Hasan Sentenced to Death

Nidal Hasan has been sentenced to death, by lethal injection, by the panel of thirteen officers (some news stories incorrectly call it a "military jury") and the military judge.  It is common in modern  American jurisprudence, and certainly in the press, to perform all manner of legal gymnastics to avoid a death sentence at all costs for essentially philosophical reasons, but not only is this sentence entirely legal, it is also just.

Death

Hasan (he has also lost his rank – 'dismissed', equivalent to a dishonorable discharge – so we no longer have any compulsion whatsoever to include what would otherwise be an 'honorific' title of Major) is convicted and sentenced for the premeditated murder of 13 people (14, if one includes – as I do – the fact that one of the victims was a pregnant Private Francheska Velez, 21, who begged him over and over to spare her baby) and attempted murder of the 32 wounded victims in the crowded clinic waiting room.  We should all be familiar with the fact that he continued to yell "Allahu akbar" ('God is greater [than all other gods]') throughout his rampage inflicted upon the unarmed and helpless crowd until he was finally cut down after ten minutes by responding policeman Mark Todd. 

Objections are already being raised by the usual crowd.  One of these, his anticipated martyrdom, was anticipated by the lead Trial Counsel (prosecutor) Colonel Mike Mulligan during closing arguments in the sentencing phase:

You cannot offer what you don't own; you cannot give away what is not yours.  He can never be a martyr because he has nothing to give….  Do not be misled; do not be confused; do not be fooled.  He is not giving his life.  We are taking his life.  This is not his gift to God; it's his debt to society.  He will not now and will not ever be a martyr.  He is a criminal, a cold-blooded murderer.  On 5 November he did not leave this earth, he remained to pay a price.  To pay a debt.  The debt he owes is his life.

Yet those who would piously defend his life will argue nonetheless that he will be a martyr to the cause, a "recruiting tool" for other Islamic Supremacists.  Soon after the attack of 11 September, which was not the beginning but only the most egregious of the attacks in the crusade against the West, we heard from these same people that "only ten percent" of the Muslim world was so allied to the cause of eliminating or subjugating the world to Islam.  I take small comfort indeed that the resultant 160 million jihadis are perfectly fine with killing me, killing my family, and destroying my religion and way of life.  These people are fanatics, and like all true fanatics they will not be swayed in one direction or another from their purpose, so it makes no difference to them whether Hasan is executed or not, just like the canard about Guantánamo somehow being an excuse for all the attacks before 11 September.

I also reject the Obama administration's refusal to characterize the crime as anything other than "workplace violence", in order to preserve the nicety of treating this as a crime and not an act of war, playing to their dogged insistence that all such threats be treated in a court of law as a civil crime and not within a military tribunal during a time of war.  Yet Hasan was not insane – a legal and not psychological term of art – in that he methodically planned out this attack over a considerable amount of time, and proclaimed his theoretical justification for such an attack to many others who were cowed by the toxic political correctness that would damage their careers if they were to utter anything that could (and would) be construed as anti-Islamic.  Hasan proclaimed himself as an enemy combatant, and that is all that is necessary to classify this as a war crime.  He effectively renounced his allegiance to the Army and to the United States by doing so, and his rights in this matter are so altered.

As for martyrdom being some attempt at a perverted sense of honor, he betrayed his oath to the Constitution and his native country as well as his oath to Hippocrates as a doctor to "do no harm".  He is without honor and can claim no such consideration.

We have abandoned any concept of a speedy trial (it has taken almost four years to arrive at this point) and we should expect no less in the slow trudge to that day when Hasan will finally be punished for his crime, just as applicable under the Law of Land Warfare as well as the UCMJ.

It will be said that on that day when he finally goes to his god that mercy should be shown to his soul.  That is within the purview of God.  I cannot, imperfect being that I am, for I can dredge up no mercy whatsoever for such a cold-blooded murderer.

John F Kennedy Addresses the Current Economic Dilemma

Very little is said these days about the economic opinions and actions of one of the great Democrats, John F Kennedy.  Popular commentary dwells on the fluff of his Camelot days, a term invented by Theodore White in the few days after Kennedy's funeral, and one still hears of the supposed Kennedy plan to withdraw troops from Viet Nam, both post-mortem, since refuted.  From the savvy "Let us continue …" campaign strategy of Lyndon Johnson after the assassination, including the 'Goldwater will use the bomb' spot, to the present day, Democrats use the Kennedy administration as a Golden Age of American democracy.

