Democrat congressional candidate and disabled Iraq War veteran Captain Tammy Duckworth said that, according to the Associated Press, "President Bush has no real strategy for securing the war-ravaged nation, just political talk designed to appeal to voters." Duckworth lost both of her legs in an RPG attack on her helicopter almost two years ago. Her remarks came in response to the President's weekly radio address.

The assumption here seems to be that because of her service, Duckworth's opinion is somehow above criticism. Well, I, too, am a veteran of the same war, and I will criticize (now) Major Duckworth.

Duckworth asserted: "Instead of a plan or a strategy, we get shallow slogans like 'mission accomplished' and 'stay the course.'" Then: "Those slogans are calculated to win an election. But they won't help us accomplish our mission in Iraq."

I can attest as an intelligence analyst heavily involved in battle staff planning of operations in two provinces--Karbala and Anbar--in 2005 that Major Duckworth is incorrect in implying that there is no plan or strategy. Criticizing the strategy is fine (I have my own critique), but pretending that one does not exist is either an act of dishonesty or a poorly-formulated opinion.

The plan works this way: US troops fight and defeat major insurgent groups. Then they stabilize the province while an interim Iraqi government develops a police force and a national guard while building an interim provincial council. US forces mentor the police and national guard through progressive steps until the police force can be expanded and the national guard can be redesignated as Iraqi Army. Then the province elects its own government. Meanwhile, all three are evaluated constantly and given grades as the police and army train and conduct combat operations along side US forces. This is usually done at the battalion level. Finally, the division or corps decides that the province's grades merit a status called "local control"--i.e. your province can operate on its own without US forces.

Such a plan allowed my battalion to redeploy from Karbala Province to Anbar Province in the middle of 2005. Since that time, Karbala's own Iraqi elements have operated independently with minimal coalition help and with relatively few incidents. And this is the plan for Iraq, though progress varies from province to province. To be fair, she left Iraq in 2004, perhaps before the concepts of local control were devised, but Tammy Duckworth should criticize this plan instead of saying that one does not exist. It should also be noted that, according to the article, Duckworth "offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."

She also "criticized Bush and others in his administration for accusing anyone who challenges the president's policies of 'cutting and running.'" Duckworth then proclaimed, "Well, I didn't cut and run, Mr. President. Like so many others, I proudly fought and sacrificed... My helicopter was shot down long after you proclaimed 'mission accomplished.'"

First, the president has not said that "anyone" criticizing his Iraq policies wants to cut and run; however, there are numerous political opponents advocating just that course of action. These people are the targets of the president's cut and run comments. Second, Major Duckworth should be lauded for her service, but she appears to be taking the perceived blanket attack as something personal when it is not. One would be hard-pressed to find a quote of George W. Bush saying, "Tammy Duckworth cut and ran from Iraq." Third, we shouldn't need to revisit the "mission accomplished" non-controversey since the president was welcoming home an aircraft carrier that had accomplished its particular mission.

Duckworth also "lashed out at the GOP-led Congress for refusing to do its job of holding the Bush administration accountable for its flawed Iraq policy," stating that Congress opts for "attacking the patriotism of those who disagree" rather than asking "the tough questions." Here, she is correct in charging Congress with some degree of responsibility. If things are going so badly in Iraq, then Congress should vote to withhold funding or to withdraw troops or some other measure. Unfortunately, the administration has not "[attacked] the patriotism of those who disagree." This is an example of one of Duckworth's "shallow slogans."

Finally, she said, "It is time to encourage Iraqi leaders to take control of their own county and make the tough choices that will stop the civil war and stabilize the country." I don't believe there is a civil war yet, though I do believe that insurgent groups are attempting to create one. But we are asking Iraqi leaders to take control of their own country and they are; and it all goes back to province-by-province exit strategy outlined above. Pretending that we are not charging the Iraqis with taking responsibility for their own fate is absurd. That's why there are provinces that were once hot battle grounds (e.g. Karbala) but that are now under Iraqi control. That Baghdad, Anbar Province, and a few other scattered hot spots have not made as much progress does not automatically mean that the Bush Administration is not asking Iraqis to take charge.

I salute Major Duckworth on her service and I proudly call her a sister-in-arms; however, she is not engaging in substantive debate about Iraq. Most of her criticisms are either baseless or flat wrong. Instead of repeating war critics' "shallow slogans" that are "designed to appeal to voters," she would do better to actually offer ideas for solutions.

Sometimes the pace of life precludes certain activities, such as elaborating on the incredibly interesting events covered (or, sometimes, not covered) in the news media. Thus, a post--perhaps a regular post--named after the Who's rarities album is appropriate: Odds and Sods. A bit of this, and a bit of that.

