Category: Hating the Troops

At least if you are going to have an opinion against having an ROTC program on campus have it backed up by legitimate facts:

North Carolina’s economy represents a paradox in Southern conservatism. Despite a longstanding tradition of skepticism toward the federal government, the state’s dependence on the U.S. military highlights a glaring cognitive dissonance. The military’s impact on NC State reflects a scaled-down version of the state as a whole, as much of our funding — like all public universities — is contingent upon the university’s allowance of ROTC and recruiters on campus.

Without this funding, much of the technological innovation that we claim with pride would not have been possible. However, just like the communities throughout North Carolina that rely on bases and weapons factories for economic stability, our dependence on the military has created a kind of legal blackmail that stifles NC State’s intellectual and creative freedom, and exploits its students.

In a Technician opinion column published March 5, 2004, Andrew Sheppard calls for the end of NC State’s ROTC program, arguing that “every semester that we continue to support these programs is another semester contributing to ongoing crimes abroad.” It’s remarkable that more than 15 years after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and with the recent U.S.-led interventions in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Syria, Sheppard’s appeal for an end to the militarization of the university remains alone.  [Technician Online]

You can read the rest at the link if you can take it.  I don’t even know where to start with all the nonsense in this article.  First of all if she is worried about “crimes abroad” instead of protesting ROTC why doesn’t she go protest the political leaders who send the troops abroad?  The NC State ROTC program has nothing to do with when and where US troops are deployed to.

Then her screed that ROTC exploits minorities and poor people might as well be considered racist or however you want to define it because she obviously thinks these people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and instead need an intellectual superior like herself to save them from the NC State ROTC program.  Then she claims that ROTC students are selling their lives to the federal government; well what are all the students with $100,000 in student loan debt for an underwater basket weaving degree doing?

Then she claims if you are deployed you will be faced with conducting “immoral acts” and “encounter huge civilian casualties, extrajudicial imprisonment and killing of terror suspects”.  Does she even realize how few people even leave the FOBs while deployed?  The term “fobbit” was developed for a reason.  Even very few of those who leave a FOB will have any of the experiences she claims will happen to them.

I could go on, but I will let the comments section jump in on this issue.

Another day in California and another recruiting station vandalized:

Why aren’t these people arrested? These people should be arrested and at least fined for defacing private property. The Code Pink loons are probably in a state of shock right now and had to act out because the US military met their recruiting goals again this year.

I like what the Marine Captain in charge of the recruiting station had to say in response:

…Next, scrawled across the doorway to my office, you wrote, “Recruiters are Traitors.” Please explain this one. How exactly am I a traitor? Was I a traitor when I joined the Marine Corps all those years ago? Is every Marine, therefore, a traitor? Was I a traitor during my two stints in Iraq? Was I a traitor when I was delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Sumatra? Or do you only consider me a traitor while I am on this job? The fact is, recruitment is and always has been a part of maintaining any military organization. In fact, recruitment is a necessity of any large organization. Large corporations have employees that recruit full-time. Even you, I’m sure, must expend some effort to recruit for Code Pink. So what, exactly, is it that makes me a traitor?

The fact is this: any independent nation must maintain a military (or be allied with those who do) to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Regardless of what your opinions are of the current administration or the current conflict in Iraq, the U.S. military will be needed again in the future. If your counter-recruitment efforts are ultimately successful, who will defend us if we are directly attacked again as we were at Pearl Harbor? Who would respond if a future terrorist attack targets the Golden Gate Bridge, the BART system, or the UC Berkeley clock tower? And, to address the most hypocritical stance that your organization takes on its website, where would the peace keeping force come from that you advocate sending to Darfur? [CPT Richard Lund]

Maybe Code Pink can do us all a favor and deploy to Darfur and deface Janjaweed recruiting stations there? If military recruiters keep getting attacked by the rabid leftists the Pentagon may need to start authorizing them combat pay.

