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

 

Hear! Hear!

I haven't figured out why Congress or the U.N. or any other political group bothers to spend the time to discuss and pass "non-binding" resoltions. What's the point?

Bills like this one make me believe _they_ are wasting the votes hat put them in ofice in the first place.