Table of Contents

FROM THE EDITOR:

The Hard Choices That We Can No Longer Ignore

By Ed Offley

It was only 12 months ago, in early 2001 - that is, a hundred lifetimes and an entire historical era passed and gone - that I heard this astounding and revolutionary assertion from a pro-defense member of Congress as we discussed the future of the U.S. armed forces:

"This is the year we finally have to make some hard choices."

George W. Bush had just been inaugurated as president and his new defense leadership team consisted of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, senior aide Steve Cambone and the night cleaning crew at the Pentagon. The issues of military transformation and the debate over a feared "defense train wreck" animated military leaders, defense industry officials and think-tank denizens who viewed the 1990s as a lost decade in which military force cuts had been cancelled out by the Clinton administration's addiction to peacekeeping missions and its deliberate gutting of procurement funds.

Of course, nothing of the sort happened during that false, six-month peace that ended so violently with the al Qaeda terrorist attacks. Rumsfeld and his emerging leadership staff gamely launched a series of studies on how to transform the force, only to collide head-on with the entrenched, dug-in defenders of the status quo. By late August 2001, there were rumblings that Rumsfeld would be the first cabinet officer to resign. This muted, but worrisome debate carried on far from the public's attention since the nation was at peace and the news media focused on the horrifying threat to Americans from an outbreak of shark attacks along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast beaches.

When the world did come crashing down on Sept. 11, propelling the nation and its allies into the ongoing war against terrorism, it was actually possible to imagine that the military, defense industry and federal government might break through the long-term gridlock and make some serious - and difficult - choices about revitalizing our strong and powerful, yet aging and exhausted military. And maybe, just maybe, it might be possible to envision the Pentagon leadership taking a hard second look at the amalgam of social policies foisted on the military during the Clinton era that, guided by the noblest of rationales, hampered the military by further squandering its declining resources and diluting its ability to train personnel to actually fight and kill enemies.

It is genuinely puzzling and sad to read that Rumsfeld - who has prosecuted the war against terrorism far better than many could have imagined - is apparently ignoring the other serious threat to U.S. national security that he inherited a year ago: the ongoing deterioration and aging of the armed forces. When several senior regional commanders-in-chief recently cast doubts before the Senate that the U.S. military could expand the war on terrorism to additional fronts (e.g. Iraq) without seriously overextending our military forces, Rumsfeld's snappish denial seemed grounded more in the anger of a man who doesn't want to hear unpleasant truths, rather than honest disagreement.

But as anyone who has studied the U.S. military must know, the force has been operating on fumes for years now, and the long-term picture is very bleak. The vast majority of the aircraft, warships, ground equipment and most weapons with which we are fighting terrorism worldwide were not procured and funded by the Clinton administration, but by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. And from F-14s to base housing, the signs of obsolescence are growing by the day.

President Clinton's true military legacy will not be defined by his wobbly hand salute getting off the helicopter, or ordering the retreat of the USS Harlan County from the docks of Port-au-Prince, or even his fixation with multi-lateral peacekeeping operations. It will be worse: The consequences of Clinton's conscious decision to gut the Pentagon procurement budget throughout the 1990s (one of his senior Pentagon civilians in 1998 candidly called it a "death spiral" as investment funds were shifted to peacekeeping) will emerge in the next half-decade as the news media and public suddenly notice that the vaunted American military machine is falling apart at the seams.

Here is where Bush administration officials are risking both the war against terrorism and their own political life and legacy by ignoring the coming defense disaster. And ignoring it they clearly are.

For all of Bush's campaign speeches advocating true military transformation, and Rumsfeld's earnest but half-hearted attempt to launch the initiative a year ago, the administration has done practically nothing to address either the oncoming defense "train wreck" or the need to (a) radically restructure the Defense Department to shift money to new procurement or (b) significantly increase the Pentagon budget top line to pay for it the old-fashioned way.

You want proof?

Thanks to the good folks at Air Force magazine, published by the Air Force Association, anyone who can read clear English can pore over a horrifying series of charts in the current issue that present without embellishment or spin the proof of the Bush administration's inaction on defense. Sure, the 2003 budget proposal calls for spending $379.3 billion in the 2003 fiscal year starting Oct. 1, an after-inflation increase of $41.4 billion over the current budget, and it is indeed a 10-percent hike that we have not witnessed in decades - but it fails to maintain even the status quo of the current force, much less prepare for the need to field new generations of aircraft, warships, communications technology and weapons.

