Gwynne Dyer from the Salt Lake Tribune doesn’t deny that Nidal Hasan’s faith played a role in his going postal jihadi:

Let’s see, now. A devout Muslim officer, born in the United States but of Palestinian ancestry, is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan in the near future. He opens fire on his fellow soldiers, shouting “Allahu akbar.” (”God is great” in Arabic.) What can his motive have been? Hard to guess, isn’t it? Was he unhappy about his promotion prospects? Hmm.

But what else does Dyer do? Blame America and the West for its campaign of warfare and persecution of Muslims:

America’s wars in Muslim lands overseas are radicalizing Muslims at home. Never mind that the home-grown Muslim terrorists who attacked the London transport system in 2005, and the various Muslim plotters who have been caught in other Western countries before their plans came to fruition, have almost all blamed the Western invasions of Muslim countries for radicalizing them.

Never mind, above all, that what really radicalized them was the fact that those invasions made no sense in terms of Western security. No Afghan has ever attacked the United States, although Arabs living in Afghanistan were involved in the planning of 9/11. There were no terrorists in Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction, and no contacts between Saddam and al-Qaida. So why did the U.S. invade those countries?

The real reasons are panic and ignorance, reinforced by militaristic reflexes and laced with liberal amounts of racism. But people find it hard to believe that big, powerful governments like those of the United States, Britain and the other Western powers involved in these foolish adventures could really be so stupid, so the conspiracy theories proliferate.

It is a testimony to the moderation and loyalty of Muslim communities in the West that so few of their members have succumbed to these conspiracy theories.

Lessee……

America is to blame for the dysfunction going on in the modern era of the Middle East? Racist America is “holding the Muslim man down”? American imperialism is responsible?

FA has found unclassified evidence from the U.S. Department of Defense (and hat tip to CJ, whose excellent milblog A Soldier’s Perspective is now on inactive duty) showing shocking and graphic day to day activities of the U.S. military’s campaign of aggression against Muslims:

U.S. soldier teases and mocks Afghan children:

U.S. Army Capt. Michael Wikstrom, a chaplain with Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistan, shows Afghan children how to blow bubbles during a humanitarian aid delivery mission in Kabul, Afghanistan, July 24, 2009. (DoD photo by Senior Airman Marc I. Lane, U.S. Air Force)

U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class John Moyle, the platoon sergeant for 1st Platoon, 554th Military Police Company out of Stuttgart, Germany, gives a child a high-five while providing security during polling site assessments in the Nangarhar province of Afghanistan July 1, 2009. The unit is currently attached to Task Force Mountain Warrior, which is assessing polling sites in the province to ensure they are safe for residents. (DoD photo by Pfc. Elizabeth K. Raney, U.S. Army)

Afghan National Army commando Mohammed Jan, a Kandak commander with the 201st Corps, hands humanitarian assistance supplies to residents of a village in the Laghman province of Afghanistan May 23, 2009. The 1st Battalion, 178th Infantry Regiment, Illinois Army National Guard is working with the Afghan National Army to conduct a key leader engagement and to deliver humanitarian assistance to residents to build stronger relationships and fight insurgency. (DoD photo Spc. Jason Dorsey, U.S. Army)

U.S. Army Sgt. Juan Reyes high-fives an Iraqi boy while providing security in Sequor, Iraq, Sept. 9, 2009. Reyes is from the security detachment of 25th Special Troops Battalion, 25th Infantry Division. (DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Luke P. Thelen, U.S. Air Force)

Here we have a well-known U.S. Navy Admiral personally indoctrinating unsuspecting Afghan school girls with pro-U.S. propaganda:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen hands out notebooks during the opening of the Pushghar Village Girls School in the Panjshir Valley of Afghanistan July 15, 2009. The school was built by Greg Mortenson, a humanitarian and author of “Three Cups of Tea”, to promote and support community-based education for girls in remote regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley, U.S. Navy)

U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Brandon Sills hands out candy to children in the Helmand province of Afghanistan Aug. 25, 2009. Sills is attached to the battalion aid station of 3rd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment. (DoD photo by Sgt. Christopher R. Rye, U.S. Marine Corps)

U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj. Jimmy Carabello distributes school supplies to Afghan children during a humanitarian assistance mission at the Shigal district center in the Konar province of Afghanistan Aug. 19, 2009. Carabello is deployed with the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment. (DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Andrew Smith, U.S. Army)

U.S. Army Maj. Arnel David, from the 1st Infantry Division’s Federal Police Training Team, hands out clothing and toys to residents of a poor neighborhood in Baghdad, Iraq, Nov. 1, 2009. (DoD photo by Senior Airman Michael Wykes, U.S. Air Force)

U.S. Army Capt. Scott Warnke, with 4th Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, shows a photograph to an Afghan child in the Anzala Khil village of Afghanistan Nov. 5, 2009. Warnke is deployed to Forward Operating Base Wolverine in the Zabul province of Afghanistan to conduct counterinsurgency operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. (DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Christine Jones, U.S. Air Force)

Kerry: And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not–

Schieffer: Yeah.

Kerry: –Iraqis should be doing that.

Here are photos of U.S. soldiers breaking “into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children”….

U.S. Army Capt. Charles Ford plays a video game with seven-year-old Wa’ad, who lost an arm and a leg to an improvised bomb, during a visit to the child’s home near Muqdadiyah, Iraq. U.S. soldiers from Hammer Company are arranging for the child to be fitted with prosthetic limbs.

An Iraqi man shows off his muscles after a house search by U.S. Army soldiers patrolling Baghdad’s Azamiyah neighborhood.
Anja Niedringhaus – AP

U.S. Soldiers with 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division hand out toys to children during a human terrain team site survey mission in Kilabeen, Iraq, Sept. 15, 2009. (DoD photo by Spc. Benjamin Boren, U.S. Army)

U.S. Army Sgt. Maj. Cannaballo, from the 6th Iraqi Army Division’s Military Transition Team, interacts with Iraqi children while visiting the Al Wallah Elementary School with Iraqi soldiers in Al Hurriyah, Iraq, Oct. 25, 2009. (DoD photo by Spc. Jennifer Reed, U.S. Army)

A U.S. Soldier interacts with Iraqi children during a meeting to discuss potential medical micro-grants at the Qais Medical Clinic in the Radwaniyah area of Baghdad, Iraq, Oct. 3, 2009. The Soldier is from 1st Battalion, 150th Armor Reconnaissance Squadron, 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Edwin L. Wriston, U.S. Navy)

U.S. Army Capt. Jayne Strathe, attached to the 1314th Civil Affairs Company, 17th Fires Brigade, talks with an Iraqi child at the Hojarat School for Boys and Girls in Basra, Iraq, Nov. 5, 2009. The Hojarat School is one of the schools selected for improvements by Soldiers with the company. (DoD photo by Spc. Samantha R. Ciaramitaro, U.S. Army)

Here we see an Iraqi child, terrified, as she attempts to ward off the U.S. aggressor:

Jan. 13: A U.S. soldier plays with a young girl during a patrol in Baghdad.
Jewel Samad – AFP/Getty Images

U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Robert Hoff gives kids high-fives, during a visit to a village, in Kirkuk, Iraq, May 14, 2009. Soldiers are visiting the village to distribute school supplies to children. Hoff is attached to Charlie Troop, 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Gustavo Olgiati, U.S. Army)

U.S. Army Sgt. Craig Wayman puts eye drops into an Iraqi girl’s eye during a combined medical evaluation in a village in Kirkuk, Iraq, on May 7, 2009. Wayman is a combat medic attached to Charlie Troop, 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division. (DoD photo by Sgt. Gustavo Olgiati, U.S. Army)

In the following photo, we see a U.S. soldier do the despicable:

U.S. Army Master Sgt. Delano Wilson, assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, gives an Iraqi child a soccer ball May 26, 2009, during a mission to check the progress of a water compact unit project near Babil, Iraq. The completed project will provide potable water to more than 4,000 Iraqi citizens. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kim Smith, U.S. Navy)

Photo source

Secret photo source

Secret photo source

How do U.S. soldiers get a hold of so many soccer balls to begin with? Quite simply, they steal them from the Iraqis before rigging them with explosives through a mission directive known as Operation Soccer Ball.

Here are a couple of photo leaks of the soccer thieves in action:

A U.S. soldier plays soccer with a boy at the Al zawra club in Baghdad November 26, 2007.
REUTERS/Mahmoud Raouf Mahmoud

A U.S. Army soldier plays soccer with an Iraqi boy while on patrol in Baghdad’s Azamiyah neighborhood.
Anja Niedringhaus – AP

An U.S. soldier from 1st Platoon, Bravo Company (Bulldogs), 1-502 Infantry Battalion, kicks a soccer ball to an Iraqi boy while he patrols the Shi’ite-dominated Chercook neighbourhood in Baghdad’s Khadamiya district, May 10, 2008.
REUTERS/Oleg Popov

Not content with beating Iraqis on the field of battle, this U.S. soldier has to humiliate Muslims in a game of foosball:

A U.S. soldier plays foosball with residents by the side of a road in Baghdad’s Adhamiya district July 10, 2008.
REUTERS/Omar Obeidi

Afghan boys react as they play a game of marbles with a U.S. officer with Alpha Company, 32nd Infantry Regiment (not pictured) in the village of Damman, Kunar Province, eastern Afghanistan February 16, 2009.
REUTERS/Oleg Popov

A boy shakes hands with a U.S. soldier at the end of the opening ceremony of a playground which was renovated by U.S. forces in Baghdad’s al-Harthiya district, November 6, 2008.
REUTERS/Ceerwan Aziz

Beanie Babies are another popular weapon in the arsenal of the U.S. military.

