|
U.S. Constitution
| |
|
National security, Military, & Veterans Affairs
Strong National Security - A Core
Republican Value |
Click the Headlines Below:
|
|
His Corps Value Was Bravery
Chris Adlesperger's family, shocked to learn of
his heroics in Iraq, later saw how it all made sense. In death, he's
been nominated for the Medal of Honor.
By Tony Perry, L.A. Times Staff Writer
October 3, 2006
On Nov.
10, 2004, in 30 minutes of close combat, Marine Pfc. Christopher
Adlesperger, a soft-spoken, religious young man who loved poetry and
art, attacked an enemy stronghold in Fallouja, Iraq, and killed at least
11 insurgents.
He killed them with his M-16 and with his grenade launcher. He killed
them at such close range he could hear the blood gurgling in their
mouths and noses. He killed insurgents who were heavily armed and
probably high on drugs — and who had just killed his close friend, Lance
Cpl. Erick Hodges.
He protected two wounded squad members from attack and saved innumerable
Marines. When it was over, Adlesperger's face had been bloodied by
shrapnel and he had bullet holes in the sleeve and collar of his
uniform. He refused to be evacuated until Hodges' body was recovered.
"It was a tremendous bit of fighting," said Col. Patrick Malay, the
battalion commander. "He was a quiet kid, but he was remarkable. He was
one tough bastard."
For his bravery, Adlesperger is among a handful of Marines who have been
nominated for the Medal of Honor in Iraq. A nomination does not ensure
that an award will be made. No Marine has been awarded the Medal of
Honor for combat occurring since Vietnam.
The nation's highest recognition of bravery is reserved for those who
have shown conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty. In
fact, two-thirds of the Medals of Honor awarded to Marines since the
beginning of World War II have been posthumous.
If an award is made to Adlesperger, his too will be posthumous. A month
after the firefight for which he has been nominated, Adlesperger led
Marines in storming another building where insurgents were hiding. He
was shot in the heart and died instantly.
Only after his death did family members here learn of his bravery. At
first they were shocked — this was the same person who had once cringed
at the thought of shooting birds on a hunting trip. Then they recognized
in the details of the firefight the determined youth they knew and
loved. "That was Chris. Whatever he did, he always went in with the
idea that nobody was going to beat him, nobody," said Dennis Adlesperger,
53, his uncle.
Fear — and Courage
Centuries of warfare have not entirely answered the question of why
some fighters, in times of maximum chaos and danger, act in a heroic
fashion, putting concern for their own lives in abeyance. For a
military force dedicated to ground combat such as the Marine Corps, the
issue is of surpassing importance. How do you train young men to put the
needs of the mission above their own instinct for survival?
Bing West, a Marine infantry officer in Vietnam and now the premier
chronicler of the Marines in Iraq, estimates that even in the Marine
Corps, no more than one in 10 shows a talent above his training for
taking the fight to the enemy and killing.
Much of the Marine philosophy about bravery can be found in the classic
study "The Anatomy of Courage," published in 1945 by Lord Moran, a
British physician who served at the front during World War I and then as
physician to Winston Churchill for 25 years. The book is on a Marine
Corps reading list given to sergeants on up through captains.
Moran's thesis is that men fight not just for survival or patriotism but
in response to strong leadership — and because they have grown to
identify with their group so tightly that any threat to the group is
seen as intolerable.
Courage, Moran suggests, is a moral quality that comes from an
unwillingness to quit. Fear, he says, is a critical part of it. Without
fear, he argues, there is no courage; fear provides the energy, the
resolve.
All new Marines are asked to read C.S. Forester's novel "Rifleman Dodd,"
about a young British infantry soldier who becomes separated from his
company during a battle in rugged terrain. Weaving his way through
enemy territory, Dodd comes across a disheveled man babbling
incoherently in the forest. For several days he tries to protect and
guide him. But then he realizes that he must leave the man behind so
that he can find his way back to his company. The moral is clear: A
soldier cannot deny his fear, but he must learn to leave it behind and
join the fight.
In boot camp in San Diego, one of Adlesperger's drill instructors
quickly instilled the reality of combat as he scanned more than 100
recruits sitting attentively on the exercise field and picked 10 at
random to stand up. "When your company goes to Iraq, this is the number
of Marines who won't be coming home alive," the DI barked. He ordered
10 more to stand. "And this is how many more will die if you don't start
listening to me."
Normally self-confident, Adlesperger sounded shaken when he told his
mother about the lecture. "Chris said the DI scared him, but it helped
him realize what Iraq was going to be like, that he was going to have to
learn to protect his Marines," said Annette Griego, his mother.
Much of Marine training is based on the theory that shared hardship
creates strong bonds and interdependence among men. Add the shared
danger of a combat zone and the process intensifies.
Adlesperger and his fellow recruits were lectured about brave Marines of
the past, particularly those who died protecting Marines in combat. Even
in the middle of a gut-busting 54-hour ordeal called "the Crucible,"
they were ordered to discuss the heroics of Medal of Honor winners and
challenged to live up to their legacy.
"We give Marines a sense that there are things more important than their
personal safety, that there are things worse than physical pain," said
Lt. Col. Gregg Olson, who led a battalion into Fallouja in April 2004.
"Our training takes honor and shame into account."
Looking for Structure
Christopher Adlesperger was not one of those young men who start
dreaming early in life about the Marines. Nor did he talk about the war
in Iraq. His family was surprised when he enlisted in the Marine Corps
in the fall of 2003, shortly after his 19th birthday. They tried to
dissuade him from joining the military branch most likely to send him
into combat. They suggested the Air Force.
He was polite but unmoved. "I told him I didn't want him to go, but he
said he didn't want a boring life," said his grandmother, Wanda
Adlesperger, in a tearful interview. "Well, it wasn't boring."