One senior military officer told me recently that when you take away the new mandates for homeland defense and longstanding requirements to increase salaries and benefits for the troops, the proposed budget will give the Pentagon only $10 billion in new procurement funds next year. Meanwhile, neither the Pentagon nor Congress have even stopped to wonder where the estimated $330 billion will come from to pay for just the three new tactical fighter programs (F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, V-22 Osprey and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter), none of which have been canceled despite the mind-boggling gap between their cost estimates and available funds.

Nor does the Bush plan contemplate any significant changes to our military force structure, even with a global war underway and no end in sight.

When Clinton took office in 1993, he moved to cut the Air Force from 15 to 12 active fighter wings. Bush plans to fund 12 fighter wings in 2003. Clinton, elected on an "It's the economy, stupid" program, cut the Navy's aircraft carrier fleet from 15 to 12 ships. Bush plans to operate 12 aircraft carriers in 2003, and presides over a Navy that is plummeting toward fewer than 200 ships. Clinton, while anxious to send Army soldiers on every peacekeeping mission Madeleine Albright could concoct, nevertheless cut the Army from 12 to 10 divisions. Bush, with elements of two divisions engaged in combat in Afghanistan, recommends funding 10 divisions in 2003.

If the Bush administration fails to address and correct the lurking defense crisis, two things will happen. First, we will inevitably experience multiple, deadly failures of U.S. military systems (whether training, operational or even in combat). Second, it will no longer be possible for the incumbent administration to blame anyone but itself for that tragedy.

Ed Offley is Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at defensewatch@aol.com.

Table of Contents

Hack's Target For The Week:

Got To Get Tougher in a Hurry

By David H. Hackworth

Every week, fewer American flags are flying from cars and homes. And it becomes easier to rationalize the terrorist attacks of 9-11 as a terrible tragedy that happened to the folks in some other town rather than the ongoing threat to our way of life that this century's Day of Infamy really represents.

But out there in the global trenches, the war against international terrorism grows bloodier by the day and as a consequence more coffins draped with American flags will be turning up at Dover Air Force Base.

The first round in Afghanistan is still far from over and then there are rounds 2 through 30 to come: the running sore in the Middle East and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; ex-Yugoslavia, where we have thousands of soldiers keeping that fragile peace, and dozens of other Bad Lands either on fire or waiting to ignite.

This complicated conflict won't be won by the smartness of munitions or the sagacity of diplomats, but by the grunt on the ground digging out the terrorist and either nailing him or jailing him. There's no way we'll prevail and protect Main Street USA without tough, well-trained soldiers.

Having led infantry squads, platoons, companies and battalions in combat for a bunch of years, I know that to make it on the battlefield grunts must be granite-hard both in body and mind, have the discipline of a Spartan warrior, know the basics of the fighting trade as well as what's on their dog tags, always sleep with one eye open, and be able to shoot as straight and fast as a Delta Force sniper.

But during the first serious fight involving U.S. conventional troops in Afghanistan, our soldiers were far from up for the game. They fought well, but were just not strong enough for the rugged mountains of Afghanistan.

The commander of the operation, Gen. Tommy Franks, pulled our boys out of the battle early so they could catch their breath, and brought in 1,700 fighting-fit British Marines. The British and Canadian news media recently reported that Franks said, "[T]he British troops may be more accomplished at some aspects of infantry warfare than their U.S. counterparts." One report added, "They know how to walk up mountains .… They don't expect to be given a ride in a helicopter every time they want to get somewhere."

The poor physical condition of so many of our soldiers was no big surprise to me. When I eyeballed our kids going through initial training last year in a warm and fuzzy basic training course that's been made shockingly softer than the one I took 56 years ago, I concluded from my visits and the comments of scores of Army small unit leaders that many of these boys and girls - some of whom could barely do two push-ups when they first reported to the Army Reception Station - wouldn't make it in battle.

Last week, 50 highly motivated recent graduates of Fort Benning's Basic and Advanced Training programs and the storied Parachute School reported to Fort Bragg, N.C., to prepare for further training that would allow them to join our elite Special Forces units. "On Monday they took the PT test," a trainer there told me, "and over half of them failed to meet the standard."

So after three weeks of Basic, five weeks of Infantry advanced training and weeks of parachute training, over 50 percent of this group of young soldiers couldn't pass the push ups, sit ups and two-mile run.

"We aren't talking about some way-out SF standard, but the bare minimum required for any soldier to graduate basic training," reports another Special Forces sergeant. "If this is representative of what's happened to Infantry Basic training, I'm afraid to even ask what the hell is going on at the co-ed basic programs of Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood."

