Progress

Michael Yon writes of the disconnect between Americans who think we are losing the Iraq War and the reality of our victories over this year; and the disconnect between foreigners who think we are brutalizing Iraqis and the reality of the intense care we take to avoid hurting civilians.

When people speak of the moral authority we have lost in world public opinion, the loss is caused by a failure of the press to report on how we actually fight this war instead of propaganda about our non-existent atrocities.

To understand what is happening, you have to pay close attention on a daily basis so you can feel the pulse of the war and sense the trends apart from the car bomb story of the day.

And I am subject to this failing as well. The British sector around Basra is a case in point. The British run the show so our news doesn't cover it as well as the areas where American troops operate. I don't read news frequently of this area so I was more vulnerable to accepting recent reports that the British were botching their mission. Knowing the importance of the region, I worried that reports of pending chaos could be accurate. I also noted reports that said the reports of chaos were bunk. In short, my view of Basra may be better informed than most, but it still falls far short of knowing enough to really judge the area on my own. The vast majority of the public knows less of all of Iraq than I know of Basra.

Yon says Basra is just fine:

Several upcoming dispatches will focus on how the situation in Southern Iraq has dramatically improved over past months. Ironically, the character of this improvement is distinguished by the lack of violence, as well as the increasing order and normality as Iraqi Security Forces step up to greater responsibility for security in the region. Though the local leadership picture in downtown Basra is fuzzier now that British forces have pulled further back to begin performing their long-planned overwatch phase, it is clear that this natural progression in turning Basra over to Iraqi control has not catapulted the city into chaos.

Not without challenges, of course. But Iraqi government control with militias in a constrained competition is a far cry from chaos or Iranian control.

And despite Yon's conclusion--a conclusion I trust--I remain worried about Basra because I have to trust him rather than base my view on a history of reading and digesting reports about the Basra region.

So Yon tells me our press is screwing up reporting on Basra. My judgment tells me the press is screwing up reporting on the rest of Iraq.

Despite the technology and speed that modern reporting can use, this has only allowed our press to make errors at a much faster rate than in the past. Is this progress?

Many People Will Be Defeated in Iraq

The current leaders in Congress did not run on ending the Iraq War back last fall. They even ran conservatives under their banner to win control of Congress. But pushed by their extremist left backers, the new Congress suddenly concluded that our people wanted defeat.

But although Congress came close to legislating defeat over the summer, progress on the ground and a good assessment and presentation in September turned back the tide of retreat.

Congress has given up on legislating defeat. Why?

Democrats are coming face to face with the fact that there's a war on -- and that Americans prefer success to failure. If the choice is between stalemate and withdrawal, as it seemed to be in November 2006, they may favor withdrawal; but if the choice is between victory and withdrawal, they don't want to quit -- or to undermine the effort.

I've long held (and mentioned my belief in this publication) that we are not so much casualty averse as we are defeat averse. Absent progress visible to voters, voters would rather cut our losses. And so it seemed to voters through fall 2006, at least (though not to me, as I've seen progress--if not ininterrupted--throughout our war). Now with progress more evident, the public is no longer leaning toward withdrawal.

We like victory. We've essentially beaten the Baathists, the jihadis, the nationalists, and the foreign jihadis; and are pounding the Iranian-backed Shia death squads.

If our Left insists it does not like American victories, the public will make them pay in the next election.

More Relief

In additon to beginning the drawing down of our combat brigades in Iraq to relieve the pressure on the active forces that the surge has created, we alerted 18,000 more Army National Guard troops for service in Iraq:

Brigade combat teams:

30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team, NC National Guard

56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 28th Infantry Division, PA National Guard

Security force brigades:

56th Brigade Combat Team, 36th Infantry Division, TX National Guard

29th Brigade Combat Team, HA National Guard

81st Brigade Combat Team, WA National Guard

45th Fires Brigade, OK National Guard

Detention Operations:

50th Brigade Combat Team, NJ National Guard

Clearly, not all of the units are being sent at full strength. The first two units at full strength would have 3,500 and 4,500 troops, respectively. Since they will replace regular forces, I assume they are full strength.

The other four brigade combat teams and the smaller artillery (Fires) brigade total 10,000, so can't be full strength. Perhaps logistical and other support elements aren't being sent to focus just on the headquarters units and combat units organized as infantry units to provide base and convoy security. I'd guess that the units will command other units in addition to their own once they arrive in Iraq and Kuwait.

They will serve 9 months on the ground there.

In going from 20 brigades (including 18 Army brigades) to 15 (13 Army brigades), 2 of the Army brigades in Iraq will be National Guard. This will be welcome relief for the active Army.

Democracy in Action

The Poles have elected a new leader:

Civic Platform leader Donald Tusk, like Kaczynski, favors good relations with the United States. But Tusk argues Poland has not gotten enough from its close ties with Washington and he wants the country's 900-strong detachment in Iraq to come home soon.

"We've said that the mission should be completed in a very calm, responsible way," the party's parliamentary chief Bogdan Zdrojewski told The Associated Press.

He declined to give a date, saying "the decision will come once a government is formed" after parliament meets Nov. 5.

Civic Platform also says Poland should drive a tough bargain in return for hosting a missile defense base, which the U.S. wants to install as part of a shield offering some protection in Europe and beyond for long-range missiles launched from Iran.

The party says it supports hosting the missile defense installations, but has criticized Kaczynski for being too eager in public statements to strike a deal ahead of negotiations. Party leaders have said Poland also wants the U.S. Patriot short range and anti-aircraft missile system — which hasn't been part of the proposed system — to beef up its own national defenses.

U.S. plans to push ahead with missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic have set it at odds with Russia, which views the shield as a step to undermine the deterrent value of its nuclear arsenal.

Zdrojewski, who visited missile defense sites in the United States with other Polish lawmakers earlier this year, said "there is no doubt the technology is of the highest order, and defensive, not offensive in nature."

While his desire to leave Iraq will no doubt be highlighted, he is pro-American. Though sadly pro-EU, too.

And in the shadow of the Bear, his problems with our proposed anti-missile bases in Eastern Europe revolve around their insufficiency to protect Poland.