Anyway make sure to go to Gateway Pundit who has more pictures and news of this latest attack on recruiters by the left.

If Moveon.org’s attempt to slime General Petraeus wasn’t bad enough, now the left’s desperation to slime him has reached even new lows with the Daily Kos claiming the general is wearing a fraudulent medal:

Resolved: General Petraeus is a Phony and a Propagandist

If the Army put out a phony story to make David Petraeus look like a combat hero, then he knew about it or he damn well had the responsibility to know. For a General to allow a sham story of combat valor about himself to be circulated is to counterfeit his own honor – and debase the coin of courage.

Without honor, he is not a soldier but a fraud, a scandal, a dishonest civil servant with a gun. His medals are lies – particularly and especially any medal for “valor”.

I don’t know General Petraeus. I have no malice against him. I wish he was just a soldier. I could thank him for his service and respect him. But I cannot help but conclude that David Petraeus has sold that service cheap – for ambition and Bush. [HT: LGF]

(more…)

Since trying to slur General Petraeus with misrepresented “facts” has proven to be a disaster for the left, what have they decided to do now to take him down?  Well make stuff up of course:

And you though the Moveon.Org ad was something.  You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.  There is no hole so deep that the modern left considers it unnecessary to keep digging.  In other words, the demonization of David Petraeus has just begun.

The lefties at the Daily Kos and Think Progress are both giving a lot of play to the following quote that Admiral William Fallon allegedly (much more on that in a bit) made about his underling David Petraeus during their first meeting in Baghdad last March.  The Daily Kos and Think Progress report Fallon called Petraeus “an ass-kissing little chicken-sh*t.”

I know what you’re thinking.  For reputable outfits like the Daily Kos and Think Progress to report such an incendiary comment, the remark must be impeccably sourced.  Well…

The original report of the comment, the scoop if you will, came in something called the “Inter Press Service News Agency,” or “IPS” as the organization bills itself.  What?  You’ve never heard of this IPS and find yourself curious about who and what it is?  IPS describes itself this way on its website: “IPS, civil society’s leading news agency, is an independent voice from the South and for development, delving into globalisation for the stories underneath. Another communication is possible.”  I don’t know what any of that means either, but I figure I’d share it with you and put it our there for deconstruction. [Hugh Hewitt]

The General Fallon quote is making its way across the leftistsphere with no challenge to it authenticity led by the Daily Kos and Think Progress.  However, when General Fallon was asked to comment on this it was determined it was totally untrue.  Not surprising considering the IPS article claims they got the quote from “Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting”.  IPS could not even get an anonymous quote from someone who was at the meeting and instead rely on someone who claimed to have read a report of the meeting.  Also keep in mind I have never seen minutes of a meeting ever taken where the recorder would write such a quote as General Fallon reportedly said.

So who is the person that wrote the IPS article you may wonder?  Well none other than an anti-war, leftist ideologue Gareth Porter.  Never heard of him before?  Well you wouldn’t because his views are so left wing no respectable media outlet will touch him, thus that is why he writes for IPS and blogs for the Huffington Post, and other left wing sites.  This is a guy who is a communist apologizer and even and apologist for the Khmer Rouge before the evidence of their killings became insurmountable.

So basically what the Daily Kos and his like minded leftists want the public to believe is the word of a guy who is a communist apologist who denied the existence of the Killing Fields of Cambodia.  How come Kos and company never mentioned that before quoting him?

UPDATE #2: I’m not the surprised but the vandalism of war memorials is widespread across the country.  The communists and anarchists usually responsible for these crimes are marching on DC this weekend.  There are a variety of groups that are going to counter-protest against them.  If you are living in the area and support the troops this is a good way to show your support by standing up to these communist idiots that are a disgrace to our country.

_______________________________________________________

UPDATE #1: The vandalism of war memorials has not only occurred in Washington, DC but in California as well:

Vandals have hit the Veterans War Memorial at Sacramento’s Capitol Park. Veterans say it is a recurring problem and now they’re fighting back.

