Gunfighter: A Modern Warrior's Life

Remembering Nick Manoukian

A few years ago, I first told you about the story of  A young Marine from Michigan, who lost his life in the Anbar province of Iraq.   His name was Nicholas Manoukian, and he was 22 years old when he died.

Since then, I have posted about this dedicated young man several times, particularly on Veteran's Day.  You see, I promised this young man's mother that I wouldn't forget her son, and that I wouldn't allow others to forget him, either.

Nicholas Manoukian is one of over four thousand Americans and untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed in Iraq since the U.S. invasion, of that country, and now that President Obama has said that all American troops should be out of that shattered country by the end of this year, I want to say something that I think is important.

You see, we Americans have short memories.  Seriously short, if you can recall our last Presidential election we were concerned about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now all we do is quietly shake our heads about them.  Those on the left have moved on to Occupy Wall Street and other things, and those on the right are up in arms about gay people and wrecking the ability of our goevernment to govern.  Now, not too many people talk about these wars.  I guess it isn't popular for anyone these days.  Well guess what, kids?  These wars aren't over, and Americans are still dying. You probably already know how I feel about the wars, but this isn't about that.  I want to talk to you today about a particular young American.  A young person who is probably fairly typical of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have lost their lives doing the bidding of our government.

 

This is Nick Manoukian.  A husband and father from Lathrup Village, Michigan.  He lost his life during his second combat tour in Iraq, in 2006.

Look hard, folks.... look and ramember that this young fellow died for his country.  Look and remember that no matter what your politics are, this country, for the sake of it's own soul, has to remember that the actions of our government have consequences that mean more than political rhetoric.

By all accounts (I have been in touch with Nick's mother, Mary, and several of his Marine  Corps comrades for a few years now), Nick was a great son, and a first class Marine.  He was also a good friend to those who knew him.  The loss of this young man is a loss to all of us.

I didn't post this on Veteran's Day this year, because I didn't want it to get lost in the general flag-waving and fist pumping that generally happens then.   I want people to remember Nick Manoukian on days that aren't so special.  I want you to remember this young man who left a grieving, heartbroken mother and wife & child.  I want you to remember him for all of those who won't come back from those places.

 

Corporal Nicholas Manoukian, 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Division, 1984-2006

Self-Delusion and National Security

Here is the problem of our times: In the early 1990's, the Soviet Union fell apart, and when it went away, the european Communist boogeyman went away. For the past generation, Soviet successor states and the nations they spawned have been eyeing each other warily, or have been actively killing each other. In either event, their threat to western europe and thereby, the United States, at least temporarily, disappeared.

What was America to do? We no longer had a ten foot tall giant to be afraid of.

Well, luckily, we didn't have to wait to long... Saddam Hussein, the toolbag Dictator-in-Chief of Iraq, was stupid enough to invade Kuwait, threatening American (business) interests in Saudi Arabia!

Well! We sure as hell weren't going to let THAT stand, now were we? (Insert remarks about Hussein being abetted and encouraged by April Glaspie and Donald Rumsfeld here).

Anyway, we smashed up a significant part of Hussein's army, and went home to live in peace, right?

Well, not so much.

At the end of the 20th century, despite not having any real, present physical threat to our security, Americans did what we normally do: We turned inward. All of a sudden, we decided that the threats to American security was our own government... and poor Mexicans.

All of a sudden, many (really stupid) Americans were convinced by powerful and dangerous interests (some of them from outside of the United States), that our own worst enemy was our (mostly) fairly elected government.

Go figure.

We started to buy into fear mongering to the point that homegrown (racist) terrorists (who call themselves "Patriots") started blowing up federal office buildings (and American children). This was bad enough, but we didn't truly start to lose our national security minds until our country was finally touched by international terrorism on a large scale.

I don't need to go into detail about certain events that took place ten years ago... You get the idea, right? So, instead of doing what we should have done about terrorism, we overreacted be came terrified of a bunch of idiots with bomb vests, and went to war (overtly) in two different countries and covertly (sorta) in at least 5 more.

Now, we have impoverished ourselves with the costs of war, and the (allegedly) most Patriotic among us are unwilling to pay them.

