President Obama is on the verge of breaking two key campaign promises in his troubled attempt to shut Guantánamo Bay — with plans to revive the military tribunal system set up by George Bush and to continue the indefinite detention of up to 100 inmates.

The moves, which have not yet been signed off by Mr Obama but look increasingly likely, are a result of his promise on his second day in office to shut the Guantánamo Bay prison within a year.  (continued here)

H/T to the right-wing liberal here.

The Cartoons

What was the situation at Guantánamo Bay?

Was it torture and evasion of civilized law?

Or something decidely more foolish?

This morning’s editorial in the Outlook section of the Washington Post, The Stories of Torture Sounded Made Up. They Weren’t., did little to help the discerning reader.  As usual, the reporter, in this case Carol D. Leonnig, provided more fuel for an active imagination than facts for a concerned citizen.  What is the one bit of substance in this emotional opinion piece?

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler was hearing detainee lawyers’ claims that a new feeding chair for prisoners on hunger strike was Guantanamo’s latest torture tactic. A prisoner who refused to eat would be strapped into the chair for up to two hours while nutrients were pumped into his nose through a tube as thick as a small broom handle. Kessler paused after Henry assured her that, according to Guantanamo’s medical director and the base commander, the feeding inflicted no significant pain.

Kessler said that she had read many sealed records about the evidence against detainees and about their treatment, and that she now had much less trust in the government.

“I know it’s a sad day when a federal judge has to ask a DOJ attorney this, but I’m asking you,” Kessler said. “Why should I believe them?”  (from here)

“Why should I believe them?”  That is the crux of the problem.  Truth with a capital “T” and humanity usually have too little commerce with one another.  We each have our agenda, and we tend to sacrifice everything to that agenda, the Truth with a capital “T” being our favored sacrifice.  So the wise look upon the words of their fellows with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Unfortunately, healthy skepticism is not a lesson that comes easily.  It is convenient and more comfortable to accept conventional wisdom.  What are the sources of conventional wisdom?  The most powerful voice, the most confident voice, the voice of the majority, the voices of those on “our” side — these  we find to be the most soothing sources of Truth.

Fortunately, experience instructs us in skepticism.   Even when our schools and our teachers have failed to teach us to think properly, to look for proven facts presented in logical argument, life provides us with brutal corrective lessons.

The terrorists and our government are not the only possible sources of villainy in this affair involving the possibility of torture at Guantanamo Bay.  The corporate news media can lie to us too.  The corporate news media has one overriding task, provide an audience for advertisers.  The “successful” reporter is one who gains the largest audience, and that word “torture” gains attention.   Hence we must regard Leonnig’s supposed reluctance to use the word “torture” with some incredulity.  As the Leonnig herself notes, she started using the “torture” in December 2004 (see here and here).  In the first article, for the Seattle Times, she used the term “torture” twice.  In her second, for the Washington Post, a paper with a larger circulation, she used the word eight times.

The Cartoons

What drives this issue?   There is politics, the hatred of President George W. Bush, and there is the abhorrence of torture.  Too often it is hard to separate the two.

Today, our Supreme Court decided to rewrite the rules.  See here and here.

Some people are more rightly upset with this nonsense than I.  See this post.

Please note that this is the fourth in a series on the competition between Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall for the Republican Party’s nomination to be Virginia’s next senator.  Here are the previous three posts:

• ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
• ON LAW
• ON EDUCATION

At first glance, Jim Gilmore has obvious advantages.  At least, he would appear to have the better resume.  Gilmore has military experience:

Upon graduation, Jim Gilmore volunteered for the U.S. Army and won honors after completing training at the Army Intelligence School and Defense Language Institute.

He was then assigned to the 650th Military Intelligence Group. Serving in Germany during the Vietnam War and fluent in German, Jim Gilmore played an important role in counter-intelligence work safeguarding the security of American bases in Europe. (from here)

And Gilmore has recent experience on homeland security issues.

Gilmore’s successes laid the basis for additional roles in the service of others. Congress chose him to chair a national commission charged with making recommendations on methods to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks on the United States. The Gilmore Commission warned in 1999 and in 2000 that America was facing a possible terrorist attack. After 9/11 Congress adopted 146 of the Gilmore Commission’s 164 recommendations. (from here)

So with respect to foreign policy issues, we should not regard Gilmore as a complete novice.

Bob Marshall, on the other hand, is unable to make any such prestigous claims.

Bob has a BA in History and Philosophy from Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, and an MA in Humanities from California State University. He has a personal library of 2000+ books, is an avid reader of history, philosophy, constitutional issues, and medical, social and political issues of importance. His hobbies (when he has time) include exercising, gardening and photography. (from here)

So why, when I consider the prospect of voting for Jim Gilmore, do I feel like I am being asked to buy a pig in a poke?  Jim Gilmore has too little to say about foreign policy issues on the issues page of his web site (see here).  He has a couple of nice sounding paragraphs.  Basically, he is asking you to trust him. 

