**** SCROLL FOR UPDATES **** 

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that an unidentified source in Israeli intellegence is saying that Hezbollah remains strong and relatively unaffected by the Israeli offensive:

Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, have spoken with enthusiasm about a multinational force, but the high-ranking officer said Monday that Hizbullah had not been damaged enough and still retained enough “diplomatic power” to thwart the deployment of such a force.

“Hizbullah has not been sufficiently weakened,” the officer said. “And there may be no choice but to expand the ground operation in the direction of the Litani River to achieve that goal.”

According to intelligence information, the Hizbullah command-and-control array is still functioning even after nearly four weeks of fighting. So are the logistical command centers – still operating and succeeding in directing the smuggling of weapons into Lebanon from Syria.

The officer said that Hizbullah still had the ability to fire short-range rockets, of which the guerrilla group has already fired 2,500 since the beginning of the war.

The only way to stop the short-range rockets, he said, was for the IDF to deepen its incursion north to the Litani and to sweep through cities like Tyre, estimated to be the hiding place for most of the short-range 122mm Katyusha rockets. 

In a stinging opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, David Horovitz opines (this is an extended quote, but well worth the time to read it):

Almost four weeks into the war, Hizbullah mocks Israel’s inability to staunch the fire. The Arab world, part of which essentially backed Israel’s anti-Hizbullah offensive in its early stages, has withdrawn or, in many cases, thrown its weight publicly behind the terrorists amid daily evidence of Israel’s failure to decisively prevail. In America, analysts question Washington’s over-reliance on Israel, the little strategic ally that couldn’t.

But Israel could prevail in this conflict. Israel could silence the Katyusha launchers. What it would need do is resort to one of those two options – a much greater use of air power or a larger ground offensive.

Either of those avenues, however, would necessarily involve death on a far larger scale than we have seen thus far. Pulverizing air power would likely create Lebanese civilian casualties of a number that would dwarf the toll to date. Wider use of ground forces, on Hizbullah’s home territory, would likely dwarf the IDF toll hitherto sustained in the close-quarters fighting.

With every day’s evidence of underwhelming military success, the chorus swells in Israel that this is a no-brainer. The army is being humiliated, the argument runs; Israel’s critical deterrent capability is being shattered. Israel simply must ratchet up its military response to the daily rain of incoming rockets. And while some experts favor the ground-forces option, for others the choice is no choice at all: Dead Lebanese or dead Israelis? Why the hesitation?

And yet Israel hesitates. It certainly does not want to put more of its ground forces into harm’s way. But it also does not want to inflict civilian casualties on a more drastic scale in Lebanon.

This is partly because of a sense of short-term gain and long-term loss. A much more forceful use of air power might indeed shatter Hizbullah’s Katyusha capability and bring a respite to the North. But it also might leave Israel friendless internationally, and thus utterly vulnerable.

Without America in its corner, Israel is in real, existential trouble.

I have called for more aggressive ground action by the IDF, in part:

• IDF Loses Momentum?
• Israeli Air Force Shocked at Failure of Air Campaign 

But a combination of things have come together to put the Israelis in a terrible predicament right now:

1. Five years of buildup by Hezbollah (For the moderates and doves in Israel, let’s admit it together.  This occurred on Sharon’s watch.  There is a price to pay for such things.).
2. Hesitation at the potential of inflicting civilian casualties with an enemy who rejoices and celebrates at the deaths of innocents.
3. Israeli Air Force claims that air power alone could do most of the heavy lifting in the war.

This should have been a two or three-week war with tens of thousands of IDF troops going north, accompanied by heavy armor and all of the air power than Israel could muster at one time.  Instead, time has wasted away.  Hesitation always makes the losses worse.

Will Bush be able to stem the tide of anti-Israel sentiment long enough for Ehud Olmert to lead Israel out of this mess?  Is Ehud Olmert competant enough to lead Israel out of this mess?  Does Israel have the will to wage this war?

These are all salient questions and ones that will be answered in the near future.

On a side note, somehow I cannot see Israel in this same situation had Benjamin Netanyahu been Prime Minister.

**** UPDATE #1 ****

Continuing its incoherent military strategy against Hezbollah, Israel has apparently decided to ditch the plan to reach the Litani River.  It looks like Olmert and the IDF will pursue this half-way measure until the bitter end.

I predict that Hezbollah will be empowered by the apparent defeat of the IDF when this is all over.

