Honoring Technical Sergeant Jackie Larsen

An extremely rewarding aspect of my military career was the chance to work with very talented and very dedicated people. I was constantly amazed (and I continue to be amazed) by the legal talent serving in the Armed Forces. All the services set the bar high for attorney accessions, and the quality of legal work shows. But all of this legal talent would not amount to the proverbial hill of beans without the backbone of any legal practice; the paralegal.

Military paralegals are some of the most intelligent, competent, and professional Airman, Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, or Coasties. They take their professions (both legal and military) seriously. They work hard at their job, and they work hard at keeping the attorneys in line. When I was a young JAG, fresh from the civilian world, it was the NCO paralegals in my office who took me under their wing and taught me how to be an officer. It is through paralegals that I learned about leadership, compassion, integrity, and professionalism. As with most of the military, in the JAG-world, the NCO Corps is truly the backbone of the service.

All this is a rather lengthy lead-in for the purpose of this post: honoring a paralegal I did not have the opportunity to meet, but who seems to represent the best of all the paralegals I've known; Technical Sergeant Jackie L. Larsen. TSgt Larsen passed away last month from illness while deployed to Iraq. In a tribute written by Lt Col Pete Teller, her staff judge advocate, she is described as a "tough and competent NCO" who could "reach out and touch others with gentleness and compassion." She was a mentor to the younger paralegals. She wasn't "flashy," she saw what needed doing and did it. For example, Lt Col Teller describes how TSgt Larsen deployed in the place of a young NCO, with a young family, who had deployed a year earlier and who was married to another Airman who had deployed twice in the past 18 months. TSgt Larsen volunteered to take the place of the young wife and mother to allow that family a little more time at home. That was just one example of her selfless service. Lt Col Teller calls TSgt Larsen a "hero" for the way she looked after those she considered "her folks." According to Lt Col Teller, like many NCOs and paralegals, TSgt Larsen had a tough exterior, but underneath was a heart filled with "fierce dedication and compassion."

It appears to me that TSgt Larsen was a quality paralegal and a great person. I'd like to join the rest of the Air Force Judge Advocate Corps in honoring her memory.

Vets for Freedom Op-Ed

Eight members of the Vets for Freedom organization have written an excellent opinion piece published in the Washington Times discussing Senator Obama's trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. I highly recommend reading it. In it the authors note how their organization (the largest group of veterans from both Afghanistan and Iraq) urged Senator Obama to visit the war zone and talk to both leadership and troops "on the ground" before deciding his policies on the War Against Terror. Senator Obama gave in to the pressure from Vets for Freedom and other organizations and took the trip overseas. Unfortunately, he finalized his policies about the War and announced them in a major speech before he talked to the experts. While his presumption that he (and his advisers and monied sponsors) know better than those leading and fighting the war is bad enough, it is his actions after the visit that is most troubling. As the Vets for Freedom op-ed says,

After months of furiously denying that security was improving in Iraq, Mr. Obama now acknowledges that a remarkable turnaround took place under the surge -- and yet bizarrely, he continues to insist that he was right to oppose the surge and that, if given the chance, he would do so again.

Mr. Obama likewise at last acknowledges that our military commanders on the ground in Iraq oppose the fixed and arbitrary timeline for withdrawal he wants to impose and they say doing so would be "extremely dangerous" -- and yet he continues to insist that he will impose it on them anyway.

Most frustrating of all, Mr. Obama says that he thinks our troops have performed admirably in Iraq -- and yet he and his surrogates continue to downplay their sacrifices by suggesting at every opportunity that the hard-won gains we see in Iraq are not due to their efforts, and indeed, would have materialized in their absence.

In my opinion, Senator Obama's troubling refusal to acknowledge that he just might have been wrong about the surge strategy, and in fact about the overall effort in Iraq, is just another example of his lack of leadership and judgment. A good leader will gather the facts before making exercising their judgment and making decisions. A good leader will constantly assess their decisions and will acknowledge their mistakes. A good leader will work to correct mistakes they've made and will "adjust fire" when necessary. I don't see any of these traits in Senator Obama.

The Vets for Freedom organization plans on sending 8 Iraqi War veterans back to Iraq to ask the questions Senator Obama should have asked. They will return to the Iraqi cities where they previously served to do a "before-and-after assessment from the ground." What a wonderful idea! Why didn't Senator Obama think to listen to people who have "been there; done that" to see what has changed and determine whether the change has been for the better before he decided what policies he would announce(whether those policies are designed to get him elected or whether they are formulated to actually serve the country remains to be seen). Again, his inability to seek information from those who could realistically give it shows why he would not be a good President. The Vets for Freedom organization says that "America's veterans, their families and those still serving deserve honest answers to...difficult and complex questions." I agree. Senator Obama needs to hear them as well.....

