The Cool Blue Blog

Staff Sgt. Lincoln V. Dockery

Staff Sgt. Lincoln V. Dockery said he didn't even see the grenade that sent shrapnel into his right forearm while charging insurgent fighters in Afghanistan's Korengal valley, Nov. 16, 2007.

"Someone yelled out,” he said.  “My hand went up and a hot, sharp feeling went through."

Dockery, a combat engineer then assigned to a route clearance patrol with Company A of the 173rd Airborne Brigade's Special Troops Battalion, said he decided the injury wasn't major, and continued his charge up a hill into enemy fire.

"I don't want to think about what would have happened had he not been there," said Capt. William Cromie, Dockery's platoon leader that day in Afghanistan. "It would have been a completely different day."

Dockery said the description of the mission for which the patrol departed from Forward Operating Base Asadabad in Kunar Province that day sounded like the description of their mission for any other day: "Out looking for bombs."

"My only concern was for the guys who worked under me," the 25-year-old stated.

His concern became reality when the lead vehicle on the mission, a Husky mine-detecting vehicle, activated an improvised explosive device. Rocket-propelled grenades immediately started hitting the damaged vehicle and it became clear the convoy was in the middle of an ambush.

With RPGs coming at his men and him from two different directions, he realized that the enemy was not only across a nearby river, but also about 20 meters from their position.  He had to make a quick decision. 

"If we didn't assault the hill they were attacking from, they would have taken us out. They couldn't miss with their weapons they were so close," Dockery recalled.

He checked on the lead vehicle’s driver who was barely conscious but not wounded.  Pfc. Amador Magana managed to give a thumbs-up, Dockery said, and soon stood up, manned his M-249 machine gun and returned fire on the enemy.

Dockery and one of his Soldiers, Spc. Corey Taylor, then stormed the hill as their team members provided support from the convoy.  During the charge Dockery was injured, but he kept going, through hand grenade exchanges and incoming RPGs.

The pair low-crawled the rest of the way up, watching bullets kick up rocks and dirt all around them.  They then pushed the enemy back from their position and found the IED command detonator and wire.

Indirect fire, air strikes and other close air support was called in later to deal with about 30 fleeing fighters, but Dockery's assault kept everyone else from the patrol alive.

Dockery received the Purple Heart for his injury in combat and earned a Silver Star for valor.  Both medals were presented on March 11 in Bamberg, Germany.

"Hopefully anybody would have done the same thing I did that day," Dockery said, downplaying his role in the event.

Excerpts from article by Sgt. Micah E. Clare, U.S. Army Europe Public Affairs Office, March 19, 2009.

Pakistan and Civil War

Well, it turned out once again that attempting to negotiate with al Qaeda and the Taliban was wasted effort.

The latest attempt at placating the enemy

...known as the Malakand Accord, calls for the withdrawal of the Pakistani Army from Swat, the release all Taliban prisoners, the withdrawal of any criminal cases against Taliban leaders and fighters, and the imposition of sharia in the Malakand Division, a region that encompasses more than one-third of the Northwest Frontier Province.

But this only emboldened them. Last Saturday

Taliban militants stopped on Saturday a convoy of security forces from moving to Mingora and occupied the residence of a leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N in Bahrain.

Sources said militants, who had taken positions along the G.T. Road, stopped the convoy near Qamber, a Taliban stronghold, saying the movement of troops towards Swat was a violation of the peace accord.

Incredibly, when the Pakistani government threatened to send troop to retaliate, the Taliban responded by saying that such a move would violate the cease-fire agreement, as if the ambushing of a convoy didn't.

So, to their credit, the Pakistan government did take military action.

Pakistani troops and Taleban militants have clashed in Lower Dir in North West Frontier Province (NWFP), forcing hundreds of civilians to flee.

But, as usual, the effort is only half-assed. And, unfortunately, there is a reason for that

The regular Pakistani Army is sitting out the fight in Dir, just as it has in the majority of the operations in Pakistan’s northwest.

"The Army leadership and General Kiyani [the Chief of Army Staff] in particular fear that battling the Taliban will split the officer corps and the rank and file," a senior US military intelligence official told The Long War Journal. "There is significant support or sympathizers in the military for the Taliban and other Pakistani jihadi organizations. A full on fight [with the Taliban] might force them to take sides."

