Linkagery for 2-28-05

Some "things you won't see on CNN." Interesting stuff!

Thousands of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles are missing, mostly old Soviet SA-7s, but also a substantial number of American Stinger missiles. When I was on the staff of XVIII Airborne Corps in the mid-1980s, we sent an aviation brigade to support Operation Earnest Will, a right-of-passage operation in the Persian Gulf, oriented against Iran, which was threatening oil tanker. We recovered some Stinger missiles from Iranian hands and quickly determined they had been provided originally to Afghan mujahedin fighting the Soviets.

Color photography was invented by the Lumieres of France in 1903, and here's a page of a number of color shots made in World War One. Fascinating! HT: R. Heddleson.

Norm Geras probes the problems with the concept of international law, and there are many.

An extremely idiotic essay of such profound witlessness that it almost beggars description: "Iraq, The Boy Who Cried Wolf, And The Couch Potato’s Burden: A Muscular Centrist Attack On The Pro-War Position," Copyright © by Dan Schneider, 2/25/05. It's hard to critique this haphazard ramble on reasonable grounds because it has such little reason beind it.

For my fellow United Methodists, Locusts and Honey provides a weekly roundup of what Methodist bloggers are blogging.

The Chicago Boyz explore "The Left and Evolution."

Superficially, leftists appear to embrace evolutionary theory to such an extent that most creationists believe that evolutionary theory is itself just a pseudoscientific construction of the Left -- used to advance their political power, social authority and intellectual dominance. It is easy to see where they get that impression. For the last 150 years, the Left has used evolution to undercut the authority of religion and tradition. By attacking the fundamental cosmology of religion they have sought to drive religious authority from the public and intellectual spheres. Once religion and tradition are discredited, the only source of answers for life dilemmas is -- surprise, surprise -- the secular intellectual.

However, the Left's embrace of evolutionary theory begins and ends with its utility as a materialistic explanation for the origins of humanity. In every other aspect they violently reject evolutionary theory as having any explanatory power. One need to look no further than the savaging of Harvard president Larry Summers to see this hypocrisy in action.

Interesting point, and an essay worth reading.

Steven Weiss emails about www.CampusJ.com, "aiming to provide comprehensive coverage of Jewish news on campus, as well as training and opportunities to a new generation of Jewish journalists. It works by having a network of students running individual blogs for their specific campus, as well as a main blog meant to cover campuses we don't have and direct readers to larger items and themes across our site." Check it out!

Persecution of Christians in Eritrea: "More than 100 children aged between two and 18 were rounded up by a group of policemen as they were in their Christian classes, a UK-based human rights charity group reported Wednesday."

Chuck Simmins has completed his three-part essay entitled: "China:What the Future May Hold." Part One; Part Two; Part Three.

by Donald Sensing, 2/28/2005 08:48:00 PM. Permalink |

The invention of air forces
A joint post with son Thomas Sensing

About seven weeks ago I wrote an essay about the invention of air-to-air combat during World War One, intending to post it here. My son, Thomas, read it and mentioned that one of his class assignments was to write an essay on a historical event or development of the twentieth century. He decided to springboard off my essay, so I withheld posting it.

They turned out to be related, but with different emphases. First is Thomas' essay, then mine. A little of the material is duplicated, but not much.
------------

From Possibility to Necessity: Airpower of World War I

On 17 December 1903, a momentous occasion took place that proved to forever change to way the world would look at warfare: Orville and Wilbur Wright flew the first mechanical aeroplane successfully. Though the flight lasted only twelve seconds and traveled a mere 120 feet, it was an eye-opener for the world. The possibility of mastering a heavier-than-air machine might have seemed too supernatural or inconceivable to some. Yet it need not have been, given the period of huge industrial and technological advancement.

The Wright brothers could never have foreseen the uses of their radical invention in the conflict that became known as the Great War. They thought the airplane would prevent nations from warring with one another. In actuality, it only added another dimension to the battlefield. The idea of using the aeroplane for military purposes was prophetically expressed by Brigadier General Arthur Murray, chief of the Army’s coast artillery, who said, “War on land and sea will find in the aeroplane a valuable means of reconnaissance and possible carnage.” At the onset of the First World War, the belligerent nations had barely tapped into the offensive capabilities of the airplane, whereas the pressures of the war itself caused aircraft weaponry to dramatically improve, and created the opportunity for many young pilots to gain national fame.

Much to the Wright brothers’ disappointment, their invention did not take flight in any sort of government or military installation until 1907. On 1 August 1907, the Aeronautical Division of the United States Army Signal Corps was established, with the purpose of “[studying] the flying machine and the possibility of adapting it to military purposes.” Yet this almost proved to be too little too late. Europe had already jumped at the prospects of an airplane. France already had a specifically-designed military aircraft by 1908. Congress called for bidders of a flying machine with the following specifications: a minimum speed of forty mph in air, with a ten percent penalty per one mph less and a ten percent bonus for every mph over the original forty. The airplane was required to carry two passengers weighing a total of 350 pounds for 125 miles, and be able to fly nonstop for one hour.

To no one’s dismay, the Wright brothers were awarded the contract of $25,000 in February 1908, their first sale to any country. The first Wright brothers’ Army airplane weighed 1,360 pounds, had a 25-horsepower engine, and two wide-blade pusher propellers (meaning that the propellers were situated behind the pilot and therefore “pushed” the plane). It had parallel skids – no wheels – and required a 1,500 lb counterweight and launching track to lift off (Cooke 5).

The survival of the Aeronautics Division in the United States looked bleak. By the summer of 1910, it consisted of only 11 men, who at times had to pay for gasoline out of their own pockets in order to fuel their solitary airplane. The Army’s lack of enthusiasm was well be summed up by the view from Capitol Hill: “What’s all this fuss about an airplane in the army?” one Congressman reportedly grumbled. “I thought we already had one.” The United States made only marginal military use of the airplane. During the Mexican Revolution that began in 1911, the United States military stationed one plane at the border to perform reconnaissance and collect intelligence.

While the United States was retarding its efforts in the field that it had founded, European countries were charging ahead. An event in 1911 proved, even to skeptics, that the airplane was here to stay. Italy was in a war with the Turks, and for this war, it utilized the airplane. On November 1, an Italian pilot named Lt. Gavotti flew over Arab positions and dropped by hand two bombs in the world’s first-ever bombing run. Before long, Europe had far surpassed the United States in quantity and quality of aircraft. As of 1911, among the main soon-to-be belligerents of the First World War, the number of certified pilots per country was thus: France 353, England 57, Germany 46, Italy 32, Belgium 27, and the United States coming in last with 26.

In the early stages of World War I, there were no aircraft that could be considered fighter planes. Airplanes were used to fly between headquarters as couriers and to conduct reconnaissance over enemy lines. Any aerial fighting between opposing sides was accidental, since reconnaissance pilots would always try to avoid enemy contact. On 30 August 1914, a German plane dropped four bombs on Paris in the war’s first bombing raid. It was only an annoyance to the French, but served to accelerate the competition of combat aircraft among the powers. Several primitive weapons were experimented with, such as the French flechette, which was literally a dart that the pilot threw overboard by the handfuls, hoping to score a direct hit on troops or German Zeppelins or balloons. No offensive technique provided either efficiency or effectiveness, so designers looked to a new combination with the machine gun.

