Target Centermass

Category: Gunner’s Favorites

  • Hey, Senator Biden

    Shut up or start making sense. It’s your call.

    Two days ago, I pointed y’all to a blog post by Chad at In the Bullpen examining the call by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Some asylum) to shut down the Guantanamo detention center. Chad appropriately titled the piece “Biden is Off His Rocker.”

    Today, I’ve found more evidence that the man is losing his grip.

    Having recently returned from his fifth visit to Iraq, Sen. Biden spoke of the need to avoid a complete withdrawal from the country.

    “And if we leave now, I guarantee you there will be a civil war, which a lot of our folks are worrying about now anyway,” said Biden, D-Del., said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “We made a giant mistake in the beginning over the objection of a number from both parties.”

    U.S. forces decommissioned the entire army, the so-called de- Ba`athification and that left Iraq with no military, according to Biden.

    Biden said the training of Iraqi troops is on track, however, the United States waited a year and a half to start the process of training Iraqi troops.

    A year and a half? That would be a tragic mistake indeed. By Biden’s count, the training of Iraqi forces by Americans did not begin until at least October 2004. Well, he’s been there five times — he must know what he’s talking about, right?

    Wrong. In fact, not even close. In January 2004, the Department of Defense released the following:

    The first of nine brigades planned for the new Iraqi army nearly is complete, the officer responsible for helping to rebuild the country’s military reported in a Baghdad briefing today.

    Addressing progress in the rebuilding effort, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, commander of the coalition’s military assistance and training team in Iraq, said three battalions of Iraqi soldiers have graduated from military training academies since October. The desired “end state” is to eventually have “Iraqi officers and soldiers take over the training of their own soldiers,” Eaton said.

    “I would like to emphasize that this will be an Iraqi Army, trained by Iraqis,” he said.

    And who were the Iraqis hoped to relieve from the duty of training their forces? You guessed it, the Coalition Provisional Authority, according to one of its own briefings from September 2003. Oh by the way, the coalition included Americans.

    Let me begin with a little bit on the new Iraqi army, as such. The new Iraqi army began training the first battalion around the first of August, and that first battalion will be commissioned and enter operational service on October 4th, the training being now about three-quarters completed.

    The training takes place at a place called Kirkush, which is an old Iraqi military base about 80 kilometers northeast of Baghdad and about 30 kilometers from the Iranian border, which we reconditioned and are using as the training facility. As battalions go through, we will expand the capacity of that facility and have something like four battalions ready and operational by early next year.

    The actual day-to-day training is being done by U.S. contract trainers with very close Coalition military oversight. The military oversight is done by an organization called the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team, which is commanded by an American, Major-General Paul Eaton, who was, until he took up this assignment, the commander of infantry training for the United States Army. So we have sent our best expert on that issue.

    His deputy is British, and his staff includes officers from a variety of Coalition countries.

    NATO trainers began arriving in August 2004 to expand efforts, and a military academy for Iraqi officers was already in the works in October 2004, when Biden claims we became involved in training Iraqi forces.

    Well, the good senator was only off by well over a year.

    Then there’s another curious statement just today by the senator during the confirmation hearings on Zalmay Khalilzad, nominee for the position of U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

    Joseph Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee, said on returning from his fifth visit to Baghdad that he and the American public were losing patience.

    “I’m not sure I could in good faith, a year from now, if things aren’t drastically different, continue to support American forces being in Iraq because we just seem not to get it yet,” he told Mr Khalilzad. The US “loss” of Iraq would be an “absolute disaster for the better part of a generation”, he said.

    Let me see if I can get a grip on this convoluted bilge spewing forth from Biden. Losing Iraq would be an absolute disaster but he cannot support the presence of our forces there another year without great improvement. Did I get that right? If things are not drastically improved, the senator would prefer to opt for what he himself sees as a tragedy.

    He calls for the shutting down Gitmo, either lies or is grossly mistaken about American training efforts in a country where he’s been on the ground enough times to know better, and shows a convoluted but resoundingly spineless support of our efforts while knowing the dreadful consequence of failure.

    Though I oppose the concept of term limits for members of the U.S. Congress, Biden does provide evidence to support at least consideration of the idea.

  • The American Media Problem(s)

    There is certainly something amiss in the “American” mainstream media. Even at least one media insider, Carole Simpson, just might realize it.

    America, we’ve got a problem. Actually, two problems. One is the news media’s loss of credibility because some news organizations have reported stories that are wrong or fabricated. Their BAD.

    That contributes to the other problem: the public’s disdain for the news and the people who provide it. Too many Americans believe we are all too liberal and we slant the news. They think we deserve no respect.

    Do not go quietly into that good night of recognition, Carole. Go whining.

    Look at how reporters and camera people are portrayed on television and in the movies. It makes me crazy. Typically, we’re seen as a gang of pushing, shouting, obnoxious people, waving microphones and note pads, trying desperately to get a quote or a picture. The police, politicians, business leaders, and celebrities – in these fictional dramas – routinely refer to the press as “vultures.” Characters are always trying to hide things from the media. But you know what that means? They are really trying to hide it from you, from the public.

    Yeah, sure, you’re portrayed badly and we lose. How about you’re deservedly portrayed badly based on your general behaviour? How about we lose, not from your portrayal but from your behaviour?

    How about we get to the meat of your “epiphany” of sorts?

    But it doesn’t help our credibility at all when, in the space of a few months, two major news organizations have had to admit to the whole world that they screwed up. They reported stories that were wrong. They had to retract them and apologize.

    Most recently, Newsweek magazine had to retract a clause in a short story. The magazine said government investigators looking into interrogation abuses at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have confirmed that interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Koran down a toilet.