He spent 3 years serving in Vietnam, and now Ken Nelson spends his days taking care of those who didn’t make it back.

“This is the second best memorial in the country,” Nelson says.

Nearly every day, Nelson protects the more than 5,200 names at the Vietnam War Memorial. But often, while polishing the bronze statues, he finds himself picking up what vandals left behind.

“People sleeping, use it for a toilet, total disrespect, it kind of hurt me,” he says.

Nelson says it’s been going on for some time. People litter, deface the statues, climb the flag pole, and just yesterday, sprayed graffiti. [CBS13 Sacramento]

Make sure you click to link and watch the video.  I really respect those veterans that constantly clean and repair the memorial after it is defaced by the usual idiots.  I hope the Sacramento community rallies around these veterans to protect the memorial.

_______________________________________________________

This is disgraceful:

The U.S. Park Police are investigating suspected vandalism at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the Mall.

Volunteers and National Park Service rangers on Saturday discovered a “light, oily” substance on the memorial’s wall panels and the paving stones in front of it, Bill Line, a Park Service spokesman, said yesterday.

The substance, which has not been identified, was spread over an area of about 50 to 60 feet, mostly on the paving stones, Mr. Line said. [Natasha Altamirano, Washington Times]

It has not been confirmed yet who did this but I would not be surprised if the leftist protesters who vowed to deface the memorial before and were in D.C. again due to General Petraeus’ report to Congress did this.  Here is a picture from this set of pictures of the damage to the wall:

As you can see the substance was corrosive and damaged the names on the wall.  Michelle Malkin has video footage of the damage:

No matter what your opinion on the Iraq war is defacing the memorial is just disgraceful. It may be time for the government to install a video camera or a 24 hour guard on the memorial to protect the memorial and others that have been defaced in DC from the leftist scum.  If proven to be done by the usual suspect leftists it just serves as another example that they do not support troops and they never did.

I don’t think there is any greater indication that General Petraeus is the right man for the job in Iraq than the absolute offensive the far left and their media allies have launched to destroy General Petraeus.  The full page advertisement that the George Soros funded leftist political group Moveon.org bought in the New York Times to slime General Petraeus is another example of this along with a host of other examples I have listed before. 

Now why is the left and their media allies trying so hard to destroy General Petraeus when they have never attacked other commanding generals in Iraq like they are Petraeus?  It is because the left is scared of him.  They see Petraeus as someone that can turn the effort in Iraq around and they must destroy him before he can do such thing.  The left needs a strategic defeat in Iraq in order to realize their own political ambitions in the 2008 presidential election.  Notice that none of the leading Democratic presidential contenders have condemned the actions of groups like Moveon.org to smear General Petraeus.  Barrack Obama’s campaign pretty much defended the add while Hillary Clinton’s campaign tried to change the subject:

Update at 3:35 p.m. ET. Democratic presidential campaigns begin to respond:

• Bill Burton, a spokesman for Sen. Barack Obama: "Sen. Obama’s question is not about Gen. Petraeus’s patriotism. It’s about his logic," Burton says in an e-mail response to a request from us for a comment about the MoveOn ad. "There’s no evidence that this surge is producing the political progress needed to resolve the civil war in Iraq, or that it will be accomplished through more of the same."

We’ve asked for comments from the campaigns of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, and will pass them along after we get them.

