Grayson, a battalion intelligence officer, was among four former officers who were charged with dereliction of duty for allegedly failing to investigate the Nov. 19, 2005, engagement that left 15 Iraqi civilians and eight insurgents dead during a bitter, hard-fought battle in Haditha after an enemy ambush killed a member of the unit.

In Grayson’s case, he was charged with obstruction of justice, two counts of making false official statements, two counts of trying to fraudulently separate from the service, and one count of attempt to deceive by making false statements. Had he been convicted on all counts, he faced up to 20 years in prison.

Four enlisted Marines were first charged with murder, and four officers were charged with allegedly failing to investigate the deaths. As the case wore on, charges were dropped against five of the Marines. With Grayson’s acquittal, only two other defendants, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the battalion commander, still face courts martial.

The gist of the prosecution’s case is that the deaths of the 15 civilians and eight insurgents were not the result of an ambush which the prosecutors insisted had not occurred despite all the solid evidence that it had, and that Chessani and Grayson had been derelict in their duty by failing to investigate the incident.

During the pretrial questioning of potential jurors, the prosecution tellingly asked the jurors if they had read Newsmax or stories by veteran reporters Phil Brennan and Nat Helms. All denied they had, but any who had admitted they had would undoubtedly have been excused from the panel.

Jurors would have learned that it was a Time magazine story, based entirely on accounts and videos fed to them by known insurgent propaganda agents, that provoked the secretary of the Navy to launch one of the most exhaustive, expensive and fatally flawed investigations in the history of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS).

As Newsmax reported, the charges of failing to investigate the events of that day were provably false. The entire day's action was not only carefully monitored by battalion intelligence operatives and other officers all the way up the chain of command, but fully reported in excruciating detail in a PowerPoint report sent to higher levels of command that very night.

There was never any doubt about what transpired that day, and it was obvious that there was no need for further investigation. With the facts on their side, Chessani and Wuterich unveiled the deception created by a fumbled NCIS investigation and a prosecution determined to prove the unprovable no matter how damaging it was to the heroic combat Marines and the morale of Marines fighting in Iraq and Afghantistan.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center which is defending Chessani stated it best: “The government ordered these Marines to the front lines. They ordered them to attack the insurgents . . . Marines, risking their lives, followed those orders without hesitation. Their reward? Criminal prosecution. There must be some righteous person in the chain of command that will say ‘enough is enough.’” (emphasis added)

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Marine_Andrew_Grayson_/2008/06/06/102397.html?s=al&promo_code=6405-1

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

Where is the Commander-In-Chief?

The Marines are being prosecuted for their house-to-house battle to ferret out ambushing insurgents on November 19, 2005. The insurgents fired upon the Marines while hiding amongst woman and children. The ensuing firefight resulted in the deaths of 15 civilians – a result the insurgents wanted to happen.

Details of the battle and the civilian deaths were dutifully reported throughout the chain of command. The chain of command, including the top generals, all concluded this was a tragic and unfortunate consequence of urban warfare, but the Marines were justified in their actions of defending themselves.

Months later, however, a known al Qaeda propaganda operative instigated an inflammatory Time Magazine article written by reporter Tim McGirk – later proven to be false – calling the deaths of the civilians a “massacre.” The military initiated at least three investigations as a result.

Proof that this entire investigation has been a politically motivated quest for a prosecution rather than justice is supported by several details of the investigations, including:

• An admission by the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigation Service (“NCIS”) that over 65 investigators were assigned to the case, which in his opinion was the largest investigative effort in Department’s history.

• Formation of “Legal Team Charlie” composed of military lawyers reassigned from other units and reserve officers activated for the purpose of prosecuting this case—all highly unusual.

• The Secretary of Navy countermanded a determination by General James Mattis, USMC, that Colonel Stephen Davis, USMC, LtCol Chessani’s regimental commander, would receive a Non-Punitive Letter of Caution, which would not be part of his permanent record. Gen Mattis’ decision was overridden by the Navy Secretary, who ordered a Letter of Censure, a more severe punishment, which effectively ended this fine Marine officer’s career. As the consolidated convening authority in all the Haditha investigations, General Mattis’ decision, under normal circumstances, would be absolute and final.

It’s deeply troubling that the desire to appease the liberal anti-war press and politicians has led to the prosecution of innocent Marines for purely political purposes. These prosecutions will become a scandal of historic proportions unless terminated by independently minded and virtuous military judges.

An Undue Command Influence motion had already been filed on behalf of the combat Marines, and LtCol Chessani’s lawyers intend to file its own Undue Command Influence motion on his behalf. Further startling events will be revealed at that time.

