Well, of course it’s terrorism. Investigators have shown up and have begun to ask questions of the locals — have there been strangers in the area recently? Maybe Chechens? Or some other terrorists from the North Caucasus region?

I have no doubt that it’s terrorism, and would not be surprised in the least if it turns out to be tied to Grozny or Russia’s own internal Muslim conflict. Basayev may be dead, but the conflict rages on, the issues remain unresolved.

And it will be interesting, in these next couple of days, to see how the US responds to Russian cries about the threat she faces from Muslim terrorists. Sometimes, Russia and others like the US see eye to eye on the subject, but not always. I wonder how it will play out this time.

Figured it out yet?

That is, of course, me and Frank Shorter. Frank Shorter (book), winner of the gold medal in the marathon at the Munich ’72 Olympics (YouTube). And silver medal winner in the same event in ’76. And winner of just about everything else. Frank Shorter, arguably the American voice of marathon running.

I say arguably, because there’s this other American runner, Bart Yasso, who could also be described as the American voice of marathon running.

That’s Frank and me and Bart Yasso (blog, book, Twitter, Yasso 800′s).

Wow. Just wow.

These two superstars came to Iraq with the groups, The Warriors Tour (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter), which was sponsored by Under Armour.

Oh, and with them were others — like Sandy Magnus. (Twitter). Did I mention that she was amazingly nice? Even gave me a signed photo to take to my daughter — girls need to go to space (she was there 4 and a half months).

Sadly, we did not get to race. The crew brought with them everything necessary to have a fully sanctioned race, just like in the US. Only weather shut us down.

I thought it looked OK. But what the hell do I know?

Does make for some pretty photos, though. Here are some of the war / peace machines.

I told Frank that I took to running because of my PTSD. He said he took to running because of the stress of Yale. Oh, and he said that life has been grand because his running has not defined him — when he runs, he runs, but the rest of the time he has a life.

Oh, and I love that everyone was blogging, posting to YouTube, active on Twitter, etc. Very well covered events.

I hope I hear from Frank. I was to ask him about ’74 an Japan. And Bart? Egads, he has me wanting to go run, and run long again. He’s a dangerous man!

I am going back to Iraq.

Field Manual 30-5, Combat Intelligence, February 1951

I’ll be there for a year, or until they tell me to come home. I should get a two-week-or-so break somewhere along the way.

I’d like to keep blogging here during the year. I am sure there’d be things to write; I know, though, that the Army is a bit cautious about blogs, so I will have to see what wickets I’ll need to jump through in order to blog. Feel free to email me and ask questions; if I can answer them, I will, and if not, I’ll either lie (ok, no, not really) or I’ll just fess up that it’s not appropriate for me to answer, for whatever reason. If I upload photos, or blog here or elsewhere, or bookmark neat things, it’ll all show up in this RSS feed.

“As crutch attests”

About going

I’ve had people ask me different questions about this adventure. The questions generally fall into a couple of categories.

Aren’t you worried about going? No, not really. Things started to sink in Sunday morning, early, that it was almost time for change. I think I get more angst about the change, the picking up and going someplace, than I do about where I’m going or what I’m going to do there. I do a pretty good job of living in the now, and it’s only that slight anticipation that my now will likely change that gets me thinking about it. But no, it’s not worry. I’ll be fine.

Are you worried about being there? No, not really. I know that some have a view that Iraq is some horrible place, but that’s not a view I share. Yes, there is violence, yes there are crimes occurring. But there’s that in Los Angeles, New York, Moscow, and so on. I’m a believer — I believe in the Iraqis, in the Iraqi government, and in what we’re doing there. So no, I’m not worried about being there. I’ll be fine.

Victory in Europe (VE) Day, 08 May 1945

How’s your family taking it? Well. I don’t like saying that we take separation well, or that we’ve done this enough times that it’s not new. That sucks. But it is true — we have done this enough times, for the war, for other missions, for schools and the like, that we’re pretty good at it. My wife runs the house, with or without me there. The kids have their routines, with or without me there. We have mail, and email, and sometimes video chats. My wife covers down on the gift shopping for us when I’m not there, and I work hard to draw out of our kids info on what’s going on in their lives. I don’t like being apart, much less for a year, any more than I like missing another set of birthdays, another holiday season, another recital or event. But it happens, especially when service to the Nation and to the Republic comes before family.