And of course, in an area that had lacked democracy even before the decades of Soviet domination, it is good to see peaceful voting and power transitions.

Focused Anti-Al Qaeda Operations

Some who propose that we run from Iraq as fast as we can like to claim they really support our staying in Iraq just for focused anti-al Qaeda operations.

This is "stupid", if you will forgive me for using a highly technical term.

Peple who promote the idea that we could abandon the field to the enemy and just execute drive-by hits on leaders have no idea what they are talking about.

If you doubt me, consider this is exactly what we've done in the Pakistan tribal areas:

No analyst I spoke with thought we could do much better than the strategy of covert pinprick strikes that the United States and Pakistan are currently employing, wherein Pakistan frequently takes responsibility for U.S. strikes. This will not deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven, although it may occasionally yield important kills.

What about covert action? American Special Operations forces are already engaging in actions coordinated with the air strikes. The most notable achievement in this regard occurred in southern Afghanistan, where NATO and Afghan forces killed Mullah Dadullah Lang, the Taliban's top military commander, back in May. There are barriers, though, to expanding the Special Operations forces' role. The topography makes it difficult to insert and remove forces without being detected. Within the military, there is a real desire to avoid another Operation Eagle Claw--the ill-fated attempt to rescue hostages held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran during President Carter's term.

Pakistan decided last fall that they didn't want to fight the jihadis any more, and instead thought that targeted attacks on leaders could defang the jihadis. Instead, the jihadis have cemented their control in the area and threaten all of Pakistan and not just the Afghan government.

And every time we conduct a strike, the locals will parade the bodies of dead wedding guests and baby formula factory employees.

Focusing on al Qaeda means destroying the organization and eliminating its ability to intertwine with the local society. Luckily, it seems as if Pakistan belatedly realizes this basic fact.

Define "We" Please

Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons.

Vice President Cheney says that will not stand:

"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.

He said Iran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow them to build a nuclear weapon are obvious and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."

If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.

"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said. [Emphasis added]

We?

The international community is fine with Iran having nuclear missiles.

The international community won't bat an eye if Iran nukes Israel.

The international community will not impose serious consequences under any circumstances.

So while I appreciate Cheney's determination to stop the Iran threat, who on Earth is included in that "we" comment?

UPDATE: Niall Ferguson, too, wonders about the international community's will to stop Iran:

It's easy to imagine the international uproar that would ensue in the event of U.S. air strikes. It's also easy to imagine the havoc that might be wreaked by Iranian-sponsored terrorists in Iraq by way of retaliation. So it's very tempting to hope for a purely diplomatic solution.

Yet the reality is that the chances of such an outcome are dwindling fast, precisely because other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are ruling out the use of force -- and without the threat of force, diplomacy seldom works. Six days ago, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin went to Iran for an amicable meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Putin says he sees "no evidence" that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. On his return to Moscow, he explicitly repudiated what he called "a policy of threats, various sanctions or power politics."

The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, also seems less likely to support American preemption than his predecessor was in the case of Iraq. That leaves China, which remains an enigma on the Iranian question, and France, whose hawkish new president finds himself distracted by the worst kind of domestic crisis: a divorce.

By contrast, Washington's most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel, recently demonstrated the ease with which a modern air force can destroy a suspected nuclear facility. Not only was last month's attack on a site in northeastern Syria carried out without Israeli losses, there was no retaliation on the part of Damascus. Memo from Ehud Olmert to George W. Bush: You can do this, and do it with impunity.

The big question of 2007 therefore remains: Will he do it?

Of course, the problem is that Syria's program, like Iraq's in 1981, was a point target. Iran's today is widely spread throughout Iran. And I wouldn't be surprised if Iran had facilities in other countries (which might include Syria). So the Israeli example is hardly a template.

Iran's Friends In Iraq

US forces hit Sadr City and continue to go after Shia extremists backed by Iran:

The raid on the dangerous Shiite slum was aimed at capturing an alleged rogue militia chief, one of thousands of fighters who have broken with Muqtada al-Sadr's mainstream Mahdi Army. The military did not say if the man was captured. He was also not named.

The Shiite cleric has ordered gunmen loyal to him to put down their arms. But thousands of followers dissatisfied with being taken out of the fight have formed a loose confederation armed and trained by Iran.

The U.S. operation was the latest in a series that have produced significant death tolls, including civilians, as American forces increasingly take the fight to Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida militants and Shiite militiamen.

The enemy always says our operations slaughter civilians. While civilians do die in our operations on occasion, for the most part we just kill bad guys. And id the enemy didn't hide among civilians, fewer still would die. Even better, if our enemies didn't kill civilians, even fewer would die.

More and more Iraqis reject the jihadis, making the jihadis a still-deadly but essentially defeated threat. Over time, they will be hunted down and killed and arrested.

The Iranian-sponsored Shia death squads are the last serious internal threat to victory in Iraq. Our operations reflect this threat.

The question remains whether the Iraqi government will hold strong while we nail the Shias who fight for Iran and pretend to be Shia Iraqi patriots.

And let me say I'm shocked that AP admits that Iran is arming and training these thugs.

Why We Have Half of the World's Naval Power

Some naval advocates are implying that our shipbuilding policy is essentially dismantling our naval superiority.

Strategypage lists our ships (as of last summer).

We have a total of 316 ships as our main fleet elements, with 22 cruisers, 12 carriers, 50 destroyers, 21 frigates, 2 amphibious command ships, 11 amphibioius warships that are essentially small carriers (and which could carry jump jets to be as effective as most fleet carriers in our navies), 21 smaller amphibious ships, 9 mine warfare ships, 8 patrol craft, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 Tomahawk-carrying subs (like the old Arsenal Ship idea), and 52 attack subs.

Today, we include amphibious ships in the total. I'd only count as combat ships the 11 small carriers the Marines use and not the remaining 23. Nor would I include the 9 mine counter-measure ships. I'd also exclude the 14 ballistic missile submarines, which despite their firepower are really strategic assets and not combat warships. This would get the modern fleet down to 270 warships.

