During his campaign for the White House President Obama said, “We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there… I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.”

He promised to send another ten to fifteen thousand troops to help those already there. He also declared that the war in Afghanistan was the proper front in the war against terror. Now that he is Commander-in-Chief, his vision seems to be less clear.

The military commanders gave the President four troop deployment options earlier this week but he refused all four. Not for military reasons but because of some hooey about the corruption of the government in Kabul and their inability to run a fair election. Mr. President, if our support for governments was based on whether they are corrupt or not and could run a fair election, we would have pulled federal funding from Chicago years ago. The problem with pulling out of Afghanistan, or Chicago for that matter, is that they would fall into violent anarchy. We have already seen that happen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Current thinking on what to do in Afghanistan is based on two faulty assumptions:

The first is that wars are clear and concise events with specific outcomes and easy to find exit points. When John McCain told us the truth about how long we might be in Iraq, we didn’t want to hear it. We have been in Japan and Germany for over sixty years and in the Philippines for much longer. I wonder if back during the Spanish- American War leftist were telling the President that the Philippines were tribal islands and would never be able to be organized into a stable democratic government?

The second faulty assumption is that if we walk away from Afghanistan, simply pull all of our troops out, the war it then over. How long would it be before the Taliban was running things again and Al Qaeda was using it as a base of operations?  We will be fighting the same people again in the future, perhaps armed with nuclear weapons from Iran or Pakistan. Our national attention span has shortened to Twitter-like dimensions while our enemies think in terms of centuries.

The real problem for President Obama is that is if he deploys more troops and commits to staying, Afghanistan is no longer Bush’s war but his. Not even a year into his term and he is already worried about his legacy rather than doing what is best for the country. He is worried that his presidency will get bogged down in the battle for liberty instead of being able to focus on strengthening ACORN and the SEIU.

The left doesn’t mind waging long, costly, and non-winnable wars, so long as they are they start them themselves. Look at the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Our cities are littered with the lives ruined by those wars. We have thrown enough money into those two rat holes to finance Iraq and Afghanistan for the next fifty years and toss in twenty years of free government health care to boot. Do we have an exit strategy from the Welfare State, Mr. President?

Nobody liked this movie when it was called “Body of Lies.” 

This is the most revealing trailer yet and thankfully we’re given a heads up as to what the story might really be about. Hollywood will look for cover with the excuse that “Green Zone” is based on a true story, but we all know which “true stories” Leftist Hollywood cherry picks in order to fulfill the demands of an anti-American narrative. For example, the true story of 100,000-plus Americans risking their lives to liberate and protect from terrorists people they’ve  never met is one “true story” we’ll see in hell first.

Everything you’d expect from director Paul Greengrass and Damon is here, including that goddamn shaky-cam (it’s not saying the Lord’s name in vain if you mean it). Damon’s character is the protagonist and he’s there to do good but it’s not the terrorists who are the antagonists getting in his way … no, it’s The United States of America personified by the Greg Kinnear character.

Look fast for my favorite part of the trailer at the 1:42 mark after Kinnear appears to order Damon’s assassination. When Kinnear’s confronted in the next scene suddenly he’s sporting that old “liberal tell” identifying the bad guys in leftist films: the lapel flag!

In the comments, Hollywood’s few remaining water-carriers should please explain why an industry we’re told is more interested in making profits than making political points would green-light the umpteenth anti-Iraq movie after all umpteen that came before flopped miserably.

SIDE NOTE: Once again I want to make clear that this post violates the rule which only allows Leftist critics and film writers to speculate about an upcoming film before seeing it. I knew that before putting fingers to keyboard and am fully braced for the consequences.

