I read a truly moving story today from the UK's Daily Mail via FOX News. I ask that you take the time to read the full story, with photos, here. A British lady named Lorraine Allard was four months pregnant when she discovered that she had advanced bowel and liver cancer. She had two options: one, abort her baby and begin chemotherapy immediately to save her own life, or two, do nothing until her unborn son was developed enough to survive on his own. Mrs. Allard chose to wait and delivered her 25-month-old son Liam on Nov. 18 of last year. He is responding well to care and appears to have every chance for a healthy life. Mrs. Allard, on the other hand, died on Jan. 18, having only held her son a few times her final struggle against the cancer destroying her.
I really don't know what more I can add to that story. I'm not really an emotional type of guy, but I can tell you that this story brought moisture to my eyes. This woman clearly showed the greatest love that any person can, essentially laying down her life for another. My prayers are with her family, and may Lorraine always be remembered as an example of great love and moral courage in the face of the choice between life and death.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Security in a Global War
Most Americans are cognizant of the fact that the United States Military is currently engaged in the "war in Iraq," but I think that far fewer realize that Iraq is merely one battle in a global war on terrorism. GWOT, as Army parlance terms it, is also called the Long War, an apt title, considering that this conflict whether "hot" or "cold" has been going on for years, and will continue for the immediately foreseeable future. Winning this war is not a simple matter of sending ships, warplanes, tanks, and troops into a theater of action, and creaming whoever opposes us. If it was, GWOT would almost certainly be of relatively short duration, a short chapter in the history of American military might---witness, for example, the ease and speed with which American forces defeated the regime of Saddam Hussein in the beginning phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Instead, as the continuing battles in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown, we are fighting an enemy that cannot be brought "to terms" or simply crushed by overwhelming conventional military might. We face an enemy that rises from, and hides and operates within, civilian populations, that has no regard for human life or any "rules of warfare," and who, simply put, will never surrender and cease operations until either their jihad against the West succeeds or they are eliminated from the face of the planet.
Thankfully, in this case, eliminated does not necessarily refer to killing every potential or even current terrorist around the globe. While it will certainly involve the use of deadly force on a regular basis, terrorism must also be fought on the economic and diplomatic fronts, and, as has been said before me, in "the hearts and minds" of the people whose countries and/or religion produce the vast majority of terrorist combatants. The importance of this was recently brought to my attention by the recent controversy over comments made by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates about the methods currently being used by our NATO allies to prosecute the fight against terror in Afghanistan, another important (and currently much ignored) front of GWOT. The main thrust of Gates' complaints was that NATO troops are not properly trained in counterinsurgency tactics and, specifically, often overuse heavy (large caliber) firepower when combating terrorists in urban and suburban settings. This, of course, leads to more civilian casualties, which increases local resentment of and opposition to NATO and U.S. forces, which leads to both less cooperation from local civilians and to higher incidents of terrorist violence. My attention was drawn to this issue through the excellent article "A Flip of the COIN" by Steve Schippert at Threats Watch, which I would strongly urge my readers to read as well. The point of the article, with which I agree, is that although this issue does have to do with training in and methods of combating the terrorist insurgency, the bigger issue is one of the will of the nations involved to prosecute the right kind of war. As Mr. Schippert says, "the extensive employment of - or “overreliance on” - such weapons [heavy weaponry] and tactics reduces the casualty risk of the assaulting force demonstrably. The relative safety afforded assaulting NATO forces in using such ‘standoff’ weapons is also politically enticing for domestic leaderships at home in Europe. And therein lies the true rub: Political Will v. Most Effective Tactics."
The overall point which I would like to draw from this discussion is this: America is involved in a long, non-conventional war in which the only military force that she can truly rely on is her own. This is something that I believe far too few American realize, and therein a great danger lies for the upcoming election. Americans must consider the fact that, short of what I believe would be a miracle, the commander-in-chief that they elect will for the duration of his term lead America and the rest of the free world in the continuing confrontation with Islamic terrorism. This means that first of all the leader that Americans choose must realize that winning GWOT is far more than just winning the battle in Iraq, or even disarming Iran. Catchphrases like "I will pursue Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell" do NOT constitute a strategy for victory. A patriotic and appealing moral and temporary tactical victory---yes. But a permanent milestone in winning GWOT---no. Instead, a successful commander-in-chief must be ready to lead a long and sometimes uncertain struggle, and he must be willing to face unpopularity at home and abroad for doing so. He must also be willing to strengthen our military to wage this war. While our forces are undeniably the best in the world, current force levels are also inadequate for the difficult global task that they face. As the previous discussion shows, it is also a task that, with exception of one or two (and possibly no) allies, they must face alone. A proper view of national defence must also take into account the need increase the size of our military.