What’ll you be doing there? I’m a staff guy. There’s no door kicking for me, no jumping out of a helicopter as it gets ready to set down on the objective. I sit and think deep thoughts, ask questions, give a briefing from time to time, and make an all-out effort to avoid making PowerPoint slides (not just while in Iraq, but in life in general). It’s not a bad deal, and it’s stuff that I’m actually well suited to do. But through all that, I remain ready to all of those basic soldier skills we expect of every soldier; if they need an extra gunner, I go.

Band-Aids, circa 1944

What do you do?

And every time I get ready to go somewhere, I seem to end up fielding questions from friends / family: What can I do to help while you’re gone?

So, some thoughts on that, too.

Email. You have my email address, right? A note, something personal from time to time, would be cool. Sure, send me the link to that NY Times article; even better is cutting and pasting it into the email itself (because some web sites get blocked or require that I go to an MWR (Morale, Welfare & Recreation) computer to see) or as an attachment. Best, though, is including it and offering up your thoughts on it, too.

Actual mail. You have stamps, right? As long as there have been literate soldiers, there have been letters from home in their pockets. An actual letter is awesome, probably all the more so in this age of email. Yes, it takes longer to write, yes, your penmanship might be a bit off, but so what. Real letters are awesome. Throw in an article from the hometown newspaper, or something from Time or Rolling Stone or Hot Rod, and you’ll make my day.

If you want to go above and beyond that, well, there’s a ton of other things you can do.

Wounded Warrior Transition Units. Find your local military installation, and get in touch with the Wounded Warrior unit. These are the units where our banged up, battered, and slightly-damaged guys go to mend. Guys and gals whose role in life is to get better, after something has happened to them. Want to help someone locally, to help make the world a better place and to maybe honor our soldiers just a bit? Contact the unit, and see how you can help.

Family Readiness Group. Peek around and find the local unit near you. They might be on a base, they might be a Guard or Reserve unit in your area. This is the group of spouses, kids, and extended family (parents, loved ones, boyfriends / girlfriends, etc) who are working to help each other and themselves while their loved ones are gone. Sometimes there are problems to be solved, sometimes there are bake sales to raise money to send care packages to their loved ones.

Army Emergency Relief. AER is help for soldiers in need. A quick loan in a jam or a grant in a time of need, it’s money to help soldiers during their hour of need. It’s run locally — here‘s the link to the one at Walter Reed Army Medical Center — and it’s tax deductible.

Footlocker, packed in 1946

No wallowing

I suppose it would be easy to wallow in my own misery, over having to go. Or over having to go someplace again, or over having to go for a year. There are a million reasons one could be upset about going, or be upset about a loved one going.

But I won’t. I don’t think I can. Things could be so much worse.

As I was getting ready to go, I was looking for those last little things I would need to take with me, I made a stop off in the footlocker that had belonged to my wife’s grandfather. The photos in this post — I took the photos that day as I was peeking here and there.

Los Angeles Times, 08 December 1941

On December 7th, he got the call. He left the next morning, heading off with the 32nd Cav, his National Guard unit. Apparently, he bought the paper on the way that day. He came home from the war in 1946.

5 years. Sure, he got R&R from time to time, but still — five years. That’s a long time. That’s a lot of letters to write. That’s a lot of great experiences with your kids that you’ll never get back.

Late in his life, when I was a lieutenant stationed in Germany, he came to visit us. I made the time to go show him all of our equipment — M1A2 tank, M2 infantry fighting vehicle, M109A6 self-propelled howitzer, and everything on down to machine guns and pistols. It was fascinating to hear his views of our military today — our equipment, our organizations, our capabilities, our training. He had been, at times, want for things as simple as a heavy machine gun that worked reliably — that’s hard to reconcile today with my worries about things like access to email and Skype. Understanding this history not just of my profession but of my own Army and the sacrifices asked of our soldiers in the past, is helping me balance the pressures of heading back to Iraq.

I don’t know how much, if any, difference I’ll make, but I’ll do my best.

Alright, that’s enough for now. More later — whenever that is.

America had no plan for handling POW?s when WWII started, and spent the war refining the tactics, techniques and procedures necessary. The US had signed the 1929 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, also known as the Third Geneva Convention, and was legally bound to abide by its provisions for the POW?s. Under this Third Geneva Convention, prisoners are:

? To be quickly removed from the battlefield, and their status reported;

? Afforded conditions similar to those used by soldiers of the state holding them, to include comparable food and living quarters;

? Provided health and religious support;

? Transported when healthy, and told the details of their move;

? Allowed to correspond;

? Held under the detaining powers own military code;

? To be repatriated when seriously sick or injured.