But with our current catastrophic economic policy, with massive debt getting larger and the only plan being to make it larger still, Kennedy is not the source that Democrats rely on to make their point about larger government being the panacea for all social ills.

Neil Cavuto unearthed the following exchange in an audio segment.  It exists today as an outtake from an NBC News interview with Kennedy on 9 September 1963, just over two months from the day that he would be assassinated, by the iconic Chet Huntley and David Brinkley.  (The relevant portion in the video is between 7:00 and 9:30.)  Compare Kennedy's take on a major across-the-board tax cut, a move opposed by his own party, and compare it to today's eat-the-rich tax policy of Obama:

Brinkley: Mr President, Harry Truman was out for his walk this morning and he said he did not think we should have a tax cut until we get the budget balanced, and the other day Senator Humphrey was saying in the Senate that what the American people think is true is often more important than what actually is true.  What, in view of that, what do you think about cutting taxes while the budget is still in deficit? 

Kennedy: The reason the government is in deficit is because you've got more than 4 million people unemployed, and because for the last 5 years you've had rather sluggish growth, much slower than any other Western country.

I'm in favor of a tax cut because I'm concerned that if we don't get the tax cut that we are going to have an increase in unemployment and that we may move into a period of economic downturn.

            We had a recession in '58, a recession in 1960.  We've done pretty well since then, but we still have over 4 million unemployed.  And I think this tax cut can give the stimulus to our economy over the next 2 or 3 years.  I think it will provide for greater national wealth.  I think it will reduce unemployment.  I think it will strengthen our gold position.  So I think that the proposal we've made is responsible and in the best interests of the country. 

Huntley: The affirmative economic response to Britain's tax cut seemed to be almost immediate.  Would it be as immediate in this country, do you think? 

Kennedy: I think it would be.  Interestingly enough, the British came forward with their tax cut in April, passed it within a month.  They have experienced economic benefits from it.  Unemployment's been substantially reduced.

            They have a larger deficit than we do.  Yet the only criticism was that it wasn't enough.  Every… nearly every economist has supported us.  I think it's in the best economic interests of the country, unless this country just wants to drag along, have 5 or 6 million people unemployed, have profits reduced, have economic prospects… have our budget unbalanced by a much larger proportion.  The largest unbalanced budget in the history of this country was in 1958 because of the recession -- $12.5 billion.

            The fact of the matter is that, of course, government expenditures do go up in every administration, but the country's wealth goes up.  President Eisenhower spent $185 billion more than President Truman.  But the country was much wealthier.  It is much wealthier now than it was in the last year of President Eisenhower's administration.

I think our economic situation can be very good.  I think what we have proposed is a responsible answer to a problem which has been part of our economic life for 5 or 6 years, and that is slack, failure to grow sufficiently, relatively high unemployment.  And if you put that together with the fact that we have to find 35,000 new jobs a week, I think the situation in this country calls for a tax reduction this year.  [pauses in original]

Times have changed from the early 1960s, certainly.  Kennedy cites the public concern with the unemployment rate, which at the time of the interview was at 5.4%, compared to 7.4% now.  If the economy had to grow by 35,000 jobs per week then, it must grow, using the same calculations, by 75,000 jobs now.  A 1963 dollar is worth $7.55 now.  There are more variables to compare, but that will give you a start.

Some Thoughts on Rat Bounties

I came across a news item about the township of Southgate, Michigan and its problem of an infestation of rats.  The story doesn't specify, but I notice that the town abuts the southern edge of Detroit, which immediately brings to mind that perhaps even the rats are electing to desert this urban equivalent of a sinking ship.

At any rate, the story describes one resident's improvised method of trapping the varmints: a bucket two-thirds full of water with some grass clippings spread on top, baited with peanut butter, and a small wooden strip of wood serving as a rat ramp to provide easy access, a microcosmic drowning pool that would appeal to the lemming in every rodent.  His tally so far that day was fourteen. 

His is a small example of the compulsive drive that seeks to better himself and thereby also others.  He was motivated initially by the idea that he should take his harvest of vermin to city hall in the hope that the fetid mess would provide some negative motivation for the city to "do something".  He was further motivated by somehow discovering an old law from 1919 (shown in the televised story) that put a bounty of 10¢ a head on rats, a not-insignificant sum in those days and one that would still appeal to the gentleman in the story due to the target-rich environment.  The mayor is interviewed and replies that (1) he is predictably "unaware" of such a law but more importantly that (2) the city is somewhat constrained in the magnitude of services which it is supposed to provide for the commonweal and instead suggests that the citizens may wish to take it upon themselves to eradicate whatever rats that are thereabout to the extent that they may – nothing after all prevents people from taking their own best interest to heart in circumstances such as these. 