    An unnamed government source told Newsweek reporters this happened at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, where the detainees are mostly Muslims and those in charge are Americans. You should know that the Koran is to Muslims what the Bible is to Christians, or the Torah is to Jews. It is considered holy, and the word of God.

    The story about alleged American desecration of its holy book was too much for many in the Muslim world. Part of one sentence in a short story in a weekly newsmagazine was used to stir up riots in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia. Sixteen people died.

    As silly kids we used to chant: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Maybe we need to rethink that little ditty.

    Newsweek’s words were deadly and further tarnished America’s image in the Middle East.

    Then there’s CBS News. Weeks before the 2004 election, Dan Rather reported on “60 Minutes II” that his news team had obtained documents proving President Bush got preferential treatment during the Vietnam War and did not fulfill his National Guard obligation.

    The story was attacked immediately. Rather repeatedly defended it as accurate, while his CBS bosses launched an internal investigation. The report was based on memos that some critics called forgeries, and kinder critics described as “impossible to authenticate.” CBS News was wrong. The result? It didn’t kill any people; it just killed the careers of Dan Rather and three highly respected veteran CBS producers.

    Trust me, there is no legitimate question they were forgeries.

    In her closing, it is evident that Carole Simpson really doesn’t get it.

    We believe it is our duty to the American people. Yet the distrust is out there and growing every year.

    A University of Connecticut poll found this month that 60 percent of Americans say the “media in general” do a fair or poor job reporting information accurately. Only 39 percent think the media do an excellent or good job. Twenty years ago, these ratings were much better. But 20 years ago there weren’t so many 24-hour news channels, news by Internet and cell phone, and independent bloggers, who can say anything they want without retribution.

    Every profession has some bad apples and they are usually found out and thrown out. They don’t spoil the whole barrel. Every news organization I know is trying harder than ever to regain credibility and public confidence.

    This country was founded by men who believed a free press was so important to democracy, they gave it protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Just because once in a rare while some organization gets something wrong, the American public cannot just dismiss the news media altogether. While many avoid us when they don’t want to tell the truth, our job is to hang in there and dig it out sooner or later. But we need to get the truth out. Not for us. For you.

    The problems currently facing the American mainstream media do not hang on a few errors. Rather, they hang on a mindset. That mindset is why the two errors that Ms. Simpson wrote about actually occurred. Those two stories could be rushed to print without adequate research just had to be true because they just made sense to the worldviews of the journalists involved, journalistic standards be damned. That is also shown in the media’s willingness to circle their wagons around Newsweek, augmenting their side of the controversy with story upon story of Quran abuse based solely upon allegations of detainees. Need I remind anyone that it wasn’t a detainee or a journalist that began the Abu Ghraib investigations but was, instead, the reporting of a wrong by a soldier? The words of a politically-motivated detainee have no reason to be automatically believed, but that apparently is the standard of proof so many of Ms. Simpson’s colleagues are willing to use in their publishing.

    The problem is not a desire to get the story out there, but rather what story the media wishes to get out there.

    Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette points us to a Los Angeles Times piece whining about the difficulty of getting pictures of wounded and killed American soldiers into print. As expected, he addresses this story wonderfully, but I’d like to tie the disgusting piece into this post. Even within its whining hit piece, the Times shows strong anecdotal evidence of common Americans who question the media’s desire to flaunt Americans suffering during wartime.

    Publishing such photos grabs readers’ attention, but not always in ways that news executives like. When the Star-Ledger and several other papers ran the Babbitt photo in November, their editors were lashed by some readers — who called them cruel, insensitive, even unpatriotic.

    Deirdre Sargent, whose husband was deployed to Iraq, e-mailed editors of the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., that the photo left her “shaking and in tears for hours.” She added: “It was tacky, unprofessional and completely unnecessary.”

    Babbitt’s mother, Kathy Hernandez, expressed ambivalent sentiments. “That is not an image you want to see like that,” said Hernandez, still shedding tears of fury and sadness six months after her son’s death. “Your kid is lying like that and there is no way you can get there to help them.”

    I’m not advocating government intervention into our media.

    Not at freakin’ all.

    However, I am asking those at the Times and other members of the media to question themselves. Are you an American first, covering what is truly best for America? Are you sure, as America doesn’t seem to think so, judging by your declining readership. Are you being honest to your trade? Apparently not, judging by recent major gaffes. Are you covering a war-time situation in an honest manner, or are you letting your worldviews guide your publishing judgement against our military efforts? My guess is the latter, as you seem almost bloodthirsty to show American suffering but seem to lack a similar driving desire to portray progress. Please feel free to counter that guess with a study of the frequency of published photos of suffering American soldiers over any six-month period of World War II.

    Oh yeah, Ms. Simpson, you have no idea of the depths of the problems of the American media.

  • My Interview by TexasBestGrok

    It’s a meme. JohnL at TexasBestGrok subjected himself, and now it’s my turn.

    He asked the questions. I’ll give the answers. To perpetuate the meme, leave a comment saying you want to be interviewed. The first five doing so will be asked six questions, of which you can choose to answer five. You will update your blog/site with the answers to the questions. You will include this explanation and an offer to interview others in the same post. I’ll provide a link to your answers.

    Here are John’s questions and my responses:

    1. For anyone new to your blog, why did you choose the name Target Centermass?

    After I decided to start a blog, my first step was to come up with a name. I anticipated correctly that a great deal of my content would be related to military matters and I’d decided to blog anonymously (no longer the case) under the name Gunner, which I’d already been using for years on an Aggie discussion forum and which was my last position as a tanker.