The US signed the convention in 1932, but was unprepared to treat prisoners in accordance with it when WWII started. The US was rapidly building combat units, in order to join the war and support Britain and the Soviets, and did little initially to build units or organizations to handle POW?s. The US was also not ready for the sheer volume of prisoners of war that it detained in WWI. By mid-1943, the US held over 240,000 German POW?s alone, and by May 1945, the US held over 425,000 POW?s in the almost 500 POW camps it operated in the United States. In June of 1945, the US, UK and France held a combined 7.5 million POW?s.

As the number of POW?s held by the US rapidly increased during WWII, the US tried different approaches to handling them. Interagency efforts failed, and the administration quickly gave the burden to the military. But early in 1942 and 1943, the US focus was building combat units, not guarding prisoners; POW camps became dumping grounds for failed leaders, which only exasperated the problems associated with implementing the requirements of the Geneva Convention. This changed in 1943 and 1944, as American Army finalized its techniques and procedures for handling POW?s.

By war?s end, the American POW camps in the US had become a proven asset to their communities. The Third Geneva Convention allows for the use of prisoners as laborers, under certain provisions, and small communities across the US benefited from this. From logging to harvesting the crops, the prisoners helped sustain the American economy and indirectly support the war effort, largely through the efforts of the effective and efficient procedures established by the US Army.

Things, though, changed with the defeat of Nazi Germany. General Dwight Eisenhower, Military Governor of the U.S. Occupation Zone in Germany, designated newly detained civilians and soldier as Disarmed Enemy Forces, and applied the label to personnel already in US custody in Germany as POW?s. In doing so, Eisenhower did not have to afford these personnel the same provisions accorded POW?s under the 1929 Third Geneva Convention. The convention would have required the release of POW?s to their parent nation upon the completion of hostilities, and would have afforded them the above specified protections and treatment as POW?s, neither of which Eisenhower did for the Disarmed Enemy Forces. Eisenhower argued that, with the collapse of the Third Reich, there was no parent country to which the POW?s could be returned. Some one million Disarmed Enemy Forces were kept in Rheinwiesenlager (Rhine meadow camps), the official name for the Prisoner of War Temporary Enclosures (PWTE) that were little more than open fields. Others were put to work in hard labor, to include clearing minefields.

Additionally, US forces captured a number of German soldiers in China after the German surrender but before the Japanese surrender. The US military transported these personnel to Germany, and subjected them to a trial by a military commission, for violating the laws of war. The trials and detainees were held outside of the United States. In Johnson v. Eisentr?ger, 21 of these prisoners sued the US Government, claiming their treatment violated US law. The US Supreme Court, in hearing the case, concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the case, as the prisoners, captured in China and transported to Germany, had never been on US soil. The Court ruled that ?the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States.? The US military could continue its practice of trial by military commission outside the legal framework of the international treaty, Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field.

The United States thus looked to the Johnson v. Eisentr?ger extrajudicial process in 2001, when American began its Global War on Terrorism. The Bush administration viewed the developing conflict with Al Qaeda and, to a lesser extent, the Taliban as itself being an extrajudicial battle, given that Al Qaeda is an organization and not a state, and that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was not recognized as being valid or sovereign. The White House identified their fight as unconventional warfare, and expected to rely heavily on Special Forces, the use of intelligence, and covert action.

Specifically, the US Administration sought to exclude the use of the term Prisoner of War and the status it brings to those detained. White House lawyers coined the term Enemy Combatant, much like Eisenhower user Disarmed Enemy Forces. Doing so specifically allowed the US administration to treat detainees in a manner not prescribed by the Third Geneva Convention, since Enemy Combatant, like Disarmed Enemy Forces, is not used in the language of the Convention.

Enemy Combatants would not need to be quickly evacuated from the battlefield, or afforded care or living conditions comparable to those of US or coalition soldiers. Enemy Combatants could be subjected to interrogation methods beyond those permitted under the Third Geneva Convention and, in keeping with its ?The gloves are off? approach to the conflict, the US Administration would be free to do as it deemed necessary to win its conflict. By not granting them POW status, though, the US could not fall back on its examples from WWII, in establishing low-risk, low security camps around the United States to handle the detainees until the conflict ends. Those rules established by the Third Geneva Convention, and those techniques and procedures learned the hard way in WWII, became inapplicable with the creation of the extrajudicial term Enemy Combatant.

