The Cool Blue Blog

CWO4 Michael Zanders

April 15, 2006 would prove to be unlike any other day during his near 800 hours of combat flight in Iraq. In Mosul around mid-day, Zanders received a "911" call from a nearby combat outpost. Zanders took off in one of two Kiowa Warrior helicopters from Forward Operating Base Mosul and arrived on site in minutes. As they approached, they saw gunfire and explosions blackening the desert. The heavy dust rising from the chaos obstructed the choppers’ view of the kill-zone, forcing them to fly as close to the ground as possible. After frantic communiqués from the combat outpost warning their position could be overrun, the Kiowas helicopters went into action. Zanders’ sister ship took the lead. Both choppers unloaded on the attacking insurgents with volleys of high explosive rockets and 50 caliber machine gun fire.               

After several low-flying orbits of the battlefield, the other chopper took hostile fire and was forced to pull out of the fight. The pilot had smelled gas and performed an emergency landing within a kilometer of the engagement zone to assess the damage. Zanders kept one eye on the downed aircrew and the other on the still pitched battle.                 

The Army pilots had feared such a situation could arise. With insurgents threatening to overwhelm their haphazard landing zone, the pilots knew there was no time to wait. Without pause, Zanders landed next to the downed crew – the most vulnerable sort of maneuver for a helicopter – and signaled to the pilot and copilot of the fellow Warrior to climb onto his craft’s weapons struts and hold on. With a "thumbs up" from the precariously secured aircrew, Zanders climbed back into the sky, and flew at over 80 knots back to FOB Mosul.               

Flying through the Iraqi air with an additional aircrew barely on board made for a challenging flight in the insurgent–contested territory. In the air, as Zanders flew passed a Black Hawk helicopter that had scrambled to perform the rescue, Zanders saw the surprise on the face of the passing pilots as they took in the sight of the downed aircrew strapped to the side of Zanders’ chopper. That heroic act – which Zanders modestly called "instinct" – was later confirmed to be the first ever attempted of its kind.                 

Successfully evacuating the aircrew at the base, Zanders prepared to head back out. The situation at the besieged combat outpost was stabilized while he refueled and rearmed, but instead of debriefing, he took off again to provide security around the downed chopper until it could be recovered.

3013 words about Iraq

Three slides from General Petraeus' Report to Congress. The pictures speak for themselves.

Cancelled

After getting spanked in Basrah by Iraqi forces and Sadr City by American forces, Iranian proxy Muqtada al-Sadr sued for peace.

Just as the new Iraqi forces began to arrive in Basrah and US and British forces were gearing up to augment the Iraqi military, Muqtada al Sadr, under orders from Iran’s Qods Force, called for his fighters to withdraw from the streets. Sadr issued a nine-point list of demands, which included that operations cease.

But al Sadr's demands were snubbed

Maliki refused and Iraqi and US forces continued to move into Basrah and conduct pinpoint raids against Shia terror groups. More than 200 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 700 were wounded, and 300 captured during the six days of fighting in Basrah alone.

What's even worse for al Sadr, and by extension Iran, is that Maliki then introduced legislation to bar all political parties that refused to disband their militias.

“A decision was taken that they no longer have a right to participate in the political process or take part in the upcoming elections unless they end the Mehdi Army,” CNN quoted Al Maliki as saying on Monday.

The first step will be adding language to a draft election bill banning parties that operate militias from fielding candidates in provincial balloting this fall, the officials and lawmakers said. The government intends to send the draft to parliament within days and hopes to win approval within weeks.

All of the major political players moved to support Makiki

Iraq's major Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties have closed ranks to force anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army militia or leave politics, lawmakers and officials involved in the effort said Sunday....

"We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament," lawmaker Hassan al-Rubaie said Sunday. "Even the blocs that had in the past supported us are now against us and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in parliament."

Al-Sadr controls 30 of the 275 parliament seats, a substantial figure but not enough to block legislation.

Al Sadr tried a political counter-offensive, a Million Man Anti-American March, then backed down

Moqtada Al Sadr has called off a mass rally in Baghdad planned for Wednesday, his aides said on Tuesday, as clashes continued in the conflict-ridden region.

Al Sadr’s followers had been blocked by Iraqi security forces from traveling to Baghdad from the Shiite areas where he garners great support as well.

Al Sadr had called for a "million-strong" protest to mark the fifth anniversary of the capture of Baghdad by US troops, in what was seen as a show of force in his conflict with the government, but two aides in the Shiite leaders office said the rally had been cancelled.