**** UPDATE #2 ****

NRO has a good commentary from the editors:

Arabs are complaining that the proposed U.S./French resolution hands the Israelis their military objective by diplomatic means. So it does.

And here’s the rub: Israel does not appear to have been able to weaken Hezbollah sufficiently to compel it to go along with any settlement acceptable to the Jewish state. Perhaps when the fog of war lifts, Israel will be revealed to have damaged Hezbollah in a way that isn’t evident right now. If Israel were waging a war against bridges, highways, and south Beirut apartment buildings, it would be winning a smashing victory. But it is fighting a tenacious guerilla force that can be swept out of the south only with the kind of massive ground invasion that it has so far wanted to avoid. Instead, Israel has contented itself with quick hit-and-run raids, and has consequently been forced to fight for control of villages just inside the Lebanese border two or three times over.

Absent a clear Hezbollah defeat, a satisfactory diplomatic result is hard to imagine. The Lebanese government and other Arabs will find it difficult to stand up to a militia that fought the mighty Israelis at least to a draw. Any international peacekeeping force, meanwhile, is unlikely to hold its own against a Hezbollah that hasn’t been de-fanged, and such a force may well only become complicit in Hezbollah’s control of the south, in a repeat of the feckless performance of the current force, UNIFIL. 

There are a few options, then. Israel could significantly broaden its military offensive, which would offer the best chance of changing the dynamic; this is still under consideration. It could continue to fight a limited war against Hezbollah in some form or other for weeks, hoping that it can hurt Hezbollah over time and that no political disaster — like the fall of the Lebanese government — will happen in the interim. Or it can let American diplomacy run its course and hope for the best, knowing that the U.S. is not operating in ideal circumstances and that, even if Hezbollah accepts a deal, the outcome will probably only be a stopgap prior to the next war. If none of Israel’s options is appealing, it is because there are consequences to waging a mediocre military campaign (bold mine).

I was complaining about the military campaign two or more weeks ago, saying that this could be rectified and the whole campaign saved, if only the IDF would move immediately to a large-scale ground invasion of southern Lebanon.  Time was — and still is — of the essence.  As it is, it is doomed to fight a much more bloody campaign to take this territory than if they had taken our advice, and the Arab world is under no pressure to make a deal with Israel because of the failed military campaign.  A deal favorable to Israel will only be brokered if there is compelling reason for the Arab world to do so.  A military victory over Hezbollah would be just such a compelling reason.

I know that the Bush administration has been careful not to call the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq an “occupation.”  Notwithstanding politics, the question should be asked, “exactly who was it that conquered the Iraqi armies?”

The AP is reporting:

Iraq’s prime minister sharply criticized a U.S.-Iraqi attack Monday on a Shiite militia stronghold in Baghdad, breaking with his American partners on security tactics as the United States launches a major operation to secure the capital.

More than 30 people were killed or found dead Monday, including 10 paramilitary commandos slain when a suicide driver detonated a truck at the regional headquarters of the Shiite-led Interior Ministry police in a mostly Sunni city north of Baghdad.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s criticism followed a pre-dawn air and ground attack on an area of Sadr City, stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

Police said three people, including a woman and a child, were killed in the raid, which the U.S. command said was aimed at “individuals involved in punishment and torture cell activities.”

[ … ]

“Reconciliation cannot go hand in hand with operations that violate the rights of citizens this way,” al-Maliki said in a statement on government television. “This operation used weapons that are unreasonable to detain someone — like using planes.”

He apologized to the Iraqi people for the operation and said “this won’t happen again.”

I have been vocal in my call for the arrest or killing of al-Sadr and his henchmen, as well as very aggressive offensives against all enemy in Iraq, whether Shia killing squads or leftover al Qaida.  This is war, and if we do not have the stomach left to fight it as such, then we should bring our boys home.

Now, the PM of Iraq is telling the press and the Shia killing squads that our warring against the enemy “won’t happen again.”  Words cannot express my utter disgust at the U.S. military brass if we cower to this kind of pomp and bloated self-aggrandizement.

The notion that anyone in Iraq should inform the U.S. of boundaries and stipulations in the war on terrorism boggles the mind.  Only in an atmosphere where this sort of arrogance has been allowed to flourish would this even be thinkable.

Who has given the Iraqi PM the impression that he can set our boudaries?

We will be watching closely to see if the U.S. cowers to little bullies.  We should quit trying to be loved and simply wage war.

