Color Me Unpersuaded

I need to confess something. I'm a white American.

Yeah. I know. And me commenting on world events.

I recently received a lovely piece of email from a devoted reader:

under all your idiotic talk of freedom and democracy, only a hypocrite white american male like you would be so cowardly to disable comments on their blog. what are you afraid of, pinky bottom , is it because you know that you are full of [redacted] and it will be only a matter of minutes until someone mops the floor with your latest nonsensical post if you just gave them the chance?

get a life, loser. i challenge you to allow comments to your drivels, if you have any confidence in their truth value. i promise to be there to rip your idiotic ramblings to pieces.

He's a Turkish reader (or at least somebody in Turkey) who didn't seem to like some of my posts related to Syria. My "pinky" bottom (Good God, I hope that is a color reference) could not stand up to his brilliance, he believes. Or someone's brilliance.

Who knows? A lot of writers out there are idiots. I guess I could be one of them. Or one of them on a bad day. At over a thousand posts a year, I'm bound to have a bad moment or two. Or maybe it was just a bad week to give up sniffing glue. Stuff happens. Give a guy a break.

I don't allow comments, it is true. For my readers, this is why (from my 9-year anniversary post):

I still don't allow comments. I don't want to police them--have you seen the Yahoo News comments? There are lots of idiots out there. I have an email available if you really want to comment. And if you really, really want to comment, you can set up your own blog (it is free to do so), link to my post, and blast away (or heartily agree). But mostly, rather than not wanting to deal with hostile or idiotic comments, I don't want to get ensnared by comments. I think that there can be long-term pressure to conform posts to what your fans like. I want to offer my thoughts--for what they're worth--and not your thoughts.

Yeah, what am I thinking to disable comments? I'm sure my Turkey-based reader's instant comment would have been more intellectually focused than the email he sent.

Yet there is that email address I make available that he managed to re-type into his email service. It's funny. I read books all the time and no matter how many times I look through the pages, I can never find an email link to click.

And journal articles, too. Sometimes they have emails noted. Sometimes--online--they even have comment capabilities. That's their problem if they want to deal with that.

But you know what I do? I blog about the things I read. It's an amazing free thing. My reader should check it out. Consider it a challenge. Why do I owe him the convenience of insulting me with a single click? Work for it, dude.

I'll review the email later for the aforementioned floor mopping that I was promised. I'm sure he'll make Plato look like a moron. The drivel-ripping wasn't obvious at first glance. But what do I know?



Thank you for reading. I'll save the email for my scrap book. That's all I really have to say on this subject.

Paper Air Force

Syria's air force has deteriorated a great deal and the risk of further defections by letting pilots go up in a personal cross-border escape device is greater than the possible gains of using the rotting air force to kill civilians. Strategypage explains the situation.

Artillery and tanks will have to do for bombarding civilians.

The Historyless Reading the Historyless

I already commented on a new book out that claims we are doomed in Afghanistan (and it isn't President Obama's fault!).

Now we have a review of the book by someone with no business offering his opinion on the Afghanistan War, let alone comparing it to the Vietnam War which he blew when he had the job of covering it.

Basically, the reviewer endorses the idea that our brilliant diplomat on the scene could have given us a negotiated victory with the Taliban if we'd let him. The reviewer, Sheehan, gives this notion credibility based on his triumph of the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnia War in the former Yugoslavia:

Holbrooke was the most talented and effective diplomat of his generation. His greatest accomplishment came in 1995, when he ended the bloodshed in Bosnia (where inter-communal strife had killed about 100,000 people) by browbeating Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic and his Croatian and Muslim rivals into accepting the Dayton Peace Agreement.

What a load of hooey. You know what ended that war rather than a glorious diplo-speak browbeating of Milosevic? A Croatian and Bosnian Moslem offensive that broke the backs of the ethnic Serbs and made continued fighting at the risk of further actual beatings on the ground seem rather pointless. Bonus points if you remember that the offensive was designed by an American military contractor company.

Getting the sides to stop further fighting after some minor land swaps with the Dayton Accords was nice, but hardly the diplomatic coup that Sheehan tries to claim. Our limited air attacks, while not decisive in creating new facts on the ground, at least was a threat of more to come if the Serbs didn't agree to ending the war. But claiming that this experience shows that Holbrooke could have gotten a diplomatic victory a few years ago in entirely different circumstances (aside from the questions of whether it would be strategically or morally right to agree to specific terms with those thugs) is simply fantasy thinking.