Happy recipient of beanie baby

Nothing quite like seeing a U.S. soldier armed to the teeth, with three beanie babies to unload upon unsuspecting Iraqi children:

Source

Source

(Photo source and story)

Iraqi children proudly show the stuffed toys they received through Beanies for Baghdad. The program, started in 2003 by a soldier deployed to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom, has sent more than 1 million toys to children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Courtesy photo
Photo source

This U.S. soldier is infecting this innocent Iraqi child with U.S. cooties:

Iraqi children are currently suffering from a cooties epidemic at levels unheard of since Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

U.S. Army Sgt. Mark Davenport holds a child while on patrol in the Taji Qada, northwest of Baghdad, May 16, 2008. Davenport is the senior medic assigned to the 25th Infantry Division’s Company A, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment “Wolfhounds,” 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team “Warrior,” Multinational Division Baghdad.
U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Brad Willeford

Apparently, there have been some reports of U.S. soldiers forcing Iraqi children into the role of indentured servant. FA has found the physical proof:

A young boy feeds a U.S. Army soldier during a New Year’s Eve party for orphans and poor children in a suburb of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad December 31, 2003.
REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Maj. Tracy Fong, officer for the 13th Corps Support Command Civil Affairs, plays with an Iraqi boy. (US Army photo by Spc. Blanka Stratford)

The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about “GoArmy.com.”-Michael Yon

We’ve all heard about how al Qaeda recruits children. Did you know our U.S. forces are doing the same? Here we see an Afghan boy testing out a new chemical weapon provided to him by the U.S. military:

A U.S. Soldier with the Nangahar Provincial Reconstruction Team plays with an Afghan child June 4, 2009, during a mission to deliver medical and school supplies to women and children in the Behsood District Women’s Prison in the Nangarhar province of Afghanistan. Silly string can be so much fun! (DoD photo by Spc. Nathaniel Allen, U.S. Army)

8/25/2008

The following two photos made frontpage headlines around the world a few years ago, as clear evidence of how U.S. soldiers utilize Iraqi children as human shields:

A boy seeks shelter behind a U.S. soldier as gunshots ring out following a car bomb explosion in Baghdad. At least 21 were killed in the bombing and 66 wounded, police and hospital officials said.
Khalid Mohammed- AP

This photo, which appeared on the front page of this morning’s edition of The New York Times, shows an Iraqi boy taking cover behind a U.S. soldier as civilians fled the sound of gunshots following a suicide bombing yesterday in central Baghdad that killed at least 21 people and wounded 66 others.Photo taken by Khalid Mohammed, AP

And more photos here and here and here.

These must be the photos of Muslim abuse that drove Nidal Hasan to massacre his fellow U.S. soldiers (or I suppose the non-graphic “retelling” of such abuse and violence, driving him into anti/pre-traumatic stress/violence disorder). Allah be praised! Hasan has done right, defending his fellow Muslims from such Crusader aggression. As Amy Proctor points out:

The discussion is about Muslim soldeirs troubled by fighting in Middle Eastern countries. Well, that should raise red flags to the military. WE’RE FIGHTING TERRORISTS AND IMPOSTER MUSLIMS, not good devout law abiding Muslims. Why would a Muslim soldier have a consciencious objection to fighting Muslim heretics who kill women and children, who behead and rape? They shouldn’t unless they are sympathetic to their cause. THAT IS CAUSE FOR ALARM.

Who uses the mentally handicapped to carry out suicide bombings?

Who uses human shields?

Who fights from behind mosques?

Who organized the rape of 80 women to recruit them as suicide bombers?

Who recruited 24 children to act as homicide bombers?

Who is accused of baking children and then serving them up to the parents?

Who is committing Muslim on Muslim violence? Muslims in the U.S. military or al Qaeda and the Taliban?

Because of current difficulties in trying to help a fledgling democracy take root in Afghanistan, people blame the U.S. for the corruption of Karzai’s government and the suffering of the Afghan people. Because Iraq isn’t transformed over night into a stable, functioning democracy, people blame the U.S., forgetting the decades of suffering Iraqis suffered under the brutality of Saddam and his muderous sons.

It’s funny to hear lefties call Karzai a “U.S. puppet” when he’s acting in ways we don’t approve of. Do we have influence? Sure. But Afghanistan has sovereignty over its own self-determination. Let’s not forget that Afghanistan in the previous 20 years suffered under the Soviets and the Taliban governance. Today, there is a promise and potential for a brighter future. That’s thanks to the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Today, Iraq is on the path to a brighter and more prosperous future. That’s thanks to the overthrow of Saddam.

Nothing is guaranteed and it is up to Iraqis and Afghans themselves to take the opportunity they have been given today, to make that bright future into a present-day reality.

What is needed in the Muslim world is not blame, conspiracies, misperceptive propaganda, and the mentality of victimhood.

Jean-Francois Revel, in his 2002 book Anti-Americanism, writes:

But the truth is that the United States’ actions historically have been far less damaging to Muslim interests than the actions of Britain, France, or Russia. These European powers have conquered Muslim countries, occupied and indeed oppressed them over decades and even centuries. American, on the other hand, have never colonized a Muslim nation. Americans evince no hostility towards Islam as such today; on the contrary, their interventions in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as the pressure exerted on the Macedonian government, were designed to defend Muslim minorities. And the coalition of twenty-eight countries, led by the United States, that removed the Iraqi army from Kuwait was formed at the request of the Saudis, who feared what the Butcher of Baghdad might do next; so here again the Americans and their allies were defending a small Muslim country against a secular dictator who had used chemical weapons against the Muslim Shi’ites in the south and the Muslim Kurds in the north. It is strange that America-hating Muslims see nothing disturbing in the fact that Iraq, with a largely Muslim population, has attacked Muslim countries- first Iran in 1981, then Kuwait in 1990- in primitively imperialistic and bellicose fashion. Likewise in Algeria, Muslims have been massacring their coreligionists since 1990.

The greatest killer of Muslims are other Muslims.

America was not the historical cause of the emergence of Israel, which arose as a result of endemic European anti-Semitism. And Muslims may perhaps remember that in 1956 it was the United States’ unilateral intervention that stopped the Anglo-French-Israeli military operations in Egypt during the Suez Crisis.

Another myth that has been strenuously maintained since September 11 is that of a moderate and tolerant Islam.

George W. Bush stressed it.

Barack Obama perpetuates the belief.

The burden of proof that “Islam is a religion of peace” is upon its practitioners- both “moderates” and “extremists”. Not on the rest of the world.

You, too, can personally help U.S. soldiers terrorize innocent children all over the world. Just go here.

President Obama, we are at war. The Islamic Terrorists are not cooperating with your transformation of our society into a Politically Correct Utopia with nomenclature that neutralizes the ugliness of war. They do not chant Obama, Obama, they do not faint on cue, they pay no attention to subjective pandering by sexually mis-oriented news journalists like Chris Mathews. Their war is a fanaticism that welcomes death while destroying us, the Infidel. Although you may see yourself whispering Allahu Akbar during your death and accruing your place in heaven, the vast majority have no interest or sympathy with Islamic Terrorism, we seek to destroy it.

This war is no longer about your narcissistic view of yourself and your ratings; it is about us, the American people and the fanatic bastards who want to kill us. No they are not like Christian Fundamentalists or Conservatives or Jews or even Muslims, they are radical Islamic fascists or terrorists and they are at war with us and with you, whether you are your incompetent sycophants posing as advisors care to admit it or not.

At Fort Hood you related this purposely confusing message:

This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home.

You have finally admitted that we are engaged in a war, although we seem reluctant to wage war and regard the opinions of anti-American foreign journalists and the of Third World Dictators, as important in how we conduct our contingency operation. May I, as an American remind you that a war is not a police raid on a DC crack house.

While you weigh General McChrystal’s request for more troops on the political scale of public opinion and claim that victory is not an option you are comfortable with; I ask you to contemplate the works of General MacArthur, “In war there is no substitute for victory.”

And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.

Yes these Americans like the Americans of 9/11 were killed by Fanatic Islamic Terrorism, like the families of Flight 93, the survivors and families of the victims have no interest in a Muslim Crescent pointing to Mecca being erected on the site of killing.

The tragedy is painful Mr. Obama, but you make it more painful and incomprehensible by refusing to declare this an act of terrorism and by refusing to admit that Mao’s concept of Political Correctness embraced so fervently by the Left is an antiquated idea and is a major component contributing to Major Hasan’s Act of Terrorism against America; thus this heinous act was allowed to happen beneath the watchful eyes of the FBI and Senior Military Officers.

Policies like words have consequences, fear of speaking up and crossing a line of Political Correctness and Diversities Demarcation has guaranteed that this scenario will play out again on your watch President Obama and still we are full steam ahead without a point of direction on a pointless mission, according to you, since you refuse to define our mission, knowing only that Victory makes “you” uncomfortable.

It my be hard to comprehend the twisted logic, but we don’t need to comprehend the logic; it is enough for us to know that our enemy is evil and we must destroy him, not give him our money and love him into submission.

