The Cool Blue Blog

Petty Officer James Hamill

Then-Petty Officer James Hamill, United States Navy, was trained as a command photographer, but in a flash, his mettle was tested, with 100 lives in the balance.

Working as a mass communications specialist, Hamill was serving with a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Khost, Afghanistan. On February 20, 2007, Hamill was assigned to document a momentous occasion, the opening of the Khost Provincial Hospital Emergency Room – a sign of progress in this dangerous province. Rumors and spotty intelligence came before the ceremony that warned of a possible suicide attack, but those involved with the project refused to back down and cancel the event. In the dense urban sprawl of Khost anything could happen, and Hamill’s PRT considered goodwill events like this the key to an effective counterinsurgency.

Unbeknownst to the attendees at the event, including provincial officials, cabinet members, and national government figures, a suicide bomber had slipped through the Afghan police’s outer security perimeter – dressed as a doctor – and was approaching the gathering. One vigilant American soldier became suspicious of the supposed doctor who was approaching the ceremony and stopped him. The soldier’s instincts were right as he keenly spotted the explosive vest, and tackled the marauding bomber.

As the two wrestled on the ground, the alarm was sounded, and Hamill immediately dropped his camera, raised his rifle, and moved to act as the last defense for the assembly of citizens and VIPs. The bomber freed himself and charged forward, hoping to unleash his horrible weapon, but Hamill stood his ground. With his weapon raised, he opened fire less than ten feet away from the imposter. The bomber was repeatedly hit, fell to the ground, and triggered his lethal package.

The ferocious blast – stopped only by the keen eye of one sergeant and Hamill’s unwavering determination – injured him and six other Americans, while sparing the hundred at the gathering of any casualties. Ignoring the shrapnel wounds to his abdomen, Hamill aided in performing life-saving first aid on the injured American soldiers who were worse off than him and ensured the area was secure in case of a follow-up attack.

The Major General of the 82nd Airborne at the time exclaimed that Hamill "prevented the bomber from inflicting catastrophic casualties," and praised his "extraordinary heroism" and "total dedication to duty." For his acts that day, he was awarded the Purple Heart for his wounds and the Bronze Star Medal with Valor for standing his ground against the suicide bomber.

                   

Omens of Prosperity

Almost two months ago, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that he would launch a counter-insurgency campaign in Diyala Province similar to what was done in Basra and Sadr City.

One month ago, US Marines and Iraqi Army divisions staged for this offensive.

Tens of thousands of US Marines and Iraqi troops have been deployed to the province, northwest of capital Baghdad, to conduct the second major offensive in a year, Iraq's Azzaman newspaper reported on Monday.

But this is mostly an Iraqi operation

For the last 10 days, the Iraqi Army has been carrying out its largest operation since 2003 here in the deserts and foothills of northern Diyala province near the Iranian border, searching for remnants of al Qaeda pushed out of urban areas by Iraqi and Coalition forces in the past year.

Iraq’s Quick Reaction Force, made up of Iraqi’s Army 1st Division and elements of the 9th Mechanized Division, operates at the discretion of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and moved from Baghdad to this area earlier in the summer. Diyala has gained a reputation as the most violent province in Iraq so far this year and is the location for the most recent female suicide bomber attacks. Nearly 50,000 Iraqi Army and Police troops and 4,000 U.S. soldiers are involves in the offensive.

“The Iraqi Army has started to clear all of the area – especially the hinterland that was controlled by al Qaeda,” said Iraqi Colonel Mounm Ashem Fahad, commander of the 1st Division’s 4th Brigade. “We have our orders from the Prime Minister that people aren’t allowed to have heavy weapons.”

The operation “Omens of Prosperity” began July 29 and has netted nearly 400 insurgents and numerous weapons caches. On Aug. 3-4, Iraqi soldiers discovered three weapons caches that included 44 rocket-propelled grenades, five RPG launchers, eight 82mm mortar rockets with fuses, 11 anti-personnel mines and five Iraqi military uniforms that could be used for suicide bomb attacks. Two Iraqi soldiers were killed in action and four soldiers were wounded...

The 4th Brigade’s U.S. Military Transition Team reported a break with the past in terms of the Iraqi Army’s behavior toward civilians. Increasingly, the army is using less aggressive counter-insurgency behavior to achieve its aims – a lesson gleaned from the US experience during the last 18 months when it changed its tactics in Iraq toward counter-insurgency.

