I published a fairly bleak commentary late last night entitled “The Future of the War: It Needs to be Decided Immediately,” and another fairly bleak picture of Ramadi a day or two ago, entitled “Ramadi, Iraq: A Mess.”  The one on the future of the war is so bleak, in fact, that I had been pondering whether I should have published it.  After all, we get enough bad news and spinned commentaries as it is.  Not any more.  Just at my lowest (deciding whether to remove the post — I know, a no-no in the web log world), this comes to my attention from the testimony of the brass before the Senate:

The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East told Congress on Thursday that “Iraq could move toward civil war” if the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad is not stopped. “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it,” Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the top priority in the Iraq war is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.[ … ]

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Abizaid’s observation when he told the panel, “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.” He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Abizaid’s observation when he told the panel, “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.” He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.”Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other,” Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome. “The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government.” 

However bleak my post was, it is nice to be confirmed by the generals.  I don’t disagree with the thrust of what I read here, but permit me one nuanced modification.  The focus should indeed be on the Iraqis, but as I said in my post noted above, the situation seems to me to be spiraling out of control very quickly.  More is needed in the way of stabilization by the U.S. troops.  We have taken defensive positions in Ramadi, and the death toll in Baghdad is higher than in Lebanon and Israel combined.  The sectarian violence must be stopped in Baghdad, and the fight must be taken to the Sunni insurgents in Ramadi.

What is needed is a large, coordinated offensive by both U.S. and Iraqi troops.  It must be fast, furious and unrelenting.  The results will be similar to what they were after the killing of al Zarqawi and the capture of the intelligence on Al Qaida in Iraq.  The terrorists were running for cover.  When they are running for their lives, they don’t have the time or wherewithal to go on the offense.

The basic problem here as I see it is that while we have been on the offense for much of the time over the last several years, leading to gains and stabilization in all areas (whether power grid reliability, decrease in the death toll, utilities reliability, political advances), we are now on the defensive.

Bad move.  Let’s take counsel from General George Patton.

“In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it.”

We have the best, most well-trained and well-equipped fighting force in the history of the world.  Let’s quit hand-wringing over “rules of engagement” and unleash them.  In the end, this strategy will not only be victorious, it will save U.S. lives.  Time is of the essence.

Faster … please?

In my post “Winning or Losing in the Middle East?” I pointed out the two different trains of thought emerging on the conflict in the middle east.  One train of thought believes that we are gradually winning, while the other train of thought believes that our presence is like a dam with a gradually enlarging hole; it is doomed to catastrophic failure at some point.

There is good news on one front.  The Sunnis like U.S. presence in their neighborhoods.

BAGHDAD: Predominantly Sunni western Baghdad has long been a battleground for US troops against a firmly entrenched insurgent presence backed by a population that appeared sympathetic to the rebels.Now, however, that attitude is changing as the pace of sectarian violence quickens across the city and raises the grim specter of civil war.For western Baghdad’s mainly Sunni residents, Iraq’s increasingly aggressive Shiite militias and their perceived allies in the post-war government security forces are a greater threat than the once hated Americans.“There are armed Shiites from the Mehdi Army coming with the police and the police commandos wearing black uniforms, talking about getting revenge on the Sunnis,

The AP was reporting earlier in the day that:

WASHINGTON – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

My readers know that I have been closely following the Haditha and Hamdania stories.  Note this little remark in the text of the article:

“… according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.”

I have said it in prior posts and will repeat it here.  “By the mouths of two or more witnesses” is the criteria, and these must be credible, reliable and consistent witnesses.  See my Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules of Evidence (a very well-read commentary across the Globe based on Google Analytics).  Things are not to be done in secret.  Things are discussed openly, confessions are not coerced, and a finding of guilt must rely on sure and certain evidence from two or more witnesses.  Anything else is girlish gossip.  I was very disappointed to see that the Marine Corps Times picked this up and ran with it.

Here it is again: ” … on condition of anonymity.”