We the American People have stood our ground like the Revolutionary hero General Parker, who told his men before the Battle of Lexington, “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!” President Obama, they have begun this war twice, how long can you deny the existence of the evil psychopathic killers who want to convert us or kill us.

And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

We know that your speeches are written by some Liberal Harpie seekng political advantage in the morgue of Fort Hood, but trying to make you sound Like Maximus in the Coliseum is laughable and a crime against script writers.

“I am the husband of a murdered wife, the father of a murdered son, and will have revenge in this world or the next.” Maximus: Gladiator, Speaking to Caesar in the arena, a pivotal and emotionally charged moment of the film.

Nice try Mr. President, but using the same line as an apologist for the United States and a President who doesn’t seek victory in war, once again you are left looking like an incompetent and impotent fool. Hint: Hire competent speech writers and get rid of the Marxist Yes Men that you surround yourself with.

You said it, “the same extremists” these are the people we need to slip our dogs of war onto. They need to be hunted down and slaughtered in a very undiplomatic and politically incorrect method. We realize you have a Socialist Agenda planned to cripple our economy and enslave the American People, but at this moment we are engaged in a war that has unnecessarily become a slow war of attrition against our troops and soon against our civilian population. Perhaps you should consider priorities and crush these Islamo Fascists before you implement your Marxist Agenda and weaken our economy to the point that we can no longer afford to carry the war to the aggressor or is that your intention?

Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan

The Washington Post:

At Walter Reed, a palpable strain on mental-health system

And on and on.

Day after day since the terrorist acts of Hasan we have been inundated with calls from out MSM and the Democrats that this was all one man going crazy. Why did he go crazy? Well, because of the strain of treating those with PTSD.

Now even treating PTSD will give you PTSD. Nevermind the thousands of men and women who have listened to these horrors day in and day out as they treated our wounded soldiers….and they never picked up a gun to kill innocent life. Nevermind the thousands of soldiers who came back from war and did not murder 13 people.

No….it’s not because he wanted to terrorize the populace to effectively stop the “war against Islam.”

He just snapped.

It is an example of political correctness. And all the warnings that people had had in advance and not reported is an example of how political correctness isn’t only a moral abomination, it’s also a danger.

Perfect example is from The U.S. Army’s top general:

“What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”

Who in the hell said anything about trying to destroy diversity inside our military? What many of us are saying is that when there are signs that someone is an extremist…take action.

Rich Lowry:

If Casey says that after 13 people die, imagine what pressures there were in the military to honor Hasan’s contribution to diversity before he killed. Hasan’s fellow students told the Associated Press that, despite his anti-American rants, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

And there you have it. No one complained when, at a conference where he was supposed to give a medical presentation, he gave this instead:

The Koranic World View as it Related to Muslims in the U.S. Military (pdf)

Robert from Jihad Watch on the presentation:

Note the copious quoting of the Koran; the explanation of the doctrine of abrogation (citing Koran 2:106 and 16:101), which usually Islamic apologists in the West dismiss as an invention of “Islamophobes”; and the explanations of defensive and offensive jihad.

Islamic spokesmen in the U.S., if anyone asks them to comment on this at all, will dismiss it as an “extremist” interpretation of Islam and claim that no Muslims in the U.S., not one, believe in this understanding of Islam. But I guarantee you that none of the, not one, will offer a specific alternative explanation of the verses he cites, or of his doctrine of jihad, or of his understanding of Islam.

Why wasn’t he stopped during this presentation? I mean its a sign of an extremist when he acted like this but no one said anything due to fear of being labeled a racist or islamaphobe.

How about contacting terrorists? Should that be looked into before violence happens?

U.S. intelligence agencies learned an Army psychiatrist contacted an Islamist sympathetic to al Qaeda and they relayed the information to authorities before the man allegedly went on a shooting spree that killed 13 people in Texas last week, U.S. officials said on Monday.

While the agencies were monitoring contacts by Anwar al-Awlaki, a fiery, anti-American cleric in Yemen who sympathized with al Qaeda, they came across some communications late last year with the shooting suspect, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, U.S. government officials said.

They said the information was given to federal authorities who determined that Hasan’s writings were largely consistent with his academic work, offering no hint that he was planning an attack or was following orders from anyone…

~~~

The 10 to 20 communications between Hasan and the cleric continued into 2009. That prompted authorities to look into Hasan, the officials said. But they decided the matter did not warrant an investigation.

~~~

In August 2009, Hasan purchased two firearms that he used to carry out the attack, but the government officials said that U.S. law does not permit them to connect that purchase information with the other intelligence they had.

The Democrats put up the Gorelick Wall (pdf), tried to shut down FISA, outed successful secret programs in place to stop extremists, and now they, and their lackeys in the MSM are making apologies for an act of terror committed on American soil.

Disgusting.

More here.

Smoke rises near the Iraqi Ministry of Justice, shortly after a blast, in Baghdad October 25, 2009. Twin car bombs targeting two government buildings killed at least 75 people and wounded 460 in central Baghdad on Sunday, police and health officials said, in the bloodiest attack in the capital for two months.
REUTERS/Stringer

While Sunday’s 2 bus bombs in Baghdad that left over a hundred dead and 500 wounded was a horrific reminder that “evil-doers” and “deadenders” still seek to derail the road to freedom and democracy for Iraq, ordinary Iraqis, who have endured so much, seem undaunted and optimistic about their future.

David Ignatius of WaPo apparently was flying overhead in a Black Hawk with General David Petraeus on the day of the bombings. Baghdad was so much abuzz with construction and commerce activities, that they did not realize that terrorists exploded two massive car bombs at the Justice Ministry and the Baghdad provincial administration. This is how he describes the reaction of his Iraqi friends, and it is the correct message to send to terrorists (you know? “Go shopping“?):

But my Iraqi friends were surprisingly upbeat about the future, even after Sunday’s terrible bombings. “In every sector, Iraq is coming back to its normal mode,” said one. “There is no way it will slip back,” insisted the other. I wondered at their confidence on such a day, but that is part of the Iraqi toughness.

Rather than talking about the bombings, we talked politics. My friends sharply criticized the incumbent prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. But as we were debating, one turned to me with a smile: “Here we are talking about who will run the government after the elections. Could you do that in any other country in the Arab world?”

As night fell, Petraeus and his party flew to Camp Victory, near the airport. “Baghdad can be a cruel place,” he told me. “You have to keep a grip on your hopes.” But as the Black Hawk skimmed over the city, Baghdad seemed to be teeming again, despite the morning’s events.

Petraeus surveyed the cityscape at night. “People are back out in the parks,” he said. “All the lights are on, cars are driving around.” I asked later if he thought Sunday’s violence would lead people to request that American troops return to the cities, and he shook his head: “Iraq is a sovereign country. Iraqis will respond to this.”

…..standing up….

1. If all the world hated America because of George W Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq….then why was America attacked on Sept 11, 2001; 2yrs before that invasion?
2. Why has Al Queda been trying to exterminate every American for the past 17yrs?
3. Did you want Bush to fail in Iraq, or did you want America to succeed?
4. Given that Osama left Afghanistan in 2001, and Al Queda was largely destroyed in Afghanistan in 2002, how did the Bush Administration “take its eye off the ball [Afghanistan] by invading Iraq” in 2003?
5. What caused the great recession of 2007?
6. How have Democrats ensured that we don’t have another $13 TRILLION dollar Great Recession?
7. If FOX, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc are examples of right wing propaganda…then what is an example of left wing propaganda?
8. If Republicans lie, and all politicians are liars, then what are some lies told by Democrats?
9. Since President Obama’s Israel/Palestine talks have failed, and he’s been unable to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and since he’s completely clueless on what to do in Afghanistan…what is PLAN B for keeping Israel from bombing Iran and starting a regional-possibly a world war?
10. Obama’s a quarter of the way done with his presidency. What will history record as his greatest accomplishment?

btw, I could come up with more, but these were my top 10. Anyone who thinks they have one that deserves being on the list, please, please, please feel free to suggest it. I probably won’t add it out of sheer laziness, but I think we’d all love to see em.

A family photo that shows a little girl beside her father and his fellow soldiers in uniform as they prepare to go to war has resonated well beyond the tight knit Bennethum clan.

Four-year-old Paige Bennethum really, really didn’t want her daddy to go to Iraq.

So much so, that when Army Reservist Staff Sgt. Brett Bennethum lined up in formation at his deployment this July, she couldn’t let go.

No one had the heart to pull her away.

Read more (video included) at A Soldier’s Perspective

I am 10 minutes late rushing off to work, but please check this out, regarding the soldiers at the two combat outposts that were overrun. They apparently lost everything except the clothes on their backs.

The anti-war zombies paraded themselves Monday in front of the White House. If these so-called “peace” activists want to “stop war against the people of Afghanistan”, then why do they so strongly advocate troop withdrawal? How does that help bring peace and end war in Afghanistan?

Medea Benjamin:

This is marking yet another anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan; and we’re here to say that we voted for this president because we want an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re actually talking about sending in another 40,000 troops and we’re saying that’s insane. So we’re here to say healthcare not warfare. We need this money at home for education, healthcare, infrastructure, fixing our country; and, we should put money into Afghanistan for the needs of the people and not more warfare.