And the Army is a reflection of the wider society, a significant minority of which supports the Taliban.

As was the case when Musharraf was in power, pushing too hard could precipitate a Civil War in a country that is armed with nuclear weapons. And it is not clear who would win that war.

Of course it could very well be that the country is already in a civil war as the Taliban keep taking ground while the government keeps giving up ground.

Candidate Obama criticized President Bush for not holding Pakistan to account.

I'm wondering if, in 2012, someone will be doing the same to the Obama Administration.

The problem is, of course, the situation is not under the control of the US now or during the previous administration.

Tough enough? Commissioning the Truth

In the wake of the release of Bush Administration memos wherein Justice Department lawyers outlined what techniques could and could not be used on enemy detainees, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling for a Truth Commission.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday endorsed the establishment of a formal truth commission to investigate Bush administration anti-terrorism policies, including an examination of former top Justice Department lawyers who crafted the legal justifications for what critics say was torture.

Which is fine with me so long as the commission uncovers the Truth, not just Nancy's truth.

Back in December of 2007, the Washington Posts investigation of what happened when with regards to Congressional Oversight of the "enhanced" interrogation program uncovered some uncomfortable information:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange...

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

The only dissenter was Rep Jane Harman, the woman whom Speaker Pelosi passed over for Chair of the House Intelligence in favor of the ethically-challenged John Murtha.

Harman...disclosed ... that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.

"When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

The other Democrats who were informed were not talking, but these days Speaker Pelosi is talking. Unfortunately, it's to tell what she's saying

At a press briefing last week — one she hoped would focus on the legislative accomplishments in Obama’s first 100 days — Pelosi said she didn’t raise objections because intelligence officials didn’t divulge they had actually begun using the techniques at the time of the briefing.

“We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used,” she said.

However, that account seemed to be contradicted by a Senate Intelligence Committee timeline that found House leaders were briefed “in the fall of 2002, after the use of interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaida. CIA records indicate that the CIA briefed the chairman and vice chairman of the committee on the interrogation.”

But then again, maybe she's now remembers she was told: But only once.

Mrs. Pelosi has said she was briefed on waterboarding techniques only once, when she was ranking member of the House committee, and said that in that briefing CIA officials said they thought the tactic was legal and that the agency was considering using it.

"They come in to us and represent certain things. We can't talk to other people about it. We don't know whether it is true or false. We just know that it is a fact that that is what they have told us in these closed hearings and people hear different things in the same room, depending on their own experience," Mrs. Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.

Huh?

Well you know what I think? I think there will never be a "Truth Commission" on this issue because such things have a way of getting out of control.

And the Truth just might come out.

And that's the very last thing the Democratic Leadership wants.

“I think it would very unwise from my perspective to start having commissions, boards, tribunals until we find out what the facts are,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Yeah, best to know before hand what facts are going to come out. Right?

But if you are going to find the facts before you hold a "Truth" Commission, why have the Truth Commission at all?

Because a Truth Commission is only useful if it inflicts damage on your political enemies, and not so useful if it inflicts equal damage on your political allies.

But then again, time changes the truth.

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

How soon we forget,

Sgt Ryan Martinette

Then Spc. Ryan Martinette, a combat medic, reeled from the blast of an improvised explosive device at almost point-blank range. Regaining his senses, he picked up his medic's bag but found it drenched with blood.

His own.

That was a little over two years ago on the trash and debris-strewn streets of Baghdad, Iraq, where he and his unit happened upon a wounded Iraqi civilian and endured some rather anxious moments thereafter. The Medical Department Activity Soldier earned a Bronze Star with Valor for his actions in the summer of 2006. He was presented with it during a ceremony held Aug. 22, 2008, at Kenner Army Health Clinic, Fort Lee, Va., where he still works.

Maj. Gen. James E. Chambers, Combined Arms Support Command and Fort Lee commanding general, was on hand to present the award. He said combat medics put themselves in great danger to care for fellow Soldiers, and their value is often understated.

"Until you go to war, you don't know or appreciate who or what a medic is," Chambers said.

Martinette wanted to be a medic and wanted to go to war. He joined four years ago, knowing full well the country was engaged in a bloody terrorist conflict and the sacrifices he would have to make if he ever found himself on the battlefield.