So who were these “Pentagon officials?”  Let me be the first out of the gate to call them pusillanimous, cowardly weasels.  They prejudiced the case without there having been a trial where witnesses and evidence could be heard and cross-examined.

Cowards.  Who were these “officials?”  These weasels can come do battle with me here at the Captain’s Journal at any time.  Here at TCJ, I am not anonymous.  You see my real name associated with this post.  I am not a weasel.  These “officials” are.

The AP was reporting earlier in the day that:

WASHINGTON – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

My readers know that I have been closely following the Haditha and Hamdania stories.  Note this little remark in the text of the article:

“… according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.”

I have said it in prior posts and will repeat it here.  “By the mouths of two or more witnesses” is the criteria, and these must be credible, reliable and consistent witnesses.  See my Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules of Evidence (a very well-read commentary across the Globe based on Google Analytics).  Things are not to be done in secret.  Things are discussed openly, confessions are not coerced, and a finding of guilt must rely on sure and certain evidence from two or more witnesses.  Anything else is girlish gossip.  I was very disappointed to see that the Marine Corps Times picked this up and ran with it.

Here it is again: ” … on condition of anonymity.”

So who were these “Pentagon officials?”  Let me be the first out of the gate to call them pusillanimous, cowardly weasels.  They prejudiced the case without there having been a trial where witnesses and evidence could be heard and cross-examined.

Cowards.  Who were these “officials?”  These weasels can come do battle with me here at the Captain’s Journal at any time.  Here at TCJ, I am not anonymous.  You see my real name associated with this post.  I am not a weasel.  These “officials” are.

There are two trains of thought gradually emerging concerning the larger war in the middle east.  Israeli PM Ehud Olmert boasts in the superlative:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the war “a marvelous combination of military might and civilian strength” in a speech marking the graduation of students at the National Security College in Tel Aviv yesterday. Olmert said Israel is “winning this battle,” and its success is “nearly unprecedented.”

“Even today, it may be said that the face of the Middle East has changed following the great achievement of the State of Israel, of the army of Israel, and of the people of Israel,” Olmert said, speaking without notes.

Also from within the government of Israel:

Justice Minister Haim Ramon, who said that 300 of the enemy’s forces have been eliminated, revealed that IDF sources estimate the total number of Hizbullah fighters to be 2,000. “The objective is to hit the fighters and the weaponry of the Hizbullah,” Ramon told a Channel 10 interviewer, “and so far, we have done a pretty good job.”

The Strategy Page agrees with this assessment:

Israeli ground operations appear to be using paratroopers and other elite infantry to hunt down and kill Hizbollah rocket launching teams. Hizbollah has not got a lot of trained people. Kill them, and they are hard to replace. There are only so many rocket launcher teams. Kill them, and no one will be available to take the rockets out of their hiding places and launch them. Right now, this battle is being won by the Israelis, because Hizbollah has not been able to launch many longer (over 20 kilometers) rockets at more densely populated areas deeper in Israel. Most of the rockets are short range ones. The Israeli attack on the transportation system in southern Lebanon has made it difficult to move large objects, like big rockets, into position for launch.

But there is a different view of the overall war effort in the middle east (including not just Israel and their battle with Hezbollah, but the U.S. and the war in Iraq).  The National Review editors say:

The administration hopes to forge a meaningful international force to help the Lebanese army police southern Lebanon. We hope it can. But it may be an unachievable goal, given that countries are unlikely to contribute troops unless the environment is more “permissive

The North County Times has this update on a case that I have discussed before:

TIKRIT, Iraq — The U.S. Army opened a hearing Tuesday to determine whether four American soldiers must stand trial for allegedly murdering three Iraqis during a raid where they claimed they were under orders to “kill all military-age males.”

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the May 9 shooting deaths near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

All four are members of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division and have been jailed in Kuwait since they were arrested in June. They were moved to Tikrit, the division headquarters, for the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

The hearing, which is expected to last several days, opened with testimony from two investigators who questioned the soldiers when the allegations surfaced last month. 