As previous posts show, I am a supporter of Fred Thompson for the Republican nomination and the presidency, and I believe that he presents the best choice to fulfill the extremely difficult role that I have just described. He knows and understands the enemies and the war that we face, he is a leader who will confront those enemies without wavering, and he is committed to expanding and strengthening our military to meet these challenges. If there is anyone who reads this article who has not read Senator Thompson's White Paper on "Revitalizing our Armed Forces" I strongly urge them to do so and consider whether this is not the kind of leader that they wish to stand at the helm of the American military in the years and conflicts to come. I pray for America's sake that such will be the choice of voters both now in the primaries and also in November.
Thankfully, in this case, eliminated does not necessarily refer to killing every potential or even current terrorist around the globe. While it will certainly involve the use of deadly force on a regular basis, terrorism must also be fought on the economic and diplomatic fronts, and, as has been said before me, in "the hearts and minds" of the people whose countries and/or religion produce the vast majority of terrorist combatants. The importance of this was recently brought to my attention by the recent controversy over comments made by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates about the methods currently being used by our NATO allies to prosecute the fight against terror in Afghanistan, another important (and currently much ignored) front of GWOT. The main thrust of Gates' complaints was that NATO troops are not properly trained in counterinsurgency tactics and, specifically, often overuse heavy (large caliber) firepower when combating terrorists in urban and suburban settings. This, of course, leads to more civilian casualties, which increases local resentment of and opposition to NATO and U.S. forces, which leads to both less cooperation from local civilians and to higher incidents of terrorist violence. My attention was drawn to this issue through the excellent article "A Flip of the COIN" by Steve Schippert at Threats Watch, which I would strongly urge my readers to read as well. The point of the article, with which I agree, is that although this issue does have to do with training in and methods of combating the terrorist insurgency, the bigger issue is one of the will of the nations involved to prosecute the right kind of war. As Mr. Schippert says, "the extensive employment of - or “overreliance on” - such weapons [heavy weaponry] and tactics reduces the casualty risk of the assaulting force demonstrably. The relative safety afforded assaulting NATO forces in using such ‘standoff’ weapons is also politically enticing for domestic leaderships at home in Europe. And therein lies the true rub: Political Will v. Most Effective Tactics."
The overall point which I would like to draw from this discussion is this: America is involved in a long, non-conventional war in which the only military force that she can truly rely on is her own. This is something that I believe far too few American realize, and therein a great danger lies for the upcoming election. Americans must consider the fact that, short of what I believe would be a miracle, the commander-in-chief that they elect will for the duration of his term lead America and the rest of the free world in the continuing confrontation with Islamic terrorism. This means that first of all the leader that Americans choose must realize that winning GWOT is far more than just winning the battle in Iraq, or even disarming Iran. Catchphrases like "I will pursue Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell" do NOT constitute a strategy for victory. A patriotic and appealing moral and temporary tactical victory---yes. But a permanent milestone in winning GWOT---no. Instead, a successful commander-in-chief must be ready to lead a long and sometimes uncertain struggle, and he must be willing to face unpopularity at home and abroad for doing so. He must also be willing to strengthen our military to wage this war. While our forces are undeniably the best in the world, current force levels are also inadequate for the difficult global task that they face. As the previous discussion shows, it is also a task that, with exception of one or two (and possibly no) allies, they must face alone. A proper view of national defence must also take into account the need increase the size of our military.
As previous posts show, I am a supporter of Fred Thompson for the Republican nomination and the presidency, and I believe that he presents the best choice to fulfill the extremely difficult role that I have just described. He knows and understands the enemies and the war that we face, he is a leader who will confront those enemies without wavering, and he is committed to expanding and strengthening our military to meet these challenges. If there is anyone who reads this article who has not read Senator Thompson's White Paper on "Revitalizing our Armed Forces" I strongly urge them to do so and consider whether this is not the kind of leader that they wish to stand at the helm of the American military in the years and conflicts to come. I pray for America's sake that such will be the choice of voters both now in the primaries and also in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)