“Many of the reports have the local people saying they’re quite happy with the way the searches have gone,” said US Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Wilson, commander of the 12-man US Military Transition Team. “They were expecting very aggressive searches, doors being beaten down, furniture broken, and things being stolen. That hasn’t been the case with these guys.”

...The operations will continue for an undetermined time, the US Army said.

Five members of al Qaeda’s executive council were captured during the first week of operations with support from a US-led Operation “Iron Pursuit” which covers both Diyala and neighboring Salahadin province.

Iraqi and US Special Operations forces are conducting air assault into known al Qaeda rear areas deep within the Hamrin Mountains.

With evidence on Iraqi security increasingly getting it right, things are getting closer to a secure and stable Iraq, though there is still work to do.

The situation in Iraq has improved over the past year, but Iraqi security forces and military are not ready for multinational forces to leave, said Hussein Safa, Iraq’s deputy national security adviser.

“I think by 2012-13, Iraqi military and police would be capable of handling the internal situation on their own,” Safa said. “But as for external threats, Iraq will need to depend on the presence of U.S. forces, especially air and land forces, for a longer time.”

He declined to elaborate.

Abdelwahab al-Qassab, a de¬fense analyst and a retired Iraqi navy rear admiral, said the Iraqi police and army lack sufficient logistical capabilities and firepower.

“There must be more internal reforms within the security and military establishments, more training and better quality arms and equipment,” he said.

Al-Qassab said Iraqi forces were being equipped with old and obsolete arms and equipment when they really need more helicopters, better logistics and a wider communications network.

“I believe if there [were] faster efforts to properly arm and train the military and police,” he said, “they will be ready to operate independent of any U.S. support within three years.”

Our only option is to stay and complete the mission: Three years is good, but whatever it takes is essential.

Where's the ANSWER

Russian troops have now gone beyond aiding the Ossetia separatists and are attacking Georgia itself.

The White House is aiding the pro-Western, pro-Democracy ally in some tactical ways and has sent a high-level envoy to try to resolve the issue.

But bombs are falling and people are dying.

Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, better known as International ANSWER remains silent on the matter.

The organization that was instrumental in motivating and organizing Leftists (and others) into large-scale demonstrations to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because, you know, they hate war and racism, do not seem to care that Russia is waging war to reintegrate the recently defunct Soviet Union.

If the Russians take Georgia, an we do nothing, then what? Ukraine? The Balkans?

ANSWER has no answer. Except, perhaps, "Go Russia!"

The cry of "No Blood for Oil" is absent in the current situation.

What is ANSWER concerned with?

Well, they are concerned with promoting Nazila Bijari who in December of last year wrote

The danger of Iran is that it stands in the way of Washington’s plans for complete domination of the Middle East. Washington will, no doubt, pursue its drive for regime change using other pretenses. What stands in its way is the resistance of the people of Iran, and the rest of the Middle East, against imperialist domination.

But he has yet to write a single word regarding Russia's very real current imperialist drive.

ANSWER is concerned with protesting the opening of a Philippine Consulate in New York City.

WHEN: Thursday, June 26th @ 6:30pm (flyering starts @ 5pm)
WHERE: The Philippine Consulate556 Fifth Avenue (between 46th and 47th Street)Manhattan

But no protests in front of the Russian Embassy are planned.

ANSWER is concerned with a police response to the drug and gang infested Trinidad district in Washington DC

The ANSWER Coalition, along with other concerned organizations and individuals, took to the streets to oppose the measure, maintaining a presence at the checkpoints nearly every day or night they were in effect.

No member of ANSWER is traveling to Georgia to protest the Russian occupation within the country.

And it's not Just ANSWER that is conspicuously silent. Code Pink 4 Peace at the moment  is very concerned about people not bombing Iran, but unconcerned about the Russians bombing in Georgia.

United For Peace and Justice is more concerned about protesting the Democratic National Convention than protesting the Russian invasion.

But none of this is a big surprise.

All of these are Communist organizations and their focus is not on peace or justice, but about defeating the United States so that maybe someday, the Communists can cleanse the Earth.

No matter what they say, they are not opposed to war.

They are only opposed to the US ever going to war.

For any reason.

Major Brian Russell

As part of the leading edge of "The Surge", Major Russell appears to have had an innate feel for the objectives of the then new Counter-Insurgency strategy.

In December of 2006, Major Brian Russell of the United States Marine Corps arrived in Iraq to take on the tough task of leading an eleven-man team of Marines advising an Iraqi Army battalion in Habbaniyah, a then dangerous area of the Sunni Triangle. The day he arrived in Habbaniyah, all of the battalion’s positions were attacked and three were badly damaged. The job ahead would not be an easy one.      