Helo Halo

Luminous halos twirled above a Boeing CH-47 Chinook on a recent night around 11:30 p.m. local time at Forward Operating Base Jackson in Sangin, Helmand Province, Afghanistan, as helicopters ferried casualties and supplies in and out of the base. The photographer was independent journalist Michael Yon, a former U.S. Army Special Forces soldier who has covered Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Philippines with a camera. Helicopter pilots don’t have a name for the effect, but one explained to Yon, “Basically it is a result of static electricity created by friction as…dissimilar material strike against each other. In this case, titanium/nickel blades moving through the air and dust.” Yon says, however, that a researcher studying helicopter brownout emailed him to say that scientists are not 100 percent sure what causes the effect. Depending on the viewing angle, it creates dazzling little galaxies. An even longer exposure reveals stars and another aircraft marked by a string of lights at upper left of center; Yon suspects this aircraft was a Predator or Reaper UAV, which, unlike manned military aircraft, fly with their lights on in the Afghan night to avoid collisions. Yon, who made these shots with a Canon 5D Mark II with a 50 mm lens at an ISO of 800, claims that the night was far darker than his sensitive camera conveys, as evidenced by the green chemlights on the ground to guide the pilots. He was moved to create a name, the Kopp-Etchells Effect, for the rotor phenomenon to honor a pair of fallen soldiers, U.S. Army Corporal Benjamin Kopp and British Army Corporal Joseph Etchells, who died one day apart in July after fierce fighting in Helmand (Kopp had been evacuated to the U.S. before he died). “The tent in the foreground is a medical tent,” says Yon, “so that casualties can be kept in a tent until the last minute. A substantial number of British casualties in Helmand have been lifted off of this exact spot…because this is probably either the most dangerous place in Afghanistan, or nearly the most dangerous.”

Please give the gift of independent reporting. Your gift goes far and is used for transport, lodging, living expenses, satellite communications and for repairing and replacing gear that fails due to the rigors of the battlefields.  Millions of people, in more than a hundred countries, see these photos and words.  Your generosity goes very far, and is greatly appreciated.

As I watch Hollywood’s inexcusable defense of Roman Polanski and the White House’s indecision in Afghanistan, I’m wondering what I’ve missed. For example, if the President’s going to break a campaign promise, why would he pick one that will endanger not only the mission and the lives of so many great Americans in Afghanistan, but the security of our nation? At the same time, how come everyone knows Polanski’s name but you hear little mention of a tough guy named Sergeant First Class Jared Monti?

Sergeant First Class Jared Monti in Afghanistan

Is it possible we don’t have our priorities straight? For those that are interested, let me tell you about Jared Monti.

This spring Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made a routine visit to Fort Drum, NY, home of the 10th Mountain Division. During his circulation of the post, he chatted with several members of the rear detachment of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team whose headquarters and 4500 troops are presently serving south of Kabul, Afghanistan.

“Anything I can do for you?” the Secretary asked the commander of the rear element charged with keeping the communication flow to the families, processing replacements for shipment overseas, and managing the returning wounded.

“Just one thing,” the commander said and then went on to ask about Sergeant First Class Jared Monti’s Medal of Honor packet, seemingly lost in the abyss of the White House Military Office. Apparently Louis Caldera, the Director of the White House Military Office, was too busy approving Air Force requests to do aerial doughnuts over the Statue of Liberty and causing fire drills on the ground in Manhattan than to process Monti’s Medal of Honor nomination.

Gates, I’m told, got the packet unearthed and approved. Just a few weeks ago, Sergeant First Class Monti posthumously received his just reward for his incredibly brave actions on June 21 2006.

I remember that night over three years ago like it was yesterday. The 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division commander, then-Colonel Mick Nicholson, had made the decision to push north up the Kunar Valley, through a town called Naray, into an area called Gowardesh. Jared Monti, the senior field artillery forward observer for 3d Squadron, 71st Cavalry, took his team of 18 men as the advance element to cover an air assault scheduled for the next day. His squadron commander, LTC Mike Howard, positioned 120mm heavy mortars and 105mm artillery tubes to cover their advance.

As a short digression, it was General Tommy Franks, CENTCOM Commander during the beginning phases of combat in Afghanistan, who had initially refused deployment of all artillery and Apache helicopters into Afghanistan, conducting personal line item vetoes of equipment deployment rosters. Soon after Franks quit a year early, General John Abizaid took command and authorized the deployment of whole combat teams into the region that could adequately fight as they were designed. It would be the mortars and artillery that saved Jared Monti’s team that night.