Update at 4:15 p.m. ET. A response from the Clinton campaign:

"America’s troops have done all that has been asked of them and then some, but the reality is that there is no military solution to what is going on in Iraq, which is why our focus must remain on getting the president to change course," Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer says in an e-mail he just sent us. "It is unfortunate that Republican presidential candidates are focused on generating a political sideshow instead of discussing the president’s failed war policy. Senator Clinton is going to keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war." [Mark Memmott & Jill Lawrence, USA Today]

Let’s take a look at the claims from Moveon.org’s hit piece.  Here is their first claim:

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

Notice the selected quotes by the Moveon.org advertisement.  When dealing with these leftist groups it is important to actually read in entirety what someone wrote instead of just believing the selected quotes from these people.  So let’s look at what Petraeus actually said:

Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq’s security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight — and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq. [Washington Post]

Moveon.org got their quotes from an editorial that General Petraeus wrote for the Washington Post in September 2004 in regards to his job of reestablishing the Iraqi Army which he began in 2004.  Notice the quote "tangible progress" is not in regards to Iraq as Moveon.org claims but in regards to the Iraqi security forces that he was building from the ground up.  There has obviously been "tangible progress" in the Iraqi security forces considering there was nearly none when he took the job in 2004 due to Paul Bremmer’s decision to disband the Iraqi Army.  Now the Iraqi Army has been rebuilt to the point that now the city of Mosul the third largest city in Iraq is held by Iraqi security forces with the assistance of one US infantry battalion.  That is "tangible progress".  

Likewise the claim "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward" is also true.  There are hundreds of nameless Iraqis leading Iraqi Army units that are doing great work.  If you want an example of an Iraqi stepping forward than I challenge everyone to read Bing West’s book No True Glory and tell me that Lieutenant Colonel Suleiman al Marawi is not an Iraqi hero that was "stepping forward" in 2004 when General Petraeus wrote his editorial. 

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence.

What is interesting in each of the independent reports no where in them does the reports declare "the surge strategy has failed".  Here is what the GAO report says:

Reconciliation was also premised on a reduction in violence. While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, it is unclear whether violence has been reduced. Measuring such violence may be difficult since the perpetrators’ intents are not clearly known. Other measures, such as the number of enemy-initiated attacks, show that violence has remained high through July 2007.

I talk about the problems with measuring secretarian violence below but notice that the GAO report did not include August’s numbers:

If you look at the above graph attacks were high with the beginning of the Baghdad Security Plan in February along with the Surge Strategy beginning in June because the US forces went on the offensive.  When you go on the offensive you are looking to get attacked thus it should not be any surprise when the number of attacks rise.  Now in August the attacks have dropped significantly because the offensive operations were largely successful and gain are currently being consolidated. 

August’s civilian casualties dropped significantly as well despite the largest mass casualty attack ever in Iraq that killed over 500 people in the remote Yazidi enclave near Syria.

Obviously the GAO report does not support Moveon.org’s claims of "the surge strategy has failed". 

Let’s now look at the NIE report.  Here is the ultimate conclusion of the entire NIE report:

There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation
since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007. The steep
escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq
have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks. Coalition forces, working with Iraqi forces,
tribal elements, and some Sunni insurgents, have reduced al-Qa’ida in Iraq’s (AQI)
capabilities, restricted its freedom of movement, and denied it grassroots support in some
areas. However, the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among
civilians, remains high; Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI retains the
ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain
unable to govern effectively. There have been modest improvements in economic
output, budget execution, and government finances but fundamental structural
problems continue to prevent sustained progress in economic growth and living
conditions.

We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust
counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF),
that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months
but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi
Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation
and improved governance.

The NIE actually says that their are "modest improvements" and here is what it had to say about the counterinsurgency strategy of working with Iraqi tribal leaders:

The IC assesses that the emergence of “bottom-up” security initiatives, principally
among Sunni Arabs and focused on combating AQI, represent the best prospect for
improved security over the next six to 12 months, but we judge these initiatives will only
translate into widespread political accommodation and enduring stability if the Iraqi
Government accepts and supports them.

Here is what it says about changing the surge strategy:

We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily
counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi
forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven
would erode security gains achieved thus far.

If anything the NIE report is actually supportive of the surge strategy.  No where in the NIE does it say "the surge strategy has failed" as Moveon.org claims.  