"When you join in a time of war, you understand the risks of that war," the 23-year-old said.  "I was ready to go because I was ready to make a difference ... That was my goal - to make sure that, when we did go, the men I was responsible for wouldn't die."

But prior to his deployment, Martinette wasn't always willing to give something of himself. The Virginia Beach native subscribed to a "me first" mentality, was self-absorbed and only concerned with endeavors that benefited him.

"I was immature when I came into the military," he said. "I thought that I was always going to get what I wanted. It was all about me."

Martinette was posted to Fort Hood, Texas, in 2003. In December 2005, he deployed to Iraq with Company A, 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry, 4th Infantry Division. His duties were to provide health care to the infantrymen, wherever missions may take them. That essentially meant that he was a foot Soldier with a stethoscope.

"When they march, we march," said Martinette, one of five medics in the company of about 130 Soldiers.  On the morning of Aug. 18, 2006, the unit was patrolling an area of the city when members of a U.S. engineer unit were hit by an IED.

"They needed help," recalled Martinette. "They didn't have enough support to cordon off the area to try to find out who had detonated the IED. We responded to their call for help."

When Martinette's unit, mounted in Bradley Fighting Vehicles, had arrived on the scene, there were a number of concussion injuries. The most serious of the casualties, an Iraqi civilian, lay on his back in the middle of the street, bleeding from his nose and ears, said Martinette.

"They dropped the ramp of the Bradley and said, 'Go and get them,'" he said, "no different than any other time that had occurred."  The infantrymen cleared the site and Martinette approached the man, who looked to be about 50 years old.

"He was very incoherent from the blast, and he reached down into his pants," said Martinette, who was at that point standing over the victim. "We thought that he had a weapon or detonation device."

It was a moment that underscored the various dangers U.S. military personnel face every day in combat zones, oftentimes with deadly results. In this case, the Iraqi's action was harmless; the victim removed from his groin area a bag full of U.S. and Iraqi currency.

"He looked at me, handed the money to me and said something (in Arabic)," said Martinette. "I found out later (through the on-scene interpreter) that he'd rather I have the money than the insurgents ...."

Martinette, still standing over the victim along with several over Soldiers, began a movement to kneel next to the man.  "As soon as I bent down to grab the casualty, the bomb detonated," he said.  Miraculously, nobody died that day, according to Martinette.

Thinking about his life, he said his wife has brought a compassionate side to a Soldier who had to be tough all the time.  That compassion has pushed him to think that the war and the people involved in it are bigger than himself or any selfish want he could ever have.

Martinette reenlisted during his medal presentation ceremony and thinks he will serve 20 years in the Army. He said time spent in Iraq was priceless and serving as a medic is the best way to create a legacy of giving back to his fellow man.

Excerpts from article by T. Anthony Bell, Fort Lee Public Affairs Office, Sept. 5, 2008

Veterans are not the enemy

The Department of Homeland Security issued a terrorist threat assessment on right-wing extremists groups which

is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

They are issuing this assessment even though

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

And who is the DHS specifically naming as potential recruits? Why war veterans of course

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence.

The American Legion has something they'd like to say about this:

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

On behalf of the 2.6 million-member American Legion, I am stating my concern about your April 7 report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence and Recruitment."

...The best that I can say about your recent report is that it is incomplete. The report states, without any statistical evidence, "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical "disgruntled military veteran" is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.

Your report states that "Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages." Secretary Napolitano, this is more than a perception to those who have lost their job. Would you categorize union members as "Right Wing extremists"?

In spite of this incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased report, The American Legion and the Department of Homeland Security share many common and crucial interests, such as the Citizen Corps and disaster preparedness. Since you are a graduate of New Mexico Girls State, I trust that you are very familiar with The American Legion. I would be happy to meet with you at a time of mutual convenience to discuss issues such as border security and the war on terrorism. I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are.

Make of this what you will, but I myself am on yellow alert given that this President, like the previous one, is using a secret surveillance program to thwart terrorism. The evidence shows that the previous Administration used this to monitor phones calls made by foreign nationals identified as terrorists to people within the US.

The question is, on whom will the current Administration direct their attention.

One thing we can be sure about is that the NY Times won't tell us.