As the advance element inserted at night and quietly infiltrated up thousands of feet to their mountaintop observation post, they had positional advantage over major routes of ingress and egress from Pakistan and known Al Qaeda hideouts. The plan was for the rest of the squadron, some 400 strong, to air assault into position the following evening, less than 24 hours away.

The weather moved in, though, preventing large-scale air assault and, after 24 hours, Monti’s team began running low on water and chow as they had gone in light. A brave Blackhawk UH-60 and Apache AH-64 crew ignored the bad weather and delivered a resupply to Monti’s team on the cutting edge of freedom in the towering, 15,000-foot peaks of the Hindu Kush.

While Jared and his team received their much-needed supplies, the enemy also had cued on the resupply mission. Methodically, Al Qaeda began to move into position throughout the night as if they were chess pieces.

Pretty soon, it was checkmate. SFC Monti and his team were surrounded by as many as 70 hardened fighters. The cavalry wasn’t going to be able to make it in time and the prepositioned artillery and U.S. Air Force were the only friends who could help. Colonel Nicholson and LTC Howard, monitoring from the nearest forward operating bases, directed the artillery units and air force to support SFC Monti’s team as the main effort.

As the enemy initiated the ambush, young Private First Class Brian Bradbury was providing flank security. The opening salvo wounded Bradbury who was about 20 meters away from the core element, huddled in 360 degree fashion returning fire against the fast approaching enemy. SFC Monti’s training and values kicked into high gear. He called for multiple danger close missions either near or on his position. As his own artillery stymied the Al Qaeda advance, he raced out to rescue the stranded PFC Bradbury. Intense machine gun and rocket propelled grenade fire pushed him back as the enemy realized they had an American Soldier wounded in the open. SFC Monti returned three times to save the young PFC’s life.

Monti, though, was mortally wounded as he clawed forward to rescue Bradbury. As he lay dying, he uttered his final words. “I’ve made my peace with God. Tell my family I love them.”

Kind of makes the Polanski supporters look puny doesn’t it? Well, I guess, they are.

Further tragedy struck later that evening after the enemy had been denied through SFC Monti’s heroic actions. As the UH-60 medical evacuation aircraft hovered over the treacherous terrain, a brave medic named Staff Sergeant Heath Craig retrieved the first of two wounded using a cable hoist, commonly called a ‘jungle penetrator’ in the Vietnam War. After lifting the first casualty, Craig went back down for Bradbury.

As he ascended the second time with Bradbury, the hoist snapped as they neared the underbelly of the aircraft. Craig and Bradbury both perished as they fell onto the face of the rocks.

As far as ‘bad nights’ go, that was near the low point of the mission. Four great Americans, Sergeant First Class Jared Monti, Staff Sergeant Heath Craig, Sergeant Patrick Lybert, and Private First Class Brian Bradbury, were killed.

But the mission continued and the 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain established the operating bases they had planned, thanks to Monti and his team, and began to significantly interdict the flow of enemy fighters and means of war.

Today, many of us who served in the 10th Mountain Division carry the spirit of those four brave men forward. Brigadier General John “Mick” Nicholson, then Monti’s brigade commander, told me today, “Jared Monti personified all that is best about the young men and women fighting for our nation: selfless, humble, competent, phenomenal leader, and universally respected. He loved his comrades so much that he laid down his life for them, a role model for us all.”

Monti’s Medal of Honor is yet another stark contrast to Hollywood’s duplicity as Whoopi Goldberg and her ilk lobby for Polanski’s release, while simultaneously this administration is suddenly more concerned with showing General McChrystal “Who’s the boss,” as opposed to making a timely, sound decision in Afghanistan.

For the sake of men such as Monti, Bradbury, Craig, and Lybert, we all need to do a mirror check and understand what has gone before us. These men got into the Al Qaeda wheelhouse and disrupted the enemy, paving the way for U.S. presence in enemy territory. They were the first behind enemy lines. They were brave, moral men who served a purpose larger than themselves.