The gentleman is moved by the offer of a mere dime per head, yet other communities offer far more.  The nearby Oregon settlement on Puget Island (served ironically from the state of Washington), offers from $5 to $8 per rat, and Louisiana (as we were recently reminded by that cunningly popular Duck Dynasty) offers $5 for Nutria, a particularly insidious rat Goliath.  Other states and communities offer such bounties, and even St Claire Shores, only a few miles from Southgate, is considering a $5 bounty as well. 

Nutria (Did I say 'big'?)

His remarks remind me of the aftereffects of Hurricane Andrew in 1992, a category 5 storm and one of the top three hurricanes of the 20th century, which smashed through southern Florida (receiving an enormous amount of press coverage) and then crashed into Louisiana (which did not).  I put together a church group of volunteers that traveled to Berwick, Louisiana to aid with the cleanup, and the contrast of the attitudes between what we saw in Louisiana ("Another hurricane.  Well, let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.") and the televised reactions in Florida were striking.  What stuck in my mind as an example of Florida was the scene of one woman sitting in front of what had been her house, complaining that the government simply wasn't quick enough in providing aid, and cited the fact that there were dead dogs around that needed to be disposed of.  My mental reaction was that, if getting rid of dead dogs was a priority for her, then maybe she should consider getting off her duff and burying them herself, because everyone was rather busy trying to restore civilisation.  At that moment, my reaction was tinged by the fact that I was almost literally "up to my ass in alligators", and I dwelt on the fact (as I have so often had the opportunity to do) that a strong dose of reality has a way of focusing one's mind on the truly important priorities of life. 

In thinking on the pest control improvisator in the story, it brings to mind the famous observation of the great Adam Smith and his classic Wealth of Nations, wherein he says: 

Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of society as great as he can.  He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.... He intends only his own gain, and he is, in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention.  Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it.  By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.  I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

In doing so, Smith reminds us that the individual most commonly must surmount "a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operation."

Yet Mark Twain has another observation on the subject, and just as germane:

[T]he best way to increase wolves in America, rabbits in Australia, and snakes in India, is to pay a bounty on their scalps.  Then every patriot goes to raising them.

My Vote For Top Halloween Costume of the Year: Obama Rodeo Clown

Halloween is just around the corner, and it's considered an increasingly popular holiday by an increasing number of residents of America (a separate category from Americans) – much like Cinco de Mayo.  And now, just in time, comes the idea for the new promise of the number one costume for the season: the Obama Rodeo Clown.

News reports are awash with the item that the Missouri State Fair and Rodeo included an act wherein a faux dummy with an Obama mask was propped up in the expected line of attack of a bucking bull.  The resultant outrage and its side-lobes should have been anticipated in this day of the Obama Cult of Personality, and it speaks also to the knee-jerk opportunity of the Sophisticati to react condescendingly to the enthusiastic response of the gun-and-religion clingers in the stands.

State legislators and officials are tripping over themselves in trying to bound aboard the bandwagon of bombast in condemning the act.  Calls are made for curtailing state funding for the fair, questions about why police are not investigating the incident (some paltry excuse about the First Amendment …), sensitivity training has been decreed for all officials and contractors, the head of the state NAACP has called for the incident to be investigated by the Department of Justice and the Secret Service, and the latest news that the clown involved – not identified (not yet, but you just know that he will have to be hauled out to be pilloried) – has been banned for life from further appearances at the fair.  The head of the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association has resigned, not in penance for the incident but instead in protest that the punishment didn't go far enough, as a firewall against being further swept up in the controversy in order to protect his full-time job as superintendent of the local school district. 

Conveniently forgotten in the press stampede is the fact that the act has had its previous incarnations, involving several sitting presidents, at least as far back as 1994 when a caricature of President George H W Bush was used.  Oddly, the liberals were silent about those stunts, but they did show their appreciation of many such allusions about Obama's predecessor, involving innumerable comparisons of George W Bush to chimpanzees and Hitler, a movie and book about Bush's assassination, and endless examples of the Bush Derangement Syndrome.  And let's not forget Bush's head on a pike, shown in an episode of the popular Game of Thrones:
 

 

Reaction on both sides of the political spectrum is predictable.  I especially appreciate the comment from Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs: "They should have had the bull wear a Putin mask."  The Looking Spoon did a good job of summing it up:
 

 

This is one more item to add to the Obama Cult, wherein he is not only supposed to be immune from criticism, but detractors or even satirists must be hounded into silence.