The news from Afghanistan and Army training centers is a deadly serious warning as we gird for long-term combat against terrorists and their state sponsors: Our troops may not have what it takes to survive and win on the battlefield.

Our generals must bite the bullet and insist the kinder gentler standards that have castrated the conventional Army during the last decade be rooted out. Training must be returned to the reality-based standard that used to prepare our grunts to make it through the crucible of combat - or we'll continue to fail when and where it counts.

The Brits won't always be around to pull us up the hill.

http://www.hackworth.com is the address of David Hackworth's home page. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831.

© 2002 David H. Hackworth

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 01

For The Full Truth About Operation Anaconda

By J. David Galland

In the weeks since combat ended in Operation Anaconda, it is becoming clearer each day that what has been described as the largest and most successful U.S. military ground operation in a decade has not passed the taste or smell test.

As detailed accounts of the fight slowly emerge, what was initially touted by senior U.S. military commanders as an overwhelming battlefield victory now seems entirely different: a combat operation in which brave men were killed and wounded as the result of incomplete training, insufficient logistical support and flawed tactics.

The end result - the killing of an indeterminate number of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters - cannot excuse or minimize any flaws in planning and execution of the operation, particularly those that contributed to the loss of American and friendly Afghani soldiers.

As I watch those same senior military leaders engage in damage control mode, I cannot help but conclude that the U.S. Central Command is doing the Texas two-step when it comes to this rather strange battle. The American people - including members of the armed forces themselves - are getting spin instead of candor from the military leadership. And that is flatly inexcusable.

Operational security notwithstanding, there is deliberate deception in the air on this one. With our young soldiers still out there on those deadly Afghan hills, I am calling the Army leadership's hand: Come clean on what went wrong now, or face a demoralizing and humiliating series of disclosures in the weeks and months ahead.

We already have seen an embarrassing litany of spin about the battle. During the 13 days that Operation Anaconda went on, official reports from the field changed as often as the Afghan weather.

Initially, Central Command estimated the enemy strength at about 200 strong, with half killed by U.S. and allied fire. That was immediately increased with a revised estimate that 400 enemy fighters had been engaged, again with 50 percent killed. Then only a few days later, the enemy force was estimated at 700 to 1,000, with half of them killed.

Here is the current picture, assembled from various credible, non-military sources on the ground: The enemy body count of enemy is now believed to be all of 25 enemy fighters - quite a comedown from the hyped-up estimates of a few weeks earlier. I wonder if that includes the lone Spartan they found last Wednesday, squatting in a cave with a Kevlar and the weapon recovered from one of the American casualties?

A second major controversy involves the issue of friendly casualties. Fortunately, U.S. units suffered combat casualties only at the beginning of the operation, but this again hints at a major credibility gap in the official reports. For the next thirteen days, our infantrymen were described as being "heavily engaged" and involved in "fiercely intense" combat. But somehow, during all that heavy engagement and fiercely intense combat, we suffered zero casualties or losses.

As a career soldier myself, I find this absolutely amazing: Thirteen days in fierce combat and nobody is hurt or killed? How can this be?

First-person accounts I've gotten from soldiers I know indicate that the actual conduct of the battle went far differently than the commanders touted.

According to one friend, a platoon sergeant in the 10th Mountain Division, the assault did not begin well. "We went to ground and couldn't move, we went in way too heavy with individual gear, and some artillery preparation would have been a damn big help," he said.

A young lieutenant told me that his team "had nothing with enough range and hitting power to even threaten the enemy, with the exception of area weapons." Most small units had only small-bore mortars to shoot back with. "We got fragged continually with small arms, and shooting back with our individual weapons would have been as effective as throwing water balloons," the lieutenant said.

We have already read credible news reports of how U.S. helicopters suffered higher-than-anticipated battle damage from enemy fire as they struggled to maneuver in the thin air above 8,000 feet.

Now that the British Royal Marines and some tough Canadian troops have picked up the ball after U.S. soldiers fell short, a key question is whether U.S. military leaders will have the moral courage to conduct an honest after-action review of Operation Anaconda, hold field commanders responsible for its flaws, and inform the American people of what they learned.

In particular, it is essential that Central Command and the Army leadership investigate the degree to which Anaconda ground force commander Maj. Gen. Franklin L. "Buster" Hagenbeck failed his soldiers. There are simply too many informed, authoritative accounts in the public domain that indicate the American troops were ill-prepared, ill-equipped and poorly led.

