... how things are here.  I don't think pictures would do it much justice, either.  The reason words don't work is because no matter what is said, it is fairly easy to say "oh, yeah?!  What about..." and that question is entirely legitimate (if sometimes misguided).  For instance, if I said "things are going remarkably well here.  It is generally quiet and peaceful, and almost every aspect of 'normal' life is returning!" a wag could easily say "oh, yeah?  What about the suicide bomber at the sheikh meeting in Kharma last month?  Is THAT 'normal'?!"

So let me just say that having seen Al Anbar go from bad to worse to really, really bad, it is now better than it's been at any time since I started hanging out here.  When I drive downtown, the streets are full of people going about their lives (I know I've said this before... but I take SO LONG between entries, that I forget), there are traffic jams.  I can stand out in front of the Government Center and point at the bullet holes that resulted from somebody trying to kill me back in 2006... and NOT get shot at.  Yes, bad things still happen and good men still get wounded and killed.  It's still a war, of sorts.  But it's good.  Hot, but good.

---

Topic Change: SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE LIKE TO HAVE SEEN

Okay, I don't really want to get into the whole political thing too much... I don't want to say something bad about somebody that's ends up being my commander in chief, dontcha know.  But... here's a conversation I would have liked to have seen (and it didn't happen... oh, well)

Prime Minister Maliki: "Ah, un-named American Political Candidate, I am so glad that you have come to see Iraq!  Welcome."

Un-named American Political Candidate: "Thank you, sir.  It is really great to be here.  Thank you for your hospitality!"

PMM: "Ah, it is nothing.  I do, however, have one question for you.  I hope you will not think it rude or impertinent."

UNAPC: "Please, ask away!"

PMM: "I was just curious, now that you are here shaking my hand and looking me in the eye... how long WOULD you have allowed us to be dominated by Saddam Hussein?  If ousting him when you did was a bad idea, which, unless I have misread the American press as badly as Der Spiegel translates my speeches, you have said many times, then when, my friend, my dear friend, would you have felt that providing freedom to 27 million souls was a good thing?  And, do you think, now, with my hand in yours and our eyes locked together and in front of the entire news army of the free world, are you telling me that you would have preferred to let us go it alone before our army and police were ready to shoulder the burden?  Do you believe that 'tough love' would have helped us rise above the terror and intimidation that Al Qaeda was able to inflict in the last few years?"

UNAPC: "Uh... it's not that simple... uh... I think that I need to refine my thoughts on this..."

PMM: "I am sorry.  We are both politicians... I don't know what came over me and made me say what I was really thinking or feeling.  Come, let us smile for the camera's some more and pretend that you believe I and my family are worth fighting for!  I certainly don't wan't to alienate you on the off chance that my entire continued existence is dependent on your good graces in years to come."

7 June 2008

Camp Ar Ramadi, Al Anbar, Iraq

So I'm in the IZ the other day, meeting with the DPMs office... oh, sorry... I was in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone the other day, at a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister's office (originally the DPM himself was going to be there, but he's got a busy schedule)... anyway, I got to have lunch at the Al Rasheed hotel.  Cloth tableclothes, good food (remarkably similar to what we have out in Al Anbar), no beer.  Let's just say that Baghdad is to Ramadi as Washington, D.C. is to Cheyenne, Wyoming.  All part of the same culture... a lot of similarities... and you'd be a fool to project too much of either onto the other one.  'Nuff said.

Today I was thinking about the fact that the anniversary of D-Day just passed.  You can go back to some of my other June 6 entries if you'd like, but I had occasion to relate some of the experiences I've had here in past deployments to somebody that is on their first... it's a whole different ballgame.  I was specifically talking about the operation the Major Ric Crocker was killed on in 2005.  Back then we KNEW that every time we went to town (Haditha in this case), there was a better than even chance of there being a fight, and when we did an operation like Operation New Market (the one where Ric was killed), it wasn't just because we were bored, but because there were plenty of bad guys that needed killing.  I still remember that night and that operation.  But the point is back then the war was being reported like it was worse than anything we'd ever experienced in the history of armed conflict... daily death tolls, quagmires, remarkably stupid things being said by politicians (okay, so that doesn't point to any particular time or circumstance... fair enough)... and back then I opined that a look at D-Day casualties figures might add some much-needed perspective.  Now days, well, where IS the news?  I know the answers, of course, but rhetorically, where are the daily updates on number of consecutive days without a violent American death in Al Anbar?  Nobody's interviewed me to see how the electricity distribution is coming along.  Sure, it's been pretty gripping watching Hillary remain behind in delegates for the last couple of months, and I'll grant you it's kind of fun watching her essentially have to say "sure I dragged this out for a while explaining what a really horrible choice Obama would be and how grotesquely underqualified he is to be a commander-in-chief... but he has my full support now that I've admitted (after a night of vigorous denial) that there aren't a miracle 100+ delegates out there and so therefore he is not the absolute best choice as your president.  Really.  I mean it.  Go BHO!", but really...