Russell was able to convince the incoming battalion commander to correct this and move as many of his troops as possible into the fight. This not only meant fighting the enemy, but also a better chance to cultivate relationships with the local civilians. Russell also pressed for developing leaders at the company and platoon level, giving the Iraqis the opportunity to understand local concerns, and to take pride in themselves as soldiers. Under his leadership, the team of advisors trained the Iraqi non-commissioned officers to become capable leaders, allowing the unit to increase the number of its patrols. Along with those increased patrols, Russell helped build relations with the local police forces. His work resulted in an upswing in cooperation with Iraqi police, and the incorporation of neighborhood watch units into local security efforts.

As his training of the Iraqis progressed, Russell moved his team of American advisors into more of a supervisory role. He made recommendations that the Iraqi’s should expand their area of responsibility. For instance, Russell recommended that the battalion increase its presence in a certain tribal area that happened to be the point of origin for several insurgent attacks. By expanding the presence of security forces there, he contributed to the section being mostly emptied of insurgents. After clearing an area of insurgents, he assisted the unit in devising reconstruction plans and improving local support for the Iraqi Army. The plan started with quick, cheap projects designed to gain the trust and loyalty of the population. It eventually grew to include more than $1.5 million in infrastructure projects. 

But the centerpiece of Russell’s plan was ensuring that the battalion and its commanders could execute these tasks in the future, without coalition help. Towards the end of his time in Habbaniyah, the unit was able to execute operations without significant aid from the advising team. This was in stark contrast to when he first arrived, when the battalion could barely field half of its forces without extensive help from the American advisors.                        

Thanks to his extraordinary efforts, Major Brian Russell helped transform an entire Iraqi battalion into an effective fighting force, a feat for which he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal.                   

Applying pressure

Last week, the House voted to adjourn for Summer Vacation without passing an energy plan by a vote of 213 to 212. As soon as the votes were counted, Speaker Pelosi shut off the lights and the cameras in the House chamber.

But some republicans stayed on.

[Republican Third District U.S. Congressman Gresham] Barrett said about 50 Republican House members -- referred to in the Washington Post as a “group of raucous Republicans” -- continued to talk among each other Friday after adjournment, using the proper decorum and House rules.

Barrett said he flew back to Washington Monday to continue talks, discussing energy with 23 Republican House members for about three hours on the floor.

“We’re going to organize every day, we’re going to talk to the American people and we’re going to demand that Nancy Pelosi comes back and we have an open and honest debate on American solutions for American people when it comes to energy,” Barrett said.

But when Senators and Congressmen go home, they are going to get an earful about high energy prices. And according to  Martin Kady II and Patrick O'Connor of the Politico, that's just fine because Democrats have a plan: Democrats can tell their constituents that they personally would like to vote for more drilling, but Speaker Pelosi won't bring let them; she won't bring drilling bills to the floor of the House.

...what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.

But it is hard to make that case when only 17 Democrats voted against adjournment.

Of course, that factoid may be lost on the electorate, so the House Republicans, now in their 3rd day of protest, have issued a challenge to Democrats

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement in response to an article in today’s Politico that suggests Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has secretly signaled to rank-and-file House Democratic lawmakers that they should feel free to portray themselves publicly as pro-drilling if it helps them politically:

“My message to Democratic lawmakers is this: if you’re really for increased American energy production, then prove it by putting it in writing. Sign the discharge petitions House Republicans are circulating that will force votes on energy legislation Speaker Pelosi refuses to bring to the floor.  And sign onto the American Energy Act, our ‘all of the above’ plan to increase conservation, innovation, and American energy production, instead of doing the Speaker’s bidding by voting against bringing it to a vote.  If you aren’t willing to put it in writing, you’re fooling no one. You’re siding with the Speaker of the Drill-Nothing Congress and radical special interests that favor higher gas prices, at the expense of energy-strapped American families.”

“This cynical strategy is disgustingly dishonest.  Without any real solutions to help Americans who are struggling with record-high gas prices, it appears the Democratic leadership has hit on a new plan: deceive. Deceive the press, deceive its members, and deceive the American people.  Democratic members have a ‘pass’ from their leaders to talk about drilling at home, while the liberal Democratic leadership – which is beholden to special interests that want higher gas prices – plays ‘rope-a-dope’ back in Washington, ensuring there is no vote to help the American people before November.  It’s cynical, dishonest, and wrong – and it won’t work.”

It's not likely that Democrats will respond, and it is just as unlikely that this challenge will get wide play in the media.