Reveille

I don't know if you've see the wordless 12-minute movie, Reveille; but if you haven't, you've really missed something special. You can find this fantastic tribute to US Armed Forces Veterans at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2487638612433437293&q=Vetera

Take the time to watch it, but get the tissue ready (if you're like me, you'll need it!).

hat tip to g.smiley!

Former CMS on Obama's Non-Visit to Wounded Troops

I haven't blogged about Senator Obama's overseas trip. There's been sufficient comment from so many sources, all of them saying much of what I wanted to say. However, I did see this nugget of sanity at The Tank at National Review On Line that was too priceless not to note.

Former CSM of Landstuhl on Obama [Gregory S. McNeal]

The former Command Sergeant Major of Landstuhl from 2003 to 2005 released this statement today regarding Senator Obama's decision to not visit wounded soldiers in Landstuhl:

Having spent two years as the Command Sergeant Major at Landstuhl Hospital, I am always grateful for the attention that facility receives from members of Congress. There is no more important work done by the United States Army than to care for those who have been wounded in the service [of] our country. While Americans troops remain engaged in two hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a steady stream of casualties to the hospital, and a steady stream of visitors who wish to meet with those troops and thank them for their service.

Senator Obama has explained his decision to cancel a scheduled visit there by blaming the military, which would not allow one of his political advisers to join him in a tour of the facility. Why Senator Obama felt he needed an adviser with him to visit U.S. troops is unclear, but if Senator Obama isn't comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief.

UPDATE: Check out this tongue-in-cheek video about Senator Obama's trip to Germany from the Republican National Committee.

Nanny State

Why does the LA City Council believe that they must step in and make individual choices about what people eat and where they eat it? They've passed a year long moratorium on building any additional "fast-food" restaurants in South LA because they're concerned that the people in South LA (an ethically mixed and low-income area) are considered too fat. Does anyone else have a fundamental problem with this? I thought this was a free country, where people have the right to make bad decisions, as long as those decisions don't hurt anyone else. Deciding to eat food that may be served in bigger portions (super-size it, please) or have a higher-fat content may be a bad decision, but it hurts only those who actually eat the food. Now I understand that obese people generally have more medical problems, that may lead to higher medical costs; most of which are carried by the government for those without medical insurance (like many low-income folks). But, rather than try to regulate what and where people eat, why not do something to educate folks on healthy choices or advocate diet and exercise? It seems to me that by taking away a person's ability to choose, the LA City Council is really saying that the folks in South LA are too stupid to make intelligent decisions. Now why isn't that considered racist or elitist?

Jay D. Homnick wrote about the ban on The American Spectator's Website. I agree with his comments:

At moments like this, people who believe that constitutional government is the foundation of our nation experience culture shock. It seems absurd even to be debating the merits of such a statute. Unless the obesity "crisis" has reached proportions that call for instituting martial law and suspending habeas corpus, there is no conceivable theory by which a government has the power to a) prohibit fast food restaurants anywhere, b) prohibit any kind of restaurant in a particular zoned-for-business neighborhood, or even c) determine a category of food as being officially "not good for you."

The particular legislation will either succeed or fail to be enforced and will either fail or succeed to make a difference in the habits of individual citizens. More important to public policy and political science is the arrogation of volition. The sheer gall of believing that elected officials are better equipped to make private life choices. The staggering effrontery of coercing such choices. And the stupendous audacity of employing the law as a vehicle to implement such coercion.

Perhaps it is time for folks like you and me to throw in the towel and pick up the handkerchief. Let us suggest more laws in this spirit. People waiting for public buses may no longer read Archie comics, only War and Peace. Movie theaters in low-income areas may no longer show Kung Fu, only Bambi. Longshoremen may no longer marry women with tattoos, only librarians. Construction crews after work may no longer guzzle beer, only Pinot Grigio. If those pigs can play Pygmalion, if those burghers can ban the burgers, if those flies can ban fries, why can't gentlemen cultivate gentility?

I just can't wait for the law requiring ranchers to raise only low-fat emu and stores to sell only fresh vegtables, no artifical perservatives please! Apparently, we all need the government nanny to tell us what's good for us because we're too dumb to figure it out for ourselves or too much of a victim to live with the consequences.