But wait, there's more.

The real offense is Sheehan's attempt to compare current problems with the Vietnam War, which he "covered." This is pure comedy gold:

Americans are a historyless people. We are constantly being told by wishfully thinking leaders that history does not apply to us, that we are its “exception.” Unfortunately, we are not, which is why it bears repeating that what the Obama administration is attempting to do in Afghanistan bears a striking resemblance to what the United States attempted in Vietnam. Nguyen Van Thieu, our man in Saigon, headed a coterie of fellow generals, politicians and their greedy wives who excelled at thievery and bequeathed us one of the fundamental lessons of the Vietnam War, that one cannot build upon the quicksand of corruption a sound government and army that will stand up to its opponent. When the moment of truth came in 1975, after the United States had pulled out its combat forces and the North Vietnamese army launched another offensive, the Saigon regime simply collapsed, its well-equipped troops abandoning their weapons and fleeing so fast that the opposition had difficulty catching up to them.

One, what leaders tell us history doesn't apply to us? But this is merely an annoying aside.

Two, Sheehan accusing Americans of being historyless is rich.

In fact, when we left South Vietnam, we left a government in control of its land--excepting the North Vietnamese troops holding border terrain, which we decided to ignore--with a military capable of holding off the North Vietnamese army in a conventional fight. Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, the assumption was that after winning at such a high cost, we'd continue to provide logistics support to the South Vietnamese armed forces and we'd even commit air and naval forces in emergency to help them. In 1972, with our logistics support and air power, South Vietnamese forces withstood a North Vietnamese offensive. Clearly, our plan could work.

But after we left completely, Congress denied South Vietnam both the resources to support the conventional armed forces we'd designed and forbade our direct support from the air and sea. So when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, South Vietnamese forces lacked the support to make their military capable of resisting the North Vietnamese who violated the peace treaty to invade and win the war.

The idea that it was the corruption of South Vietnam that led to their defeat is nonsense. Corrupt governments and armies are the norm around the world. They can survive depending on the state of their armed enemies.

The fact is, South Vietnam's government was good enough to defeat the Viet Cong and their North Vietnamese reinforcements before we left; and would have withstood North Vietnam's conventional forces in 1975 if Saigon had received the support they absolutely had to have to operate.

But other than screwing up South Vietnam reporting, misunderstanding the fall of South Vietnam, and failing to recognize cause and effect in Bosnia, Sheehan is the perfect man to review a book that gets Afghanistan wrong, too.

We are not immune to history. But history is made by people making decisions. If we decide not to win in Afghanistan, it will be history all right.

Being There

Krauthammer has a good piece on the dashing of hopes that the Facebook faction would emerge victorious in the Arab Spring. With Islamists of one sort or another gaining power and influence, the Arab world had more unrest ahead until it tries freedom and democracy to solve its many problems.

I still think the Arab Spring is an opportunity even though I didn't expect the Twittering class to emerge victorious in short order. Just being where they are brings hope for a better future as well as peril for a worse future.

We all need time. Spring brings both flowers and weeds. We are dealing with weeds. The Arabs may yet get a garden.

How's That Resurgence Going?

The Taliban are having trouble convincing kids to go along with their suicide-bombing plans:

The Taliban suicide bomber operations have long been fueled largely by brainwashed students from Pakistani religious schools and Afghans convinced, deceived or coerced into carrying out an attack. But in the last few years getting these kids from Pakistan has become more difficult. Finding adult Afghans to fill in, at least competent ones has been very difficult.

A resurgent Taliban wouldn't need to use suicide bombers to fight us.

A resurgent Taliban wouldn't need to recruit children in the absence of adult true believers.

A resurgent Taliban wouldn't screw up the ability to trick little kids into being suicide bombers.

Despite our press corps, one might need to conclude that the Taliban are not "resurgent."

The "Why" Is Important

Assad's forces are moving chemical weapons from storage, and we don't know why:

American officials are divided on the meaning of the moves of the arsenal. Some fear Assad may want to use the weapons against rebels or civilians, while others said perhaps he is trying to safeguard them from his opponents, the Journal reported.

I've mentioned that Assad's forces are in a death spiral of fighting while unable to make progress against the resistance due to insufficient numbers. He has to do something different, I concluded.