Although Bob Marshall has served our state for many years as a major figure in the General Assembly, he does not ask us to trust him.  Instead, Marshall tells us what we will get if we vote for him.   Marshall has two posts that specifically relate to foreign policy.  One is on Foreign Trade and the other is on War and Foreign Policy.  In addition, Marshall speaks to his concerns as to how the Illegal Immigration issue should affect our policies towards other nations (here).  What Marshall does not do is pretend that our nation’s energy policy is a foreign policy issue.  It is not.  No foreign nation made us their hostage.  We chose to be a hostage.

If you want to vote for Jim Gilmore instead of Bob Marshall, it is your choice.  Just keep in one thing in mind.  If you want to find out where Gilmore stands, you will have to go to somebody else’s website.  Because of Gilmore’s brief presidential campaign, there is actually a fair amount of information about Gilmore on the Internet.   Here are several informative websites:

• Council on Foreign Relations
• OnTheIssues
• Wikipedia (here and here)

One thing I found, for example, is a open letter that Gilmore wrote for the Washington Post on Iraq on June 18, 2007.  This letter calls for a “third way”.  The letter calls for a withdrawal without calling it a withdrawal.

As a veteran of the U.S. ArmyI believe we cannot just abandon Iraq. I believe the only realistic alternative — the least bad option, if you will — is a limited deliberate drawdown of our military men and women and a redeployment of the forces remaining in the region to areas where they can more efficiently and effectively carry out a clearly defined mission.

I believe that the American military is on target when officers ask for a mission that includes maintaining — either at bases in Iraq at the request of Iraq or in bases in Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia– a military force powerful enough to launch special operations missions against al-Qaeda or Sunni insurgents in Iraq; train Iraqi troops to defend their own country; and guarantee the security of the Iraqi government, if so desired by Iraq.  (from here). 

We can trust Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to host our troops?  Has everybody already forgotten that Turkey flip-flopped and would not let us invade Iraq through Turkey (see here)?   What Gilmore proposes is naive. Of the three nations he lists, only Kuwait might provide a reliable base.  However, the only reason Kuwait would let us stay in their country is to protect Kuwait.  None of these Muslim nations are likely to host our troops so we can carry out the special operations missions that Gilmore suggests latter in his letter.  Muslims letting unbelievers attack Muslims?   Not very likely.

Bob Marshall is less ambiguous.  On Iraq, he says:

Iraq War Policy

Without having access to classified war briefings, I can make informed, though not completely definitive, judgments about the Iraq War.  I believe our troops and our allied forces have successfully removed Saddam Hussein and destroyed his army, but the Iraqi people must win the peace.

Although the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II, we cannot cut and run, but we must do all we can to stabilize the region and then begin to bring our troops home.  Stabilization of the region could be aided if all Iraqi citizens were allowed to own shares of the natural oil wealth thereby instilling a greater incentive to deter violence and protect their homeland.  (Wall Street Journal, 11-23-05)  We must consult with our allies on how best to stabilize the area, but our first consideration must be our own nation’s national defense and security.  (from here)

Marshall also specifically addresses when he would make the decision to go to war (from here).

The Constitution and Declaring War

Only the US Congress is authorized to declare war.  Therefore Representatives and Senators have the grave moral responsibility to prudently evaluate the factual conditions for the moral legitimacy necessary to declare war.  War can morally be declared under the following conditions known as the “just war” doctrine:

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave and certain;
• All other means of ending the conflict failed or were impractical or ineffective;
• There must be serious prospects for success;
• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil sought to be eliminated.

We need leaders who are willing to tell us their position on important issues before we elect them.  Bob Marshall has nothing to hide.  He is not an enigma wrapped in a riddle.  Vote for Bob!

Subject: Keep it going for Matt

This one is for Private Matt Maupin, a local soldier captured 4 yrs ago and listed as missing in action. His remains were finally discovered this past weekend March 29-30, 2008). He would have been 24 this July. The insurgants put him on video after they captured him and televised it. Shortly thereafter another video was seen of a soldier as he was beheaded. But his family firmly believed it wasn’t him. All we know is that his remains have been found, whether or not he was actually beheaded, we don’t know (and they complain about how we treat our captives).

But his family now has closure. President Bush called and offered his condolences. Matt’s family has been to the White House several times at the request of the President. His family is not mad that he went and sacraficed his life. They are extremely proud of him. His family and many of their friends even marched in our local annual Baseball Opening Day Parade on Monday, proudly carrying Flags in honor of their son.

I think President John F. Kennedy expressed it rather well when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” God Bless Matt Maupin, and all of our soldiers, Veterans, past, present, future, living and deceased. Long Live Freedon.