Now a while back I asked Congress to please stop giving us support like non-binding resolutions.  Looks like they heard.  Haven't heard a peep out of Harry or Nancy in a while.  So let's give a hat tip to them for managing to keep their yaps shut.  Apologies for being a bunch of whiny, opportunistic, political creatures that aren't qualified to look at Arlington might be a bit much, so I'm happy with the silence.  Of course maybe I just don't watch enough news...

Things are going well... but 'schway, schway' which is Arabic for 'slowly, slowly.'  If anybody thinks it should be going faster, I invite them to sign up for the State Department reconstruction teams and to bring that enthusiasm and expertise on over and show us how it's done.

9 April 2008/Camp Ramadi, Ar Ramadi, Al Anbar, Iraq

Today is a national holiday.  Not a U.S. holiday, but an Iraqi holiday.  It has nothing to do with the birth, death, epiphany, what-have-you of any imam, caliph, prophet or president.

Today is the official 5th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to Coalition Forces, and the elected Iraqi government declared it a national holiday.  Frankly, it caught me by surprise... but then I probably wasn't reading enough of the traffic.

This morning I was speaking with an Iraqi National.  When the matter of the fall of Baghdad came up, he told me that it was a very significant day for him: it was the day the nightmares stopped.  For him, his family, and everyone he knew.  Not the notional concept of a national nightmare (like the 400 days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, or a Hillary presidency, or something like that), but real, literal nightmares.  The cold sweat, sitting up shaking in the middle of the night, moans of terror kind of nightmares.  The things that make you wake up tired.  He said that that night, the night after Baghdad was taken, he slept soundly for the first time that he could remember.  Not concerned that a jealous neighbor might have reported him as a spy or traitor, not worried that his daughter might be late because Uday or Qusay or some other Ba'ath party leader might have taken a shine to her and she was currently somewhere in the process of being kidnapped, raped, tortured, killed, and dumped.  Sure things were dangerous... but that is, while not 'normal,' a matter of risk management and perhaps insh'allah... what can you do if god so wills it?  But the deep terror of not god, but a malign dictator, a very human force that prided himself on having modeled his society on Stalin's... that terror was gone.  No illusion of everything being perfect when the sun rose, but now a manageable future.

No, stopping nightmares wasn't one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq.  Our national interest is not directly served, perhaps, by letting Iraqis sleep sounder (before somebody trots out John Kerry's hoary old description of our security activities here, I will simply say that to compare a Coalition 'cordon and knock' sweep into a house with Saddam's secret police dragging a father off to have his feet flogged is as fatuous as equating Guantanamo with Auschwitz).  But I suppose, from time to time, the law of unintended consequences comes down on the plus side, too.  And KNOWING that it stopped the nightmares of a few dozen million folks, I'd be hard pressed to realpolitik my way into justifying NOT kicking in the door.  But perhaps I'm growing soft, and losing my cynical edge.  I guess hearing stories like that'll do it to you.

Just my thoughts on 9 April 2008.  Take care all.  Sleep well.

27 March 2008

Camp Fallujah, Anbar Province, Iraq

 

Greetings and salutations.  For those of you that are still checking in, thank you for the patience.  For those that are here for the first time, welcome.  For those of you that think instability in Iraq is better than stability, that chaos is better than order, that freedom is only good for those that are ready for it... welcome, too.  All I ask is that if you must spout off, be able to rationally defend your position.

Well, for those that are keeping track, this IS my fourth deployment to Iraq in support of Operation Iraq Freedom.  All four have been in the role of "Civil Affairs" which is means many things, but primarily serving as the interface between the military and the civilian populace.