Looking back, family members now realize that he was a nearly perfect
candidate to become a Marine. He loved family and structure, even though
he did not always have it. His mother and father were unmarried when he
was born, and a hasty marriage thereafter soon dissolved. Adlesperger
grew up in Albuquerque mostly with his father, Gary, a pipe fitter and
recovering alcoholic with a checkered employment history. He also lived
for several years with his grandmother, spent some summers with his
mother and finished high school at the home of his mother's parents. He
adapted to all of the moves.
"He was always trying to please people; he was starved for affection,"
said Dennis Adlesperger. Friends say he was popular in high school,
where he ran track and wrestled. Brian Ferguson, 22, his best friend in
high school, said Chris was "always worrying about other people. If you
needed a ride, or if you needed somebody to talk to, he was there for
you."
He was close to his aunts and uncles and cousins and particularly to his
grandfather, Edwin Adlesperger, a retired oil company sales
representative. The two enjoyed camping and fishing, and Ed gave his
grandson a used Ford Contour.
Ed died unexpectedly in August 2003 at age 73. Chris, who had enrolled
at the University of New Mexico, quit after a few weeks. Family members
believe that if his grandfather hadn't died, Adlesperger would not have
enlisted.
"He was grieving his grandfather, looking for something he lost, some
structure," said Phillip Blackman, who had been Adlesperger's taekwondo
coach and gave the eulogy at his funeral. Under Blackman's tutelage,
Adlesperger had become a national champion in his weight and age class.
In taekwondo, he may have acquired another trait essential to bravery:
the ability to overcome fear. As a match approached, Adlesperger could
be found with his head in a wastepaper basket, throwing up. After
getting sick, he went into his "Christopher mode," and a sense of
maturity, of purpose, seemed to take over, Blackman said. "I'm sure
that's how he was in boot camp and the battlefield. He only knew one
way: straight ahead," said Blackman. "There was no 'retreat' in his
vocabulary."
By all accounts, Adlesperger loved the Marine Corps. He thrived on the
physical challenges and packed muscle onto his 5-foot-8, 150-pound
frame. He got a tattoo, USMC, down the right side of his stomach. He
formed fast friendships. "The Marine Corps became his family, and when
they went to fight he was looking out for his brothers," said Debra
McAtee, 42, whose sister is Adlesperger's mother.
At Camp Pendleton and in Iraq, people noticed his seriousness. "Some of
these kids, you have to pound it into them, but not Chris. He always
wanted to get better," said Gunnery Sgt. Paul Starner, who was
Adlesperger's platoon sergeant in Iraq.
In September 2004, Adlesperger left Camp Pendleton for Iraq. Just days
before his death, he called his friend Ferguson, a student at the
University of Arizona. He glossed over what he was doing in Iraq except
to say he had made some good friends in the Marine Corps. Ferguson
noticed something in his voice.
"He seemed a lot more grown up," Ferguson said. "He was more serious,
more mature, not so much joking."
A Search for Insurgents
It may have had a more complex name among the generals, but to the
Marines of Kilo Company in the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment, it was
called the squeegee tactic. Like window washers trying to clean a
grime-streaked window, the Marines would sweep methodically through
Fallouja, searching each house for insurgents.
The insurgents, having learned from earlier fights with the Marines,
were no longer fighting in the streets. Instead, they waited inside
homes, ready to spray bullets as Marines pushed through a door or
entryway.
Some had injected themselves with lidocaine, Novocain or adrenaline,
allowing them to fight even after receiving mortal wounds, a spectacle
the Marines called the "Night of the Living Dead."
The battalion had drawn one of the most dangerous sectors, the Jolan
neighborhood in Fallouja's northwest corner, where Marines had
encountered stiff fighting during an aborted offensive in April. The
houses were close together, and the curving, rubble-filled streets were
too narrow to allow the Marines to use tanks.
On Sunday, Nov. 7, Adlesperger led other Marines in a Bible reading. He
had been telling his family members in phone calls and e-mails to pray
for his fellow Marines.
Shortly after dawn on Nov. 10, the Marines pushed out. For hours, they
faced only minor resistance. A few more buildings and they could stop
for the night. "We had cleared buildings all day, hundreds of them, but
on that 101st house, that's the one that gets you, and that's what
happened," said Starner, 33, a 14-year Marine veteran.
Like a lot of Iraqi buildings in the Jolan, the structure had a wall
around it. There was a courtyard in front of the building and an outdoor
stairway leading to the roof. Adlesperger, acting as the point man for
the four-man fire team, had attempted to knock down a gate. Hodges moved
forward and was immediately felled by a hail of bullets from inside,
probably from a concealed opening in the masonry wall.
As they rushed the house, Navy corpsman Alonso Rogero was hit in the
stomach and Lance Cpl. Ryan Sunnerville in the leg. Grainy, shaky film
of the incident shows Sunnerville hopping on one leg, still firing his
M-16. Marines and insurgents exchanged gunfire from no more than 20
feet. From inside the building, the insurgents also threw grenades.
The insurgents had hoped to spring what is called a Chechen ambush,
named after the rebels who have fought Russian troops for years. The
tactic is particularly successful when tanks cannot be used.
The strategy, Marines determined later, had been to wound Marines
attempting to enter the building. When other Marines came to help them,
an insurgent sniper down an alleyway would pick off corpsmen, radio
operators and officers. And when enough Marines or vehicles were
gathered, insurgents would fire rocket-propelled grenades.
Adlesperger fired at the insurgent machine-gun position as he ran toward
Rogero and Sunnerville. He helped the two up the outside stairway to the
roof. As insurgents tried to storm the stairway, Adlesperger killed them
before they could reach the roof. Shrapnel ripped into his face.
From his rooftop position, he could see insurgents peppering Hodges'
lifeless body with bullets, including two to his head. When one ran from
the building to seize Hodges' weapon, Adlesperger killed him with a
single shot.
