July 10, 2006

I recently read several articles from online news sources that reported some schools were banning games at recess because school officials feel that the games are dangerous.

Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyoming and Spokane, Washington were reported to have recently banned the popular child’s game “Tag,” while a school in Charleston, South Carolina has apparently decided to drop soccer and touch football, all in the name of safety. The news reports claimed that schools in Wichita, San Jose, Beaverton, and Rancho Santa Fe had taken similar actions in the past.

According to the articles, school officials are concerned about “kids running into one another” and causing injury. Isn’t that what kids do? Don’t they run around at recess and expend energy that has built up from sitting studiously in their classrooms during the day? Do we expect our kids to walk around at recess like robots and engage in cordial conversation as they sit around like vegetables? Kids play; that’s what they do!! Now I’m not saying that they should just run wild with wanton disregard for their playmates, but have we really reached a point where tag, soccer, and touch football need to be banned for safety reasons?

But over zealous safety regulation is not just limited to the games our children play at recess. Recent newspaper articles in USA Today and The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington report that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is looking at ways to address a growing number of fireworks related injuries during holidays such as Independence Day and New Year’s Eve. Citing an increase in the number of emergency room treatments for fireworks injuries over the past three years, the CPSC expressed concern about “…a disturbing increase in injuries and a decrease in compliance with safety regulations.” So the problem is not just that people need to be protected from fireworks. They need to be protected from themselves as well!

On the military base where I live, certain safety regulations have been imposed for those of us that prefer our motorcycles to our cars. To ride a motorcycle on the base, the rider must wear a helmet, long sleeves, long pants, boots that cover the ankles, gloves, eyewear and a reflective strap or reflective vest. While these measures are designed to protect the rider, they fail miserably at their goal. For instance, if a rider wears a long sleeved t-shirt and jeans, two of the safety requirements have been met. But what if the rider falls? What protection will a long sleeved t-shirt or even jeans offer? Hopefully I won’t find out, but I’d bet that it’s not much.

Whether it’s games at recess, fireworks, or clothing requirements for motorcycles, our society has become overly protective in the name of safety. Personally, I think it’s stupid to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and eye protection and I would never subject myself or my family to that sort of risk. My concern is that over regulation of behavior takes away individual choice and responsibility as authority figures and government officials come up with new ways to run our lives for us, all in the name of protecting us from ourselves. 

July 7, 2006

When President Bush spoke to the soldiers and civilians at Fort Bragg on Independence Day, he called on all Americans to make some kind of contribution to our servicemen and women “…because every one of us owes our freedom to these courageous Americans.”

Supporting the men and women who dedicate their lives to the defense of our nation can mean so much more than just a “Support Our Troops” bumper sticker or a yellow ribbon car magnet. Any citizen can utter patriotic phrases, fly a flag, or put up a red-white-and-blue sign as a show of support for those who willingly sacrifice the comforts of our society to ensure that everyone else can continue their lives uninterrupted by the realities of war.

But for those who can do more and want to do more than offer a few gestures, although the gestures are certainly appreciated, President Bush provided a gentle nudge in the right direction when he referred his audience to AmericaSupportsYou.mil, a Department of Defense sponsored web site that provides a wealth of resources to help support those who fight and die so that we don’t have to.

Whether you want to read or send messages to soldiers in harm’s way, donate a computer or frequent flyer miles, or provide a gift certificate or phone card, there’s a link to an organization that can help you support one or more of our service members.

With just a few clicks of your mouse, you can send care packages to Iraq or Afghanistan or make a contribution to scholarship funds set up for the children of our fallen heroes. You can find out how to volunteer your time and energy to any number of causes, or you can choose to provide monetary support to groups that are making daily, meaningful contributions to the lives of our soldiers and their families.

Our military is made up of men and women who are proud of their service and who would never ask for anything from the American public. They would never ask for organizations like Homes for Our Troops, a Massachusetts group that builds specially modified homes for those who have been severely wounded answering their nation’s call.

They would never ask for assistance from the Fisher House organization, which provides lodging away from home for family members of our wounded, so that they can be with their loved ones when they need it most. And they would never ask for services like those provided by the Freedom Calls Foundation, which uses state-of-the-art technology to help our servicemen and women in Iraq stay in touch with their families.

Those selfless individuals who serve our country so well would never ask for anything in return, for themselves or for their families. But equally selfless Americans can step up and make a contribution in any number of ways. AmericaSupportsYou.mil can help point you in the right direction, if you want to help our soldiers. Because when all is said and done, supporting our troops is more than just a phrase. 