I've actually been over here for about 50 days already (okay, exactly 50 days... but who's counting?).  In the past I've served at the battalion level as a team leader and at the regiment/brigade level as a detachment Executive Officer.  This time I am at the provincial level and am helping to get this place working again.

I will write more about what I'm doing later, but let me just give you this advice: if you ever happen to be getting raised by two loving electrical engineers, and they try to teach you fundamentals of electricity... LISTEN TO THEM!  You might just end up in a foreign country talking to real engineers about megawatts, kilovolts-amps, transformers and such someday... and if you didn't pay attention, you might just regret not having that knowledge now!

Yesterday I was speaking with an old friend, a man I've been to Iraq with twice and he is gearing up for his third tour.  In our conversation, another former compatriot's name came up, one Adam Kokesh.  Apparently Cpl* Kokesh has been making quite a name for himself in the anti-war circuit, being an Iraqi Veteran and all.  With Cindy in retirement, a number of wags have pointed out that the 'movement' needed another front-man, and Cpl Kokesh seems to fill the bill: Iraq veteran for credibility, a flair for the dramatic and, in my opinion, a craving for spotlight with a Kerry-like eye to the future (a la Summer Soldier/Winter Patriot).

In any case, he is in 'court' today, actually a non-judicial review of the status of his discharge.  It seems that the mean old Marine Corps takes some exception to members of the Reserve, of which Cpl Kokesh most certainly is, wearing uniform parts during protests.  This 'exception' the Marine Corps takes is no secret, and when I was a six-month PFC I'd have known at least enough to ask if such a question came up.  Though Cpl Kokesh is now a Corporal, he was once a Sergeant, and I'd say, having been in his non-judicial punishment that netted him his loss of rank and early exit from the Marine Corps, that the character of his discharge was never on the firmest of ground.

All that being said, take a look at his website: http://kokesh.blogspot.com/

My objections are not, actually, with his protesting, but rather with his arrogant, tantrum-like response to the predictable reactions to his protesting.  I do not believe he is a fool.  Here is my letter to him.  He hasn't answered yet, but then I only wrote it last night, and he has a big day in Kansas City today.  I will talk more about Civil Disobedience in the future, and, as you can see, will gladly engage in a dialogue with Cpl Kokesh

Adam,
 
Based on what I know of you from our time in 3rd and 5th CAG**, I am disappointed in your actions.  Not so much the protesting, mind you, but your responses to the official concern in the matter.  I have no respect for somebody that commits civil disobedience, and then complains when the punishment that they ask for is meted out.  I do not believe that you were unaware of the policies regarding Marine Corps uniforms or that you didn't hope to gain some advantage by wearing it in a protest, so I can only assume that you were hoping to be punished to help your new cause (the alternative is that you are ignorant and/or unable to anticipate obvious reactions).  Mandala going to prison showed character, Lt. Watada complaining when the rules he knowingly broke are enforced does not.  Neither does spouting off rude responses as you 'chastise' those executing their duties.  Perhaps the Marine Corps that you claim to love is different than the one I enlisted in back in 1981, but I see nothing admirable, in keeping with Marine Corps values, or even particularly manly in the tone, tenor or text of your responses to the Marine Corps.  This has, in my opinion, nothing to do with your love of the Marine Corps, your sincere opposition to the war, or your rights being violated, but rather your posturing for future political office.  Perhaps an effective tactic, but not one of which I would be proud.
 
I only just learned of your antics (and I can think of no kinder term for them), so haven't read all of your blog entries.  Perhaps in there, somewhere, are substantive, rational discussions of your opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom (or perhaps to the whole GWOT... I have no idea) and your journey from striving to deploy with us 2006 to your current position.  I believe there ARE rational positions against the war, but protestors so rarely hold those positions or are able to articulate them, instead coming across as kneejerk doves with no context for their position besides their hearts.  If you actually have some real objections, I would be curious to hear them, but if it is merely more of the Code Pink "Impeach Bush" dribble, then I think I've heard enough (unless, of course, you can convince me that there are actual impeachable offenses involved).  I would suggest that alternative plans be advanced with criticisms, preferably with reasonable consequences and risks for recommended courses of action.  You always struck me as a rational, articulate man, so I look forward to hearing an interesting case against OIF.  Links to existing statements are fine, too.
 