So how does this compare to our fleet before Pearl Harbor?

Our December 1941 fleet, which is often used as a point of reference to show the decline in numbers of our fleet, had 346 ships, with 17 battleships, 7 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers, 19 light cruisers, 173 destroyers, and 112 submarines. (From The Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy and Dupuy)

So our 270 actual warships compare poorly in number to the 346 1941 warships. So is our situation worse than Navy proponents argue just based on numbers?

No. As long as I'm adjusting modern numbers, let me address the numbers of 1941.

Submarines in 1941 were too slow to really be counted as combatants and were mostly useful against slow merchant ships or transports. So we should really only say that the 1941 fleet has 234 combat ships. So by numbers, our current fleet is actually stronger.

But number aren't the only issue. What about the capital ships of the two eras?

The capital ships of the era were the battleships and carriers, which were 7% of the total in the pre-Pearl Harbor fleet.

In capital ships today, if we only count our carriers we have only 4% of our ships as capital ships. Since we don't have battleships anymore, if you agree our cruisers replace them in this category, our total is 11%. That's better than in 1941.

Comparing our modern fleet to the World War II fleet is apples and oranges, not least due to the different definitions of ships. Our destroyers are actually only marginally smaller than our cruisers and function similarly. So we should add those 50 ships.

And nuclear submarines are now capital ships based on their price and capabilities, so add 56 more. Now, we have 140 capital ships. And I'd add the 11 mini-carriers which could carry aircraft. So our 151 "capital ships" represent 56% of our combat fleet!

Clearly, ship-type inflation has made it difficult to compare the 2007 and 1941 fleets. Destroyers are the most obvious difference. In World War II they were light escorts. Now they are main flet elements capable of distant strike, anti-air warfare, and anti-submarine warfare. So how about comparing on displacement only?

In our pre-Pearl Harbor fleet, the combat ships that had a displacement of at least a light cruiser size numbered 61 ship, or 18% of the total.

Destroyers represented half the ships.

If we exclude the 1941 submarines, as I think we should, the 1941 fleet had 26% of its ships of at least light cruiser tonnage. Destroyers would be 74% of the surface fleet.

Consider that ships in the modern fleet that have tonnages of at least as much as World War II light cruisers would include the small carriers, destroyers, cruisers, and carriers, for a total of 95 ships. This is 30% of the 270 warships in the fleet. But you could also add in the modern submarines, which are threats to warships and larger than World War II light cruisers. So add 56 subs for a total of 151 ships of the size of a 1941 light cruiser or larger, or 56% of the fleet--more than twice the percentage of the 1941 fleet.

And while the destroyers are half the 1941 fleet, only 29 of our modern ships are small escorts, or 11% of the combat fleet.

The biggest difference is in ship-killing capability of ships. The 1941 ships that could kill the biggest ships were really reduced to the battleships and the carriers (or their air wings, more specifically). The cruisers and destroyers could conceivable sink the bigger ships if they got within short range for their guns or torpedoes, but that wasn't terribly likely. The cruisers and destroyers were escorts for the primary capital ships.

Today's ships, including small ships and subs, can all carry ship-killing missiles. And all but the smallest combatants can carry helicopters that can carry anti-ship missiles. We no longer have our striking power limited to the battleships and carriers. That's why I called more of our ships capital ships. While our number are misleadingly similar, our modern fleet is far more capable on a ship-for-ship basis compasred to the rest of the contemporary fleet. The 1941 fleet had a few capital ships and a large number of far less capable light escorts.

Our fleet is the best in the world and comparisons to our 1941 fleet are almost as pointless as comparing it to our Civil War-era fleet. I suppose comparing our fleet to our fleet of 1941 might have some remote relevance if we still faced the foes of 1941.

But in the real world, our fleet has about half the combat power of all the world's navies combined.

Will This Be the Next Main Front?

In the long run, I've argued that democracy in Pakistan is necessary to prevent the perhaps 30% of the population sympathetic to the Islamists from taking power. But it isn't a simple problem:

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a minority of jihadis who would love to run the place and control the nukes.

And continued military rule makes the jihadis seem like freedom fighters.

So the problem is that we'd like to have democracy in Pakistan to keep the jihadis from gaining support. In time, a majority of Pakistanis might think a mullah government is better than military dictatorship.

Yet we need Pakistan's help as is to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, so we can't pressure Pakistan for democracy too much for fear we'd lose the help in Afghanistan.

And as the Pakistani generals placate their jihadis by looking the other way as much as possible while the jihadis roam the border areas and fight in Afghanistan, we react by pressuring Pakistan to crack down on the jihadis.

Under our Realpolitik approach to Pakistan since 9/11, the Islamists have been able to make headway by pointing out the corruption of the civilian politicians and the failure of the military rulers (backed by 10% of the population) to solve corruption or economic problems.

Democracy, of course, requires rule of law too and not just voting that puts in power your gang of thieves. So the problem is that the long-term solution is real democracy but in the short run the imperfections of democracy building in Pakistan makes it more likely that the Islamists will gain support under pre-democracy voting.

So when Bhutto returns to Pakistan in a deal for power sharing that could renew civilian rule and the voting that led to Musharaff's benign dictatorship, it is a cause for some hope but also great fear. The path to real democracy has to start somewhere but the early period on that path is dangerous. And Bhutto was as corrupt as any of the politicians. Is she now?

One can understand the temptation to rely on a strongman who will keep the lid on the vast nuclear-armed nation. But the lid has not stopped the Islamists from gaining strength on the frontier tribal areas. Nor has it stopped the problem of their fanaticism from spilling over to Pakistan's cities as the Red Mosque incident and the bombing attempt on Bhutto upon her return show:

"We believe democracy alone can save Pakistan from disintegration and a militant takeover," Bhutto told reporters in her Karachi home a day after her return from eight years in exile.

It remains unclear what effect the attack will have on the talks between Bhutto and President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who have been in negotiations over creating a power-sharing agreement. Their talks yielded an immunity covering the corruption charges that prompted Bhutto to leave Pakistan.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said he did not expect the attack to delay elections slated for January, but the government would have to be alert for future attacks.