Still, the machine-gun position inside the building had not been
touched, and it was pinning down Marines gathering to assault the
building from the front. With no time to consult officers, and with
other Marine units engaged in firefights, Adlesperger was left to his
own initiative.
"Chris essentially took over," said Malay. Unable to penetrate the
building with his M-16, Adlesperger shifted to the grenade launcher.
Standing on the roof, he blew holes in the building and then rained down
gunfire on the insurgents below him. They returned fire and then fled.
From his rooftop position, Adlesperger killed four insurgents who had
fled into the courtyard, each with a shot to the head. By Malay's
estimate, Adlesperger killed a total of 11 insurgents. The actual number
may be higher.
The building had been an insurgent command-and-control center. Failure
to quickly subdue it, Malay concluded, could have thrown off the
timetable for the Fallouja assault, which depended on speed and keeping
U.S. casualties to a minimum.
Marines from adjoining rooftops joined Adlesperger and began preparing
the wounded for evacuation. Once that was done and Hodges' body was
removed, the Marines pushed in one side of the building with an
amphibious assault vehicle. Adlesperger insisted on being the first
Marine to search the building to make sure all the insurgents were dead.
That night, Starner went to Adlesperger to gather information for the
official report. As Adlesperger spoke, he began to weep — not for the
men he had killed, or even for the fact he had had to kill them, but for
Hodges, a wisecracking Northern Californian who was on his second combat
tour in Iraq and had turned 21 only the day before.
"He just kept saying, 'Hodges, Hodges, we had to get him out,' " Starner
said. Adlesperger, Hodges and Sunnerville were particularly close. Each
had been a high school wrestler, each had learned to trust his life to
the others. "We were tight," said Sunnerville, 22, who has recovered
from his wounds, been promoted to sergeant and recently finished his
third combat tour in Iraq.
On Thanksgiving weekend, with the entire company watching, Adlesperger,
who had just turned 20, was promoted to lance corporal because of his
actions on Nov. 10. Starner also started talking with Adlesperger about
attending sniper school, a prized assignment.
"He was all proud: He was in charge of his own fire team," said Rosela
Montoya, 60, Adlesperger's maternal grandmother.
In early
December, Central Command ordered a second round of squeegee to catch
insurgents who had been overlooked or who had managed to sneak back into
the city. But this time, fewer troops were assigned; some battalions
had been redeployed to other cities as the U.S. tried to decrease its
Fallouja "footprint" in advance of the city being reopened to residents.
This time, Adlesperger's battalion was assigned to sweep a neighborhood
that had been the responsibility of another unit during the initial
attack. "We moved across the Line of Departure, and 20 minutes later
Chris was dead," said Malay.
Adlesperger had taken the lead in approaching a nondescript house. He
was hit in his armored vest by multiple rounds. The impact spun him
around, and one round struck his side, where there were no protective
plates. He died instantly from a bullet to the heart. Starner and other
Marines lifted Adlesperger's body onto a Humvee. An air strike
demolished the building, burying the living and dead in rubble.
Months later, when the deployment ended, the boot camp DI's prediction
had proved eerily accurate. In Adlesperger's Kilo Company, 11 Marines
were killed, the most in any company in the battalion.
A Wrenching Loss
Christopher Adlesperger's body arrived home in the cargo hold of a
Delta Airlines plane. A military honor guard met the flight and the
Albuquerque Police Department provided an escort for the hearse. More
than 500 people attended the funeral. The casket was taken aboard a fire
engine to the Santa Fe National Cemetery, where Adlesperger's
grandfather, Ed, an Air Force veteran, is buried.
Since the funeral, Wanda Adlesperger, a teacher and former real-estate
agent, has taken to watching the lists of military personnel killed in
action on PBS' "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer." She takes special notice
of the Marine lance corporals. "Those lance corporals don't last long,"
she said. (Her observation was affirmed by a recent academic study that
found that the troop most likely to be killed in Iraq is a Marine lance
corporal.)
Chris' mother, Annette, 41, has moved with her husband, Phillip Griego,
and their children, Matthew, 13, Leandra, 11, and Phillip, 15, to Las
Cruces, N.M., to be closer to her side of the family. "That first year
was downhill for everybody," Annette said. "We need a fresh start."
Tamara Adlesperger, 20, Chris' cousin, named her recently born son
Christopher. "He has a warrior's name; maybe he'll have a warrior's
spirit too," said Tamara's mother, Casy, 44, who has become involved in
Blue Star Mothers, a group that sends packages of goodies to troops in
Iraq.
Chris' father, Gary, 42, collapsed in the driveway of his home when his
ex-wife called to say that their son was dead. He resumed drinking,
spent time in the hospital, relapsed more than once. He says he's now
been sober since Jan. 1. He got a job last month.
He's gotten involved with TAPS (Tragedy Assistance Program for
Survivors) and attended some of its meetings. He calls the day he was
told his son was nominated for the Medal of Honor "hands down, the
proudest day of my life." Like others in the family, Gary continues to
support the U.S. mission in Iraq. On his lapel is a pin with the U.S.
and Marine Corps flags.
Even for combat-hardened troops, Adlesperger's death was emotionally
wrenching. In the midst of the fight to rid Fallouja of insurgents,
Marines took time to mourn. Several later had his name tattooed on their
arms. "When we finally went firm [moved to a secure location], one of
the noncommissioned officers cried all night about Chris, and I had to
separate him from the other Marines," Starner said.
A member of Kilo Company wrote later in an online tribute to Adlesperger:
"This is to you and your family, a sincere thank-you for letting all of
us come home and live and love. But most importantly, showing us what
sacrifice and being a true man is all about."
The night Adlesperger died, Malay went to the mortuary affairs unit at
the Marine encampment in Fallouja to inspect his body, in part so he
could tell the family how he died. But that was not the only reason.
"It's a hard thing to explain, but somehow I just felt compelled to say
goodbye," said Malay in a soft, slow voice during an interview in
Carlisle, Pa., where he is attending the Army War College.