This from Arutz Sheva:

Brig.-Gen. Noam Feig, head of naval shipyards, said the Naval Commando 13’s operation in Tyre targeted senior Hizbullah operatives responsible for the launch of long-range rockets, similar to those fired at Hadera on Friday. “The goal of the operation was a commando raid against [those] senior Hizbullah operatives,” he said. “Among other things, they were involved in launching rockets at Hadera Friday. The operation brought closure to all other operations.”

Feig stressed that the heroic operation was deemed necessary to combat the threat of long-term rocket launches into Israel, while minimizing the possibility of Lebanese civilian casualties. “The force, under the command of a Commando 13 commander, was made up of three separate forces. Hizbullah’s pattern of operations, hiding in apartments, endangers the lives of Lebanese civilians and necessitates selective and accurate capabilities,” Feig stated.

[ … ]

“The two soldiers were treated in the field by a medical unit under the command of the unit’s doctor,” explained Feig, “and an operation was performed in the field. The force evacuated under fire to the coast, where a helicopter waited, as planned, to transport them back to Israel at 5 a.m. All in all – fighting and presence in the field – one hour and 45 minutes.”

Remember the Zarqawi bombing run and how U.S. forces found him?  Video here.  The U.S. used a standoff weapon (JDAM).  The U.S. used standoff weapons in order to protect the lives of U.S. troops.  Remember also that a child died in the attack on Zarqawi.

I want to make a several brief observations and then follow up with a view towards rethinking just war theory.

1. The U.S. did not repudiate the actions involved in killing Zarqawi because an innocent was killed.
2. The U.S. military leadership chose by their tactics to side with the protection of U.S. troops rather than the protection of possible innocents.
3. The Israeli military leadership chose to side with the protection of possible innocents in the vicnity of the enemy.
4. Yet Israel is challenged every day in the media for the killing of innocents in the vicinity of the enemy.

I prefer to think within the paradigm of “good wars” rather than “just war.”  We need to relinquish this quaint but highly outdated notion of wars as soldiers lining up opposed to each other on a field of battle where innocents are either looking on or completely absent from the vicinity.  Certainly this idea prevailed — for good reason — throughout the First and Second Worlds Wars, the Korean War and even to some degree the war in Vietnam (as well as the first Gulf War).  Today there is such an absence of moral underpinnings in war that the innocent is scattered amongst the warrior.  The warrior puts himself in the vicinity of non-combatants by choice in order to cause collateral damage, thus playing to political sensibilities as we see in the media the continual drumbeat of this country or that country “intentionally targeting civilians.”

When “warriors” do this, they are no longer protecting anyone, and are thus not worthy to be called or considered warriors.  They are terrorists.  The scene now becomes a hazy chaos of terrorists rather than warriors, combatants mixed with non-combatants, murky situations where non-combatants are actively aiding the combatants, and impossible stipulations such as the prevention of all civilian deaths — juxtaposed with the moral duty of a country to protect the safety of its citizens.  Stated simply, the paradigm of soldiers lining up in a field of battle (where a just war may be ascertained based on simple questions like “who is the aggressor?” or “what fixed boundary was violated by some outsider?”) is a paradigm whose time has come and gone.

In the case of the U.S. leadership choosing to use a JDAM to take out Zarqawi rather than bring additional risk to the lives of U.S. troops, I would not have had it any other way.  If keeping a child among the enemy stops your armies from fighting because they might kill the child, it is the enemy who is at fault rather than your armies, and it is a tactic that will cause you to lose the war.  To fail to war against aggressors because of potential collateral damage would be to fail your own people and thus to bring them additional risk and perhaps worse.

It is a matter of keeping in front of you the reason we are at war and who warrants the protection of U.S. troops.  What is most important?  The protection of U.S. citizens or the protection of potential non-combatants?  Remember that this is a salient question for our troops at war right now.  It goes to every part of their existence, from targeting munitions to “room-clearing” and “stacks.”  If a fire team has to delineate between friend or foe upon entering a room, the fire team will likely die due to the time delay and opportunity for the enemy to engage our troops.  This is no theoretical matter to our troops.  Those who want to protect against the possibility of the deaths of any non-combatants must take this into consideration.  Not only would such a policy mean many more U.S. deaths, it would probably mean the end of combat capability and the loss of the war.  No army can fight a war under these conditions.

In the case of Israel, it seems to me that they went above and beyond the call of duty to protect innocents.  It is further than the U.S. went when we killed Zarqawi, and it is further than I would have gone had I been in charge.

As it is, a battlefield operation had to be performed on an Israeli soldier because Israel was concerned collateral damage.  Tell that to the mother of the IDF soldier who had the operation and ask her about priorities.