Their sacrifice is symbolic of this war: a few Soldiers, alone and unafraid, on the cutting edge of freedom, against overwhelming odds.

Many on the West Coast and in Washington, DC would be well advised to reflect on the lives of SFC Monti and his teammates.

Such reflection may even convince some folks to make a timely decision.

The other night, Bill O’Reilly was explaining that this award meant the world would view America as a peace-loving nation.  Brent Budowsky, lectured the “talk America down” Republicans for attacking the announcement, saying ”this is good for America.”  TIm Kaine claimed that the prize was “an affirmation of the fact that the United States has returned to its longstanding role as a world leader.”  America is popular again; may we all celebrate with great enthusiasm.  If only there wasn’t that nagging question of what price President Obama has paid in order usher in this era of good will.   

In January, most conservatives cheered Barack Obama’s actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, where he mostly kept President Bush’s policies intact.  Unfortunately, this agreement on foreign affairs quickly dissolved, as Obama began his series of apology tours through South America, Egypt and Europe.  His administration ignored the corrupt Iranian elections, and gave little to no support to the democracy advocates being killed as they protested in the streets of Tehran.  Weeks later, his administration attempted to bully Honduras into reinstating a corrupt president who had attempted his own coup of the country’s democratic government.  Then our President left our Eastern European allies in the lurch when he abandoned the missile defense system there as a conciliatory move towards the Russians (for which he received nothing in return).  And now we are seeing what may become the beginning of an about face on Afghanistan, as President Obama changes his tune on the Taliban. 

It would seem as though the Nobel committee is only congratulating our President for emasculating America’s role as a leader and advocate for democracy. As usual, America’s popularity rises only when we abandon the position of strength which has secured both ourselves and our allies over the past eight years.  Rush Limbaugh said it best with these words: “[The world] love[s] a weakened, neutered US, and this is their way of promoting that concept.” 

Of course, by taking this stance, Rush and the rest of us have “thrown in [our] lot with the terrorists” according to the DNC.  Democrats would rather we blindly cheer as our President wins a popularity contest, while our enemies gather and strengthen their own positions.  This last week, America’s status as an economic world leader weakened further as rumors surfaced that the Gulf states were considering abandoning the dollar. At the same time, our President risks emboldening terrorists around the world as he toys with the idea of giving the Taliban any sort of victory in Afghanistan.  

So, I’m afraid this moment of triumph for America is anything but.  While some may be tempted to smile and wave as our President accepts this award as some sort of victory for our national pride I can’t help but picture a beaming Carrie being crowned the prom queen as a bucket of pig’s blood hovers dangerously above.

Though there were no announcements I’m aware of, almost immediately I knew he had retired … because almost immediately there was a disturbance in the force. Sometime during the early eighties, Hackman replaced John Wayne as my favorite working actor and rarely did a year pass without a new Gene Hackman movie – and sometimes there were as many as two or three. So when the movies stopped coming, something just felt off. 

Has there ever been anything like the ”Hackman Chuckle?” He’s such a marvelous actor and could so easily slip his unique  persona into any kind of character he wanted – from Popeye Doyle to Lex Luthor to Little Bill to God Himself – but always the “Hackman Chuckle” came along for the ride; that quiet, understated laugh that could convey anything, from awkwardness to pure evil. I miss it … and I miss Gene Hackman. 

This exclusive clip from an interview set to air tomorrow on The Washington Times Radio Show with Melanie Morgan and John McCaslin only increased my admiration for the former United States Marine and two-time Oscar winner:

Obviously, there’s much to disagree with here, but how refreshing to hear an actor state those positions like a mature adult. No ranting, no insulting rhetoric… And during a five-decade career, I don’t ever remember him saying anything that disappointed.  Better yet, you would never know from Hackman’s work what his politics are. From “Reds” to ”Uncommon Valor,”  from noble military men to crusading left-wing lawyers…

Unless it’s releasing a confessed child rapist on the land, no one cares how movies stars vote or what their personal politics are. How they express those beliefs is what matters, and if they’re not insulting me and mine, attempting to undermine my country during a time of war, hugging mass murderers like Fidel Castro or qualifying forced sodomy as ”not rape-rape,”  go with God, or that red string around your wrist, or whatever…

Like Paul Newman and James Garner, Hackman has something that transcends politics, something too many of his current counterparts do not, and that something is called class.