While we downsize, Government grows

The economy is in a slump. People are losing their jobs. How does the state of Vermont respond? By increasing spending, of course.

...the Fiscal Year 2010 budget includes a 6.7 percent increase in spending, from $1.232 billion to $1.315 billion.

And taxing you more.

It relies upon $182.89 million in "one-time" federal stimulus funds, and requires $24 million in increased income taxes.

With the likelihood of taxing you even more in the future

Most irresponsible and alarming, this budget leaves a $78.72 million deficit in 2011 and another deficit of $172.72 million in 2012.So, when the federal stimulus well runs dry in 2011 and 2012, what happens? The Legislature must either cut spending or increase taxes to balance the budget.

Which do you think they will chose? They have proved they can not cut spending. And few, other than the Governor, want to reduce the size of Government.

Of course, the State of Vermont has a bad example being set by the Federal Government. The man who while campaigning for your vote said

But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.

Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.

has instead done this once elected President.

And who is going to pay for that? China? Maybe not.

Reversing its role as the world’s fastest-growing buyer of United States Treasuries and other foreign bonds, the Chinese government actually sold bonds heavily in January and February before resuming purchases in March, according to data released during the weekend by China’s central bank...

China has lent vast sums to the United States — roughly two-thirds of the central bank’s $1.95 trillion in foreign reserves are believed to be in American securities. But the Chinese government now finances a dwindling percentage of new American mortgages and government borrowing.

In the last two months, Premier Wen Jiabao and other Chinese officials have expressed growing nervousness about their country’s huge exposure to America’s financial well-being.

Chinese reserves fell a record $32.6 billion in January and $1.4 billion more in February before rising $41.7 billion in March, according to figures released by the People’s Bank over the weekend.

In a recent Pentagon Economic War game, China won

In the end, there was sobering news for the United States – the savviest economic warrior proved to be China, a growing economic power that strengthened its position the most over the course of the war-game.

The United States remained the world’s largest economy but significantly degraded its standing in a series of financial skirmishes with Russia, participants said....

China recently shook the value of the dollar in global currency markets merely by questioning whether the recession put China’s $1 trillion in U.S. government bond holdings at risk – forcing President Barack Obama to issue a hasty defense of the dollar.

“This was an example of the changing nature of conflict,” said Paul Bracken, a professor and expert in private equity at the Yale School of Management who attended the sessions. “The purpose of the game is not really to predict the future, but to discover the issues you need to be thinking about.”

Well, it would seem, that one of the issues is allowing China to mortgage the United States of America while the Administration works on transforming the US from a capitalist economy to a fascist welfare state.

On the backs of the taxpayer who are the ones on the hook for repaying China.

This must stop now.

Tomorrow there will be a Tax Day Tea Party to protest what is being done to the economic life of this country.

And Vermont will host two, one in Montpelier and one in Rutland.

The Vermont State Legislators should not fool themselves into thinkin that this is just about the folks in Washington, it's also about them.

And do not think that it is a Party thing.

In 2006, people threw Republicans out of Congress because they could not get their own spending act together. And in 2008, when Obama promised fiscal disciple, people believed him.

People have not changed in wanting less government, less taxes, and more free trade.

People have tried Republicans and they were bad.

Then they tried Democrats and they were worse.

Now they will try mass protests in the streets.

You'd better listen.

Defending yourself

The Maersk Alabama is free and so is her Captain, Vermont resident Richard Phillips.

So first things first: Good on President Obama who gave the order to rescue the Captain and kill the pirates if necessary.

Good on the Navy Seals who took down three pirates with three shots.

And no words can praise enough the courage and resourcefulness of Captain Phillips.

So that being said, what about the next time? Because people have been paying ransoms for so long now, the Somalia-based pirates are not going to give up their cash cow easily.

Somali pirates vowed to target American and French ships to avenge the death of five colleagues in two recent rescue operations, including the freeing of a U.S. captain yesterday.

“France and the U.S. will encounter unforgettable lessons,” Mohamed Hashi Yasin, a self-declared pirate spokesman, said by mobile phone from the port town of Eyl. “We will treat every country as they treat us.”

The President wants to work with the International Community to fix this

 "We remain resolved to halt the rise of piracy in this region," Obama said in a statement. "To achieve that goal, we must continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks, be prepared to interdict acts of piracy and ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes," said the president.

