Happy American Pig-Skin Day!

Drink on, young soldiers, drink on…..

The top U.S. commander in Iraq issued a waiver Wednesday that will allow American troops in the country to drink beer during the Super Bowl, a departure from the military’s strict prohibition of alcohol. Servicemen and women will be allowed “two 12-ounce beers” each before and during the game, which will kick off at 2:00 a.m. in Baghdad.

Steelers by 10.

The French television run website ‘The Observer‘ has posted a fascinating article about the U.S. military’s use of video games to teach soldiers how to interact with Middle Easterners in Arab countries.

It ain’t no “Call of Duty”, that’s for sure:

I was asked to provide my opinion for the article (Yes, that’s my pic on the website. yay!) and here’s what I had to say about my deployment to Iraq with the U.S. Army:

“It was shocking how ignorant we were when we arrived. We, as Americans, are incredibly disconnected from the customs of other cultures. We are simply not aware of the world beyond the American shores (for the most part), and being culturally ignorant is our Achilles heal in many respects. While these military training programs seem elementary or comical to other more “culturally enlightened” groups, to Americans they are valid and educational.

They weren’t used when I was in Iraq. Every unit undergoes intensive training and processing called mobilization for between one to four months prior to their boots hitting Middle Eastern sand. During mine, I only remember watching one video in that time. It’s one thing to read a list of cultural “dos and don’ts” (boring!) and another thing to have it in your face. Visual stimulation enhances memory and interest. Also, I think virtual games appeals to a new generation of young adults who have been spoon fed television and the internet most of their lives anyway.”

What do you think?

Thom Shanker, writing for the International Herald Tribune, thinly disguises his disdain for President-elect Obama’s Iraq strategy and perhaps Obama himself. This is how a professional journalist gives the middle finger:

First, the article’s title,  Obama’s thoughts evolve on U.S. troops in Iraq

By saying that Obama’s Iraq strategy is “evolving”, is Shanker suggesting that before Obama was un-evolved?  A dinosaur?  A PRIMATE?  Racist! (Please note intense sarcasm here.)

Moving on…

On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

That’s “President-elect” to you.  What better way to snub a politician than by DEMOTING him.  Pssst, Obama stepped down from Congress two weeks ago.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making it clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

So, if Obama continues with his “evolved” plan, he’s going to leave our troops behind!?  The troops will be totally forgotten?!  For the love of God, Obama!  No Soldiers Left Behind!

What dramatic words you’ve chosen here, Shanker.  It’s called  a “residual force” and they would hardly be forgotten.

And just for the record, what Obama ACTUALLY said his plan in Iraq is:

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary – likely to be necessary – to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq.”

‘Membah when John McCain said the he envisioned troops in Iraq for the next 100 years?  Yeah, that’s what I thought.

And as a side note, I found immense pleasure in noticing this:

Yes, I know it says “assess” and not “asses” but it’s strange none-the-less.

I think I’m just looking for a fight today.

Afghanistan is at its deadliest peak.

We’re shifting units to the Big A and suffering the consequences. Let me dust off that old word we were using a few years back.  It’s gonna come in handy again:  quagmire.

Also, I noticed something interesting about the Associated Press story that has circulated about the increase in U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan.

One version blames the deaths on “militants” while another version blames them on “insurgents”.

[above] Military.com blames deaths on “militants”

[above] Boston.com blames deaths on “insurgents”

Theories?

General “The Surge” Petraeus is movin’ on up to the Central Command.  (Would CENTCOM be considered a military version of the east side?)

Here’s what the ol’ General had to say:

[PDF]

On Thursday the House shocked everyone- including itself, with it’s votes on a 3-part war funding bill.

The surprise action left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant, Republicans gloating and Democratic leaders baffled. Recriminations from all sides quickly followed.

House leaders had broken the war funding bill into three separate measures. The first, to continue funding combat operations, needed Republican votes to pass over the objection of antiwar Democrats. The second would impose strict Iraq-related policy measures strongly opposed by President Bush, and the third would fund domestic priorities, including a new G.I. Bill and levees around New Orleans.

That legislative legerdemain became the plan’s undoing. Rather than go along, 131 House Republicans voted “present” on the war funding provision, saying they were incensed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a few of her lieutenants had drafted the bill in secret, then expected them to play along.

Reps say their action is a boycott of shady Dem dealings, Dems say the Reps had a choice between funding the war, or not funding it, and they chose to wash their hands of it altogether.

(T)he impact is likely to be short-lived. The Senate will take up its version of the war funding bill next week; it is expected to restore the war funds and strip out the policy prescriptions most disagreeable to the White House. The White House reiterated its veto threat of the overall package yesterday morning, demanding a new version stripped of policy prescriptions and domestic spending, including the bill’s $52 billion expansion of veterans’ education benefits. The supplemental appropriations vote is the last major clash on Iraq policy between Congress and Bush.

Had it become law, the House bill would have brought the total cost of the war in Iraq to around $660 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service, more expensive than any U.S. military effort except World War II.

As passed, the House bill would require troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days, with a goal of removing all combat forces by December 2009. The Iraqi government would have to match U.S. reconstruction funding dollar for dollar, and would be required to offer the U.S. military the same fuel subsidies it provides its own citizens.

Basically as it stands, rather than continue to flush money in a situation that taxes our country’s resources and money more than we can afford, this bill will improve scholastic options for troops who have served, begin bringing the troops home as well as giving them more time off inbetween deployments to recouperate, and make the Iraqi gov’t begin to pull it’s actual fair share of the load. Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but of course reasonable dealings have never been the current admin’s strong point, as evidenced by the fact that the White House has promised to veto this thing to death should it even reach their door.

And while the improvement of educational benefits to the troops sounds like something anyone, regardless of political affiliation could get behind- leave it to Prez hopeful John McCain to try to use it as a tool for keeping the troops in the military (which in turn makes it all the more difficult to use the benefits to get to college, because, you know- deployments tend to make it hard to get to get to class on time).

The measure has attracted broad bipartisan support, but it is opposed by Bush because of its cost, its tax increase and fears that its generosity could entice service members to leave the military rather than reenlist at the end of their tours. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, has put forward a less generous alternative that would save its richest benefits for service members doing multiple tours.

But McCain’s efforts have run into bipartisan opposition — from lawmakers, veterans organizations and educators. Former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, a close McCain ally, came out for Webb’s measure yesterday.

“I have tremendous regard for Senator McCain, but I can’t figure out where he is right now,” said Dartmouth College President James Wright, a former Marine who helped negotiate the Webb-Warner language. “It seems to me our posture as a nation cannot be to say to servicemen and -women, ‘We do not value you unless you reenlist.’ That wasn’t the contract they signed.”

But no matter what happened in the House, expect the Senate to sink the whole thing and bring it right back to war spending where this gov’t seems to think it belongs.