Pat Tillman was an inspiring American hero. This brave young man walked away from a professional football career in order to serve his country and countrymen in the wake of 9/11.
Pat Tillman subsequently died in Afghanistan in April of 2004. The army notified the family about 5 weeks later that his death was a result of friendly fire. The loss of a brave American military man or woman in combat is always heartbreaking. The thought that some die as a result of friendly fire is particularly difficult to understand and to deal with.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Tillman family. They must be special people to raise someone like Pat Tillman. I cannot begin to understand the level of their grief. To make this situation even more tragic, as I understand it, the army fumbled a couple of attempts to investigate this incident and may have even lied to the family about how their hero died. How much can a family take?
Now the army has completed an in-depth investigation and has concluded one thing:
1. Pat Tillman’s death was a horrible, tragic accident that resulted from the “fog of war”.
What I don’t currently understand is the Tillman family’s continued refusal to accept these findings. The family today said; "The briefing we just received was shamefully unacceptable," the family said in a statement issued from their home in San Jose, where Pat Tillman grew up. "Our family is therefore compelled to continue our (pursuit of) the full truth about the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death and the so-called 'missteps' and 'deficiencies' of Pat's unit, the Army, the Department of Defense, and this administration."
What is it that the family wants to hear? What is the apparently only explanation that they will accept? What if the truth is something different? Does the family think this was something other than a tragic accident?
As someone with combat experience, the “fog of war” premise is so absolutely understandable that it is hard for me to imagine why someone might question it. Combat is the most confusing situation that a human being will ever find themselves in. And just as things get as out-of-hand as they possibly can get, that is when instantaneous life and death decisions and actions are most critical. Those decisions and actions always include rifle fire, grenades, mortars, machine gun fire, close air support, artillery and armor. It is with good reason that the final stage of a desperate defense is known as the “mad moment”.
Through it all, people are moving. Some move on orders, some move on their own. Some fail to move, even when ordered. Keeping track of where everyone is can be impossible. Add to all this the fear and excitement, the adrenaline rush and the different ways these factors affect different people, and it’s a wonder that it doesn’t happen more often than it does.
As I understand it, Pat Tillman’s platoon split into two units to accomplish some task. One part of the unit came across the other part and mistook them for enemy troops. Pat Tillman happened to be in a position with an Afghanistan soldier. Pat Tillman was killed by small arms fire, possibly while trying to signal his friends that he was one of them. How tragic is that! Tragic for Pat Tillman, tragic for his family, tragic for those who mistook him for an enemy combatant, and tragic for our nation because we need men like Pat Tillman.
The investigation just completed deals only with the events surrounding Pat Tillman’s death. It does not address the many blunders and possible cover-up that took place afterwards. So what is it that the Tillman family finds “shamefully unacceptable”?
As I see it, the army is guilty of covering up this tragic accident. The question is why? I can only imagine that it was to save the family from the additional grief of knowing that Pat Tillman was the victim of an accident. The army apparently went so far as to promote him and to award him the silver star, rather than tell the family the truly heartbreaking details of his death.
It’s hard for me to get truly angry at anyone over this situation. That apparently isn’t so for Pat Tillman’s family though and they are sure to find willing participants in congress who will take advantage of this tragedy to soak in the spotlight for a time.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Support the Troops - But Not the Mission???
This weekend (the 4th anniversary of the war) saw several demonstrations against the war in Iraq. Amazingly, many of those participating in these events express support for our troops. Does that make sense?
None at all.
Any action that might embolden our enemies while our troops are in harms way cannot logically be portrayed as “support” for the troops. Clearly, the opposite is true. Such actions support our enemies and endanger our troops as well as endangering the mission they are tasked with accomplishing.
Why should terrorists not be emboldened when they can see our resolve crumbling? When they can see that our citizens have no will to win? When they can see that we are ready to chalk up the sacrifices of thousands?
The demonstrations were very small. About 3,000 in San Francisco where one might expect tens or hundreds of thousands to attend. New York gathered about 1,000 if you include the professional demonstrators like Rev. Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition and others. Even the Washington DC demonstration was small. The purpose of a demonstration is to show through numbers the resolve of the people. The numbers involved in these demonstrations clearly show that the demonstrators do not have the backing of the people. Yet the media made the typical left wing circus out of it, playing it up for much more than it was worth. The result was two fold:
1. Our troops got to see an inflated version of these demonstrations showing a lack of support for them and their mission.
2. The enemy that is trying to kill our troops saw a grossly inflated version of how little support our troops have for their mission.
I wonder what those demonstrators will do when the terrorists they are now supporting (whether by design or out of ignorance) have the chance to renew their attacks on U.S. soil? Who will they call on then for help? Who will they call on to wreak revenge for them? Who will they call on to go after the perpetrators?
Will they again promise to support the troops and their mission?
Why should our troops listen . . . . . ever?