The final independent report cited is the Jones Report.  This report was prepared by a team lead by retired Marine General James Jones.  This report is 152 pages and is actually quite good.  The report focuses on the status of the Iraqi Security Forces and is not a report used to judge the progress of the surge.  How Moveon.org can claim this report supports their claim that "the surge strategy has failed" is anyone’s guess.  This report is long and detailed which means most people in Congress probably will not read it which is a shame.  I however highly recommend everyone to read it in its entirety.

Here is what the report’s findings were in regards to the Iraqi Security Services:

Though the report was not commissioned to report on the surge strategy in Iraq in its last chapter beginning on page 125 the writers make note of things they felt were relevant to the national debate about Iraq that they saw during their three week visit to Iraq.  One of the things they commented on was the surge strategy:

"There are some encouraging indications of a positive trend in this region" is a far cry from "the surge strategy has failed" that Moveon.org claims. 

Now lets look at the claim in the ad attributed to the New York Times and the Washington Post:

That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Here is what the New York Times actually said:

Nonetheless, some trends are down. The number of car bombs in Baghdad is an important measure, since many are directed at civilians and the overarching American goal is to break the cycle of internecine violence. In June, July and August of 2006, the average monthly number of car bombs in the Baghdad metropolitan area was 42. In 2007, however, the average for the same three-month period was 23, the same number as in 2005.

The number of deaths in sectarian violence is also a key indicator. According to the American military count, the August total for the 10 security districts in Baghdad was 321, down from 1,621 in December when such attacks were at a high. […]

American officials concede that it is not always easy to distinguish sectarian killings and criminally motivated murders. Victims from car bombs are treated as sectarian casualties if the attack appears to be directed at a sectarian or ethnic group. The August truck bombings that killed hundreds of Yazidis in northern Iraq and the July car bombs that killed many Kurds near Tuz, for example, were classified as sectarian attacks.

Casualties that result from fighting between groups, like the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps, however, are not classified as sectarian, as they are the result of clashes between two Shiite organizations. But victims of all car bomb attacks and Shiite and Sunni infighting are included in the overall civilian casualty count. [Michael Gordon, New York Times]

This article is by Michael Gordon who has been an outstanding reporter for the NY Times in Iraq and you can clearly see that Moveon.org has totally mischaracterized his comments about classifying car bombs as secretarian violence or not. 

Now lets look at what the Washington Post article actually said:

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it’s criminal." [Karen DeYoung, Washington Post]

So if the military finds a body in the street with a bullet hole in the head there is no way to verifiably know how the person died, but much subjective analysis can be made depending on the area of operations.  If the area is known for secretarian violence and soldiers on patrol find five bodies with holes in the back of their heads that is a pretty good indication that they were probably killed by a death squad.  If soldiers on patrol find a body with bullets in the front of the head and lets say the guy has no wallet then an assumption can also be made that the person was robbed.  Can you be 100% certain it wasn’t secretarian violence?  No, but the bottom line is that the person is still be counted. 

Another thing that bothers me is that these hit piece articles from the media are almost always sourced by unnamed "senior intelligence officials".   Who are these people?  What access to military statistics if any do they have?  If you are going to slime someone in the pages of the Washington Post shouldn’t you have the courage to stand up and say who you are and what your qualifications are to slime them?  

Finally this what the AP article actually said:

However, figures compiled by the AP from police reports nationwide show that at least 1,809 civilians were killed across the country last month compared with 1,760 in July. That brings to 27,564 the number of Iraqi civilians killed since AP began collecting data on April 28, 2005.