Odd: Bill Clinton's Fox interview.

I do not really think I need to comment on this particular instance, for it speaks for itself--or he does, at least.

Sod: Blackwell-Strickland

Last week's debate between Ken Blackwell and Ted Strickland, Ohio's GOP and Democrat gubernatorial candidates, respectively, was rather typical for the two men. Strickland, lacking ideas, resorted to ambiguous overtures and weak attacks on Ken Blackwell's ideas. As for Mr. Blackwell, he, for the most part, described clear policy ideas--at least as much as a debate permits--for our state's most profound problems. I personally thought Blackwell's tone was a tad on badgering side, but he otherwise overwhelmed Strickland, who, again, has put forth so few ideas that one must revert to his voting record for a guidepost of his probably governing style. Furthermore, his worn cliches are not actual rebuttals to Blackwell's positions, but, rather, well...worn cliches.

Odd: Peace is Patriotic

I have observed bumper stickers and yard signs proclaiming, "Peace is Patriotic." Without knowing the people displaying this motto, I cannot presume to know what they mean; however, I can conjecture. Critics of US foreign policy--specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--have rebuffed those who have questioned their patriotism for opposing war (whomever they may be). In the case of Iraq, to choose one war, their definition of "peace" means: US troops leave. This, of course, would lead to more war and more death, not peace. Thus, may I suggest that "Winning is Patriotic."

Sod: Troops in Iraq

Apparently there have been too few troops in Iraq. Now that troop numbers are creeping upward again, critics should be happy, right? Not so. Instead, they will gripe about this development, too, even if it should help.

Odd: National League Central

Several times this year I have assumed that my beloved Cincinnati Reds were "out of it." But tonight, they have an opportunity to close within 2.5 games of the first-place and faltering St. Louis Cardinals. Houston could move within 1.5 games. With its ups and downs, this season has truly been a lifetime.

Sod: Local Race

In a local race for Montgomery County, Ohio Auditor, Republican Seth Morgan is challenging the incumbent, Karl Keith. Morgan is young, personable, and unlike his opponent, a qualified accountant (CPA to be exact). Likewise, a CPA is running on the GOP ticket for the state auditor slot, too. If this was not 2006, I would peg Mr. Morgan a probable winner; however, the difficult political environment for Republicans and Morgan's residence in the majority Democrat county make for a tough race.

 

Just a brief note on religion: I must disclose immediately that I am a Christian; thus, the bias should be apparent. Nonetheless, two events this week demand comment.

Case #1 is Rosie O'Donnell's comment that "[r]adical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam..." Certainly there was more to this statement, but her remarks, even after accounting for valid examples of radical Christian behavior, are absurd.

Radical Christian terrorist groups are not waging a holy war intent on expanding Christendom to every corner of the globe. Radical Islamists are.

Case #2: The Pope's comments--wherein he quoted a medieval ruler who once said that anything the Prophet Muhammad brought to the world that was new was also "evil and inhuman"--elicited irrational and, to be frank, medieval behavior from small groups of Muslims at varying locations around the globe. Rowdy rallies with burning pictures of the Pope comprised the response of the Muslim street.

I may be wrong, but I do not recall Christians staging violent rallies and waging wars that deliberately target civilians in response to any Muslim leader's comments about Christianity, such as Usama bin Laden's countless remarks about the "Jews and Crusaders." But somehow, American elites think Christians are more dangerous than people like bin Laden, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Muqtada al Sadr, etc.

For people who constantly criticize the religious--often times rightfully so--our elites, our so-called intelligentsia, too often give a complete pass to Muslim fanatics simply because they are of a different culture. To be sure, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Catholic Church, and any other major Christian body will not organize and plot to behead those who disagree with them--which is why people who make comments like Rosie O'Donnell's should not be taken seriously.

Then again, it is sad that they often are.

Unfortunately, I have not seen the Ted Strickland-Ken Blackwell debate, nor have I read a transcript. Still, Ohio media--such as WKSU radio: "there were no knock-outs and no big surprises"--indicates that there was simply a debate and that there was no winner (a draw). Given the media's past, I must take this to mean that Ken Blackwell won.

Continuing, I would like to focus on one Ted Strickland comment. According to WTOL TV in Toledo, "Strickland said Blackwell was distorting his voting record. While he has voted for tax increases that affect people earning $1 million or more, he has supported tax cuts for working families, Strickland said."

These tax cuts can be described as "demand-side" in nature, and they are almost entirely of the populist mold. The rich, who do not "deserve" any breaks, do not get the tax cuts while working families do. Politically this works, but not economically.