But even as he is being countered on both the political and military fronts, he still plays to the US Press by talking tough

Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is demanding the Iraqi government protect the public from "the booby traps and American militias" or he may formally end the freeze he imposed seven months ago on his Mahdi Army fighters.

The statement was being circulated to the press and public Tuesday as U.S. and Iraqi troops stepped up their pressure on Shiite militiamen in their Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.

His only remaining hope is with the Press who continue to spin this as a victory for al Sadr and a defeat for Maliki. But the fact is that it is Sadr that keeps retreating, not Maliki

Maliki has said the military will continue to operate against the Mahdi Army, and US and Iraqi forces have kept Sadr City and Shula in Baghdad under curfew. US and Iraqi forces fought pitched battles in Sadr City over the weekend. At least nine Mahdi Army fighters were killed by US helicopters after attacking Iraqi patrols in the city. Twenty Iraqis were reported killed and more than 50 wounded during the fighting.

Maliki has said the military would continue to operate in Sadr City and other Mahdi Army strongholds in Baghdad. "We have opened the door for confrontation, a real confrontation with these gangs, and we will not stop until we are in full control of these areas," Maliki said on April 7.

Maliki's assault on Basrah, Operation Knights' Assault, did point out deficiencies in the Iraqi Army: There were defections, they moved without adequate preparation, and they lacked battlefield intelligence; but it also revealed that the Iraqi security forces are getting better and stronger.

They are moving in the right direction.

And at the moment, that direction is to cancel al Sadr's ticket.

War by other means

Karl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz famously said "war is a continuation of politics by other means". He meant by this that war is an instrument of politics.

I turn this around and say that "politics is a continuation of war by other means".

The instinct to kill and wage war to settle disputes is native to human behavior. Religion and ethics is, and has always been, an attempt to mitigate this. It is not by accident that "Thou shalt not murder" is the first Commandment.

Politics is yet another mechanism by which we abstract war and make it "safe". And representative forms government that rule with the consent of the people is a form of abstract war meant to short circuit internal revolt and revolution.

That we all believe the current political season to be the most virulent and mean-spirited ever is not to know the history of politics in this country. Ever since George Washington stepped down to go home to Mount Vernon, politics was war by other means. In 1796, John Adams of the Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party went head to head for the top job.

Aside from being the first election with definitive party politics, it was also a particularly dirty battle for the presidency. Neither candidate did much campaigning personally, but their proxies were vicious in their character assaults. Thomas Jefferson, who had an affinity for French culture and language, was criticized as virulently pro-French as well as an atheist. John Adams was assaulted as an elitist, an advocate for an American monarchy, and personally cantankerous..

The election of 1800, a rematch between Adams and Jefferson, was even worse

The campaign was bitter and characterized by slander and personal attacks on both sides. Federalists spread rumors that the Democratic-Republicans were radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country (based on the Democratic-Republican preference for France over Britain. At the time, the rather violent French revolution was in full swing). In 1782, George Washington (who had no political party) had complained "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest[sic] Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country.”^[1] Meanwhile, the Democratic-Republicans accused Federalists of destroying republican values with the Alien and Sedition Acts; they also accused Federalists of favoring Britain in order to promote aristocratic, anti-republican values. ^[2]

Adams was attacked by both the opposition Democratic-Republicans and by "High Federalists" in his own Federalist Party who were aligned with Hamilton. The Democratic-Republicans felt that Adams' foreign policy was too favorable toward Britain, feared that the new army called up for the Quasi-War would oppress the people, opposed Adam's new taxes, and attacked his Alien and Sedition Acts as violations of states' rights. A faction of “High Federalists” considered Adams too moderate. Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton schemed to elect Vice Presidential candidate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to the Presidency. One of Hamilton's letters attacking Adams became public, embarrassing Adams and damaging Hamilton's efforts on behalf of Pinckney.^[3]

In these first battles between nascent political parties we observe rival political factions take to the stump and the press instead of bands of militias shooting at each other; something of a change in human history.

But make no mistake, it was bloody war.

But something quite amazing happened when Jefferson defeated Adams in 1800: political power changed without bloodshed, and we have managed to do this every election year since and we expect it to happen yet again in January of 2009.

War is an extension of politics. But politics replaces war more times than not since 1796. But we have to keep in mind that representative forms of government are quite sophisticated and go against the natural order of things: it is an invention of human beings. Note that while the campaign of 1800 was going on, the French were changing the political status quo through violence. And indeed we only were able to form a representative form of government through violence.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we see the birth pangs of new representative governments and we see that violence is still being used instead of politics. And while representative governments have been growing world-wide but

there have been setbacks

According to the survey’s findings, the year 2007 was marked by a notable setback for global freedom. The decline was most pronounced in South Asia, but also reached significant levels in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa. It affected a substantial number of large and politically important countries—including Russia, Pakistan, Kenya, Egypt, Nigeria, and Venezuela—whose declines have wider regional and global implications. Furthermore, results for 2007 marked the second consecutive year in which the survey registered a decline in freedom, representing the first two-year setback in the past 15 years.