*****
Update: Representative Steve Stockman (R-Texas) has invited the clown in question to perform in Texas.  Perhaps Governor Perry can consider a grant of asylum.

Another Obama Tone-Deaf Vacation

Someone in the White House Press Office needs to be sent packing (right after the staffer who forgot Obama's notes, rendering the Great Orator speechless).  There can be no other rationalization for the permission to release the ridiculous photo of the President on another of his golf outings at Martha's Vineyard.  We might expect an embarrassing photo from a paparazzo, but the phalanx of his tight security (I'm speaking here of the Secret Service, not the press) would surely have such an unauthorized and unvetted photographer far removed.

That photo is bad enough, but it could also be tempting for some wag to come up with something like this:

 

 

This isn't a one-off; just one of series.  For example:

 

 

The vacations and outings for Obama and family continue unabated despite the economic crisis still bound in a staggering recovery, and a recovery if only on paper.  A highly touted 1.7% growth last quarter can barely, if at all, keep up with simple population growth, and with the Chinese economy continuing to grow in the 7.5% range, it won't take long before we see the reckoning from our self-inflicted economic doldrums.

 

Allowing such photographic equivalents of drivel as this is indicative of the tone-deaf attitude about the visuals associated with vacationing in the Pleasure Dome that is Martha's Vineyard.  Add to that the dispatch of the family dog aboard one of the new MV-22 Osprey that is part of the Marine HMX-1 presidential squadron.  These are two very expensive additions that the president isn't allowed to use for himself, but it's fine for his dog.  (The aircraft isn't considered sufficiently safe for the Presidential Presence, after bad press around the development of the aircraft and two crashes.  To demonstrate his confidence in the new type of Marine aircraft after the last crash investigation, the then-Commandant General James Jones boarded it for its first test flight, accompanied by his wife.)

 

 

Note also the two mesh bags of basketballs.   Now, I'm not one to begrudge someone some time off, but the difference between how the MSM handles the presidential outings of Obama and his predecessor are marked.  Whereas Bush dropped golfing altogether, Obama is simply unfazed by the contrast between his frequent and untimely trips to the links and the economic dilemma of the country.  I particularly like the comment about how "Obama's frequent outings reflect a cool self-confidence."

Residents of the tony get-away for the rich are advised that, if they have complaints about traffic being shut down to accommodate Obama's movements, they are to call or e-mail the White House.  This is the effective equivalent of a traffic cop giving you a ticket along with a parting shot of "Have a nice day."

Compare this with the typical Bush 'vacation' at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

But concern about jobs and the economy during these expensive, taxpayer-paid jaunts?  That's for the little people.

General Mattis Condemns Feckless Response to the Iranians: Thoughts, Background, and Lessons

The former CENTCOM commander, General James Mattis, USMC (retired), delivered remarks in a recent Q&A session at the Aspen Security Forum with CNN's Wolf Blitzer (and is there a better name for a Pentagon correspondent?) wherein, inter alia, he criticized the Obama administration in no uncertain terms about announcing the discovery of an active plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and then doing precisely nothing about it.

Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller held a press conference in October 2011 where they implicated Manssor Arbabsiar, a naturalized US citizen from Iran living in Texas (and who knew that my sleepy, end-of-the-road hometown of Corpus Christi would be a hotbed of Iranian terrorism?), and Gholam Shakuri of the Iranian Quds Force, the overseas enforcement arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.  The plot would have been carried out by detonating a bomb in a popular Washington, DC restaurant while the ambassador, Adel al-Jubeir, participated in a dinner meeting, in an operation similar to the Sbarro, Maxim, and Matza restaurant bombings (to name a few) that were carried out in Israel.  Other bomb targets that were to be attacked shortly thereafter included the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, as well as other targets such as in Buenos Aires. 

Arbabsiar had been arrested and had already been interrogated, but Shakuri remains at large.  The plot as formulated required the assistance and cover of Mexican narco-terrorists, and but for the fortuitous intervention of an undercover DEA agent, the plot would possibly have remained undetected. 