"I don't see the electoral process being hindered ... but of course we will have to be wise, we'll perhaps have to change our tactics a little," he said Saturday.

While Bhutto has accused some political allies of Musharraf of militant links, the attack could push the two closer into an alliance to fight extremism — a cause that both reiterated their support for in the aftermath of the bombing.

It was one of the deadliest in Pakistan's history, turning Bhutto's jubilant homecoming parade into a scene of blood and carnage.

Karachi, a normally boisterous city of 15 million, remained largely subdued Saturday, with shopping malls and gas stations closed in several neighborhoods.

So building democracy when Islamists are looking on with their guns and bombs ready to exploit imperfections and flaws in the democractic process represents a very dangerous period.

Fortunately, it looks like Pakistan has finally (as I've argued) realized that no truce with fanatics is possible. Already, Pakistan has escalated their use of force against the Islamists in the frontier area.

This article says Pakistan is going to wage a full offensive to pacify the tribal areas and cripple the Islamists:

Lining up against the Pakistani Army will be the Shura (council) of Mujahideen comprising senior al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders, local clerics, and leaders of the fighting clans Wazir and Mehsud (known as the Pakistani Taliban). The shura has long been calling the shots in the Waziristans, imposing sharia law and turning the area into a strategic command and control hub of global Muslim resistance movements, including those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"All previous operations had a different perspective," the security official told ATol. "In the past Pakistan commenced an operation when the Western coalition informed Pakistan about any particular hide-out or a sanctuary, or Pakistan traced any armed infiltration from or into Pakistan.

"However, the present battle aims to pacify Waziristan once and for all. The Pakistani Army has sent a clear message to the militants that Pakistan would deploy its forces in the towns of Mir Ali, Miranshah, Dand-i-Darpa Kheil, Shawal, Razmak, Magaroti, Kalosha, Angor Ada. The Pakistani Army is aiming to establish permanent bases which would be manned by thousands of military and paramilitary troops."

According to the security official, an ultimatum had been delivered to the militants recently during a temporary ceasefire. The army would set a deadline and give safe passage into Afghanistan to all al-Qaeda members and Taliban commanders who had gathered in Waziristan to launch a large-scale post-Ramadan operation in Afghanistan. They, along with wanted tribal warrior leaders, would all leave Pakistan, and never return.

It remains to be seen if the Islamists will cooperate and run to Afghanistan or if they want to (or are compelled to) stay for the final jihad and go for broke to win the big prize of seizing a nuclear-armed Pakistan.

And even trying to survive in the tribal areas rather than running to Afghanistan where our forces wait to pounce will require a campaign against Pakistan's cities to break the will of the government to stay on the offensive in the frontier region. If Bhutto (and other politicians) won't exploit the violence by claiming they will end the urban bloodshed by striking a new deal, thus continuing the status quo that isn't solving the problem of jihadis in Pakistan or Afghanistan, then the military will have the time to really crush the Islamists.

Or perhaps, as al Qaeda loses in Iraq and retreats from Pakistan, Afghanistan really will become the primary fight against al Qaeda that so many here have insisted on despite the commitment of al Qaeda to winning in Iraq. Of course, as the article notes, a successful pacification campaign in the tribal areas will cripple the ability of the Islamists to fight in Afghanistan. If compelled to stay in Afghanistan 24/7, we will hunt them, find them, and kill them.

But it will be uglier while we do that. Should Afghanistan become the primary fight against al Qaeda, a lot of Americans who have insisted Afghanistan is the "good war" will want to run from this fight, too.

Back When All Things Were Considered

A brief interview with a New Yorker reporter about how Zarqawi could personify a link between Iraq and al Qaeda:

I would say at this point, the information the US intelligence community has--it's more than just coincidence or it's more than just a matter of ships passing in the night. These seem to be very deliberate meetings with well-organized agendas whose goal is to develop a serious relationship between these two sides.

And between Iran and al Qaeda, for that matter.

The interview was in February 2003.

On National Public Radio.

When you honestly look back on the debate in the decade before the March 2003 invasion, it is enlightening to see who made the same arguments that President Bush has made and which are now called his "lies."

Stark Raving Mad

Gerard Baker isn't terribly impressed with European critics of America who fail to notice that if what the European critics said was even remotely true, there wouldn't be so many Americans--or foreigners living in America--getting cheap applause in Europe by condemning America:

Today I can only laugh when I see the popular portrayal of George Bush’s America n much of the international media. Supposedly serious commentators will say, without evident irony, that free speech is under attack, that Bush’s wiretapping, uantanamo-building, tourist-fingerprinting regime is terrifying Americans into quiet, desperate acquiescence in the country’s proliferating crimes.

The truth is that America not only harbours the most eloquent and noisy anti-Americans in its own breast, it provides a safe haven for people to come from all over the world to condemn it.

I added my own comment on the Times site to Baker's piece (and will put it in when it pops up):

[Two days later, my comment hasn't popped up on the Times piece. I assumed they just printed them after screening submissions. I said nothing foul or offensive. I wish I'd just copied it before I submitted the comment. Not that it was priceless wisdom you can't live without, mind you. But what are their criteria for rejecting comments?]

Really, though the cries of our Bushtatorship are constantly raised by our Left, our Left prospers while shoveling out the most vile anti-American drivel.

And right on cue, one of our finest Congresscritters representing that bastion of patriotism, Representative Pete Stark, proves Baker's point:

Stark, who's in his 18th term representing the liberal East Bay near San Francisco, took to the floor to accuse Republicans of funding the Iraq war but not children's health.

"You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark declared. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement." ...

Instead of retraction or apology the statement Stark issued in response to Boehner just offered more criticism of the "chicken hawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care." Stark did also express respect for the troops.

It isn't enough to debate the insurance issue at hand and whether it really targets poor children or is dangerously close to simply covering middle class adults.

And it isn't enough--if he has to contrast spending priorities--to even note disagreement over the policy on Iraq. No, Stark has to insult the president in the coarsest and vilest terms. And when called on it, instead of reflecting that maybe he went a teensy bit too far, he ups the ante by attacking any supporter of the war who hasn't served in uniform.