None at all.
Any action that might embolden our enemies while our troops are in harms way cannot logically be portrayed as “support” for the troops. Clearly, the opposite is true. Such actions support our enemies and endanger our troops as well as endangering the mission they are tasked with accomplishing.
Why should terrorists not be emboldened when they can see our resolve crumbling? When they can see that our citizens have no will to win? When they can see that we are ready to chalk up the sacrifices of thousands?
The demonstrations were very small. About 3,000 in San Francisco where one might expect tens or hundreds of thousands to attend. New York gathered about 1,000 if you include the professional demonstrators like Rev. Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition and others. Even the Washington DC demonstration was small. The purpose of a demonstration is to show through numbers the resolve of the people. The numbers involved in these demonstrations clearly show that the demonstrators do not have the backing of the people. Yet the media made the typical left wing circus out of it, playing it up for much more than it was worth. The result was two fold:
1. Our troops got to see an inflated version of these demonstrations showing a lack of support for them and their mission.
2. The enemy that is trying to kill our troops saw a grossly inflated version of how little support our troops have for their mission.
I wonder what those demonstrators will do when the terrorists they are now supporting (whether by design or out of ignorance) have the chance to renew their attacks on U.S. soil? Who will they call on then for help? Who will they call on to wreak revenge for them? Who will they call on to go after the perpetrators?
Will they again promise to support the troops and their mission?
Why should our troops listen . . . . . ever?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Are Americans Losers . . . . or Just Congress???
Today the congress is seeking a vote to set firm dates for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. While this is a democrat issue, there are sure to be some republicans who vote for it as well.
To be clear, this is not a plan for victory. This is not a plan to achieve what might be needed for Iraq. It is not a plan to succeed. It is not a plan to achieve anything at all! In fact, it isn't a plan at all. It is simply a way to insure that we lose in Iraq.
This disgraceful political move will destroy our status as a world leader. Who would be stupid enough to follow us into anything after we disgracefully cut and run (and hide) from this? What about our staunch allies who are already supporting our efforts in Iraq? We will be abandoning them as well!
Our enemies will think that the cowardness and selfishness of congress is indicative of us as a nation. They will be greatly emboldened to take action against us, knowing for sure that we don't have the will to fight back.
Perhaps the greatest price we'll pay for this gutless congress will be the damage that it does to our military. If the congressional dems succeed with this, why would/should our young men and women ever again trust congress to support them after commiting them to harms way? This action would make it clear that congress is willing to send our troops into harms way, but not willing to spend the political capital to let them succeed. It shows that the dems in congress are perfectly willing to send the troops into combat, get thousands killed, and then say "never mind"!
I can't think of a clearer or more dispicable way to show our military just how little they are valued!
Democratic incumbents are responsible for this. They came up with it and they are pushing it. They are 100% responsible for the results. Others who go along with them are certainly no better. They're probably worse!
To be clear, this is not a plan for victory. This is not a plan to achieve what might be needed for Iraq. It is not a plan to succeed. It is not a plan to achieve anything at all! In fact, it isn't a plan at all. It is simply a way to insure that we lose in Iraq.
This disgraceful political move will destroy our status as a world leader. Who would be stupid enough to follow us into anything after we disgracefully cut and run (and hide) from this? What about our staunch allies who are already supporting our efforts in Iraq? We will be abandoning them as well!
Our enemies will think that the cowardness and selfishness of congress is indicative of us as a nation. They will be greatly emboldened to take action against us, knowing for sure that we don't have the will to fight back.
Perhaps the greatest price we'll pay for this gutless congress will be the damage that it does to our military. If the congressional dems succeed with this, why would/should our young men and women ever again trust congress to support them after commiting them to harms way? This action would make it clear that congress is willing to send our troops into harms way, but not willing to spend the political capital to let them succeed. It shows that the dems in congress are perfectly willing to send the troops into combat, get thousands killed, and then say "never mind"!
I can't think of a clearer or more dispicable way to show our military just how little they are valued!
Democratic incumbents are responsible for this. They came up with it and they are pushing it. They are 100% responsible for the results. Others who go along with them are certainly no better. They're probably worse!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Non-binding Resolution Against the Iraq War
Just what was this resolution supposed to accomplish? Was this a meaningful, worthwhile effort on the part of our elected officials? Or, was it yet another example of self serving “politics as usual”? Let’s examine the results:
Did it stop the war in Iraq? NO!
Did it show support for our troops in harms way? NO!
Did it demonstrate America’s lack of resolve? YES!
Did it make America safer? NO!
Did it help our allies? NO!
Did it bolster terrorists all over the world? YES!
Did it support the President in time of war? NO!
Well, I can’t see a single result of this resolution that was good for America. Nor can I see any logical reason why a reasonably intelligent human being should have expected anything positive from this folly.