    So I thought. And thought. I actually found my list of ideas:

    • Centermass — where Gunners are taught to aim
    • GunnerSabotTank — the fire command issued by the tank commander
    • Dinotanker — a tribute to my start on the old M60-A3 at a time when the active Army was already through with the old beasts
    • Jeditanker — as a nod to my M1 and M1-A1 time, dubbed so because of the tech jump from the M60
    • Blue Six Golf — the radio call sign for my last position, gunner on 3rd Platoon Leader’s vehicle

    Finally I chose Target Centermass, describing a perfectly placed hit on the target. Still, I liked Blue Six Golf, so my blog took the TCm name and started at bluesixgolf.blogspot.com.

    2. While a student at Texas A&M, did you get to help build any of the bonfires? Any memorable anecdotes? (For the benefit of any non-Aggie/non-Longhorn/non-Texan readers you might want to give a short explanation about the Aggie bonfire tradition).

    Alas! No, and it’s one of my greatest regrets. I’ve seen several burn, but I never could be bothered to chip in on the labor. It was only later that I realized the camaraderie that I missed.

    As to those unfamiliar with the tradition that dates to 1909, the Bonfire symbolizes the burning desire in Texas Aggies to beat the hell out of the University of Texas, or t.u. in Aggie jargon. As the world’s biggest bonfire, it once reached a height of 110 feet in the ’70s before being constrained to a more modest 55 feet. The Bonfire has not burned since the tragic collapse in 1999 that cost the lives of twelve Aggies.

    3. What do you think about the current long term force “transformation” policy of the DoD, i.e., the “modular” Army based on swappable brigades like the new Stryker brigades? (On that note, what do you think about the Stryker vehicle? Competitor or complement to heavy armor?)

    I like the transformation, to a degree. Rummy drove for it before the current state of events made it seem obvious; it was well past time we branched from Cold War doctrine. I’ve blogged before about the traps of always preparing for the previous fight. My concern is that it may go too far, sapping us in potential conflicts with China or North Korea.

    As to the Stryker, I have no experience with the vehicle but I know the troopers serving on it sure like them. They certainly have a value in urban warfare, something never really expected of heavy armor. I view it more as a complement to the main battle tank and a competitor to the Bradley. Certainly not a competitor to the M1 in mass armor engagement.

    4. What’s your favorite Tex-Mex place in the Dallas area? Do you normally order the same thing, or something different each time? Favorite dish/drink?

    I’ve always felt the best Tex-Mex could never be found in a chain place — not that I won’t eat at those, just the better food seems to be at the small hole-in-the-wall type places. In the Dallas area, I’d say I’d pick El Paso Cafe on Central in Plano. Fast, cheap and delicious (and close to work). I’d say about 80 percent of the time I’ll order the tacos al carbon or the carne asada.

    Now, the best Tex-Mex place I’ve ever frequented would be Las Nortenos in old downtown Bryan, Texas. However, I’m always open to trying new places. Any suggestions? Also, here’s a tip: there is no good Tex-Mex in Washington, D.C.

    5. While you were in the Army, what was the most exotic posting you had? Any fun stories related to that specific location?

    I don’t know. Do you consider Ft. Knox, Ky., or Killeen, Texas, to be exotic? Yeah, me neither.

    6. What got you into blogging? If you had to write a mission statement for your blog, whoat would it be? Do you have any conscious role models for or influences in your blogging?

    My love of journalism and my disgust at how it is currently practiced.

    As long as I can remember, I have been a newspaper junkie. I took the first jounalism course I was able, joining my high school newspaper staff my freshman year. I went on to be editor of that paper, at the time one of the most respected and awarded high school rags in the state of Texas.

    My journalistic strength was always in straight newswriting, something that seems to be lacking in today’s media stalwarts. At some point in time, I stumbled across Eject! Eject! Eject! and admired the amazing content. After that, I found similar enjoyment at USS Clueless. Those were my introduction to blogs. I’d been posting for years on an internet forum, putting forth my views and spouting occasional drunken rants. An occasional poster there also happened to be a blogger, elgato at the Swanky Conservative. I figured, hey, two plus two equals five, given large values of two. Maybe, just maybe, I could do this blogging thing.

    A mission statement? I’ll go bland:

    Postings, meandering thoughts and rants from a former-Libertarian-again-Republican, hawkish Texan. Whatever I want, whenever I want.

    Role models or influences? A little more than the brevity of your typical Instapundit post. A touch of the Fat Guy when he’s angry. Heck, I’m still trying to find my sea legs. I don’t think I’ve yet settled into my final blogging style. In the real world, I’ve a far more sarcastic and dry wit than I typically use on Target Centermass. I mean far, far more. Oh yeah, my sense of humor on matters of a sexual nature suspended maturing at about the age of fifteen. Sooner or later, this will come out on the blog. I’ll keep plugging and see how things develop; I’m no essayist, but the site could probably use an occasional drunken rant. We’ll see.

  • And The Army Goes Rolling Along

    Sure, I was a treadhead, but even I know the Army needs wheels. And wheeled vehicles, specifically the Humvees and Strykers, have certainly been in the news as a result of their participation in the Iraqi theater. Let’s check the latest, shall we?

    U.S. Commanders Seek More Armored Humvees

    For the fifth time in the past year, U.S. commanders running the war in Iraq have told the Army to send more armored Humvee utility vehicles to protect U.S. troops.

    Just as the Army was reaching its target of 8,279 factory-built armored Humvees for delivery to Iraq, U.S. Central Command last month raised the bar again, to 10,079, Army officials disclosed Tuesday.

