American Soldier Kills 16 Afghan Civilians - Who's To Blame?

There has been much ado made in the media about an American soldier killing 16 Afghan civilians during a one man night assault on two Afghan villages. The Afghan people are rightfully outraged by this unwarranted and (apparently) unsanctioned attack. Unsurprisingly, there have been calls from al Quaida for all kinds of reprisals against the U.S. and allied military forces - specifically beheadings. My question is: "Whose head should roll?"

The soldier - on his fourth tour in the giant litter box of the middle-east - reportedly had "suffered traumatic head injuries" during a previous tour. I suggest that he is as much a "victim" of this ridiculously prolonged conflict as were the Afghanis he killed. Four tours in a combat zone is at least two too many, and most likely three too many. If a soldier survives one combat tour, he is both lucky and thankful. A second tour surely makes him/her a bit uncomfortable. Surviving a third tour is "pushing his/her luck", and returning alive from more than three tours borders upon the miraculous.

Would this middle-eastern conflict have been so protracted if members of Congress, or their well-protected children, had to serve with our combat units? Would it have been so lengthy if those 535 of our nation's elected "leadership" could find a single pair of cojones between them, and permitted our military leaders to fight this as a real "war"? If you answered "No" and "No" to those questions, you're absolutely right. (You may have noticed that within my masthead I cite Shakespeare's Antony's [of the play "Julius Caesar"] "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war". This does not mean that I am a "warmonger" [although I have participated in one, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend war as a suitable replacement for other human social interactions].) What I do recommend though, is that when armed confrontation is required of us - by whatever series of events - we respond with all the force that is available to us in order to shorten the conflict and minimize our own casualties. However, our politicians do not share that point of view (which may or may not be a "good thing"). I am enough of a realist to accept the fact that wars have been around since the beginning of time, and they will continue for so long as there are two people left on Earth - one of whom wants something the other has, but the other is not willing to surrender that commodity without what is percevied as unduly high compensation. How is it resolved? Physical (perhaps armed) confrontation - a "last man standing" scenario.

How can we expect our soldiers - who by law must follow both a "Code of Conduct" and "Rules of Engagement" - to act in a perfectly rational way, when the enemy wears no identifying uniform, hides among the civilian population, and has neither a Code or Rules required of them? The only rule for them is "KILL THE INFIDELS!" We must expect, and accept, that there will be "collateral damage" in such a situation. Taking the moral "high road" is extremely costly in terms of American lives. Our troops should take two flags into battle with them - the "Stars and Stripes" and the modified "Culpeper (Don't Tread on Me) Flag"...

Allowing politicians to determine military strategy and rules of engagement, rather than those who are recruited and trained specifically for that purpose, is utter foolishness and an unwarranted waste of American lives.

Who, if anybody, should be tried for "war crimes" regarding this mass shooting of civilians in Afghanistan? I submit that it should not be the soldier who actually did the shooting, but those people - who with full knowledge of his pre-existing head trauma - so foolishly chose to return him to combat duty! But, that's just the way I see things...

Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier Returns to Haiti... Who Do Voodoo?

Yes, he returned to Haiti recently. Where had he been? Who is he? How/Why did he leave Haiti? It's an interesting but deeply disturbing story, and very few people even know who the Duvalier's were. Let's begin with who "Baby Doc" is...

The son of the despot, François "Papa Doc" Duvalier, who died in 1971 , "Baby Doc" came to power upon his father's death, and carried on the family tradition of pillaging, rape and murder. He also directed the infamous and bloodthirsty Tonton Macoutes (Creole for "bogeymen") - the Haitian secret police - whose primary function was to eliminate dissenters and critics of the Duvalier regime, and was formed under "Papa Doc". He ruled Haiti from 1971-1986 continuing his father's legacy of terror on the small island nation. The Duvalier's lived like royalty, while their subjects lived in abject squalor and poverty. The elder Duvalier was a practitioner of voodoo, which should be no surprise since Haiti is the birthplace of voodoo, and voodoo is the de facto religion of the majority of Haitians. Who is "Baby Doc"? In a nutshell, he is the Haitian equivalent of the "Black Death" plague, which killed roughly 30% of Europe's population in the mid-14th century.

