This day in history - August 2, 1943: Lt. John F. Kennedy's PT-109 is rammed by a Japanese destroyer

By Richard K. Barry

Working with a lot of younger people as I do, I no longer take it for granted that they will have a working knowledge of the historical events that I consider important. It would have been impossible to have grown up in the '60s, for example, without knowing the story of President John F. Kennedy's exploits as a young naval officer in the Pacific during WWII. They even made a movie about it, not to mention the book, both of which came out in 1963.

The short of it is that Kennedy commanded a small patrol boat that was rammed by the Japanese destroyer Amagiri. Although there were a couple of fatalities, the remaining crew managed to reach an island and were later rescued. Kennedy's leadership in helping to secure the crews' rescue was no doubt helpful in defining him in a way helpful to his political career.

If you are of a certain age, you knew all of that.

Interesting to note that Kennedy's exploits were more or less accepted at face value, though many decades later John Kerry's military record and reputation were all but destroyed by lies and innuendo. Makes you wonder what has changed.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

This day in history - July 28, 1932: President Hoover orders troops to evict the "Bonus Army"

By Richard K. Barry

The Bonus Army was what they called the 43,000 marchers, comprised of 17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and other groups, who came to Washington, D.C. in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand immediate cash payment of their service certificates.

The march took place at a time when many of the veterans had already been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression a few years earlier. In essence, they were asking that compensation due to them for wartime service that was not redeemable until 1945 be paid immediately.

Rather than being met by the compassion one might expect for soldiers who had served their country, they were driven out, along with their wives and children, by infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks with none other than Douglas MacArthur in command.

Today the right-wing likes to warn that progressives are encouraging "class warfare" by pointing to the growing gap between rich and poor and the diminishing opportunities for the middle class and the poor to sustain themselves.

I would suggest that progressives are not so much encouraging mass protest as they are amazed that it is taking so long to come together. When growing numbers are having a difficult time taking care of their families through no fault of their own, they are likely to move beyond asking politely for their fair share. It's not a call to class warfare. It's a statement of fact.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Pentagon set to end DADT

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to reports, the U.S. military is finally ready to end DADT.

Then fucking do it already.

We already know that the military will be fine, that most in the military, including the rank and file, those who would serve in close proximity to gays and lesbians, are supportive of repeal, and that the top brass are on board, even those personally against repeal.

The public is overwhelmingly supportive of gays and lesbians serving openly.

And the courts have already ruled against the bigoted policy.

An announcement may come tomorrow. Not a moment too soon.

Is this now, finally, the end of DADT?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A federal appeals court ordered a halt [yesterday] to the armed forces' discharge of openly gay service members, citing the Obama administration's disavowal of laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had intervened in November to allow the government to continue enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" law, despite a federal judge's decision that the law was unconstitutional.

[Yesterday], however, a three-judge panel of the court lifted the stay, saying, "The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed."

The court noted that Congress has voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" as soon as President Obama and the Pentagon certify that the change will not interfere with military readiness or recruiting. The administration has said most troops should be trained for the new policy change by mid-summer, although it had told the court the law should probably stay in effect for the rest of the year.

Enough already. The military will be fine. The troops specifically will be fine. It's long past time for this awful, bigoted policy to be tossed for good into the dustbin of history.

In Colorado, two gay soldiers brutally beaten by anti-gay bigots

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, hate remains rampant despite the great strides American has made. And the victims can even be those in uniform courageously serving America:

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Police are investigating a suspected hate crime after a group of men beat two gay Fort Carson soldiers and others while shouting anti-homosexual and racial slurs.

The victims told KRDO-TV they believe they were targeted at a fast food restaurant early Saturday because they're gay.

The victims have asked to remain anonymous. (Despite the repeal of DADT, homosexuality "is definitely frowned upon," said one of them.)

And they weren't just pushed around:

"I ended up getting kicked in the head and in the ribs several times," John said. "I have six bruised ribs. And my right eye was completely swollen shut for about nine or 10 hours."

According to police, another victim was treated for a facial fracture. His jaw had to be wired shut. 

Yes, it certainly appears to be a hate crime. Hopefully the bigots will be found and confronted with the full force of the law.

What to make of Obama's Afghan pullout

By Michael J.W. Stickings

NYT:

President Obama declared Wednesday that the United States had largely achieved its goals in Afghanistan, setting in motion a substantial withdrawal of American troops in an acknowledgement of the shifting threat in the region and fast-changing political and economic landscape in a war-weary America.

Umm... what goals? Isn't that the problem? They were never clearly articulated. The Taliban was removed from power, yes, but that was before Obama became president.

So what was the point?