    The Army has been accused by many in Congress of lagging behind in providing armor protection for troops, hundreds of whom have been killed or wounded in ambushes and roadside bombs in Iraq. The Army says it has pressed the vehicle manufacturer for as many as possible, and it has been chasing a moving target set initially at 1,407 by commanders in Iraq in August 2003.

    When the war began in March 2003, few might have imagined that the all-purpose Humvee, the modern version of the unarmored Jeep, would need to be reinforced in large numbers. But soon they became a prime target of the insurgents’ roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades.

    By April 2004 the requirement for factory-built armored Humvees had reached 4,454, and commanders in Iraq subsequently raised it to 6,223 in June, 8,105 in August and then to 8,279 in December.

    Those are in addition to thousands of regular Humvees to which makeshift armor and ballistic glass have been added to reinforce their doors and windows against the blast from roadside bombs and land mines. Armor also has been added to supply trucks and older troop carriers.

    The new armored Humvee target of 10,079 is not expected to be achieved before July, according to Army projections based on the factory’s recently increased production rate of 550 vehicles per month. It will take a few additional weeks beyond July to ship the extras to Iraq.

    Will that delivery be the end of the prolonged controversy? I seriously doubt it. Hell, it probably won’t even be the end of the numbers game.

    Army officials acknowledge that putting armor on Humvees is not a perfect solution. For one thing, it has added to the wear-and-tear on the heavier vehicles and increased fuel consumption, thereby requiring even more supply convoys that are a common target of insurgents.

    “No amount of effort in armoring will make our soldiers completely invulnerable, but we owe it to them to provide the best possible protection,” Army Secretary Francis Harvey wrote in a letter to the editor of USA Today on Monday.

    Wise words, remaining true through every evolution of warfare.

    Soldiers Hail New Stryker Troop Transport

    For soldiers inside the U.S. Army’s newest troop transport vehicle, the armored combat Stryker rides like a cross-town bus as it sways softly atop its rubber tires, its brakes hissing quietly — before the back shoots open and troops leap onto the streets of one of Iraq’s most dangerous cities.

    Some 300 Strykers are patrolling northern Iraq after their September 2003 introduction — vanguard of a multibillion dollar program that commanders say boosts their chances in a largely hit-and-run battle with insurgents.

    Rank-and-file soldiers hailed the Stryker during recent patrols in Mosul as faster, quieter and safer than other combat vehicles — despite last week’s internal Army study that found numerous design flaws.

    “We’ve been hit with (roadside bombs) and rocket-propelled grenades several times. We have taken direct machine-gun fire,” said Spc. George May of the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division based in Fort Lewis, Wash. “The Stryker has saved everyone’s lives at least once. It’s perfect for what we’re doing, which is urban warfare.”

    Strykers are designed to carry troops on patrols and into combat — like Bradley fighting vehicles, or the Humvees that have came under criticism for lacking proper armor. But while the boxy Strykers somewhat resemble tanks, they generally lack heavy cannons and are propelled by wheels instead of tracks.

    […]

    Soldiers say the Stryker is quieter, allowing them to sneak up on the enemy. And they say its partially jerry-rigged armor guards them better than Humvees.

    Unlike the tank-like, tracked personnel carriers that predominate across the rest of Iraq — such as the Bradley — the four wheels on either side of the 19-ton Stryker give it speed, stealth and mobility that allows it to outmaneuver insurgents, officers say.

    “For what we’re doing, I think the Stryker is excellent,” said May, a 27-year-old native of Upper Dublin, Pa.

    The Strykers themselves have also not beem free of concern.

    Still, an Army report from the Center for Army Lessons Learned found the vehicle bogs down in mud and the engine strains under 5,000-pound armor added by the Army.

    The metal mesh armor, designed to deflect rocket-propelled grenades and large shrapnel from improvised bombs, has earned it a nickname: “the bird cage.”

    The report also said the armor’s extra weight has caused problems with the automatic tire pressure system, requiring crews to check the tires three times a day.

    “The Army should not put inadequately tested equipment in the field, as it creates a false impression that the troops are properly equipped to fight in combat,” said Eric Miller, who investigates defense issues for the oversight group.

    It is interesting to read of the future force the Army plans to field.

    The $7 billion Stryker program is intended as a stepping stone to the ultimate goal: a high-tech family of fighting systems known as the Future Combat System, expected to include unmanned ground and aerial vehicles.

  • Dying for Another Tet in Iraq

    The Islamists and the Saddamites wanted another Mogadishu, hoping to bloody the American nose and move in after the subsequent withdrawal. They failed. Badly.

    And so, they turned to an earlier model of American failure — Viet Nam. And the American Left and the media were so glad to help, as calls of quagmire and failure rang out, intertwined with moaning for an “exit strategy” and plantings of draft rumors.

    Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam

    —Sen. Edward Kennedy (source)

    Unfortunately for them, things haven’t been going the way of the terrorists. The terrorists, despite vows to the contrary, had to watch an Iraqi citizenry give the finger to fear and vote for their own future. The attacks against U.S. troops have repeatedly failed and casualties are declining. It is time for the terrorists to turn back to the Viet Nam playbook — they need another Tet.

    And what better place than Abu Ghraib, a prison tragically more known internationally for a handful of rogue American atrocities (prosecuted or being prosecuted) than for countless thousands of murders and horrors committed previously by the Saddam regime (blank check in the global community from prosecution or even reputation). The terrorist movement had learned they couldn’t really hurt the American military effort. The Iraqis’ disgust with their victimization by the foreign Islamists, criminals and Saddamists was growing fast. Luckily for the murderous bastards, the American and international media remained fascinated with all things Abu Ghraib. Well, all things post-conflict.

