I must've been worn out this week because I went to bed at 2300 last night and just woke up at 0930. Wow. I also had a weird dream where I, along with three other people I've never seen before, was invited to give a presentation on the military in front of Marc Miyake's class. And the students were booing and yelling at us, and saying things like, "Well, Michael Moore was in the military and he says..." and I was getting so mad. My frustration is seeping into my dreams.

I have also been living in Germany for a full year now this week. Before we moved to Germany, everyone told us that the weather would be really cold, even in the summer. So when we moved over here, we brought mostly long-sleeved shirts and jeans in our suitcases. We even brought sweaters. And it was so hot on the bus ride to our new post we could barely breathe. We spent a miserable two months before our household goods arrived rolling our jeans up to our knees and wearing the same short-sleeved shirts over and over.

And this year the weather is freezing. All week long I've worn sweaters, courderoy pants, and even a jacket. It just figures...

Posted by: Sarah at 04:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Kevin Sites' post seems to be an accurate picture of what life is like for the combat arms Soldiers: laughter, anger, death, superstition, homesickness, and a maturity that far surpasses their tender ages.

(Thanks, Beth.)

Posted by: Sarah at 12:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

I thought this was only news on the German radio -- where they're talking about the loss of 40,000 jobs -- but Bunker pointed out that the details are in this New York Times article called A Pentagon Plan Would Cut Back G.I.'s in Germany. It requires registration, so I will highlight the important bits.

First there are details of the plans, which won't be officially announced for another two months.

Under the Pentagon plan, the Germany-based First Armored Division and First Infantry Division would be returned to the United States. A brigade equipped with Stryker light armored vehicles would be deployed in Germany. A typical division consists of three brigades and can number 20,000 troops if logistical units are included, though these two divisions have only two brigades each in Germany, with the other brigade in the United States.

In addition, a wing of F-16 fighters may be shifted from their base in Spangdahlem, Germany, to the Incirlik base in Turkey, which would move the aircraft closer to the volatile Middle East; a wing generally consists of 72 aircraft. Under the Pentagon plan, the shift would be carried out only if the Turks gave the United States broad latitude for using them, something that some officials see as unlikely.

The Navy's headquarters in Europe would be transferred from Britain to Italy. Administration officials are also discussing plans to remove some F-15 fighters from Britain and to withdraw the handful of F-15 fighters that are normally deployed in Iceland, though final decisions have not been made.

Then there's the snide commentary from the Lefties:

But some experts and allied officials are concerned that a substantial reduction in the United States military presence in Europe would reduce American influence there, reinforce the notion that the Bush administration prefers to act unilaterally and inadvertently lend support to the French contention that Europe must rely on itself for its security.

...

Other specialists have warned that the greatest risk is the possible damage to allied relations.

"The most serious potential consequences of the contemplated shifts would not be military but political and diplomatic," Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson Ward of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in an article published last year in the journal Foreign Affairs, well before the extent of the changes now planned became known."Unless the changes are paired with a sustained and effective diplomatic campaign, therefore, they could well increase foreign anxiety about and distrust of the United States."

My thoughts: tough. Germany and France are not our allies anymore.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:46 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

I meant to link to this the other day, but I said I wasn't blogging, even though I really was blogging, but saying I wasn't blogging was cure enough for what ailed me, so in my pseudo-not-blogging I didn't point this out. Whatever.

Amritas points to an article about some Holocaust survivors who lived in a cave in Ukraine for a year.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Just found this old article: Soldier - and That's With a Capital 'S'
From now on I will make a conscious effort to use this spelling change.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

The worst name President Bush gets called is Hitler. The second worst is Liar. I started thinking last night about how the many people who hate Bush often hate him because they say he's a liar. He lied about WMDs. He lied about his military record. He lied about the plastic turkey. He lies.

I find this odd because some of the most vocal people on the Left shouldn't call that kettle black. It has been shown many times that Michael Moore's movies and books are full of lies and misleading information. The singer Moby has advocated lying in order to trick people into voting Democrat, and the good folks at Democratic Underground took it one step further (one example: falsely report Republicans in your area for tax fraud). And recently Howell Raines offered John Kerry some advice for winning the election: lie.

What does this mean in terms of campaign message? It means that he must appeal to the same emotions that attract voters to Republicans - ie greed and the desire to fix the crap-shoot in their favour. That means that instead of talking about "fixing" social security, you talk about building a retirement system that makes middle-class voters believe they will be semi-rich someday. As matters now stand, Kerry has assured the DLC, "I am not a redistributionist Democrat."