The race to master the skies began in earnest. Some pilots had already been taking guns with them when they flew, but their handheld firearms required both hands to shoot, as did the plane to fly. handheld firearms were never practical. A way was needed for the pilot to be able to aim the gun simply by flying the plane; yet there was also a problem with this concept. For every tractor plane (meaning that the propeller was in the front instead of the back), the propeller was directly in the pilot’s line of sight. If he were to fire a gun through his line of sight, he would hit the propellers and promptly tumble out of the sky. A Frenchman named Roland Garros attempted to solve this problem by attaching angled steel plates at all possible points of impact, so that if a bullet were to strike the propeller it would zip off at an oblique angle. Garros and his plane were later captured by the Germans, who took the plane to the war’s premiere aviation genius, the Dutchman Anton Fokker. Fokker had offered his services to the Allied powers at the start of the war, but was turned down. He then offered his mechanical brilliance to the Germans, who eagerly employed his inventive propensity. Fokker examined Garros’ plane and promptly dismissed the plated-propeller solution. As Fokker himself related:

The technical problem was to shoot between the propeller blades, which passed a given point 2400 times a minute, because the two-bladed propeller revolved 1200 times a minute. This meant that the pilot must not pull the trigger or fire the gun as long as one of the blades was directly in front of the muzzle. Once the problem was stated, its solution came to me in a flash.

Three days later, Fokker had churned out an interrupter gear, which was the key to combining the machine gun and the plane. In essence, it allowed the plane to fire the gun, for as the pilot held down the trigger, the interrupter gear stopped the gun from firing every time the propeller blades passed before it. This amazing, yet simple, invention led to the time when Germany ruled the skies and Allied planes became known as “Fokker Fodder”.

Historian Tom Pendergast wrote, “Powerful weapons like the machine gun and poisonous gas rendered individual heroics almost obsolete. But in the air, pilots of newly designed bombers and fighters became World War I’s glamorous heroes.” At the opening of World War, the term “ace” was popular to describe anyone who excelled in a given field. The French pilot Adolphe Pegoud was the first pilot to be acclaimed as a flying ace after he shot down five German planes in 1915. Garros was also acclaimed as an ace. The British, and later the Americans, adopted the usage. Lanoe Hawker gained fame in Great Britain for destroying a shed that housed German Zeppelins. In 1915, he shot down two planes and grounded a third, for which he became the first pilot to earn the Victoria Cross. In all, Hawker had seven victories, making him Great Britain’s first ace, before he was finally brought down by Manfred von Richthofen in November 1916.

Von Richthofen was better known as the Red Baron because he had painted his plane red. This served two purposes - it warded off any friendly and satisfied his ego by allowing for any observer on the ground who witnessed a victory to properly attribute it to the Red Baron. His squadron followed suit, painting their own planes various colors and earning them the nickname the “Flying Circus.” Over the course of the war, the Red Baron brought down a staggering total of 80 planes. Von Richthofen was hailed by Germany’s national and military leaders. He wrote inspirational messages to the troops at the front, and when he was finally brought down (probably by Australian ground fire) in April 1918. His enemies buried him with full honors.

The dream of flight, dating back to mythology, was realized and made possible by the invention of the Wright brothers. The possibility of flight was made a necessity by the furnace of war. For the 11 years before First World War, advancements in aviation came nowhere close to the four years of the war. Roland Garros, captured by Germany in 1915, escaped before the war ended in 1918. Still famous for his victories of 1915, he found that the airplane had changed so much that he had to be retrained in order to fly again. (Garros was killed in action in October 1918.)

The war brought all military roles of the airplane to maturity – reconnaissance, air-to-air combat, and ground attack. It also added a new and literal dimension to the battlefield that was made an equal partner to armies and navies – war on land, sea, and finally in the air. Ever since, airplanes have become commonplace and affect the everyday lives of today’s population in a way that none could have imagined in the Great War.
--------------------------

Here is my text:

How air forces became necessary

The Wright brothers made air forces possible when they made and flew a powered airplane in 1903. Only five years later, the US Army's Signal Corps bought the service's first airplane, a Wright Flyer. In Europe, airplanes were being developed by such pioneers as Louis Bleriot, who flew solo from Calais to Dover in 1909. In Holland a young man named Anton Fokker turned 21 years old in 1911. He had a certain gift for airplane design, having built an plane he called the Spin I the year before. He built a small airplane factory in Wiesbaden, Germany, in 1912.

Spin I and Spin II were unsuccessful designs; Spin I never flew more than 100 meters at a time. Spin II flew quite well but no buyers were interested. Spin III in 1913 impressed the Germans enough to make inquiries but nothing came of them.

When World War I erupted in August 1914, Fokker offered his services to both sides at the same time (rather mercenary of him, literally). France and England declined, but the Germans snapped him up. Fokker started selling airplanes to the Kaiser?s government. In short order he took German citizenship.

The two sides began using aircraft for reconnaissance right away. By September 1914, British and French forces had been pushed to south of the Marne river in France. German commander Alexander von Kluck was ordered to encircle Paris from the east. French aerial recon sorties spotted German formations making this movement. The flyers' report reached the French commander, Gen. Joseph Joffre, who sent forces to attack the Germans. The result was the First Battle of the Marne, which marked the end of mobile warfare in the west until summer 1918, after the Americans arrived. (Year before last I posted a thought experiment of what our world would be like today if the Germans had won) the battle.

By 1915, a French flyer named Roland Garros became determined to shoot down German recon planes photographing French positions. For a long time pilots on both sides had been taking pot shots at each other with pistols and rifles, but such shooting was symbolic rather than lethal. Garros wanted to shoot at German planes from the air lethally.

Garros had come to flying by chance. He had been studying to be a concert pianist until he went to the Reims air show of 1909, where he became a total convert to aviation as his vocation. He flew from Tunisia to France in 1913 (about 500 miles) and was ironically teaching military aviation in Germany when the war broke out. He flew a plane at night to Switzerland and then made his way to France, where he joined a military squadron.

Garros knew that to bring down German recon planes required machine-gun fire that was both aimed and sustained. Both sides possessed two-seat aircraft in which the rear crewman manned a machine gun that could be fired across an arc toward the rear. But aerial victories using such guns were unobtainable. It was impossible to maneuver a plane to get in front of an enemy plane, much less long enough to shoot several hundred rounds at him. Nor would the enemy pilot cooperate by flying straight and level, of course.

Garros decided that the attacking plane had to approach the target plane from the rear by stealth. He mounted a machine gun in front of his plane's cockpit. To avoid shooting the propeller, Garros angled the gun upward. But he found that he could not effectively aim the gun and determined that the pilot's line of sight had to be parallel to the gun's line of fire. Aiming the gun would thus be done by flying the plane, simplifying the pilot's work load.

Because Garros was flying a monoplane, the gun would have to be mounted directly in front of him, where he would use its sights and could reach its trigger. The problem was that now the propeller was in the line of fire. Garros knew that because both the gun and propeller operated at high speed, most bullets by far would miss the propeller. But only one bullet could shatter the propeller, permanently ending Garros' project. In fact, it would permanently end Garros himself. So Garros decided to take advantage of the propeller's curved shape. He affixed steel plates to the propeller's rear surface, facing the gun. The plates would shield the prop from the bullets and deflect them away from the plane.