This from Arutz Sheva:

Brig.-Gen. Noam Feig, head of naval shipyards, said the Naval Commando 13’s operation in Tyre targeted senior Hizbullah operatives responsible for the launch of long-range rockets, similar to those fired at Hadera on Friday. “The goal of the operation was a commando raid against [those] senior Hizbullah operatives,” he said. “Among other things, they were involved in launching rockets at Hadera Friday. The operation brought closure to all other operations.”

Feig stressed that the heroic operation was deemed necessary to combat the threat of long-term rocket launches into Israel, while minimizing the possibility of Lebanese civilian casualties. “The force, under the command of a Commando 13 commander, was made up of three separate forces. Hizbullah’s pattern of operations, hiding in apartments, endangers the lives of Lebanese civilians and necessitates selective and accurate capabilities,” Feig stated.

[ … ]

“The two soldiers were treated in the field by a medical unit under the command of the unit’s doctor,” explained Feig, “and an operation was performed in the field. The force evacuated under fire to the coast, where a helicopter waited, as planned, to transport them back to Israel at 5 a.m. All in all – fighting and presence in the field – one hour and 45 minutes.”

Remember the Zarqawi bombing run and how U.S. forces found him?  Video here.  The U.S. used a standoff weapon (JDAM).  The U.S. used standoff weapons in order to protect the lives of U.S. troops.  Remember also that a child died in the attack on Zarqawi.

I want to make a several brief observations and then follow up with a view towards rethinking just war theory.

1. The U.S. did not repudiate the actions involved in killing Zarqawi because an innocent was killed.
2. The U.S. military leadership chose by their tactics to side with the protection of U.S. troops rather than the protection of possible innocents.
3. The Israeli military leadership chose to side with the protection of possible innocents in the vicnity of the enemy.
4. Yet Israel is challenged every day in the media for the killing of innocents in the vicinity of the enemy.

I prefer to think within the paradigm of “good wars” rather than “just war.”  We need to relinquish this quaint but highly outdated notion of wars as soldiers lining up opposed to each other on a field of battle where innocents are either looking on or completely absent from the vicinity.  Certainly this idea prevailed — for good reason — throughout the First and Second Worlds Wars, the Korean War and even to some degree the war in Vietnam (as well as the first Gulf War).  Today there is such an absence of moral underpinnings in war that the innocent is scattered amongst the warrior.  The warrior puts himself in the vicinity of non-combatants by choice in order to cause collateral damage, thus playing to political sensibilities as we see in the media the continual drumbeat of this country or that country “intentionally targeting civilians.”

When “warriors” do this, they are no longer protecting anyone, and are thus not worthy to be called or considered warriors.  They are terrorists.  The scene now becomes a hazy chaos of terrorists rather than warriors, combatants mixed with non-combatants, murky situations where non-combatants are actively aiding the combatants, and impossible stipulations such as the prevention of all civilian deaths — juxtaposed with the moral duty of a country to protect the safety of its citizens.  Stated simply, the paradigm of soldiers lining up in a field of battle (where a just war may be ascertained based on simple questions like “who is the aggressor?” or “what fixed boundary was violated by some outsider?”) is a paradigm whose time has come and gone.

In the case of the U.S. leadership choosing to use a JDAM to take out Zarqawi rather than bring additional risk to the lives of U.S. troops, I would not have had it any other way.  If keeping a child among the enemy stops your armies from fighting because they might kill the child, it is the enemy who is at fault rather than your armies, and it is a tactic that will cause you to lose the war.  To fail to war against aggressors because of potential collateral damage would be to fail your own people and thus to bring them additional risk and perhaps worse.

It is a matter of keeping in front of you the reason we are at war and who warrants the protection of U.S. troops.  What is most important?  The protection of U.S. citizens or the protection of potential non-combatants?  Remember that this is a salient question for our troops at war right now.  It goes to every part of their existence, from targeting munitions to “room-clearing” and “stacks.”  If a fire team has to delineate between friend or foe upon entering a room, the fire team will likely die due to the time delay and opportunity for the enemy to engage our troops.  This is no theoretical matter to our troops.  Those who want to protect against the possibility of the deaths of any non-combatants must take this into consideration.  Not only would such a policy mean many more U.S. deaths, it would probably mean the end of combat capability and the loss of the war.  No army can fight a war under these conditions.