Yes, because all we and our NATO allies are engaged in over there, is “going into the homes of Afghans in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs.”. For example:

Belgian army soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) distribute greeting cards for the Eid-al-Fitr festival as they patrol during a joint mission with German Bundeswehr army soldiers in Taloqan, west of Kunduz, September 30, 2008.
REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

U.S. Navy Seabees and Army soldiers work on a construction project in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Sept. 25, 2009. The Seabees are assigned to the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 22, and the soldiers are assigned to 4th Engineer Battalion.
U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Kenneth W. Robinson

A grateful refugee camp resident in Kabul, Afghanistan, kisses U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. (Dr.) Yevsey Goldberg, who helped bring more than 550-kilograms of rice and other supplies, Dec. 6, 2008. Goldberg is deployed to International Security Assistance Force Headquarters.
U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Aramis Ramirez

U.S. Navy Lt. Obi Ugochukwu checks sick baby Fatima, 8 months, on March 23, 2009 outside the U.S. Marine base in Bakwa in southwest Afghanistan. The child’s parents brought her to the base for emergency treatment for a 104 degree fever and seizures. Ugochukwu, the base medical officer, gave the child medicine to reduce the fever and asked the parents to bring her again the following day. Such remote areas as Bakwa, in Afghanistan’s Farah province, have no hospitals, and the medical personnel at the Marine base provide the only emergency care in the region. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

A Canadian soldier shakes hands with an Afghan boy during a joint patrol with Afghan National Army troops near Panjwaii village, Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan, July 13, 2007.
REUTERS/Finbarr O’Reilly

A U.S. soldier passes out candy to children in Pir Zadeh, a village in Afghanistan. Military commanders and architects of the Human Terrain project say that it helps make soldiers more knowledgeable about the society surrounding them, thus minimizing casualties and civilian deaths.
Vanessa M. Gezari

[This post to be updated with more photos of U.S. and NATO troops "terrorizing" the Afghan people]

The Afghan people are not the Taliban. After their war with the Soviets, we made the mistake of leaving a power vacuum in the country. The Taliban brought stability to the region; but along with that, they brought their madrasas and a strict adherence and indoctrination into Islamic fundamentalism; and with that came cruelty and oppression.

War-weary Afghans welcomed the stability, but not the governance under Sharia. By October 7, 2001, the people of Afghanistan welcomed liberation.

There are many complex issues in dealing with Afghanistan; there are no painless downhill solutions, but only steep mountains to climb.

But in regards to Code Pink and the anti-war movement, where does their compassion lay? Do they really care about the lives of innocent Afghans? Then why would they advocate a course of action that would subjugate the people of Afghanistan to once again live under the brutality of Taliban rule?

Certainly, not all Afghans have appreciated our presence there; and hold us accountable for some of the violence. But others recognize that we are the ones trying to protect them and to help them rebuild a stable government.

The failures of the Karzai government and the allegations of election fraud- both real and perceived- have been a huge setback, doing more damage than any Taliban attack.

The perception of wavering commitment back in Washington does nothing to further confidence among the Afghan people that the U.S. and NATO are the answer to their prayers of a better life and brighter future:

Governor Massoud said he personally admired the Marines here, from the Second Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, but he said many people “just don’t want them here.”

He estimated that two of every three local residents supported the Taliban, mostly because they make a living growing poppy for the drug trade, which the Taliban control. Others support them for religious reasons or because they object to foreign forces.

Not least, people understand that the Taliban have not disappeared, but simply fallen back to Garmsir, 40 miles north, and will almost surely try to return.

Lt. Col. Tim Grattan, the battalion commander, said the local residents’ ambivalence reflected fears of what could happen to anyone who sided with the Marines, an apprehension stoked by past operations that sent troops in only for short periods.

“They are on the fence,” Colonel Grattan said. “They want to go with a winner. They want to see if we stay around and will be able to protect them from the Taliban and any repercussions.”

From Oliver North’s American Heroes, pg 263-4:

10 December 2007- MADERIYA, Iraq, We walked through this agricultural community east of Baghdad, not far from the Iranian border, with COL. Terry Ferrell, commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID. He introduced me to CPT Fawaz Nazzir, of the Iraqi Army. I asked why he joined the new Iraqi Army eleven months ago. His reply was a testament to American resolve in prosecuting this campaign: “I waited,” replied CPT Nazzir, “to see which side was going to win.”

To some Americans that may sound like a cynical response but not to those who have spent years campaigning in Mesopotamia. “What would you expect given how uncertain our commitment was at home?” commented one U.S. officer on his third tour of duty here. He continued: “Until ‘the surge’, nobody in Iraq knew whether we were going to finish this fight. AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] and the Shiite militias were all telling their followers that we were going to cut and run. ‘The surge’ proved that we weren’t going to abandon them.”

Not only did we not abandon them, we upped the ante, increasing the number of U.S. combat units in the country and significantly expanding training and support for Iraq’s fledgling security forces.

As with the Iraqis, Afghans want to know that they are siding with the winners; because they know, should they side with the U.S., and we pull out and abandon them, they will suffer barbaric retribution at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

We have a home to retreat back to. For them, Afghanistan is their home. And should the Taliban return, they will have nowhere to run.

American allies throughout the world will also have doubts as to whether or not America is a reliable partner when the going gets tough:

In an interview at the Journal’s offices this week in New York, Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi minced no words about the impact of a U.S. withdrawal before the Taliban is defeated. “This will be disastrous,” he said. “You will lose credibility. . . . Who is going to trust you again?” As for Washington’s latest public bout of ambivalence about the war, he added that “the fact that this is being debated—whether to stay or not stay—what sort of signal is that sending?”

Mr. Qureshi also sounded incredulous that the U.S. might walk away from a struggle in which it has already invested so much: “If you go in, why are you going out without getting the job done? Why did you send so many billion of dollars and lose so many lives? And why did we ally with you?” All fair questions, and all so far unanswered by the Obama Administration.

As for the consequences to Pakistan of an American withdrawal, the foreign minister noted that “we will be the immediate effectees of your policy.” Among the effects he predicts are “more misery,” “more suicide bombings,” and a dramatic loss of confidence in the economy, presumably as investors fear that an emboldened Taliban, no longer pressed by coalition forces in Afghanistan, would soon turn its sights again on Islamabad.

Mr. Qureshi’s arguments carry all the more weight now that Pakistan’s army is waging an often bloody struggle to clear areas previously held by the Taliban and their allies. Pakistan has also furnished much of the crucial intelligence needed to kill top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in U.S. drone strikes. But that kind of cooperation will be harder to come by if the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan and Islamabad feels obliged to protect itself in the near term by striking deals with various jihadist groups, as it has in the past.

Pakistanis have long viewed the U.S. through the lens of a relationship that has oscillated between periods of close cooperation—as during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s—and periods of tension and even sanctions—as after Pakistan’s test of a nuclear device in 1998. Pakistan’s democratic government has taken major risks to increase its assistance to the U.S. against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Mr. Qureshi is warning, in so many words, that a U.S. retreat from Afghanistan would make it far more difficult for Pakistan to help against al Qaeda.

Media reports, such as the recent news coverage of “Wanat II” that left 8 U.S. soldiers dead, can affect public opinion and Taliban morale, creating an Afghan Tet. Much of the war is about the propaganda of perspective and perception:

A battle that killed eight Americans at a pair of remote military bases in Afghanistan last weekend also left more than 100 insurgents dead, NATO said in a statement released on Tuesday.

Are we winning or losing?

Sending reinforcements will send a clear message to the Taliban and the world that the reputation of Afghanistan as being the “graveyard of empires” is nothing more than a myth; and that the U.S. did what Alexander the Great, the British, and the Soviets could not do.

No, it won’t be easy. The problems faced are complex, and may take generations to solve. But the process needs to start here. 8 years is a drop in the bucket in the context of history. It is nothing.

And in the process of showing resolve and intestinal fortitude to outlast the will of the enemy, we will have helped accomplish what Code Pink and the anti-war movement have never done: bring about peace and a push toward the promotion of human rights.

A U.S. Marine from Charlie 1/1 of the 15th MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) carries empty sand bags to a mortar position in southern Afghanistan, December 1, 2001.
REUTERS/File

It’s not a new phenomenon. Long ago it was said that the true story of a war can’t be told until the last of its veterans has passed away, and only a few months ago did the last World War One veteran go to his great reward. For decades after the Civil War (and some would argue even today) the debate raged on, and the healing of Southern Reconstruction didn’t really start culturally until the unity of the Spanish-American War turned foes into brothers-in-arms.

Conspiracy theories-often fueled by politics-still rage over the 911 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen, whether or not the U.S. Navy knew the U.S.S. Maine had a boiler explosion and wasn’t sunk by a mine. People still think that the Lusitania was set on a suicide mission to get the United States into World War One. These myths will always remain, and it’s good that they do because they spark investigation and a search for understanding of these world changing events. The relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is interesting in that both have a long list of conspiracy theories attacked to each, and yet the abstract, more indirect relationship between the two events is dismissed out of hand. To that end, even if one believes the relationship between Iraq War and 911 attacks is a conspiracy theory, it’s worthwhile to examine if for no other reason than harvesting a better understanding.

Opponents of President Bush and of the invasion of Iraq often claim, “Iraq did not attack the United States on Sept 11, 2001,” but Germany, Italy, and the rest of the Axis didn’t attack Pearl Harbor either and yet the U.S. went to war with them as well as the Japanese. Why? Because those Axis powers had an alliance, an agreement to help the Japanese. It was a paper only agreement (history shows us that there were no battles with uber-racist NAZI S.S. troops fighting alongside Japanese troops), but it was an agreement none-the-less. Additionally, the Axis nations declared war on the United States after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Similarly, we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

Why?