Another area that requires a full review stems from complaints by both the British and Canadians that Central Command CINC Gen. Tommy Franks was too cautious and reticent in pursuing the enemy. One does not have to be a general officer to know that when the enemy is on the run they should be pounded continuously and hard. This suggests that any investigation of how Operation Anaconda played out should not be limited to Hagenback's field leadership.

While it is understandable that neither the Pentagon nor Central Command desire to get bogged down in the Vietnam-era controversy over enemy body counts, the after-action reports must attempt to honestly determine how many enemy soldiers where there in the first place, how many were killed, and how many escaped. And if Central Command is serious about closing a "credibility gap" before it becomes irrevocably wide, the review must also focus on how and why initial reports were so erroneous and exaggerated.

I submit that in this particular type of operation, the body count is the very barometer of success or failure, followed by reports noting the amount of weapons and supplies seized on the battlefield (and therefore denied to the enemy).

The after-action probe must also take a clear look at what tactics and strategies are truly needed in Afghanistan, particularly since no one expects that Operation Anaconda will be the last big battle there. Winning the hearts and minds of local Afghanis and occupying real estate may not be essential to this type of operation, but constant leapfrogging search-and-destroy missions cannot continue as a matter of primary tactical employment. As a career soldier, I believe that at a minimum, "key terrain" must be identified and held and controlled to deny the enemy mobility and maneuver space.

In Washington, D.C., another contradiction needs to be confronted and resolved: The overall state of U.S. military capability in terms of continuing to prosecute the global war against terrorism.

A number of senior military leaders recently testified to Congress that our troops are ready for more military missions.

But only two weeks ago, Supreme NATO Commander Gen. Joseph W. Ralston and Pacific Command CINC Adm. Dennis Blair cautioned and warned Congress that the U.S. military is already stretched too thin, overburdened with a plethora of missions that cut the force to the marrow. We also are hearing troubling accounts of key military ordnance stocks being seriously depleted, and of vital aircraft such as aerial tankers being overtaxed to a point where mission-capable rates are dropping.

We are not losing the war on terrorism, but we have not won it yet either. We have only begun to peel back the outside veneer of the terror that is hell-bent on destroying Western freedom. The U.S. military and the American people have a long way to go still.

It is not enough that the key players in the Defense Department and military services get on the same sheet of music when it comes to assessing the state of the military - where they are being deployed, what their mission will be, how large and for what tactical goal. Our military and political leaders must not allow their own honesty and integrity to become casualties of war.

It is distressing to see that our military leadership at this critical time is poised on the cliff-edge of a major credibility failure. First and foremost, the lessons from Operation Anaconda and other ongoing operations need to be learned and applied. Truth and accountability must be foremost.

J. David Galland, Deputy Editor of DefenseWatch, is a retired veteran of over thirty years of service in military intelligence who resides in Germany. He can be reached at defensewatch02@yahoo.com.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 02

Freedom Has a Flavor Some Protected Will Never Know

By Patrick Hayes

I recently received several letters from people of various backgrounds and professions who described their interactions and discussions with American liberals - the extreme but vociferous minority of the self-appointed "intellectually superior class" of our society, who decry the actions our government is taking in the war against terrorism.

Of particular interest is that liberal thinking seems to decry any action for any reason. It seems that such individuals would rather quit and bury their heads in the sand than stand up for a principle or ideal, much less defend themselves or their country in a struggle to the death.

But it gets worse. In addition to failing to take a stand for the very principles on which this nation was founded and the freedoms they enjoy, this intellectual elite also fails to support those who do.

One letter in particular was distressing. It was from a mother whose son attends a private school not far from a military installation. Although the school makes every attempt to introduce the children to the various professions of society, when she suggested that the military might also be represented, they treated her as though she were insane. The comments made to her included words to the effect that Americans are pacifists, peace-lovers, peacemakers, etc., and that only "failures," "losers" and "low-lifes" join the Army for salaries (Editor's Note: This letter appears in Feedback for Apr. 1, 2002.)

An example of misguided logic and bias among liberals is their lack of perception about the current war on terrorism, which many see as a "new" phenomenon and fail to see it as global in scope, but which, in reality, has been with us to some degree or another since the transnational terrorists of the 1960s. Then, Muslim terrorists were actually more Marxist than Muslim - Marxism being more chic at the time, not to mention more practical, by receiving support from many corners outside the Muslim world. Current PLO leader Yasser Arafat, a former Marxist and now born-again Muslim, is a case in point.