In the case of Israel, it seems to me that they went above and beyond the call of duty to protect innocents.  It is further than the U.S. went when we killed Zarqawi, and it is further than I would have gone had I been in charge.

As it is, a battlefield operation had to be performed on an Israeli soldier because Israel was concerned collateral damage.  Tell that to the mother of the IDF soldier who had the operation and ask her about priorities.

By now most of you know that Wuterich has filed a complaint against the worm Murtha for his having destroyed the reputations of the Marines in the alleged Haditha incicent.  Time has this:

The complaint also provides some detail into Wuterich’s explanation of the events in Haditha. It says, contrary to Murtha, that the Marines on the ground did follow the rules of engagement, that there was a firefight that day, that the Marines were shot at, and that at least two of the Iraqis had weapons. In response, Congressman Murtha did not back off of his earlier comments and instead said Wuterich was “lashing out.”

In our Haditha Roundup category, we have tracked a lot of details on the Haditha incident, including the fact that much of the day was captured on camera by overhead drones.  Could Murtha, in addition to being a worm, be so stolid and dense that he doesn’t know this?  That there was a fire fight that day is without dispute.

Also, I have posted on room-clearing and “stacks” and the rules of engagement.  That the Marines followed the rules of engagement that they were given almost goes without saying.  What we learn from this most recent Time article, however, is just as interesting.

I had heretofore thought that there were only non-combatants in the two rooms they cleared (i.e., there was some evidence that the insurgents fired on the Marines from those rooms and then fled).  It now appears that not all of the insurgents fled (or at a minimum, the some of the individuals in the rooms had weapons and were brandishing them so that the Marines could see them).

” … at least two of the Iraqis had weapons.”

Murtha just looks more stupid as details emerge.

From “ME” to the Captain’s Journal:

WHO PUT IN POWER THE SAUDI REGIME ?
WHO PUT IN POWER THE TALIBAN REGIME ?
WHO PROVOKED THE RISE OF THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION IN IRAN ?
WHO SUPPORTED SADDAM IN IRAK ?
AND DID KILLING 2 MILLION IRAKIES BETWEEN GULF WAR I & II MAKE THINGS BETTER ?

I COULD GO ON FOR HOURS LIKE THIS BUT I KNOW YOU KNOW THE TRUTH AND DONT WANT TO ADMIT IT, AND YOU WILL REMOVE MY POST BECAUSE YOU ARE SO PREVISIBLE
ENOUGH OF MY TIME WASTED

YOU CAN RENAME THIS THE LIAR’S JOURNAL

Captain’s Journal Response: No, ME, I did not remove your post (sic – comment).  It never made it past SK2.  Your comment was swept up in the spam harvest.  I guess I am not quite as “previsible” (French: foreseeable) as you thought (French … Hmmmm … you must be my visitor from Beirut).

I have tried to help you with this Caps Lock thing you have going on with your computer.  Remember?  CAPS ON .. caps off.  CAPS ON … caps off.

I have checked on it, and I cannot change the name of my blog to “The Liar’s Journal.”  They won’t let me do it since the name of my site is already registered.  I sure wish that you had given me your suggestion when I was trying to come up with a name for my blog.

Regarding the rest of your letter to me, no one knows what you are talking about.  But feel free to send me more mail.  By the way, if you really want me to respond, you must use a real e-mail address.  ME@WAR.COM just doesn’t cut it.

Sincerely,

The Captain

I have created a new category: Daniel.  I have introduced you to him before about the time of School of Infantry graduation.  I don’t know him as Private, or Smith, or as he knows himself — “grunt.”  I know him as my son, Daniel.

But he currently lives in a world of very difficult training and preparation, and he knows himself as “grunt.”  He is not a poag (person other than a grunt).  He is infantry … boots on the ground.  When the Marines go in, the ones who go in are the infantry.  The others, while important, provide support to the ones who are at the tip of the spear.  The Marine Corps infantry has the most dangerous job in the world (with all due respect to Alaskan Crab Fishermen).

Daniel lives in a world where they wake at 0200 hours, put on 40 pounds of body armor (18.14 kg) and 100 pound backpacks (45.4 kg) and “hump” (a very fast march, or walk) 20 miles (32.2 km).  They practice “stacks” and “room-clearing” in urban warfare simulations.  They get to sleep — sometimes — for a couple of hours per night when out in the field, only to wake and have to pull leeches off of each other.  It is difficult to sleep, though, with artillery going and jets overhead.  They train on every weapon that they might have to use, and are expected to be very good with their own weapon, the M16A2 or the M4.  If you look carefully, you will notice a scar on Daniel’s neck.  A hot 0.50 caliber shell, ejected from the .50 caliber machine gun, landed there in between his body armor and his neck.  This scar was the result.