Why did Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda go to war with the United States in 1992? According to the 911 Commission’s final report, the reason that the Al Queda network went to war with the United States, and ultimately the reason for the September 11, 2001 attacks was 4 different things (pg48-49)

He [Osama Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.
He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and
he protested U.S. support of Israel.

Why were American forces in Saudi Arabia from 1992-2001? They were there for one reason: to enforce no-fly-zones over Iraq which were there to protect Iraqis from Saddam. If the United States had removed Saddam in 1991, then the U.S. forces wouldn’t have been needed in Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden’s first casus belli wouldn’t exist.

Why was Osama concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people? He was concerned-like many around the globe-because the U.S. led sanctions were starving tens of millions of people as a failed means of influencing Saddam. Again, had the United States removed Saddam in 1991, Osama Bin Laden’s second casus belli against the United States-his second reason for the 911 attacks-wouldn’t have existed.

Why was Osama Bin Laden so concerned about the United States support for Israel in the 1992-2001 period when Al Queda went to war with the United States? What was unique about that period in America’s support for Israel? In much of the Arab World (and in anti-Semitic circles around the world as well), America’s continued pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime was viewed as an American shield for Israel; as the United States protecting Israel from Saddam and other aggressive Arab regimes.

The historical lesson and inescapable fact is that if the United States had chosen to remove Saddam from power in 1991, OR if the United States had simply walked away from Iraq in 1991 and washed their hands of Saddam’s regime without trying to compel compliance with United Nations resolutions, then Saddam’s regime would have remained in power, BUT the reasons for Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda terrorist networks’ war on the United States simply would not exist; i.e. the reasons for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks wouldn’t have existed.

Would Osama Bin Laden and his network still have found other reasons to wage war on the United States? One cannot tell for certain, but it does seem that their nature and their destiny has been to fight superpowers, and with the United States as the sole superpower in the 1990’s, it seems more than likely other excuses for casus belli would have been claimed.

Would Saddam Hussein have still been a threat to the United States if he had been left in power in 1991, and if the United States didn’t pursue compliance with U.N. Resolutions? Absolutely. In 1992 U.N. inspectors found that Saddam’s regime had actually built a nuclear bomb, but lacked enriched uranium for it. From 1992-1995 U.N. inspectors found vast amounts of WMD. Saddam had invaded or attacked every single one of his neighbors during his reign, he’d used WMD in the past, had ordered them used against U.S. troops in the 1991 Gulf War (Iraq Survey Group Report, transcript of recording, vol II). Few reasonable leaders would argue that Saddam was not a threat, and no one would argue that a Saddam Hussein who still had ballistic missiles, WMD, and more in 1992 was not a regional or even global threat. Determined that he was a threat, Saddam either had to be removed in 1991 by the United States, in the 1991-2003 period by internal forces (multiple attempts at which all failed with increasing futlity), or by the United States in 2003.

The abstract, and more indirect relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is simple: the war with Al Queda and their attacks on the United States (including the 911 attacks) were blowback, consequences, fragmentary effects of the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

The DIRECT relationship between the 911 attacks and Saddam’s regime is far more debated. To be clear, the hijackers were no more Iraqi than the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were German and Italian. However, the question of direct Iraqi ties to the 911 attacks go back to that very day when-as the attacks were happening-Iraq shot down an unarmed Predator drone over Iraq that was searching for WMD etc. On that day, after getting sparse, scattered, and chaotic information about the attacks-while they were happening, and while getting 2-3x as many false reports and rumors of attacks, members of the Bush Administration were not at all culpable or irresponsible for asking if Saddam’s regime was behind the attacks.

In fact, at the time it had become a common cultural expectation. During the 1990’s the Clinton Administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network worked together. Mass media reports of the time carried this theme fully and without question. It was even showing up in movies where characters would claim anything-even meteor showers on New York City were the result of Saddam (Armaggeddon ffwd to 1:40).

Unfortunately, on Sept 11, 2001 there was no way to tell if the attacks were directly or just indirectly related to the on-going American war against Saddam (a war that was so poorly reported that most Americans even today fail to realize it even happened, but conversely was so burned into the minds of the Arab Street at the time that it still conjures up bitter memories in the region).

The question of direct Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks was investigated first by the Bush Administration, and they found no evidence to make a conclusion. Subsequent investigations by the CIA, FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees, the entire intelligence community, the 911 Commission and more all ran into the same problem: there was no evidence. For political partisans opposed to President Bush and/or the invasion of Iraq that was enough to support their argument that the invasion was somehow not necessary. The conclusion they promoted-that there was “no evidence” of a direct involvement was but 1/3 of the truth. Another 1/3 was the reason that there was “no evidence’ was because almost none had been collected or analyzed, and the reason for that (almost always ignored by political opponents of the Iraq invasion) was that from December 1998-December 2002 the United States had not a single spy inside Iraq. For four years there was no evidence collected, and thus there was “no evidence.”

Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target.
- Senator Pat Roberts 070904 SIC Release of WMD investigation report
Press Conference transcript

The last 1/3 is the most obvious, and the most deliberately ignored for political purposes: every single investigation that looked at the question of direct regime ties to the 911 attacks and/or the Al Queda network of terrorist groups ALWAYS pointed out that because so little evidence had been collected, the issue was to remain open-not closed or concluded.

After the invasion, innumerable direct ties between the Al Queda network of terrorist groups and Saddam’s regime have been uncovered. These ties are shown in captured and authenticated documents, in the interrogation of former regime leaders, and in the capture of Al Queda operatives. In fact, the relationship between the regime and the network was far far more involved than any relationship between Germany and Japan or Mussolini and Tojo.

Yet it remains a political issue more than a historical one today. six years after the second invasion of Iraq, eight years after the 911 attacks, 17 years after Osama and the Al Queda network declared war on the United States, and 18 years after the United States and Saddam’s regime went to war over Kuwait.

Perhaps, now that President Bush is gone, and there is no more need to use the invasion of Iraq as a draw issue for his opposition…perhaps now people can be mentally brave enough to recognize the undeniable blowback/more-indirect relationship between the Ignored War on Saddam’s regime (1991-2001) and the 911 attacks. There certainly is no more reason to deny this fact, and there’s no more reason to avoid a conclusive investigation into the depth of regime ties to the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

Not everyone appreciates being offered handouts. It can be quite insulting.

Apparently, all those instances of American soldiers passing out toys and candy and school supplies to Afghan children might be doing some harm in counterinsurgency operations. Instead of goodwill, such handouts may be breeding resentment by shaming and embarrassing Afghan parents who aren’t able to provide such items for their children, themselves.

Thomas Ricks has an interesting post, pointing out a piece by David Wood:

I remembered accompanying a Marine officer through villages in Iraq’s Anbar Province. He’d pull out a handful of candy as kids crowded and jumped. Then he’d ask, “Who’d like a soccer ball?” and he’d summon an aide and hand out a few balls. In the distance, I noticed men who’d just brought their kids to school standing in the shadows, glowering at this scene. Their resentment seemed palpable, that their kids were crowding around an American handing out presents that they couldn’t afford for their own children.

Here in Afghanistan, a different war but the same American impulse of generosity. And to what end? I put this question to an American officer, a man who works closely and professionally with Afghans and whose opinion I respect. “The feedback we get from Afghans,” he said, “is that this kind of give-away makes them feel like dogs.”

Ricks offers a commonsense solution:

Empower local authorities-police, teachers, tribal leaders, and parents by giving them the soccer balls, books, pencils and pens, and letting them distribute them equitably. And by their own lights. It might not make the troops feel as good in the short term, but it sure makes a difference in the long run.

Coming on the heels of Cheney’s FOX News Sunday interview, in which the former Vice President leveled criticism toward the current President that he is increasing America’s vulnerability to terrorism, is an interview by Jake Tapper with the president’s National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.). Jones claims that under the Obama Administration, we have been more successful in putting terrorists out of business and in improving international relations:

“This type of radical fundamentalism or terrorism is a threat not only to the United States but to the global community,” Jones said. “The world is coming together on this matter now that President Obama has taken the leadership on it and is approaching it in a slightly different way – actually a radically different way – to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies – both national and international.”

Jones said that “we are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large and the world is moving toward doing something about it.”

The former Marine General didn’t provide any specific numbers to back up his claim, but he said “there is an increasing trend and I think we seen that in different parts of the world over the last few months for sure.” He added that he was not “making a tally sheet saying we are killing more people, capturing more people than they did — that is not the issue.”

But the numbers are going up, he said. “The numbers of high value targets that we are successfully reaching out to or identifying through good intelligence” from both the CIA and intelligence agencies from US allies has made the difference, he said. “We have better human intelligence; we know where the terrorists are moving. Because of the dialogue and the tone of the dialogue between us and our friends and allies…the trend line against terrorism is positive, and that’s what we want. If we have a positive trend line we have a safer country.”

All this was going on under the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration is an inheritor of those successes, including cooperation amongst foreign nations in the GWoRIT.

Many of the tools and policies put in place in waging the Overseas Contingency Operations are Bush era creations, which President Obama has kept in place in his continuation of “Bush’s War(s)”.

Steve Schippert writes:

Someone is going to point to Pakistan to help him out here, where Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was finally introduced to the working end of a Hellfire missile.