What may get more attention is that MoveOn.org will counter-protest the Republicans.

In the third day of a GOP "rump" session protesting Democrats for not holding a vote on oil drilling legislation, lawmakers will be getting a visit by MoveOn members, who are calling the GOP hypocritical in protesting Democrats.

 

"Since Friday, the Republicans in Congress have been playing to the television cameras with theatrical stunts because Speaker Pelosi blocked their offshore drilling plan. The Republican plan will not lower gas prices but it will line the pockets of Big Oil executives, the same people donating millions of dollars to Republicans," reads a press release by the left-leaning group.

MoveOn likely prefers Obama's plan: If you properly inflate your tires and get a tune-up, then there would be no need to drill for oil

"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"

Of course, it is patently absurd that properly inflating your tires would save as much oil as could be drilled off-shore, or in ANWAR, or could be reclaimed from the oil shale.

But you wouldn't know that from reading the press.

Why don't we just put the pressure on the Democrats to return to Congress and get something done rather than putting pressure in our tires.

Its likely that unless we throw the Democrats out in November, neither forms of pressure will be effective.

Now, the Energy Consensus: Superficially

In a speech delivered yesterday at Michigan State University, Senator Barack Obama opened with these words

We meet at a moment when this country is facing a set of challenges greater than any we’ve seen in generations.  Right now, our brave men and women in uniform are fighting two different wars while terrorists plot their next attack.  Our changing climate is placing our planet in peril.  Our economy is in turmoil and our families are struggling with rising costs and falling incomes; with lost jobs and lost homes and lost faith in the American Dream.  And for too long, our leaders in Washington have been unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

But what is it that "our leaders in Washington have been unwilling or unable to do anything about"?

The Isalmist threat? Senator Obama himself points out that we are fighting in two areas of operation in order to mitigate this.

The economy? The "economy" has only been in a downturn for maybe six months having been preceded by 6 years of very robust growth. Economies contract periodically. So what?

The Senator's opening paragraph does not foreshadow the speech to come because his speech is only peripherally about the War Against Islamists and The Economy.

His speech is about Energy. His speech is intended to set the stage for his being able to claim that he is a leader of the "new consensus" on Energy as he claimed to be the leader of the "new consensus" on Iraq.

All of his long term solutions are consistent with McCains solutions.

Now, increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place as we make our economy more fuel-efficient and transition to other, renewable, American-made sources of energy.  But it is not the solution....

A group of Democrat and Republican Senators sat down and came up with a compromise on energy...  It’s a plan that would invest in renewable fuels and batteries for fuel-efficient cars, help automakers re-tool, and make a real investment in renewable sources of energy....It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don’t believe that’s a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it’s necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan...

In addition, we’ll find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.  And we’ll invest in the technology that will allow us to use more coal, America’s most abundant energy source, with the goal of creating five “first-of-a-kind” coal-fired demonstration plants with carbon capture and sequestration. 

More drilling, more nuclear, more coal, more renewables. A consensus. Again. And he hopes to take credit for this by claiming the plan

includes many of the proposals I’ve worked on as a Senator and many of the steps I’ve been calling for on this campaign.

But he decries all of these as long-term solutions

George Bush’s own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn’t see a single drop of oil for seven years.  Seven years.  And Senator McCain knows that...

So the Senator claims that these are the very same proposals he has championed: the Seven Year Solution. The Seven Year Consensus.

But Obama did not just offer "long-term" solutions. He offered a few short term solutions as well. And one of these solutions he was firmly against just a short time ago.

To the extent that oil prices remain high and we depend mostly on oil imports from nations hostile to us, and sympathetic to our enemies, we are strategically vulnerable.

And because we import more oil than we require, Senator Obama was correct in August of 2005 when he said

"I agree with the President's decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help replenish supply shortages resulting from Hurricane Katrina. Nearly all oil and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico has been shut down, and releasing this oil will help increase production and stabilize prices. However, I do believe that this tragedy makes it very clear that that the reserve should only be used in the event of an emergency, and that we shouldn't be tapping the reserve to provide a small, short-term decrease in gas prices.

"Catastrophic events like Hurricane Katrina are the reason the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created, and releasing oil at this time is appropriate. But to truly provide Americans relief from skyrocketing oil prices, we must get serious about decreasing America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil by increasing fuel efficiency and investing more in the renewable fuels that can lead us down the path to energy independence." (emphasis is mine).