I will likely publish this letter on my blog at http://mattchis.bravejournal.com (don't worry, it gets no more than a hundred or so hits a day, at most), and would be happy to post any of your responses or not, as you desire.  The opinions expressed in this letter and at my blog are my own and should not be assumed to reflect those of the United States Marine Corps or the government of the United States.
 
Sincerely,
[MDC], LtCol, USMC

* If, by some sort of administrative legerdemain, Adam Kokesh has regained his rank of Sergeant, I will gladly adjust my references back to the rank that he claims to hold.

** It is not clear to me if Adam Kokesh was with me in 2005, with 5th CAG.  It may be that he was in Fallujah while I was in Habbaniyah in 2004, rather than while I was in Haditha in 2005.  He was in my detachment when we began work-ups for our 2006 tour, until he was put on legal hold for the activities that would eventually lead to his early discharge from active duty.

USC Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115 § 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Just as a sort of mental exercise try that definition out, with a fair and open mind, on some of our current crop of politicians.  The way I parse the requirements for treason is as follows: To be found guilty of treason, a person must...

1. Owe allegiance to the United States
2. Either levee war against the United States, OR
3. Give aid and comfort, whether at home or abroad, to the enemies of the United States (adheres)

So let's see how this fits on some of our leaders, shall we?

President Bush

1. Yes. 
2. No.
3. No.  In fact quite the opposite, a pretty strong case can be made that the enemies of the United States have been fairly discomfitted by his actions.

Now I'll leave the running of other politicians through this little test to the readers with just the the following instructions: remember, to be a traitor, #1 MUST be true, and #2 OR #3 must be true (or both, of course).  So, and I don't want to bias anybody's efforts, the question that will have to wrestled with is how can anyone justify that Senators like Senator Reid don't owe allegiance to the United States.  Good luck.

For the first time ever I am selling something on this blog (besides my view of the world, that is).

There is now a link to "Krans World's Profit Center" over on the right side.  This will take you to my on-line store where you can buy various articles that will communicate themes I hold dear to my heart (and/or find funny).

Right now there is just a sticker that expresses the view on the new banner.  I have included a $0.51 mark-up over the basic cost of the sticker.  Yes, that IS a 20% profit... but it's also only tad over fifty cents.  I will use any funds so gained to defray my postage costs as I begin my letter-writing campaign to try to find out why, exactly, our Republican House Members that voted for HCR63 (the non-binding resolution of non-support) did so (and whether or not they can sleep at night).

Watch for some T-Shirts and bumber stickers soon...

Well, I haven't 'blogged' too much since I got back to the states... hard to give a front-line view of the war when I'm 8,000 miles away.  Today's post is about dead Marines and Soldiers.  They aren't dead yet, but they will be in the course of the next few weeks.  What killed them?  Was it Iranian EFPs?  Sunni IEDs?  Yes and no.  Those will be the proximate causes, along with sniper shots (thanks for the body armor diagrams, New York Post!), SVBIEDs (that's Suicide Vehicle-Borne IEDs), perhaps a helicopter shoot-down, and any of a variety of other ways we lose good men in Iraq.  For instance I just heard today about the first Sergeant Major to die in Iraq.  Apparently as he, his Commanding Officer and eleven other Marines were dismounting their vehicles, a knuckle-head in a suicide vest dashed towards the group.  The SgtMaj apparently identified the threat, warned the others, and threw the terrorist to the ground and threw himself on top of him, thus containing most of the blast and fragmentation and saving the lives of the other Marines.  I haven't read any reports on it, so I may have details wrong... but I will try to attend the Sergeant Major's burial at Arlington next week.  Now... those are the proximate causes of the deaths.  Of course the home groups, Al Qaida, JAM, Iran, 1920 Revolution Brigade, etc. have responsibility... but they are the enemy and we sort of expect them to try and kill us.  But some un-measurable but undeniable portion of the responsiblity for every single casualty we take from today forward rests with our very own Congress.  I'm talking, of course, about the "non-binding" resolution that was passed today in the House.

Now getting people killed for a greater good is part of military leadership... any commander in combat will have to make decisions that he knows may likely result in the death of some of their command.  That's what the military does.  But other than in Hollywood movies, no commander doesn't weigh the lives of his men against the mission, seeking to minimize the casualties while still accomplishing the goals.  So it's not that Marines and Soldiers will die in the coming months that has me writing today.  It has to do with implied and explicit social contracts and chains of command.