June 29, 2006

God hates the United States and America is doomed. God is killing American soldiers for the sins of their country. That is the message being spread by a small Kansas church that has gained national notoriety since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Westboro Baptist Church, founded in 1955 by Fred Phelps, spreads its message of hate for America and its soldiers by staging protests at military funerals throughout the country. While most sensible individuals would agree that their actions are morally repugnant, the members of the church’s congregation are exercising their rights to freedom of speech and assembly, rights guaranteed to them by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The church, led by the fire-and-brimstone preaching Phelps, has adopted the organizational mission of spreading hate and bias whenever and wherever the families and friends of America’s fallen heroes gather to mourn lives sacrificed in the service of this great nation. They rally at grave sites and hold up signs that say “Thank God For Dead Soldiers” and “America is Doomed.”

They twist scripture so that it agrees with their agenda. Take, for example, a quote from the church’s website concerning homosexuals serving in the American military, even if they cannot serve openly: “When you fill the Army with fags and dykes and spit in the face of God, you have sown the wind, and shall reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).” By adding the book, chapter and verse at the end of the quote, the church implies that the referenced scripture is a condemnation from God of the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy because the passage is talking about homosexuals.

I readily admit that I am not an expert on the bible, so I looked up the chapter and verse in the New International Version of the Holy Bible which I have at home. In that text, Hosea 8:7 reads like this: “They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. The stalk has no head; it will produce no flour. Were it to yield grain, foreigners would swallow it up.” Just to be fair, I decided to check one more source, the King James Version Bible, which says in Hosea 8:7 “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.”

Every source I consulted interpreted the scripture passage as meaning to convey the basic principle that actions have consequences. This principle can be applied to every action taken by every human being. To twist it in such a fashion as to try and bring discredit upon the honorable men and women of our military, and to express that view at their funerals, is nothing short of disgraceful.

Enter the Patriot Guard Riders. This group of motorcycle enthusiasts has taken up the role of countering the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church, adopting as their mission “…to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family.” Their web site claims two objectives: “To show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities,” and to “Shield the mourning family and friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.” They do this, at the invitation of the family, by staging their own assembly between the funeral services and the protestors. Chairman of the House Committee on Veteran’s Affairs Steve Buyer is quoted on the web site as saying, “I commend the Patriot Guard Riders, a group of dedicated individuals who upon seeing an injustice, chose to rise up and not permit anyone to dance on sacred ground.”

Recently President Bush signed into law the Respect For America’s Fallen Heroes Act, a piece of legislation designed to limit protests like those of the Westboro Baptist Church at national cemeteries. By imposing restrictions on when and where protestors may gather near national cemeteries, the new law seeks to protect the families of the fallen from people like Fred Phelps and his followers.

This is an emotional issue that rallies patriotic Americans to the defense of our fallen soldiers and their families, spurs groups like the Patriot Guard Riders into action, and gets legislation designed to protect those who protect us signed into law. While the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are morally bankrupt, uncharacteristic of the Christian faith I was raised in, and in just plain bad taste, their protests are legally sound, based on guarantees provided to every American in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. And it is these rights that our men and women in uniform fight for and die to protect. 

It has long been said that the mainstream media focuses only the bad things happening in Iraq and often, if not always, glosses over any reports of progress or positive news. By adhering to the “If it bleeds, it leads” mentality, the major news organizations miss many opportunities to share with the American public, and the world, events that are just as critical to the future of Iraq as the success or failure of military actions against the various insurgent groups.

What follows are a few of the noteworthy news items to come out of Iraq in just the past week, although you won’t see these facts reported on your favorite cable news channel or in your favorite newspaper. No, to find these facts you have to do a little searching. A good place to start is the Multi-National Force-Iraq’s official newsletter, This Week in Iraq, available on the coalition web site.

According to the newsletter, construction is complete on 1.86 miles of feeder lines and the installation of overhead distribution lines in Baghdad Province, improving electrical services for more than 270,000 residents. In addition, the newsletter states, 52 water treatment units have been installed in the Karkh District of Baghdad Province, capable of producing nearly 106,000 gallons of potable water per day, or enough for about 78,000 residents. Remember, this is just in the past week and only in Baghdad Province. Similar projects have been completed and continue to be worked on in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces.

The newsletter goes on to say that in the facilities and transportation sector, there are 1,493 total projects of which 1,185 are complete, 231 in process, and 77 pending award. These projects involve medical facilities, schools, roads, and other critical aspects of the Iraqi infrastructure. In fact, the newsletter lists too many positive stories to be included in the limited space available here. Coalition forces throughout the country are working hard every day to repair and replace the infrastructure of a country that suffered from 30 years of neglect under Saddam Hussein and wars with Iran and two American-led coalitions.