How/Why did Duvalier leave Haiti? He was eventually run out of the country by the people, and he departed on an aircraft provided by the U.S. Air Force. Wasn't that nice of us... to assist a thieving, murdering dictator in making his escape to France, where he has lived in luxurious exile for 25 years? How can we Americans reconcile such despicable behavior from our own government? And those - and similar behaviors - continue today! Are the requirements of international politics such that governments cavalierly ignore such things as morality, character, justice and that which is simply "right"?

Haiti has forever been an economic sinkhole, and has suffered a series of tragedies that seem to be virtually endless. Since its establishment as a French-owned slave colony, it has never flourished economically, and the average per capita income today is USD $75. We Americans could not provide for a family of four on $75 a week even, but the Haitians manage to do it because they are used to nothing more. They do not "live" (by our standards), but they do survive.

The only good news to come from Haiti recently is that Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier has been arrested. Accused of ordering thousands of killings, the question now is will he be properly tried in a court of law?

"In Hasan case, superiors ignored their own worries"

Thus reads today's AP online headline, referring to the infamous Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, United States Army. The article goes on to say - "The picture emerging from the review ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates is one of supervisors who failed to heed their own warnings about an officer ill-suited to be an Army psychiatrist, according to information gathered during the internal Pentagon investigation and obtained by The Associated Press. The review has not been publicly released."

The rest of this news item goes on to tell how poorly Hasan did in medical school, how weak a performer he was as a practicing Army psychiatrist, and how he was promoted on schedule regardless, carefully avoiding asking the question of "WHY?"

Why was he allowed to spend 6 years completing medical training that normally takes 4 years to complete?

Why, if he was a less-than-satisfactory practicing psychiatrist, did his officer efficiency reports fail to reflect that?

Why was he promoted on schedule throughout his 12 year stint in the Army?

Why did his superiors fail to report their suspicions about his radical and inappropriately expressed Islamic religious views?

The obvious answer to each and every question is the exact same answer...

He was allowed to spend 6 years completing his medical training because he is a member of an ethnic minority group in the US, and to treat him as others would be treated could possibly indicate a personal prejudice by a staff member at the school, or a systemic prejudice within the school itself. Political Correctness dictates that we must not criticize the actions or failures of any minority group member.

Because of his status as a member of the privileged "minority" class, none of Hasan's superiors would dare present an honest evaluation of Hasan's substandard performance without jeopardizing his own career aspirations. To write a performance evaluation that failed to praise a follower of Islam would be politically incorrect, and could quite possibly get that superior officer branded as a "racist" or an "Islamophobe".

He was promoted on-schedule for exactly the reasons explained above. Failure to recommend him at the earliest promotion points could be seen as "institutional racism" within our Army, or - again - personal prejudice on the part of evaluating/reviewing superior officers within his chain-of-command. We must, at all costs, be Politically Correct!

To indicate that one has suspicions about the demonstrated behaviors of a member of a minority group, is (within our military organizations) essentially saying, "I'm against Muslims progressing in our military." This is the accepted government mindset! It has nothing to do with his bogus "evaluation reports". The evaluators really had no choice, other than to end their own military career progression by giving Hasan an honest evaluation.

Hasan got a "pass" at every turn because of our social obsession with Political Correctness, and it is exactly that which allowed him to massacre 19 people at Fort Hood, Texas on November 5th, 2009. The radical religious fervor as demonstrated by his behavior, was a definite indicator that something was not quite as it should be within Hasan's mind. This fact does not make Hasan a victim. His actions were a conscious decision - as evidenced by his giving away his belongings in the hours immediately preceding his vicious, intentional execution of 19 unarmed persons. He did not expect to survive the incident, he was on jihad for the glory of allah (intentional lower-case "a"), and would have no further need for earthly belongings.

There are valid reasons for taking actions that are politically incorrect. There are valid reasons for "profiling" - if you are shopping for a baseball how much time would you waste looking in the
frozen foods section? So what if it makes somebody uncomfortable? It is both logical and efficient!

America's obsession with Political Correctness will bring about America's downfall!