A stable, democratic Afghanistan? Well, that's not the case?

Just stable? Again, not so much -- not with most of the country largely lawless and with Karzai being little more than mayor of Kabul.

The destruction of al Qaeda and the Taliban? Well, Osama may be dead, but America's enemies linger still. They may not be able to use Afghanistan the way they used to, but, again, that was achieved long before 2008.

Ah, Obama says, the "tide of war is receding," and Afghanistan no longer poses a terrorist threat. But it hasn't for some time.

Look, I'm not saying that the war needs to continue. I've been against it for a long time now. But it's pretty ridiculous essentially to declare victory and to say that the goals have been achieved. The president can only say that because the goals were never clear in the first place, nor when he ramped up the war with more troops, with an Iraq-like "surge."

So we need to ask again: What was it all for?

Or does it not matter anymore, what with the 2012 campaign underway and domestic political considerations weighing even more heavily than before?

Mr. Obama announced plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. The remaining 20,000 troops from the 2009 "surge" of forces would leave by next summer, amounting to about a third of the 100,000 troops now in the country. He said the troop reductions would continue "at a steady pace" until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014. 

Well, that's fine, even if it means three more years of war. But let's see what actually happens, and whether he sticks to the plan. Because, as Think Progress notes, the withdrawal of about 30,000 troops by 2012 would still leave more troops in Afghgnistan than were there when he took over the presidency. 

So what should we make of Obama's Afghan pullout? Not much. Yet.

(For more, see Carl's fine post from yesterday.)

Photo of the Day: Memorial Day 2011 - Stony Point, New York

By Richard K. Barry

 

This picture appeared in The New York Times yesterday. It's a fairly ordinary shot depicting an older veteran and a young boy at a Memorial Day celebration. It could be anywhere, but it happens to be in my home town of Stony Point, New York. I grew up in the area. I still have family there, though I have lived mostly in other places for the past 30 years.

According to the Times caption, the older gentleman is Arnold Rist, who is 86 years old. The youngster is Thomas Cahill, age 3. On Monday, Mr Rist played taps, as, the caption states, he has done hundreds of times at military funerals. In April 1945, it says that he was among the soldiers who liberated the inmates of Dachau concentration camp.

My sister sent the picture and she and I were trying to figure out where it was taken. We are pretty sure it's at the Stony Point Town Hall because that's where the local parades ended when she and I marched in them as part of our high school band when we took part in the annual celebrations many, many years ago.

I mention all of this, in part, because I marvel at how the political right so aggressively claims patriotism for themselves as if those of us on the left couldn't possibly understand what pride in community and the sacrifice of others means. They like to paint all of their political opponents as radically different and therefore wrong about everything.

I do hate to disappoint people like that, but I grew up in a small town. I've worked hard to understand the history, culture, and politics of my country. I take pride in what is good and criticize passionately what needs work, which is not a bad definition of patriotism from my point of view.

If you want to disagree with me, do it on the facts and not on some bogus claim that you are more American than I am simply because you think you are, as you wrap yourself in the flag and refuse to listen to any other voice but your own.

I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day and remembered to remember the sacrifices made by people like Mr. Rist and so many others.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

NATO airstrike kills Afghan civilians. Yes, it's time to end this war.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

NYT:

Afghan officials said Sunday that a NATO airstrike had killed 14 civilians, most of them women and children, in the southern province of Helmand on Saturday night.

Local officials said the strike was aimed at Taliban fighters and missed, hitting two family homes.

But in a conflicting account, a high-level NATO official said Sunday night that nine civilians were killed in the strike, which was aimed at five insurgents who attacked a coalition foot patrol and killed a Marine. The insurgents continued to fire from inside a compound when NATO forces called in the strike.

"Unfortunately, the compound the insurgents purposefully occupied was later discovered to house innocent civilians," the official, Maj. Gen. John Toolan, commander of NATO forces in the Southwest region, said in a statement. The general apologized for the civilian deaths on behalf of all coalition forces, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan, and said the investigation into the episode was continuing.

"While I know there is no price on human life, we will ensure that we make amends with the families in accordance with Afghan culture," he said. 

This isn't about "us" being as bad as "them," it's about the quagmire the Afghan War has become, that it has been for a long time now. And making "amends" just won't cut it. It's time to get out.

Now, I'm not sure Hamid Karzai's "last warning" really means anything. NATO (and particularly the U.S.) will stay in Afghanistan as long as it wants.

But what is the point of staying? What is the war for?

There are several answers to that question -- including supporting the country's "government" (i.e., Karzai, who barely controls Kabul), rooting out the Taliban in the name of the "war on terror," building a sustainable state with a legitimate democratic government, as well as a healthy civil society, etc.) -- but not a single one is satisfactory anymore.