And this is where those protests that it isn't "anti-American" to criticize foreign policy. That is true but not the point of Baker's article. And Stark is a conveniently timed proof. Not content to simply disagree with our nation's policy, Stark attacks the president and implicitly those who support him as bloodthirsty maniacs.

When President Clinton attacked Serbia in 1999, I opposed that war as a purely European problem that the Europeans should exert themselves to solve if it was so important to them. But I never, ever sided with the Serbs or felt we were immoral to fight the Serbs over their actions.

Is it too much for our "dissenters" to avoid demonizing their opponents as evil people who would betray us?

This Congressman is stark raving mad, is what he is. And his constituency on the Left loves him. They agree with every spittle-flecked comment.

And of course, they will not disappear in the night, never to be seen again.

Like I said, the European critics of my country are pikers compared to our dissenters. Hugo Chavez is a statesman by comparison to Stark and his ilk.

Stark has respect for the troops? Please. Jesse Macbeth ("Ranger" extraordinaire) is Stark's kind of troop. The rest? Not so much.

It's madness, people. The Left has gone off the deep end and I hope they wake up from their feverish hate with a little bit of shame over how they've acted these last several years. Tell me again how George W. Bush is the one who has polarized our country.

And to you Europeans who want to try your hand at condemning my country, don't even try to play the game unless you are ready to really compete against the best.

UPDATE: Feel the love:

Pete Stark says the president is waging the war in Iraq for the fun of seeing innocent Americans get their heads 'blown off,' but Democrats still support him. Keith Olbermann calls Stark's comments 'refreshing.' And Stark has been warmly embraced by the Daily Kos, where he thanked the site's readers for their support. But they all support the troops, right? Oh, and the children, too.

This hatred is appalling.

The Empire Strikes Back

The EU is back. The Brussels elite changed nothing but the packaging on a treaty of union that some European voters rejected the last time they were asked about the project.

So some cosmetic changes plus the wisdom not to ask the people again is the new strategy to build a Union of European Socialist Republics. And on the assumption that something as important as the EU can't be left to the peasantry to muck up, leaders already are lining up to rule the new EUmpire:

Will it be former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern or former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski?

After agreeing on a European Union governing treaty, leaders began jostling Friday over who should become the first full-time president of the union — and Blair drew backing from his successor and the president of France.

The leaders agree on the treaty. Who else matters?

I cannot fathom why we officially still support a unified Europe:

I've said it many times. Europe as an institution can't be our friend. European states can be our friends and I value their contributions. It would be to our advantage to stop supporting the European Union and work to get support from individual European states and supportive European citizens within those states.

I've got a bad feeling about this whole project. A new threat from Europe will arise again one day if this unification becomes a reality. We've beaten militarists, fascists, Nazis, and communists to preserve democracy in Europe. I fear the new bureaucrats will be the toughest foe yet to freedom.

UPDATE: More details:

There is a spectrum haunting Europe: the EU Constitution. Despite all appearances, it's not quite dead. Au contraire. After two identity changes, some face lifts and a heavy dose of make-up, the "undead" Constitution was first re-baptised as the "Reform Treaty" and now lives on as the "Lisbon Treaty". The final deal was struck on Friday in Lisbon, Portugal, where all the EU member states agreed that the new Treaty would be ratified by parliamentary procedures. No more referendums (except for Ireland and possibly the UK if Gordon Brown caves in to the Tories). The EU learned its lesson the first time after France & the Netherlands rejected the Constitution. Democracy is a bitch and it is better to keep the role of deciding the new shape of the European Union out of the hands of the voters.

Why the dull name "Lisbon Treaty" instead of "EU Constitution" or even the "Reform Treaty"? First, the name will simply join the list of the other confusing names of EU institutions and projects: The "European Council", which is the main decision maker in the EU and features a gathering of the heads of all member states. This is not to be mixed up with the "Council of Europe", which is a UN-like, human rights watchdog that includes "democratic", non-EU countries, such as Russia. Confusing? All the better! The populace of the EU isn't supposed to be able to tell the difference between the myriad of EU institutions!

The EU knows better than most that a lack of understanding leads to a lack of accountability. This is part of the reason why the EU Constitution has been renamed the "Lisbon Treaty", a name that is easily confusable with the unrelated "Lisbon Agenda". What is the "Lisbon Agenda" you ask? Well, it is another "bold" project of the EU adopted in 2000 and aimed to "make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world". Funny - perhaps. Ambiguous - absolutely. Confusing - most definitely.

In fact, the name "Lisbon Treaty" is designed to suggest that the new document is part of a series of Treaties all signed in nice touristy locations that have come to define the competences of the EU institutions: the "Rome Treaty", the "Maastricht Treaty", the "Amsterdam Treaty" and the "Nice Treaty". In no way is it designed to remind the populace of the failed EU Constitution (even though that is what it is).

Change the name, make it dull and confusing, and don't let the people vote on the new constitution. The continent's next generation of dictators and their minions are not storm troopers armed with panzers or Kalishnikovs, but gray-suited bureacrats armed with stifling rules that will choke freedom more quietly but just as surely. Your EU's concept of democracy at work!

Truly, a thorn by any other name.

Stupidity's Rearguard

Until recently, the Sunni Arabs of Iraq have persisted in their bloody resistance despite the obvious fact that the Shias and Kurds would win and that the Shias and Kurds would exact revenge for the terror the Sunnis supported if the Sunnis did not wise up and end their pointless and bloody resistance. Indeed, I wondered if Iraq's Sunnis would become the new Palestinians by their obviously self-destructive behavior.

Beginning in Anbar and slowly spreading to Diyala and other Sunni areas, the Sunni Arabs have begun to demonstrate thinking capabilities.

But the rearguard of stupidity fights on:

Iraq's leaders grappled Thursday over the death sentences for three former Saddam Hussein regime heavyweights -- including the notorious enforcer known as Chemical Ali" -- amid warnings the hangings could enflame sectarian violence and derail efforts at reconciliation.

But any serious delays in carrying out the executions also risk backlash from the victims of Saddam's attacks, including Kurds who faced a brutal crackdown in the 1980s that led to the death sentences.

