Just Some Thoughts After the Raid on Abbottabad

Its now been about four days since President Obama announced to the nation, and the world, that elements of US Special Operations Command had executed a Raid on a safe house believed to be the hiding place for Osama bin Laden.  In the ensuing 96 hours I haven’t watched too much news since most of it is pure speculation from paid consultants and journalists who really don’t know what they are talking about.

            What I have seen has been at times amusing and at other times pretty disgusting.  We have seen celebration by groups who want to cheer what they believe will be the end of al Qaeda, or who because of their level of maturity think the killing of a human, no matter how worthy that killing is, is something to cheer about.  We have seen the emotional accusations from pro-bin laden supporters that the US somehow violated his rights and eternal soul.  There has been speculation about top-secret organizations by people who should know better.  There has been discussion of this new stealth helicopter and parts being shipped to China.  And finally everyone with access to a microphone has weighted in on whether we should or should not show the post-mortem pictures of the three bodies.

            Should we show the pictures?  Everyone has an opinion but I will say in this matter I agree with the Presidents current position.  We as a nation have shown gruesome pictures when it suited the political need, but in this particular case (at least to my way of thinking) the cons far out weight the pros.  I hope this is one position he remains constant on.

            Additionally we have heard from the former President of Pakistan and several Pakistan government officials about how the US actions have seriously jeopardized our relations.  I fully expect within the next day or two we will hear from the women left behind how US forces terrorized them and the children because they are evil Americans who everyone knows are out to bring terror, death and destruction on the freedom loving Muslims of the world.

            My feelings on those concerns are pretty basic.  I am not sure what we are getting for our $3 billion dollars a year in aid, and perhaps that money would be better spent elsewhere.

            In those 96 hours the seamen who conducted this raid have returned home where they will provide their after-action reports, hug their loved ones and attempt to return to their routine.  The soldiers and airman who supported them will do the same.  America’s special operations forces will learn from what went well and what didn’t and they will prepare for the next challenge.  Hopefully they will slip quietly back into the shadows, because that is what they do.  The shield for USSOCOM holds a spear to represent that US special operations forces are the tip of the spear, the first point to threaten the enemies of the US.

            In these past 96 hours there are liberal commentators who have used this small victory to again complain about our past President and how many lives he cost over his term, and in some cases question why he has not been killed.  In those complaints not one mention of the increasing casualties in Afghanistan, continuing casualties in Iraq and the unmentioned casualties in other theaters of operation.  In the end, these shallow and empty souls know nothing but to look for political advantage or practice their demagoguery.

To the right of this post you will find a quote from Theodore Roosevelt I think captures perfectly my sentiments on all the news we see swirling around this endeavor.  Speaking from my past experiences I am proud of the way this team conducted this operation, and I am glad we will not be enshrining any of them in Arlington because of it.  The motto of the British Special Air Service “Who Dares Wins” sums up this effort.

I Must Be Really Simple-Minded

    I will be the first to admit I lead a sheltered life.  I go to work where I hang out with a society of Air Force officers, non-commissioned officers, and civilians (who mostly used to be officers or NCOs).  
    I come home where I am surrounded by neighbors I've known for years, a wife who I've slept with for years, and cats who just like to sleep.
    It is only recently I've come to realize my definition of what is racist completely misses the mark.
    I had grown up thinking that racism was the belief that one race was superior to another or that human abilities were determined by race, and you were a racist if you allowed these beliefs to guide you to discriminate against those races you felt below yours.
    Now I find that is totally wrong and that a racist is:

one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e. people of European descent) living in the United States regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.  By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination.

#1 link when you type "liberal definition of racist" into Google

    

    Now I understand why anytime someone says anything that questions a position of a minority the questioner is a racist... 

    This definition does not seem to lead to free and open debate.

Ode to de Corgi

Stout of heart this friend of man

A little herder much taller than his legs will allow

Fearless in the face of a world where everyone was above him

He brings a warmth that says

“Help me up on the couch will ya?”

From Peterbourgh ye did come

Down the M1 to Huntingdon

Dumped into a house of cats fresh from cat prison

You held your own, a rebel in your native land

Then wrenched from England in the belly of a plane

Into Atlanta on a summer day

It must have been a shock to you,

But you handled it like a champ

Four humans, two cats,

15 suitcases, two pet carriers

And you – the back window shelf was yours

Its no wonder you hated car rides from then!