We have become, in the span of 20 years, an impoverished, anti-intellectual giant that hates itself (especially it's own brain). We are afraid of immigrants (and not just the illegal kind) unless they are white and Christian, we are afraid of our politicians, especially if they aren't white (or effing crazy). We fear all of these things while we waste our army, air force, and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing virtually nothing to counter the only credible military threat we face: China.

Whom do we have to thank for all of this? The modern Conservative.

Be afraid for our future... but prevent disaster by not being scared into inactivity.

Be active! Be bold! Don't be afraid to speak out against those that would drive us into the night.

For God's sake, do something.

Veterans Day

Facebook and other places on the internet  have been abuzz all day with senitments of thanks for the service of our veterans.  I think that this is apprpopriate.  As a veteran, I thank you for saying "thank you".  

Today, I am proud of my friends who are veterans.  I am proud of my father, his brother, my father in law, my brother, and my young nephew who is crrently serving.

From my own persepctive I have to say that for all of your thanks my knees still hurt, so does my shoulder and my back.  So do the injuries of countless other veterans.

You're welcome for (and to)  my pain.  Really.

While you pat yourself on the back today, feeling good about yourselves for thanking the veterans that you see during the day, remember this: 

Thousands of veterans are homeless. 

Thousands of veterans need medical care for injuries or wounds that they sustained while serving, and won't get it from Uncle Sam. 

On this day, you might want to remember that hundreds of thousands of our veterans were used in atomic experiments.   You might also remember that hundreds of thousands of veterans were exposed to chemicals like Agent Orange and other defoliants.  You might also remember that hundreds of thousands of veterans were given unproven "anti nerve-gas" drugs while serving in combat zones... or have been exposed to depleted uranium, or have been exposed to nerve agents.

You might want to remember those things... and after you say "Happy Veterans Day" to the veterans that you know... call your Congressional Representatives (blue or red), and tell them that they MUST do a better job of looking after those who gave a piece (or pieces) of themselves IN WAR OR PEACE, to seve our country.

Further, while you offer thanks for our veteran's sacrifice, look inside of yourselves and critically analyze the reasons that we have asked these men and women to risk life and limb for their country.  Ask yourself if all of the sacrifices that they have been asked to made were really for your "freedom"  Ask yourself if your freedoms would be any different had we, collectively, not sent men and women to die for a particular cause.  Ask yourself if the people that represent you/us are faithful stewards of the lives, health and courage of our military men and women. 

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, coast guardsmen, and Marines, train and prepare to serve our country at the risk of the loss of life and limb.  The very least we can do is to be a little more careful with what we do with this gift of service.

Does it sound like I am bitter?   Perhaps.  Sorry if that harshes your mellow.

Patriot Day

Here in the United States, September 11th is now known as Patriot Day. Patriot Day was instituted by President George W. Bush (and an act of Congress) in 2002 to memorialize the victims of the terrorist attacks that took place on this date the previous year.

Most people in this country refer to this day simply as "nine-eleven" or 9/11, and unfortunately, spend entirely too much time talking about the attacks that occurred on this day, nine years ago. Why do I say too much time?, because compared to the numbers of innocent deaths that were caused by the attacks, the United States has more than amply taken it's pound of flesh in retribution.

The attacks of September 11^th, 2001, instigated two wars in which nearly six thousand (and counting) American service men and women have been killed; wars in which hundreds, perhaps thousands of allied service men have been killed, wars in which uncounted thousands… even hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, continuing to this day. Well, I don't know about you… but none of this makes me feel particularly patriotic.

I started thinking about how I should mark Patriot Day, because I don't think that there is any really good reason for waving the flag on a day that has no meaning other than a commemoration of the death of thousands of people, so I did what I normally do when I need to work things out… I wrote.

Being patriotic comes naturally to me… Love of country and service to the same run long and deep in my family, but to me, patriotism means more than jingoism, so I decided that not only would I not be doing any flag-waving, I would do what comes naturally when I think about doing what is good for my country. So I spent September eleventh like I spend most of my days: I spent money on things that were made in the United States, because spending our money at home is good for our economy; I spent the day with my family, because family is what we are… or should be what we are all about; I cheered for my daughter's soccer team as they pummeled another team in their season opener, because athleticism and competitiveness are good and healthy things; and I drove my American-made car, because I believe in buying American when I can.