Perfecting the idea through ground testing, Garros finally developed the right thickness and shape of the deflecting plates. He took to the air. In only two weeks in March 1915, Garros gunned five German planes from the air.

Needless to say, German fliers were less thrilled than the Parisian press with Garros' new capabilities. But Garros' run of success didn't last long. Just the next month Garros' plane's fuel line was severed by German antiaircraft fire. Garros was forced to glide to land behind German lines. The Germans captured him and his plane before Garros could destroy it.

Re-enter Anton Fokker. Garros's plane was turned over to him with orders to duplicate the deflector plates for mass installation on German planes. Fokker examined the plates closely and immediately rejected the whole notion. He knew that plates or no, the wooden propellers then used would eventually shatter from repeated bullet strikes.

In only 48 hours Fokker devised and installed on a Fokker E-1 plane (the Eindecker monoplane) a simple, cam-driven mechanism that linked the propeller shaft to the trigger mechanism of a Parabellum machine gun Fokker mounted on the plane. The gun would fire as long as the pilot was pulling the trigger. But every time the propeller passed in front of the gun, the cam would interrupt the firing. Once the prop passed, so did the cam and the gun resumed firing. The pilot would never know the difference.

Ironically, the French airplane designer Raymond Saulnier had been working on a similar design before the war. Garros consulted him before using the deflector plates. Saulnier, however, had abandoned his research chiefly because the Hotchkiss guns the French used fired too erratically to be practical or safe for aerial use. Saulnier assisted Garros in developing the deflector plates together.

The German Parabellum gun Fokker used for his proof-of-concept design proved unsuitable for mass modification to the design, but it did prove Fokker's design of an interrupter gear would work. The proof, however, was made only with difficulty to skeptical German officers. They told Fokker that he would have to shoot down a French plane with the Eindecker. Fokker took off and found a lumbering French observation plane. But in disgust he turned away, landed, and told the Germans to shoot down a plane themselves.

On Aug. 1, 1915, Lieutenant Oswald Boelcke shot down a plane using the Eindecker Fokker had modified. At that, the German air force placed orders for many Eindeckers equipped with Fokker?s interrupter gear. When the aircraft began flying combat missions they were so successful in shooting down British and French aircraft that the next several months became known as the Fokker Scourge. In fact, though, the Eindecker was not a very good airplane. Fokker had actually designed it by copying the French Morane-Saulnier plane, but the French plane was still much better. Fokker's interrupter gear was far from perfect, too. Oswald Boelcke's gun actually did shatter his propeller during a fight; he lived to fly another day.

The allied air forces reacted quickly. The Eindecker's demise as the king of air combat was brought about by four allied planes. Three were British "pushers," with rear-mounted engines; their props pushed rather than pulled the planes. This design completely eliminated the problem the interrupter gear solved because the propeller was behind both gun and pilot. The fourth plane was the French Nieuport 11 biplane. It carried a gun mounted on its top wing, firing over the propeller.

Air-to-air combat was thus born. Later the allied air forces perfected an interrupter gear themselves and true fighter aircraft dominated the skies. The invention of the airplane made air forces possible, but the invention of the interrupter gear made them compulsory. It was air-ro-air combat that defined the air forces' missions and budgets during the war, even though ATA combat was (and remains) a secondary mission of supporting aerial reconnaissance and ground attack.

by Donald Sensing, 2/28/2005 08:13:00 PM. Permalink |

Back online tonight
I've been too busy with other work and obligations to post since Thursday, but will be online tonight. Thanks to those who have sent me links; I'll at least post them tonight and hope to comment on some as well.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2005 01:23:00 PM. Permalink |

US is negotiating with Iraqi insurgents
Time magazine reports that "back channel" negotiations between American military authorities and Baathist insurgent leaders have been going on for some time.

Lieut. Colonel Rick Welch, the senior special-operations civil-military affairs adviser to the commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad, put word out that the military was willing to talk to hard-liners about their grievances and that, as Welch says, "the door is not closed, except for some very top regime guys." Welch, a reservist and prosecutor from Morgan County, Ohio, told TIME, "I don't meet all the insurgent leaders, but I've met some of them." Although not an authorized negotiator, Welch has become a back channel in the nascent U.S. dialogue with the insurgents. Insurgent negotiators confirm to TIME that they have met with Welch.

Note that the insurgents are not Islamists, they are secular "dead enders" from Saddam's political apparatus. In fact, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda in Iraq organization has vowed to kill any Baathists who abandon the insurgency. This vow has probably slowed the process of negotiations, for there appears to be a lack of will to continue the fight on the part if the Baathist insurgents.

What do the insurgents want? Top insurgent field commanders and negotiators informed TIME that the rebels have told diplomats and military officers that they support a secular democracy in Iraq but resent the prospect of a government run by exiles who fled to Iran and the West during Saddam's regime. The insurgents also seek a guaranteed timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, a demand the U.S. refuses. But there are some hints of compromise: insurgent negotiators have told their U.S. counterparts they would accept a U.N. peacekeeping force as the U.S. troop presence recedes. Insurgent representative Abu Mohammed says the nationalists would even tolerate U.S. bases on Iraqi soil. "We don't mind if the invader becomes a guest," he says, suggesting a situation akin to the U.S. military presence in Germany and Japan.

These are all opening gambits, and if the negotiations ever bring the Baathist insurgency wing to a halt, it won't be soon.

However, the newly elected Iraqi government is not at all inclined to barter with the Baathists.

"The voters gave us a mandate to attack these insurgents, not negotiate with them," says Humam Bakr Hammoudi, a political strategist for the dominant SCIRI party. U.S. negotiators say they believe the new government will eventually realize that only a political settlement will subdue the insurgency--which may soon direct its wrath at the new Iraqi rulers if it believes its interests are being ignored.

Of course, some will argue that neither the US nor the Iraqi government should negotiate with the Baathists. Many of the newly elected members of the government were persecuted when the Baathists were in power. Those memories will die hard.

Yet negotiating the end of the Baathist insurgency may be the best chance for defeating our main enemy, Islamism. Baathism is a form of socialism, not Islamism, and as socialists the party could have a place in new Iraqi politics - if it in deeds, not mere words, renounces violence as its instrument. That's a mighty big if, of course, but we should be encourage that the Baathists seem to have concluded that they cannot win militarily against the United States, and are convinced that America's will is strong enough to see the fight through to victory.

A negotiated end to the Baathist insurgency would also have the salutary effect of isolating the Islamist terrorists even more. The Baathists are under no illusions that they and al Qaeda are actually allies. Their joint operations are marriages of convenience; they each actually despise one another. Nor are the Baathists unaware that al Qaeda in Iraq is not fighting there in order to return the Baathist party to power. Al Qaeda is fighting to seize power, and if they do (not very likely) their first deadly purge will be directed at the Baathists.

In a statement of Feb. 11, 2003, broadcast on al Jazeera TV, Osama bin Laden said,

Socialists are infidels wherever they are. . . [but] it does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders.

I wrote in September 2003:

But bin Laden’s goal in Iraq is not to save Saddam, it is to kill Americans so that they will leave. If al Qaeda can fight the Americans there while gaining an ever-stronger presence in Iraq, they believe they will be in a position to establish a pure Islamic state in Iraq when the Americans leave. Whether Saddam is presently alive or dead does not matter to al Qaeda. They are not fighting for him to retake the reins of government there, but so that they can do so.