When I was a Private in Marine boot camp, I could recite (and often did at the top of my lungs) my chain of command.  I could name my fire-team leader, squad leader, platoon commander, company commander, battalion commander, regimental commander, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense, and the President of the United States.  You will notice, and I'll come back to later, that there was no mention of my state representative or senator in that list.  That's significant and it's not an oversight.  Within my chain of command there is an explicitly defined trust.   Trust down the chain that the subordinate will execute their orders to the best of their abilities, with or without the 'big picture.'  Trust up the chain that the leader will use the subordinates as effeciently as possible, thus achieving maximum results for minimum risk.  There are several mechanisms built into the system to bias it towards this ideal.  Now at each level of command, the commander is supported by increasingly complex support structures to help him make his decisions.  The fireteam leader consults his team, a company commander has his 1stSgt and XO, battalions and regiments have Special Staffs (the 'S' shops), generals have "G' shops, all the way up to the President that has the JCS and the resources of the entire United States of America... but in all these cases, the leader takes in as much information as he can in the time he has, balances that against the obstacles before him, and makes a decision, KNOWING that nothing is free and WILLINGLY taking responsibility for the costs, secure in the knowledge that he has made as good a decision as he can.    A staff develops plans, outside agencies can supply addtional information and guidance, but it is the commander, at whatever level that makes the decision and on whose judgment rests the lives of those under him.  Every single man and woman in uniform, with the exception of young Lieutenant Watada, apparently, understand this concept.  And then came the Iraq...

In classic Sun-Tzu-ian, asymetric warfare a materially weaker foe must strive to turn their weakness into strength, and the enemies strength into a weakness.  In our case, the strength of the United States is our democratic process, our openness, our subordination of the mliitary to the civilian leadership and, basically, that ours is a collective will instead of a single despot.  So, as the North Vietnamese before them, Al Qaida and the rest of the problem children in Iraq identified that our greatest strength, our collective will, was also our greatest weakness, or at least one most easily targetted with non-kinetic weapons.  Basically, all they have to do is keep the focus on the casualties (not on underlying goals, or what THEIR post-war plans are) and just let our own internal politics and division do their work.  They know, based on observation, that the days of politics stopping at the waters edge are long over.  The out-of-power political party will use every mis-step, every casualty as a lever to regain power... and if the dominant party is trying to win the war, then the obvious counter to that is to end the war (redefining 'win' as necessary to sell it).

Sorry for the digression into insurgent strategy.  Anyway, our congress, and this is important, sends signals to our enemies (and friends, for that matter) by its actions.  Unlike the busy bees of a General staff that work behind the scenes and leave the public face of the organization to the General (misunderstanding that leads to things like much ado being made about a single Power Point presentation, out of the context that that is just one of many briefing products used in the decision-making process).  Since we are a government of, for, and by the people, the activities of our congress speak for our nation.  That is fine and meet.  BUT (and it's a big 'but') our representatives must understand that their activities have consequences beyond their re-election.  It is here that I feel they have collectively lost their prespective.

I don't doubt that, in a one-on-one conversation, most of the 'loyal opposition' are sane, rational people that would not advocate encouraging Al Qaida to kill our troops.   In the public forum, however, their actions bely that.  If the enemy knows that if they just kill enough Americans the opposition will have the leverage they need to pull our troops out, then it seems obvious that making statements that support that view (by publicly stating that it is true) ARE encouraging Al Qaida to kill our troops.  Now it MAY be that they recognize the cost of their decision, but feel the overall good outweighs that cost (or, perhaps REQUIRES that cost).  If that is the case, they need to articulate that they KNOW their actions encourage the enemy, but that it's a cost that must be bourne.  They need to articulate this because, as I pointed out before THEY ARE NOT IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, and therefore there is NO EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT TRUST between them and the men on the ground.  For a politician there is only political cost in their home district for what happens, they have no inherent investment in the lives of the soldiers and Marines that are materially impacted by their statements.  Classic 'penalty-free politics' no different than advocating a new sewage plant to be built in somebody elses district.

