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.
Friday, December 7, 2007
A Pearl Harbor Day Follow-Up
I wanted to post this story, from army.mil, as a reminder on Pearl Harbor Day that the fight against the enemies of America and freedom continues today, and that there are still hundreds of thousands of heroes, such as Lt. Col. Gadson, who continue in the courageous tradition of valor for which we honor the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who were attacked in Hawaii 66 years ago.
(From left) Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. George Casey Jr., Superintendent of West Point Lt. Gen. Buster Hagenbeck, Lt. Col. Greg Gadson and Secretary of the Army Pete Geren leave the playing field after the coin toss at the 108th Army-Navy football game in Baltimore Dec 1. Lt. Col. Gadson is a former West Point football player who lost both legs to a roadside bomb in Baghdad. Photo by U.S. Military Academy
WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Dec. 5, 2007) - A former West Point football player who was wounded in action joined the Army's top brass for the coin toss at Saturday's Army-Navy Game in Baltimore.Still learning to walk after an improvised-explosive device in Baghdad claimed both of his legs in May, Lt. Col. Greg Gadson marched onto the playing field, and he said it reminded him of the three times Army beat Navy when he was a player."You could feel the specialness of the game, you could feel the energy in the crowd. It did bring back memories of being a player," he said. "I think especially for a senior, who knows this is his last game, and you're part of a tradition and it's pretty awesome."I really was honored to go out there with some of the senior leaders in the Army and accompany them. It was an honor and a privilege that they afforded me and I was so appreciative. At the end of the day, it's a game, but those guys who are out there are going to be leaders in the Army and the Navy and the Marines in a short year and there's going to be a different set of stakes that they're playing for," he added.A field artillery officer, Lt. Col. Gadson attended West Point so he could play football, but fell in love with the Army, so much so that he decided to remain a Soldier in spite of his injuries."I believe I still have something to offer the Soldiers. That's as simple as I can say it. I love being a Soldier and right now I think I still have something to offer. As long as that's the case, I'm up for still being a Soldier," he said.Deployed with the 2nd Battalion, 32nd Field Artillery, Lt. Col. Gadson remembers the blast and thinking he didn't have his rifle. He remembers his first sergeant resuscitating him as he almost bled to death - he needed 70 pints of blood that first night alone - and he remembers hearing the helicopter coming to evacuate him, but little else until weeks later in Walter Reed Army Medical Center.Doctors had to amputate his left leg after infection caused his arteries to collapse. They were able to save his right leg, but Lt. Col. Gadson and his wife decided his quality of life would be better without it. He said his healing sped up very quickly after it was gone and he was finally able to leave intensive care. His right arm was also badly damaged and he needs at least two more surgeries in the next year. He still goes to Walter Reed for therapy every day.Although his injuries and recovery have, of course, been tough on his family, Lt. Col. Gadson said that they have ultimately brought his family closer together. "It's changed their life," he said. "But I think it's also brought us together. In tough times, there's really two ways to go, you can come together or you can go apart and I think it's been something that has brought us together. I am so proud of my kids because they have really embraced what has happened to our family."Learning to walk without knees or ankles has been challenging, but Lt. Col. Gadson credits prosthetics and the excellent therapists at Walter Reed, and looks at it like training for anything else."It's tough, but so is basic training, so is going through West Point, so is war. If you understand that what you're going through is going to be tough, then you prepare yourself for it and you go through it. There's no shortcuts," he said.Committing to walk on the field at the Army-Navy Game was also a good goal for Lt. Col. Gadson to work towards. "Once I committed to it I said, 'Well, I have to make sure I can walk,'" he said.He pushes himself, but he warns wounded Soldiers against pushing themselves too hard and trying to do anything before their bodies are ready."Just be patient and realize that you have had a significant event that's happened to you and take your time," he said. "I've found that that's really one of the most challenging things, to really be patient, kind of listen to my body. I'm not the same guy I was and if I push too hard I can do something to hurt myself and that's what I mean about being patient."Lt. Col. Gadson also wants Soldiers to know that the Army will take care of them."One thing I'm really proud of is how the Army has responded to me," he said. "As a commander, you put so much into trying to take care of Soldiers. And I found myself on the other end of being taken care of and it's been absolutely phenomenal."I just have to say that (Army medical personnel) are performing phenomenally. The tremendous trauma that my body's been through, I have nothing but great things to say. In other wars, I wouldn't have survived. The fact that three to five months after this happened, I'm in prosthetic limbs and I'm starting to learn how to walk again, is even hard for me to appreciate. These guys have really, really been doing some super work."