According to the AP count, civilian deaths reached a high point during the wave of sectarian bombings, kidnappings and killings at the end of last year — 2,172 in December and 1,967 in the previous month. [Associated Press]

The AP is getting numbers from the same Iraqi police that the Jones Report already highly criticized as being unreliable and corrupt.  Additionally the AP’s reliance on their Iraqi police contacts has been unreliable in the past which was shown by the Jamil Hussein controversy where the AP’s Iraqi police contact fabricated stories about secretarian violence and burnt down mosques in Baghdad.  Are the AP’s civilian casualty numbers coming from Jamil Hussein as well?  They claim 1,809 civilian casualties in August which is up from their count in July.  As you can see below the US military is tracking about 1,600 deaths in August:

Also keep in mind that the August number is inflated by the over 500 people who died in the one Yazidi attack mentioned earlier.  Al Qaida targeted the Yazidi camp in the middle of no where because of the surge strategy pushing them out of the major population centers.  So the had to find some people to kill somewhere just so the AP can run an article like this one claiming civilian casualties are up.  The Yazidis were the easy target.  If that attack is prevented, suddenly you have an even much steeper drop of civilian casualties in August.   As I mentioned before soldier deaths are up compared to prior summers because there are more US soldiers in Iraq conducting offensive operations. 

I have clearly shown the entire premise behind the Moveon.org ad is clearly false and entirely a smear campaign against General Petraeus.  Like I said before the left and their media allies need to destroy Petraeus because they fear him and groups like Moveon.org are their preferred method to smear him.  Despite the totally factually challenged assertions in the Moveon.org advertisement none of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates will condemn this smear attack and defend General Petraeus.  This is just another example that the American left does not support the troops and they never have. 

More reaction from:
Michelle Malkin
Blackfive
Rhiel World View

UPDATE: Rick Moran has a good posting that provides a great reality check over the whole Beauchamp saga and tends to confirm my opinion that outing him was good, but the gloating over it is getting over done.  Over at Neocon News they have a hilarious graphic related to the Beauchamp saga you should check out.

______________________________________

Via Blackfive, comes this news that Private Scott Beauchamp has admitted to being a fraud:

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.

By signing the sworn statement admitting he lied, Beauchamp is probably only looking at getting an Article 15 after all of this is said and done.  If he wrote on a sworn statement that his stories were true and then was later proven to be false than he would be looking at big trouble for lying on a sworn statement, which is a huge no, no in the military.  What Beauchamp did does piss me off, but fibbing and exaggerating war stories I seriously doubt is something that rises to court martial offense.  An Article 15 is a good way to handle this issue.  Article 15’s are handled within the unit and are quick to administer thus preventing turning Beauchamp into a leftist martyr by a prolonged court martial process.  

This would be at least the second Article 15 for Beauchamp which could open him up for removal from the military with a chapter for pattern of misconduct.  Judging by his writings he may have psychological issues that may be enough to have him chaptered for a personality disorder.  Anyway chaptering him from the military should be a priority and Beauchamp probably wouldn’t mind because it will speed up his career to become a latest leftist war hero, which is why he joined the military in the first place. 

Another interesting question is if the US military has been sitting on the fact he signed a sworn statement admitting he lied just to let the The New Republic hang itself with all its claims of fact checking and verifying of the story.  If the Army intentionally did that, it was extremely clever, but it was probably an unattended consequence.  Either way The New Republic’s creditability which wasn’t much to begin with, is totally shattered. 

Michelle Malkin and Ace have good postings up as well on the latest Beauchamp news,but I do have to say that I find the gloating a bit over done.  The guy is a dumbass and is being held accountable for his actions.  Probably no punishment for Beauchamp will be more painful than the fact that he has been disgraced in front of everyone in his unit.  Imagine how hard it must be for him to go to the chow hall at Camp Falcon now and look other soldiers in the eye after everyone knows what he did. 

I highly recommend everyone read this article by a Jesuit priest Rev. Paul McNellis, sums up the Beauchamp saga quite well without rejoicing in the fact Beauchamp’s life has hit some definite self inflicted hard times.