Substitute "Baathism" for "Saddam," and it's just as true today. Another advantage to negotiating with the Baathists is that they surely have much invaluable information about the Islamists. Let me repeat: our main enemy is Islamism, not Baathism, even though we certainly should consider Baathism a threat until its surviving adherents in Iraq prove otherwise.

But there are many, many hurdles, the most difficult doubtless being the question of amnesty. It is not simply terrorist acts of insurgency that Baathists have committed. They have a history of murder and terrorism as government policy going back at least until the 1970s. Yet the Baathists will surely never lay down their arms without some form of amnesty. Before the present Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are willing to grant some level of amnesty to the Baathists, the violence tragically may have to get much worse.

by Donald Sensing, 2/24/2005 08:49:00 PM. Permalink |

Link parking
Here are some references that I want tyo write about, and insallah will do so soon. In the meantime, read 'em!

Janet Dalety writes in the UK Telegraph, "Freedom? Why Europe's not bothered." Also read an unintentional 2003 companion piece by Father Raymond J. de Souza, a Canadian, "Rising Up From Flanders Fields: Where you stand depends in part on where your soldiers lie." Both tips via email from Thomas Holsinger.

Wretchard writes about the discussion that liberalism is out of ideas. But this is the part that caught my eye:

dogmatism is rooted in relativism more than in the belief that real truth is discoverable. For as long as the truth is believed to be "out there"; it will be sought. When its existence is doubted none will venture into the dark.

Hmm.. Not sure I agree.

There's so much good stuff on Austin Bay's blog that it would be useless for me to list it. See also Belmont Club's comments on Austin's analysis of al Qaeda's plans for southeast Asia and region.

Some notes about how society shapes technology - and one would assume vice-versa.

Dennis Prager writes about Liberal Feelings vs. Judeo-Christian Values.

Steve Chapman says that the media have gone too far in the Plame case.

by Donald Sensing, 2/24/2005 03:47:00 PM. Permalink |

A tsunami miracle?
Did God save 400 Christians of Meulaboh?

A friend emailed this report to me. I was skeptical at first, since it sounds like an email-driven, urban legend in the making.

We know that 80% of the town of Meulaboh in Aceh was destroyed by the Tsunami waves and 80% of the people also died. This is one of the towns that was hit the hardest. But there is a fantastic testimony from Meulaboh.

In that town are about 400 Christians.

They wanted to celebrate Christmas on December 25th but were not allowed to do so by the Muslims of Meulaboh. They were told if they wanted to celebrate Christmas they needed to go outside the city of Meulaboh on a high hill and they can celebrate Christmas there. Because the Christians desired to celebrate Christmas the 400 believers left the city on December 25th and after they celebrated Christmas they stayed overnight on the hill.

As we all know, in the morning of Sunday, December 26, 2004, there was the earthquake followed by the Tsunami waves destroying most of the city of Meulaboh and thousands were killed. The 400 believers were on the mountain and were all saved from destruction.

Now the Muslims of Meulaboh are saying that the God of the Christians punished them for forbidding the Christians from celebrating Christmas in the city. Others are questioning why so many Muslims died while not even one of the Christians died there.

Had the Christians insisted on their rights to celebrate Christmas in the city, they would have all died. But because they humbled themselves and followed the advice of the Muslims they all were spared destruction and can now testify of God's marvelous protection.

The email was purported to have come from Bill Hekman, pastor of Calvary Life Fellowship in Indonesia. Snopes says the report is false and recounts other, similar stories of the tsunami sparing Christians for one reason or another. However, Snopes did confirm that Bill Hekman is the pastor of the Fellowship.

But the web site of the Calvary Life Fellowship in Indonesia confirms the report. (It seems the site is hosted and maintained here in the States.)

We have confirmed the story via phone and email with Bill Hekman and through an Indonesian pastor who has heard the story from several persons with firsthand knowledge, as follows:

This is the account from the believers in Meulaboh. The 400 believers involved are from the Roman Catholic Church, GPIB Church and HKPB Church. They had requested permission from the District Leader (Camat), Police (POLRES) and DANDIM (Army) to celebrate Christmas in Meulaboh. They were told that since Meulaboh is under Sharia Islamic law it would better to go somewhere where there are no Moslems. So the believers left the morning of Dec. 25th and walked about 5 kms to a hill area. They were accompanied by some members of the Marine Corps who were also Christians. They celebrated Christmas the afternoon of Dec. 25th and stayed there for the night at a "Retreat". They had brought food, etc. to camp there for the night. The tsunami took place the morning of the 26th of Dec. These believers are now refugees living in Aceh Jaya.

But the part about the "members of the Marine Corps who were also Christians" makes me pause. Of course, there were no US Marines in the disaster area until well into January. There is an Indonesian Marine Corps, though, who worked with US Marines to mount relief operations. So I assume the marines who went with the worshipers to the hilltop were Indonesian.

The site also links to an account of the events written in the local language (Bahasa?).

So, what to make of this report? Snopes says one reason to be skeptical is that it has taken so long for the report to surface. But Meulaboh was accessible only by helicopter for a few weeks after the tsunami. The survivors there, including the Christians no doubt, were much more interested in getting food and water than getting word of their salvation to the international media. The Indonesian-language report was posted on Jan. 18, but of course I can't verify its narrative. An English account is dated Jan. 27 (Word doc online).

So here's the tally: Snopes says "false," but admits it hasn't spoken to anyone on the scene. The US-based affiliate of the Fellowship says it confirmed the account with Pastor Hekman, whom all agree really is the man on the scene.

It seems to me that Snopes was a bit hasty to write this one off, perhaps in its urge to retain a reputation for skepticism, especially toward anything "miraculous," and especially again if it taints of religion. Yet, while at least some of the Fellowship's members do think the story recounts a miracle, on the face of it there is nothing supernatural.

The bare facts - what religious scholars like to call the "historical analysis" - seem to be these: After permission was denied from the government to celebrate Christmas inside the city's limits, the 400 Christians of Meulaboh went on Christmas morning to a hill about three miles from the city. They stayed there overnight - remember it is summertime in the southern hemisphere - for a spiritual retreat. The earthquake and tsunami struck that night, virtually annihilating the city, but sparing the Christians on the hilltop.

This is an entirely unobjectionable account. What makes it seem dubious is all the religious emendations overlaid it: that the Christians were spared because "they humbled themselves" and "can now testify of God's marvelous protection." Also that the Muslim survivors say that "the God of the Christians" punished them for refusing the request for in-city worship, etc.

Yet these are interpretations of the events, not accounts of the events themselves. The bare facts remain. Whether it counts as a miracle or not if for you to decide.

by Donald Sensing, 2/23/2005 07:43:00 PM. Permalink |

"The artillery lends dignity ..."
... to what would otherwise be a mere, vulgar brawl." Attributed to Frederick the Great

Chuck Pelto, this is for you!

Update: Speaking of cannons:

Hunter S. Thompson, the "gonzo journalist" with a penchant for drugs, guns and flame-thrower prose, might have one more salvo in store for everyone: Friends and relatives want to blast his ashes out of a cannon, just as he wished.

"If that's what he wanted, we'll see if we can pull it off," said historian Douglas Brinkley, a friend of Thompson's and now the family's spokesman.