Do you know what I didn't do on Patriot Day? I didn't support the liars, racists, and myth-makers that propagate stupidity by accusing the President of the United States of being a Muslim (or a socialist, or a foreigner). On Patriot Day, I didn't spend one single minute grousing about my taxes (which pay for our wars and for so many of the things that people in this country want and need). I didn't talk about our loss of freedom, because there has been no loss of freedom in this country since this President came to power… the loss of certain freedoms happened on the watch of the previous President (the one that founded Patriot Day. See the Patriot Act). Do you know what else I didn't do on Patriot Day? I didn't try to deny the right of any Americans to build a house of worship. Neither did I ram the cars of some of the other parents at my daughter's soccer game… those foreign-made cars which were sporting those stupid "Don't Tread on Me" stickers so popular with the Glenn Beck crowd. I didn't do any of those things, because I don't believe that those are things that a patriot should do.

The last thing that I did for Patriot Day was to pray. I prayed for my family, my friends and coworkers, and the victims… all of the victims of war, and other senseless violence, and I prayed for peace. I did this not only because prayer is a regular part of my daily life, and not only because praying for peace is a good thing, but because I have the freedom to practice my faith as I see fit, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others to practice their own faith, or to not practice a faith of any sort. That too, is Patriotic.

 

The Healthcare Bill: Where I stand (1)

So we have a healthcare bill. Finally. We finally have the leadership in place to make this a reality. We finally can join the ranks of civilized nations who actually give a damn (or at least sort of) about our citizens.

It's about bloody time, I say.

Now, I'm not running around pretending that this bill is going to fix everything that is wrong with our healthcare system. It won't. Not by a long shot, but it's a start. Personally I think that this bill really needed a strong public option which would have best served not the people living in poverty, but the working poor that frequently have to make the choice between going to the doctor or paying the rent. I think that this country really needs a two-track healthcare system. Not like the system in Britain, but more like the Australian model. As I say, this bill isn't perfect, but it was something that could get signed by the majority of our lawmakers. It's a start.

Most of you who read this already know where I stand on this issue because I have written about it in the past, both on my own blog and at DC Metro Moms, when I was the resident dad over there. What I would like to do now, is talk to the folks I know that were against this bill. I would really like to have a cogent discussion with them/you about your opposition.

My point is that in the press, "mainstream", "Liberal", and "Conservative" (and isn't it a shame that we can even say those things about the press?), what we hear most are the voices of extremity. I would like to ask the anti-healthcare people why they hate the notion of making sure that all Americans have access to medical care. I know that there are those who object to the expense. I know that there are those that are fiscal hawks who want to keep spending reigned in. I understand those things, and I can, in part, agree that we must be very, VERY careful about how things like this get paid for. Having said that, I must tell you that the tenor of the debate on this bill has had very little to do with expense, or the means of paying for it.

My concerns with the debate are those we see in it's forefront… the Teabaggers who scream about abuses of "liberty". The people that are beginning to advocate anti-government violence (sedition anyone?), the thinly veiled racism that is so common at the demonstrations, the cries of "Socialism", "Stalinism", "Nazism", and the like. Why is your side all about these things? Can you tell me in a way that doesn't make you seem like dangerous lunatics?

Come on, I know that you are out there. Talk to me (Goose). I promise that we can still be buddies after our argument. If you are local, I'll even buy you a beer when we're done.

 

The Hamas Assasination

Recently, a leading member of the avowed terrorist organization, Hamas, was killed in the Arab Emirate of Dubai. Many people/organizations/nations were quick to scream bloody murder about that incident because it is widely believed that the killing was perpetrated by agents of Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency.

Well, whomever was responsible for whacking the Hamas leader, gets nothing but a pat on the back and a hearty "Well done" from me.

Look. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and terrorists need to be exterminated... thats what I said: exterminated, like the vermin that they are. There are those who will say "but Bill, the United States isn't clean, we kill people, too" and I'll agree to that. We aren't perfect, but the United States, despite what some of you might want to believe, doesn't blow up school buses, churches, marketplaces, for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in order to politically intimidate a person, group, nation, or group of nations.

