New Trailer from AT WAR.
There is a quote towards the end:
"War is the rage within us... even in times of peace"
Friday, December 7, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
New From Michael Yon
I'll write more about this later but I have to get it out there.
Proverbs 9:1 "Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars"
Proverbs 9:1 "Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars"
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
An Issue Of Trust
This is actually a comment that I posted on Abu Muqawama's site, on his post: Duck Season, Rabbit Season. It turned into a long rant so I figured that I would post it here too.
An issue of trust:
“Candidates Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said that they would not commit to removing all troops from Iraq by 2012.”
This is very disturbing to me. I fear that this is what is going to happen if one of the 3 D’s takes the helm:
First off, there is a large difference between the D’s and the R’s. While none of them know much about strategy, tactics, military planning, or logistics, the R’s know they don’t and tend to trust the advice of the military. Unfortunately the D’s have a deep-seated mistrust for the military. They have a history of micromanaging down to such a low level that it is almost unbelievable.
Second, regardless of what anyone says, politicians must (to some extent) represent the people who support and vote for them. The people, who make up their base of support, trust the military even less. If a commander in Iraq says, “I need X things,” he will not get them if it does not fit what the base wants. If the base says, “We want X number of troops in Iraq by Y time.” Then this will happen even if the commander in Iraq says that the country will fall apart and thousands will die as a result of a loss of security.
With any of the 3D’s, we will have arbitrary numbers of troops in Iraq, like a draw down of 1k per month or something like that. We will have strange rules based on political ideals and not reality such as: no monitoring cell phone traffic with out warrants in between Iraq and Syria. We will have strange reporting requirements that take up the majority of the day to fulfill, and the lawyers that go along with it. Soldiers will no longer be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Distrust will become rampant and units will fall apart. Iraq will become a box to check on your way up the ladder. None of this really matters because it is really all GB’s fault. Top leadership will not take responsibility and that will eventually get passed down to the greenest PL who no longer sees himself as responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen within his Plt. Quality leadership will bail out for the higher paying and more stable private sector. Mission orientation will focus on CYA. PACE will change to Primary, Alternate, and then strait to covering your ass. Recruiting will drop off and retention will disappear. Possibly a draft (in order to make the military more/less diverse) will become necessary. And then… Does any of this remind anyone of another war from a few years back?
Please tell me I’m wrong.
I do not want to have to trust some one who doesn’t trust me; especially when I am risking my life.
An issue of trust:
“Candidates Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said that they would not commit to removing all troops from Iraq by 2012.”
This is very disturbing to me. I fear that this is what is going to happen if one of the 3 D’s takes the helm:
First off, there is a large difference between the D’s and the R’s. While none of them know much about strategy, tactics, military planning, or logistics, the R’s know they don’t and tend to trust the advice of the military. Unfortunately the D’s have a deep-seated mistrust for the military. They have a history of micromanaging down to such a low level that it is almost unbelievable.
Second, regardless of what anyone says, politicians must (to some extent) represent the people who support and vote for them. The people, who make up their base of support, trust the military even less. If a commander in Iraq says, “I need X things,” he will not get them if it does not fit what the base wants. If the base says, “We want X number of troops in Iraq by Y time.” Then this will happen even if the commander in Iraq says that the country will fall apart and thousands will die as a result of a loss of security.
With any of the 3D’s, we will have arbitrary numbers of troops in Iraq, like a draw down of 1k per month or something like that. We will have strange rules based on political ideals and not reality such as: no monitoring cell phone traffic with out warrants in between Iraq and Syria. We will have strange reporting requirements that take up the majority of the day to fulfill, and the lawyers that go along with it. Soldiers will no longer be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Distrust will become rampant and units will fall apart. Iraq will become a box to check on your way up the ladder. None of this really matters because it is really all GB’s fault. Top leadership will not take responsibility and that will eventually get passed down to the greenest PL who no longer sees himself as responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen within his Plt. Quality leadership will bail out for the higher paying and more stable private sector. Mission orientation will focus on CYA. PACE will change to Primary, Alternate, and then strait to covering your ass. Recruiting will drop off and retention will disappear. Possibly a draft (in order to make the military more/less diverse) will become necessary. And then… Does any of this remind anyone of another war from a few years back?
Please tell me I’m wrong.
I do not want to have to trust some one who doesn’t trust me; especially when I am risking my life.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
At War
I am looking forward to the release of this film: At War.
This is from the Afghanistanica.com site:
Two new documentaries on Afghanistan have caught my attention in the last week. The first one is At War. This documentary will feel familiar to many people because of the man who shot the video footage: Scott Kesterson. Scott, a former soldier and now a combat reporter, started to get attention when his short video of Canadian troops fighting off an ambush got a huge number of viewers on various video sites. The footage went on to be included in features by Frontline and by the Canadian channel that shows all the hockey games.
Fortunately, Kesterson has much more video footage that he has accumulated from his work in Afghanistan. He has, together with his production partner David Leeson, worked all his video footage into a documentary. Based on the trailers, it seems to be a combat documentary first and foremost.
Trailer 1
Trailer 2
This is from the Afghanistanica.com site:
Two new documentaries on Afghanistan have caught my attention in the last week. The first one is At War. This documentary will feel familiar to many people because of the man who shot the video footage: Scott Kesterson. Scott, a former soldier and now a combat reporter, started to get attention when his short video of Canadian troops fighting off an ambush got a huge number of viewers on various video sites. The footage went on to be included in features by Frontline and by the Canadian channel that shows all the hockey games.
Fortunately, Kesterson has much more video footage that he has accumulated from his work in Afghanistan. He has, together with his production partner David Leeson, worked all his video footage into a documentary. Based on the trailers, it seems to be a combat documentary first and foremost.
Trailer 1
Trailer 2
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Don't pay to watch Redacted.
"Redacted," is like taking a picture of David's butt hole and telling people that this is the art that Michaelangelo makes.
If you want to know why people are so upset about this film: see the "al Dura" incident.
If you want to know why people are so upset about this film: see the "al Dura" incident.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