    The scene was set for another Tet-like defeat of the Americans — make statement-type attacks and let the media take it from there. Target: Abu Ghraib.

    I didn’t have time Saturday to do anything other than post the link to the initial attack on the prison. Mark that, failed attack, as there were no American deaths and no prisoners freed. There were headlines, though.

    And believe me, the Islamist bastards tried to milk it for all it was worth.

    Al-Qaeda in Iraq, meanwhile, posted a second internet statement boasting that its fighters carried out the bold attempt on Saturday to force their way into the prison. The statement, posted late on Sunday, said two fighters were injured and 10 more were killed in battle, including seven suicide bombers.

    It said a group of about 20 militants scaled the prison’s walls, and that one reached a prison tower and yelled: “God is great!”

    Today, the scumbags continued in their efforts for another Tet.

    Another attack around Abu Ghraib

    A suicide bomber driving a tractor blew himself up Monday in the second attack in three days near the Abu Ghraib prison.

    I argue that the operative word in that lead paragraph is “near,” signifying that the terrorists get ink and a gold star from the press just for trying.

    Are they making a dent with this latest rush of bloody sacrifice? No, but unfortunately that may only be a matter of timing. I have no doubt that editors across America and around the globe would salivate over the headlines they could trumpet about the attempts by the terrorists to right all of the American wrongs at Abu Ghraib.

    What’s stopping them? Simply and sadly, probably only timing.

    Minor skirmishes that achieve nothing cannot help but be overshadowed by the passing of Pope John Paul II.

    Maybe the pope’s last great accomplishment will be to stop another Tet-like failure, just as progress is taking hold in a region thirsting for it.

  • Red Out of Favor As Teacher’s Choice

    I’ll admit that when I saw the headline I thought it was a political reference regarding red states and liberal teachers. Upon reading the article, I found instead it was another glimpse into the watering down of our nation’s public education system.

    Of all the things that can make a person see red, school principal Gail Karwoski was not expecting parents to get huffy about, well, seeing red. At Daniels Farm Elementary School in Trumbull, Conn., Karwoski’s teachers grade papers by giving examples of better answers for those students who make mistakes. But that approach meant the kids often found their work covered in red, the color that teachers long have used to grade work.

    Parents objected. Red writing, they said, was “stressful.” The principal said teachers were just giving constructive advice and the color of ink used to convey that message should not matter. But some parents could not let it go.

    So the school put red on the blacklist. Blue and other colors are in.

    “It’s not an argument we want to have at this point because what we need is the parents’ understanding,” Karwoski said. “The color of the message should not be the issue.”

    Fine, if it’s not an argument worth having and the color is not the issue, simply avoid the argument rather than cratering into it. Surrender is not avoidance.

    In many other schools, it’s black and white when it comes to red. The color has become so symbolic of negativity that some principals and teachers will not touch it.

    “You could hold up a paper that says ‘Great work!’ and it won’t even matter if it’s written in red,” said Joseph Foriska, principal of Thaddeus Stevens Elementary in Pittsburgh.

    He has instructed his teachers to grade with colors featuring more “pleasant-feeling tones” so that their instructional messages do not come across as derogatory or demeaning.

    “The color is everything,” said Foriska, an educator for 31 years.

    The color is most assuredly not everything, nor is passing along pleasant vibes when returning an evaluation to a student.

    At Public School 188 in Manhattan, 25-year-old teacher Justin Kazmark grades with purple, which has emerged as a new color of choice for many educators, pen manufacturers confirm.

    “My generation was brought up on right or wrong with no in between, and red was always in your face,” Kazmark said. “It’s abrasive to me. Purple is just a little bit more gentle. Part of my job is to be attuned to what kids respond to, and red is not one of those colors.”

    My guess is that Kazmark saw a lot of “abrasive” red on his papers back in high school. He also probably carries esteem issues from elementary school stemming from poor dodgeball and kickball performances.

    When I was in school, there were right answers and wrong answers. There were also essay and short answer questions, wherein gray areas could actually exist. All of these could adequately be addressed in red ink.

    The disillusionment with red is part of broader shift in grading, said Vanessa Powell, a fifth-grade teacher at Snowshoe Elementary School in Wasilla, Alaska.

    “It’s taken a turn from ‘Here’s what you need to improve on’ to ‘Here’s what you’ve done right,’” Powell said. “It’s not that we’re not pointing out mistakes, it’s just that the method in which it’s delivered is more positive.”

    Her students, she said, probably would tune out red because they are so used to it. So she grades with whatever color — turquoise blue, hot pink, lime green — appeals to them.

    And at what age should students learn that life can be harsh, that it isn’t always about what appeals to them or what they’ve done right? Should they wait until college, where weed-out courses await them? Should we water down education at that level as well, based upon “feelings” and “esteem” and such? News flash: the real world can be harsh. The realm of business can be affected just as much by what one does right as well as by what one does wrong. Disappointment cannot be avoided, and allowing young students to confront it early can have a vaccinating effect to prepare for greater disappointments later in life. Oh no, my layoff notice wasn’t written in an appealing ink! What will I do?

    Life can be harsh and there’s no value in softening this lesson for kids who get things wrong. These kids need to learn two things. First, red ink is one of the lesser adversities they will face. Second, they are not all destined for greatness and equal success. As Judge Smails once said, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

    Use the red ink. Hell, use a red marker.

    UPDATE: As Eric points out in the comments, he’s blogged the same story and it’s almost frightening how of like minds we are on this matter. It’s strange how similar our view on this matter is and, yet, that view is completely ignored in the story.