"He had a touch of greatness."
Why Terrorists Planned to Strike Canada?
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060611-094354-8871r.htm>
By Joel Mowbray
Published June 12,
2006
In the predictable stories reporting the “astonishment” of friends and
neighbors about the Canadian terror suspects arrested last week, one
tidbit serves as a cautionary tale for the threat of homegrown terrorism
in the U.S.
One
of the 17 arrested, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, was an imam at a small
storefront mosque in suburban Toronto. Those who listened to his
sermons have told reporters that they didn’t promote violent jihad or
advocate killing non-Muslims. In a post-9/11 environment less
hospitable to such rhetoric, these denials actually could be true.
But
the arrested imam didn’t need to preach violence in order to prime the
terror pump.
A
local Muslim community center director explained to the Associated Press
that Mr. Jamal had told his congregants “that the
Canadian Forces were going to Afghanistan to rape women.” And
this slander almost certainly was not uttered in isolation.
In
many ways, such outrageous propaganda is more
troubling than chants of “Jihad! Jihad!” or “Death to America.”
Convincing impressionable youths that their fellow Muslims are under
attack can have a profound impact, simultaneously dehumanizing
non-Muslim neighbors while building the case that killing them is not
just morally acceptable, but in fact, obligatory.
What
makes propaganda so pernicious is that it doesn’t raise the same red
flags. It appears no one reported Imam Jamal’s slanders, and even
followers who don’t support violence probably wouldn’t have considered
the vile lies particularly dangerous. But they are.
Just
ask the former valedictorian of the Saudi Academy.
After
he was arrested for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush,
Abu Ali gave a videotaped confession in which he explained why he
“immediately” accepted al Qaeda’s offer to join the Jihad. His reason?
His “hatred of the U.S.”—the country where he was born and raised. He
doesn’t appear ever to have suffered any oppression or been victimized
because of his Muslim faith. But that didn’t matter. His hatred for
his home country was fueled by “what I felt was [the U.S.’s] support of
Israel against the Palestinian people.”
Abu
Ali was an American kid, and his affiliations with Palestinians were at
best loose. Yet he was willing to give his life—and wage holy war
against his neighbors—for reasons having little to do with his personal
experience.
Some
would no doubt seek to blame Israel or the U.S. for his turn to
terrorism, just as a disturbing number of apologists have taken at face
value jihadists who point the finger at U.S. presence in Iraq or the
Jewish one in “Palestine.”
But
if the real motivation for Islamic terror is an aggressive U.S. foreign
policy or Israel’s supposed oppression of the Palestinians, why did 17
young Muslim men allegedly plot to strike Canada?
Canada
has no soldiers in Iraq. Few would consider it a good friend of Israel.
Canada has offered its warm embrace for Muslims from around the globe.
Canadian Muslims experience minimal discrimination, let alone anything
even resembling oppression.
Why
Canada?
Leaders
of Islamic terrorist groups, from Osama bin Laden to Shiekh Yassin (the
“handicapped” and “elderly” founder of Hamas),
universally agree that no government is legitimate unless it is Islamic.
Establishing an Islamic state is, in fact, what most unifies jihadists
around the world.
So
why Canada? Because it is not an Islamic state.
But
the drive for an Islamic state is probably not enough of a salient
motivator for foot soldiers, as it is still a somewhat intellectual
ideal. Hence the slanders. Telling young Muslims that their non-Muslim
neighbors are going halfway around the world to rape Muslim women
strikes a raw nerve.
Believing
that members of the Ummah (the world body of Muslims) need to be
defended makes someone far more susceptible to messages that violence
should be waged in the name of Islam.
How
many Imam Jamals are there in the U.S.? How many imams are brainwashing
their followers with vicious lies about their fellow Americans? How
many American Muslims believe that their Jewish and Christians
neighbors—and not jihadists—are the ones responsible for the mass murder
of innocent Iraqis? How many believe that Israeli soldiers slaughter
Palestinian women and children for sport—and that the U.S. openly
supports it?
The
answer to all of the above is: At least some. We know this from the
public record, particularly information stemming from various terror
arrests.
Here
is the more pertinent question: Who is actually fighting the propaganda?
Who is combating the spread of radical Islam?
Law
enforcement can intervene to thwart planned violence, but what can it do
about hate speech? Not much. Even fire-breathing imams enjoy
Constitutional protections. They don’t, however, enjoy freedom from
condemnation. Their followers are free to run them out of town for
spewing venom and demonizing non-Muslims.
Thus
the most important question of all is not how many Imam Jamals there are
here in the U.S., but rather, how many American
Muslims will take a stand against indoctrination that pushes kids in the
direction—if not into the arms—of terrorists?
Leaks: The media have a curious double standard when it
comes to national security. They lambaste those they dislike for "leaks"
and "lapses," but ignore their own.
Mary McCarthy, a high-level official in the CIA's office of the
inspector general, was fired last week after failing a polygraph test
and, as The Washington Post reported, for "discussing operational
intelligence matters with journalists."
Among the journalists McCarthy leaked to was the Post's own Dana
Priest, who two weeks ago won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on, as
the Post put it, the "secret, CIA-run prisons for suspected terrorists
in eastern Europe and elsewhere."
Some in the mainstream media, along with key Democrats, came to
McCarthy's defense. Typical was Sen. John Kerry, who mealy-mouthed the
damage done to America's security by saying that leaking government
secrets is OK "if you're leaking to tell the truth." He then applauded
McCarthy's perfidy: "I'm glad she told the truth."
Unlike Kerry, we wonder not why McCarthy was fired, but why she's not
being prosecuted. Make no mistake: She damaged the nation's security by
revealing what she knew — or, at least, what she thought she knew —
about the CIA's rendition program.