Well, that's fine, as far as it goes. But what are the options? From Strategy Page

You can do what is currently being done, which is patrolling the Gulf of Aden and shooting only when you see speedboats full of gunmen threatening a merchant ship. The rule appears to be that you fire lots of warning shots, and rarely fire at the pirates themselves. This approach has saved a few ships from capture, and the more warships you get into the Gulf, the more pirate attacks you can foil. But it won't stop the pirates from capturing ships. Establishing a similar anti-piracy patrol off the east coast of Africa would cost over half a billion dollars a year, at least.

A second approach is to be more aggressive. That is, your ships and helicopters shoot (pirates) on sight and shoot to kill. Naturally, the pirates will hide their weapons (until they are in the act of taking a ship), but it will still be obvious what a speedboat full of "unarmed" men are up to. You could take a chance (of dead civilians and bad publicity) and shoot up any suspicious speedboat. Some of the pirates would probably resort to taking some women and children with them. Using human shields is an old custom, and usually works against Westerners. More pirate attacks will be thwarted with this approach, but the attacks will continue, and NATO will be painted as murderous bullies in the media.

The third option is to go ashore and kill or capture all the pirates, or at least as many as you can identify. Destroy pirate boats and weapons. This is very dangerous, because innocent civilians will be killed or injured, and the property of non-pirates will be damaged. The anti-piracy forces will be condemned in some quarters for committing atrocities. There might even be indictments for war crimes. There will be bad publicity. NATO will most likely avoid this option too. The bottom line is that the pirate attacks, even if they took two or three times as many ships as last year, would not have a meaningful economic impact on world shipping. For example, the international anti-piracy patrol in the Gulf of Aden costs $300 million a year, a fraction of a percent of the defense budgets of the nations involved. Politicians and bureaucrats can stand that kind of pain, and will likely do so and refrain from doing anything bold in Somalia.

Now a ship at sea has the exact same problem as an individual with regards to personal security: You can not count on the authorities being at your exact location at the time you are being attacked. And it takes time for the authorities (be they cops or the Navy) to respond even if you are able to dispatch a distress call.

At the point of contact where criminal meets victim, the victim needs to be able to respond to the threat directly.

Individual citizens should be allowed to be armed and cargo ships at sea should be allowed to be armed.

Think about it: 4 pirates overcame 20 men whose only defensive weapon in this case were ice picks. The bad guys had something better and everyone knows you don't bring an ice pick to a gun fight.

You bring a gun.

While the International  community sits around and weighs their options, drafts a course of action, votes on it and marshals the resources to carry out their plan, what do the seamen do in the meantime?

In my opinion, the easiest way to kill these pirates is at the point of contact with the crime.

Lightning LoPinto

My oldest Grandson, Thomas "Lightning" LoPinto took the Vermont State Youth Wrestling Championship for his weight class which would be 75 pounds or so given that he's only 10 (almost 11). Not only did he win, but he went undefeated the whole season.

Being one of the smallest competitors in his weight-class, his great advantage over his opponents is his speed. That along with his tenacity and aggressiveness.

Congratulations, Thomas!

Petty Officer 1st Class Lee M. Chandler

What may surprise some who are not fully aware of various military missions is that Sailors are serving in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In fact, thousands are making a difference every day be it from the sea, air or even landlocked in the middle of a desert.

 Hull Technician 1st Class Lee M. Chandler, a reservist from Naval Reserve Center Minneapolis, is one such landlocked Sailor who was part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan’s Kunar province keeping the wheels of coalition forces’ vehicles rolling to accomplish the mission of security, reconstruction and development. 

Kunar province is located in the northeast corner of Afghanistan, bordering Pakistan.  It has rugged mountains to sweltering desert valleys with extreme summertime heat.  For a mechanic, this harsh terrain and climate pose a major challenge and can take its toll on vehicles.  Additionally, Kunar is the most militarily active province.

Chandler didn’t let the weather, land, or being a Sailor in an Army environment deter him.  He was involved in several vehicle recovery Quick Response Team (QRT) missions during his assignment as the non-commissioned officer in charge of the motor pool for Provincial Reconstruction Team Kunar. 