  • Guard Shines Against Ambush in Iraq

    Weekend warrior.

    Yeah, I was called that. Derisively, and more often than I was thanked for my service and sacrifices. Maybe that was my fault, as I left the National Guard in 1999. That was well before the patriotic fervor of 9/11 swept the land and people began to see Guardsmen and Reservists performing in the roles for which we trained.

    Now, with the war against radical Islamist terror having active theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq, the reserve components have been called upon extensively. Sometimes with praise, sometimes with condemnation.

    How now, when serious blood has been shed? Initial responses to Sunday’s engagement, where 27 insurgents were killed in a brutal failure of an ambush on a coalition convoy, centered on questions about another Tet and whether the size was a sign of a desperate or growing opposition.

    Little reported until today (and still little reported) was that it was a Guard unit that kicked ass on Sunday, killing 27 while suffering only three casualties after being ambushed.

    A Kentucky National Guard unit is being credited with responding in “textbook” fashion during an ambush here March 20, killing 27 insurgents and capturing a sizable weapons cache and valuable intelligence.

    The insurgent death toll is the highest in Iraq since the Fallujah operation in November 2004 and, according to Army Capt. Todd Lindner, commander of the Richmond, Ky.-based 617th Military Police Company, represents “without a doubt, one of the most significant impacts an MP company has had in this war.”

    Lindner credits his unit’s dogged commitment to training and unwillingness to cut corners with preparing his soldiers for the firefight along an alternative supply route about seven miles southeast of Baghdad.

    Three squads from the 617th MP Company were providing security for a convoy along the supply route when it came under attack by 40 to 50 insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons.

    According to Lindner, the soldiers positioned themselves between the convoy and the attackers, “putting down a heavy volume of fire” and flanking the enemy, when they began receiving fire from the rear.

    “They were armed to the teeth, and looked like they were ready to fight for a long time,” Linder said of the insurgents.

    Ultimately, the unit killed 27 of the insurgents and captured several more. After the attack, they recovered a cache of RPGs, rockets, machine guns, assault weapons, hand grenades and ammunition.

    Three unit soldiers were wounded, two seriously.

    “These guys were amazing,” Linder said of his soldiers. “This proves what we’ve been saying all along: These guys rock.”

    Lindner credits training with making the vital difference in his unit’s ability to respond under fire.

    “We’ve been training for this mission for the last year before we got here,” he said. “Once we knew we were coming (to Iraq), we changed our training to focus specifically on this mission.”

    That training, he said, “absolutely made a difference” in his unit’s response during the weekend attack, sharpening its ability to maneuver while firing.

    Sgt. 1st Class Marshall Ware, platoon sergeant for the squads involved, agrees the training the unit received “absolutely” made a difference during the attack.

    “From Day 1, there was an emphasis on training,” he said. “We trained and trained and trained.”

    Equally critical, he said, was the unit’s strict adherence to standards — conducting precombat inspections, making sure weapons are clean, and requiring use of body armor, Kevlar helmets and eye and hearing protection.

    These steps have protected his company against numerous attacks, Ware said. “You can’t completely take the risk out of what we’re doing, but you can mitigate it,” he said.

    Ware, who served 10 years on active duty before becoming a full-time National Guardsman, said he came to the Guard with prejudices that its members played second string to the active force. But he said the Guard members he worked with quickly proved him wrong.

    “The Guard is not the same Guard it was two years ago,” he said. “They’re as good as any active duty unit.”

    The average Guard unit is most assuredly not up to par with their counterparts in the active Army, but the difference is in training time. It most assuredly is not in motivation or talent.

    After Action Report follows: the terrorists should learn not to jack with a bunch of “weekend warriors,” even if trying to use the two-year anniversary of the war’s opening for a Tet-type media response.

    And certainly not on a weekend. That’s prime time, baby.

    Hooah, troops!

  • AP Analysis: Iraq Conflict a Grim Experience

    Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.

    —Napoleon Bonaparte

    And Napoleon knew that without ever having to deal with the Associated Press, source to thousands of papers.

    Here are the words of AP writer Tom Raum as he looks at the situation in Iraq in about as negative light as possible. Granted, he managed to avoid terms like “quagmire” and “baby-killers” but he probably had to work hard at it in his defeatist reporting.

    The conflict in Iraq can be told in numbers and milestones, from the more than 1,500 troops who now have died to the number of weapons of mass destruction found — zero.

    Two American soldiers died in Baghdad of injuries from a roadside bomb and another was killed in Babil province south of Baghdad, the military said on Thursday. That brought to 1,502 the number of U.S. troops who have died since President Bush launched the invasion in March 2003, according to an AP count.

    There are other milestones, other important numbers, some reached, some soon to be, as the conflict in Iraq nears its third year.

    • Roughly 60,000 National Guard and Reserve troops are deployed in Iraq. As of Wednesday, 300 had died there since the war began.
    • May 1 will be the second anniversary of Bush’s “mission accomplished” aircraft carrier speech in which he announced an end to major combat operations.
    • The price tag is over $300 billion and climbing, including $81.9 more just requested from Congress. The money also covers operations in Afghanistan and the broader war on terror, but the bulk is for Iraq.

    Conspicuously missing from this list are the successes, such as the January elections (tucked into the piece later), the capture of Saddam and the bulk of his henchmen, the dominant offensive in Fallujah, itself practically unprecedented in urban warfare. I guess successful accomplishments cannot be considered milestones.

    When Lawrence Lindsey, then chairman of Bush’s National Economic Council, predicted in September 2002 that the cost of war with Iraq could range from $100 billion to $200 billion, the White House openly contradicted him and said the figure was far too high. He was eased out in a shake-up of Bush’s economic team.