Kerry says she told the "truth." It's not clear, however, that's the
case. Last week, European Union counterintelligence chief Gijs de Vries
told European parliamentarians that, after months of investigation,
there was no proof the CIA was running secret detention centers in the
EU.
It may be true that some terror suspects have been held in transit at
various places in Europe. But so what? We're in a war on terror, and
terrorists, when nabbed, must be held and interrogated. Even so, claims
the U.S. has run "torture centers" appear exaggerated.
Whether or not you believe McCarthy, she handed our enemies a
propaganda coup and weakened our ability to get cooperation from allies.
She also likely endangered the lives of CIA operatives.
Since she worked in the CIA's inspector general's office, McCarthy
was privy to a massive amount of information about the spy agency —
ranging from secret operations overseas to spies' personnel files.
Releasing such information is nothing short of criminal.
As CIA chief Porter Goss said in February: "The damage has been very
severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission."
The question, then, is why did she do it? As awful as it sounds, it
seems to come down to raw political partisanship, a fact the media have
done their darndest to ignore. McCarthy, it seems, was a Democratic
Party operative — a mole.
There's evidence for this. McCarthy has given thousands over the
years to Democratic candidates, including Kerry. She also had deep ties
to the Clinton administration, serving as an aide to disgraced National
Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
That's why it's no surprise she leaked to the Post's Priest. As
dozens of Internet bloggers have noted, Priest herself has sterling
left-wing credentials. Her husband is William Goodfellow, executive
director of the Center for International Policy, a far-left policy think
tank that has basically staked its existence on opposing any and all
Bush administration policies in Iraq and elsewhere. McCarthy told her
tales not to some disinterested, objective reporter, but to someone she
knew would use it to hurt President Bush.
Revealing secrets during wartime is against the
law, especially for spies who sign ironclad secrecy agreements. As such,
McCarthy's admission that she leaked to Priest and possibly others makes
her a criminal. A strong case can be made that Priest is, too.
Yet,
after McCarthy got canned, the left immediately drew comparisons with
Bush's decision to let Scooter Libby "leak" details of a National
Intelligence Estimate to the media, suggesting a "double standard." Say
what? Bush, as commander in chief, has clear legal authority to
declassify any information he chooses. Thus, he "leaked" nothing.
We're
just scratching the surface here of McCarthy's treachery. It's clear,
however, that a crime was committed. And, sadly, someone in the media
may once again have been an accomplice. |
Dubai ports World transaction: Myth Vs. Fact
MYTH:
The Bush Administration is outsourcing the security of our ports to a
company owned by the Government of
Dubai
in the
United
Arab Emirates
(UAE).
FACT:
The
United
States
government is in charge of
U.S.
port security. We will never outsource the security of our ports.
The
U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection are in charge of security
of our ports.
MYTH:
UAE is a haven for terrorists and allowing a UAE-owned company to control
our ports will endanger our national security.
FACT:
UAE is
a friend and ally of the
United
States,
a partner in the Global War on Terror, and a strong partner in global port
security.
Partners
like the UAE are siding with the international community in the fight
against terror. The UAE has been very helpful in the fight against
terrorism, especially intelligence sharing and cutting off terrorist
financing. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money
laundering, including by freezing accounts, enacting aggressive
anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing laws and regulations,
and exchanging information on people and entities suspected of being
involved in these activities. The UAE has a world class carrier port, and
we have more U.S. Navy ships in UAE ports than in any other port outside the
United
States.
The UAE services our ships while in port, refueling them, providing them
with food and water, and doing small repairs, among other services.
Dubai
was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security
Initiative – a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism.
General
Peter Pace, Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs of Staff:
"[T]he
military-to-military relationship with the
United
Arab Emirates
is superb. … They've got airfields that they allow us to use, and their
airspace, their logistics support. They've got a world-class air-to-air
training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the
training of our pilots. In everything that we have asked and work with them
on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners." (U.S.
Department Of Defense, Press Briefing,
2/21/06)
General
Tommy Franks, Former CENTCOM Commander:
"I personally believe that we have had no greater ally
in seeking a resolution of problems in the Middle East, the Palestinian
issue, the Israeli issue, than we have found in the United Arab Emirates."
(Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes,"
2/22/06)
MYTH:
This transaction will make it easier for terrorists to infiltrate
America's
ports.
FACT:
America's
ports will be just as secure after the DP World transaction as they were
before.
First, the
workers unloading cargo at the Nation's ports will remain the same ones
working today. Any management or other personnel from outside the country
will still have to go through the normal visa application process, which
includes a very rigorous vetting process that not only does systems checks,
but also other background and fingerprint checks. Once in the
United
States,
visa recipients are put through another set of checks to make sure no
critical information has changed since the visa was issued. The visa
process has been strengthened and improved by the Federal government since
the terrorist attacks of
September
11, 2001.
MYTH:
Because DP World is a state-owned firm, a foreign country will own the ports
of six major
U.S.
cities.
FACT:
The ports will remain under the ownership and control of state and local
authorities, not DP World. As a port operator, not owner, DP World will
manage the physical equipment and movement of containers on and off of
ships, not the security related to the shipped containers, which is the
responsibility of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. As a result of the
transaction, DP World will own and operate terminals at some
U.S.
ports, which means they will be responsible for physically operating the
cranes that move cargo. Ports are publicly owned facilities, typically by
State or local authorities. Like all port operators, foreign or
domestic-owned, DP World will have to comply with Coast Guard and Customs
security regulations. In addition to meeting all these standards, DP World
has committed to additional security measures requested by the Department of
Homeland Security and signed a letter of assurances making commitments to
meet and maintain stringent security standards for the port terminals that
they will operate in the
United
States.
MYTH:
No foreign-state-owned firms operate terminals in
U.S.
ports.
FACT:
Several terminal operating companies at
U.S.
ports are joint ventures or are owned by foreign-state-owned firms.
The
China Overseas Shipping Company (COSCO), a state-owned firm, has a joint
operating agreement with a
U.S.
stevedoring company at
Long Beach,
California.