As the Israelis have known, and we only seem to be learning since Sept. 11, 2001, you cannot negotiate with terrorists. However, the ivory-tower liberals certainly don't believe in military force to solve the problems we now face. So what is their answer? Usually, talk. Endless talk, while Muslim terrorists continue to go about their bloody work.

Most of us weren't born when the concept of "appeasement" became a dirty word. It was the word used by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain after his meetings with German Chancellor Adolph Hitler in September 1938 in Germany.

In his attempt to avoid war at all costs and have, "peace in our time," Chamberlain met with Hitler to discuss the German claim to the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, which was inhabited primarily by Germans. In their attempt to appease Hitler, both England and France pressured the Czech government to cede the Sudetenland to Germany, thereby avoiding war. Or so they thought.

By Oct. 1, 1938, Germany had taken over the disputed region. However, by March 1939, Hitler had completely taken over the entire country of Czechoslovakia. Still, Chamberlain and his French counterparts wrung their hands in dismay and tried more appeasement. Hitler, of course, assured them that Germany had no claims beyond Czechoslovakia. But at 4:45 a.m. on Sept. 1, 1939, to the complete surprise of the appeasers and hand-wringers, German panzer and infantry divisions, supported by the Luftwaffe, invaded Poland.

By then, there was no more appeasement left. Both England and France had signed a treaty with Poland and had no choice but to declare war on Germany. Eight months later, France fell within six weeks and England was alone and under siege. By May 10, 1940, appeaser Chamberlain resigned and Winston Churchill, who was no appeaser, became Prime Minister. Churchill, a veteran of the Boer War in South Africa, knew better than most that Hitler not only had to be stopped, but defeated.

The only thing Chamberlain and the hand-wringing appeasers had accomplished was to give Hitler more time to consolidate his position, build for war and carry out his plans for the conquest of Europe.

Indecisive or just plain cowardly hand-wringers have been with us since the time of the American Revolution. Many colonists, whether out of conviction or their continued loyalty to King George, moved north to what is now Canada. However, many more began a tradition the spineless among us continue to this day and moved to Canada to avoid fighting for an ideal - freedom from tyranny - leaving that chore to those "rough men" who valued their inalienable rights.

As we have learned through history, there is no such thing as peace at any price, because "any price" can mean slavery - or worse.

Sometimes, however, talking - negotiations - is an appropriate tactic, say between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Such meetings may have held us all back from the brink of nuclear war, but certainly did not stop the myriad of ideological "little wars" around the globe between Communism and Democracy.

However, dealing with a relatively advanced, albeit totalitarian, society like either Germany or the Soviet Union requires a position of strength and will - something the Chamberlain appeasers did not possess. This is also something the American Left does not possess, because its adherents do not come from a position of strength - they have nothing with which to negotiate - so what do they hope to gain by talking? What are their options?

Another question of "appeasement" recently raised in the news media was whether or not Muslim terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui should face the death penalty if convicted. If so, the liberals argue, other Muslim terrorists (al Queda, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah PLO, PFLP - a terrorist by any other name) may get angry and attack the United States again.

I really wonder what planet these people are from. Muslim terrorists have declared war on the United States and are intent on attacking this country, American citizens and American interests anytime, anywhere, whether Moussaoui is executed or not. They cannot be appeased.

Germany under Hitler, an advanced, intelligent, educated, and industrial society, could not be stopped by words. What effect do leftist "intellectuals" think words will have against Muslim fanatics who are bent on destroying not only themselves, but also everything around them, like the Russian nihilists and anarchists of the 19th century?

Although the sophisticated liberals find it distasteful and decry the fact that "rough men" have to do their fighting for them, they will, however, hide behind the protection those men provide. But never having stood up for a belief or principle beyond a cocktail party discussion about men's fashions, much less having to actually fight for a principle, they will never know the real flavor of freedom, which is why, to them, such ideals and those who do fight to protect them, appear to be of little consequence.

Patrick Hayes is a contributing editor to DefenseWatch. He can be reached at Gyrene65@netscape.net.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 03

Bid the Little Ones Come Unto Me - Forbid Them Not

By Robert G. Williscroft

The title paraphrases Jesus in the Book of Mark in the New Testament. His point was that the simple faith of a child shows the way to God's kingdom. This was not lost on the Church of Rome, which has long bragged that a child reared in the Church for the initial six years will be a life-long Catholic. Psychiatrists call it indoctrination. This article is about indoctrination - religious indoctrination - of children, but it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Most of us don't see a problem with a lifelong Catholic, or a Baptist, Methodist - pick one of hundreds of labels. Christianity in the modern world, no matter its specific label, fosters individuality, critical thinking, democracy, all those elements that most of us deem essential to our free society. What happens, however, when the indoctrinating religion teaches children hate, violence, bloodshed, terror, self-sacrifice to destroy unbelievers, total dependence on higher authority for any action beyond the simple act of living?