The bind grew more difficult as Sunni leaders pressed to delay the hangings, saying they could incite violence and cripple already fragile bids to improve ties between Iraq's rival groups.

In what world does it make sense for the remaining Sunni Arabs in Iraq to defend these three monstrous murderers?

Oh yeah, it makes sense in Sunni World, where self-destructive stupidity still exerts a powerful pull on Sunni Arab Iraqis. It's a wonder these people can dress themselves in the morning.

These Are My People

Orson Scott Card pens another excellent (although all too infrequent) essay on the Stupid People that our Left smart guys disdain:

I'm of the generation that was too smart for patriotism. It was called "flag-waving" and it was sneered at. Politicians who invoked it were chauvinists, jingoists, cynical exploiters of trite public sentiment.

Then a funny thing happened. Patriotism, the thing that the Smart People all inveighed against, disappeared. Not everywhere -- just among the Smart People. It was a motivation that other people had. Strange people that the Left never actually met.

Oh, when you say the Smart People aren't patriotic, they get so angry and righteous! Suddenly they wave the flag and say, "How dare you impugn my patriotism!" As soon as they've silenced their critics, of course, they flush their "patriotism" down the toilet; it's a flimsy garment that, if you get up close, you can easily see through.

I have been that close, many times; I have hung out with the Smart People and listened to them talk. I've heard them jeer at patriotism, mock the military, sneer at ordinary Americans who shop in malls and watch television. Their contempt for the Stupid People is so thick and deep that if the target of this hatred were members of a minority group, we'd know them for the bigots they are.

They deny it, like Klan members pretending not to know what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, the Stupid People who believe in patriotism and volunteer for the military -- they're not a minority, they're the majority. They still have the power to elect presidents and change the makeup of Congress. And since the Smart People try to avoid ever meeting or spending time with any of these Stupid People, the only thing they can do to get control of the parts of the American power structure they don't already own is to lie.

The Smart People don't even think they're lying, though. They don't count it as a sin (they don't even believe in sin) to lie to Stupid People. It's sort of the Santa Claus principle. You tell them whatever you need to tell them in order to get them to let you have your way.

You tell them we're losing a war we're winning. You tell them that the best-behaved army in history is routinely committing atrocities. You tell them that the war that has the lowest rate of civilian casualties in history, proportionate to the number of combatants, is the cruelest. You tell them that a fully justified war based on many principles of international law and historical precedent is "based on a lie."

That's the favorite one. Your best lie. You accuse the Stupid President of lying all the time, though in fact that's the Smart People's primary tactic. Like pretending that Rush Limbaugh meant something that he obviously didn't mean and making a huge deal about it -- while declining to condemn the outrageous lies of MoveOn.Org as they slander a fine commander.

The biggest lie in this little flap about Limbaugh is not what they say about Limbaugh. It's their pretense that they actually care about American soldiers.

They don't care. Give me a break. Most of these Smart People are so filled with bile about the military that when they actually meet a soldier in uniform they are revolted or frightened or angry.

Nobody that they know ever enlists in the military. Since patriotism doesn't exist in their social circles, they have to invent other motivations for people to become soldiers.

It's like science fiction to them. Soldiers are an alien species. These people must love violence, that's what it is. Or they're such losers they can't think of another career. Or they're bullies. Or simply stupid, so that recruiters can trick them.

Yes, we Stupid Americans love our country. We believe it is worth defending. The sight of our nation's flag flying on a sunny day is moving in ways that Smart Americans cannot comprehend. Even now, I feel deprived of a privilege because as a civilian I can no longer salute our flag as I did when in uniform and must simply place my right hand over my heart. That's pretty stupid, eh?

Serving in the military has never been common, even in World War II when our forces peaked at 12 million. It is even less common today. Yet I served in the Army National Guard. My brothers served in the Army and Air Force. My dad served in the Navy. My grandfathers served in the Army and National Guard. Nobody made a career of the military, but all served.

Yes indeed, Stupid Americans, all. And I'm proud to stand among them, though the Smart Americans disdain us all and our simple love of country that isn't so nuanced as to think that dissent to the extent it promotes our defeat is actually the highest form of patriotism. Stupid us, we thought patriotism consisted of putting on our nation's uniforms and swearing to defend it against all enemies.

That's what Stupid Americans do and have always done. That's why we are free. God help us if we run out of Stupid Americans and have to rely on the self-described Smart People.

Card has much more. Read it all.

Getting Closer to What Sanchez Said

Daniel Henninger appears to be one of the few people who has actually read LTG Sanchez's speech that has given such joy to the anti-war side.

As Henninger notes, Sanchez did not just take a swipe at the Iraq campaign:

Over the past weekend there were front-page accounts everywhere of Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez's description of the war in Iraq as a "nightmare." ...

By now I was curious to see what Gen. Sanchez actually did say. The full text is an indictment all right, of everyone connected to this war--the president, the press, Congress, the bureaucracy and maybe the country itself.

What Henninger does not notice is that Sanchez flipped between talking about the Iraq War and the Long War on terror. So although he does a service by pointing out all that Sanchez criticized, Henninger fails to set the record straight on the "nightmare" quote that is getting so much attention.

As I've noted, that quote applied not to the Iraq War but to our failure to unite as a country and wage a total war on Islamist extremism using all elements of our national power.

Am I the only one to understand the context of that quote?

Coping With Vulnerability

I'm convinced that China is deadly serious when it says it must have Taiwan absorbed into the motherland.

I speculated that this might mean that China will invade Taiwan on the eve of the 2008 Summer Olympics in order to gain surprise. That's what I'd do if I was in charge of China.

But I've always held that China would want to achieve this fast to avoid a drawn out war that risks our intervention on Taiwan's side (and add in Japan, too, if we help Taiwan).

I've also written that China is terribly vulnerable to our naval power as well as the growing naval strength of other regional powers that could cut off China's trade and lead to a crisis in China's economy. I'm not sure China's holdings of our debt and their role in exporting cheap goods to us offsets their own vulnerability to their sea lines of communication.