Of equal importance to note here is the fact that many other “missions” occur every day in every part of Iraq. These missions are not “official” and are seldom reported in any forum. Soldiers from nearly every unit in Iraq consistently volunteer to leave the relative safety of their Forward Operating Bases to go into the deserts, villages, and cities on humanitarian visits to deliver food, shelter items, medical supplies, water, and clothing to Iraqis struggling to survive in a country devastated by neglect and war. I have personally participated in several of these missions, from delivering sports equipment and educational supplies to a school in Habbaniyah, to handing out candy to kids in villages and cities, to delivering basic necessities to bedouins living in the desert outside of An Nasiriyah.

There is never a shortage of volunteers for these missions because our soldiers know what the press back home chooses to ignore: that we are involved in a worthy cause that deserves the very best that America has to offer. At home, we focus on casualty “milestones” and on alleged atrocities committed by a rare few. At home we focus on an officer who refuses to obey lawful orders from his military and civilian leadership and on recruiting numbers that are not quite at 100-percent.

What we fail to see at home, our soldiers in Iraq are conscious of every day. That is why there are countless soldiers who volunteer to return to Iraq for second and third tours. That is why retention numbers for deployed units are the highest in the Army. That is why soldiers like Staff Sergeant Michell Caldwell re-enlist just hours after being wounded in a firefight and while still lying bandaged in a hospital bed in Iraq. You can read about this hero in the coalition’s newsletter as well.

At my last duty station, I spent countless hours as a Commander explaining the benefits of staying in the Army in an effort to keep quality soldiers in boots. Once we deployed to Iraq, however, eleven soldiers re-enlisted in just four months, a number that was normally my annual goal. Our soldiers who are deployed in harm’s way know their mission is just and their cause worthwhile. It’s a shame that the “good news” stories will never receive the air time that the bombs and the blood receive. There is more to the story than just what bleeds and leads, and our soldiers know it.

The Department of Defense has reported that the number of U.S. deaths in Iraq has reached the 2,500 mark, a fact that many of the main stream media news organizations have characterized, as USA Today says, as “a grim milestone” that “underscored the continuing violence in Iraq.”

But why is the number 2,500 so important? Why is this a “milestone” and who is deciding at which points milestones occur? Why is number 2,500 any more significant than number 1, or number 925, or number 1,442, or any other number for that matter? White House spokesman Tony Snow rightly responded by saying “It’s just a number.”

The point here is that the number doesn’t matter. It is the life that the number represents that matters. To those of us who serve in the United States military, the lives of our comrades are what matter most. Yes, we fight for our country and we are patriotic. Yes, we fight for freedom and for those who can’t fight for themselves. Yes, we fight for what is right and so that hopefully our children won’t have to. But ultimately we fight for each other.

Military service, particularly service in combat, fosters a bond among soldiers that those who have not worn the uniform cannot fully appreciate. We live, breathe, laugh, play, and cry together because we understand each other. We share hardships and dangers and we watch each other bleed and die. We count on each other day and night, both at home and abroad, and make every effort to ensure that our buddies are taken care of. We put everyone else before ourselves because we know that someone is watching our backs.

In the coming weeks, a very dear friend of mine will return from Afghanistan, his third deployment in support of the Global War on Terror. I first had the pleasure of serving with him in Iraq, during the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We became good friends rather quickly at the same time our families grew closer back home. We shared happiness and sorrow that first year, and began a friendship that will last the rest of our lives. We formed a bond in the desert, a bond that can never be broken. Nothing I experienced in Iraq was as difficult as watching him scrub blood out of his body armor one evening after he had returned from a convoy that had been attacked. The blood belonged to our battalion Executive Officer, a man we had worked closely with and whom we had grown to care for very deeply. I wanted so badly to say something, anything, to help him get through that terrible moment. But deep down I knew that just being there for him was what mattered. The bond that we shared, fostered in a struggle to survive and get home to our families, told me what to do for my hurting comrade.

I thank God that he will, in all likelihood, return from this latest deployment unscathed and that he will not become part of another “milestone” for those who just don’t understand what it’s all about. It’s about the men and women who choose service to their nation, no matter what the cost. It’s about honoring their commitment, their courage and their sacrifice. It’s about celebrating their lives and mourning their deaths. Forget about what number we are on and focus on what matters: the men and women who give their lives in the defense of this great nation.

I almost couldn’t believe it when I watched the news reports about the speech made by Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations. In his speech at a conference sponsored by the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation, the second highest ranking official at the United Nations accused the United States of not publicizing to “Middle America” the organization’s positive contributions around the globe.

But why shouldn’t I believe it. Mr. Malloch Brown represents an organization whose relocation to the European continent is long overdue. The United Nations, as a body, never misses an opportunity to undermine the United States, probably in an effort to counter the weight wielded by the world’s only remaining superpower.