What do you get when the indoctrinating religion is Islam?

During the past three weeks I have been exchanging emails with a 15-year old Muslim youth in London. I will not reveal his name to protect his privacy and possibly his life. Our ongoing exchange has been frank and relatively evenhanded, given that my young Arab friend has relatively little knowledge of how Western governments work, does not really understand Christianity, and appears to be denied access to credible news sources.

Abdul (not his real name) initially responded to my DefenseWatch article, "Violence and Terror - Fundamental to All Islam," which appeared on March 20), with an impassioned statement about my "attack" on his beliefs. Here is his first email:

Abdul questioned my comments about the Palestinian woman who made a home video of her son shortly before he blew up himself and several Israeli teenagers. He questioned my contention that Christianity is essentially non-violent, and he took me to task for my views about Jihad.

In my response, I reiterated the facts surrounding the Miriam Farhat video, explained the context of Abdul's New Testament quote, and pointed out the true militant, violent nature of Jihad directly from revered Muslim sources, both old and new. I also brought up the explicit violence in the Ayatollah Khomeni's death sentence against British author Salmon Rushdi in the 1980s, and subsequent threats against me personally for publicly condemning the Ayatollah in a national ad.

In his response, Abdul sidestepped the Miriam Farhat video, and justified Palestinian suicide bombings as a response to Israeli terrorism. And he added that the struggle was about land, not terrorism. He wondered why the United States and Israel walked out of the Durban Conference on Racism, pointing out that this action demonstrates our racial attitudes. He commented that none of this mattered to me in any case, since my obvious interest as an editor and writer was strictly monetary.

Then Abdul told of Ariel Sharon massacring 17,000 Lebanese in 1982, and suggested that this was far worse than anything perpetrated by Saddam Hussein. He wondered why we were uninterested in sending arms inspectors into Israel to inspect their Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), instead of only into Iraq. He noted that we do not refer to IRA terrorists as Christian terrorists, and then launched into a discussion of how he views the teaching of religious history in the West, which, according to Abdul, glorifies the Crusades and vilifies Islam.

Abdul then talked about faith and religion, pointing out that a true religion will not change with time, countering my argument that Christianity had modernized its ways, turning from a violent past to become a religion of peace and goodwill; and so must Islam, if it is to survive. He believes Islam's strength lies in its rigid adherence to its roots.

Of course, I answered Abdul's various contentions and misstatements of fact. I pointed out the difference between a suicide bomber and a military response to repeated suicide bombings. I said that the name of a conference does not necessarily provide an accurate description of the conference, and noted that the Durban conference was a thinly veiled anti-Israeli platform. I explained that my DefenseWatch writing is for glory - not pay.

I took Abdul to task for his serious misstatement of fact regarding the Lebanese "massacre." I provided him with the latest estimates that "only" 2,800 people died or disappeared in 1982 in Lebanon at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, as a result of actions by Hobeika's Israeli-allied Christian militia. I pointed out that the Israelis had not threatened the world with WMDs, and I noted that the IRA terrorists and those they terrorize are both Christians, and that their terrorism is political, not religious.

I reiterated that Christianity had changed itself over the past few hundred years so that it now is a major guiding light for peace the world over. By contrast, Islam is spreading terror, violence, and death wherever it exists.

Abdul then dropped a bombshell. He is totally convinced that thousands of Americans have died in Afghanistan, and he cites a website created by the followers of Professor Abdullah Azzam (who was killed in late 1989), a wildly popular Muslim cleric who significantly influenced Osama bin Laden. The current URL of this website is: http://66.197.135.110/~azzam/. The site frequently changes its location to stay ahead of Western authorities. (If you need a current location, email me at the below email address.)

A review of the Azzam website will chill you to the bone. It advocates the killing of moderate Muslim clerics in America and Great Britain. It exhorts young Muslims to quit school and join the international Jihad. It calls for the death of President Bush and other Western leaders, the destruction of Western interests throughout the Islamic sphere of influence, and the total Islamization of Palestine, Bokhara, Lebanon, Chad, Eritrea, Somalia, the Philippines, Burma, Southern Yemen, Tashkent, and Andalusia (southern Spain).