Strategypage writes that China is increasingly aware of their possible greater vulnerability:

The Chinese have a bigger problem, in that interruption of their seaborne trade would have immediate, and serious economic and political impact. Over a hundred million people would be put out of work. The main thing that keeps the Chinese Communist Party in power has been economic growth. Without it, China would have gone the way of the Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

Look at it this way, a protracted war against Taiwan, including interruption of commercial shipping, would do far more damage to China, than to the Western nations that trade with China. While journalists can quickly whip up nightmare scenarios about Americans unable to cope with the loss of Chinese goods, the American companies have been using risk management techniques for decades to plan for these eventualities, and deal with them. This goes largely unnoticed by the general public, but it would be a major "weapon" in any future war with China.

... As a result, China appears to have shifted to a strategy of subverting political parties on Taiwan, and terrorizing others, in order to eventually carry out a voluntary merger with the mainland.

So the result of this awareness of their vulnerability is that China is no longer thinking of invading Taiwan?

Perhaps. But if China still wants to invade and conquer Taiwan, that would be a helpful assumption to promote to make our response less effective.

And remember, the Chinese worry about war only if it is protracted. If China thinks that a war for Taiwan would be brief, this does not mean that war is less likely.

If China thinks that we will not intervene, or that our intervention will be ineffective, or that Taiwan can't resist a major Chinese assault, then China will invade if the alternative is seeing Taiwan slip away on a road to legal independence.

Heck, if China believes they must have Taiwan and worry we might intervene quickly, the Chinese might believe they must strike our base at Guam first in order to buy the time they need to invade Taiwan. The Chinese might believe a sharp blow will cow us rather than enrage us.

Remember, any war over Taiwan will be initiated by China. So the key is what China's leaders believe is a rational move--not what we believe.

Not going to war is only one way to cope with their vulnerability to a protracted war. The other is to win fast and assume the war ends then.

Naval Strategy

The Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard have published a new maritime strategy paper.

I look forward to seeing how this paper addresses the war we are in and how the maritime community sees its role.

China surely has a role in shaping this view, too.

How the Marines, who straddle the worlds of the Navy/Coast Guard and Army, see the maritime strategy should be the most interesting part.

A Nightmare, Indeed

Even Stars and Stripes can't get retired LTG Sanchez's "nightmare" comment in proper context:

On Friday, Sanchez, the former top commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, slammed the handling of the war and gave a bleak assessment of the current situation in Iraq. He also criticized the media for its war coverage.

“There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight,” Sanchez told a convention of military journalists.

LTG Sanchez did not direct that comment at the Iraq campaign!

Sanchez very pointedly did say we've made mistakes in the Iraq War. He was not kind to our leaders on this point. But as I noted in my post on his speech, Sanchez was clearly not talking about Iraq with this "nightmare" quote that continues to be reported. He was speaking of our inability to unite the country in a coherent strategy that applies all elements of our national power to winning the war against Islamist extremism. That was the nightmare we are enduring in his view, as I commented about his speech:

Far from a condemnation of the President and his administration, our global war's objectives, or even the prospect of achieving success in Iraq, it is a plea for a full war effort by our nation for the wider war on extremists.

And it is a condemnation of our politicians who neglect a national war effort to promote their partisan domestic goals at the expense of troops fighting and dying in the field. It is a plea to win this war.

Clearly, in regard to our press and their inability to actually report accurately, we are living a nightmare with no end in sight. Oh yeah, Sanchez went into that point rather extensively, too.

The Tardy Dozen

Late in the game, twelve former captains in the US Army think five years of fighting in Iraq is enough.

I start with thanking them for their past service. But it cannot stop there. Even as our accumulating victory becomes more evident, these captains signed up with the Left for a last-ditch effort to persuade our public that our military is not convinced we are winning a worthwhile war.

Their specific complaints:

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country.

Iraq does not have to look like Vermont to be a success. Really, what country in the region is a modern, self-sustaining country? And you'd think that the neglect of Saddam and the attacks by terrorists and insurgents to slow the progress we have made would be taken into consideration. Defeat those enemies and progress will resume at an accelerated pace. They also neglect that we made the distribution of resources more fair when in the past Saddam starved the provinces of electricity and water to make Baghdad look better.

Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves.

Again, whose fault is it that Shias have virtually no experience in governing or leading troops? Whose fault is it that Shias were mostly excluded from higher education? Saddam did not allow Shias and Kurds to rise far in his regime. I'd say the Iraqis have made tremendous strides from a near-zero level. And all while under fire from bombers, Congresscritters, and the Defeat Caucus of the Left.

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption.

Every country in the region is corrupt. Saddam's Iraq was corrupt. At least we are fighting corruption and some Iraqis see the benefits of eliminating corruption. Like their other complaints so far, this is a problem to be overcome and not an excuse to quit.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions.

In vain? Iraq is still in one piece, is it not? That "soft partition" idea exists only in some of our imaginations, I believe. Given that Saddam had no control of the Kurdish region, had to terrorize the Shia south into submission, and simply made a deal with Anbar tribes to govern themselves, I'd say Iraq is more unified today than ever.

And we are buying the time Iraq needs to build security and governing institutions that will outlast our primacy in the combat role. That is the key. We may not have enough troops to control Iraq on our own, but Iraq does have enough. They make the common mistake of assuming only American forces can police Iraq.

U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.

So they still remember some military lingo, it seems.

I'm horrified, however, that American Army captains could forget that American soldiers are the best fighters on the planet. Enemies fear our troops. Our soldiers are vulnerable targets? Get real. When is the last time you heard a jihadi taunt America by daring us to send our troops to fight them man-to-man instead of sending cruise missiles? We gave our enemies a taste of that and they don't like it one bit.

As for increased attracks on withdrwing Americans, that will happen only if the captains insist on a Dunkirk retreat. If we withdraw after victory, nobody will shoot at us.

And there's that word "imminent" again. You'd think they'd use it more carefully. That civil war has been imminent for years now. And if al Qaeda, Syria, and Iran stop trying to foment it, it will recede quickly as a threat.

Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few.

