• I got your counterinsurgency manual right here

    The Pentagon survey found that less than half the troops in Iraq thought Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect. More than a third believed that torture was acceptable if it helped save the life of a fellow soldier or if it helped get information about the insurgents. About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so.

    BBC NEWS | Middle East | US Iraq troops ‘condone torture’

    Whether we should have gone in the first place is a well worn topic. This however is a reason why we shouldn’t be there anymore. This is how you create ill-will, enemies, and ultimately… terrorists.

  • Test Run

    I’ve run across all kinds of folks on my virtual travels recently, one of which suggested a piece of software I hadn’t heard about. That’s really the beauty of the internet – there’s all kinds of stuff out there you hadn’t heard about.

    This post serves no greater purpose than to fiddle… and to exercise my fingers a bit (they’re the only things that have seen any action of late – but I’ll talk more about that later).

    P.S. the software in question is MarsEdit. I can neither recommend or discourage it’s use at this point – I’m only getting started friends.

  • Pot, meet kettle

    In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later. “This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops,” Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House.

    Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill – Yahoo! News

    I suppose it makes for a good sound byte, but it’s positively dripping with irony.

    Bush is right that he has every constitutional right to deploy troops, as Commander in Chief. The Democrats are right that they have the constitutional right to cut of funding… and there was little question they would move to do so – when Bush deployed the troops, given the election results from last November.

    My question is, if Bush can rail against Democrats for “not supporting our troups in the field with the funding they need,” why can’t Democrats rail against Bush for essentially abanding the additional troops he sent there as part of the surge… knowing full well he wouldn’t be able to pay for them? Remember, the surge strategy was implemented AFTER the elections, and AFTER the Democrats in control started talking about more funding oversight.

    The truth of the matter is, if the troops are in danger of inadequate funding… they’re both to blame.