I'll close with a chilling quote from the people who indoctrinated Abdul and hoards of his young Islamic friends:

Robert G. Williscroft is DefenseWatch Navy Editor. He can be reached at dwnavyeditor@argee.net.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 04

Operational Names Have Deep Meaning in This War

By Frank Natoli

British historian Max Hastings, in his excellent history, Overlord, D-Day and the Battle for Normandy, asserts, "It was symbolic of the contrasting approaches to war by the two principal allies in Normandy that the British codenamed their greatest efforts after race meetings, while the Americans adopted a symbol of deadly killing power."

Hastings was specifically contrasting the British "Operation Goodwood," Gen. Bernard Montgomery's latest failed attempt to breakthrough via Caen, versus the American "Operation Cobra," Lt. Gen. Omar Bradley's successful breakout that quickly evolved into Lt. Gen. George Patton's thrust into Brittany and then legendary dash across the breadth of France.

It is not certain who the father of the Pentagon's current powerful ground thrust "Operation Anaconda" might be, but a certain trim, bespectacled seventy-ish leader, with a great sense of history, is a good bet. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld understands better than anyone in his position in recent memory that words aren't everything, but they can still be extremely important.

Prior to "Operation Anaconda," in the ongoing campaign against terrorism we've seen "Operation Infinite Justice" morph into "Operation Enduring Freedom" together with "Operation Noble Eagle" here in the United States. Meanwhile in the Balkans, there was more of the same, exemplified by "Operation Shining Hope." All of these phrases appear intended to emphasize lofty ambitions, fit for the pulpit, yet carefully mask the distasteful real-world implications of war. But fortunately for the nation, this administration and particularly its defense secretary realize that words are meaningless unless backed by actions, and that in time of war the words must reflect the actions.

Much has been said and written of the extraordinary technology manifested in this war. There is a strong tendency, civilian and even military, to believe that the most advanced technology finally repeals Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's most concise summary of his Civil War tactics: "War is cruelty, there is no refining it." Reporter Thomas Ricks of The Washington Post recently analyzed Gen. Tommy Franks' decision to remain in Tampa, Fla., while directing a war in Afghanistan, and not only found many hi-tech reasons supporting Franks' decision, but even garnished an opinion from George Patton's biographer, retired Lt. Col. Carlo D'Este, that times have changed and a general's place is not necessarily on the battlefield.

D'Este's biography, Patton, A Genius For War, describes Patton meeting then-Lt. Paul Robinett at Fort Riley in 1923. Robinett, describing a speech of Patton to the officers of his regiment described it as "so fantastic that the best of us could not give a good report of just what was said. In any case, it would be unprintable …. Of all the senior commanders in World War II, General Patton understood best the teachings of one of the very greatest American soldiers, General William T. Sherman: 'No man can properly command an army from the rear, he must be at the front … at the very head of the army - [he] must be seen there, and the effect of his mind and personal energy must be felt by every officer and man present with it.' "

Robinett, D'Este continued, "also thought that 'Patton's undoubted success as a commander can, in large measure, be attributed to his unrelenting application of this principle.' "

In all fairness to Franks, clearly there is some level in the chain of command that need not and should not be fired on. Gen. George C. Marshall was a brave man, yet exercised supreme command from Washington, D.C. But to suggest that someone at Patton's level could have accomplished what he did by video conferencing is absurd.

Patton and Sherman were consummate warriors "at the very head" of an army of warriors. The warrior spirit does not sit well with the contemporary schoolmarms of the National Education Association or the feminized members of the national media. Military recruiters are barred from most schools, even if they promise to describe their "opportunities" as nothing more exciting than that of computer technicians in khaki.

As "Operation Anaconda" fatally squeezes the great evil that is al-Qaeda, and when this autumn, American armor executes its latter day "Operation Cobra" and all roads lead to Baghdad, the advice of Patton, the master of words and actions, still applies: "We as the attackers have the initiative. We know exactly what we are going to do, while the enemy is ignorant of our intentions and can only parry our blows. We must retain this tremendous advantage by always attacking: rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously and without rest."

Natoli is a military historian and president of Discovery Data Systems, Inc., a New Jersey-based company engaged in the production of interactive military mapping products.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 05

Why and How the Military Salutes President Bush

Editor's Note: An alert DefenseWatch reader, John C. Regner, sent us the following unattributed account of President Bush and military salutes that has been circulating among military and veterans' websites. If any reader knows the author of this inspiring text, please contact us at defeedback@yahoo.com.

Have you noticed a difference in the salute given by our military men and women as President Bush walks by? Most folks would not notice anything, but military people see it right away. Watch: when President Bush leaves his helicopter or Air Force One, the honor guards salute and face him as he disembarks, then turn their faces towards him as he passes by.