Yet, while the U.N. is busy pointing fingers at the United States, it continually turns a blind eye to its own problems. Problems, as fortune would have it, that reinforce the opinion held by many in the American public: that the United Nations is a corrupt organization in desperate need of an overhaul. These problems include the well publicized Oil-For-Food Scandal and the corruption charges involving U.N. officials, and the Secretary-General’s own son, just to name a couple.

It is true that the United Nations provides some valuable humanitarian assistance around the world. It is also true that Secretary-General Annan’s would-be world governing body is involved in multiple peacekeeping operations in various trouble spots across the globe. But when it really matters, when the good of the world is truly at stake, the United Nations cannot manage anything more than wordy resolutions that will not, in most cases, be enforced by its member nations. Such was the case when the United States sought U.N. cooperation for action against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime. Despite repeated violations of U.N. resolutions, the expulsion of weapons inspectors, and the continued taunting of the world community with regard to weapons of mass destruction, in the end, when it really counted, an impotent Security Council could not come together.

The current permanent members of the Security Council are not representative of the major powers at play on the geopolitical scene today. France is not the power it once was and should probably be replaced on the Security Council by an increasingly powerful and increasingly important India, or possibly even Japan. Here’s another idea. Instead of a Security Council with only five member states that truly matter, perhaps all member nations should have an equal vote. Under the current structure, 14 nations could vote in favor of taking military action against Iran, the most important security issue faced by the United Nations today, and still be stymied by any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council who may choose not to endorse the action. The time for an overhaul is long past.

The United Nations tries too hard to make the world a harmonious place, where everyone gets along and no one state is any better than another. Take, for example, the recently installed Human Rights Council. Sticking with the “can’t we all get along” mindset, the seats on the council were distributed by region, with African states receiving 13 seats, Asian states receiving 13 seats, Eastern European states receiving 6 seats, Latin American and Caribbean states receiving 8 seats, and Western Europe and other states receiving 7 seats. When repressive regimes with poor human rights records (China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, for example) are given seats in exchange for a promise to do better, the United Nations loses all credibility. While it is true that known human rights violators Iran and Venezuela were not given seats on the council, the nations that do have seats are representative of a United Nations more interested in making sure that everyone feels wanted than a United Nations that is taking a hard look at human rights records.

Mr. John Bolton, the United States’ Ambassador to the United Nations, alluded to the possibility of serious harm being done to the United Nations as a result of Mr. Malloch Brown’s speech. That harm should involve the withdrawal of the United States from the organization and the relocation of the United Nations to a place where it will feel more at home. Perhaps with the thorn of the United States removed from its side, the U.N. will finally be able to find the peace and harmony it is so desperately looking for.

What if Iran Says No?

The latest proposal for resolving the nuclear impasse with Iran was recently delivered on behalf of the European Union by its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. The proposal, which has reportedly been agreed to by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (Great Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States) and Germany, contains a number of incentives for Iran to at least begin serious negotiations regarding its nuclear ambitions. The incentives are enticing, however, only if Iran is seriously interested in nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

If the proposal is agreed to, the members of the Security Council and Germany would assist Iran with upgrading its air fleet and gaining membership in the World Trade Organization. In addition, the package would offer support for an Iranian civilian nuclear energy program and would seek to waive current trade sanctions against the Islamic Republic. In return, the Iranians would agree to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activities.

The problem, of course, is what to do if Iran says no.

If the incentives package is rejected, there is no agreement among the members of the Security Council about what punitive measures should be taken if Iran continues its nuclear program. While the United States can likely count on support from Great Britain, France is a maybe at best and Russia and China will almost certainly block any attempt at sanctions or military action. This leaves the United States and Great Britain with few options but to act together in what would probably be described as “unilateral” action.

Initially, at least, the Iranians have reacted positively to the incentives package, but have warned that it will require serious review before a decision can be made about possible negotiations. So, what is Iran doing? It is likely that the Islamic Republic is stalling, buying as much time as possible while continuing to work on its nuclear program. As long as there is the potential for possible negotiations, the United States and Britain will never find support for forcing Iran’s hand.

Iran is one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism. It has threatened the supply of oil from the Gulf region and is actively undermining American-led efforts at stabilizing Iraq. It is not inconceivable that an Islamic fundamentalist controlled Iran would use nuclear weapons, if it is able to produce them, to launch an attack aimed at destroying the state of Israel. The world has long known that appeasement does not work. The time for action is now. The United Nations should come together, at last, and prove to the world that it can do more than pass meaningless resolutions that it can not or will not enforce. If not, the Iranians will most assuredly continue their nuclear program and join the ranks of those nations with atomic weapons.