Using chemical weapons on his own people is a very different thing. Is Assad desperate enough to do that? He'd have to win quickly if he chooses this path. Egypt got away with this in Yemen and Saddam got away with this in his own Kurdish regions, but today using chemical weapons would likely remove Russian and Chinese abilities to shield Assad from a Turkish-led intervention. The payback if they lose would be horrifying. Assad might still do it. But it would be highly risky.

Or it could simply be to move the chemical weapons to a more secure location.

But even moving them is risky. Why not just increase the guards where the weapons were originally placed?

But then, I'm looking for evidence that Assad might be retreating to a Core Syria. I noted that moving chemical weapons might be too tough (I just honestly didn't know) and so maybe my notion is simply rooted in maps and not the reality of the logistics of contracting your country's borders.

But Assad wouldn't need to take all the chemical weapons with him. If reports of moving chemical weapons are followed by reports of chemical weapons being destroyed to keep them from falling into the hands of the rebels, this could be a sign that the Assad regime wants to live to fight another day in a smaller Syria.

One thing that occurs to me is that Assad might think that if he leaves any chemical weapons he doesn't want in place rather than destroy them that it might keep the West busy in the abandoned parts of Syria trying to secure the chemical weapons to that jihadis don't get them. Maybe. But that might prompt a Western response as bad as one that reacts to Assad's use of chemical weapons. And we might not get them in time, which might mean jihadis opposed to Assad then use them on Assad's Core Syria. It just seems too risky.

But from Assad's point of view, I don't know what "too risky" really means, I suppose.

UPDATE: Here's the Wall Street Journal article. They mention the idea that Assad may truly want to safeguard the weapons. The article also mentions that some analysts think Assad might retreat to a coastal Alawite-dominated region. It doesn't mention linking the two ideas by wondering if Assad is moving chemical weapons within the borders of a future Core Syria. Also, I think Core Syria needs to be bigger than the coastal Alawite areas, as I've described.

UPDATE: Thanks to Stones Cry Out for the link.

Seeking Compromise

The African Union thinks it can come to some type of negotiated agreement over the Mali crisis.

 

Yes, I'm sure the Islamists will agree to some limits on how many cultural and historical sites they'll destroy. And I'm sure that the Islamists will limit how many centuries they want to go back in time for the people unfortunate enough to live under their influence.

 

Will the AU consider it a triumph of diplomacy if the jihadis only destroy 85% of the Islamic sites? Or is victory set at half?

 

And what's the acceptable human collateral damage?

 

France really needs to get moving on this.

He Lived to Fight Another Day

At least since that breathing piece of human garbage, Moqtada al Sadr, led pro-Iranian Shia Iraqis in a revolt against Iraq's new security forces and our forces in the spring of 2004, I've worried that his survival is a risk to our objectives in Iraq. Two more major campaigns against his death squads did little to change my mind about the danger he poses. Now he is back and in politics:

With none of the fanfare of his homecoming last year — which was quickly followed by his return to Iran — Mr. Sadr says he is back in Iraq to stay, at least for now. He says he has temporarily put aside his religious studies in Iran, widely considered his patron, to attend to a political crisis here over contests for power among Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds that has brought the government to a standstill, and to position his movement for the next elections.

Notably, Mr. Sadr has joined Sunnis and Kurds in calling for the ouster of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fellow Shiite. He is also testing other cross-sectarian alliances by inviting Sunni and Christian candidates to run in provincial elections, scheduled for next year, under the Sadrist banner. Together, these moves could help position him as a nationalist and help him shed the baggage of the past, when his militias were linked to some of the worst sectarian violence.

I'm sure that Sadr would never consider violence again if his political maneuvering falls flat, eh?

Certainly, the Iraqi government is stronger now than it was in the past when it battled Sadr.

But if Iraq's political process falters and the militias come out again, Sadr could tilt the balance of power--and provide an avenue for Iran to intervene more openly in Iraq's battles for power.

Sadr has had three strikes, yet still he takes swings. If the rules of the game are that he keeps playing his game with no chance of getting out, why won't he keep playing?

Da Bears

The Russians are rousing themselves to make the biggest naval demonstration in the eastern Mediterranean in over two decades:

Two Russian Navy ships entered the eastern Mediterranean Wednesday, steaming toward a Russian Navy base at Tartus, Syria. The ships are advance units of a flotilla of 11 warships - one destroyer, five amphibious landing ships, two patrol frigates, two rescue tugs, and one tanker. Several ships carry units of Russian Marines.

It is to be the largest display of Russian naval power in the Mediterranean since the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades ago.