Thompson, who shot himself to death at his Aspen-area home Sunday at 67, said several times he wanted an artillery send-off for his remains.

Well, it's different, I'll grant you that. HT: Max Jackson via email.

by Donald Sensing, 2/23/2005 07:36:00 PM. Permalink |

Try the Methuselah Diet!
We're fat because we go on diets

Methuselah ate what he found on his plate,
And never, as people do now,
Did he note the amount of the calorie count.
He ate it because it was chow.
He wasn’t disturbed as at dinner he sat,
Devouring a roast or a pie,
To think it was lacking in granular fat
Or a couple of vitamins shy.

He cheerfully chewed each species of food,
Unmindful of troubles or fears
Lest his health might be hurt by some fancy dessert,
And he lived over 900 years.

Prof. Ann Althouse is blogging over at GlennReynolds.com. Today she writes that Fat is sinfully complicated, with the thesis that, as Mireille Guiliano argues in French Women Don't Get Fat,

... we're fat because of our American attitude toward food. Instead of fearing the sin of overeating and atoning with dieting, we should, like the thin Frenchwoman, eat a joyous array of delectable, elegant foods. In fact, why don't you start seeing yourself as sinful because you fail to appreciate the beauty of life – you lack the French joie de vivre?

(Ann says that Jessica Siegel argues, however, that the French are thin because they smoke like fiends - which they do.)

Anyway, I can't solve the French problem, one way or another. Lord knows, the Brits have tried for lo these many centuries and they never solved the French problem, so I don't have a chance.

My contention is that Americans who try to reduce but regain the weight they lost, as most people seem to do, fail because they go on a diet.

Believe me, I know. After I retired from the Army I started seminary within four weeks. I was a fulltime student, worked full time also, and tried to make sure my three young children and wife remembered what I looked like, too. Something had to give, and what gave was PT. My daily diet slipped, too. The result is what anyone might expect: I gained weight, far too much.

I tried Atkins, I tried low fat, I tried the Type II diabetes diet a relative's doc had given him. And other diets, too. Sure, I lost weight - for awhile. Then it came back, and usually more. It took me a long time, but I finally realized that the reason I was unsuccessful was because I was on a diet.

The problem with diets is that they put certain foods off limits, at least for a time, such as breads, pasta, desserts of every kind, some kinds of meats, and so on. And they make you measure and weigh foods, not to mention weighing yourself (and who wants to do that?). But here is the real truth: there are no bad foods, there are only bad meals.

I found success when I decided that I would not weigh portions or myself. I would not measure portions to make sure I didn't eat a single pea more than a half cup. I would not place any food of limits, including ice cream and cake when, say, birthday parties came around.

I made only one vow, which proved surprisingly easy to keep. It was to ensure that the meal I was about to consume was a correct meal in nutrition and balance and portions (eyeballed, not weighed or measured). I did not give up snacks, I just changed what I snacked on. For the first two weeks I drank a small juice glass of orange juice whenever I wanted to snack. It satisfied the urge and gave me a flavor surge, but not empty calories. I drank a lot of orange juice in that time, but after two weeks or so the urge abated for OJ or anything else. And I did not embark on a PT program, either.

The result? I never got hungry and in six weeks I dropped one and a half shirt sizes and five inches in trouser size. I had to take my dress suit to Men's Wearhouse to get it cut down; it took six days and by the time I went back to pick it up it was too large again. I never found out how much weight I lost because I never weighed myself; it wasn't relevant to me. I measured success my an improved sense of well-being and by steadily wearing smaller clothes.

In honor of the anonymous poem at the beginning of this post, I call it the Methuselah Diet. Try it - it's free!

by Donald Sensing, 2/23/2005 05:55:00 PM. Permalink |

Would public flogging be appropriate?
For this?

by Donald Sensing, 2/23/2005 05:21:00 PM. Permalink |

The Combat Non-Infantry Badge
[See update at end] This isn't exactly new news, but the Army has just authorized an award for soldiers involved in direct combat who are not infantrymen. The award is called the Close Combat Badge. Infantrymen have had their own, unique (and highly coveted) "proof I was there" award since World War II, the Combat Infantry Badge, CIB.

Therein lies the rub. The CIB was created as a way visually to distinguish between infantry combat vets and everyone else, including infantrymen with no combat experience. In WW2, infantry troops accounted for something like 80 percent of all Army casualties. For them, all combat was close combat. For most other soldiers, service in a combat zone usually didn't involve actually getting shot at.

However, the criterion for awarding the CIB slipped in subsequent wars. I knew a CIB wearer in the early 1980s who had earned his CIB by guarding a PX in Saigon. Never fired a shot and never ducked one. An 82d Airborne Division paratrooper told me he'd received his CIB for stepping off an airplane in Grenada, sitting on the tarmac for an hour, then flying back to Fort Bragg. He said infantry commanders were rushing troops down and back because when 80 percent of an infantry unit's infantrymen wear the CIB, the unit can be designated a "combat infantry" company or battalion or whatever size unit it is. A special streamer is authorized for the flags or guidons of such units and they are quite prestigious within the infantry community.

There was a Bill Mauldin cartoon in which the company clerk is explaining to the company medic - a beaten, bedraggled, unshaven, exhausted man with months on the front line - "The reason you don't get combat pay is because you don't fight." Being a medic assigned to an infantry unit has long been recognized as perhaps the most hazardous assignment in the Army. For that reason the Army authorized the Combat Medic Badge, awarded to medical personnel who were assigned to or attached to a medical detachment of the infantry.

Then came Iraq, when the old, familiar front lines disappeared. Support soldiers had always had some risk of direct combat, but in Iraq close combat became routine for everyone; the bad guys attack all kinds of units, not just infantry. Not only that, but many non-infantry units in Iraq were assigned the same kinds of missions that infantry units were assigned, such as patrolling to root out insurgents, area security operations and direct attack. The support troops have taken many casualties conducting these missions.

Hence the creation of the Close Combat Badge, denoting non-infantry soldiers who engage in direct combat. But not all non-infantry soldiers.

The Army will award the CCB to Armor, Cavalry, Combat Engineer, and Field Artillery Soldiers in Military Occupational Specialties or corresponding officer branch/specialties recognized as having a high probability to routinely engage in direct combat, and they must be assigned or attached to an Army unit of brigade or below that is purposefully organized to routinely conduct close combat operations and engage in direct combat in accordance with existing rules and policy.

The CCB will be presented only to eligible Soldiers who are personally present and under fire while engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. (link)

So the truck drivers who fought their way through roadblocks are excluded.

IMO, the Army has gotten carried away with combat recognition. Any soldier who serves in a designated combat zone is authorized to wear the unit patch of his/her assignment on the right shoulder forevermore. Now, in addition, we have three different badges to denote exposure to enemy fire (plus the Purple Heart, which sort of proves the case). We are salami-slicing the character of service among our soldiers too thinly. I say keep the right-shoulder patch tradition, ditch all the badges and when any soldier of any specialty engages in direct combat, do what the Marines do - give 'em a combat action ribbon, and let it go at that.

The principal eligibility criterion is that the individual must have participated in a bona fide ground or surface combat fire fight or action during which he was under enemy fire and his performance while under fire was satisfactory.

Why we need anything more complicated than that, I don't know.