Even though LtCol Chessani was not personally present at the scene of the ambush on November 19, 2005, the Marines responding were in his battalion: the Third Battalion, First Infantry Regiment – one of the most decorated battalions in our nation’s history, and the pride of the second Battle of Fallujah. Thus, LtCol Chessani is charged with “dereliction of duty” and “orders” violations. Despite his 20 years of loyal service in defense of his country, he faces a maximum punishment of three years in prison, dismissal (an officer’s equivalent of a dishonorable discharge), and the loss of his retirement benefits. Of course, his wife and six children ranging in ages from 3 months to 8 years old, made untold sacrifices as he left them to defend us on foreign shores as well.

By Richard Thompson

Richard Thompson is president and chief counsel of The Thomas More Law Center, a nonprofit organization that defends and promotes freedom of religion through education, litigation and related activities. www.thomasmore.org

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1387053

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
---------------------------
Follow-up
Haditha Charges Against Tatum Dropped

CAMP PENDLETON – The architect of Lance Corporal Stephen B. Tatum’s successful defense in the so-called “Haditha Massacre” case said that Gen. James N. Mattis “made a mistake” when he recommended his client be sent to general court-martial six months ago.

Houston attorney Jack B. Zimmermann, a decorated, retired Marine Corps colonel and former military judge, said Gen. Mattis, should have accepted the recommendations of investigating officer Lt. Col. Paul J. Ware last summer to dismiss the charges against the 26-year old rifleman. At the time Mattis was “convening authority” in the investigation
Ware made his recommendations to dismiss the charges on Aug 23, 2007 at the conclusion of Tatum’s week long Article 32 evidentiary hearing.

Charges against the veteran Oklahoma infantryman were dismissed Friday morning “with prejudice” by Lt. Gen Samuel Helland, the convening authority and final arbiter in the notorious case. His decision means Tatum is free and clear of further prosecution in the case.

“Lance Corporal Tatum wants to make it clear to the Marine Corps – especially other Marines - and everyone else that there were no deals in this decision. I have never had a client who would have more preferred to have a trial rather than have the charges dismissed in a deal. He has believed all along he did nothing wrong and was prepared and anxious to stand trial,” Zimmermann said.

On Dec. 21, 2006, Tatum and eight other Marines were charged with war crimes. The five enlisted Marines who pulled their triggers were charged with unpremeditated murder and other serious related charges and four officers were charged with covering up their subordinate’s alleged misdeeds.

The furor that led to the charges erupted after a March 2006 Time magazine report claimed that nine survivors of Tatum’s 12-man squad slaughtered 24 innocent Iraqi civilians in retaliation for the death of one squad member and the wounding of two others in a November 19, 2005 roadside ambush at Haditha, Iraq.

The Marines belonged to 3rd Platoon, Kilo Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines – the “Thundering Third” - one of the most decorated and celebrated infantry battalions in the Marine Corps.

Helland’s decision surprised his defense team, Zimmermann said. “We were ready to go.”

Last October 19 Tatum’s most serious charges were reduced from unpremeditated murder to involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. He faced up to 18 years in prison if convicted of all the charges.

Tatum never denied he threw a grenade and fired his weapon as he moved from room to room “clearing” two houses of presumed threats. Inside, however, were 14 civilians cowering in their bed rooms and hallways. The accused Marines testified that in the smoke filled, dimly lit interiors they were unaware of who died until their platoon commander and one of the riflemen went back to investigate.

“He did exactly as he was trained to do,” Zimmermann said. “He reacted like Marines are supposed to.”

Helland’s decision to drop all the charges against Tatum leaves one enlisted Marines and two officers still facing criminal charges in the case. Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, Tatum’s squad leader at Haditha, faces the most serious penalties. Wuterich is charged with nine counts of voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and other related charges and could spend most of his life in prison.

The government alleges he killed at least nine people without properly obtaining positive identification. Tatum, who entered the same two buildings almost simultaneously with Wuterich, is an eyewitness to what his squad leader was doing.

Zimmermann said his client will stay in the Marine Corps voluntarily for at least six more months to ease the way for the Marine Corps to obtain his testimony if he is called to present it. Both sides of the case think Tatum will bolster their cases, a notion that makes some of the defense teams privately scoff.

Also awaiting general court-martial is 1st Lieutenant Andrew Grayson, an intelligence officer charged with destroying photographs and trying to obtain a fraudulent discharge. He was up for a Bronze Star medal for heroism when charges were brought against him.