You see, terrorists (defined as a person, group of people, or nationally sponsored entity)are murderers. Murderers. Not soldiers, who fight on behalf of nations according to civilized rules of behavior. Terrorists, especially radical muslim terrorists, can't be reasoned with. They can't be dealt with. They don't want to share with you. They want to either intimidate you into complete submission or kill you.

 

You.

 

Yes, you, the person reading this. They want to subjugate or kill you. Kill your friends. Kill your parents, and your children... and they won't quit because you try to make nice. They won't quit because you aren't American... because you're a westerner no matter where your parents or great grandparents came from. They don't care if you are Canadian or European, they love you no more than they do the United States, so don't fool yourselves.

Terrorists aren't criminals that you take to court. Terrorists are vermin. Worse than vermin... they are evil, and evil must always be confronted.   Always.  Confronted with violence and without fear, without flinching, and without remorse.

**Please note that nothing that I have written here should be construed to suggest any sort of justification on my part, for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

When Terrorists Hide

Recently, over at The Huffington Post, there was an article about a Yemeni airstrike that killed at least one suspected major Al Qaeda leader.  This airstrike, according to the article, was carried out by Yemeni forces, using American and Saudi intelligence to back it up.

The article claims that nearly thirty people were killed in the strike.

Not suprisingly, a bunch of people wents crazy and started talking about how wrong this was, etc.... but it leaves me cold.  You all know I how I feel about the invasion of Iraq.  You all know how I feel about escalation in Afghanistan.  Hopefully you all know that it isn't pacifism that drives my opposition.

Look, if we have god reason to believe that we know the location of an Al Qaeda leader or a cell, we should endeavor to kill or capture this person or persons immediately.  Additionally, should one of these subhuman scum hide behind the skirts of the local mosque, or any other places that civilised fighters shouldn't take refuge, I say bombs away.  If you don't want your church bombed, don't hide there... or place a mortar there.

Reant over. 

Please enjoy the following little ditty that I made up, sung to the tune of  "Santa Claus is Comng To Town"

 

You'd better not plot,

 you'd better not plan,

to strike the U.S.

or we'll get really mad

Droppin' bombs all over your head!

 

With surgical strikes

and predator drones

if you use Cell, we'll blow up your phone

Droppin' bombs all over your head.

 

We see you skulk in Yemen

You hide behind your kids

We'll blast you where we find you

and high-five with all our kin, so...

 

You'd better not plot

you'd better not plan

to strike the U.S.

or we'll get really mad

Droppin' bombs all over your heads.

 

Grisly, I know, but it sums up nicely.

Tasers & The Use of Force

If you have never been to my blog before, welcome!

Let me give you a little relevant background information about myself: I am a Trainer for a law enforcement agency, and have been doing this for thirteen years. My primary focus is combat firearms and the Use of Force.

I live and work in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.

In the past several months, the use of TASER weapons by law enforcement officers nation-wide, has come under the microscope of many Americans.  The proliferation of websites (none of which I will grace with additional exposure) that spend their time ranting against cops is just one such societal indicator of the concern that is felt by so many citizens.

Today, I am taking part in a day of action... or a blog blast on the issue of TASER use in America.  This say is sponsored by my friend Wayne, from The Electronic Village.

Considering what I do for a living, It probably won't surprise any of you that I fully support the use of TASERs as an effective tool in law enforcement.  A TASER, properly employed, tends to result in less harm to a non-compliant suspect, and in increased protection for law enforcement personnel as well as the general public... but more about that later.

When discussing the use of these weapons, we use the term TASER which has become common even thought the term TASER is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle (Tom Swift being a fictional hero of the inventor of the device).  Later, the name TASER became the brand name for the manufacturer of the most commonly used version of this class of weapons.   Where I work, the term we use for this sort of product is a bit more usage-specific.  We call them "Electronic Defense Modules".  Well, no matter what you call them, the effect is the same, which brings us to our discussion of where TASERs fall in the so-called force continuum, and it's application.

Before we even get to the heart of all of this, we need to have at least some grounding in when, why, and how police officers are supposed to use force while on duty, and there is no other way to get at that than to have a discussion on the law. 

The law. 