Like the Rheinwiesenlagers, the Disarmed Enemy Forces, and the 21 soldiers from Johnson v. Eisentr?ger, the US Administration actively sought to keep these Enemy Combatants from transiting US soil, specifically in keeping with the Supreme Court findings in Johnson v. Eisentr?ger. While the US has had some success in detaining personnel at Guantanamo Base, Cuba, it has had few other choices for locations for detention facilities for the Enemy Combatants, given the international acceptance of the Third Geneva Convention. Many of these individuals are being detained in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the very battlefields where they have been detained, or later subjected to rendition, their return to the security services of their home nation.

The Bush Administration misunderstood the American history of POW?s and detainees, and thus has mismanaged detainee operations during the GWOT. The US administration failed to capitalize on its own lessons learning from during and after WWII, by not declaring those detained today to be POW?s and by not being able to process these thousands of modern detainees in the same manner as had been the POW?s of WWII or the 21 Germans detained in China.

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 21 October 1950 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/q_genev1.htm).

Johnson v. Eisentr?ger, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/docs/jve.pdf).

Johnson v. Eisentrager Talking Points – Background for Current Cases, U.S. Federal Courts (http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/topics/habeastalk_johnsoneisentrager.htm).

Joint Investigation Into September 11th: Fifth Public Hearing, Cofer Black, Joint House/Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing, 26 September 2002 (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602black.html).

Medical Department, United States Army Preventive Medicine in World War II, Volume IX, Special Fields, Prepared and published under the direction of Lieutenant General LEONARD D. HEAT0N The Surgeon General, United States Army Editor in Chief, Colonel ROBERT S. ANDERSON, MC, USA Editor for Preventive Medicine, EBBE CURTIS HOFF, Ph D, M D Assistant Editor, PHEBE M. HOFF, M.A., Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 1969 (http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/EPWs/EPWs.htm).

Testimony, George Tenet, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 6 February 2002 (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/020602tenet.html).

Trouble in Germany, Time Magazine, 22 October 1945 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,778431-1,00.html).

Was Ike Responsible for the Deaths of Hundreds of Thousands of German POW’s? Pro and Con, James Bacque and Ernest Fisher, Jr., History News Network, George Mason University, 17 February 2003 (http://hnn.us/articles/1266.html).

World War II Prisoners of War in Georgia: Camp Gordon?s POWs, Kathy Roe Coker, Command Historian Office, US Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, Augusta, GA 1994.

Zawahiri is a longtime Mujahid. He began his involvement in the Salafist movement in his home country of Egypt, as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and later with the umbrella organization al-Jihad, or the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. By the time al-Zarqawi took up arms against the Jordanian monarch in the mid 1990?s, Zawahiri has been detained and tortured by the Egyptian authorities for his crusade against what he perceived to be an apostate regime in Cairo, had fought in Pakistan and Afghanistan, had been expelled from Sudan, and even been arrested in Russia as he began his global effort to united the Salafist movements.

Zawahiri?s global perspective drives his view of the contemporary operational environment, and in his letter to al-Zarqawi, Zawahiri stresses the social critical variable over all others. Zawahiri believes that ?the strongest weapon which the mujahedeen enjoy – after the help and granting of success by God – is popular support from the Muslim masses in Iraq, and the surrounding Muslim countries.?

Zawahiri stresses the cohesiveness and unit of action amongst all Muslims, and thus all Iraqis. He urges al-Zarqawi to conduct operations and undertake actions that will unite the Iraqis against the Americans and what he see as an apostate regime in Baghdad. They will find success, Zawahiri argues, ?by the alliance, cooperation and gathering of all leaders of opinion and influence in the Iraqi arena.?

But at the same time, Zawahiri also urges to show more restraint in conducting operations against the Shia, if for no other reason than embracing the importance of the social critical variable of the Iraqi environment.

?We must repeat what we mentioned previously, that the majority of Muslims don’t comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it. For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, may God honor him. My opinion is that this matter won’t be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue.?

But in addition to the social critical variable, Zawahiri also stresses the importance of time in al-Zarqawi?s operations. He urges al-Zarqawi to understand, appreciate and embrace the long struggle of which his efforts in Iraq are only a part. Zawahiri stresses that it will take considerable time to expel the Americans; establish an Islamic authority in Iraq, in the void created with the departure of the Americans; extend the jihad to neighboring secular states; and finally to take to war West, in order to defeat Israel. Zawahiri stresses this, knowing the strategic importance of the role time will play, and understanding al-Zarqawi?s tactical background.

Lastly, Zawahiri stresses the role that information plays as a critical variable both in the contemporary operational environment in Iraq, and in the global contemporary operational environment. He emphasizes recent media coverage from the international press, messages sent to the followers, and he specifically cites the role of the media in the struggle for the support of the people. He urges al-Zarqawi that ?more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma (community of believers). And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us.?