The people of Iraq have the will to add to the list of functioning representative democracies

If we do...

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.	4
This much we pledge—and more. - John F Kennedy

Working with friends

Back in February, the US Military proved to the world that it's Anti-Ballistic Missile system works just fine. And they did it by shooting down an errant intelligence satellite

The elaborate intercept may trigger worries from some international leaders, who could see it as a thinly disguised attempt to test an anti-satellite weapon — one that could take out other nations' orbiting communications and spy spacecraft.

There was nothing "thinly-veiled" about it, it was clearly a real-world test of a system that had been in the works since the Reagan Administration and revived, in a slightly different form by the Bush Administration after languishing during the Clinton years.

And there is no doubt that "some" international leaders did not see it as good news.

China for one who a year earlier had killed an orbiting satellite (which is a much simpler task but threatening none the less)

And, of course, Iran was none too happy because it has dreams of creating a nuclear tipped ICBM which would be an infidel-killer.

But our friends, the Democracies of the West, did not think it was so bad. And, in fact, at the NATO summit yesterday, agreed to deploying the US technology on NATO soil.

President Bush won NATO's endorsement Thursday for his plan to build a missile defense system in Europe over Russian objections. The proposal also advanced with Czech officials announcing an agreement to install a missile tracking site for the system in their country...

NATO leaders were adopting a communique stating that "ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to allied forces, territory and populations." It also will recognize "the substantial contribution to the protection of allies ... to be provided by the U.S.-led system," according to senior American officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the statement's release.

The statement calls on all NATO members to explore ways in which the planned U.S. project, to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic, can be linked with future missile shields elsewhere. It says leaders should come up with recommendations to be considered at their next meeting in 2009, the officials said...

The plan calls for 10 interceptor missiles based in Poland and a tracking radar site in the Czech Republic.

Almost a week after the successful shoot-down of the satellite proving the worth of the ABM system, Barak Obama reiterated his opinion that our ABM technology is not ready for prime time and that when made President, he would cut such programs

As president, ... I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

Well the only missile defense system we have is proven to work. But even if it wasn't proven how are you going to acquire a proven missile defense system if you cut the funding to develop it?

Back in 2007 he promised he would deploy a proven system.

"The Bush Administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles. If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should - but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment. The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes. The Bush Administration has also done a poor job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile defense system that has major implications for all of them. We must not allow this issue to divide "new Europe" and "old Europe," as the Bush Administration tried to do over Iraq." (emphasis is mine)

So now that the system is proven to work (and is not an exaggeration) and NATO allies, consulted, want it deployed, will the Senator change his position about cutting the missile defense program?

In a speech given in Arlington Virginia on March 26th, 200 Senator McCain said

One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies.  We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to.  We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests. 

At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust.  Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind."  Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.  We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies.  When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right.  But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

I wonder if Senator Obama is willing to listen, and work with our friends in NATO, which is the closest organization existing to a League of Democracies.

Or is he only willing to work with our enemies.

Senator Obama has a problem with Americans protecting themselves

Rather than create a national registry, “I do think we have to do a better job sharing information between local and federal officials,” Obama said yesterday. He differs with McCain and Clinton about whether people should be allowed to carry concealed guns. Clinton and McCain oppose outlawing it.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

But a large number of Americans disagree with the Senator, not the least of which is James William Spiers III

Spiers is a pizza delivery man who was out on an order when an assailant put a pistol to his head and demanded that Spiers hand over his money. Spiers reportedly grabbed the gun from his assailant, pulled his own weapon, and fired, hitting the would-be robber no fewer than three times.

Spiers himself was unharmed. He called the police, who took a report and later arrested a man with multiple gunshot wounds who had called for medical help. But after the incident, Spiers received another shock: Pizza Hut was suspending him for violating a company policy against delivery drivers carrying weapons. Spiers was out of a job.

If elected President, I fear Senator Obama will be the Pizza Hut of American Foreign Policy actively working against the self-preservation interests of Americans, America, and our friends abroad.