During one vehicle recovery QRT mission in particular, Chandler's team came under rocket attack from insurgent forces.  Under enemy fire, Chandler ensured the safe evacuation of coalition forces and equipment without injury to personnel or damage to equipment.

"Petty Officer First Class Chandler's personal courage and commitment to mission accomplishment in a combat zone, under the most extreme of circumstances, greatly contributed to the success of Operation Enduring Freedom," read the citation from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser.

But, Chandler is quick to downplay his role.  “I was just doing my job,” he said.  “My team earned this.  I just get the privilege of wearing it,” Chandler insisted.  Recognizing others and their courage, he also noted that he was one of 11 Naval recipients of a Bronze Star Medal for PRT Kunar.

The Bronze Star was awarded to Chandler, a member of Maritime Expeditionary Boat Detachment 922, in a ceremony aboard Naval Air Station North Island, Calif., Feb 13.  The medal was presented to Chandler by his stepson, Aviation Boatswain's Mate Airman William Zorich, who was on temporary duty to NAS North Island from the San Antonio-Class amphibious ship USS New Orleans (LPD-18).

"It was such an honor to have the award presented by my son," Chandler said.  "He, too, knows all too well the hard work and sacrifices that are required by Sailors and their families."

Excerpts from article by Mass Communication specialist 2nd Class Ron Kuzlik, Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron 3 Public Affairs, Feb. 24, 2009 and special article to American Forces Press Service by Navy Lt Neil Myers, Aug. 4, 2008.

Maersk Alabama

The US now has 20 of its citizens being held captive by Somali pirates.

Somali pirates on Wednesday hijacked a U.S.-flagged cargo ship with 20 American crew members onboard, hundreds of miles from the nearest American military vessel in some of the most dangerous waters in the world.

The 17,000-ton Maersk Alabama was carrying emergency relief to Mombasa, Kenya, when it was hijacked, said Peter Beck-Bang, spokesman for the Copenhagen-based container shipping group A.P. Moller-Maersk.

This is the first time a US flagged ship has been captured by the pirates terrorizing the Gulf of Aden but it is the sixth ship this week to be hijacked.

The question now becomes, what is the President going to do about it?

When asked how the U.S. Navy plans to deal with the hijacking, Campbell said: "It's fair to say we are closely monitoring the situation, but we will not discuss nor speculate on current and future military operations."...

"It's a very significant foreign policy challenge for the Obama administration," said Graeme Gibbon Brooks, managing director of the British company Dryad Maritime Intelligence Service Ltd. "Their citizens are in the hands of criminals and people are waiting to see what happens."

Yes they are, in no small way because the US is the largest blue ocean navy in the world and one of the things the Navy does is protect the shipping lanes.

Especially the shipping lanes that are important to US interests: like the Gulf of Aden.

And there are indications that this ship may have been targeted because it is not the usual victim for a number reasons, as Eagle1 points out

A quick analysis of this capture points out how unusual this seizure is. The ship has a relatively high freeboard (which has proved a deterrent in the past due to the "boarding ladders" used by most Somali pirates), is a container ship and is capable of speeds normally thought to be beyond those at which the Somali pirates have successfully attacked ships. Further, this ship flies an American flag - thought by many to be a deterrent in and of itself to the Somali pirates - why stir up the U.S if you can avoid it?

Perhaps they think that such a move won't stir up the US or are testing our response?

In either case, what does doing nothing say to them?

And there is also the matter of the al-Qaeda-affliated Islamists who have a safe-haven in Somalia. They may be watching as they were watching when we withdrew from Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident.

At the moment, the Navy is advising for ships to take their own precautions, and short of forming convoys, there's not much that can be done defensively.

But offensively, that's a different story.

Will the Administration make these pirates pay a price for hijacking a US flagged ship so that they think twice before doing it again?

We'll see.

UPDATE: Reports are coming in that the crew may have regained control of the Maersk Alabama and captured a pirate to boot.

The Pentagon says it appears the American crew of a hijacked ship has regained control of the vessel. A U.S. official says the hijacked ship's crew is free and one pirate is in custody.

Pentagon sources spoke on condition of anonymity because information was still preliminary. But sources say the hijacked crew apparently contacted the private shipping company they work for.

The shipping company, Maersk, has scheduled a noon press conference in Norfolk, Va.

Can't wait to hear that story.