I’M not breaking this one. If I get it a 1000 times,I’ll forward it a 1000 times!

Let us pray…

Prayer chain for our Military…. Don’t break it!

Please send this on after a short prayer. Prayer for our soldiers Don’t break it!

Prayer:
‘Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen.’

Prayer Request: When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops around the world. There is nothing attached. Just send this to people in your address book. Do not let it stop with you. Of all the gifts you could give a Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, & others deployed in harm’s way, prayer is the very best
one.

GOD BLESS YOU FOR PASSING IT ON!

Long ago, I made a promise to myself. I would not pass on chain mail to every poor soul in my address book. So what I do is post what I think is the good stuff on my web site. And I add a few details of my own.

Today the good citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio, held a funeral service for Private Matt Maupin.

Military workers and supporters from across the country joined in memorials Sunday for a slain Army reservist who had become a poignant picture of the war in Iraq after he was captured by insurgents.

Officials estimated that about 10,000 people walked past Staff Sgt. Matt Maupin’s casket during a weekend visitation at a civic center in Clermont County, east of Cincinnati, where he grew up. Another 4,000 headed Sunday to Great American Ball Park, home of the Cincinnati Reds, for an afternoon memorial service billed as a celebration. (from here)

Here is a video.

• The normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.
• A state of tranquility or serenity: May he rest in peace.
• Hold or keep one’s peace, to refrain from or cease speaking; keep silent: He told her to hold her peace until he had finished.
• The absence of war or other hostilities.
• Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind.
• Harmonious relations; freedom from disputes: The roommates lived in peace together.

In general, what “peace” seems to be about is the absence of discord. That includes disputes between people and disputes with one’s self. How does one achieve such a state as peace?

Modern Americans usually think of peace as a normal state of affairs and condition achieved via reasonable compromise. However, there is relatively little reason to believe that peace between human beings is normal. The historical record is one of constant struggle. Even in our era, there has always been a war some place. Why do people fight? It would seem that people always want something, and we are too often willing to take what we want.

Fortunately, some religions teach that we should not seek to harm each other and that theft is wrong. Christianity provides specific guidance on how to achieve both peace within one’s self and peace with one’s neighbors.

James 4:1-10

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:

“God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble.”

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

Because we have largely endeavored to apply Christian principles, the United State has enjoyed many years of peace. Consider our latest military mission Iraq, for example. Our soldiers have been disciplined, and they have treated the people respectfully. Even though we could, we have not made any effort to pillage Iraq. In fact, we have helped that nation rebuild. Contrary to the suggestions of some, we did not take over Iraq’s oil wells to pay for the cost of our military operations. Instead, we encouraged the Iraqis to use their oil revenues to pay for the reconstruction of their nation.

Because of his commitment to right principles, our president encouraged us to take what seemed to be the harder path. In the end, however, this harder path may proved to be the only path by which we have any hope of peace.

My Friends,

Today, I had the privilege to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the current state of the war in Iraq and the progress that has been made there. We owe these two patriotic Americans a debt of gratitude for their selfless service to our country.

At the beginning of last year, we were engaged in a great debate about what to do in Iraq. Four years of mismanaged war had brought us almost to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control, life had become a struggle for survival, and a full-scale civil war seemed almost unavoidable. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive and entire Iraqi provinces were under the control of extremists.

However, rather than retreat from Iraq and face the terrible consequences that would ensue, we chose to change strategies and turn things around. I was proud to be an outspoken advocate for this change in strategy and endured much criticism from members of both parties. As I’ve said time and time again, I’d rather lose a campaign than lose a war.

“Never despair,” Winston Churchill once said. And we did not despair. We were tested, and we rose to the challenge. Some political leaders close their eyes to the progress that the surge has made possible, and want only to argue about the past.

But the question for the next president is not about the past, but about the future and how to secure it.

While the job of bringing security to Iraq is not finished – as the recent fighting in Basra and elsewhere vividly demonstrated – we are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success. Success – the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists – this success is within reach.

Should the United States choose to withdraw from Iraq as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wish to do; before adequate security is established, we will exchange for this victory a defeat that is terrible and long lasting. Al Qaeda in Iraq would proclaim victory and increase its efforts to provoke sectarian tensions, pushing for a full scale civil war that could descend into genocide and destabilize the Middle East. Iraq would become a failed state that could become a haven for terrorists to train and plan their operations.

We cannot allow this to happen.

The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. Doing the right thing in the heat of a political campaign is not always the easiest thing. But when 4,000 Americans have given their lives so that America does not suffer the worst consequences of our failure in Iraq, it is a necessary thing. In such a grave matter, we must put the nation’s interests before our own ambitions.