Top Ten Gene Hackman Movies:

1. The French Connection (1971)
2. Unforgiven (1992)
3. Superman (1978)
4. Hoosiers (1986)
5. Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
6. The Conversation (1974)
7. Scarecrow (1973)
8. Mississippi Burning (1988)
9. Crimson Tide (1995)
10. Night Moves (1975)

Top Ten Twelve Underrated Hackman Movies You Should Rent Now:

1. Twice in a Lifetime (1985)
2. Full Moon in Blue Water (1988)
3. Class Action (1991)
4. The Package (1989)
5. Bite the Bullet (1975)
6. Bat 21 (1988)
7. Another Woman (1988)
8. Narrow Margin (1990)
9. Heartbreakers (2001)
10. The Replacements (2000)
11. The Quick and the Dead (1995)
12. Target (1985)

A therapeutic challenge: Veterans with physical, mental injuries will bike from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

To Support Our Wounded Vets.

Day one of the 2nd annual Golden State Challenge with more than 150 participants headed of from the San Francisco VA towards the seaside town of Santa Cruz. The 75-mile ride took the riders thru scenic Northern California coastline including Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, and the climb of Bonnie Doon. The weather could not have been more perfect with sunny skies and a nice 15 mph tailwind. The ride is made up of groups from the Palo Alto, San Francisco, Livermoore, Fresno, Antelope Valley, West LA, and Sepulveda VA’s. Military groups come from Walter Reed, Brooke Army MC, San Diego Naval MC, Ft Irwin, Ft. Eustice, California National Guard, and several Viet Nam vets. One of the best scenes of the day was SF VA’s Eric Downing come out on his tandem with his 5 year old son.

We had the Hospital Director from the Fresno VA along for the ride for the first couple of days showing the growing importance of the program.

One of the things that people always ask is how do you know if you are really making a difference?

Last year 14 wounded heroes took part in the ride without having ridden a bike since childhood. They received their bikes the day before the ride started and had no time to prepare. Fast forward to 2009 and thanks to a grant from the USO, 78 bikes have been given to wounded heroes throughout the US. This has given the participants time to train and set up their riding position. The wounded vets have been training for months just to prepare for this event. Our first handcycle and trike cycle riders are trying to overcome the hills of California. Nate Hunt, a veteran of 2 R2R events this year has taken California as his personal challenge. 75 miles down and no one doubts that he will make it all the way.

One of those 14 riders was Elmer Urgarte. Ugarte, a native of San Diego, said he signed up for the ride as a tribute to 2 of his friends that did not make it out of Iraq. Urgarte was shot in the chest by a sniper while patrolling Karmah, Iraq, on July 23. He was rushed to the hospital in Iraq and was dead for 5 minutes. Because of the great work of the medical staff, he was eventually given a new lease on life. A chance that he did not want to waste. The surgery from Ugarte’s wound left a scar from his sternum to several inches below his naval.

He had several subsequent surgeries and had trouble breathing. Despite all this he decided to show up to San Francisco last year. He rode most of the ride but suffered greatly. Few will forget the heartfelt impromptu address he made at the Solvang dinner.

This year, Urgarte showed up to San Francisco a completely changed man. Gone was almost 50 pounds and a new found dedication of health and fitness.

“Cycling is my new addiction, and because of this ride, it will become yours,” he told the participants prior to the start of the ride. “Last year I struggled and this year I came to have a great time.

The new improved Elmer…..

This is a great example of how the program affects the participants and how they can benefit.

The other day I was playing on Facebook and saw a number of posts from my liberal friends regarding health care.  The comments posted were all similar.  No one should go without health care in this country and no one should go broke because they got sick.  Why only liberals would post this amazes me, because there are not too many people in the world that disagree.  However, it is just not that simple. 