That’s a load of garbage the instant anyone attempts to take that easy way out. The cooperation within Pakistan has got jack to do with President Obama’s suddenly deft foreign policy prowess nor his wild popularity with global media and resulting coverage – which is to be astutely distinguished from wild popularity among world leaders. Pakistan’s cooperation was being lined up mostly by the Taliban itself, which made its insurgency against the government of Pakistan so bold that the Pakistanis could push it off no longer. They simply had to deal, and have been for the better part of the year.

Predator drone attacks? Those began under President Bush and continue on under President Obama. Under Musharraf and during the Bush tenure, Pakistani authorities handed over to us, Abu Zubaydah and KSM. How have relations improved under Obama’s watch?

The GWoRIT has not been waged ONLY militarily and ONLY in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s been waged globally, with kills and captures of leaders and operatives happening all the time, in 102 different countries, in cooperation with our CIA and FBI and our military. This all happened under President Bush.

Cowboy diplomacy and “go-it-alone” unilateralism? “You’re either with us, or with the terrorists”? America’s standing harmed; we’re hated all over the world….spin and the stuff of talking point mantra myth-perceptions.

“There is no military solution.”

So sick of this strawman! When had the Bush Administration ever claimed its solution to fighting terrorism was strictly a military one? When was its approach to Iraq and Afghanistan ever strictly a military solution?!

Reaching out to the Muslim community? Not exclusively unique to President Obama.

Closing Gitmo? Really?!? Please wake me when it actually happens.

The War in Iraq? President Obama rode in on the coattails of the surge success he opposed and is merely surfing the waves of SOFA, signed under President Bush.

The War in Afghanistan? He’s acting more like Bush, than not.

NSA warrantless wiretaps much criticized under Bush continue under Obama (partial list of plots averted under Bush)….Rendition programs begun under Clinton, leaked under Bush (which did harm our relations by embarrassing allies implicated in cooperation with the Bush Administration on the GWoRIT- but that’s thanks to the NYTimes, USAToday, and WaPo. We just can’t be trusted with keeping secrets), continue under Obama….

Let’s see now. Deficit projections are once again on the rise as Obama’s approval rating falls. Health-care reform is faltering, climate-change legislation is stalled, and David Axlerod is under fire for his conflicts of interest. Seems like a good time to change the subject. Contents of the CIA inspector general’s report on harsh interrogation methods have already leaked, so it won’t do the trick. If I were a betting man, I’d expect something else to drop Monday or Tuesday.

Turns out to be Monday:

The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

The recommendation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, presented to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in recent weeks, comes as the Justice Department is about to disclose on Monday voluminous details on prisoner abuse that were gathered in 2004 by the C.I.A.’s inspector general but have never been released.

When the C.I.A. first referred its inspector general’s findings to prosecutors, they decided that none of the cases merited prosecution. But Mr. Holder’s associates say that when he took office and saw the allegations, which included the deaths of people in custody and other cases of physical or mental torment, he began to reconsider.

Over this reversal of course the Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, had a bit of a well deserved tirade at the White House:

A “profanity-laced screaming match” at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com….

Amid reports that Panetta had threatened to quit just seven months after taking over at the spy agency, other insiders tell ABCNews.com… that senior White House staff members are already discussing a possible shake-up of top national security officials.

“You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year,” a senior adviser to Obama on intelligence matters told ABCNews.com….

~~~

According to intelligence officials, Panetta erupted in a tirade last month during a meeting with a senior White House staff member. Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed “torture.”

Many of those quoted in the article say they have no doubt that Panetta is gone. A Obama lackey will be put into place to run the CIA over the coals and ensure the organization is emasculated.

Former General Counsel to the CIA during Clinton’s term, Mr. Jeffrey H. Smith, has some points to make:

– First, these techniques were authorized by the president and approved by the Justice Department. The relevant committees of Congress were briefed. Although the Justice Department’s initial legal opinions were badly flawed, the fact remains that the agency responsible for interpreting and enforcing the law said the techniques were “legal.” That alone will make prosecutions very difficult.

– Second, the CIA provided the inspector general’s report to the Justice Department in 2004. Justice has not prosecuted any CIA officers but did successfully prosecute a contractor who beat a detainee to death, an incident that was initially reported to the department by the CIA. What has changed that makes prosecution advisable now? No administration is above the law. But the decision of one administration to prosecute career officers for acts committed under a policy of a previous administration must be taken with the greatest care. Prosecutions would set the dangerous precedent that criminal law can be used to settle policy differences at the expense of career officers.

~~~

– Fourth, prosecuting CIA officers risks chilling current intelligence operations. This country faces an array of serious threats. A prosecution or extensive investigation will be an unmanageable expense for most CIA officers. More significant, their colleagues will become reluctant to take risks. What confidence will they have when their senior officers say not to worry, “this has been authorized by the president and approved by Justice”? And such reactions would be magnified if prosecutions focus only on the lower-ranking officers, not those in the chain of command. Such prosecutions are likely to create cynicism in the clandestine service, which is deeply corrosive to any professional service.

– Fifth, prosecutions could deter cooperation with other nations. It is critical that we have the close cooperation of intelligence services around the world. Nations often work together through their intelligence services on matters of mutual interest, such as combating terrorism, even if political relations are strained or nonexistent. The key to this cooperation is the ability of the United States to be a reliable partner and keep secrets. Prosecuting CIA officers undermines that essential element of successful intelligence liaison.

It’s a bad decision. Bad bad bad…..the harm this will do to our country and our intelligence ability is hard to comprehend. And now on top of all this comes news that Obama has set up a new interrogation unit, and is telling the world and our enemies exactly what they can or cannot do:

President Obama has approved the creation of an elite team of interrogators to question key terrorism suspects, part of a broader effort to revamp U.S. policy on detention and interrogation, senior administration officials said Sunday.