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the former battalion commander, is the highest ranking officer to still face criminal penalties. His court-martial is scheduled to begin April 28, a date that is more tentative and assured, his defense has said. The career Marine infantry officer had an unblemished career before he was charged with dereliction of duty for not investigating and reporting the matter adequately and failing to obey a standing order to update a combat journal entry.

Three of Chessani’s top commanders were sanctioned administratively. Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, formerly the 2nd Marine Division Commanding General, his chief of staff Col. R. Gary Sokoloski, and Col. Stephen W. Davis, the Regimental Combat Team-2 commander, were given letters of censure by Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter. His action destroyed their careers.(emphasis added)

Winter told the officers they had “betrayed the trust” of the Marine Corps for not investigating and reporting the Haditha matter appropriately. Winter was particularly critical of the three senior Marines’ apparent reluctance to respond to multiple requests by Time magazine to reveal what happened at Haditha.

“Even when made aware of the serious allegations raised by the Time magazine journalist, your response to higher headquarters was to forward incomplete, inaccurate, and inconsistent materials provided by a subordinate unit, rather than to initiate a thorough inquiry into the incident,” Winter rebuked Col. Davis.

In response to a reporter’s recent inquiry, a spokesperson for Secretary Winter said in response to a written question that “Time magazine was mentioned as an example of an incident which garnered significant, national media interest; and yet--initially--was not thoroughly investigated. The Secretary was not giving Time magazine special consideration, nor was he suggesting that media have a specific right and/or need to know.”

The Time magazine allegations led to world-wide condemnation of the Corps by journalists, pundits and politicians opposed to the conduct and policies of the war. Their unrelenting attacks and specious accusations pressured the beleaguered Marine Corps to originally seek criminal charges for murder and cover up against the nine Marines.
Ware, in his final report as investigating officer, told Gen. Mattis that it was his belief “that a case against LCpl Tatum is too weak to pursue” and that he was “not recommending the charges go forward.”

Zimmermann said that Mattis should have listened. He said Ware is an experienced military judge that the Marine Corps imported from Hawaii to investigate the case. He heard 21 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of pages of evidence before making his recommendation. His lengthy report was a rebuke to allegations that Tatum operated outside his standing orders and Rules of Engagement when he attacked a house he believed to contained insurgents ambushers.

A spokesman for the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton said the charges against Tatum were dropped in order to “continue to pursue the truth seeking process in the Haditha incident.”

Zimmermann said that Lt Gen. Helland, who replaced Gen. Mattis November 1 after his promotion to four-star rank, made the “correct decision” to dismiss all charges against Tatum, a veteran of two combat deployments to Iraq.

Defense lawyer Neal Puckett, who represents Staff Sgt. Wuterich, said that the government’s continued insistence on prosecuting his client “speaks to the government’s desperation” in pursuing the languishing case.

Wuterich’s case is on hold while the government argues an appeal to a military judge’s decision not to compel CBS to produce out takes from a 60 Minutes newscast that Wuterich appeared on.

The government argues that it may hold evidence of Wuterich’s guilt. The government’s pursuit of Wuterich is partially based on admissions he made on the national television broadcast.

Puckett said Tatum’s exoneration will enhance his client’s case for a variety of reasons. Tatum‘s presumed testimony is key to the government’s case against Tatum’s former squad leader. Wuterich admitted he ordered Tatum and two other Marines to aggressively attack the suspected insurgent sanctuary, telling them to shoot first and worry about everything else later.

The government says the Rules of Engagement in force at Haditha prohibited unprovoked attacks on civilians.

The battalion’s own training experience suggested otherwise, the evidence in Tatum’s case revealed. The Marines were taught to suppress enemy fire with overwhelming force including tossing a grenade or two into a room before entering it while blasting away with their rifles. The Marines repeated the exercises for three months in an almost daily regimen of combat training before being deployed to Iraq in the fall of 2005, the evidence revealed.

The Marine’s attack on the two houses where 14 civilians died in a maelstrom of fire occurred so fast that machine gunner Lance Cpl Justin Sharratt, rushing six hundred meters to reinforce their attack, testified he reached their location after their attack was over.

“When a junior enlisted Marine finds himself in a firefight and knows his actions are going to be interpreted somewhere else in an air conditioned office six months later it could get him killed,” Zimmermann said. “I wish that he and his family had not been put through this and the decision had been made last summer.”

Nathaniel R. Helms
March 28, 2008

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Tatum_Haditha_no_charges/2008/03/28/83811.html?s=al&promo_code=4839-1

Although the loss of the $40 billion deal is not expected to result in any job losses at Boeing, the contract would have created up to 8,000 additional jobs and kept the 767 assembly line going well beyond 2012 when the last commercial 767 is finished.