Dr. Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton described the effects of such demand-side tax cuts during the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover signed into law a tax cut for middle and lower class families early on. Unfortunately, cutting the taxes of middle and lower class families--a good thing in and of itself--without cutting them across the board "offered no incentives for the wealthy to invest in new plants to stimulate hiring."

Take it this way: Those bad rich people have money, which they invest and create businesses. These businesses require jobs, which middle class people occupy. Raising taxes on the rich too much will give them an incentive to flee the high tax area or stop investing since the government is keeping so much of their money. In turn, they do not create jobs, meaning that fewer middle class people will have them. Then, a demand-side tax cut, which gives the middle class more money, will allow them to "demand" (buy) more goods. But they get no tax cut if they have no job and pay no taxes. Thus, the populist rhetoric is ultimately harmful to the very people Strickland claims to be helping.

Still, Strickland maintains, "Tax increases are not part of my plan". "Tax increases would not be good for Ohio." They certainly would not, but in the absence of specific proposals--a platform--and along with Strickland's ambiguous Turnaround Ohio Plan, the state will not have the funding he would theoretically need. In essence, Ted Strickland's plan would almost require tax hikes.

That is, unless he is patient enough to cut taxes, wait a few years for substantial growth and increased revenues, and implement his high-spending plans then. Unlikely.

Unfortunately, Ken Blackwell is right. Ted Strickland has voted several times to maintain the "marriage penalty" in the form of opposing such tax cuts. He has also voted against numerous child-tax credits. Blackwell is also right in assuming that Strickland's voting record will be an accurate predictor of the future.

Both Strickland's Congressional voting record and his vague plans suggest that he will raise taxes should he become governor.

Anyone wishing to exhonerate, or understand, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad should think again after his remarks today.

The Associated Press reported today that Ahmadinejad has called for "a purge of liberal and secular teachers from the country's universities, urging students to return to 1980s-style radicalism."

He suggested that "students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities."

In this era when liberal democracies engage totalitarian theocracies and radical terrorists in cold and hot wars, internal critics of the liberal democracies should consider that they may be supporting an illiberal individual who is more the antithesis of their worldview than the "right-wing" leaders they oppose.

National Review magazine ran an editorial in its most recent edition entitled “No Excuses,” in which the editors wrote, in short, that there are no excuses for not winning a war. In essence, the editors acknowledged the successes and failures as well as the effects of domestic politics on the prosecution of the war. But they say, simply, that politics be dammed—win the war.

Both successes and setbacks are clear. While we continually defeat jihadist groups, secure areas, transfer authority to local governments, increase the size and effectiveness of the Iraqi Army, and provide needed assistance with infrastructure, obstacles to victory remain: the resilience of the uncoordinated insurgency, sectarian violence, corruption of the Iraqi Police, and foreign meddling.

Certainly domestic politics have deterred the administration from taking the necessary steps to securing victory (or even improving conditions on the ground at a greater rate), but ultimately, it is the administration’s job to ignore politics and win the war. As the National Review editors wrote, the president’s steadfastness is admirable but it is not enough. And as a veteran of the Iraq War who does not wish to see my sacrifices or the sacrifices of my fellow soldiers slip into the realm of waste, I suggest the following measures be taken:

1. Send more troops to Iraq if need be, and beyond that, send more than is necessary.

2. Continue the successful training of the Iraqi Army.

3. Secure the entire border, even with technology. This will help prevent new jihadists and weaponry from entering the country as well as instilling the rule of law, as smuggling everything from guns to dope is a longstanding practice in the region.

4. Engage in a vigorous public relations campaign in Iraq and at home. Emphasize successes, failures (and what we are doing to mitigate them), freedom, responsibility, rule of law, and the true nature of the insurgents.

5. Tactically, military operations must be coordinated across the country, or at least to a greater degree. Current units have too much autonomy, meaning that when X Brigade conducts a major sweep, Y and Z Brigades are not and the insurgents are able to escape to fight another day.

6. Likewise, we must depart what my operations officer called the “base camp mentality.” In tactical units, we are too tied to the forward operating base (FOB). Leaving behind the smaller FOBs will allow tactical actions to be more fluid, less predictable, and, ultimately, more effective.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but it serves as a starting point for debate on what actions might be taken, especially in problematic areas largely devoid of suggested solutions (like the Iraqi Police, for example). Our counterinsurgency operations (COIN) would be more effective if other mitigating factors were eliminated, or at least eased. The preceding actions would be a good start. Otherwise, the stakes are too high at this point and there is no excuse for the United States of America to be defeated in a war, unless, of course, we lose it ourselves.