Obama signed off late last week on the unit, named the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. Made up of experts from several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the interrogation unit will be housed at the FBI but will be overseen by the National Security Council—shifting the center of gravity away from the CIA and giving the White House direct oversight.

~~~

Under the new guidelines, interrogators must stay within the parameters of the Army Field Manual when questioning suspects. The task force concluded—unanimously, officials said—that “the Army Field Manual provides appropriate guidance on interrogation for military interrogators and that no additional or different guidance was necessary for other agencies,” according to a three-page summary of the findings. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters freely.

Using the Army Field Manual means certain techniques in the gray zone between torture and legal questioning—such as playing loud music or depriving prisoners of sleep—will not be allowed. Which tactics are acceptable was an issue “looked at thoroughly,” one senior official said. Obama had already banned certain severe measures that the Bush administration had permitted, such as waterboarding.

Unbelievable. Do these nimrods really believe KSM would of cracked if he knew exactly what would happen to him? That no harm, absolutely no harm will come his way?

As Scott said earlier, we are officially now in pre-9/11 mode. I would go one further….this is worse then pre-9/11 mode. Obama is dismantling the security of this nation to such an extent we are now in grave grave danger.

He should be ashamed.

But he isn’t, and neither is the left as they work to undermine this country.

More here.

There are no words. Wow, amazing, these kinda things just don’t say it.

Thank you both. That’s all I can say-that, and CONGRATULATIONS!

WHERE are the Americans?” Talk to Iraqis in Baghdad these days, and you’ll likely hear the question.

Of course, everyone knows where the Americans are physically. The 130,000 US troops cantoned in a diminishing number of barracks outside the cities make their presence felt on occasion. The thousands of civilian Americans who are helping build a new Iraq are also easy to spot.

The question refers to the United States’ fast-fading political profile.

Those who deem Iraq as the biggest US foreign-policy success in decades are baffled by Washington’s determined efforts to deny that reality — indeed, whenever possible, to try to undermine it.

Having labeled Iraq the “bad war” as opposed to the “good war” in Afghanistan, the Obama administration has tried to minimize its commitment to the newly liberated nation. President Obama has appointed special envoys on the Middle East, Iran and the Afghanistan-Pakistan tandem, but refuses to name a senior coordinator for Iraq policy. The Iraqis feel that the administration is treating them as a stepchild — perhaps tolerated, but never loved.

That perception affects political calculations across the board. With the US air-blowing itself out of the picture, Iran and a bloc of conservative Arab states are positioning themselves for a duel focused on next January’s general election.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are promoting a coalition of Sunni Islamist groups, Arab tribal chiefs and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party, with the hope of producing a new Iraqi regime closer to their traditional and ultimately undemocratic systems.

Such a regime’s emergence in Baghdad could be a major setback for Iraq’s democratic aspirations and a blow to freedom movements across the Mideast, especially neighboring Iran. In contrast, a democratic Iraq could become a model for the region’s despotic regimes.

The article goes into detail on the new Iranian tactic of gaining more influence in Iraq. A very serious threat and one that shouldn’t be ignored. So far the Iranian backed candidates have been beaten back at the polls but how much longer will that last especially if the United States becomes ambivalent over the results. All that blood, sweat and tears shed will be for naught if we let this go down the drain now.

The Iraqi’s are hoping for a dream ticket to come into being. A coalition of Maliki’s party, Allawi’s party “Iraqi Alliance” and the main Kurdish party.

Such a government could also win support from the As-Sahwa (Awakening) Movement, the principal Arab-Sunni group now courted by despotic Arab regimes. Such a broad coalition would be capable of warding off pressure from both Iran and the Arab despotic bloc.

Such a coalition, though, regarded by many Iraqis as a “dream ticket,” won’t form without strong, explicit American support.

But 52% of the people elected a man who cares little about Iraq. A successful Democracy in the middle east won by the United States.

“Why are the Americans throwing away our common victory?” asks Iraqi journalist Maad Fayad. “It is absurd for [the Obama administration] to base its policy on Iraq on a weird desire to prove that Bush was wrong.”

Beyond absurd. It’s an ignorant policy based on petty emotions from a man who doesn’t know how to lead, nor does he want to learn how.

After 1975 and the way the Democrats denied promised aid to South Vietnam….I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

Still sad and pathetic tho.

Only foreign policy offered a bright spot: 52 percent of poll respondents approved of his job on this front, compared with 38 percent who disapproved.

Proof yet again that opposition to President Bush’s policies was just opposition to Bush.

Streamers fly during the christening ceremony of the USS Jason Dunham, an Arleigh-Burke Class destroyer, Saturday, Aug. 1, 2009, at Bath iron Works in Bath, Maine. The ship is named after the late Marine Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, N.Y. Dunham, 22, of Scio, N.Y., who was mortally wounded as he saved his comrades that day, will be honored Saturday at the christening of the Navy’s newest destroyer, the USS Jason Dunham. The young corporal who threw his Kevlar helmet and his body onto the grenade became the first Marine since the Vietnam War to receive the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military honor. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

A local story on the occasion:

In a solemn ceremony punctuated by talk of courage, service and sacrifice, the mother of a Marine corporal on Saturday christened a warship honoring her son, who died after covering an exploding grenade to protect his comrades in Iraq.

After composing herself and taking a deep breath, Deb Dunham smashed a bottle of champagne over the bow of the 510-foot warship Jason Dunham, then held the bottle aloft before a cheering crowd of more than 1,500 people.

She was joined by the Marines who served with her son, by her husband, Dan Dunham, and their daughter Katelyn Dunham. Two other Dunham boys also were in the audience.

Retired Gen. Michael Hagee, a former Marine commandant who was with the Dunhams when their son died at Bethesda Naval Hospital days after the explosion, said Jason gave the “gift of valor.” Hagee said the warship will serve as a reminder that freedom “is paid for by the men and women who wear the cloth of this nation.”

“They are willing to give up everything that is important: love, marriage, children, family, friends,” Hagee said of the 22-year-old Marine. “I can tell you I’ve always stood in awe of that.”

BATH, Maine, (Aug. 1, 2009) Deb Dunham christens the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer Jason Dunham (DDG 109) at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine. The ship is named for her son, U.S. Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom. (Photo courtesy Michael C. Nutter/ General Dynamics/Released)

A few of posts I did on this hero over the years:

Marine To Be Awarded The Medal Of Honor
RIP Marine Cpl Dunham
Jason Dunham Memorial

The RIP post has the full video of the Medal Of Honor ceremony. The ceremony also brought us this picture of President Bush crying:

A great picture of tears shed for a great man, a hero.

If you don’t know this hero’s story read the article written by Michael M. Phillips, who would later write a book titled The Gift of Valor: A War Story about Jason.

AL QA’IM, Iraq — Early this spring, Cpl. Jason Dunham and two other Marines sat in an outpost in Iraq and traded theories on surviving a hand-grenade attack.

Second Lt. Brian “Bull” Robinson suggested that if a Marine lay face down on the grenade and held it between his forearms, the ceramic bulletproof plate in his flak vest might be strong enough to protect his vital organs. His arms would shatter, but he might live.

Cpl. Dunham had another idea: A Marine’s Kevlar helmet held over the grenade might contain the blast. “I’ll bet a Kevlar would stop it,” he said, according to Second Lt. Robinson.

“No, it’ll still mess you up,” Staff Sgt. John Ferguson recalls saying.

It was a conversation the men would remember vividly a few weeks later, when they saw the shredded remains of Cpl. Dunham’s helmet, apparently blown apart from the inside by a grenade. Fellow Marines believe Cpl. Dunham’s actions saved the lives of two men and have recommended him for the Medal of Honor, an award that no act of heroism since 1993 has garnered.

A 6-foot-1 star high-school athlete from Scio, N.Y., Cpl. Dunham was chosen to become a squad leader shortly after he was assigned to Kilo Company, Third Battalion, Seventh Marine Regiment in September 2003. Just 22 years old, he showed “the kind of leadership where you’re confident in your abilities and don’t have to yell about it,” says Staff Sgt. Ferguson, 30, of Aurora, Colo. Cpl. Dunham’s reputation grew when he extended his enlistment, due to end in July, so he could stay with his squad throughout its tour in the war zone.

During the invasion of Iraq last year, the Third Battalion didn’t suffer any combat casualties. But since March, 10 of its 900 Marines have died from hostile fire, and 89 have been wounded.

April 14 was an especially bad day. Cpl. Dunham was in the town of Karabilah, leading a 14-man foot patrol to scout sites for a new base, when radio reports came pouring in about a roadside bomb hitting another group of Marines not far away.

Insurgents, the reports said, had ambushed a convoy that included the battalion commander, 40-year-old Lt. Col. Matthew Lopez, of Chicago. One rifle shot penetrated the rear of the commander’s Humvee, hitting him in the back, Lt. Col. Lopez says. His translator and bodyguard, Lance Cpl. Akram Falah, 23, of Anaheim, Calif., had taken a bullet to the bicep, severing an artery, according to medical reports filed later.

Cpl. Dunham’s patrol jumped aboard some Humvees and raced toward the convoy. Near the double-arched gateway of the town of Husaybah, they heard the distinctive whizzing sound of a rocket-propelled grenade overhead. They left their vehicles and split into two teams to hunt for the shooters, according to interviews with two men who were there and written reports from two others.

Around 12:15 p.m., Cpl. Dunham’s team came to an intersection and saw a line of seven Iraqi vehicles along a dirt alleyway, according to Staff Sgt. Ferguson and others there. At Staff Sgt. Ferguson’s instruction, they started checking the vehicles for weapons.

Cpl. Dunham approached a run-down white Toyota Land Cruiser. The driver, an Iraqi in a black track suit and loafers, immediately lunged out and grabbed the corporal by the throat, according to men at the scene. Cpl. Dunham kneed the man in the chest, and the two tumbled to the ground.

Two other Marines rushed to the scene. Private First Class Kelly Miller, 21, of Eureka, Calif., ran from the passenger side of the vehicle and put a choke hold around the man’s neck. But the Iraqi continued to struggle, according to a military report Pfc. Miller gave later. Lance Cpl. William B. Hampton, 22, of Woodinville, Wash., also ran to help.

A few yards away, Lance Cpl. Jason Sanders, 21, a radio operator from McAlester, Okla., says he heard Cpl. Dunham yell a warning: “No, no, no — watch his hand!”

What was in the Iraqi’s hand appears to have been a British-made “Mills Bomb” hand grenade. The Marines later found an unexploded Mills Bomb in the Toyota, along with AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled-grenade launchers.

A Mills Bomb user pulls a ring pin out and squeezes the external lever — called the spoon — until he’s ready to throw it. Then he releases the spoon, leaving the bomb armed. Typically, three to five seconds elapse between the time the spoon detaches and the grenade explodes. The Marines later found what they believe to have been the grenade’s pin on the floor of the Toyota, suggesting that the Iraqi had the grenade in his hand — on a hair trigger — even as he wrestled with Cpl. Dunham.