In response, I posted a few comments.  The majority of them were along the line of “Yes, I agree too, but who is going to pay for it and how is it going to work?”  Almost universally, the liberal responses were either “The Rich,” or “Bring the Troops Back from Iraq and Afghanistan.”  I then realized that most thinking from Liberals is not based upon logic.  In fact, from these responses, it appears liberal thinking is idealist and based upon emotion.  This has been argued in the past by both Ann Coulter and Dennis Prager among others.  I now agree. 

Whether you agree with the War on Terror is not the issue.  The troops are committed.  You cannot simply bring them back.  To think that bringing them back can be accomplished overnight is not to think realistically.  You must leave them there as long as necessary to accomplish your goals or to train the local military to do it themselves.  In Iraq because of the surge, this is quickly happening.  In Afghanistan, it is a different story. 

The Afghanistan situation is beginning to look like Vietnam.  Either we make the commitment to beat the Taliban or we will be involved in a war of attrition which cannot be won.  President Obama must take the steps necessary to accomplish the goal.  Anything short of that will give the Taliban and Al Qaeda the foothold they need to take over the Afghanistan government again and to possibly move on Pakistan to get control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.  This is unacceptable. 

The second response “The Rich” is also idealistic.  How much more taxation do you think the rich are going to take before they completely revolt?  The middle class and blue collar workers at the Tea Parties on Saturday show that they are fed up.  And, they are not paying nearly as much of their income as the rich.  If you add another 5% to the marginal tax rate as proposed in HR 3200, most of The Rich will be paying almost 50% of their income in taxes before state income taxes are even considered.  In California and New York, that is more than 10%.  (This analysis includes sales taxes, property taxes, luxury taxes, etc., as well as income taxes and other income withholding).  And, you wonder why people are leaving California for Nevada, Arizona, Washington and other low tax states by the thousands.  People; rich, middle class or poor, will just not tolerate more. 

As shown by the previous examples, both responses given me last week by the liberals are just not realistic.  They are based upon emotion.  There is no logic behind them.  Hence we have the major difference.  Conservatives think logically and based upon the reality seen in facts and figures.  Liberals think emotionally and from idealistic goals and ambitions.  The two do not mix. 

Let us examine a few other examples: 

What about the current Administration’s outlook on foreign affairs?  President Obama, during his campaign, said that he would talk and negotiate with the radicals in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea.  Since he has become President, what has this policy gotten him; nothing.  Iran continues its nuclear ambitions unabated.  Venezuela continues poking its nose at the United States and its President.  And, North Korea does whatever it wants and will soon, not only have nuclear weapons, but will also have missiles capable of delivering them. 

Most recently, the tape from Osama Bin Laden is just another example of the failure of President’s Obama’s policy.  After his speech in Egypt, everyone on the left believed the Radical Moslems would change their attitude towards the United States.  All one has to do is listen to Bin Laden’s tape released in the last two days to realize that the emotional based thinking of the left is a far cry from the realism of the situation. 

In the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the President says that Israel should cease building settlements.  The Prime Minister of Israel agrees in principle provided that the Palestinians agree to recognize Israel’s right to exist.  The Palestinians say ‘no’ and Israel continues its expansion into the West Bank.  Another failure of idealism on the Administration’s part 

Those that truly understand foreign affairs could have predicted these outcomes.  Learning from the past and the use of logic as done by conservatives, works.  The emotion and idealism of the left does not.  The Left’s desire for everything to be right and for everything to be fair controls their policy.  Unfortunately, this is not reality.  And, hopefully, President Obama is beginning to get it now too.  All evidence however is to the contrary. 

The same is true with “Cap and Trade” and “Health Care Reform.”  Both liberal positions are based upon idealism and emotion.  Everyone would like to lower carbon emissions and make the environment a better place.  Everyone would love universal health care.  But, the fact of the matter is that “Cap and Trade” will cause many businesses in this country to fail and for those that do not fail, there will be many lost jobs.  The realism behind Health Care Reform or any of the plans under consideration by Congress now would bankrupt the country.  There is no plan that is revenue neutral at this point. 