Eagle Marine Services – which operates terminals in
Seattle,
Los
Angeles,
and
Oakland
– is owned in part by the government of
Singapore.
The Yang Ming Marine Transport Company – which operates terminals at
Tacoma
and
Los
Angeles
– is owned, in part, by the Taiwanese.
MYTH:
The CFIUS review process was merely a rubber stamp.
FACT:
The CFIUS review process was a rigorous and thorough analysis of the
national security implications of the transaction. Well before the
transaction was publicly announced, both DP World and Peninsular and
Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British private company,
contacted the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
on
October
17, 2005,
and notified the Committee that they intended to file for a national
security review. In reviewing a foreign transaction, CFIUS brings together
12 Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Department of
Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice to consider transactions
from a variety of perspectives and identify and analyze all national
security issues. Each Federal agency conducts its own internal analysis,
and in this case, the Departments of Transportation and Energy were also
brought in to review the process.
On
November 2, an intelligence assessment was requested and a little more than
30 days later, the intelligence community concluded that DP World's
transaction does not pose a threat to the
U.S.
national security. This assessment was completed before CFIUS's official
review began.
On
December 16, the companies made their official filing with CFIUS that began
the 30-day review process. During this 30-day period, the Department of
Homeland Security negotiated an assurances letter with the companies.
Roughly 90 days after first being approached about the transaction and 75
days after thorough review of the transaction began, the CFIUS members
decided not to oppose the transaction, and the review closed on January 17.
As with any CFIUS decision not to pursue further investigation, the decision
was made by consensus. The review process requires any agency that sees a
potential credible threat to the national security to raise those concerns.
MYTH:
The Administration is ignoring the law.
FACT:
Just as was the case under the first Bush and Clinton administrations, the
CFIUS process has required a Federal agency to register a security concern
before a further investigation can be launched.
When there
is a consensus of CFIUS members, the transaction does not proceed to an
extended investigation. A Committee consensus means that no member saw any
national security threat, or there were no unresolved national security
concerns to prevent the transaction from going forward.
MYTH:
This transaction is only now being made public.
FACT:
DP World announced its intent to purchase P&O on November 29, 2005.
Even before the official announcement, the press was reporting on the
possible transaction as early as October 30. Between October 2005
and January 2006, there were at least 162 mentions of the transaction in the
press.
|
A layered approach to cargo security
By
Michael Chertoff/ John W. Snow
Since
September 11, our nation has taken unprecedented steps to ensure that the
cargo arriving at our ports is fully screened, passes through multiple
layers of security on its journey to the
United States
and meets tough national and international security requirements.
Port
security begins overseas, before a container is even loaded onto a ship.
First, 100 percent of all cargo destined for the United States is screened
using the specific manifest data our Customs and Border Protection officials
receive 24 hours in advance of loading the cargo on a ship. This screening
system uses an advanced set of algorithms to detect anomalies and target
shipments against corporate histories, parties to the transaction,
intelligence and other information.
Additionally, Customs and Border Protection inspectors stationed in more
than 40 international ports -- representing some 80 percent of the container
traffic bound for the United States -- conduct a thorough review of shipping
and cargo manifest information, company histories and intelligence to
determine whether the contents of a container pose a risk to our country and
require additional scrutiny. Once cleared, that cargo then passes through a
series of security checks while in transit, including automated, risk-based
targeting, scrutiny of the vessel and crew by the Coast Guard, and in some
cases, physical inspection of the cargo when it arrives at our ports,
including X-ray and radiation-detection screening.
At no
point during this entire process is a private company responsible for our
nation's port security. Our Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection
agents are always in charge of the all-important security responsibility.
In fact,
companies that operate in our ports are subject to an extensive range of
federal port and maritime security laws and regulations, and are required to
work closely with
U.S.
security agencies to ensure the highest standards of port security. These
are facts that cannot be changed and will not change with the purchase of a
British company -- Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. -- by the
Dubai Ports World, a holding company based in the United Arab
Emirates
that would take over certain container terminal operations and services in a
number of U.S.
ports.
Let us be
clear: Dubai Ports World is not buying
U.S.
seaports and Dubai Ports World will remain subject to our Coast Guard and
Customs officials. Dubai Ports World is proposing to purchase only operating
interests in the ports in question -- that is, the right to operate
container terminals and provide logistical services, such as unloading
cargo. This is not uncommon. Many foreign companies conduct commercial
operations in U.S.
ports and we have similar arrangements with our foreign counterparts,
including the Port
of Dubai,
which is a key partner in our overseas Container Security Initiative.
Indeed, the Port
of Dubai
allows our American inspectors to check cargo before it leaves their port.
In addition, local port authorities will continue to retain ownership of our
ports and the employment base at these ports will not change as a result of
the purchase.
Furthermore, whenever a foreign entity notifies our government of its
intention to purchase a foreign firm operating in the
United States,
and where national security interests may be touched, a multi-agency
committee called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
rigorously reviews the transaction. As participants in this process, we
cannot state strongly enough that our first and foremost priority in
analyzing this transaction -- and all transactions -- has been the security
of this nation.
The
committee includes representation of the primary national security agencies
of the federal government: the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security,
Justice, Treasury, Commerce and State, and the National Security Council
staff, among others. This process allows each member of the committee to
carry out its own independent analysis of the potential transaction and
review any national security concerns. In the case of the Dubai Ports World
purchase, as with others, the Departments of Transportation and Energy also
participated in the review to provide a more thorough examination and
broaden the scope and expertise of the agencies involved.
The
intelligence community also provides the committee with an independent
assessment of whether the foreign company poses a threat to
U.S.
national security and did so in this case. Based on that assessment, the
committee's 12 member agencies unanimously concluded that the purchase of
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by Dubai Ports World would not
pose a threat to U.S.
national security.