Boot camp was very hard (mentally hard).  School of Infantry was much harder, physically speaking.  Being in the “fleet” is the hardest of all (in every way).  So he loves to come home on the weekend.  God has blessed us, and we live close enough for Daniel to come home some weekends.  He loves to disconnect from the Marines, if only for two days.  In the picture below he is pontificating about something … I don’t recall what.  By the way, what in the world is this deal with wearing two T-shirts at the same time?  I will never understand that.  The top shirt has on it: CSYO — for Charlotte Symphony Youth Orchestra, that his brother gave him (who played in the symphony).  Two worlds collide: The U.S. Marines, and the Charlotte Symphony Youth Orchestra.

I am very worried.  As the time comes for him to deploy (early 2007), I will lean heavily on others and ask for daily prayers from my readers.  This will no doubt be a very difficult ride for me.

I have created a new category: Daniel.  I have introduced you to him before about the time of School of Infantry graduation.  I don’t know him as Private, or Smith, or as he knows himself — “grunt.”  I know him as my son, Daniel.

But he currently lives in a world of very difficult training and preparation, and he knows himself as “grunt.”  He is not a poag (person other than a grunt).  He is infantry … boots on the ground.  When the Marines go in, the ones who go in are the infantry.  The others, while important, provide support to the ones who are at the tip of the spear.  The Marine Corps infantry has the most dangerous job in the world (with all due respect to Alaskan Crab Fishermen).

Daniel lives in a world where they wake at 0200 hours, put on 40 pounds of body armor (18.14 kg) and 100 pound backpacks (45.4 kg) and “hump” (a very fast march, or walk) 20 miles (32.2 km).  They practice “stacks” and “room-clearing” in urban warfare simulations.  They get to sleep — sometimes — for a couple of hours per night when out in the field, only to wake and have to pull leeches off of each other.  It is difficult to sleep, though, with artillery going and jets overhead.  They train on every weapon that they might have to use, and are expected to be very good with their own weapon, the M16A2 or the M4.  If you look carefully, you will notice a scar on Daniel’s neck.  A hot 0.50 caliber shell, ejected from the .50 caliber machine gun, landed there in between his body armor and his neck.  This scar was the result.

Boot camp was very hard (mentally hard).  School of Infantry was much harder, physically speaking.  Being in the “fleet” is the hardest of all (in every way).  So he loves to come home on the weekend.  God has blessed us, and we live close enough for Daniel to come home some weekends.  He loves to disconnect from the Marines, if only for two days.  In the picture below he is pontificating about something … I don’t recall what.  By the way, what in the world is this deal with wearing two T-shirts at the same time?  I will never understand that.  The top shirt has on it: CSYO — for Charlotte Symphony Youth Orchestra, that his brother gave him (who played in the symphony).  Two worlds collide: The U.S. Marines, and the Charlotte Symphony Youth Orchestra.

I am very worried.  As the time comes for him to deploy (early 2007), I will lean heavily on others and ask for daily prayers from my readers.  This will no doubt be a very difficult ride for me.

From the AP:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” marched through the streets of Baghdad’s biggest Shiite district Friday in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon.

No violence was reported during the rally in the Sadr City neighborhood. But at least 35 people were killed elsewhere in Iraq, many of them in a car bombing and gunbattle in the northern city of Mosul.

The demonstration was the biggest in the Middle East in support of Hezbollah since the Israeli army launched an offensive July 12 after a guerrilla raid on northern Israel. The protest was organized by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose political movement built around the Mahdi Army militia has been modeled after Hezbollah. 

The biggest mistake of the war was in not killing the al-Sadr militia and either killing or imprisoning al-Sadr himself.  So who is responsible for letting this guy go for three years stirring up trouble?

Why can’t we seem to run this war the right way?

Note from ME (sic) to the Captain’s Journal:

YOUR WEBSITE IS FULL OF S**T
LIES LIES LIES
F**K YOU

Response:

ME (sic), the “Caps Lock” key is just above the “Shift” key on most keyboards.  You can use it to toggle on or off Caps Lock.  Practice with me, ME (sic).  CAPS ON … caps off.  CAPS ON … caps off.  The period key is just to the right of the comma key.  You may use it to demarcate the end of sentences.  Follow simple rules like this and you should do better next time.