Why am I not surprised that the LA Times believes that soldiers, even the one injured and killed while serving their country, are not heroes:

Once upon a time, you had to do something truly exceptional to qualify as a full-fledged hero: single-handedly hold off a battalion of enemy soldiers to allow your platoon to escape, or rescue 100 children from a Nazi concentration camp. But today, just showing up at your Army recruiting station makes you an instant hero — and getting yourself hurt or killed doubles your heroism, even if you were sound asleep when your supply convoy went over an IED.

The empty rhetoric of heroism is everywhere these days. You know what I mean. Pat Tillman — the former NFL star — is "an American hero," apparently because he volunteered for duty along with several hundred thousand other people, then had the misfortune to be accidentally shot by his own side. Every wounded service member is a "hero" too: Sen. Hillary Clinton proudly sponsored the "Heroes at Home Act of 2007," intended to improve medical care for wounded military personnel, and the Defense Department recently sponsored the "Hiring Heroes Career Fair" to encourage companies to hire wounded veterans. No soldier left behind!

Bah, humbug. [LA Times, 03AUG07]

I actually read this after I got done reading this article in the Stars & Stripes:

In this Army community, a friend calls before coming over to have a cigarette.

A knock on the door can make a soldier’s spouse jumpy because it could be that knock.

“When it’s 8 o’clock at night and you’re not expecting anybody to come over, and someone just comes up and rings your doorbell, your heart stops,” said Krissi Van Oder, wife of Staff Sgt. Scott Van Order of the 9th Engineer Battalion.

“Or someone will call you on the phone and say, ‘This is sergeant so-and-so; your husband is OK,’ because they’ve had the experience of, ‘Oh my God, why are you calling?’”

“It’s terrible how many things can run through your head in 15 seconds,” Van Order said. “Your husband’s hurt. Somebody you know is hurt. Somebody you know was killed. They’re being extended.”

The 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division — known as the “Dagger Brigade” — has endured the deadliest deployment of any Europe-based U.S. military brigade in Iraq. Fifty-six troops have been killed in combat since the brigade deployed a year ago, mostly from roadside bombs. One death, described as noncombat related, is under investigation.

Some units have suffered more losses than others. The hardest hit — the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment — has reported 27 deaths. Next on this tragic list comes the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, with 19 deaths. [Stars & Stripes, 05AUG07]

How can anyone think, for example that the soldiers and families of the 1-26IN battalion that has been extended in Iraq and has already lost 27 soldiers during their deployment, are not heroes?  When I was in Iraq my battalion lost 6 soldiers and that was hard enough, but 27 fatalities has to be incredibly painful for all the soldiers and families in that unit.  Plus the unit probably has plenty of wounded soldiers as well that are equally heroic.  Yet after such sacrifice the unit soldiers on and is soldiering on well judging by the progress made by the US forces in Iraq. 

What is most impressive about soldiers today, is that most of them have enlisted after 9/11.  The left’s talking point about the poor kid who only enlisted into the military for college money and was forced into Bush’s War has long been proven false.  Most enlistments are 3-4 years in length; it has been nearly 6 years since 9/11.  I signed up for the military during the "peaceful" Clinton years, the choice was easy and not what I would consider heroic.  However, these soldiers enlisting today sign up knowing full well they are going to war.  Additionally the NCOs that lead these soldiers continue to reenlist knowing full well that they will be going back into harms way again with another combat deployment likely. This is what I call heroic.

The inspiring nature of today’s fighting men and women is why the left and their media allies have launched their continuing campaign to slime the members of the military serving today by labeling them as uneducated low lives and criminals responsible for committing war crimes all over Iraq and thus are not worthy of the nation’s respect. Of course none of this is true, but this perception is slowly being created by the media.  There is no better example than the recent "Scott Thomas" scandal. 

The soldiers deployed overseas fighting for their country and the families that support them are heroes and there is no better example than the 1-26IN battalion.  My best wishes to the soldiers and families of the 1-26IN battalion, you are all heroes. 

Just another example how they support the troops and not the war.