The accusations, while not detailed for security reasons, were nevertheless quite specific to the point of certainty that some such plot was undertaken (DNI James Clapper later testified to that effect).  Detractors decry the lack of detail in the charges (see previous sentence) and quibble that the Quds Force has not taken on an operation of this sort.  This is beyond the splitting of hairs: the Iranians have carried out such attacks by proxy before, whether Quds had left a calling card or not, and Buenos Aires had already been subjected to a bomb attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association building (there is a sizable Jewish population in Argentina) in 1994, killing 85 and injuring hundreds, as well as the Israeli embassy there in 1992 which killed 29 and injured 242. 

Such large body counts of innocents are part and parcel of that cultural terrorist mindset found in the Iranian mullah dictatorship.  The DEA agent testified that when he asked Arbabsiar in Mexico about the expected collateral damage from a bomb in a popular Washington restaurant, the reply was "They want that guy done.  If a hundred go with him, fuck 'em."  It was "no big deal." 

Yet despite the dire pronouncements, nothing has been done as a consequence of the plot.  Mattis said:

When we finally caught them in the act of trying to kill Adel, we had a beleaguered attorney general, a fine man but beleaguered politically, stand up and give a legal argument that frankly I couldn't understand. ... We caught them in the act and yet we let them walk free.

After a question about why the administration failed to follow through on some sort – anything – of a serious consequence:

Frankly, I'm not sure why, again, they haven't been held to account…. I don't know why the attempt on Adel wasn't dealt with more strongly…. We've got to be very careful of avoiding confrontation with Iran because right now with their cyber effort, they're like children balancing lightbulbs full of nitroglycerin.  You get the picture?  One of these days they're going to drop one and it's going to knock out the London stock exchange or Wall Street because we never drew a line and said, 'You won't do it.' … It's also very important once in a while that we say, 'This is what we absolutely will not tolerate.'

Mattis' remarks on the affair amongst the other topics covered during his interview were not reported at all by some services, but the tone and care show not just his intelligence but also his professionalism, this despite the fact that his bluntness over the years have given a case of the vapors to the Sophisticati of the Obama establishment.  This is likely the reason he was given the bum's rush in his retirement schedule (he was originally set to retire in August) along with other capable modern generals of our effort in this 'war with no name' against radical Islamic terrorism.  And he comes by his focus on Iran honestly: during his tour as CENTCOM commander, with the high-paced missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said that the top three items on his intelligence brief every morning were "Iran, Iran, and Iran".

He demurred from attacking Holder personally.  This could be attributed to the habit of following the legal proscription against commissioned officers publically criticizing high civilian officials (Article 88 of the UCMJ, to be specific), but instead I am certain that Mattis, as a gentleman, has no interest in playing the political game of 'who shot John'.  He is rather focused on the policy, or lack thereof.  But his famous candor may be loosened a bit further by the fact that he was accelerated along to retirement not despite but because of the fact that he has been a brilliant and forceful commander. 

Much has been said about General Petraeus being the architect of the surge strategy that won the American stage of the war in Iraq by the summer of 2008 (separate from the current news of Iraq sinking back into increasing sectarian violence), but Mattis was just as important to the effort in crafting that strategy.  It was a joint effort between the two though there were distinct differences in emphasis, with Mattis leaning more to the application of force in contrast to Petraeus' hearts-and-minds angle.  Both agreed to the bottom line, but there was degree of difference in their approach. 

 

Mattis is what is called a Marine's Marine.  His masterful balance of the need to accomplish the mission and his care for his men won him the admiration of the Marines fortunate to serve under him.  Some have said that he emphasized the enlisted grunt over the officer, in the endless temptation by many to cast the distinctions in rank as some sort of class warfare.  But that is off the mark.  His focus has always been on the warrior over the staff or support echelon, and that is rank immaterial.  Many who cannot fathom the culture of the military are shocked to hear that he is an intellectual (not so rare a creature in the military as they would think), and he has both added to the long-time Marine Commandant's Professional Reading List as well as developing his own list for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Possessed of an enormous library, he is particularly fond of what he would consider his default mentor, Marcus Aurelius, as much as he is dismissive of the computer "net-centric" approach of the modern Pentagon: "Computers by their very nature are isolating.  They build walls.  The nature of warfare is immutable.  You need trust and connection."

He likewise abolished the pernicious Effects-Based Operations model (in the same category as the old Outcome Based Management), which declared that results could be predicted based on quantifiable data: "It is not scientifically possible to accurately predict the outcome of an action.  To suggest otherwise runs contrary to historical experience and the nature of war."

He is the epitome of the warrior ethos that the Marines embrace, yet that has caused him friction with civilian political types who have no concept of or contempt for the military culture (or both). 