Update: I knew an infantry first sergeant who had been awarded the CIB for Vietnam combat. He always wore the Expert Infantry Badge instead. The EIB is the same as the CIB, but has no wreath. The top said that he wore the EIB because it was harder to earn and denoted true infantry expertise. Does he have a point? Here's a Fort Bragg Paraglide article on what is required to earn the EIB, and for the truly detail oriented among you, the US Army infantry web site has a 90-page, Word 97 document that tells you everything you need to know.

I have always had the suspicion that the CIB is so highly coveted because it is a very attractive, handsome badge and stands out on the class A uniform. I bet that if the Army took the wreath away from the CIB and gave it to the EIB, the prestige pecking order would change, too.

Update 2: Reader Max J. emails:

I'm sure you've heard this from other infantrymen before, but I was far more proud of my EIB than I was of the CIB. Every infantry soldier was awarded the CIB for time in country (in Afghanistan that was how I understood it. I may be wrong but our injured mail-man "earned" one). So regardless of combat experience or skill they were authorized to wear a badge that should be the mark of ultimate respect. The EIB (in my opinion) designates far greater achievement than the CIB. Unfortunately, the CIB trumps the EIB on the uniform, and there is no distinction for those individuals who were capable of mastering all of the skills required of the infantry.

Having been an artilleryman, I don't have a personal dog in the CIB/EIB hunt, but I still say the Army has gotten too badge happy overall.

by Donald Sensing, 2/22/2005 07:49:00 PM. Permalink |

"A Company of Soldiers"
I just got an email reminding me of this Frontline show:

The film A COMPANY OF SOLDIERS will be broadcast tonight (February 22) on PBS at 9 PM EST (check local listings). It is the soldiers' story of fighting in Iraq - a month in the life of the 1st Battalion of the 8th Cavalry stationed in South Baghdad. It was shot last November during one of the most dangerous times for that unit.

FRONTLINE reports from inside the U.S. Army's 8th Cavalry Regiment stationed in Baghdad for an up-close, intimate look at the dangers
facing an American military unit in Iraq. Shot in the weeks following the U.S. presidential election, the film tracks the day-to-day challenges facing the 8th Cavalry's Dog Company as it suddenly has to cope with a dramatic increase in attacks by the insurgents.

More details on Frontline's web page.

by Donald Sensing, 2/22/2005 07:32:00 PM. Permalink |

Grave of the Apostle Paul found?
Stones Cry Out reports,

The Vatican will make a public announcement soon that archeologists have positively identified the tomb of St. Paul the apostle, according to Catholic World News.

Catholic World News reports,

A sarcophagus which may contain the remains of St. Paul was identified in the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, reports Giorgio Filippi, an archeology specialist with the Vatican Museums. The sarcophagus was discovered during the excavations carried out in 2002 and 2003 around the basilica, which is located in the south of Rome. Having reached what they believe is a positive identification of the tomb, Vatican experts will soon make a public announcement of their discovery.

SCO's writer is not at all convinced that the discovery is a good thing, religiously speaking, even if it is incontrovertible. Interesting points, and good ones.

by Donald Sensing, 2/21/2005 10:30:00 PM. Permalink |

School kids send soldiers vicious letters
The NY Post reports that some soldiers in Iraq received school kids' letters "strewn with politically charged rhetoric, vicious accusations and demoralizing predictions that only a handful of soldiers would leave the Iraq war alive." Pfc. Ron Jacobs got one.

One Muslim boy wrote: "Even thoe [sic] you are risking your life for our country, have you seen how many civilians you or some other soldier killed?"

His letter, which was stamped with a smiley face, went on: "I know your [sic] trying to save our country and kill the terrorists but you are also destroying holy places like Mosques."

Most of the 21 letters Jacobs provided to The Post mentioned some support for the armed forces, if not the Iraq war, and thanked him for his service. But nine of the students made clear their distaste for the president or the war.

The letters were written as a social-studies assignment [of a middle school class].

The school's principal responded to queries thus:

"While we would never censor anything that our children write, we sincerely apologize for forwarding letters that were in any way inappropriate to Pfc. Jacobs. This assignment was not intended to be insensitive, but to be supportive of the men and women in service to our nation."

So why wouldn't he censor? The assignment was to write "supportive" letters to troops. Presumably, the teacher read what the children wrote as he would read any other assignment. So did the writers of the vicious letters get a failing grade for not being supportive? Why were those letters mailed? This is pretty ratty.

by Donald Sensing, 2/21/2005 10:15:00 PM. Permalink |

The conversion collision
Blogging was light earlier this evening because I spent hours trying to convert three long WordPerfect 10 documents to Words 2003. Here are steps that do not work:

1. Attempt to open the WP file with Word. A WordPerfect conversion utility is not native to Word. Word cues you to place the Word CD in the drive so it can load it. It lies. The file needed is STD11N.MSI, which does not exist, even on the Microsoft's Word support web page. Word utilities for converting WordPerfect only extend through WP's version 5.6, which as I recall was a DOS-based version of WordPerfect.

2. Save the WP document as a Word document. WP10 only offers a "save as" utility up to Word 2000, which is naturally no problem for Word 2003 to read. But if you have document features like footnotes, footers and changed text formatting, don't count on those features exporting cleanly. Mine didn't.

3. The old fashioned way - copy and paste. I eventually wound up copying the WordPerfect's text into Notepad, then recopying that into Word. That way none of WordPerfect's format codes got dragged along - Word seriously dislikes WordPerfect codes. This method was very slow, especially since I had to manually restore the footnotes.

If you're really interested in this, here's a former MS-Word technician who explains it in gory detail.

Frankly, I hate Word passionately. I wrote in 2003 why - agreeing with Glenn Reynolds that I'll give up WordPerfect when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. And as I linked then, Word buries user data inside the document that can be retrieved by others. WordPerfect is simply a superior product.

by Donald Sensing, 2/21/2005 09:44:00 PM. Permalink |

Blog focusing on the UN
Peter Daou has started a new blog called UN Dispatch.Via email, he explains,

[T]here's a very narrow range of UN-related content on blogs, virtually all of it associated with controversies such as Oil-for-Food. There's little discussion of the wide range of humanitarian work performed by UN bodies, everything from measles initiatives to Tsunami relief to global environmental issues to women's rights.

Helping children in need, working for a healthier environment, leading disaster relief efforts around the globe, these are not partisan issues, and I believe that stepping up to defend the UN's works in these areas is the right thing to do. I'm aware that UN Dispatch will be the target of criticism by opponents of the UN. I welcome a vigorous debate, and invite everyone on this list to be part of the discussion.

You can see from the UN Dispatch blogroll - which will continue to expand - that this is not about "discrediting conservative critics," as the above-mentioned sources allege, but about engaging in a wide-ranging and productive debate. The blog was launched earlier this month and will soon be open for reader comments.

Drop on by and see what you think. (Hint to new blog writers: if you email bloggers asking them to publicize your new blog, it would be a good idea to put them on your Blogroll before asking.)

by Donald Sensing, 2/21/2005 05:57:00 PM. Permalink |

Linkagery, 2-21-05

Frontline has an excellent online series called, "Al Qaeda's New Front," posted less than a month ago. The online videos are very good, expecially the one about the ideological base. Chilling.