Let me just say that if Syria's Assad decides to retreat to a Core Syria, this major show of force for Assad would help ease the shock of such a big retreat by showing a major level of support for Assad.

Or it could be used to protect and evacuate Russian nationals if the whole place goes belly up, I suppose.

What About East Syria?

Stratfor writes about the implications of a Sunni Arab-run Syria if Assad falls. It is an interesting piece.

But I wonder if the discussion shouldn't be whether Assad wins or the Sunni opposition wins. What if Assad retreats to regions he can hold in the west and simply leaves eastern Syria for the resistance to fight over?

I've discussed the option since then, and still wonder about the degree of difficulty in moving critical regime support pieces (loyal people, strategic weapons) into the area to be held. Originally, I wondered if Assad would try to hold outposts in the east in areas too critical to abandon. But that may imply corridors. And holding those outposts would be very expensive and perhaps take too many troops.

In the end, if Assad wants to survive by retreating to a mostly Alawite Core Syria, he'll have to abandon (and destroy) anything in the east that he can't move west. That will be a monumental chore.

Would Russia and China replace what can't be moved? Would Iran help? Would the morale of the Alawites and perhaps their Christian and Druze allies survive such a retreat long enough to make a go of a Core Syria? Would Russian troop presence on the ground provide a bridge for the Alawite leadership to get used to the new situation and become determined to hold their smaller state?

Would Turkey consider lopping off half of Syria's population and a majority of the land a victory enough over Assad? It would be easier to get UN approval for relief efforts in East Syria alone.

Then we'll need to figure out the implications of a Sunni Arab-run East Syria (and wonder how many states emerge and under whose control) as well as what a Core Syria running from the Turkish border to the Jordanian border would do.

One Thirty-second Breed

Elizabeth Warren has decided to take on her faux Cherokee heritage controversy head-dress on with a new campaign commercial:



The university said she was Indian by law, of course.

Sadly, Cher could have avoided the taunts if she'd sought an academic career.

UPDATE: Apparently, the campaign is working.

Being That Guy For a Decade

Fancy that, 10 years ago today I debuted The Dignified Rant on the old Geocities platform. I was inspired by James Lileks.  I migrated to Blogger near the end of 2004. I'll always be grateful that Instapundit's example provides a convenient excuse for defying the "comments" trend of blogs.

I've written, say, 12,000 posts in that time. It would be more if I didn't update posts with new thoughts and instead only added new posts.

What was I thinking when I started this?

Oh yeah, I was frustrated that a letter to the editor that I sent to The New York Times to correct some author's major idiocy on military issues related to the war begun on 9/11 didn't make the cut. And others, I'll say. Not just NYT.

And now, this blog is one of the blogs NYT tracks and links to for their subject index categories for related information. Life is funny that way.

Actually, I've fulfilled a childhood goal on this blog. Remember in pre-Internet and pre-cable TV days when there would be a crisis in the world? The network news would put on some guy who would explain the crisis and what might happen. I'd listen attentively to understand what was going on.

I wanted to be that guy. Or one of the three guys, since each network would have one.

Of course, nobody can be that guy these days. And we're better for that, of course. They had authority but they had one point of view. Now we have lots of those guys--and gals--who must compete to have their ideas heard.

Now I'm that guy--or at least one guy--explaining what I think is going on in the world.

Oh well, they say the first 10,000 posts are the most difficult. Thanks for reading them and letting me be that guy.

A Simple Joy

Recently, I took Lamb out to a crafts store to buy felt and cloth for some sewing projects. She spotted YouTube videos on how to make Mario Brothers plush toys, and wants to try them.

So we'll try that. She made her own Yoshi egg, already. We have yet to try the more exacting mushroom things--whatever they are.

But I don't need to understand. The best part is when we are walking around and she reaches out to hold my hand.

Eventually, they don't want to hold your hand any more.

The Battle Continues

President Mursi doesn't want to play by the slanted rules that Egypt's military has set:

Egypt's Islamist-led parliament reconvened on Tuesday in an open challenge to the generals who dissolved the assembly last month, stirring up tensions with the military just 10 days into Mohamed Mursi's presidency.

Let's see if they pass legislation and dare the military to defy it.

Neither side is admirable in this. If rule of law can win and both the Islamists and the military lose, I'll be happy.

Shocked, to be sure. But extremely happy.

UPDATE: Egypt's supreme court said Mursi couldn't convene parliament. This is a rather basic disagreement.