An early example was the reaction that stemmed from Mattis' off-the-podium remarks to a group after a panel discussion in San Diego in 2005:

You go into Afghanistan; you got guys [Taliban] who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil.  You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway.  So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.  Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know.  It's a hell of a hoot.  It's fun to shoot some people.  I'll be right up there with you.  I like brawling.

And he was "right up there", leading from the front.  There are stories of his journeys to the commands in his AO that would include tag-alongs with patrols that would find him returning with a few minor dings from close observation of his Marines in enemy contact, always ready to take the same risks as his men.  In fact, he even had his own 'jump' platoon which he would lead and deploy whenever the opportunity presented itself, demonstrating that in addition to the fact that every Marine is a rifleman, every officer should be at heart a platoon leader.  But the reaction to his remarks betrayed an ignorance of what the chattering class should know about a general in a war.  (John Guardiano, writing in The American Spectator, lays out a practical introduction to Mattis and the military culture from someone who served under him.)

His attitude has always been candid and refreshingly realistic, or "casually profane" as Esquire puts it.  One phrase of his that is one of my personal favorites approaches blasphemy to so many apparatchiki in industry and government: "PowerPoint makes you stupid."  Another shares my appreciation for the enormous problem that arose (and is still felt) throughout the US intelligence community when Jimmy Carter and Stansfield Turner eviscerated our human intelligence networks (apparently we should never talk to anyone who may have a possible whiff of impropriety) in favor of technology: "I don't get intelligence off a satellite.  Iraqis tell me who the enemy is." 

I have also maintained throughout my life, with increasing attention as time goes by, what I call a healthy sense of paranoia, particularly as it would apply to a combat zone.  So I also quite appreciate Mattis' counsel to "Be polite, be professional, but always have a plan to kill everybody you meet." 

His advice to his assembled Marines as he would travel to his units in Iraq was succinct: "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event.  That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.  There are hunters and there are victims.  By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim." 

His expectation of his men was to learn about and interact with the Iraqis and Afghans, to converse with them on their level and to build a bond of mutual respect and understanding, and all that that meant, but once the enemy was identified the Marines were to quickly and effectively eliminate them.  This was primarily shown during the brutal fighting that commenced in the First Battle of Fallujah, when he changed the directive about closing with the enemy from "capture or kill" to "kill or capture".  He adopted from Sulla the declaration that Marines are "No Greater Friend, No Worse Enemy" (a phrase which figured into the intriguing court-martial and eventual acquittal of Lt Ilario Pantano).

But perhaps the most quoted phrase of Mattis came as he met with his defeated Iraqi military counterparts in Al-Anbar province, as the new Iraqi government was beginning its early stages of being re-composed, showing his homework in understanding the culture: "I come in peace.  I didn't bring artillery.  But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." 

I have laid out a more than adequate listing of his thoughts in order to present his perspective on the earlier question of what, if anything, the administration has done with the Iranian attempt to kill an ambassador and God knows how many others on American soil.  He reflects an attitude of frustrated bewilderment that is shared with many of us, as to how an administration can be so blinded by a politically constrained legal rigor that has to be applied to blatant operations of foreign governments in attacking diplomats and our citizens on our own soil, an act of war so recognized at least as far back as the Peace of Westphalia, if not the Bible. 

Let me swing over to another explanation for those more obtuse and to those who would enjoy the instruction, that of the incident during the presidential debates of the Republican candidates in the last election.  This was during the debate that was under the purview of CBS News, on 12 November 2011, and was notable for the exchange between Scott Pelley and Newt Gingrich.  Pelley makes the common mistake of departing from his role as moderator in order to argue a point, taking sides in the guise of presenting a question.  The transcript of the exchange is provided but it is worth watching the video in order to catch the arrogant condescension of Pelley when he speaks of the "rule of law", and Gingrich's devastating rebuttal, to the delight of the audience.

 

 

Scott Pelley: Speaker Gingrich, let me ask you the same question.  As President of the United States, would you sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?

 

Newt Gingrich: Well, he's not a terrorist suspect.  He's a person who was found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans …

Scott Pelley: Not found guilty by a court, Sir … 

Newt Gingrich: He was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and reported to the President … 

Scott Pelley: Well, that's extra-judicial … 

Newt Gingrich: Let me tell you … 

Scott Pelley: It's … it's not the rule of law. [light applause] 

Newt Gingrich: It is the rule of law.  That is explicitly false.  It is the rule of law … 

Scott Pelley: No. 