A blogger using the nom de blog of USMC Vet notes,

Though not many bothered to take note, the potential impact of MSNBC’s Connected Coast to Coast was there for anyone to see - even before it went to air on its first broadcast day this past Tuesday. After an eight-broadcast, four-day premiere week, however, more and more media observers are beginning to take note: Connected Coast to Coast is a catalyst to a sea change in broadcast media news coverage.

And he explains why.

Pro-Bush demonstrations are being organzied In Mainz. Germany, in preparation for Bush's visit to Germany. To no on'e surprise, David Kaspar is in the middle of it. The flyers organizers are distributing call for renewal of German-American friendship. Example (PDF).

Thomas Friedman:

The fact that the extremists and autocrats have had to resort now to unspeakable violence shows how much they have failed to win the war of ideas on the Arab street. But the emerging progressive forces still have to prove that they can build a different politics around united national communities, not a balance of sects, and solidarity from shared aspiration, not a shared external enemy.

The Washington Post explores the bleak future of traditional newspapers and other print news media.

"Print is dead," Sports Illustrated President John Squires told a room full of newspaper and magazine circulation executives at a conference in Toronto in November. His advice? "Get over it," meaning publishers should stop trying to save their ink-on-paper product and focus on electronic delivery of their journalism.

HT: Bill Hobbs.

Spirit of America is advertising to fill some important, high-powered positions. Maybe one of them is for you!

Charles Simmins, famous for updating the tsunami stingy list, has a three-part series on China's future. Says Charles, bleakly, "My thesis is that China must go to war. It's current economy and the "Middle Kingdon" thinking of its rulers do not permit any other solution."

College Tree Publishing says,

We contacted hundreds of university and college conservative and liberal groups, political science departments, and university news papers and requested essay submissions from people in the 17 to 25 year old age group on political and social issues. The end result was What We Think: Young Voters Speak Out, which was put out nationally in late October. The book was meant to be a running forum for political expression of America's youngest voting demographic, and in that regard has been a success. Since the book was published in October, the book has already received national press on CNN, MSNBC, an hour long special on CSPAN-Book TV and has been nominated for the Franklin Award.

We are a non-partisan company possessing a Republican, Democrat and Libertarian leaning editor, trying to give fair and equal voice to all ideologies present among college age youth. We are currently accepting submissions for our next two books, What We Think 2 and What We Think About God and looking to increase the number of well written pieces. Our goal is to receive 10,000 submissions from now through summer, and to publish the top 200 to 300 in late third quarter.

If you are 17-25, send 'em an essay!

by Donald Sensing, 2/21/2005 05:12:00 PM. Permalink |

Hot deal on LCD monitors
While in Staples today shopping for school supplies, I discovered that the Proview 913S, 19-inch LCD monitor is $150 off for Presidents Day. This is a no-rebate sale price, which means you don't to wait forever to get the discount and don't pay sales tax on the full-retail price. Here in Tennessee, that's matters - we have a 9.25 percent sales tax rate.

The specs look good - .297 dot pitch (pretty much the standard for 19-inch models) and .16ms refresh, up to 75 Hz. I think those specs are somewhat better than the usual for 19-inchers. Anyone who watches DVDs on the computer should pay attention to the refresh rate. Longer than 16ms is considered too slow for DVDs, from what I have read.

Proview is made by the same company that makes MagInnovision.

There's also a great deal on Amazon for an Acer AL1912, 19-inch monitor, too - $312 including shipping.

Prices on this size LCDs have really dropped - CompUSA had a 17-inch model on sale for $149 after rebates, but the offer was good for only six hours yesterday.

by Donald Sensing, 2/21/2005 04:44:00 PM. Permalink |

This blog for sale
I am now accepting bids for the sale of this blog. Based on the number of unique visitors here last month, the minimum offer I will entertain is $1,150,000. Here's why.

by Donald Sensing, 2/19/2005 10:15:00 PM. Permalink |

Hillary Clinton: Iraq is "functioning quite well"
Junior New York senator also says suicide attacks are sign the insurgency is failing

Austin bay, an Army Reserve Iraq veteran and syndicated columnist, offers much deeper insights than I can. It's not what Hillary said that he focuses on so much as how right she is, and why.

Saddam’s buddies and Zarqawi’s klan were actually weak enemies –"brittle” is the word I used to describe them at a senior planning meeting. Their local power was based on inimidation–killing by car bomb, murdering in the street. Their strategic power was based solely on selling the false impression of nation-wide instability– selling post-Saddam Iraq as a dysfunctional failed-state rather than an emerging democracy .

Read the whole thing.

by Donald Sensing, 2/19/2005 05:27:00 PM. Permalink |

Fallujah battle film online
A soldier-produced video of the Battle of Fallujah is online. It was compiled from photos and videos taken by soldiers actually fighting the battle, the troops of the Army's Task Force 2-2 Infantry. I found in on Armor Geddon, whose Iraq-stationed author Redsix adds,

The soldiers of Avenger Company collected this footage with their digital cameras. Sometimes I just held my PVS 14s [night-vision scope - DS] up against the lens of the camera for the night footage. In his free time, SPC [Ronald] Camp has assembled the footage and the mp3s into this collage of carnage.

There is a music soundtrack overlaid on the entire video, which Redsix names as,

Sepultera(I think that's how you say it or spell it)
Crystal Method: Trip Like I Do, Name of the Game
Fatboy Slim/Steppenwolfe: Magic Carpet Ride

The video is 6:57 long and is engrossing. Download instruction via Torrent (I highly recommend using it) are here.

Endnote: For non-military readers, a task force is a battalion-size unit under the command of a lieutenant colonel, so called because its component units are assigned based on the mission, or task, the commander is assigned to accomplish. TF 2-2 Infantry means that the commander and the majority of the sub-units are permanently assigned to 2d Battatlion, 2d Infantry Regiment. Typically, an infantry task force will have two companies of infantry, one company of tanks and platoons or detachments of other specialties as necessary, such as engineers. There will also be a headquarters company for the staff and support. Task forces are organized within brigades, so the third company of infantry permanently assigned to 2-2 Infantry will be tasked off (sometimes called, "sliced") to a tank battalion. Hence there will be armor-heavy task forces and infantry-heavy task forces. (NB: I retired from the Army 10 years ago, so there may be four fighting companies per battalion now rather than three, but task organization still works as I described.)

by Donald Sensing, 2/19/2005 04:52:00 PM. Permalink |

Where Iraqis would not smoke or drink, and why
Lt. Col. Mark Smith, USMC, commanding in Iraq, writes about the aftermath of election day there in his forward operating base (FOB):

[H]undreds of the Iraqi election officials were aboard our FOB, St. Michael, as we achieved election set. We closed our chow hall and turned it into a lounge for them. Something occurred in that lounge that you all MUST know about. The Iraqis, as is their custom, set about drinking sodas, smoking cigarettes and talking in the loud and demonstrative tones they are accustomed to. Except for one spot. There was one spot in our chow hall where they would not smoke, they would not drink, they would not talk. There was one spot where all they would do is stand in silent reverence. That spot...our memorial table with the pictures of our heroic fallen. No, at this spot, they showed nothing but respect and honor! This was not something they were told to do, it was something that came natural to them.