Let me state, right from the beginning.  I am not a lawyer.  I don't claim to be an expert on the subject of the law.  What I am doing here, is giving you an overview of some legal aspects of the use of force by police officers.  Nothing that I say here should be construed as some sort of legal consultation.  Nor am I acting in my official capacity as a lawman... I am merely having a discussion with some friends on a subject that I know something about.

How's that for a disclaimer?

Oh.  Wait, there's more:  Nothing included in this post should suggest that I am speaking on behalf of any U.S. governmental agency or organization, or that my opinions reflect those of any agency, organization, or official.

Are we clear? Ok, let's get down.

It breaks down like this: The use of force by police officers in the U.S. is governed by two particular Supreme Court cases. Those cases are Graham v. Connor (use of force in general), and Tennessee v. Garner (the use of deadly force by police). These decisions are at the heart of all discussions on whether or not a particular instance of the use of force was lawful. Please note that lawful doesn't necessarily coincide with "authorized".

In the case of Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the use of force by an officer, upon a "seized, free citizen" will be based on the standard of "objective reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The court stated that "based on a totality of circumstances the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight and the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowances for the facts that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions in circumstances which are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving."

The reasonableness of the officer's decision will be based on the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time force was used. What was determined or discovered after force was used cannot be used to justify or condemn the use of force.

Please understand something, right from the start, no law in this country requires that a cop has to be right when he or she uses force on whatever level. That's right, we don't have to be right. We only need to be "Reasonable". That's the law, friends. Was a particular use of force reasonable for the officer given the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the incident?  That's it.

Let's talk for a little while about some of the things that will drive an officer's decisions on the use of force. These things include, but are not limited to the severity of the crime; was the suspect an immediate threat; was the suspect actively resisting arrest, or evading arrest by flight? Those are some of the things that might drive the decision of whether or not to use force.

Some factors that may drive an officer's decision on how much force to use are listed here:

Use of alcohol or drugs

Mental or Psychiatric History

Size, weight, age, condition of the officer and/or suspect

Availability to weapons

Officer to suspect ratio

History of violence

Previous use of force resulting in injury

Duration of the action

Presence of bystanders

These things (and more) are what an officer has to make decisions about when deciding what level of force/she may have to apply.  I could talk about each one of these things individually, but that would take more time than I have to type them.  Having said that, if you should need further explanation on any of those factors, please ask me either by comment or email, and I will explain more fully.

OK, now would be a good time to talk about the early application of force.  There are times when an an officer may, and indeed should, use force early on in a confrontation.  The early application of force generally results in less force used by officers, fewer injuries to the officer AND suspect.  The early application of force should happen when a suspect becomes non-compliant, or gives any pre-assault indicators, such as assuming a fighting stance.

Remember... "force" can mean different things, so let's pause for a moment to talk about them.  Where I work, there are five separate levels of force, and the are:

Officer Presence - The ability to effect or change behavior based on presence/appearance alone.

Verbal Commands - Firm, clear, concise directions

Soft Techniques - Minimal chance of injury eg; "come along" holds, Pressure points, electronic defense modules, chemical agents.

Hard Techniques -Greater chance of injury, eg; Strikes, kicks, blows, throws, take-downs, & impact weapons

Deadly Force - Any force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

As you can see, electronic defense modules, or TASERs, for our purposes, fall under soft techniques, because when properly used, they generally result in minimal (if any) injury.

Now, having discussed the levels of force, let's talk about what so many people refer to as the "Force Continuum".  That term usually refers to some sort of matrix that shows what an officer's reaction should be to certain behaviors by a suspect.  There are many variations of the continuum and I have added an illustration here to give you an example of what they look like:

The diagram that you see above, used to be in common use in federal law enforcement, but is now a relic.  It is a relic because it gave students that notion that each step in the "pyramid" had to be exhausted before an officer could move to the next level of force.  That notion couldn't be further from the truth. 

Now, this is where the discussion frequently gets ugly, and strays from the factual into the realm of perspective and strong opinion.  There are people who believe TASERs to be weapons of torture, used by police officers as punishment... as a "torture" device, based on the fact that it's use causes extreme pain.  I disagree vehemently with this assertion. 

When using TASERs (a soft technique), cops are no more using them as a torture devices than they would use an expandable steel baton (a hard technique) to strike someone.  It's that simple.  Yes, simple.