In all of these situations, the liberal agenda is fueled by idealism and emotion.  Maybe, if liberals started thinking logically and based upon the realities of the world, there would be less partisanship in Congress and more could be accomplished.  Emotion is no way to govern this or any other country.

I can’t remember exactly when I first discovered his writings but it was at a point where he was disagreeing with the spin coming from the Bush White House regarding progress in Iraq. I was disturbed to have confirmation that things were not quite as we were being told but Yon’s critiques, while serious and undiluted, were constructive in nature. I could tell that he was supportive of the effort even though he sometimes railed against the execution of it. Michael Yon pulls no punches and I checked back often to see what else he had to say. Eventually, the network news would catch up and start reporting things that Yon had written about weeks, often months, earlier. This is a pattern that continues today.

As bad as things sometimes got, Michael always kept faith with our troops. He believed, as I did, that the quality of the individual soldiers and Marines would eventually win over the Iraqi people and, if given time, the Iraqis would succeed in building a free nation for themselves.

And things got bad. Day after day… bad news. Suicide bombings. Iraqi civilians, women and children killed. IED and sniper attacks. Politicians in Washington said Iraq was a “total failure.” They said Marines were killing “innocent civilians in cold blood.” “This war is lost.” And the hits just kept on coming. General David Petraeus was targeted by George Soros’ MoveOn.org in the New York Times and cast as a liar before he even had the chance to testify before Congress. People who continued to support the effort were ridiculed. Don’t you have any idea what’s going on? Aren’t you paying attention? We’re losing! We shouldn’t be there! People are dying and for what? Retreat. Pull out. Surrender. Defeat.

Some friends who had been supporters of the Iraq mission began to waver. They’d say, “How did we lose this? What are we doing? It’s unwinnable.” I started to despair, as well. I never lost faith in the abilities of our military. Rather, I attributed the failure to the civilian leadership and the purposeful hamstringing of the effort by those in opposition to it.

Thank goodness I started reading Michael Yon again at about that point in time. Michael had been writing about the beginnings of what eventually became known as the “Anbar Awakening.” The change in strategy that General Petraeus implemented combined with AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) overplaying their hand had started to turn the tide. This was mid-2007, mind you. When the “news” we were getting on television, in the papers and from some in Washington was darkest, reading Yon’s first hand accounts of the advances our men and women were making and the relationships they were building with the expanding Iraqi Army allowed me to argue my position with renewed vigor. It inspired me to write to leaders in D.C. and demand that they not abandon our troops in the field. How many others were inspired to do likewise? I’m sure I wasn’t alone. I’m also sure that it had some impact.

Michael Yon’s 2005 photo

Funny, but as late as July of 2008, I was still having discussions with people who were saying that Iraq was lost… a failure. By then, the good news could no longer be contained or ignored and it had started being reported by the major news outlets that Iraq had begun to stabilize but, unfortunately, the meme had been set. In fact, one day I had Yon’s book, “Moment of Truth in Iraq” in my hand (already written and published) and this guy at my agency was telling me that we lost in Iraq. I handed him the book and said, “For Pete’s sake, man, read this book before you fucking vote in November.” He said he would. He didn’t. I received it back after the election, unread. He “never got around to it.” His guy had won. His guy had inherited an Iraq that is on its way to being a free country and, hopefully, a staunch ally. Hopefully he won’t screw it up.

I wonder if it could have happened had Michael Yon come home a year earlier. If I’d had to rely on the major news organizations for my information, I would never have known about the Anbar Awakening. I might not have written any letters to those who hold the purse strings and make policy. I may have lost hope along with so many others. Perhaps, we would have pulled out at the turn of the tide, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We’ll never know.

Now, Michael Yon is in Afghanistan. He’s been there before. When everyone was focused on Iraq, he was warning back in 2006 that we could lose Afghanistan if certain issues weren’t addressed. Now, he’s returned to that country and is, once again, calling it as he sees it. In fact, that may have recently caused him to lose his embed privileges with the British forces he’d been travelling with. I’ll never understand these things.