But
going even further, in this case the Department of Homeland Security
negotiated a strong and unprecedented set of security and other commitments
from Dubai Ports World to enhance that company's security profile and to
increase our ability to monitor and enforce security beyond what the law
requires. With these assurances, which go far beyond what the companies are
otherwise legally obligated to do, Homeland Security and all other members
of the committee agreed that national security requirements would be fully
addressed and the transaction could proceed pending other regulatory
hurdles.
All
of us involved in this process know that protecting
America
from terrorist threats involves a comprehensive effort, whether taking the
fight to terrorists in Afghanistan
and Iraq,
locating and capturing supporters of terror at home and abroad or protecting
our borders and transportation hubs and ports. We reached approval of the
Dubai Ports World transaction with all of that in mind and indeed to further
that goal.
A
key component of winning the war on terror is consistent and principled
leadership. On this issue, the
United States
has a responsibility to act according to established procedures and to act
without bias. As the president said on Tuesday, "it sends a terrible signal
to friends around the world" if we hold an unfounded prejudice against a
country that has played by the rules and acted as an ally. We and our
colleagues in the administration are confident of our decision, and we
believe that the facts bear out our decision.
Michael
Chertoff is secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. John W. Snow
is secretary of the Department of the Treasury.
Dubai's Support of Arab
Boycott of Israel Should 'Torpedo' Ports Deal, ADL Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
February 28, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - The Anti-Defamation League Tuesday said the Dubai
government's continued support of the Arab economic boycott of Israel
"should torpedo any deal with the United States on port operations."
Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the Dubai government, is set to take
over operations at six major U.S. ports, a move that has prompted opposition
from U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
"That Dubai Ports World is owned by the emirate of Dubai, which actively
supports the Arab economic boycott of Israel, should be grounds enough to
torpedo any deal with the United States on port operations," said Abraham H.
Foxman, ADL national director in a statement.
"Dubai should not benefit from America's open trade policies unless it
discontinues its anti-Israel activity," Foxman added.
The ADL sent a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, chair of the
interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is
overseeing the review of the agreement between Dubai Ports World and the
British company that oversaw operations of the ports prior to the deal.
According to the ADL, the Commerce Department as recently as 2005 alleged
that Dubai Ports World was asking U.S. companies to certify that goods
shipped to Dubai were "neither of Israeli origin, nor do they contain
Israeli materials, nor are being exported from Israel."
In the letter to Snow, Foxman said, "For decades, the United States has been
a leader in the fight against the Arab economic boycott of Israel, one of
the most punitive and long-term restrictive trade practices."
Foxman added, "The Administration's leadership has been critical in securing
commitments from Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to cease their boycott of Israel.
Dubai must take similar public action to even be considered for a deal with
the U.S. government."
|
Tribute in honor of Tibor
Rubin, Americas Newest Medal of Honor Recipient
Mr. Tibor Rubin, 76 of
Garden Grove, will be honored on December 15, 2005 at the California State
Military Museum in Sacramento. On September 23, 2005, Korean War veteran
Corporal Tibor Rubin was awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest
military award, by President Bush in the East Room of the White House.
The Jewish War Veterans of the U.S. and the California State Military Museum
will be hosting a tribute and reception for Mr. Rubin on December 15, from
5:00 to 7:00 pm at the museum at 1119 Second St. in Sacramento.
Mr. Rubin, survivor of a Nazi concentration camp, Hungarian immigrant, and
Korean War POW is the most recent recipient of the Medal of Honor. Many
minorities were passed over for recognition of their valorous acts during WWII
and Korea due to institutional prejudice, but Mr. Rubin's multiple acts of
bravery during the Korean War have finally been officially recognized. The
following is Mr. Rubin's citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and
beyond the call of duty:
Corporal Tibor Rubin distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism during the
period from July 23, 1950, to April 20, 1953, while serving as a rifleman with
Company I, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division in the Republic of
Korea. While his unit was retreating to the Pusan Perimeter, Corporal Rubin
was assigned to stay behind to keep open the vital Taegu-Pusan Road link used
by his withdrawing unit. During the ensuing battle, overwhelming numbers of
North Korean troops assaulted a hill defended solely by Corporal Rubin. He
inflicted a staggering number of casualties on the attacking force during his
personal 24-hour battle, single-handedly slowing the enemy advance and
allowing the 8th Cavalry Regiment to complete its withdrawal successfully.
Following the breakout from the Pusan Perimeter, the 8th Cavalry Regiment
proceeded northward and advanced into North Korea. During the advance, he
helped capture several hundred North Korean soldiers. On October 30, 1950,
Chinese forces attacked his unit at Unsan, North Korea, during a massive
nighttime assault. That night and throughout the next day, he manned a .30
caliber machine gun at the south end of the unit's line after three previous
gunners became casualties. He continued to man his machine gun until his
ammunition was exhausted. His determined stand slowed the pace of the enemy
advance in his sector, permitting the remnants of his unit to retreat
southward. As the battle raged, Corporal Rubin was severely wounded and
captured by the Chinese. Choosing to remain in the prison camp despite
offers from the Chinese to return him to his native Hungary, Corporal Rubin
disregarded his own personal safety and immediately began sneaking out of the
camp at night in search of food for his comrades. Breaking into enemy food
storehouses and gardens, he risked certain torture or death if caught.
Corporal Rubin provided not only food to the starving Soldiers, but also
desperately needed medical care and moral support for the sick and wounded of
the POW camp. His brave, selfless efforts were directly attributed to saving
the lives of as many as forty of his fellow prisoners. Corporal Rubin's
gallant actions in close contact with the enemy and unyielding courage and
bravery while a prisoner of war are in the highest traditions of military
service and reflect great credit upon himself and the United States Army.
Contact: Ernie McPherson at (916) 442-2883
U.S. MARINE WINS NAVY CROSS
Navy Cross Represents 2nd Highest Award for Bravery Offered by United States of
America
Meet Brian Chontosh. Churchville-Chili Central
School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology.