Well, That'll Teach 'Em

New Zealand doesn't let our nuclear warships into their ports. So although we are otherwise good allies, when a New Zealand frigate and support ship came here to participate--for the first time since the 1980s, I believe--in multi-national naval exercises we are hosting, we didn't let the ships dock in Pearl Harbor with other participants. We made them dock in another port in Honolulu.

Which put the Kiwi sailors much closer to the women and liquor:

"I think they are the happiest guys in RIMPAC - they are not stuck in Pearl Harbour," he said.

"They've got Chinatown right here, they've got Waikiki, instead of spending 60 bucks for a round-trip (cab ride)."

Hooters has received many New Zealand sailors.

It is possible that we did this on purpose to welcome the New Zealanders even though technically we have to scowl at them for the nuclear prohibition.

I fear that this is just symbolic of our inability to really figure out how to punish behavior we don't like.

Buffer Zones

North Korea's collapse certainly seems like a matter of when rather than if, on the current trajectory. This could get interesting:

China has told South Korea that it will not allow the unification of Korea under a democratic government. North Korea will remain under Chinese "influence." If worse comes to worse, China will send in troops to set up a North Korean government that will faithfully follow orders from China. In an effort to dampen some of the anger in South Korea (the United States, Japan and so on), China would maintain North Korea as a separate entity (and not a new province of China). China wants no misunderstanding about who "owns" North Korea.

Even aside from all of China's neighbors who will worry that China will suddenly discover that they really own part of that neighbor's territory, this could cause quite the risk of war if China carries through with the threat.

I can understand why China would not want South Korea's border on the Yalu River. China went to war with us once over that. They may not have liked the experience much, but the motivation to fight are still there. China wants a buffer zone.

But so does South Korea. For decades, an effective and large North Korean army loomed over Seoul a short distance north across the DMZ. As North Korea's armed forces have rotted away, the threat of invasion has pretty much vanished. North Korea would have to nuke and gas South Korea and pray that they can manage a road march south against minimal opposition--and then recover from the nukes we'll plant on North Korean military assets and the smart bombs on everything else.

South Korea wants to reduce their army. But they can do this only if North Korea continues to be the de facto buffer zone between Seoul and an effective army in China. If China occupies North Korea, not only will China be on South Korea's border, looming over Seoul; but China will reconstitute North Korea's army into an effective force. It will no doubt be smaller than it is now, but it would be the first wave only. China would follow up with their own army if it comes to war with South Korea. It just doesn't matter that North Korea would be officially independent and not a new province of China. Remember, Belorussia and Ukraine had their own UN seats when they were part of the Soviet Union. Does anyone think they were really sovereign states then?

I just don't think South Korea wants to be in a worse situation after the collapse of North Korea than they were before the Soviet Union fell and slowly took North Korea's military power with them. If China takes over North Korea, South Korea will face the threat of invasion again--and this time by a nuclear power that could possibly nullify our nuclear umbrella. We'd nuke North Korea if they nuked South Korea or if we couldn't handle a conventional invasion since North Korea can't reach us now. Would we nuke China--or even Chinese assets in North Korea--under similar circumstances? Maybe. But it isn't nearly as certain.

So if North Korea collapses, I'd expect South Korea to want to move their buffer zone north. Not all the way to Pyongyang, certainly, let alone to the Yalu. But north. And they could do it faster than China could move south in force. If I was South Korea, I believe I'd think it worth the risk of war with China now well north of Seoul (while America is in South Korea and before China can dig in within North Korea after a few years) rather than risk war later with Seoul on the front line.

I still think the best solution to a collapsing North Korea (or even a non-collapsing North Korea if it looks like it is going to field nuclear-tipped missiles) is partition.

South Korea and China both want to keep the other away from their border. Unless China wants to risk war with America and the disruption to their economy, giving both Seoul and Peking their wish seems the best option.

It can be portrayed as an interim solution. But we can all be vague about what comes next for North Korea's territory and when it comes. Maybe the horse will learn to sing, eh?

Fancy That

Well, this is some good news in the Arab Spring:

A coalition led by a Western-educated political scientist appeared on Sunday to be beating its Islamist rivals in Libya’s first election after Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, breaking an Islamist wave that swept across neighboring Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco in the aftermath of the Arab Spring uprisings.

Let's not walk away from the place. Help them establish rule of law and work for clean elections to keep this going.