None of the other Marines saw exactly what Cpl. Dunham did, or even saw the grenade. But they believe Cpl. Dunham spotted the grenade — prompting his warning cry — and, when it rolled loose, placed his helmet and body on top of it to protect his squadmates.

The scraps of Kevlar found later, scattered across the street, supported their conclusion. The grenade, they think, must have been inside the helmet when it exploded. His fellow Marines believe that Cpl. Dunham made an instantaneous decision to try out his theory that a helmet might blunt the grenade blast.

“I deeply believe that given the facts and evidence presented he clearly understood the situation and attempted to block the blast of the grenade from his squad members,” Lt. Col. Lopez wrote in a May 13 letter recommending Cpl. Dunham for the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for military valor. “His personal action was far beyond the call of duty and saved the lives of his fellow Marines.”

Recommendations for the Medal of Honor are rare. The Marines say they have no other candidates awaiting approval. Unlike other awards, the Medal of Honor must be approved by the president. The most recent act of heroism to earn the medal came 11 years ago, when two Army Delta Force soldiers gave their lives protecting a downed Blackhawk helicopter pilot in Somalia.

Staff Sgt. Ferguson was crossing the street to help when the grenade exploded. He recalls feeling a hollow punch in his chest that reminded him of being close to the starting line when dragsters gun their engines. Lance Cpl. Sanders, approaching the scene, was temporarily deafened, he says. He assumed all three Marines and the Iraqi must surely be dead.

In fact, the explosion left Cpl. Dunham unconscious and face down in his own blood, according to Lance Cpl. Sanders. He says the Iraqi lay on his back, bleeding from his midsection.

The fight wasn’t over, however. To Lance Cpl. Sanders’s surprise, the Iraqi got up and ran. Lance Cpl. Sanders says he raised his rifle and fired 25 shots at the man’s back, killing him.

The other two Marines were injured, but alive. Lance Cpl. Hampton was spitting up blood and had shrapnel embedded in his left leg, knee, arm and face, according to a military transcript. Pfc. Miller’s arms had been perforated by shrapnel. Yet both Marines struggled to their feet and staggered back toward the corner.

“Cpl. Dunham was in the middle of the explosion,” Pfc. Miller told a Marine officer weeks later, after he and Lance Cpl. Hampton were evacuated to the U.S. to convalesce. “If it was not for him, none of us would be here. He took the impact of the explosion.”

At first, Lance Cpl. Mark Edward Dean, a 22-year-old mortarman, didn’t recognize the wounded Marine being loaded into the back of his Humvee. Blood from shrapnel wounds in the Marine’s head and neck had covered his face. Then Lance Cpl. Dean spotted the tattoo on his chest — an Ace of Spades and a skull — and realized he was looking at one of his closest friends, Cpl. Dunham. A volunteer firefighter back home in Owasso, Okla., Lance Cpl. Dean says he knew from his experience with car wrecks that his friend had a better chance of surviving if he stayed calm.

“You’re going to be all right,” Lance Cpl. Dean remembers saying as the Humvee sped back to camp. “We’re going to get you home.”

When the battalion was at its base in Twentynine Palms, Calif., the two Marines had played pool and hung out with Lance Cpl. Dean’s wife, Becky Jo, at the couple’s nearby home. Once in a while, Lance Cpl. Dean says they’d round up friends, drive to Las Vegas and lose some money at the roulette tables. Shortly before the battalion left Kuwait for Iraq, Lance Cpl. Dean ran short of cash. He says Cpl. Dunham bought him a 550-minute phone card so he could call Becky Jo. He used every minute.

At battalion headquarters in al Qa’im, Chaplain David Slater was in his makeshift chapel — in a stripped-down Iraqi train car with red plastic chairs as pews — when he heard an Army Blackhawk helicopter take off. The 46-year-old Navy chaplain from Lincoln, Neb. knew that meant the shock-trauma platoon would soon receive fresh casualties.

Shortly afterward, the helicopter arrived. Navy corpsmen and Marines carried Cpl. Dunham’s stretcher 200 feet to the medical tent, its green floor and white walls emitting a rubbery scent, clumps of stethoscopes hanging like bananas over olive-drab trunks of chest tubes, bandages and emergency airway tubes.

The bearers rested the corporal’s stretcher on a pair of black metal sawhorses. A wounded Iraqi fighter was stripped naked on the next stretcher — standard practice for all patients, according to the medical staff, to ensure no injury goes unnoticed. The Iraqi had plastic cuffs on his ankles and was on morphine to quiet him, according to medical personnel who were there.

When a wounded Marine is conscious, Chaplain Slater makes small talk — asks his name and hometown — to help keep the patient calm and alert even in the face of often-horrific wounds. Chaplain Slater says he talked to Cpl. Dunham, held his hand and prayed. But he saw no sign that the corporal heard a word. After five minutes or so, he says, he moved on to another Marine.

At the same time, the medical team worked to stabilize Cpl. Dunham. One grenade fragment had penetrated the left side of his skull not far behind his eye, says Navy Cmdr. Ed Hessel, who treated him. A second entered the brain slightly higher and further toward the back of his head. A third punctured his neck.

Cmdr. Hessel, a 44-year-old emergency-room doctor from Eugene, Ore., quickly concluded that the corporal was “unarousable.” A calm, bespectacled man, he says he wanted to relieve the corporal’s brain and body of the effort required to breathe. And he wanted to be sure the corporal had no violent physical reactions that might add to the pressure on his already swollen brain.

Navy Lt. Ted Hering, a 27-year-old critical-care nurse from San Diego, inserted an intravenous drip and fed in drugs to sedate the corporal, paralyze his muscles and blunt the gag response in his throat while a breathing tube was inserted and manual ventilator attached. The Marine’s heart rate and blood pressure stabilized, according to Cmdr. Hessel. But a field hospital in the desert didn’t have the resources to help him any further.

So Cpl. Dunham was put on another Blackhawk to take him to the Seventh Marines’ base at Al Asad, a transfer point for casualties heading on to the military surgical hospital in Baghdad. During the flight, the corporal lay on the top stretcher. Beneath him was the Iraqi, with two tubes protruding from his chest to keep his lungs from collapsing. Lt. Hering stood next to the stretchers, squeezing a plastic bag every four to five seconds to press air into Cpl. Dunham’s lungs.

The Iraqi, identified in battalion medical records only as POW#1, repeatedly asked for water until six or seven minutes before landing, when Cpl. Dunham’s blood-drenched head bandage burst, sending a red cascade through the mesh stretcher and onto the Iraqi’s face below. After that, the man remained quiet, and kept his eyes and mouth clenched shut, says the nurse, Lt. Hering.

The Army air crew made the trip in 25 minutes, their fastest run ever, according to the pilot, and skimmed no higher than 50 feet off the ground to avoid changes in air pressure that might put additional strain on Cpl. Dunham’s brain.

When the Blackhawk touched down at Al Asad, Cpl. Dunham was turned over to new caretakers. The Blackhawk promptly headed back to al Qa’im. More patients were waiting; 10 Marines from the Third Battalion were wounded on April 14, along with a translator.

At 11:45 p.m. that day, Deb and Dan Dunham were at home in Scio, N.Y., a town of 1,900, when they got the phone call all military parents dread. It was a Marine lieutenant telling them their son had sustained shrapnel wounds to the head, was unconscious and in critical condition.

Mr. Dunham, 43, an Air Force veteran, works in the shipping department of a company that makes industrial heaters, and Mrs. Dunham, 44, teaches home economics. She remembers helping her athletic son, the oldest of four, learn to spell as a young boy by playing “PIG” and “HORSE” — traditional basketball shooting games — and expanding the games to include other words. He never left home or hung up the phone without telling his mother, “I love you,” she says.

The days that followed were filled with uncertainty, fear and hope. The Dunhams knew their son was in a hospital in Baghdad, then in Germany, where surgeons removed part of his skull to relieve the swelling inside. At one point doctors upgraded his condition from critical to serious.

On April 21, the Marines gave the Dunhams plane tickets from Rochester to Washington, and put them up at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., where their son was going to be transferred. Mrs. Dunham brought along the first Harry Potter novel, so she and her husband could take turns reading to their son, just to let him know they were there.

When Cpl. Dunham arrived that night, the doctors told the couple he had taken a turn for the worse, picking up a fever on the flight from Germany. After an hour by their son’s side, Mr. Dunham says he had a “gut feeling” that the outlook was bleak. Mrs. Dunham searched for signs of hope, planning to ask relatives to bring two more Harry Potter books, in case they finished the first one. Doctors urged the Dunhams to get some rest.

They were getting dressed the next morning when the intensive-care unit called to say the hospital was sending a car for them. “Jason’s condition is very, very grim,” Mrs. Dunham remembers a doctor saying. “I have to tell you the outlook isn’t very promising.”

A Marine kisses a helmet standing in honor of Cpl. Jason L. Dunham during a service at Camp Al Qaim, Iraq.

She says doctors told her the shrapnel had traveled down the side of his brain, and the damage was irreversible. He would always be on a respirator. He would never hear his parents or know they were by his side. Another operation to relieve pressure on his brain had little chance of succeeding and a significant chance of killing him.

Once he joined the Marines, Cpl. Dunham put his father in charge of medical decisions and asked that he not be kept on life support if there was no hope of recovery, says Mr. Dunham. He says his son told him, “Please don’t leave me like that.”

The Dunhams went for a walk on the hospital grounds. When they returned to the room, Cpl. Dunham’s condition had deteriorated, his mother says. Blood in his urine signaled failing kidneys, and one lung had collapsed as the other was filling with fluid. Mrs. Dunham says they took the worsening symptoms as their son’s way of telling them they should follow through on his wishes,.

At the base in al Qa’im, Second Lt. Robinson, 24, of Kenosha, Wis., gathered the men of Cpl. Dunham’s platoon in the sleeping area, a spread of cots, backpacks, CD players and rifles, its plywood walls papered with magazine shots of scantily clad women. The lieutenant says he told the Marines of the Dunhams’ decision to remove their son’s life support in two hours’ time.

Lance Cpl. Dean wasn’t the only Marine who cried. He says he prayed that some miracle would happen in the next 120 minutes. He prayed that God would touch his friend and wake him up so he could live the life he had wanted to lead.

In Bethesda, the Dunhams spent a couple more hours with their son. Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee arrived and pinned the Purple Heart, awarded to those wounded in battle, on his pillow. Mrs. Dunham cried on Gen. Hagee’s shoulder. The Dunhams stepped out of the room while the doctors removed the ventilator.

At 4:43 p.m. on April 22, 2004, Marine Cpl. Jason L. Dunham died.

Six days later, Third Battalion gathered in the parking lot outside the al Qa’im command post for psalms and ceremony. In a traditional combat memorial, one Marine plunged a rifle, bayonet-first, into a sandbag. Another placed a pair of tan combat boots in front, and a third perched a helmet on the rifle’s stock. Lance Cpl. Dean told those assembled about a trip to Las Vegas the two men and Becky Jo Dean had taken in January, not long before the battalion left for the Persian Gulf. Chatting in a hotel room, the corporal told his friends he was planning to extend his enlistment and stay in Iraq for the battalion’s entire tour. “You’re crazy for extending,” Lance Cpl. Dean recalls saying. “Why?”

He says Cpl. Dunham responded: “I want to make sure everyone makes it home alive. I want to be sure you go home to your wife alive.”

His memorial page is here, please visit.