So, back to (now yesterday's) the House Non-Binding Resolution.  Whatever the desired political outcome, there is no explicitly stated acceptance of resonsibility for the deaths that it will engender.  But stating a lack of support they are signalling to the enemies of America that 1) every single American death from here on out will bolster their (the Democrat(ic)s) position; 2) if made strong enough, they will be able to prevent timely adjustments to the battlefield (reference statements by Congressman Murtha); and 3) if made strong enough, they will win the White House in 2008, and they have pledged to pull out of Iraq (essentially regardless of the conditions there).  It takes no rocket or political scientist to foresee the likely consequences of passing this resolution.  It may not be binding on the President, but it certainly will be on the very next dead Marine or soldier.  Now, to the point of all this:

If "supporting the troops" is represented by this resolution and these votes, then please, STOP SUPPORTING US NOW!!  Reasoned debate is one thing.  Disagreement is fine.  Honorable men (and women) can disagree.  But while this is politics as usual for the politicians, public grandstanding and items of public record like this irresponsible resolution have clear impact on the troops outside of the chain of command.  I, personally, cannot respect anyone that voted for this measure that does not also accept the consequences of their actions.  I do not mean 'can't respect their decision,' I mean cannot respect them as a rational, adult, responsible human being, entrusted with representing their constituents in Washington and their nation to the world.  By taking actions that can be reasonably expected to cost lives of servicemen they have inserted themselves into the chain of command and cannot rely on existing bonds of trust but must explicitly state their recognition of their role.  They have not done that (to my knowledge), and until they offer a suggestion of their newly imposed relationship in the lives (and deaths) of servicemen, they should be treated as any other external challenge such as the weather or the terrain... something to be overcome and dealt with.

Two Democrats did not vote with their party on this. I do not know whether they voted against because they recognized the irresponsibility or if they thought it should be binding.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they merely have consciences.  Seventeen Republicans voted FOR the non-binding resolution.  While all of the Democrats that voted for the resolution, I really don't care about them, and I will assume that they placed their party loyalty above their conscience.  Craven, but understandable.  But for the 17 Republicans... they are apparently bucking party loyalty (weak and unenforced as that may be) to vote against (hopefully) their conscience.  They may have reasons that I haven't addressed.  I'd be curious to hear what they are.  To that end, here are the 17... if they represent you, please contact them, ask them what they were thinking and if they understood the consequences (not the political ones) of their actions.  And ask them to please stop supporting the troops, because, literally, it is killing us.

---

Representative James T. Walsh

Phone: 202-225-3701
Fax: 202-225-4042
[Email: Rep.james.walsh AT mail.house.gov]

Representative Walter Jones

Phone: 202-225-3415
Fax: 202-225-3286
Web Email

Representative Wayne Gilchrest
Phone: 202-225-5311
Fax: 202-225-0254
Web Email

Representative Michael Castle
Phone: 202-225-4165
Fax: 202-225-2291
Web Email

Representative Richard (Ric) Keller

Phone: 202-225-2176
Fax: 202-225-0999
Web Email

Representative Philip Sheridan English

Phone: 202-225-5406
Fax: 202-225-3103
Web Email

Representative Ronald Ernest Paul

Phone: 202-225-2831
Web Email

Representative Frederick Stephen Upton

Phone: 202-225-3761
Fax: 202-225-4986
Web Email

Representative Thomas M. Davis

Phone: 202-225-1492
Fax: 202-225-3071
Web Email

Representative Mark Kirk

Phone: 202-225-4835
Fax: 202-225-0837
Web Email

Representative Howard Coble

Phone: 202-225-3065
Fax: 202-225-8611
Email: howard.coble AT mail.house.gov
Web Email

Representative John J. Duncan Jr.

Phone: 202-225-5435
Fax: 202-225-6440
Web Email

Representative James Ramstad

Phone: 202-225-2871
Fax: 202-225-6351
Email: mn03 AT mail.house.gov
Web Email

Representative Steven C. LaTOURETTE

Phone: 202-225-5731
Fax: 202-225-3307
Web Email

Representative Robert Inglis

Phone: 202-225-6030
Fax: 202-226-1177
Web Email

Representative Timothy V. Johnson

Phone: 202-225-2371
Fax: 202-226-0791
Web Email

Representative Thomas Petri 

Phone: 202-225-2476
Fax: 202-225-2356
Web Email

 

No, not a blog entry, per se... but a cool link!  Note the "Maps of War" link in my "links" section.

Given the history of the area I can see why everybody wants it all wrapped up in three years.