They continue to salute his back as he walks away. This kind of salute has not been seen in the previous eight years, though it is customary courtesy to the Commander-in-Chief.

You see, soldiers aren't required to turn and face the president as they salute. They are not required to salute his back. They are only required to salute. They can remain face-forward the entire time.

And that is what they did during Bill Clinton's entire presidency.

Our soldiers were forced to obey Clinton's orders, but they were not forced to respect him. From their salutes, we can surmise that they did not.

Why is such respect afforded to President Bush? He doesn't even know how to bite his lower lip and he gets teary-eyed whenever he speaks! The following incident from Maj. Gen. Van Antwer may give us an insight.

Gen. Antwerp is president of the Officers' Christian Fellowship. He lost nearly all his staff when the Pentagon was attacked Sept. 11. His executive officer, Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell, was badly burned and in the hospital when President Bush visited him. Our president spent time and prayed with Brian.

As he was getting ready to leave, he went to the foot of Brian's bed and saluted. He held his salute until Brian was able to raise his burned and bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in return. The Commander-in-Chief never initiates a salute, except in the case of a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. The injured soldier did not have to return the salute. But he did, out of respect to his president - a soldiers' president.

Congressman J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) said, "Character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. In this time of war and danger, I am so grateful to have a president whom the soldiers salute - fully."

On Special Report with Brit Hume, at the close of the show when they normally have some funny video clip, they showed President Bush and the First Lady on their way to Marine One to leave for Camp David for the weekend. As the video starts, the First Lady is leading the way into the helicopter with the spaniel dog on the leash, and the president is right behind her with the Scotty on the leash. As the First Lady entered the chopper, the Marine at the gangway saluted and held his salute.

The Scottie the President was walking decided it wanted to squat right when he got to the steps. The president pulled on its leash, but the stubborn Scottie persisted in squatting. The President bent down and scooped up the pooch and entered Marine One. After he entered, the Marine cut his salute and returned to the position of attention.

Moments later, the president reemerged from the helicopter and out onto the steps. The Marine was standing at attention, head and eyes straight ahead. The president leaned over and tapped him on the left arm. The startled Marine turned his body toward the president and received his returned salute! I was so impressed by this true act of respect for our military people by our president!

He really does get it. Most any other person of his stature would have just continued his journey, disregarding the neglected return salute.

Not George W. Bush. He is earning the respect of the military community, not expecting it - as most would.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 06

Medal of Honor Recipient - Lt. Clyde Everett Lassen (USN)

Rank and organization: Lieutenant, U.S. Navy, Helicopter Support Squadron 7, Detachment 104, embarked in USS Preble (DLG-15).

Place and date: Republic of Vietnam, 19 June 1968.

Entered service at: Jacksonville, Fla. Born: 14 March 1942, Fort Myers, Fla.

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as pilot and aircraft commander of a search and rescue helicopter, attached to Helicopter Support Squadron 7, during operations against enemy forces in North Vietnam.

Launched shortly after midnight to attempt the rescue of two downed aviators, Lt. (then Lt.j.g.) Lassen skillfully piloted his aircraft over unknown and hostile terrain to a steep, tree-covered hill on which the survivors had been located. Although enemy fire was being directed at the helicopter, he initially landed in a clear area near the base of the hill, but, due to the dense undergrowth, the survivors could not reach the helicopter.

With the aid of flare illumination, Lt. Lassen successfully accomplished a hover between two trees at the survivors' position. Illumination was abruptly lost as the last of the flares was expended, and the helicopter collided with a tree, commencing a sharp descent.

Expertly righting his aircraft and maneuvering clear, Lt. Lassen remained in the area, determined to make another rescue attempt, and encouraged the downed aviators while awaiting resumption of flare illumination. After another unsuccessful, illuminated rescue attempt, and with his fuel dangerously low and his aircraft significantly damaged, he launched again and commenced another approach in the face of the continuing enemy opposition.

When flare illumination was again lost, Lt. Lassen, fully aware of the dangers in clearly revealing his position to the enemy, turned on his landing lights and completed the landing. On this attempt, the survivors were able to make their way to the helicopter. En route to the coast, he encountered and successfully evaded additional hostile antiaircraft fire and, with fuel for only five minutes of flight remaining, landed safely aboard USS Jouett (DLG-29).

Editor's Note: If you know of any MOH recipient who is hospitalized or has passed away recently, please email DefenseWatch MOH Editor Jim H. at bulldogleader@mindspring.com.