    “Americans need to take note of these sorts of milestones because it’s a way to show respect for the sacrifices of troops and reassess strategy,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst with the Brookings Institution.

    “But I’m much more interested in trends,” he added, citing indications pointing to the relative strength of the insurgency and whether violence is declining or increasing.

    On that, the signs are mixed.

    The top U.S. general in the region said that about 3,500 insurgents took part in election day violence in Iraq on Jan. 30, citing estimates from field commanders. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid suggested the failure to prevent millions of Iraqis from voting showed the insurgency was losing potency.

    “They threw their whole force at us, we think, and yet they were unable to disrupt the elections because people wanted to vote,” Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week.

    But his comments came just a day after one of the biggest attacks by insurgents since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government in April 2003. A suicide car bombing in the town of Hillah killed at least 125 people, including dozens of recruits for Iraq’s security forces.

    From Jan. 1 until Iraq’s election day, 234 people were killed and 429 people were injured in at least 55 incidents, according to an AP count. Casualties rose in February, with 38 incidents resulting in at least 311 deaths and 433 injuries.

    Why point out that civilian casualties rose in February without pointing out that U.S. military casualties fell? Especially after focusing on those casualties? Why not point out that those same civilian casualties, while every one an individual tragedy, happened in the month after the terrorist bastards promised and failed to make the streets run with blood? Oh yeah, it’s all about the negative. My bad.

    Meanwhile, the United States is losing some partners in its “coalition of the willing.”

    Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko announced this week that Ukraine would withdraw its 1,650-strong military contingent by October. Poland is withdrawing about a third of its 2,400 troops. Last year, Spain’s new Socialist government withdrew its 1,300 troops.

    At the same time, Bush drew commitments during his visit to Europe last week from all 26 NATO countries for contributions to NATO’s training of Iraqi security forces — either inside or outside Iraq or in cash.

    Even harsh war critic France will send one officer to help mission coordination at NATO headquarters in Belgium and has separately offered to train 1,500 Iraqi military police in Qatar.

    Wow, thanks, France. You pervs.

    More than half of Americans remain convinced of the importance of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, though polls suggest widespread doubts about the handling of the war and Iraq’s prospects. An AP-Ipsos poll in February found that 42 percent approved of the president’s handling of Iraq, while 57 percent disapproved. A slight majority in recent AP-Ipsos polling expressed doubts that a stable Iraq can be established.

    How the hell could support not erode with this kind of reporting? Yell that the sky is falling often enough and people look up and question the clouds.

    Another milestone will come the day Iraq’s security forces are sufficiently trained and equipped to deal with the insurgency — and to permit the United States to begin leaving.

    There have been conflicting reports on this, too.

    The administration says there are 140,000 “trained and equipped” Iraqi military, security and police officers.

    But Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, puts the number of Iraqi troops able to stand up to serious insurgent attack at fewer than 20,000.

    Why are the administration’s words slipped into question-implying quotes (without sourcing) but “military expert” “Anthony Cordesman” can state what is essentially an “opinion” and it is written as a fact?

    “Everything we do in Iraq will fail unless we develop a convincing plan to create Iraqi forces” able to defend their country without U.S. help, Cordesman said.

    Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said some administration documents suggest that there are no more than about 40,000 trained Iraq forces and that they are lightly equipped.

    “We’ve been given wildly different numbers of these security forces,” Levin complained to Abizaid.

    “Senator, the big question doesn’t really have to do with numbers; the question has to do with institution building,” Abizaid responded. “I remind you … that institution building takes a long time.”

    “I agree,” Levin said. “But we shouldn’t kid ourselves as to how long it does take.”

    No balance from a supportive senator? Of course not, as the piece only pretended at a hint of balance all along.

    I find it most telling that the AP felt obligated to justify Mr. Raum:

    EDITOR’S NOTE — Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.

    Tommy, you’re a sorry bastard. I bet you’ve chafed these many years, knowing how close you were to being able to write this defeatist crap after Tet.

  • Iraq Insurgents’ Failure Raises Questions

    The Associated Press, in this piece on Yahoo! News, takes a look at the failure of the insurgents in Iraq to live up to their threats. The piece is authored by one Sally Buzbee, credited as an AP writer but actually apparently the AP’s chief of Middle East News. Let’s take a look at her look.

    They sent nine suicide bombers, killed more than 40 people, claimed to have shot down a British military plane and threatened to wash the streets with blood.

    Insurgents’ threats against Iraq’s historic election appeared to have some impact, keeping Sunni Arab turnout low in certain areas when Iraqis voted Sunday. Yet the rebels did not stop the balloting altogether, raising questions of just how much ability and influence they have.

    Yes, it does raise questions. However, the article will go on later to effectively not pursue those questions in any significant depth.

    “There will still be some acts of violence,” Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Monday, claiming the elections had dealt the insurgency a major blow. “But the terrorists now know that they cannot win.”

    The elections were hailed as a success around the world, including in Sunni Arab countries like Jordan.

    The elections may have been hailed world-wide as a success, but this article will instead turn it’s aim to undermining this assessment, as I will show later.

    British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw suggested the elections dealt a psychological setback to the insurgents because it demonstrated Iraqis were committed to democracy.

    “Yesterday’s elections represent a real blow to this disgusting campaign of violence and intimidation,” Straw said in London. “These elections were a moving demonstration that democracy and freedom are universal values, to which people everywhere aspire.”

    […]

    Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s militant group also pledged Monday to continue its attacks in Iraq despite the election. In a statement published on the Internet, the al-Qaida group in Iraq said the elections “will increase our strength and intention to get rid of injustice.”