Newt Gingrich: If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant.  You have none of the civil liberties of the United States; [applause] you cannot go to court … [sustained applause] … Let me be very clear about this, on two levels.  There is a huge gap here that frankly far too many people get confused over.  Civil defense, criminal defense, is a function of being within the American law.  Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law.  It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war, and the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you. [sustained applause] 

Rick Perry: Well said.  Well said.

Returning to the remarks at the Aspen conference, an added perspective can be found in another of Mattis' comments during the Aspen conference on the subject of the attempted bombing, speaking of the Iranians:

They actually set out to do it.  It was not a rogue agent off on his own.  This decision was taken at the very highest levels in Teheran.  Again, absent one mistake, they would have murdered Adel and Americans at that restaurant a couple of miles from the White House. [emphasis mine]

That one mistake was Arbabsiar tracking down the prospective bomber in Mexico who turned out to be a DEA agent.  Up to that point, we did not have a clue that there was an undertaking of this sort or magnitude.  Once alerted, we were able to sift through the enormous accumulation of otherwise innocuous data to put the case together and to track all the elements.  The most secure means of communication remains the messenger, in an ancient system that shuns any other method that could be exploited.  As our technology increases, so does the complexity of our systems, which means that they can in turn become too fragile.  It would seem that the Iranians have learned this lesson, taught as recently as von Rundstedt's suspicions of Allied code-breaking while he was planning the Battle of the Bulge, or the similar Egyptian use of messengers that resulted in the surprise attack on the Israelis at the Bar-Lev line (their version of the Maginot, and just as effective) in 1973.  Once we had that warning, we were able to trace back and forward to uncover the details of the plot, showing that whatever we may say about our advanced technology, we must still rely on old-fashioned intelligence gathering of the most basic sort, active and not just passive, instead of a reliance on machines and blind luck.

And as for General Mattis, after the immense good fortune of a 41-year career in the Marines (and the wonderment that he survived not just combat duty but the more vicious political battles over his candor), one has to expect that he must hang up his spurs at some point.  And I pray to God that other leaders of such fortitude can grace this nation with their courage.

Medal of Honor: Staff Sergeant Ty Carter for Battle at COP Keating

After months of anticipation, the While House announced that SSG Ty Carter of Spokane, Washington and Antioch, California will receive the Medal of Honor for actions while defending Combat Outpost Keating in Kamdesh District, Nuristan Province in Afghanistan on 3 October 2009, during an overwhelming attack by enemy insurgents on the small camp that was barely situated and provisioned to defend itself.  [Click on the reference above for a more detailed explanation of the battle.]

SSG Carter, a former Marine, is currently assigned to the cadre administrative unit of the Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma, Washington.  During the action cited, he was part of B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division.  Though B Troop is credited with the defense of the base, in actuality the total number of Americans there that day amounted to little more than a reinforced platoon, against an estimate of up to 400 Taliban and al Qaeda attackers.  (The Afghan National Army attachment at the small camp immediately became combat ineffective when the insurgents struck at just before 0600 that morning.)

SSG Carter, during a subsequent combat tour with 8-1 Cavalry, 2nd Infantry Division

SSG Clinton Romesha also received a Medal of Honor for that small but determined battle last February.  This marks the first time that two American fighting men have received the MoH for the same action since Special Forces SFC Randall Shugart and MSG Gary Gordon sacrificed themselves defending the site of one of the downed helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993, later popularized in the book and movie Black Hawk Down, coincidentally occurring on the same date.  This is the first time that two survivors have received the MoH since Sgt Leonard Keller and Sp4 Raymond Wright of the 60th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division, together assaulted and eliminated a series of Viet Cong bunkers in May 1967.

Then-Specialist Carter distinguished himself by dashing through heavy enemy fire several times to bring ammo and supplies to a group of soldiers who had been pinned down in an armored Humvee in a battle position on the south side of the camp, only to find himself finally pinned there as well when the incoming fire became even heavier.  The .50-calibre atop the vehicle had become disabled by an RPG round, one of several that struck the vehicle and sprayed shrapnel that wounded Carter and several others, and the troops were soon exhausting their ammunition.  Their position was clearly untenable and another attempt by SGT Josh Hardt and two others in another Humvee to rescue them resulted in Hardt and SPC Chris Griffin being cut down and killed. 

The armor on the Humvee that held the trapped men was beginning to be compromised, with rounds starting to enter the cramped compartment.  SGT Justin Gallegos and SPC Stephen Mace tried to make a break to link up with the command post, the small Tactical Operations Center (TOC), while Carter and the others provided covering fire, but Gallegos was killed in the attempt and Mace gravely wounded before they had gone no more than a few steps.  Mace, understandably, began calling for help. 