Explain how Saddam managed to police his country with his rabble infantry divisions? They who were not trusted by Saddam and who dissolved in March 2003. They whose equipment was worn out and obsolete in 2003. They who were not even allowed to shoot their rifles in training? Oh, how did Saddam control Iraq with his inferior army? Clearly, it can be done.

Iraq's soldiers today are volunteers and they continue to enlist, fight, and die in larger numbers than our forces suffer every damned day. Bolstered by Iraqi guards protecting infrastructure not in that figure and stiffened by our troops and advisors, these Iraqis will be good enough to win. Especially if we can end foreign support for the terrorists and death squads inside Iraq. Eventually, the Iraqi military might be the best Moslem military in the world.

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

How officers who served in our military can think a draft would help us fight better is beyond me. They know the quality of the troops they commanded. This is merely their pathetic attempt to sound like they really aren't in favor of losing--but that our people won't support what it takes to win. So, sadly, we'd best run as fast as we can.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.

Five years ago, we did make a choice. We decided to end the threat that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed to America. We did that. And the best way to leave Iraq and make sure we don't have to go back and do it all over again (as we did in 2003 after the partial 1991 victory) is to leave an Iraqi government capable of defending their new democracy against foreign and domestic threats.

I thank these twelve captains for their past service In Iraq. But addressing them cannot stop at thanks for past service. Should these captains play a role in undermining the victory they once fought to gain, they will have done far more harm to our nation than they gave while in uniform. Their net negative contribution to victory considering both what they've done in and out of uniform falls beneath that of any civilian who has done nothing either way and never wore a uniform in defense of our country.

Service in uniform is not a teflon shield against all criticism. They surely have a right to speak. And they received a forum that few are granted. So they have exercised their right to dissent quite fully.

And they are just wrong. Did they experience a difficult war? No doubt. They served in earlier years when our progress was surely harder to see from their vantage point. But after more years of progress since they served, captains on the ground now certainly can see more progress. I dare say the contributions these 12 soldiers made to our current, more robust, success was critical to reaching our current status. But now they'd walk away and give up all we've achieved.

When once they commanded companies of the best young men and women our nation has to offer, now these former captains keep the company of people who despise all that they once held dear, and which they'd sworn to risk their lives to uphold. I hope they enjoy their new Leftist friends.

So thanks for nothing, you tardy dozen captains who've signed up with the loyal opposition at this late date. I'm disappointed in the choice they made to oppose the war now, late in the fight, as part of a desperate effort by the Defeat Caucus to retrieve our defeat from the victory that many more captains are currently fighting to achieve.

An Operational Dilemma

I enlisted in the Army National Guard in 1987. I was never confused about the possibility of being called up to active duty. I knew it was possible but unlikely unless World War III started in Europe.

By 1993, when it was time for me to decide whether to reenlist, I could see that already the Guard was being used more and more to supplement the active component forces for routine foreign deployments. So I had to choose whether I wanted to be a semi-regular when my career and family path weren't going to allow me to pursue higher rank. Did I really want to end my days in the Guard as an E-4 with several deployments to peacekeeping operations under my belt? So I didn't reenlist.

Indeed, in 1995, as it became clear that we were heading for Bosnia, I figured that as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, I still had a chance of being called up.

So I have both sympathy for the soldier discussed in this article and a little bit of confusion over how as late as 2000 he could think that getting mobilized was unlikely:

Herrera, then 21, took the oath to defend his country in 2000 — but it may as well have been a generation ago considering how much has changed for the citizen-soldiers.

"I thought, 'This is the National Guard.' If there are riots or fires, fine, but I figured at least I'd never see combat."

But the Guard and Reserves currently make up more than 20 percent of the U.S. force in Iraq and account for about 18 percent of the more than 3,800 soldier deaths since 2003. Iraq has redefined — perhaps permanently — the roles for fighters and their families in what once was viewed as a force of last resort.

"This is the biggest call-up since World War II, there's no question about it," said retired Brig. Gen. Stephen K. Koper, president of the Washington-based National Guard Association, which represents about 40,000 members.

"The requirement was always there," he added. "It wasn't always executed, but it was always there. Joining a reserve component on the basis that no one's been called in quite a while is clearly a roll of the dice. If one is concerned about that, one shouldn't join."

His experience demonstates on an individual level the problem that changing the reserve components (of which the Guard is only one part) from a strategic reserve called to war only for a big war (or for short times for domestic problems like storms or civil disturbance) to an operational reserve that supplements the active components regularly and fights alongside the regulars.

Even in 1990-1991, the transition was only partial since no Guard combat brigades went to the Middle East for Desert Storm. Basically, only support units went to war.

But in 2003, Guard combat units were in the first wave assisting the invasion forces led by the regulars. And in 2004, Guard combat units held a large section of the "front" (as active units restructured to the new Brigade Combat Team organization) and endured the enemy counter-offensive in spring 2004.

And for the future, the Guard will be expected to routinely make available 5-6 brigades combat teams each year plus support units.

How will we attract recruits to what is becoming a semi-regular force? Active duty troops will be on call once every third year while reservists will be on call once every sixth year. Yet the active troops will have better pay and benefits as well as better career prospects. Reservists will interrupt their careers for a pittance to fight only half as often.

And once home, reservists who are more vulnerable to PTSD than active troops, won't have the support structure of the military all around them to recover.

Herrera is on his second deployment to Iraq, this time at Camp Victory. Given the reality of the commitment, I'm stunned that so many still enlist and reenlist in the reserves. And let me point out that Herrera reenlisted before he was sent back. I don't blame him for not wanting to do another tour as infantry. But he did go back as a radio repairman.

This is a major change in how we will use our reservists. I never saw any kegs during my drills. Even former active component troops new to our unit thought we were as professional as AC units.

But I do know that for some units in some states, the Guard was a social club more than a combat force. Nowadays, that social opportunity could likely be in the Camp Victory Enlisted Club. And getting men like Herrera to enlist and reenlist in the reserves will be a challenge. Such men and women are out there, as our current recruiting success indicates. But in the long run, we need a compensation package that recognizes their new status as semi-active troops and not true reservists.