Zawahiri used his letter to al-Zarqawi to stress the information, social, and time critical variables of the contemporary operational environment in Iraq and around the world. Zawahiri?s emphasis on these three critical variables stresses the integrated nature of the critical variables, and his understanding of their role in the contemporary operational environment.

Don’t mock me.

This movie is like mashed potatoes for me. It’s total comfort food. See if you can follow along:

It’s got John Landis directing. Same guy who directed Blues Brothers. Ditto for Animal House. The list keeps on going from there. The script for this is great, and Landis does a great job bringing it to life.

It’s got Dan Aykroyd and Chevy Chase working as a team. And Spies Like Us was made back in ’85, back when they were at the height of their game. They are top performers in this. It’s not laugh-so-hard-you-can’t-breath kind of funny; it’s on par with Stripes.

Add to that the timeframe for this film, and you’ve got magic. It’s classic 80′s cold war, Reagan war mongering. It’s chock full of Soviet fears, Star Wars, and intelligence blunders.

Oh, and Donna Dixon. Hubba, Hubba.

The gist of this story is that the US military / secret cabal has a new space-based laser weapon system that they want to actually test. The plan is to insert two teams — one real, one decoys — into the Soviet Union to grab hold of and launch a nuclear missile at America. The American secret squirrel guys can then test their new toy, save the day, and validate their new toy.

Aykroyd and Chase get sent to Intelligence Operative Training, which is like Satan’s Basic Training program. They get subjected to the worst things the military would ever do to someone — like dragging them behind a boat, radical vertical impact simulation, and putting them in sire resistant suits and hitting them with flamethrowers. Watch this.

The whole thing is filled with one-liners and awesome quotes that, twenty plus years later, still show up in my vernacular. Boys, it’s be a shame to have to kill you now.

There’s a ton of military humor in this that cracks me up, but it’s the intelligence / espionage humor that gets me every time. The humor ranges from the bungling spy jokes, to jokes just about the intelligence profession on the whole. All of that comes out as Aykroyd and Chase make their way through training, on into Pakistan, and across the border into the Soviet Union. I love the collect phone call from Pakistan. Watch this — it’s a classic.

Along the way, they learn the truth — they’re the decoys. They run into the other team – the one with Donna Dixon on it. In coming to terms with their being the decoys, and in seeing Dixon’s partner killed, they realize that they must see the mission through, even if no one expects them to be able to succeed.

The long and the short of it is that they make it into the Soviet Union, they take control of the launcher, and they launch the missile. They realize the seriousness of what they have done, and they jury-rig a way to recall the missile and abort its flight. The secret cabal and American military nuts are exposed, they save the day, and they get the girls.

I saw this in the theater, and I have bought it on DVD a few times – it makes for a great gift. I watch this movie at least once a year, and I use some of these quotes — “Doctor. Doctor. Doctor!” — waaaaaay too often. I love looking for the cameo performances — Frank Oz, BB King, and the like.

And I love Donna Dixon. Hubba hubba.

I posted it here, with included notes. Clicking on the link will show the notes.

Russia and the Republic of Georgia are at war.

I realize that, for most of America, this is not a big deal. For me, this is news, with a capital N.

For Russia, this is a win-win situation.

Russia wins in exerting influence over South Ossetia when it comes at the expense of the Republic of Georgia. Russia comes out on top be re-exerting its control over what had been Soviet territories, and what is now territory in a pro-Western, US-leaning country like Georgia.

Russia wins because they can use this as justification for rolling in massive amounts of troops. and not just into South Ossetia, but also in Abkhazia, another break-away region in Georgia.

They win, because they might be able to influence the oil coming out of Azerbaijan en route to Turkey or the oil ports on the Georgia’s Black Sea ports, by right or by might.

And what can Georgia do? Call for US assistance? US troops? Repel the Russians themselves?

They’re going to bleed. They’re going to take as much of a beating as the Russians choose to give them. And there’s not a damn thing else they can do.

The Russians in South Ossetia win. More support, more autonomy, more business with Russia will only improve their lives. They aren’t viable as a state, but they can gain here with some more autonomy and more support from Mother Russia.

And Abkhazia will gain, the same way.

Russia wins. South Ossetia wins. Abkhazia wins.

Georgia loses. America is going to lose. And other western countries will lose, if the oil flow is disrupted or the price goes up.

This, by the way, is worth watching.