Later on down the article there is this little nugget of gold:

The investigator acknowledged that he and his colleagues sometimes resort to “lies, trickery or deceit” to extract confessions.

I have commented before in Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules for Evidence concerning how evidence is obtained and what constitutes admissible evidence, so I won’t rehearse what was said in that post.  However, I will point out that lies, trickery and deceipt is still lies, trickery and deceipt, no matter what the reason or supposed justification.  Here is how it works.  “Son, we have signed confessions from two others at the scene who told us exactly what you did, and this being a death penalty case, you will be executed unless you cooperate with us.  If you confess to this crime, we think we can get you life in prison, parolled at 30 years, rather than the death penalty.”  To which the individual agrees to the confession under counsel from his lawyer.

The only thing is that the statement that they had two other confessions was a lie.  There are people in prisons who are guilty, and who were placed in prison by tactics like this, and who in fact deserve to be in prison.  Then there are people who are in prison, and who confessed to a crime, and who are in fact not guilty — and they were placed in prison using tactics like this.  This is true in civilian cases and military cases.

The practice is immoral.  Period.  It might be legal and ethical.  But there is a difference between something being allowed in the sight of the law and something being good and righteous.

This practice is not good and righteous.  Testimony should be given in front of everyone, without compulsion, and always corroborated by two or more witnesses.  Again, repeating the point in my earlier post on the Hamdania Marines, the value of confessions in the western Judeo-Christian tradition was never to convict.  It was always merely to corroborate.  To use lies, trickery and deceipt to obtain alleged “confessions” is the prosecution playing God.  It is the government deciding that the individual is guilty and then using whatever tactics effect the desired outcome (i.e., conviction).  In the U.S., we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Coerced confessions accomplish nothing towards proving anything.

The North County Times has this update on a case that I have discussed before:

TIKRIT, Iraq — The U.S. Army opened a hearing Tuesday to determine whether four American soldiers must stand trial for allegedly murdering three Iraqis during a raid where they claimed they were under orders to “kill all military-age males.”

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the May 9 shooting deaths near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

All four are members of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division and have been jailed in Kuwait since they were arrested in June. They were moved to Tikrit, the division headquarters, for the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

The hearing, which is expected to last several days, opened with testimony from two investigators who questioned the soldiers when the allegations surfaced last month. 

Later on down the article there is this little nugget of gold:

The investigator acknowledged that he and his colleagues sometimes resort to “lies, trickery or deceit” to extract confessions.

I have commented before in Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules for Evidence concerning how evidence is obtained and what constitutes admissible evidence, so I won’t rehearse what was said in that post.  However, I will point out that lies, trickery and deceipt is still lies, trickery and deceipt, no matter what the reason or supposed justification.  Here is how it works.  “Son, we have signed confessions from two others at the scene who told us exactly what you did, and this being a death penalty case, you will be executed unless you cooperate with us.  If you confess to this crime, we think we can get you life in prison, parolled at 30 years, rather than the death penalty.”  To which the individual agrees to the confession under counsel from his lawyer.

The only thing is that the statement that they had two other confessions was a lie.  There are people in prisons who are guilty, and who were placed in prison by tactics like this, and who in fact deserve to be in prison.  Then there are people who are in prison, and who confessed to a crime, and who are in fact not guilty — and they were placed in prison using tactics like this.  This is true in civilian cases and military cases.

The practice is immoral.  Period.  It might be legal and ethical.  But there is a difference between something being allowed in the sight of the law and something being good and righteous.

This practice is not good and righteous.  Testimony should be given in front of everyone, without compulsion, and always corroborated by two or more witnesses.  Again, repeating the point in my earlier post on the Hamdania Marines, the value of confessions in the western Judeo-Christian tradition was never to convict.  It was always merely to corroborate.  To use lies, trickery and deceipt to obtain alleged “confessions” is the prosecution playing God.  It is the government deciding that the individual is guilty and then using whatever tactics effect the desired outcome (i.e., conviction).  In the U.S., we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Coerced confessions accomplish nothing towards proving anything.