Let's move a little further and talk a little more about deadly force, since the number of TASER-related deaths are at the heart of the wider discussion on TASERs and their use.  Many of the folks involved in this discussion want TASERs banned.  Many want TASERs to re-classified as "near deadly force" weapons.  I say that these things are unnecessary because TASERs rarely kill.  Yes, I know, any unintended death is a bad thing, but generally speaking, TASERs rarely result in the death of a suspect.

Let's talk a little more about what deadly force is... and ins't

Deadly Force

• The use of any force that is likely to cause death or

serious physical injury.

 

Serious Physical Injury

• A substantial risk of death

• Extreme/protracted physical pain 

Protracted and obvious disfigurement

• Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily

member, organ, or mental faculty

You see, when force is used and it unexpectedly results in death, the force level hasn't necessarily changed.  For instance, if I were to get in a fistfight with a subject, and a punch in to his face caused a sudden stroke which killed him, I haven't used deadly force... I have used a hard technique that resulted in unexpected death.  An unexpected death isn't deadly force just because someone died.

The point that I am trying to make with all of this is that all sorts of weapons can kill.  All sorts of empty hand techniques can kill, weapons designated as "less lethal" (not NON-lethal) can kill... but it is important to remember what deadly force is:  Force which is LIKELY to cause death or serious physical injury.  TASERs don't fit that description.

TASERs aren't the devil.  Cops that use them aren't the devil, either.  If fewer people entered into public disturbances or violent confrontations, TASERs wouldn't be used as much, subsequently reducing the number of TASER-related deaths, nation-wide.  

TASERs save lives.  Sometimes they take lives, too.  It's sad, but there it is.

I regularly give our officers and agents a presentation on the Use of Force... it is an annual requirement where I work.  The presentation is about ninety minutes... I hope that the shortened version tat you see here helps in some small way.  If you have questions, contact me via comments or email.

 

Dear President Obama (2)

Dear President Obama,

I hardly know where to begin this letter... so I thought I would tell you that I am not writing to you as a committed Democrat.  Nor am I writing to you as an outraged citizen.  I am writing to you as a very troubled veteran of eight years enlisted service in our armed forces.

The young Marine that I once was, is now trapped inside of a man in early middle age, but still thrills to the sound of the trumpet.  By that, sir, I mean that I still want our armed forces to do what they are designed to do:  Go forward into battle and crush our enemies, and drive them before us.  The middle aged man that I have lived long enough to become still wants that, but I want to do it wisely.  I don't think that your proposed new strategy is wise.

As I understand your speech, the idea is to send these thirty thousand Marines and soldiers to Afghanistan in order to stabilize the country and give the Afghan government the time and space it needs to get it's act together and take care of it's own security, right?

In other words, it's the George Bush "surge".  OK, I know you don't want to hear that, but that is what it is:  A surge.  A ramping up of forces to quell violence so we can declare "VICTORY"... and then leave a vacuum for the Taliban to fill from their havens in Pakistan.

I know that you are a smart man, sir.  I know that you have to be aware that a reconstituted Taliban can be the only result, right?  I mean, you can't actually believe that in the face of an additional 30,000 troops, and an as yet undetermined number of allied soldiers that the Taliban will waste time and lives in pitched battles that they can only lose.  Right?  You do know that they will cross the Pakistan border and wait us out, right?  I know that you know this, because I refuse to believe that you think that the Pakistani army is going  to crush them... despite all of the military aid that we give them.

This is my quandary, Mr. President.  We are going to pacify the trouble spots in Afghanistan, temporarily, to allow us to declare honorable victory, and then let that country descend back into chaos.  While I understand it, and while I am ok with departing and leaving the Afghan government to handle their own security, I am terribly concerned about the number of American and allied lives that will be spent in order for us to feel alright about the terrible cost of this war, that in the end will gain us little, if anything in terms of national security.

As I said in an earlier open letter to you, I can't support this.  I can't support it because it ignores the strategic facts.  I can't support it because it flies in the face of military reality.  I can't support it because of the cost (in blood and treasure).  I can't support it because of the lack of honesty.

We need to withdraw from Afghanistan now... not two years from now.

Very Respectfully Yours,

Gunfighter

Presidential Haiku

POTUS says we surge

We ignore long histories

GF calls "BULLSHIT"