But in his speech yesterday, he reversed himself on this and got it exactly wrong

We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the US imports 10 million barrels per day so 70 million barrels is almost exactly one week of imports. But since the oil would be sold in the Global Marketplace, we really have to look at the global statistics. And if we do that we find that currently, the world produces 85.64 million barrels per day and consumes 85.54 million barrels per day.

Releasing 70 million barrels from the strategic oil reserve would increase the spare capacity of the world thereby reducing the price of oil products. And as we have seen, and the way markets work, is that decreasing the price of something increases the demand and, as a result, consumption.

In fact, oil prices have come down recently and dramatically because high oil prices have reduced demand. In fact we see from the data the oil prices spiked when oil demand outstripped oil supply. In the 4th quarter of 2007 the world produced 85.39 million barrels but the demand was for 85.59 million barrels.

So releasing the 70 million barrels would provide relief precisely as long as it took to use up that 70 million barrels, then the price could be expected to spike as that oil was no longer available to the world market.

But even worse then this, the price would not drop as much as if we were producing this oil. And this is because the market would know that the 70 million barrels is a fixed amount, a one trick pony, and so the market would calculate how long this oil surplus would last and adjust their bids accordingly.

And not only that, but the markets would know that at some point that 70 million barrels would have to be replaced, putting further demand on the oil production surplus.

Additionally, as the Senator pointed out, our enemies control most of the oil production. As a result, while the strategic oil is reserve is depleted by the 70 million barrels we are vulnerable to an energy "attack".Our enemies in Iran and Venezuela could see this as an opportunity to cut supply. Al Qaida could step up it's pressure on Nigerian Oil production and they could increase piracy activity off the coast of Somalia. The worst case scenario is that our enemies could put us in a position where we could not run our Army, Air Force and Navy with severe rationing on the ordinary citizen.

I guess then we would know we were at war, huh?

Increasing domestic energy production mitigates this threat as does the Strategic Oil Reserve.

Not able to stop there, the Senator offered one more short term-solution, one that targets the very companies we rely upon to deliver our oil: The Oil Companies (I mean the "evil" Oil Companies)

I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now.

Now first off I am stunned that Obama would restrict this "windfall" to working families. It doesn't seem that a Democrat would neglect the non-working. I mean don't non-working families pay the price of higher oil too? I guess retirees will have to forgo any help from Obama.

Of course the real problem with this is that it would increase gas prices and anything that is made from Oil. And that is because a tax on a company is no different than higher oil prices: it is just another cost of doing business. Since Companies are in business to make a profit and provide a return on investment to their stock holders, they have to charge enough to cover their expenses (i.e. employees, materials, investment and taxes) and still make a profit.

So both these solutions are pure pandering.

But what the speech will allow, in the final analysis, is for Obama to claim he will drill, build nuclear power plants and invest in renewables.

And then claim he is the Leader of the New Consensus.

But, of course, it's all bogus. And even after this speech, I have no idea where he really stands on America's Energy policy.

Would Obama really allow the building of nuclear power plants? Would he really allow off-shore drilling?

I think the real consensus is we still don't know where Obama stands on most issues.

And the more he talks out of both sides of his mouth, the more confused people get.

Sgt. James Witkowski

In the early morning hours of October 26, 2005, Sgt. Witkowski and 100 soldiers were traveling in a supply convoy from Camp Anaconda near Balad, Iraq, to a forward operating base northeast of Kirkuk. As the line of vehicles slowly maneuvered down a four–lane highway, suddenly, several improvised explosive devices (IEDs) detonated as the soldiers were passing through a small village. Before the dust settled, insurgents hiding behind a sand berm poured down a rain of fire, using small arms and rocket propelled grenades.                      

As the convoy struggled to make it through the mile-long ambush, Witkowski, who was manning the gun in the turret of a Humvee, kept firing on the attackers. As Witkowski continued firing, he noticed that a grenade had suddenly landed inside his turret. Witkowski had a split second to make a decision: jump out of the vehicle, endangering his unknowing comrades, or shelter the grenade’s terrible explosion. For Witkowski, the choice was simple. Shouting for his fellow soldiers to get down, he covered the grenade with his body, shielding the other soldiers from the blast. Witkowski took the full brunt of the detonation, saving the lives of the three soldiers in the Humvee. Despite being hit with shrapnel, the driver and two other soldiers continued through the ambush, arriving at their destination with only minor injuries.

                     

Thanks to the sacrifice and heroism of Sergeant James Witkowski, all of the soldiers in his Humvee survived the attack that day. For his actions, Witkowski was posthumously awarded the Silver Star on November 21st, 2005.