This post has been updated with Ramadi is Still a Troubled City.

**** SCROLL FOR UPDATES ****

Those of you who are consistent readers at my site (believe it or not, there are actually a few of you) know that when I think I see a spade, I call it a spade. Right or wrong, I call it like I see it.

I am a patriot.  This post is not about the war in terms of its rightness or wrongness.  It is about how we are conducting part of the war and the potentially terrible cost to U.S. lives that might result from our current strategy.  It is time to weigh in on Ramadi.  I think it is a mess, and I think that its a mess because of the tactical approach taken by the brass.  This will not make me popular with the brass, but they don’t read my blog anyway, so I have lost nothing and I’ve kept my honesty.

Early on I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but pointed out that this tactic of surgically striking at the insurgents in Ramadi (while also leaving the civilians in the city) was prone to disaster and carried the risk of utter failure.  Now, I feel that it is not only prone to disaster, but will also cost U.S. lives in the future.

I questioned in a earlier post on Ramadi “what kind of strategy digs a hole and puts U.S. troops in it waiting to be attacked,” or something like that (and in fact, the U.S. troops were taking bets as to when they would be attacked).  Now, this from Ramadi:

Ramadi, Iraq – Peering over piles of sandbags in this ravaged city, US Marines sometimes see more gunmen on the streets than municipal employees going to work.  The provincial governor regularly arrives at his office with armed gaurds in tow.

After three years of war in Ramadi, the US military has yet to move from combat to stabilization operations in most of this Sunni Arab city of 400,000 people, the capital of Anbar province.

Here full-fledged combat still rages. Efforts to build a local government have faltered.

In just four months, one Marine has fired 27 rockets. Another estimates he has fired 5,000 rounds from a .50-caliber machine gun. One marksman has 20 confirmed kills. His superiors believe he has probably killed another 40 but they are not sure.

The US military said Sunday that four US Marines assigned to the Regimental Combat Team 7 were killed in action in Anbar province, although it did not say where.

Residents of Ramadi are afraid of even walking near the offices of the Anbar provincial government, which is supposed to administer an area the size of Greece, and with about 1 million inhabitants.

“There’s been a concerted campaign against government officials that’s had some great success … the government center is nearly devoid of governance,

John Little (who I consider to be the best in the business) of the famous Blogs of War has started a new web log called Chronicles of War (clever site name, in association with the Houston Chronicles).  His post at Blogs of War explains the idea:

I finally got my face in the hometown paper. Well, its web site at least. I didn’t even have to embezzle city funds, lead cops on a three hour chase, or plow my SUV into METRO’s light rail. My family should be proud.

Thanks to an invitation from blog/media/tech guru Dwight Silverman, I’ll also be blogging the war at the Houston Chronicle. Chronicles of War will cover the same topics you see here at Blogs of War but with a little more depth.

I’m excited about the prospect of getting these topics, and my take on them, in front of a new audience. I’ll keep you guys (and gals) in the loop on developments at Chronicles of War but I hope that you’ll check it out, link it, and participate in the discussion.

Here at the Captain’s Journal I try to focus a little more on analysis as well, as much as can be done by a “working stiff.”  I am sure that John will do well at this.  The only question is this: When will John sleep?

This does not bode well for an upstart like me.  If you don’t put quality stuff out on a site, no one reads it.  If you do, you get no sleep.  Either you go un-read or you’re an insomniac.  I don’t think I like my options.

The IDF apparently requested an increased presence and intensity in the conflict in southern Lebanon.  From Arutz Sheva:

The cabinet approved the request, permitting IDF troops to operate as far north as the Litani River in a move intended to push Hizbullah back to the other side of the Litani, thereby distancing the threat to Israel’s northern border. While most of the cabinet ministers voted in favor, Science Minister (Labor) Ophir Pines abstained. There were no votes of opposition.

The ministers were briefed by military and intelligence officials, as well as by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who detailed the picture on the international diplomatic scene.

In his nationally televised address on Monday night, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a forum of mayors that there would be no ceasefire in the “coming days,