That's actually a good start. Using that promise as disinformation, he must now figure out a creative way to become a redistributionist Democrat. As a corporation-bashing populist, I'd like to think he could do that by promising to make every person's retirement as secure as Cheney's investment in Halliburton. But that won't sell with the sun-belt suburbanites. Not being a trained economist like, say, Arthur Laffer, I can't figure out the exact legerdemain that Kerry ought to endorse. But greed will make folks vote for Democrats if it's properly packaged, just as it now makes them vote Republican, and in terms of the kind of voters Kerry must win away from Bush, I think the pot-of-gold retirement strategy is a way to work. Forget a chicken in every pot. It's time for a Winnebago in every driveway.

I just find it amusing that the thing many claim to hate most about President Bush is the thing they advocate when it suits their agenda.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.

The two best paragraphs in the President's remarks at the USAF Academy:

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. (Applause.) Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy. (Applause.)

And later:

As we fight the war on terror in Iraq and on other fronts, we must keep in mind the nature of the enemy. No act of America explains terrorist violence, and no concession of America could appease it. The terrorists who attacked our country on September the 11th, 2001 were not protesting our policies. They were protesting our existence. Some say that by fighting the terrorists abroad since September the 11th, we only stir up a hornet's nest. But the terrorists who struck that day were stirred up already. (Applause.) If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, what would these thousands of killers do, suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity? (Laughter.) Would the terrorists who beheaded an American on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens if America had not liberated Iraq? We are dealing here with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. And America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

Read the whole speech if you didn't get to see it on TV. It says many of the things we bloggers have been waiting for the President to spell out.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

CavX wrote about three military heroes. I had read the first two stories, but I had not yet read the last one. I'm completely overwhelmed by 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.

I can't even think of anything to say.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

A couple of military links this morning:

1. If you can't get rank and unit structure right, what else are you getting wrong?

2. Check out the photo album of Smiles from Iraq.

3. Smash's contact says no way it was a wedding party.

4. And, John Kerry, this one is for you...

Posted by: Sarah at 05:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Normally I write my posts completely off the cuff, but I have put a lot of thought into this one. I even made an outline. It is something that has preoccupied me for a few days now.

I have been accused a couple of times recently of being too close-minded and of seeing things only in black and white. No one likes his flaws pointed out, and I am the first one to admit that I am especially bad at taking criticism. Though I may write with fire and brimstone, I'm entirely too sensitive for disagreement and unpleasant situations (in fact, my students' repeated criticism of me was that I was "too nice" and got too personally involved in their success and failure.) If someone suggests I am close-minded, I will agonize over that characterization for days, as I did this weekend.

I recently read Nighthawk's soul-searching and felt the same questions rising inside of me. Should I be more open to listening to those in opposition? Should I periodically re-examine my values to make sure they're still sound? Do I have an obligation to listen patiently to all sides of the argument and withhold judgement?

My poor mother, who is sick as a dog, has listened to me on the phone for the past three days as I've worked through my faults and beliefs. She has been infinitely selfless as I have prattled on about my own issues, and she was there for the eureka moment today when I realized what has been bothering me.

Should we legalize drugs? Maybe. How do I feel about euthanasia? Well, I can see both sides. What about cloning issues? Hmm, that's a tough one. In most of the social issues I can see valid arguments for the pro- and con-; I even contradictably agree with points on both sides. I don't have a black-and-white approach, and I like to hear what others have to say. Even on issues where I do have a stronger opinion -- like the marriage amendment or stem-cell research -- I can easily see the reasons why someone would argue for the other side. I'm up for debate on any of those topics.

However, when it comes to the War on Terrorism, I believe there is a concrete right and wrong. I don't see this war as a "social issue" that can be debated like abortion or captial punishment. I think this war is necessary, just, and beneficial, and I can find overwhelming evidence to support that belief. What I cannot find is a rational reason why we should not fight this war. I just can't find it. The reasons I have heard from the other side all seem to ignore the evidence I see as plain as my nose and instead focus on butstills.

The butstill. My friend and I were discussing that last night. Someone told her the war was a mistake and gave the example of a (heartbreaking) story he had heard about the death of an Iraqi child. In response, she told him stories of new prosthetic hands and grateful Iraqi bloggers. She asked if he thought those things were a mistake. His response: "No. But still..."

There's always a butstill. Rarely is it followed by anything else. Most of the opposition I've heard to this war is first a denunciation of President Bush and then a butstill. I've seen the anti-war arguments torn to shreds twice recently, first by the lead singer of Iced Earth and secondly today by Marek Edelman. To me, this war makes perfect sense; I am having a hard time seeing this as anything but a black-and-white issue.