    “Let Bush, Blair … know that we are the enemies of democracy,” the group said of the American president and British prime minister.

    Taking the focus off the article, let’s look at al-Zarqawi’s spin. His insurgency, the self-acclaimed enemies of rule by the people, finds itself facing the overwhelming desire of the people and thinks that its strength will increase? Who believes that, especially immediately after the elections themselves show al-Zarqawi to be a lying braggart? Yes, they are still dangerous and, yes, they still have some internal and much external support. However, they failed to show the world, especially the Arab and Iraqi world, that they had the strength to affect the tide of history when the spotlight on them was never brighter.

    Nevertheless, the insurgents’ failure to launch a catastrophic attack on election day may be a sign their power “has been more localized than thought previously,” said Paul Sullivan, an Iraq expert at the U.S.-funded National Defense University in Washington.

    Question to Buzbee: why does this seem surprising? I seem to recall a great many statements by the president, members of his administration and representatives of the DoD pointing out repeatedly that the terrorist activities have been generally focused in a very limited number of provinces.

    It’s possible insurgency leaders will lay low for a while. Or they may try for a quick, big attack to prove they are still potent, Sullivan said.

    Another quick question: this is worth including? The terrorists may do nothing soon or they may do something soon. Are you trying to reach a word count for a class assignment?

    Quick, let’s look for excuses for the terrorists’ impotence and try to find reasons it may be an aberration.

    A higher-than-usual U.S. troop presence and extremely tight security may have helped tamp down the violence.

    But many of the most extreme security measures — like a ban on most private driving and the closing of the country’s borders and airport — are only temporary, said Jeremy Binnie, a London-based analyst for Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center.

    The number of U.S. troops, now at 150,000 because of rotation overlap, already is scheduled to drop soon to 138,000.

    C’mon, one more reason. Please.

    It’s also possible the insurgents simply chose not to strike, worried they would get caught, Binnie said.

    Look, you cannot excuse a failure to live up to a promise to make the streets run with blood simply because the terrorists chose not to do so. You can say they couldn’t. You can say they were cowards. But you can’t imply that they chose to order a pizza and kick back with the PlayStation2.

    They threatened. They failed. There is simply no “choosing not to strike” in this game if the terrorists want to maintain a substantial air of fear among the now-jubilant populace.

    Now, I said earlier that the piece will try to cut into the success of the election. Let’s see how it does so over the final roughly one-fifth of the story.

    But a U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Iraqi troops’ success on election day doesn’t necessarily mean they can defeat the insurgency going forward. The official predicted some insurgents may decide to ratchet up attacks.

    He also noted that “anecdotal evidence” indicates Sunni participation was “considerably lower” than other groups.

    That means the insurgents may have largely succeeded at their main election day goal — suppressing Sunni turnout, said Ken Katzman, an Iraq expert at the Congressional Research Service in Washington.

    The main Shiite faction is likely to win the most votes and take the biggest role in the new government. Because of that, Sunnis “now feel certain that they are at the mercy of the Shiites,” who comprise 60 percent of the population, Katzman said.

    And that means the election, despite relatively low violence, probably will not “produce the factional reconciliation” hoped for, he said.

    Get that? Despite the terrorists’ failed threats, despite the fact that, at worst, the elections went as thought in some Sunni areas and better than could be imagined everywhere else, despite the hope and self-determination the overwhelming bulk of Iraq is embracing, the terrorists “may have largely succeeded.”

    My ass they may have, Sally Buzbee. That is, unless you and you like-minded colleagues get your way, unless y’all can dim the shining city on the hill that is being built in the Arab world.

  • Atheist Protests Inauguration Prayer

    Here’s a fine example of one man overreaching and undermining his own cause.

    A federal judge heard arguments Thursday in the case of an atheist who wants to prevent a Christian minister from reciting a prayer at President Bush’s inauguration.

    Michael Newdow — best known for trying to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance — told U.S. District Judge John Bates that allowing an overtly Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony violates the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

    Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush’s decision to have a minister recite the invocation is a personal choice the court has no power to prevent.

    As an atheist, I find myself sympathetic to the effort to revert to the earlier form of the Pledge of Allegiance, one sans “under God” and all I feel that implies. I shrug with only mild interest at the concept of removing “In God We Trust” from money — I feel it would be proper but it has no effect on the beer-buying process.

    That said, this inauguration issue is a joke. Unless the prayer is a mandatory or statuatory portion of the ceremony, I see no grounds for this case.

    Much of the hearing did not focus on the merits of Newdow’s legal claims, but instead centered on whether the lawsuit should be thrown out because Newdow lost a similar case in California last year.

    The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 that Newdow did not suffer “a sufficiently concrete and specific injury” when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush’s first inauguration.

    Newdow — arguing his case via telephone conference hookup from California — said his case is different this time because he actually has a ticket to attend the inauguration. That atmosphere, he said, is more coercive than four years ago, when he planned to watch the ceremony on television.

    Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer.

    Hearing a prayer is not harmful, especially for one who is not compelled in any manner to attend. Granted, there are times when listening to the prayers of others can seem annoying (especially when it causes a delay in the commencement of the devouring of delicious holiday dinners), but we have no constitutional protections against mild annoyances. For that, Mr. Newdow should be thankful.

    George Terwilliger, appearing for the inaugural committee, said the details of the ceremony are not officially sanctioned government action but merely the personal choice of the president.

    That seems to sum up the case — just as I should have the right to not have religion thrust upon me, the religious should not have their faith stripped away, even in a public role.

    A decision is expected tomorrow.