Jon Voight's Concerned for America

I usually don't pay much attention to opinions from members of the entertainment industry. Their job is to entertain, and unless they plan on running for office, I normally give their opinions about as much weight as I give an opinion offered by anyone else. Just because they're good at what they do (entertaining) doesn't mean they're automatically smarter than anyone else. Having said that, I did find this Op-Ed by Jon Voight in the Washington Times to be interesting. I'm not sure I give it any more weight than I'd give other people expressing their opinion . . . what I find interesting, though, is that Mr. Voight has the courage to express his in such a public way. After all, by expressing the opinion he has, he might be blacklisted by the entertainment elites. Check it out.

Military Death Penalty Case

Because of what I do, I deliberately avoid discussing court-martial cases. It would be improper for me to do so. However, this development in a particular military justice case is sufficiently important that I want to mention it here, without any comment from me.

President Bush, for the first time in 46 years, has acted under Article 71(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ordered execution of a death sentence handed down by a military court-martial . The former-soldier, Ronald A. Gray, has been on death row since 1988, when a court-martial convicted him of two murders, an attempted murder, and three rapes. Former-Private Gray's conviction was the end result of a 8-month crime spree in the Fayetteville, North Carolina area while Gray was stationed at Fort Bragg in the late 1980s. According to a FOXNews report, the White House press secretary Dana Perino said,

"While approving a sentence of death for a member of our armed services is a serious and difficult decision for a commander in chief, the president believes the facts of this case leave no doubt that the sentence is just and warranted."

Identity Politics

Why do pundits and people of the press always jump to the conclusion that voters will vote for people that have the same sex, or the same skin color, or the same religion? Now I know that there are some voters out there who don’t take the time to become educated about the issues and the candidates. Some of those lazy voters will pull the lever (or push the button) for the candidate they think is most like them. After all, we do want someone in positions that can impact our lives who think like us. The lazy voter apparently believes that if someone looks like us or worships like us, they think like us. Nothing can be further than the truth!

Personally, I get somewhat offended when someone thinks I’ll vote for particular candidate because I’m a woman, or because I’m a veteran, or because of my religion. It makes me feel like I haven’t got the smarts or the gumption to find out for myself what position the candidate has on the issues that are important to me. I care too much for this Country to shortcut my civic responsibility. Voting for someone based only on their identity seems to me to be like picking your favorite sports team based only on the color of their uniforms or buying a car based only on a flashy ad. Stupid!

Hot Buttons and Red Lines

I think everyone has a hot button that shouldn’t be pushed; that one thing that will change everything. Once it’s pushed, there will be a reaction and there’s no going back. For some folks, it’s one thing. For others, it will be something else. For me, one of those hot buttons is hurting my kids. If someone or something hurts one of my kids, I’ll react. It’s just a fact of life. I don’t always know what I’ll do . . . but you can be certain I’ll do something.

The Air Force has something like that button, it’s a red line painted around some areas of the flight line. Everyone knows that if you cross the red line, there’ll be a reaction. Chances are better than good that you’ll find yourself face down on the ground (or cement, or whatever), in a spread eagle position, challenged by a member of the Security Forces carrying a weapon and ready to use it on you, if you don’t cooperate. Not a pleasant position to be in. You learn to look for the red lines and you learn not to be stupid or test the system.

So, why am I talking about hot buttons and red lines? Because terrorism, of any kind, needs to be one of those hot buttons that gains a nation-wide reaction. If anyone, whether a state-sponsored actor or an independent operator, commits a terroristic act on our country, they should be treated as if they’ve crossed the red line and committed an act of war on this country.

Before the attacks on 9/11, this country treated acts of terrorism as criminal acts. Of course, they’re criminal acts, and sometimes the right response is criminal prosecution of the terrorist. A good example is Timothy McVay and his terroristic act of blowing up the Morrow Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It was the right thing to do to prosecute McVay and his co-conspirator, and then carry out the authorized punishment by executing him. However, criminal prosecution should not necessarily be the only response option. As the 9/11 Commission Report recognized, our law enforcement system may not be the best mechanism to deal with terrorism. In discussing the response to the first World Trade Center bombing by Ramzi Yousef in 1993, the Report said, “an unfortunate consequence of this superb investigative and prosecutorial effort was that it created the impression that the law enforcement system was well-equipped to cope with terrorism.” (9/11 Commission Report at page 72.) Unfortunately, we seem to default to the criminal justice system more often than not.