I still wonder if the west and east can come to terms for a unified state (and then tell the south to take what is given).

Worth a Shot

I don't know what else we could do under the circumstances:

A senior U.S. official says President Barack Obama has assured Egypt's Islamist president of America's commitment to a "new partnership" with the Arab nation.

It would be folly to push Egypt away because of the result of their election. We need to use our levers of power to make sure--as much as we can--that structures of democracy are put in place to keep regular elections coming that can actually affect Egypt's policies.

Egypt may end up being an enemy, but why assume it? Better to try and fail than to cut off all economic and military aid now and ensure it.

Speed Bumps

Syria has started "large-scale exercises" to demonstrate they can hold off a Turkish invasion:

Syria's military began large-scale exercises simulating defense against outside "aggression," the state-run news agency said Sunday — an apparent warning to other countries not to intervene in the country's crisis.

The exercise began Saturday with naval forces in a scenario where they repelled an attack from the sea, and will include air and ground forces over the next few days, SANA agency said.

Large scale? I think not.

Given that their pilots are likely under more scrutiny, that is likely to be limited. If pilots are given enough fuel to take off, circle the air field, fire a burst, and land, I'll be surprised. I suppose you could send some with enough fuel to make it to the coast for pictures without giving them the range to reach foreign soil to bail out.

As for ground forces? Loyal ground forces have more jobs than they have troops to handle. Or does Assad think it can let some of the less loyal troops off their bases if they think they are simply practicing to protect Syria? Even that seems doubtful at this stage.

Perhaps we'll see how inventive Assad's photographers can be with troops on a parade ground safely inside a base. Or file footage and imagination--if the Iranians will help with that deception.

At this point, Assad's forces will be speed bumps if the Turks want to cross the border.

Dismissed

I hope this journal of my basic training was enjoyable--or at least interesting. I have more plans for it.

On July 8, 1988, I woke up in the civilian world again. I would go back in uniform the next summer to complete my training. In the meantime, I'd get married, return to my job, continue to go to my unit weekend drills as a partially trained soldier, complete grad school, have my leg and knees heal, and gain about 10 pounds and lose just about whatever benefits I'd had from basic training.

I'll always be glad that I enlisted. I was getting older and it was do it then or not at all. I never had to go to war (although it was a close call), but I did take my turn in uniform just in case the lamps went out. Not long after I finished training, the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Then the Soviet Union itself collapsed.

By the time my first enlistment period was up, our reserves were being called on to do more in ongoing operations. And I started a career job that I didn't want to screw up by being a part-time soldier. True, just the drills and summer training aren't too bad, but for leadership it takes more work than that. I was going to go to NCO school but I told my unit I couldn't go after it looked like it would interfere with my new job. So if I stayed in, I'd be an E-4 for the rest of my days. And I probably had a higher chance of being sent off somewhere on some minor Balkans operation or something. And I'd already experienced the turmoil of expecting that I'd be pulled away from family to be mobilized and sent overseas.

So when my enlistment was up, I did not re-enlist.

Which in the end kept me out of Iraq, since my old unit was sent there during the counter-insurgency. Not that I would have been in particular danger sitting in the middle of a well-defended base.  But being dragged away from home would not have been enjoyable. That alone gives me a far greater appreciation for what our military personnel do every year. And their families have to cope with that. Every year.

Unexpectedly, simply serving in uniform gave my military writing a little more credibility. My membership in the American Historical Association may have been a general waste, but it did give me a bit of a shock to see a major name in military issues give a short apology for not having served in uniform as a preface to his talk. Not that serving would have affected what he said. But he seemed genuinely abashed at speaking about military matters without having served. I don't have that issue, at least. I do think having served has helped me understand some concepts. Just having served and being a soldier has been a nice foundation. Although I'll never claim I've gotten more than a faint glimpse of what soldiers who serve full time experience--let alone what those sent overseas must sacrifice. And obviously, I have no way to understand what being a combat veteran means. I don't think about what I learned in my limited service when I write of larger issues, but I think it helps nonetheless.

My plan is to go through my letters to spark memories to flesh out the posts; perhaps move some impressions of events to the proper day if I can nail down times better; add some scanned pictures from basic training; and some other odds and ends. Then I'll put it in book form and self-publish it on Amazon for Kindles, and place it in the "Buy The Dignified Rant" tab at the top of the page.

Oh, and I have a journal for signal school at Fort Gordon the next summer. Unless I lost it. I confess I haven't seen it lately ...