Captain Daniel Burkhart

More than a quarter century of war and discontent has left Afghanistan’s once well-established villages and cities derelict, dilapidated and in need of brave humanitarians. Army Captain Daniel Burkhart, on his second tour supporting the war on terror, went above and beyond his role in the Combined Security Transition Command and gave his free time to the Voluntary Community Relations Project (VCR) with an open heart and helping hand.

Burkhart always believed it was a privilege to serve as a conduit through which the goodwill and generosity of the American people was able to flow to Afghanistan, improving the lives of these war-ravaged citizens. Started by an Army Chaplain, the VCR project distributes clothes and other goods to displaced refugees in and around Kabul – all donated by the American people.

Burkhart considered the time away from his loving wife and infant to be daunting. Seeing the face of his young daughter in that of every needy Afghani youngster, he knew he could not ignore them. As a part of VCR, he has helped facilitate the delivery and distribution of thousands of items to this war-torn country. These tokens of support by the American public are one of the many ways Burkhart and his fellow soldiers help the Afghan people resist the pressures of the poppy industry, or worse, acquiesce to the Taliban’s insurgency.

When asked about his experience in Afghanistan, he does not tell tales of the fanatical Taliban fighters or the despicable acts of al Qaeda terrorists, but instead the hospitality and work ethic of the local populous. He reflects on the many cups of chai he has shared with refugees and villagers alike, and the many games of soccer he has played with energetic children.

While Burkhart will always remember the brown sand and desolate landscapes of Afghanistan, it is the appreciative children and the hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives he has touched with the VCR project that will always have the most prominent place in his memory.

For his year-long service in Afghanistan, Burkhart received the Bronze Star, the NATO Medal, the Afghan Campaign Medal and the Outstanding Service Medal.

More here

A Hundred Years

In a town hall meeting back in January, Senator McCain had this exchange

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

Senator Obama characterized this conversation this way

“John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years,” Obama said during a town hall meeting in Lancaster, Pa.

“John McCain is willing to sign up for the prospect of spending as much as $150 billion or more each year for who knows how long,” Obama added, noting that by suggesting that the U.S. keep a long-term presence in Iraq, “that implies that there is some criteria by which we would understand how long it takes. John McCain has not been clear about what exactly leads him to decide it’s time to pull out.”

Do we need such clarity for the troops stationed in Germany? Japan? Italy? The Horn of Africa? Will Senator Obama "pull out" from these countries as well?

Yesterday, the Columbia Jounalism Review made note of Senator Obama's distortion

Since then, some conservatives have drawn attention to the distortion, and Obama’s been a bit more careful with his language. Today, for instance, he said: “We can’t afford to stay in Iraq, like John McCain said, for another hundred years.” It’s technically true that McCain said that, but Obama’s clear goal in phrasing it that way was to imply, falsely, that McCain wants the war to continue for that long. In other words, he’s gone from lying about what McCain said to being deeply misleading about it. Progress, of a kind....

This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.

Few in the press have done that. But then again, there is this...

Clearly the good Senator Obama is not so eloquent when talking off-script about things that are real.

But we have questions about Senator Obama's position. Thankfully Senator McCain asked them

McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, responded Tuesday that he’d like to know how many troops make up a “strike force.”

“Where are they based? What do they do? Now I’m intrigued. He has said he will pull out all troops before. How do you reconcile those two?” McCain asked.

I wonder if the good Senator Obama will answer...

Who are they voting for?

According to a survey on political positions completed by Barak Obama in 1996, the candidate said he opposed capital punishment, opposed parental notification of abortions being sought by minors, and supported measures to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns". When asked about a single-payer system for healthcare

He claims to support none of these positions today.

Ordinarily this would not be a problem: people change their minds. Politicians are people. Therefore politicians change their minds.

But the problem here is that Obama claims he never opposed capital punishment, never opposed parental notification of abortions being sought by minors, and never supported measures to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns".

A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out. It includes first-person comments such as: “I have not previously been a candidate.”

So according to Obama, he never filled out that questionaire himself and the staffer who did, misrepresented his positions

...Obama says he supports the death penalty in limited circumstances, such as an especially heinous crime. The campaign says Obama has consistently supported the death penalty “in principle” and opposed it “in practice.”

On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for “common-sense limits, but not banning” throughout his 11-year political career...

“His views are very much in the mainstream of the Democratic Party,” said chief strategist David Axelrod, who has known Obama since 1992 and worked with him since 2002. “There are some issues on which he’s probably viewed more conservatively. He’s been a consistent voice on issues of, for example, parental responsibility and pushed those hard, because he believes in them.”

Unfortunately for Obama, further digging by Politico

determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

When presented with this evidence

...Obama... did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire.

Huh.