There are several things that contributed toward the bias for using the criminal justice system. One was President Clinton’s Presidential Decision Directive 39, issued in June 1995, which called terrorism both a matter of national security and a crime. It is. There is nothing wrong with that statement. However, when the only response is to seek criminal prosecution, you’ve ignored that some terrorist acts are so serious that they cross that red line and must be treated as acts of war. Nevertheless, as the 9/11 Commissioner’s recognized, before the attacks on 9/11, “The existing mechanisms for handling terrorist acts had been trial and punishment for acts committed by individuals; sanction, reprisal, deterrence, or war for acts by hostile governments.” (9/11 Commission Report at page 348.) The problem with using the criminal justice system for punishing individuals and elements of national power, like sanctions, reprisals, or war, for punishing hostile governments, is that you don’t take into consideration terrorism committed by or sponsored by organizations like al Qaeda. “The actions of al Qaeda fit neither category. Its crimes were on a scale approaching acts of war, but they were committed by a loose, far-flung, nebulous conspiracy with no territories or citizens or assets that could be readily threatened, overwhelmed, or destroyed.” (9/11 Commission Report at page 348.)

So what do you do with a “lose, far-flung, nebulous conspiracy” that pushes that national hot button or crosses that red line with a terrorist act? Obviously, you do everything you can to deprive them of support and sanctuary. But how? Do you play “whack-a-mole” and seek out its leaders, where ever located, and bring them back into our criminal justice system for prosecution? Do you prosecute the moneyed-middleman who funnels funds into the organization’s coffers? Do you keep your response focused on investigation and prosecution of terrorism as a crime? Or do you use a military solution, like a pre-emptive strike to attack the organization’s training or logistics areas, or military action to deprive the organization of a sanctuary? I know that criminal prosecution and military action are not mutually exclusive. But is it the right thing for this country to default to criminal investigation and prosecution for acts of terrorism?

In my opinion, our criminal justice system, with its legitimate focus on individual rights and due process, is not necessarily the best system in which to address terroristic acts. By its nature, use of the criminal justice system is reactive. Unless you have proof of a conspiracy to commit a crime, there must have been a crime committed before you prosecute it. It is hard to prevent acts of terrorism when you can’t prosecute the terrorist until they do something criminal, or take a step toward doing something criminal. The only prevention is the minimal deterrence that comes with punishment; something that will not deter a committed terrorist. If our goal is to deter future attacks, we must not rely on the criminal justice system as a means for responding to terrorism. We must be ready, willing, and able to respond militarily. Terrorism, of any type, against our nation, its citizens, or its assets, should be a “hot button” issue. We must consider any act of terrorism as crossing a red line, and let that “lose, far-flung, nebulous conspiracy” know that crossing the red line would prompt overwhelming military actions. Maybe then, terrorists would think twice about pushing the hot button or crossing the red line.

Congratulations Lt Gen Rives!

The Air Force has announced the appointment of Major General Jack Rives to the grade of Lieutenant General, effective July 23, 2008. Lt Gen Rives is the Air Force's Judge Advocate General, and is, in my opinion, the right guy, in the right place, at the right time. He's a legal scholar with an excellent mind; but most importantly, he's a leader. And leadership is something the Air Force, and in particular the AF JAG Corps, certainly needs.

"You're not a Peacemaker"

This video is truly an education. It's interesting to learn what anti-war protestors believe and see how they act. Aside from the chants and regurgitation of slogans and soundbites, it doesn't appear to me that the protestors have anything substantial to say. Some the comments captured on this video really demonstrate the attitudes and biases of those on the left. For example, some of the comments include,

"We should close Gitmo and turn it into a memorial for everything that is wrong."
" Surge in the troops accomplished an increase in Iraqi civilian deaths."
"Our country is sort of in the dark ages and we need to move towards enlightenment."



Other protestors call President Bush and Vice President Cheney liars and killers, and call for hanging the President. Another protestor tells an Iraq War Veteran to "go back to Iraq and kill people." Another protestor, one who is obviously not an American citizen, says the American culture is a "criminal culture" and says that the miltiary in Iraq rapes women. Another protestor actually spits on one of the Veterans. Watch the video, but take your blood pressure medicine before you do.

How do YOU define victory?

In the latest incident of mainstream media bias, the Drudge Report has an article reporting that the New York Times has rejected an OpEd written by Senator McCain responding to Senator Obama's OpEd outlining Senator Obama's plan for Iraq. (See my post on the plan below.) According to the New York Times, Senator McCain's OpEd didn't offer anything "new" and didn't "mirror" Senator Obama's piece. According to the editor who rejected the OpEd, "the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq." The article on Drudge also contains Senator McCain's draft (verbatim). In my opinion, Senator McCain's article does just that. He clearly says, "if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies." That, folks, is how you define victory in Iraq.