Dec 05, 2007
(From left) Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. George Casey Jr., Superintendent of West Point Lt. Gen. Buster Hagenbeck, Lt. Col. Greg Gadson and Secretary of the Army Pete Geren leave the playing field after the coin toss at the 108th Army-Navy football game in Baltimore Dec 1. Lt. Col. Gadson is a former West Point football player who lost both legs to a roadside bomb in Baghdad. Photo by U.S. Military AcademyWASHINGTON (Army News Service, Dec. 5, 2007) - A former West Point football player who was wounded in action joined the Army's top brass for the coin toss at Saturday's Army-Navy Game in Baltimore.Still learning to walk after an improvised-explosive device in Baghdad claimed both of his legs in May, Lt. Col. Greg Gadson marched onto the playing field, and he said it reminded him of the three times Army beat Navy when he was a player."You could feel the specialness of the game, you could feel the energy in the crowd. It did bring back memories of being a player," he said. "I think especially for a senior, who knows this is his last game, and you're part of a tradition and it's pretty awesome."I really was honored to go out there with some of the senior leaders in the Army and accompany them. It was an honor and a privilege that they afforded me and I was so appreciative. At the end of the day, it's a game, but those guys who are out there are going to be leaders in the Army and the Navy and the Marines in a short year and there's going to be a different set of stakes that they're playing for," he added.A field artillery officer, Lt. Col. Gadson attended West Point so he could play football, but fell in love with the Army, so much so that he decided to remain a Soldier in spite of his injuries."I believe I still have something to offer the Soldiers. That's as simple as I can say it. I love being a Soldier and right now I think I still have something to offer. As long as that's the case, I'm up for still being a Soldier," he said.Deployed with the 2nd Battalion, 32nd Field Artillery, Lt. Col. Gadson remembers the blast and thinking he didn't have his rifle. He remembers his first sergeant resuscitating him as he almost bled to death - he needed 70 pints of blood that first night alone - and he remembers hearing the helicopter coming to evacuate him, but little else until weeks later in Walter Reed Army Medical Center.Doctors had to amputate his left leg after infection caused his arteries to collapse. They were able to save his right leg, but Lt. Col. Gadson and his wife decided his quality of life would be better without it. He said his healing sped up very quickly after it was gone and he was finally able to leave intensive care. His right arm was also badly damaged and he needs at least two more surgeries in the next year. He still goes to Walter Reed for therapy every day.Although his injuries and recovery have, of course, been tough on his family, Lt. Col. Gadson said that they have ultimately brought his family closer together. "It's changed their life," he said. "But I think it's also brought us together. In tough times, there's really two ways to go, you can come together or you can go apart and I think it's been something that has brought us together. I am so proud of my kids because they have really embraced what has happened to our family."Learning to walk without knees or ankles has been challenging, but Lt. Col. Gadson credits prosthetics and the excellent therapists at Walter Reed, and looks at it like training for anything else."It's tough, but so is basic training, so is going through West Point, so is war. If you understand that what you're going through is going to be tough, then you prepare yourself for it and you go through it. There's no shortcuts," he said.Committing to walk on the field at the Army-Navy Game was also a good goal for Lt. Col. Gadson to work towards. "Once I committed to it I said, 'Well, I have to make sure I can walk,'" he said.He pushes himself, but he warns wounded Soldiers against pushing themselves too hard and trying to do anything before their bodies are ready."Just be patient and realize that you have had a significant event that's happened to you and take your time," he said. "I've found that that's really one of the most challenging things, to really be patient, kind of listen to my body. I'm not the same guy I was and if I push too hard I can do something to hurt myself and that's what I mean about being patient."Lt. Col. Gadson also wants Soldiers to know that the Army will take care of them."One thing I'm really proud of is how the Army has responded to me," he said. "As a commander, you put so much into trying to take care of Soldiers. And I found myself on the other end of being taken care of and it's been absolutely phenomenal."I just have to say that (Army medical personnel) are performing phenomenally. The tremendous trauma that my body's been through, I have nothing but great things to say. In other wars, I wouldn't have survived. The fact that three to five months after this happened, I'm in prosthetic limbs and I'm starting to learn how to walk again, is even hard for me to appreciate. These guys have really, really been doing some super work."
In Memory of an Important But Often Forgotten Day
Never forget...
"December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan... Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory... With confidence in our armed forces—with the unbounded determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph—so help us God." —Franklin D. Roosevelt (quote copied from the PatriotPost, 07-49 Digest)
Saying "Happy Pearl Harbor Day" doesn't sound right, so let me just add, long may the faith, courage, resiliency, and military strength that brought us through that time continue and flourish in America, and may our country ever seek to weather the trials that face us with the conviction and spirit with which we faced the tragedy of December 7, 1941. My thanks go to those who rose up to defend us then, and to those who continue in our defence in that same courageous legacy.
"December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan... Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory... With confidence in our armed forces—with the unbounded determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph—so help us God." —Franklin D. Roosevelt (quote copied from the PatriotPost, 07-49 Digest)
Saying "Happy Pearl Harbor Day" doesn't sound right, so let me just add, long may the faith, courage, resiliency, and military strength that brought us through that time continue and flourish in America, and may our country ever seek to weather the trials that face us with the conviction and spirit with which we faced the tragedy of December 7, 1941. My thanks go to those who rose up to defend us then, and to those who continue in our defence in that same courageous legacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)