Through Hurricane and Flood you guarded this home

Until it was time to leave

To that great herding ground in the sky.

The Raid

Yesterday afternoon, central time, the US military engaged in an operation called a raid.  The purpose of a raid is not to take and secure territory, it is not to normally intended to engage in a pitched battle, it is to accomplish a specific tactical or strategic purpose.

I don’t know the individuals who were involved but I can tell you the following:

·      The forces chosen for this raid were men trained to a standard far above the average, and they were without exception volunteers

·      The ground force has been identified as SEALS.  SEALS stands for Sea, Air Land.  The SEAL team involved was specifically trained for this type of operation and has been employed for these type of missions since 1981.  They were among the first into Grenada, for Urgent Fury, Rio Haito, during Operation Just Cause, and in Desert Storm they took the hardest missions.  Since 2001 they have been involved in a number of take-downs (a raid intended to capture or kill a terrorist), and at least one of their members has been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

·      The helicopter crews are equally well trained and come from the same group known best for its involvement in the Somalia operations made famous in the book and movie “Blackhawk Down.”

·      This mission was planned, rehearsed and executed based on solid intelligence and the men who executed it did everything they could to minimize unnecessary casualties.  They do this for practical reason’s.  They have a mission to accomplish and piling up unnecessary bodies make it harder to determine they’ve accomplished their primary objective.

·      The President made the decision to employ the force, to execute the mission, and what the rules of engagement were with regards to the primary and secondary targets.

·      If he keeps with the precedents he should formally notify Congress of the operation in accordance with the provisions of the War Powers Act, laying out the rational for action, although the public release may constitute that notification.

So now we have killed Osama bin Laden what will happen?  We should be prepared for a desperate attack somewhere, probably in Afghanistan, but not necessarily.

We can also expect the emotional reaction of joy being manifest in the crowds who react emotionally.  We see the fear of retaliation in the crowds that always fear retaliation and we see questioning from the crowds who always question American action.  What will take a while will be to see the reaction from those terrorists who attempt to retaliate.

·      US Forces will increase their force protection levels

·      Homeland security will increase its threat level

·      The FBI will up its investigations

·      The news media will go off half cocked trying to instill fear in the average viewer based on their need to outdo the others.

The thing to keep in mind in the short term is a terrorist network is like a hydra.  It is designed in a cellular manner so if one cell is compromised the rest survive.  We will see how well bin Laden did at building his network, but there will be a second in command ready to step up.  Will he have the  same authority as bin Laden?  Not likely, but he will probably attempt some violent act to prove his right to lead.  If the military hardens it’s facilities they will attack the weakest target.  The best way to counter this is vigilance.

I am told in the press briefings the strike force recovered a significant amount of intelligence material so perhaps we will be lucky enough to reach into al Qaeda and rip it apart, if so we would be most fortunate because it would be contrary to the security steps bin Laden took to protect himself. 

My Position (Part 5) What is the Role of the Government?

So where are we?  I’ve shared my beliefs on the philosophy of life, when it starts, and who has the authority to end life, a right held principally by the state, but on occasion delegated down to certain individuals.  Up until now I’ve included few references, except where necessary to explain a concept.  I did this because we were talking about fundamental concepts each of us must define for ourselves.  From this point forward I will alter that approach to take advantage of the wealth of material available on the web.

In the landmark decision of Roe v Wade the Justices did not enter into the debate of when life begins, to have done so would have forced them into determining if the rights and protections of citizenship were granted at conception and thus give the state to speak for the rights of the unborn placing those rights above the right of the mother.  The argument made by Texas in defense of its laws was a fetus was a life and therefore protected by the 14^th Amendment, interestingly the very same amendment most people use to question Barrack Obama’s right to be President.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  (www.usconstitution.net)

There are four additional paragraphs, dealing with apportionment of representation, limitations on holding office once you’ve participated in a rebellion against the country and payment of debts, excluding debts incurred in aid of rebellion (14^th Amendment came into being following the Civil War), but it is the first paragraph at the heart of this debate.