Husband and about-to-be father. First lieutenant (now Captain) in the United
States Marine Corps. And a genuine hero. At 29 Palms in California Brian Chontosh was presented
with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United
States can bestow.
It was a couple years ago now during the march into
Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee.
When all hell broke loose. Ambush city. The young Marines were being
cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid
out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him.
So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a
way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line
his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire. It was fish in a
barrel and the Marines were the fish.
And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told
his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was
firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them.
Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was
still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the
Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines.
Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the
door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M 16 and a Beretta and 228 years of
Marine Corps pride. And he ran down the trench. With its mortars and
riflemen, machine guns and grenadiers. And he killed them all. He
fought with the M 16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta
until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man's AK 47 and fought with
that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man's AK 47 and
fought with that until it was out of ammo.
At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into
an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion.
When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from
his platoon's flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many
more.
But that's probably not how he would tell it. He
would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out
of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on.
"By his outstanding display of decisive
leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost
devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and
upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval
Service."
That's what the citation says.
And that's what nobody will hear. That's what doesn't seem to be making
the evening news. Accounts of American valor are dismissed by the press as
propaganda, yet accounts of American difficulties are heralded as objectivity.
It makes you wonder if the role of the media is to inform or to depress - to
report or to deride To tell the truth, or to feed us lies.
But I guess it doesn't matter. We're going to
turn out all right. As long as men like Brian Chontosh wear our uniform.
General Abizaid's Speech to the Naval War College - Nov 2005
General
Abizaid spoke to the Naval War College in Nov 2005. The
audience was made up primarily of War College students who are mid-grade/senior
military officers. The majority of these officers have served in the conflicts
in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there was a real understanding of dynamics of the
region. BS would not sell to this audience. Here is a short summary of General Abizaid's comments.
- He is amazed as he goes around the country and testifies
before the Congress how many of our countrymen do not know or understand what
we are doing or how we are doing. There are very few members of Congress who
have ever worn the uniform (of our armed forces). He said that the questions
he gets from some in Congress convince him that they have the idea that we are
about to pushed out of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no relation between
this and the reality on the ground.
- As he goes around the region and talks to troops and
junior officers he is very impressed by their morale and their achievements.
They are confident that they are capable of defeating the enemy.
- You will never see a headline in this country about a
school opening or a power station being built and coming on line, or a
community doing well. Only the negative things will get coverage in the
media. He told the mid-grade/senior officers to go to their local Lyons Clubs
when they go home and tell the people what they are doing. If they don't get
the word out, the American people will not know what is really happening.
- The insurgency is in four of 18 provinces in Iraq, not
all 18. You do not hear about the 14 provinces were there is no insurgency
and where things are going well. The insurgency in Afghanistan is primarily
in Kandahar provience ( home of the Taliban) and in the mountain region on the
Pakistani border. The rest of the country is doing well.
- Iraq
now has over 200,000 soldiers/police under arms and growing. They are
starting to eclipse the US/coalition forces. Their casualty rate is more than
double that of the US. There are more than 70,000 soldiers under the moderate
government in Afghanistan and growing.
- He predicted that the insurgencies in the four Sunni
provences in northern/central Iraq and in Southwestern Afghinistan will be
there for the foreseeable future, but they will be stabilized and become small
enough so the moderate governments will be able to keep them under control.
- 2006 will be a transition year in Iraq and that will see
the Iraqi forces take much more of the mission from the US forces. This is
necessary to bring stability to Iraq. We need to be less in numbers and less
in the midst of the people for the moderate Iraqi government to succeed.
- Our primary enemy is not the insurgency in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It is Al Qaida and their ideology. We are at a period now that
is similar to the 1920s where Communism and Nazism had not taken hold
in Russia and Germany. The ideology of Al Qaida
is out there and it has not taken hold in any country in the middle east. We
need to make sure that it does not and we are doing that, but it will be a
long problem with a long commitment.
- He said that we are focused on the things that we
(Americans) have done wrong, like Abu Ghraib, and not talking about this
enemy. We need to talk about this enemy. Al Qaida is all over the world.
Their goal is to get the US out of the region and come to power in the Islamic
countries of the region. From there their goal is to establish a Caliphate
(under a single Islamic ruler) that goes from the Atlantic in North Africa to
Indonesia in the Pacific. Fifty years after this happens their goal is to
rule the rest of the world.
- Since Desert Storm in 1991 US forces have not lost any
combat engagement in the region at the platoon level or above. Al Qaida has
no beliefs that they can defeat us militarily. They see our center of gravity
as being the will of the American People. That is influenced by the media and
they are playing to that.
- They don't need to win any battles. Their plan is keep
the casualties in front of the American people in the media for long enough
that we become convinced that we can not win and leave the region. This would
be tragic for our country.
- The battle against Al Qaida will not be primarily
military. It will be political, ecomomic, and ideological. It will require
the international communty to fight too. We must not let Al Qaida get hold in
any country. It will result in our worse nightmare. Picture life in
Afghanistan under the Taliban, that is what Al Qaida's ideology has as a goal.
- If you look at the geography (of Al Qaida) there is no
place to put a military solution. They are networked and they are all over
the world. They are a virtual organization connected by the internet. They
use it to prosletize,recruit, raise money, educate and organize. They have
many pieces that we must focus on: the propaganda battle in the media, safe
houses, front companies, sympathetic members of legitimate governments, human
capital, fighters and leaders, technical expertise, weapons suppliers,
ideologically sympathetic non-government organizations (charities), financers,
smugglers, and facilitators. A lot of their money comes from drugs.
- We are winning but we have got to maintain constant
pressure over time with the international community and across the US
government agencies. No one is afraid that we can't defeat the enemy. Our
troops have the confidence, the courage, and the competence. We need the will
of the American people to be sustained for the long haul.
|
|