Please visit Michael’s website. Find out what is going on. If you feel that some information you find needs to be pounded into some politician’s brain housing group, then make a call, send an email or a letter and tell them. Tell them.

Oh, and Mr. Yon gets by on reader donations. This helps defray the cost of putting himself in harm’s way with nothing but his camera to shoot with and his laptop to type with so that he can tell you what others can’t or won’t. Please consider hitting his tip jar.

Semper fidelis,

JRH

Photo: Jacobson/AP

Helmand, Afghanistan – The West is losing this war. This has been obvious for more than three years. Less obvious is that in 2009, we are down to the wire. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and others will soon recommend to President Obama the latest treatment for a dying patient.

Meanwhile, allies and Americans are asking themselves why we are here. Some are saying that Al Qaeda is still here or is waiting in the wings to return to its home. Yet Afghanistan was never Al Qaeda’s permanent home to begin with. Al Qaeda was just renting a little space here, just as it was renting space in places like Germany and Florida.

We must face reality: Our reasons for continuing are not the reasons we came for. We are fighting a different war now than the one that began in 2001. Today’s war is about social re-engineering. Given the horrible history of Afghanistan, and the fact that we already are here, the cause is worthy and worthwhile.

The decisions facing us are perilous and immense. On the one hand, we desperately need more troops, while on the other increasing troop levels introduces a host of costs and potential traps.

Yet it seems certain the war will be lost if we do not significantly increase troops. While our enemies grow stronger, years will pass before Afghan forces can replace us. Enemies are gaining ground while we lose the goodwill of the people through disillusionment. In the mostly peaceful Ghor Province, for instance, development is scant and there are no Afghan soldiers.

I just spent more than a month with British combat forces in Helmand. Instead of concentrating on training and operating with Afghan forces, the British are involved in a daily struggle for tiny pieces of real estate.

Last December, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told me in a private discussion while flying back to the U.S. from Afghanistan, Bahrain and Iraq, that his greatest concern is that we will lose the goodwill of the Afghan people. Gates is correct and my confidence in his judgment is high. Gates knows that our stock is still okay here, but clearly it is losing value.

The strongest indicator of progress will come in the form of cooperation from the people. In Iraq, especially in about mid-2007, I witnessed a tidal shift in cooperation from the civilians and largely from that was able to report that the surge was working, long before the statistics would support what might have appeared to be a wild claim.

During 2006 in Afghanistan, I witnessed areas where the population was alienated from Kabul and Western forces. Again, long before the statistics would support what appeared to be wild claims, I published 12 reports saying we were losing here. Analysts cannot feel the pulse through statistics; in this sort of war, statistics lag behind the realities. An observer must be on the ground to sense the pulse.

Pundits who are saying we should pull out of Afghanistan today, to my knowledge, are not here.

Having just spent another month with British forces in Helmand, today I am on my own in the same province. During the last month, our great allies the British lost dozens of soldiers who were killed or wounded. Cooperation from locals is almost nonexistent in many places. Interaction between civilians and British soldiers was nearly zero. The British treat the civilians very well, but being polite and respectful is not enough.

Without significant reinforcements, the British likely will be defeated in Helmand within a couple of years. My respect for British soldiers is immense. I have been in combat with them many times in Iraq and Afghanistan, including during the last couple of weeks and would go into battle with them today. Yet it must be said that the average British soldier has practically no understanding of counterinsurgency.

The enemies here cannot defeat the United States, but they can dissolve the coalition. Some allies are ready to tap out, while others are learning that counterinsurgency is difficult. The Germans, for instance, are losing in their battle space. To avoid watching the coalition melt away, we must show progress before the end of 2010.

Today, the war is still worth fighting, yet the goal to reengineer one of the most backward, violent places on Earth, will require a century before a reasonable person can call Afghanistan “a developing nation.” The war will not take that long – but the effort will.

There are no short-term solutions to fix this place. We are planting acorns. Oak trees grow slowly.

Reader support is greatly valued and crucial to the continuation of this mission. Today I am unembedded in Helmand Province. Please cover my back while I cover the war.