Enemy fire was raining in on them from around the surrounded camp, and now the insurgents had breached the compound and were maneuvering inside the wire.  Carter realized that he had no real choice, so dashed to the aid of Mace and delivered basic first aid as best he could, lying beside the dead Gallegos.  Miraculously, the enemy rate of fire did not bear down on them during those minutes as intensely, and Carter was further unharmed as he drug Mace to some minor form of shelter next to the Humvee.  Carter then ran to retrieve Gallegos' radio and called for help from the besieged command post where Lieutenant Bundermann was trying to run the defense.  For the first time, both locations found that each other were alive and still active.  The other locations then poured fire at the enemy positions to provide cover for Carter, along with SGT (now 1LT) Brad Larson, to carry Mace to the aid station while still engaging the enemy with their M4 carbines, killing two and wounding one. 

Carter continued to be actively engaged alongside his troops, including two Latvian advisors to the Afghan troops, until the battle concluded that night with the assistance of reinforcements and air cover.  During the battle, he took the time to grab a chainsaw and cut down a burning tree, all the while still under fire, that was threatening to consume the aid station. 

Eight soldiers ended up killed in the battle including, eventually, SPC Mace.  But 45 survived and the position held.  The Army command, which had already considered the camp to be vulnerable, soon had it evacuated and destroyed.  An investigation followed the incident as to why the troops had remained so exposed and vulnerable, at the bottom of a steep valley and alongside a confluence of two rivers, similar to the earlier Battle of Wanat nearby and some fifteen months before.

The White House ceremony is expected to take place on 26 August. 

In an interview with the Military Times after the announcement, Carter said, "It wasn't just me; everyone pulled through.  They all performed excellently, bravely.  I really wish there was some way that I could share the prestige and the honor of this medal with them, not to mention the families of the fallen."  Carter expressed deep regret to the mother of SPC Mace: "That was one of the harder parts, telling Mace's mother that I'm sorry I didn't get to him in time."

Both Bundermann and Larson, as well as at least six others, received the Silver Star for their actions that day.  Carter also received the Purple Heart for wounds sustained, including shrapnel wounds, a concussion and hearing loss in his left ear.  Carter admits to being badly shaken by the battle and credits the help he received from his fellow soldiers and counselors who assisted him in his indisputable case of PTS.

As for the idea of two Medals of Honor for the same action, we still await the result of the recommendation for Army Captain Will Swenson, aided by a Congressional inquiry, and his actions alongside Sergeant Dakota Meyer, USMC, at the Battle of Ganjgal at about the same time.

*****
Update: The Army has published an official announcement.

*****
Update: The ceremony was held on 26 August as planned, with the following official citation:

"For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

"Specialist Ty M. Carter distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a Scout with Bravo Troop, 3d Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, during combat operations against an armed enemy in Kamdesh District, Nuristan Province, Afghanistan on October 3, 2009. On that morning, Specialist Carter and his comrades awakened to an attack of an estimated 300 enemy fighters occupying the high ground on all four sides of Combat Outpost Keating, employing concentrated fire from recoilless rifles, rocket propelled grenades, anti-aircraft machine guns, mortars and small arms fire. Specialist Carter reinforced a forward battle position, ran twice through a 100 meter gauntlet of enemy fire to resupply ammunition and voluntarily remained there to defend the isolated position. Armed with only an M4 carbine rifle, Specialist Carter placed accurate, deadly fire on the enemy, beating back the assault force and preventing the position from being overrun, over the course of several hours. With complete disregard for his own safety and in spite of his own wounds, he ran through a hail of enemy rocket propelled grenade and machine gun fire to rescue a critically wounded comrade who had been pinned down in an exposed position. Specialist Carter rendered life extending first aid and carried the Soldier to cover. On his own initiative, Specialist Carter again maneuvered through enemy fire to check on a fallen Soldier and recovered the squad’s radio, which allowed them to coordinate their evacuation with fellow Soldiers. With teammates providing covering fire, Specialist Carter assisted in moving the wounded Soldier 100 meters through withering enemy fire to the aid station and before returning to the fight. Specialist Carter’s heroic actions and tactical skill were critical to the defense of Combat Outpost Keating, preventing the enemy from capturing the position and saving the lives of his fellow Soldiers. Specialist Ty M. Carter’s extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, Bravo Troop, 3d Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division and the United States Army."