open sea have wind noise and what about the crashing sound when a small craft hits a wave? FAKE"

The letter writer is absolutely correct and as a sailor and former sound engineer I should have caught it.