It may be impossible to avoid civilian casualties entirely, but this latest incident serves as a reminder of just how pointless the war has become.

Disney drops plans to trademark "SEAL Team 6"

By Richard K. Barry

Just to close the loop on this one, having written about it earlier in the month, I'm pleased to report that the Walt Disney Company announced yesterday that it was going to withdraw its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be granted exclusive rights to use the term "SEAL Team 6" on a range of items that would include clothing and games.

SEAL Team 6 was of course the military outfit responsible for finding and killing Osama bin Laden. Just a couple of days after the raid some genius in the Disney marketing department thought it might be a fine idea to cheapen that name by putting it on merchandise.

The quote from Disney that accompanied their decision was that they pulled the application "out of deference to the Navy."

According to a Wall Street Journal report:

Navy officers privately expressed relief Wednesday that the company had chosen to retract its application, saving the organization from a long trademark battle.

The Navy first fired back at Disney with their own filing for trademarks on the phrases "SEAL Team" and "Navy SEALs," on May 13, several days after Disney's application.

I will say that I don't have a fancy MBA in marketing from one them there prestigious Ivy League schools, or from any school for that matter, but I kind of thought that this idea was a stinker from the moment I heard it. Seriously. The Disney organization has to be one of the greatest marketing success stories in the history of capitalism. How could they have been so tone deaf?

And the idea of doing battle in court with the Navy, after they emerged as national heroes for taking out bin Laden, that would have played really well in the press. I'm pretty sure Mickey would have been out of work in short order if something like that were to have happened.

Here's the topper:

Disney's intentions were misunderstood, according to a person familiar with the entertainment company's plans. Disney, which owns the ABC television network, is considering a TV show about an elite squad, similiar to other fictional drama about real-life arms of the military, such as "NCIS" and "JAG."

Yeah, right. Looks to me like this mess got handed from Disney's marketing department to its public relations department in a hurry. The whole thing is positively goofy. (Sorry for that one, but I had to).

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Gay marriage! In the Navy!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Good riddance, DADT. Welcome aboard, same-sex marriage:

The military establishment, it appears, is willing to drag congressional Republicans kicking and screaming into the post-Don't Ask, Don't Tell era. The US Navy has authorized its chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on military bases in states that legally recognize such unions. That news came in a memo from the service's head chaplain (PDF), dated April 13:

Consistent with the tenets of his or her religious organization, a chaplain may officiate a same-sex, civil marriage: if it is conducted in accordance with a state that permits same-sex marriage or union; and if that chaplain is, according to the applicable state and local laws, otherwise fully certified to officiate that state’s marriages...if the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then base facilities may normally be used to celebrate the marriage. This is true for purely religious services (e.g., a chaplain blessing a union) or a traditional wedding (e.g., a chaplain both blessing and conducting the ceremony).

The policy's unlikely to have a significant impact on gay or military communities: There's no naval base, for example, in Iowa, one of five states (along with the District of Columbia) that recognize same-sex marriages. And until the DADT repeal is certified by the Pentagon, no service members are likely to be hitching up at the Washington Navy Yard. Not only that, chaplains who disagree with gay marriage on theological grounds are under no obligation to perform the ceremonies, which shrinks the pool of willing wedding officiators to virtually nil.

No, but it's a start, and an extemely positive one. Republicans, bigoted or otherwise, aren't amused, of course, but the military, along with the rest of America, is slowly embracing equal rights for gays and lesbians, with retrograde conservative views becoming more and more the ugly relics of an ugly past.

Marriage equality is coming. And, with it, America, and its military, will be a much better place.

This day in history - April 28, 1970: Nixon authorizes the invasion of Cambodia

By R.K. Barry

On April 28, 1970, President Richard Nixon authorized American combat troops to invade Cambodia to engage approximately 40,000 troops of the People's Army of Vietman (North Vietnamese army) and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietman (NLF, also known as the Viet Cong) who occupied the eastern border regions of Cambodia.

A total of 13 major operations were conducted by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN or the South Vietnamese army) between April 29th and July 22nd and by U.S. forces between May 1st and June 30th.

The stated goal for the U.S. was to strengthen the position of the South Vietnamese army to enable it to carry on military operations on its own, after the withdrawal of the American military -- the so called "Vietnamization" process.

Some things never change.

In response to American military action, demonstrations erupted on American university campuses, with protestors expressing opposition to the expansion of the Vietnam War into another country. On May 4th, Ohio National Gaurdsmen shot and killed four unarmed students (two of whom were not protestors) during what became known as the Kent State shootings.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)