My opponents’ calls for an immediate withdraw, regardless of the consequences, is a reckless and dangerous move that would threaten the long term security of our country. Leadership is not about bowing to the political pressures, it is about thinking through the consequences and having the experience and judgment to make the tough decisions.

Senators Clinton and Obama will surely echo the sentiments of their extreme liberal supporters and call for a pre-emptive withdrawal from Iraq. The American people deserve better. I encourage both candidates to move beyond empty and destructive rhetoric and elevate the debate to a level that the country deserves. There are tough decisions ahead and America deserves leaders that are up to the challenge.

As president, I will ensure that our troops come home victorious in this war that is part of the larger struggle against radical Islamic extremism and will continue to make keeping our nation secure my highest priority.

Sincerely,

John McCain

Long derided as dysfunctional, Iraq’s parliament in recent weeks has passed a package of laws on the budget, elections and sectarian reconciliation that have given cautious hope to U.S. officials and private analysts that the gains from President Bush’s military surge are finally being matched by a political surge as well. (from here)

Moreover, the Iraqi people strongly back the calls of their elected officials for reconciliation.

A big, supportive crowd greeted al-Maliki. Some waved Iraqi flags as he gave a soaring assessment of national affairs in this war-weary country — tempered with an appeal to Shiites to continue participating in the political process.

“National reconciliation efforts have succeeded in Iraq and the Iraqis have once again become loving brothers,” he said in a speech broadcast live on television. “We have ended the security instability and we have to chase al-Qaida elements in other places such as Mosul, Diyala and Kirkuk in order to finish the battle for good so that we can concentrate on the reconstruction phase.” (from here)

Iraq’s neighbors, while somewhat dubious (Turkey did, after all, invade Iraqi territory.), still depend upon the current government for regional stability. In fact, Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, called upon the Iraqi government for its cooperation.

Mr. Erdogan urged the rebels to lay down their arms and called on Turkey’s sizeable Kurdish community to pursue their demands peacefully.

“One cannot reach anywhere by the way of terror,” he said in a televised address. “Our democracy is mature enough to embrace all kinds of differences and all kinds of political opinions as long as they are on legal ground.”

The PKK took up arms for self-rule in Kurdish-majority southeast Turkey in 1984, sparking a conflict that has claimed more than 37,000 lives.

Mr. Erdogan appealed to Baghdad to help uproot the PKK from northern Iraq.

“We should not allow (the PKK) … to poison our ties,” he said. “Turkey and Iraq must work together to get rid of this problem — there is no other way.” (from here)

In addition, Muqtada al-Sadr extended his “cease fire” another six months.

The security situation in Iraq is set to improve further after powerful Shia political leader Muqtada al-Sadr announced a six-month extension to his militia’s unilateral ceasefire on 22 February, analysts said.

This bodes well for the economy, ordinary civilians, some two million internally displaced persons, and over two million refugees living abroad, who may now begin to trickle back home. (from here)

Time cures all ills. And so it is with a little peace, and the passage of time, Iraq is slowly being tied back together.

Iraq has 3,300 km (2,000 miles) of railway track stretching across the country. The line reaches to Syria in the west and the railway company said it planned to extend it east to Iran and south to Kuwait.

The Baghdad-Basra journey takes 11 or 12 hours, stopping at about 40 stations.

“When the train goes by, people feel safe and feel that things are going back to how they were,” said Colonel Ali al-Tamimi, the railway company’s head of security.

“The railways are for all of us … Do you think passengers declare their sect when they get on the train?” (from here)

We must remember the power of patience. With patience our forebears won a continent. With patience previous generations won the Cold War.

Consider the wisdom they passed down to us.

Proverbs 19:11

A man’s wisdom gives him patience;
it is to his glory to overlook an offense.

Proverbs 25:15

Through patience a ruler can be persuaded,
and a gentle tongue can break a bone.

Ecclesiastes 7:8

The end of a matter is better than its beginning,
and patience is better than pride.

Here is the story about how one soldier in my brother’s unit earned a Silver Star.

The Fort Richardson soldier who held off suspected Iranian-backed militants during a brazen attack in Iraq last year was decorated with a Silver Star for gallantry Friday in Anchorage.

Sgt. 1st Class Sean Bennett, 33, earned the Army’s third-highest award on Jan. 20, 2007, during a highly coordinated attack against U.S. troops on duty at the provincial capital of Karbala, a major Shiite holy city south of Baghdad.

To read the rest of the story, click here.

Also note the two stories below.

• Death by treachery (07/15/2007)
• Death by treachery, part 2 (07/16/07)

The treachery of this enemy is what it is. In general, the Iraqi people accept our presence; they understand that it is temporary. Nonetheless, there is an element made up of foreigners and Iraqis that opposes us. These people seek domination of their fellows by any means. We must deny this enemy the opportunity to turn Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists.

In the end, it’s not the years in your life that count. It’s the life in your years.
Abraham Lincoln