Unless they are simply “stupid”, members of congress who voted for this resolution (from both parties) absolutely knew that such a useless resolution could ONLY be harmful to the nation. So why did they do it?
Sure they got to embarrass the President, but are they really that petty and immature? Did they not care that they also embarrassed every other thinking American? Or was it just that they felt that this would be a vote getter for them in the future? Would they really be willing to put their own interests in front of our nation’s? Could they be so low?
The last one was a rhetorical question. If the results outlined above are true (how can they be disputed?), and if we presume that so many members of congress are not quite stupid enough to think that a different result could come from their actions, then yes, members of congress could be so low.
Did it stop the war in Iraq? NO!
Did it show support for our troops in harms way? NO!
Did it demonstrate America’s lack of resolve? YES!
Did it make America safer? NO!
Did it help our allies? NO!
Did it bolster terrorists all over the world? YES!
Did it support the President in time of war? NO!
Well, I can’t see a single result of this resolution that was good for America. Nor can I see any logical reason why a reasonably intelligent human being should have expected anything positive from this folly.
Unless they are simply “stupid”, members of congress who voted for this resolution (from both parties) absolutely knew that such a useless resolution could ONLY be harmful to the nation. So why did they do it?
Sure they got to embarrass the President, but are they really that petty and immature? Did they not care that they also embarrassed every other thinking American? Or was it just that they felt that this would be a vote getter for them in the future? Would they really be willing to put their own interests in front of our nation’s? Could they be so low?
The last one was a rhetorical question. If the results outlined above are true (how can they be disputed?), and if we presume that so many members of congress are not quite stupid enough to think that a different result could come from their actions, then yes, members of congress could be so low.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The New Democratic Controlled Congress
Congressional democrats are riding high, and they should be. They now have control of both the house and senate. The question is, will they do anything useful with this new found power? I doubt it.
I say this because in my opinion, they don't understand (nor do they want to) how they achieved this grand success. They feel that they "kicked republican butt" because the voters are finally starting to get it. We're finally coming around to their way of thinking. We've finally pulled our heads out of the sand and starting to pay attention. They suddenly feel vindicated. They feel they've been right all along and we voters were just "slow" to grasp their wisdom. I think they're wrong about that. I believe that the democrats won majorities in both houses for two reasons:
1. The law of averages. It was bound to happen. They had failed for so long that, as expected, the voters "forgot" what they were like. We forgot why we had dumped them in the first place. In short, this is an expected cyclicle outcome. But the house dem's will never admit that! They would rather wallow in their "success" than to face any inconvenient facts.
2. The republicans who got dumped were dumped by republican voters, because they (republican voters) were tired of the liars, thieves and weaklings who were holding office (Curt Weldon of PA being a prime example of a republican being dumped by republicans). Republicans weren't dumped by democratic voters. In short, these scum bags deserved to get dumped, and republican voters met that need. This was not a shining triumph for democratic politicians.
Democratic politicians refused to believe anything was wrong when they lost control of the house and senate. They refused to believe that anything was wrong when they lost the white house, election after election. Now that they are back in control of congress, they naturally refuse to believe that it was due to anything other than their own superiority. It is this continuing arrogance that will stop them from making necessary changes to their platform and their party.
And of course, in the end, they'll fail again. But they'll refuse again to admit that anything is wrong . . . . . except on the part of the voting public.
Oh well!
I say this because in my opinion, they don't understand (nor do they want to) how they achieved this grand success. They feel that they "kicked republican butt" because the voters are finally starting to get it. We're finally coming around to their way of thinking. We've finally pulled our heads out of the sand and starting to pay attention. They suddenly feel vindicated. They feel they've been right all along and we voters were just "slow" to grasp their wisdom. I think they're wrong about that. I believe that the democrats won majorities in both houses for two reasons:
1. The law of averages. It was bound to happen. They had failed for so long that, as expected, the voters "forgot" what they were like. We forgot why we had dumped them in the first place. In short, this is an expected cyclicle outcome. But the house dem's will never admit that! They would rather wallow in their "success" than to face any inconvenient facts.
2. The republicans who got dumped were dumped by republican voters, because they (republican voters) were tired of the liars, thieves and weaklings who were holding office (Curt Weldon of PA being a prime example of a republican being dumped by republicans). Republicans weren't dumped by democratic voters. In short, these scum bags deserved to get dumped, and republican voters met that need. This was not a shining triumph for democratic politicians.
Democratic politicians refused to believe anything was wrong when they lost control of the house and senate. They refused to believe that anything was wrong when they lost the white house, election after election. Now that they are back in control of congress, they naturally refuse to believe that it was due to anything other than their own superiority. It is this continuing arrogance that will stop them from making necessary changes to their platform and their party.
And of course, in the end, they'll fail again. But they'll refuse again to admit that anything is wrong . . . . . except on the part of the voting public.
Oh well!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)