I've done a lot of thinking about whether I'm close-minded. The conclusion I came to was that there are some times when being open-minded means being wishy-washy. There are some times when standing firmly for something you believe to be irrefutable is entirely appropriate. I think Den Beste was right when he said, "there are some kinds of situations where the answer is simple, and in such cases if someone still tries to find a more complex nuanced answer it shows that he has no backbone."

So I'll remain close-minded about the War, but if anyone wants to debate me on euthanasia, I'm all for it.

MORE TO GROK:

Tammi also writes about thinking in black and white.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:17 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 729 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I don't usually get called close minded, but I hear opinionated way too often! I can totally relate to being able to see both sides of things too easily. And yes, the war on terror is different. People just don't seem to really get just how much terrorist want all of us dead. And, really, how it would be rather easy in this day of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to achieve that. Only by bringing more of the world into freedom and democracy can we hope to get all the help we need to stop those few terrorists. Honestly, I think it's just too complicated for some (maybe most) people to get the bigger picture. We're so spoiled in this country we really can't imagine life in places like Iran and Iraq. Anyway, I'm rambling too much in your comments. Don't ever worry about being close minded! It's closed to keep stupid stuff out :-)

Posted by: Beth at June 01, 2004 06:17 PM (ojDxg)

2 Sarah mentioned MY blog!!! Now I'm in the BIG Leagues. I am very libertarian in general, but conservative on social issues. So, I'm willing to debate some of those issues. But I agree with the war on terror in general. I believe that we are accomplishing good things in Iraq and Afghanistan. I certainly don't believe the conspiracy theories. I see the horrendous things happening in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and other countries where Islamist forces are imposing fascist regimes, oppressing their own people as well as any outsiders. Just before the invasion of Iraq, I read some excellent articles by an Assyrian Christian minister. He was initially strongly against the US doing anything about Iraq, until he went to Baghdad and visited some relatives. After he learned how much the Assyrian Christians had been praying for decades for the US to come and rescue them, after he saw the horrendous abuses, he came back and wrote how grateful he was that the US would even consider helping the people of that country. I don't think I am close-minded about the war, but I certainly do have very strong opinions about it.

Posted by: NightHawk at June 01, 2004 07:03 PM (O3INn)

3 I've been called stubborn, opinionated, closeminded and several other things. There are though, some things that are true, black and white and very important. The war on terror is one of those things. (Did you notice how I managed to not say but up there?) I'm afraid you are suffering from too much time to think, too much time alone. Don't doubt yourself, and now that you've had your eureka moment just luxuriate in your knowledge that on some things you are just RIGHT.

Posted by: Ruth H at June 01, 2004 10:52 PM (rQmkp)

4 That self-doubt is precisely what the anti-war crowd wants to engender. They know their minds can't be changed, but yours can. And they will do everything they can to make you doubt your own beliefs. In all things.

Posted by: Mike at June 01, 2004 11:02 PM (idjl+)

5 Well said.

Posted by: John at June 02, 2004 12:25 AM (crTpS)

6 Sarah, we don't disagree on the war on terror being necessary, but whether invading Iraq was a collosal wrong turn in the war on terror. Afghanistan festers, the Muslim world pushed further to radicalism, our Army stretched dangerously thin, and our national finances mortgaged to the hilt. But if Iraq becoms the Muslim Switzerland, and the rest of the Muslim world follows it to democracy, it will have been worth it. Time will tell.

Posted by: Don at June 02, 2004 10:34 AM (oTgvM)

7 As usual, very well said. Thanks.

Posted by: Parkway Rest Stop at June 03, 2004 03:30 AM (BjDAE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

See, I try to stay away, and it's just too tempting. I promised I wouldn't blog anything today, and then the most beautiful thing just happened. My doorbell rang, and I opened the door to four little girls. They handed me two drawings -- a flower and some stars and clouds. "Are these for me? Whatever for?" I asked. They said, "Sometimes we just like to make drawings and give them out to people." I talked to them for a little while, and then they headed off to the next doorbell with their stack of pictures. I put the pictures on the refrigerator and will smile every time I look at them. Those four little girls really brightened my day.

(So as long as I'm blogging, I have to point out that Tim has linked to many wonderful articles today -- especially the mysterious one he just calls "required reading" -- and had a very good post yesterday for Memorial Day.)

Posted by: Sarah at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't know how Andrew Sullivan takes a break every year; the hardest thing for me to do is not to blog. Everything I read, every encounter I have in the day, everything turns into a post; for the past eight months I've looked at everything in my life through the lens of a blogger. However, I think I need to take a couple of days off. I have a lot of thinking to do. I'll be back in a few days with a long post about my thoughts. In the meantime, read about The Soldiers You Never Hear About.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.