I have asked myself many times why that is, and I have come to this undeniable conclusion: for they were bound with those Marines who gave their last full measure of devotion on the battlefields of Iraq not by religion, not by race, not by color, not by creed, not by custom, not by culture, not by anything one can think of save one thing: they were bound with those Marines as FREE MEN AND WOMEN. And, you see, FREE MEN AND WOMEN can disagree, but cannot hate! In this simple truth is the cause of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In this simple truth, we press on. In this simple truth, Cpl Brian Prenning, Cpl Robert Warns, Cpl Nathaniel Hammond, Cpl Peter Giannopolous, LCpl Branden Ramey, LCpl Daniel Wyatt, LCpl Richard Warner, LCpl Shane O'Donnell, PFC Ryan Cantafio, and PFC Brent Vroman gave their lives. That in bringing freedom to the world, hate will vanquish, and YOU, the ones the loved so dear, will live on free: free of fear, free of opression, free of tyranny and God Almighty in Heaven willing, free of War!

Nothing more to say.

by Donald Sensing, 2/18/2005 09:03:00 PM. Permalink |

Speaking of Marines . . .
... here's one starring in a MasterCard commercial gone wrong (and how).

by Donald Sensing, 2/18/2005 09:02:00 PM. Permalink |

Today is anniversary of Iwo Jima invasion
On this date in 1945, US Marines landed on a volcanic rock of only eight square miles, Iwo Jima. It was the first home island of Japan to be invaded, being in Japanese law actually part of Tokyo. The island's dominating terrain was the volcano, Mt. Suribachi, where Marines clawed their way to the top and raised a flag.



As most history buffs know, this famous photo by UPI photographer Joe Rosenthal is a shot of the second flag raised on Suribachi. The first flag stayed aloft only a short time. It was replaced with this much larger flag because the first flag was too small to be seen well across the island and because the Marine regimental commander wanted to protect it for the regimental archives; he said at the time that if he didn't retrieve the first flag, it would wind up in the secretary of the Navy's office.

The Marines landed in mid-morning of Feb. 19 local time (the 18th in the US). For an hour the Japanese held their fire, then pounded the beach with all manner of arms from machine guns to mortars to light and heavy artillery. The volcanic soil was too loose to dig foxholes; the sides would collapse after only a few inches of depth. In a short time, the beach was a scene of carnage. Casualties were heavy.



There was no cover from Japanese fire which rained down on the landing force from Suribachi and the rest of the island. Death was literally in the air.

"Easy Company started with 310 men. We suffered 75% casualties. Only 50 men boarded the ship after the battle. Seven officers went into the battle with me. Only one--me--walked off Iwo." Captain Dave Severance, Commander of Easy Company, whose Marines a corpsman raised the flag.

Constantly under heavy fire, the Marines moved inland by dint of pure courage.



The objective in assaulting the island was to seize its airfield. Many long-range B-29 bombers battle damaged over Japan and their crews were being lost in the sea on the return trip. Iwo was to be an emergency landing strip and a fighter base for escorts. By the war's end the strip had saved the lives of 30,000 airmen, more men than the 6,891 Americans killed and 18,070 wounded taking the island. The first bomber to use the airfield landed on March 4 while the battle still raged. So primitive was the airfield at the time that the B-29 had to be refueled by using Marines' helmets as buckets. There was no power refueling rig on the island yet.

The Japanese commander, Lt. Gen. Tadamichi Kuribayashi, was probably the most respected officer in the Japanese army. He had been educated in Canada and had toured the United States extensively. He was one of a tiny number of military officers ever granted an audience with Emperor Hirohito.

Kuribayashi's tactical plan was a dramatic departure from previous Japanese practice. He forbade desperate banzai charges (the only banzai charge on Iwo, March 26, took place after Kuribayashi's death). The general also renounced giving open combat. By D-Day, he had masterminded the construction of 1,500 rooms into the volcanic rock. These were connected with many miles of tunnels. There was even a completely-equipped, underground hospital. The Japanese would fight from underground.

Artillery pieces on Suribachi were mounted on light rails behind steel doors recessed will into the mountain. After firing, the guns were wheeled back into their caves, practically impervious to American return fire.

Kuribayashi also assigned his soldiers a quota. He actually forbade them to die before they had killed either 10 Marines or one tank. He and all his troops knew they would not survive the battle, but they aimed to make American victory as costly as possible. In this they succeeded all too well.

The fighting was bitter to the end. By March 11, organized resistance ended, but fanatical Japanese soldiers fought in small teams on their own until they died. Of 22,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only 212 survived the battle.

Kuribayashi radioed an apology to the emperor about that time for failing to defend the island successfully, then took his own life in a cave overlooking the sea. His body was never recovered. The nighttime banzai charge of March 26 killed a number of Army Air Corps pilots in their cots, but otherwise was crushed by the Marines with their superior firepower. It marked the effective end of the fighting.

by Donald Sensing, 2/18/2005 07:39:00 PM. Permalink |

A Muslim scholar looks at Islamism
Khaled Abou El Fadl, professor of Islamic law at UCLA's School of Law, wrote a fascinating and highly illuminating article, "Islam and the Theology of Power," on Islam for Today. IMO, it is a must-read for anyone seriously interested in the threat facing America today.

He relates that the classical period of Islamic civilization, culminating in the 11thy century, was marked by a high degree of discourse, a tolerance for disputation and a firm grounding in moral philosophy and principled thinking. Terrorism in classical Islamic jurisprudence was unconditionally condemned: "Regardless of the desired goals or ideological justifications, the terrorizing of the defenseless was recognized as a moral wrong and an offense against society and God." But classical Islam has disappeared. Continues Prof. El Fadl,

Much has changed in the modern age. Islamic civilization has crumbled, and the traditional institutions that once sustained the juristic discourse have all but vanished. The moral foundations that once mapped out Islamic law and theology have disintegrated, leaving an unsettling vacuum. More to the point, the juristic discourses on tolerance towards rebellion and hostility to the use of terror are no longer part of the normative categories of contemporary Muslims. Contemporary Muslim discourses either give lip service to the classical doctrines without a sense of commitment or ignore and neglect them all together.

There are many factors that contributed to this modern reality. Among the pertinent factors is the undeniably traumatic experience of colonialism, which dismantled the traditional institutions of civil society. The emergence of highly centralized, despotic and often corrupt governments, and the nationalization of the institutions of religious learning undermined the mediating role of jurists in Muslim societies. Nearly all charitable religious endowments became state-controlled entities, and Muslim jurists in most Muslim nations became salaried state employees, effectively transforming them into what may be called "court priests." The establishment of the state of Israel, the expulsion of the Palestinians and the persistent military conflicts in which Arab states suffered heavy losses all contributed to a widespread siege mentality and a highly polarized and belligerent political discourse. Perhaps most importantly, Western cultural symbols, modes of production and social values aggressively penetrated the Muslim world, seriously challenging inherited values and practices, and adding to a profound sense of alienation.

El Fadl says that Islamism is at its core a,

... supremacist puritanism that compensates for feelings of defeat, disempowerment and alienation with a distinct sense of self-righteous arrogance vis-à-vis the nondescript "other" -- whether the other is the West, non-believers in general or even Muslims of a different sect and Muslim women. In this sense, it is accurate to describe this widespread modern trend as supremacist, for it sees the world from the perspective of stations of merit and extreme polarization.

Read the whole thing. It's eye opening.

by Donald Sensing, 2/18/2005 07:15:00 PM. Permalink | <img class="icon-action" alt="" src="http://www.blogger.com:80/img