I confess - I am prejudiced!

The current election campaign brought it to the surface and I finally have to admit to myself that I am prejudiced. I measure people's character in part based on their history of service, military service or some other civil service, to our country.


For years it has been in the back of my mind - unconsciously evaluating someone based on what they have contributed to their country. In casual or deep conversations with old friends of draft-era age, I usually assumed some kind of military service background. More and more often I discover that that assumption is faulty and I remain surprised and puzzled. I can't help wondering if many people's current attitudes about national and foreign policy are limited by this lack of experience. This is precisely the kind of background our parents, the silent generation, relied on for their perspectives on politics and our national leaders brought to their decision-making process.

When I worked for the US Senate, newly retired from the US Air Force, I found more of my colleagues without military service experience than those who did. Since many of them were considerably younger, I assumed that was a direct result of their coming of age in the post-draft era. When I started tracking senators with actual military service, I was taken aback by lack of any military experience by so many members of Congress and suspect their overall judgement in national security and foreign policy is affected by that gap.

Applying this to the current national elections scene, I can only admit that service experience, military or civil, is something I look for and expect from our leaders. Granted, traditionally you find it somewhat less often with women, but nevertheless, I look for it and it affects my assessment of a candidate. And let me hasten to add, a longtime member of Congress with little other experience does not cut it for me. I want my politicians to serve the people (of the country, not necessarily only those of their district) for a period of time, then go back to other pursuits to continue becoming well-rounded citizens, not remain permanent politicians. Yes, I also confess to being an insistent fan of term limits.

And now you know!

Obama and the troops – can you spell C-L-I-N-T-O-N?

by Rick Francona

Senator Barack Obama was having a great overseas trip, you know, criticizing a sitting president in front of the star-struck and enamored Europeans. Surprisingly, he did not get much applause as he told the Germans that he wanted them to increase their commitments to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. I’m not sure why – the Germans don’t shoot at the bad guys anyway. (German soldiers in Afghanistan - don't shoot the bad guys!)

The senator got the most applause when he vowed to end the war in Iraq – not that Germany has a stake in that conflict. The inexperienced candidate continues to use the wrong word – he needs to be vowing to “win” the war in Iraq, and only then withdraw American troops from the country. Simply ending the war – like taking my toys and going home – is exactly the wrong thing to do.

However, the most telling part of this trip is his decision not to meet with wounded members of the U.S. armed forces recovering in an American military hospital in Germany. After his love-fest with the Germans in Berlin, Obama was scheduled to travel to Landstuhl Army hospital, about an hour flight. There he was to meet the wounded soldiers that just might allow him to withdraw American forces without crating a power vacuum, a power vacuum sure to be filled by the Iranians.

Obama was told by the Pentagon that neither the press nor his campaign staff were permitted in hospital, as political campaign activities are not permitted on military installations. Of course, as a sitting United States senator, Mr. Obama was always welcome to visit the troops. The Pentagon even waived the prohibition on the senator’s campaign aircraft landing at nearby Ramstein Air Base to facilitate the visit.

Senator Obama canceled the visit. The message to the troops: no photo op, no visit. I’d rather go work out at the gym in the swank Ritz Carlton hotel.

The bad decision should haunt Obama. As a senator, not only does he have the right to visit wounded American troops, he has a duty. Obama can speak to 200,000 Germans but he can't spare a couple of hours for U.S. troops.

This reprises the specter of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their no-uniform policy for members of the U.S. armed forces at the White House. It shows the same disdain for the men and women who have volunteered to serve their country.

Shame on you, Senator. Given this display of disrespect to the troops, you have shown yourself not fit to command these patriots.

End the war or win the war?

by Rick Francona

Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is committed to withdrawing American military forces from Iraq. He plans to have this action completed within 16 months of taking office.

That time line, through no prescience on his part, is probably achievable. It is achievable because of the surge - which he said would not work, by the way. Thanks to the increase in the number of troops, changes in tactics and increased capabilities of the Iraqi military and security forces, we may be able to bring most of the troops home even before his artificial deadline.

The time line is really not the issue - it is his characterization of what he hopes to accomplish. Let's look at his words (taken from his official campaign website).

“So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”

The problem is not the plan to withdraw American forces - the senator has said he will consult with the military commanders and assess the security situation in Iraq. That's pretty much what the President and Senator McCain have been saying without adding artificial time lines.

The problem is his choice of words. The senator, as we all know, is a gifted orator and talented speechwriter, so we have to assume he has chosen his words carefully. The offending phrase is "end the war."

We should not "end" the war, we need to "win" the war. Packing up and going home is not a good idea unless we have accomplished some key objectives. Just because we can leave on a a particular date does not mean that we should. Although the "security situation" may allow us to safely withdraw, the assessment should be based on making sure we do not leave a failure waiting to happen.

I guess the question the senator needs to answer is, "Do you want to win in Iraq?" If you think that is not as important as merely "ending" the war, you do not deserve to be the commander in chief of the fine young men and women who want to win in Iraq.

"Nothing but Heartaches" by the Supremes

by Rick Francona

No, it’s not the 1965 hit single by the Motown recording group, but a potentially disastrous recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court (Boumediene v Bush). This creative interpretation of the law in effect gives enemy combatants captured in the act of fighting American troops on a battlefield halfway around the world the same rights in federal courts as American citizens.

This is the court's third attempt to hamstring the American military in the fight against terrorism. In 2004’s Rasul v Bush, they ruled that U.S. laws did apply to detainees held at Guantanamo. Although the treaty with Cuba over Guantanamo Bay grants the United States "complete jurisdiction" over the base while Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty,” the court found that Guantanamo was "effectively part of the United States." I wonder if they ran that by Fidel Castro?