Up until the foundation decision of Roe v Wade, the issue of abortion was a state issue.  It was not a debate on what the federal government should or should not do.  Most states had, in the 1800s enacted anti-abortion legislation, with the exception being when necessary to preserve the life of the mother.  The medical art being what it was then; there was little exactness in any procedure, whether medical or herbal, and the life of the mother and the fetus were always in question.   Even Susan B. Anthony, an early feminist, argued against abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States) saying

“Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.” (http://www.prolifequakers.org/susanb.htm)

At the time of this court case in 1970 abortion on demand was legal in four states, Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington.  In the remaining 46 states, as well as the District of Columbia, it was either illegal or legal within specific guidelines (i.e. rape, incest, danger to a woman’s health, or a damaged fetus).  With this decision the Supreme Court empowered the federal government to control the abortion debate.  This is roughly equivalent to saying to the states, we won’t take away your right to judge and execute someone, but if you strive to protect life that is a federal decision.  The assumption made was the right of the woman outweighs all other considerations, but the ruling doesn’t say that, it hinged on defining the woman as worthy of protection under the 14^th Amendment, but not a fetus.

So what is the role of the federal government or really what should it be?  Can it, by default, value the life of one of its citizens above the rights of another, and if so does it maintain its legitimacy? Obviously by executive order or by legislation the government can establish any policy it chooses, as long as the Supreme Courts does not rule a violation of the Constitution.  That is the tricky part.  Everyone can find fault, can their lawyers form a convincing argument that will persuade the courts to overturn the law, the regulation, or the executive order?  Legitimacy is another question.  As the War Between the States has shown the government can force its will upon the subordinate parts, as long as the dominant political party and the electorate support that course.  Legitimacy is then relative; as long as the majority chooses to allow the government to do something the government can claim it is acting in the peoples interest.

It was a Nixon appointed Justice that wrote the majority opinion in Roe v Wade, so I think it safe to say in the 1960’s leadership in both parties were at best neutral on the pro-life/pro-choice debate. When I was growing up, the governor of New York was Nelson Rockefeller (1959 to 1973).  His positions more often aligned with the Democratic leadership than where the Southern Democrats who were far more conservative.

“Rockefeller supported reform of New York's abortion laws beginning around 1968. The proposals supported by his administration would not have repealed the long-standing prohibition, but would have expanded the exceptions allowed for the protection of the mother's health, or in circumstances of fetal abnormality.  The reform bills did not pass. But an outright repeal of the prohibition did pass, in 1970, and Rockefeller signed it. Further, in 1972 he vetoed another bill that would have restored the abortion ban.  He said in his 1972 veto message: ‘I do not believe it right for one group to impose its vision of morality on an entire society.’”  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller)

I have to admit I agree with Nelson Rockefeller’s last statement.  I do not believe it is right for one group to impose its vision of morality on an entire nation.  I would go one step further and say therefore it is wrong for one segment of society to force the rest of the nation to fund their vision of what is morally acceptable.

As the court has found in Miller versus California (an obscenity case) it must apply a local standard to determine whether something should be considered obscene.  That is to say something acceptable in New York, may not be acceptable in Boston.  I am not sure why abortion would be handled differently than obscenity, and there be one overriding standard for what had, up until 1973, been a states issue.

Bottom line:  The determination of a woman’s need for abortion in the first trimester has been given to the woman’s doctor, but beyond that the federal government should not be involved.  To do so usurps the rights of the states, whose rights should be protected in accordance with Article IV of the Constitution.

It's a Nice Day

A Poem (A Day in the Spring when I was young)

The trees stand as sentries in our woods

Guarding the glens and the brooks within

So many drive by these hills I climb

Never seeing all they hide from sight

Here, I find a small cave quiet and dark

Where perhaps a cub first saw a night

There, rocks jut from the earth

As if climbing to reach the light

Atop the hills are glades and glens

Soft, alive, green and bright

They invite this climber of the hills

To rest, perhaps to see his life

A drink from a mountain stream

Before I feared what it contained

Sweet and cooling on my lips

It brings my body life and refreshes my soul

But what brings me to these hills?

Why do I walk the woods?

Why is the day filled with growing dread?

A pilot, and his family, await my finding

Hidden... somewhere up ahead