War! What is it Good For? Absolutely nothing!

"If we should perish, the ruthlessness of the foe would be only the secondary cause of the disaster. The primary cause would be that the strength of a giant nation was directed by eyes too blind to see all the hazards of the struggle; and the blindness would be induced not by some accident of nature or history but by hatred and vainglory." - Reinhold Niebuhr


"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight." -- Albert Schweitzer


Iraqi car




Sandstorm in Iraq



IRAQ - American prerogatives. Photographer KAI PFAFFENBACH (REUTERS)

"Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence."


American soldier.

Suicide in the Trenches

I knew a simple soldier boy

Who grinned at life in empty joy,

Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,

And whistled early with the lark.

In winter trenches, cowed and glum,

With crumps and lice and lack of rum,

He put a bullet through his brain.

No one spoke of him again.


You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye

Who cheer when soldier lads march by,

Sneak home and pray you'll never know

The hell where youth and laughter go.

-- Siegfred Sassoon, (1886-1967)

Read more...

Have We Become a House of Cards?

More and more the emphasis seems to be on what we have or own versus who we are, which, in my very humble opinion is very dangerous to a nation no matter how powerful that nation is. Human nature makes the "House of Cards" syndrome almost inevitable from what history tells us.

Power and control go hand in hand with how much a person or country has acquired.

Captain Ian Fishback wrote a letter to Senator McCain

A Matter of Honor


Wednesday, September 28, 2005; Page A21

The following letter was sent to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sept. 16:

Dear Senator McCain:

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.

That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.

Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."

Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.

With the Utmost Respect,

Read more...

Recruiting Kids to Hell

It occurred to me, after reading the article, "Waldorf Mother Is Furious at Soldier Daughter's Death", in the Washington Post, what a tragedy this girl's death, and so many others her age who have suffered and will suffer the same fate, really is/was and will be.

Recent studies conclude the brain continues to change into the early 20's with the frontal lobes, or the area responsible for "executive function" developing last. "that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences...", which are all necessary characteristics to make major decisions about one's future.

In addition to the profound changes taking place in the brain, adolescents are also going through overwhelming hormonal and emotional changes which make them easy targets for overeager recruiters who have a vested interest in making joining the military sound better than a Club Med vacation.

Parents are less likely to encourage their children toward the military today, forcing recruiters to paint an even rosier picture of war. Unfortunately, the recruiters know the most vulnerable of all, the kids least likely to have involved parents, are the discouraged, disempowered, and disconnected poor kids with little or no hope for the future. These young people, especially the males, are almost guaranteed to swallow the recruiter's propaganda hook, line and sinker. After all, what else sounds more empowering to teenage boys than traveling the world to kick ass?

Read more...

Put Away Your Flags and Bumper Stickers....

...this is the stuff we need to be concentrating on, making it as easy as we can for our soldiers who get paid very little to do what most of us could never imagine.

A backpack that reduces the forces on your body when carrying heavy loads could help prevent injury, allow soldiers to carry more equipment and even speed up the response time of emergency services, its designer claims.

When people walk, they tend to raise and lower their bodies by between 5 centimetres and 7 cm with each step. If they are carrying a backpack, the extra load must also be raised by the same amount and this puts extra strain on the body.

Now Larry Rome, a muscle physiologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, US, has worked out a way to reduce these forces by fundamentally changing the design of the backpack.

His new design consists of a frame which a person wears like an ordinary backpack. However, the load is suspended from the frame by elasticated bungee cords which lengthen as the wearer takes a stride, thereby keeping the load at a constant height. A video (AVI format, 6mb) of the backpack is available here.

“By suspending the load, you knock out 86% of this extra force, making it comfortable to run with a heavy load,” says Rome, who has published his results in the journal Nature. The principle is similar to that used by traditional Asian merchants who carry their wares using flexible bamboo poles.
Pile on the pounds

Rome says being able to run comfortably while carrying a heavy load could make life easier for many groups of people. He points out that children often suffer bone and muscle injuries from carrying heavy schoolbooks and believes his backpack could help. And first responders in the emergency services also often have to carry heavy loads.

The backpack also reduces the total energy needed to carry heavy loads by around 40%. That may make it possible for people such as soldiers to carry heavier loads. “You can carry 60 lbs in our backpack for the same metabolic cost as 48 lbs in a normal backpack, hence you can carry 12 lbs for free,” he says.

The load can also be locked in place to function as a conventional backpack, which might be useful when the wearer is not walking in a rhythmic way, Rome suggests, such as when crossing a stream.
Military use

Rome was initially approached by the US Office of Naval Research to design a backpack that could generate power from the wearer’s body movements (see Backpack generates a powerful punch). The military had found that soldiers’ ever increasing reliance on electronic equipment such as GPS systems, night-vision sights and computers meant they were replacing food and medical equipment in their backpacks with batteries. The ONR was looking for a way for soldiers to generate their own power on the move.

“My knowledge of biomechanics made me realise that the way people were trying to do it – with heel strike devices – was not the best way,” says Rome. Instead he came up with an electricity-generating backpack in which a sliding action between the load and the backpack frame generates power.

He suspected that the mechanism also reduced the forces on the body and further development of the idea led to the new ergonomic backpack. Rome has set up a company called Lightning Packs to bring the backpack to market.

Others agree that the work will have a significant benefit. Rodger Kram, a specialist in body movement at the University of Colorado in Boulder, US, says: “The biggest advantage will be for people who need to run with heavy loads, such as marines and fire fighters. It can be much more comfortable and less injurious. I would buy one.”

Read more...