In 2006, they sided with Usamah bin Ladin’s former driver, declaring in their review of Hamdan v Rumsfeld that the military commissions proposed by the Department of Defense did not have Congressional approval and were thus an insufficient means of determining the status of individual detainees. In direct response to the court’s recommendation, Congress enacted legislation establishing the military commissions to remedy that finding.

Surprisingly, Congress doing specifically what the court suggested was not enough. In this recent ruling, five of the justices decided that stateless fanatic zealots determined to kill Americans with impunity anywhere in the world, are entitled to challenge their detention in U.S. federal court using the right of habeas corpus - just like the American citizens they were trying to murder. This is the same syndrome that we saw with the Clinton administration - treat terrorists like criminals. The strategy then was to arrest them and try them in court instead of hunting them down and killing them. On September 11, 2001, we saw how well that strategy worked.

What's next? "Mirandize" all detainees? Extend the same protections to enemy prisoners of war? Conduct interrogations only in the presence of counsel? Allow law suits against the soldiers who detain terrorists? We are creating a potential no-win situation for our field commanders.

I see two solutions here:

- Declare the detainees to be enemy prisoners of war, afford them the Geneva Accords protections they are already receiving, and hold them until the war is over. No commissions, no hearings.

- Take no more al-Qa'idah/Taliban prisoners.

Pick one - either works for me.

"Operation Inform Our Soldiers" – A disgrace

by Rick Francona

An organization calling itself The Resistance, self-described as a Christian media watch dog group, has launched a program named “Operation Inform Our Soldiers.”


According to information on their website, "America is to blame for the 9/11 attacks." Organization founder Mark Dice also claims the "9/11 attacks were aided by corrupt U.S. officials for political purposes."

Dice goes on to state that many - he cites an implausible number of 24 percent which I think he made up - U.S. Marines and soldiers believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but are "afraid to speak up out of fear of punishment.”

Okay, here's another conspiracy believer. I tend to summarily dismiss anyone who believes the theory that the attacks on the World Trade Center were in reality explosive charges planted by the U.S. government and that the Pentagon was struck by a missile instead of a hijacked aircraft. The evidence that 19 Arab Muslim young men, 15 of whom were Saudis, led by Egyptian Muhammad 'Atta, were responsible for the outrage of September 11, 2001 is overwhelming. Not only is the evidence virtually undeniable, the organization to which all 19 perpetrators belonged took credit for the attacks. All of the hijackers prepared videotapes to be played after their deaths.

Mr. Dice - wake up. They did it. We didn't.

That said, Mr. Dice, you have the right to believe whatever you like, and thanks to the efforts of the American servicemen you are targeting with this ridiculous campaign, you have the right to say whatever you like. What you are really saying to the servicemen is not (as you claim) to ask the question of their superiors if 9/11 was an inside job, what you are trying to do is foment dissent in the ranks.

These young men and women know why they are in Iraq. Virtually all of them have volunteered to serve in the armed forces after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They do not believe your drivel. They have better things to do than be distracted by your efforts to hurt the country.

Freedom of speech is one thing – trying to subvert American troops serving in a combat zone is another. Mark Dice is a disgrace.

Email Mark Dice and tell him what you think.

Again, the terminology

by Rick Francona

Once again, the media has confused the terms used to describe various players in the intelligence game. On the face of it, that is not surprising - it happens virtually every day in the mainstram media. What is surprising is the use of the wrong term on the cover of an magazine associated with the intelligence community.

The March/April issue of Military Geospatial Technology, a publication focusing on military and DHS intelligence, features a cover article about Lieutenant General Michael Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The title of the article: Intelligence Agent. (You can read the online version here.)

As any professional human intelligence (HUMINT) officer will tell you, the term "intelligence agent" is not the correct term to describe LTG Maples. The general may be called an intelligence officer, although his background barely qualifies him for the title. That's not to slight his career, it's just not a professional intellgence career. In any case, he is not an intelligence agent.

An intelligence agent is an asset who is working for an intelligence officer, usually a clandestine arrangement where a person agrees to provide intelligence information in response to taskings from a HUMINT case officer. That agent can also be called a spy. Intelligence officers are neither agents nor spies.

For one of my earlier pieces on this subject, see "CIA Agent - Let's Get the Terminology Straight."

Hillary and the snipers

by Rick Francona

I only took passing notice of the recent reporting of Senator Hillary Clinton’s brush with death during an airport landing in the Balkans. The story was of her "swooping down in a helicopter into a war zone..." In her own words: “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Hillary dodging sniper fire

Then today I saw the video of the airport scene – and had to choke back the laughter. I recognized the landing strip as the sprawling former Yugoslav airbase at Tuzla, located in what is now Bosnia. Mrs Clinton landed in an U.S. Air Force transport plane at a secure American military facility, not an airport in the middle of a war. She didn’t have to “get to our base,” she was already on it.

I flew in and out of Tuzla several times while stationed in the country. I had to laugh at the mere thought of snipers at Tuzla Air Base – it was the headquarters of the NATO force in Bosnia, including the headquarters of the U.S. Army 1st Armored Division. The base itself is the size of a small American city. A sniper firing at someone deplaning at the reception terminal on Tuzla would have to be using an artillery piece. It was arguably the safest place in the Balkans. It is where we intelligence teams operating around the country went when we wanted to be safe. The U.S. Army is not in the habit of exposing sitting First Ladies and their daughters to hostile fire. The senator claimed she “misspoke.” Right.