Thank you to everyone who has submitted such wonderful comments regarding the launch of the website. I agree, the creative folks at MoPro did an outstanding job!
If you would help a budding author find an agent, please "Like" our Facebook page and sign up as a Plankowner for an inscribed copy of the book when it is published. No cost. No spam. 30 Seconds. Thanks!
Two of my favorite interests merged yesterday when the Chicago Blackhawks hosted a skate around with wounded warriors at Soldier Field. It's rare for a professional sports team to muck around with ordinary Joe's in the middle of a record-breaking season. But these were no ordinary civilians--they were combat veterans who had suffered amputations and brain injuries, and this was no ordinary ice rink--as the event took place at hallowed Soldier Field (incidentally, dedicated to the men and women of the armed forces).
The wounded servicemen were part of the USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program. The program, as explained on its website, is designed to give military veterans who have been injured in military action the chance to play hockey in an environment that is suited to their needs. The program trains and supplies injured servicemen and women with hockey equipment and the skills needed to use the sport of ice hockey as a rehabilitation tool to overcome both physical and mental injuries sustained either in combat or in defense of our country.
What a fabulous tribute the Blackhawks' players and organization made to our military members who have given so much in service to us all. I applaud Patrick Kane, Jonathon Toews, Duncan Keith and their teammates, management and owners. I remain in awe of the servicemen and women who survived their tours of duty with significant physical and mental scars, yet continue to fight off the battle field everyday, persevering in accomplishing the simple things I take for granted on a daily basis.
On Saturday, the Blackhawk players forgot they were professional athletes and the military members forgot they were Warriors. For an afternoon, they all were simply hockey players.
For more video of this marvelous event, click here.
Tuesday's release by the Obama Administration of a 16-page "white paper" on targeting and killing of AMCITs by drones has failed to stir nearly the public denunciation that I expected when the news first broke.
Policical talking heads Chuck Todd, Domenico Montanaro, Natalie Cucchiara and Brooke Brower posted today possible reasons for the lackluster response:
What’s been surprising about this entire episode has been the lack of outrage from Congress. Don’t they want the administration to have to justify their actions even in AFTER-action settings? It’s amazing that it took Brennan’s confirmation hearing to convince the White House to allow even a FEW members of Congress to read the ACTUAL legal memos and not just a “white paper.”
Political whiplash: You’ll be forgiven if you’ve had political whiplash with Republicans defending Obama on the issue. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and even ex-Bush U.N. Amb. John Bolton gave full-throated defenses of Obama’s use of drones even in the targeting of American citizens-turned-al Qaeda operatives. Graham yesterday said that he was "totally supportive” of the actions. Bolton called it “entirely sensible” and “derived from the Bush administration approach to the War on Terror.” This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. This is an Executive branch vs. Legislative branch issue. There are still important and serious questions to be asked about the United States' use and increased use of a program that can catch (and has caught) civilians in the line of fire. But the big difference between this and, say, the political opposition to the torture memos is you had prominent voices on the right opposing this (John McCain), who were feeding the media back in the day. It’s not like Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Senate criticizing the drone program. That’s essentially what McCain did to Bush. But, as we learned then and see now, the public also seemed to overwhelmingly favor the use of drones overseas to target terrorists. In a Washington Post/ABC poll last year, 83% said they approved; it’s when they’re used domestically that people start to have privacy concerns.
Many leaders from both sides of the aisle are seemingly following the sentiments of their constituents. If, in fact, 83% of Americans approve of drones assassinating terrorists overseas, then they apparently do not distinguish between killing foreign terrorists in foreign lands and killing AMCITs in foreign lands. Makes sense to me. If a SEAL or Force Recon Marine in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere OCONUS is authorized to kill an AMCIT by way of 7.62mm round to the skull, then why would it be any different for a Barclay Lounge operator (aka Air Force UAV pilot) sitting in Nevada to fire a Hellfire missile from a Predator at the same target?
Hundreds (thousands?) of articles, editorials, videos and blog posts have been published since last week's announcement by SECDEF that the Pentagon is lifting its ban on women serving in combat. Wherever you stand on the issue, you can find dozens of commentaries supporting your view. Personally, former Marine grunt Thomas James Brennan's Op-Ed in the New York Times hit the bulls eye for me.
Here are two quotes from the editorial that I found particularly poignant:
Being an infantryman isn’t just about uncomfortable living situations. It’s kill or be killed, blood, entrails and fear. We are a brotherhood; a collection of ragtag men who hunt and kill the enemy and travel to undesirable places to do even more undesirable things. Maybe women can join the infantry and succeed, but many of us are not sure. There’s more at stake here than equal opportunity and political correctness.
* * *
Integrating women into the infantry is asking to shift a cultural norm. It is not something that is impossible but it will take much effort and training to be successful. I, for one, am torn.
I, too am torn. I enthusiastically and emphatically endorse women in the military and even in some combat roles, but question the efficacy of having women integrate into certain elite, specialized combat units. But I also realize the decision has been made and will not be rescinded. We as a society have turned a corner from which we'll never go back.
I can only hope the generals and admirals take their time to implement this historic decision prudently without undue influence from political groups, civilian members of DoD or even Congress. It's the war fighters (and not bureaucrats or civilian appointees) who should set the timetable and boundaries for allowing women into combat units. My fear is this won't happen and, instead, the military will succumb to political correct pressures which inevitably will result in a less effective and lethal fighting force. For the sake of every Marine, Sailor, Airman, Soldier and Coastie--and our nation as a whole--Service chiefs and DoD, please prove me wrong!
