Quagmire redux?

President Obama will speak to the nation tomorrow night about his decisions regarding the ongoing conduct of the war in Afghanistan. According to an Associated Press report, the president is expected to commit to an escalation of the war that will involved perhaps 35,000 more U.S. servicemen and women. That, the AP said, would take the number of troops in Afghanistan to more than 100,000, at an annual price tag of $75 billion. I've made clear in the past my disgust over the war in Iraq, and the toll it took on our efforts in Afghanistan. Admittedly, I bashed Bush over his war decisions, and if Obama is going down the same path, committing who knows how many American lives and billions of our tax dollars to a military engagement with a highly uncertain outcome, I won't hesitate to criticism him. What I'd like to know from you folks is how you feel about a massive troop buildup and what you might do differently.

Security before political correctness

Sen. Joe Lieberman and I don't end up on the same side of issues much these days, but the senator is absolutely correct in calling for an investigation into whether the government and/or the military missed indications that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged gunman in the Fort Hood shootings, held potentially dangerous extremist views. An Associated Press story today said that classmates of Hasan’s in a 2007-08 master’s degree program at a military college told members of the faculty about Hasan’s apparent anti-American beliefs, including a presentation he made that justified suicide bombing and remarks to classmates that Islamic law overrode the U.S. Constitution. At that point, the faculty members should have reported Hasan to his military higher-ups, and if the allegations against him were found to be true, he should have been removed from the military without delay. As Lieberman said, "If Hasan was showing signs ... that he had become a Muslim extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone.” The military, or the populace at large, should not be in the business of discriminating against Muslims solely because of their faith, but if a soldier shows any signs of favoring another country or his religion over the United States government and his fellow servicemen and women, appropriate action should be taken immediately. As the facts emerge, it's likely to become clear that people in positions of authority had multiple opportunities to, at the very least, kick Hasan out of the service. Their failure proved deadly.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em

Folks like me who heard the above phrase frequently during our military training are most likely stunned by a story out today that says the Pentagon is weighing the possibility of making the armed forces smoke free at some point down the road. Images of soldiers catching a smoke on the front lines are as old as photography itself, and studies show that military people smoke at a higher rate than civilians. Staff Sgt. Jerry Benson, who is serving with the Army in Afghanistan, doesn't like the idea of a ban. He told the AP, "Your nerves get all rattled, and you need something to calm you down." Benson needn't worry, however, unless he's planning a very long career in the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has no plan to impose such a ban. The idea stems from a study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Veterans Administration, and the authors of the report were looking toward a ban perhaps 20 years down the road. Certainly, there are costs associated with smoking, primarily for treating illnesses linked to lighting up. But where do we stop in legislating or commanding healthy living? Will superior officers someday have to follow their men and women home to make sure they're not using too much butter on their rolls? Will they ban beer drinking by the troops? Good luck with that. These are battles that the military probably shouldn't be fighting.

Time to give it up

A federal appeals court this week tossed out a slander suit filed against Rep. John Murtha by a Marine facing charges in the killings of Iraqis in Haditha in 2005, but that hasn't stopped a local attorney from pursuing essentially the same case against the lawmaker. The U.S. Court of Appeals panel from the District of Columbia found in a case brought by Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich that Murtha, who suggested publicly that the Haditha civilians were killed "in cold blood" by U.S. troops, was covered by a 1998 law that protects federal employees from lawsuits over comments and actions in the course of their official duties. Somehow, attorney Noah Geary thinks that the slander suit he brought on behalf of former Marine Justin Sharratt of Canonsburg is different and will withstand a legal challenge. I sure don't see how. In a new amendment to the suit, Geary, shown above with Sharratt, claims Murtha made his comments about the Haditha incident in order to "curry favor" with soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Puh-leeze! He also contends that Murtha was wrong to offer his views while a Pentagon probe of the killings was in progress. "It is wholly foreign to employment as a member of the legislative branch to make conclusory statements of fact about an ongoing criminal investigation conducted by the executive branch." Hogwash. Murtha is a representative of his constituents in Pennsylvania, not just when he's on the floor of the House, but 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year – much as a soldier is always on duty. Also, Murtha should not be expected to be a "potted plant," just sitting mum in his office. Murtha is a Vietnam combat veteran who also is chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Seems to me that he has legitimate reason to be concerned about how a foreign war is being conducted, and the right to comment about incidents therein. It would have been better if Murtha had said there were "allegations" of misdeeds by the Marines in Haditha, but no one can say, categorically, that his comments, made after consultations with high-ranking military officials, were incorrect. The only ones who really know what went down that day in a dusty Iraqi town are the Marines who pulled the triggers and the people on the other end on their weapons. One group has a self-interest in how the story is told, and the other group ain't talking.