It’s an election year in which the economy is in trouble and protectionist sentiments have been expressed by both Democratic presidential nomination contenders. Not only that, the leading Republican contender is remembered as the politician that killed the original contract awarded to Boeing in 2003, so it would seem the tanker issue will have pretty long legs.

"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., whose district includes Boeing’s Wichita plant. Leading Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have both been trumpeting protectionist policies of late but it’s Republican front-runner John McCain who might face the most scrutiny. It was pressure from McCain that scotched a 2003 award to Boeing for a total of 100 767-based tankers. McCain alleged favoritism in the bidding process and the Pentagon rescinded the contract in 2004.

Now there are allegations the most recent bidding process was changed to favor the Airbus/Northrop Grumman bid. In the end, it may well be the U.S.-first sentiment that dominates the chorus of discontent.

"Obviously, Congress is going to react to the American public," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. "You can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that doesn't make it American-made." Which aircraft will do the best job for the best price does not seem to figure into the current debate.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

-----------------------------
An alternate view by Col. Bob Pappas (USMC, Ret.):

“One can understand the American Pride issue that the plane would be made by a U.S. company; one can understand a backlash attitude given the fraudulent Boeing Lease deal and its $600+ million fine; and, one can understand the "jobs" issues and everything else.

But think for a minute. For decades the U.S. has been selling military products to Europe worth hundreds of billions of dollars, F-4s, F-16s, F-111s, KC-130s. We literally equipped most of Europe for decades. No one complained then, and we were proud to sell our products to our European allies. U.S. products were better and less expensive, and in most cases European nations were not able to manufacture their own products, but things change and we are where we are.

Europeans design and build excellent products, so it should come as no surprise that AIRBUS was a viable competitor. They have the industrial capacity, the technical expertise and it has become "cheap" to manufacture products in the U.S. given the decline of the dollar vs. the Euro. Remember all the foreboding talk? Guess what? Production goes to the place where it is least expensive to build, any surprise that the Gulf Coast got it?

As for Unions vs. Business, both bear the responsibility for jobs going overseas. Both have been greedy; unions want higher wages, more benefits - and companies want more profits. Unions and America loses when jobs go overseas, so the solution is to WORK TOGETHER!!! Some would say, "Fat chance." But, I for one have hope that one day everyone will open their eyes and figure out that it would be better to work together than to die on the vine.

Has anyone thought that rather than blame the Pentagon that is by law required to award contracts to the lowest qualified bidder, and then sit here and yell at one another, that it might just be a good idea to shut up and insist that legislators and administrations work to foster a healthier economic environment in the United States?

Does anyone really believe that taxing businesses into the grave is going to preserve American jobs? That is, unless the government does the Socialist act that certain candidates are advancing.

Anyone have his brains turned on out there?

If we can just keep illegal immigrants from scooping up all the jobs, the contract will be a huge economic boon to the region, foster better relations with our European allies and provide an excellent piece of equipment to the Air Force.”

Excerpted from:
“Dollars Coming Home to Roost”
March 4, 2008
Col. Bob Pappas (USMC, Ret.)
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1386811
----------------------

Response from Marty D.: In recent years, there has been a perennial effort in the House of Representatives to favor American companies in defense contracts. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, has tried several times to insert legislation into the defense authorization bill to prohibit the Pentagon from awarding contracts to foreign companies that receive government subsidies, such as EADS. But each time he has been thwarted in the Senate, where Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Warner (R-Va.) and others have successfully challenged the language.

----------------------

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break their tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced heroes. Now they resist Reserve Officer Training Corps representation on their campuses.

Yet, our leading universities still produce a disproportionate number of U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead us in wartime dismiss military service as a waste of their time and talents.

Delighted to pose for campaign photos with our troops, elected officials in private disdain the military. Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran, while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private.

Second, we've stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. Dumbed-down textbooks minimize the wars that kept us free.

As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our troops had to pay for freedom in the past creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offer flawed or biased analyses, the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments.

This combination of national leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.

Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.

This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years, war has been the last resort - and all too frequently the first resort - of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree in our politics or on the manner in which a given war is prosecuted, but we can't pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same.

Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?

Certainly, not all of the changes warfare has wrought through the centuries have been positive. Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won't be deterred by bumper stickers.

Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.

Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if U.S. troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers, and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don't need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win.

And you can't win if you won't fight. We're at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy's feelings.

One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap.

It's an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn't want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.

Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today's opinionmakers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. In the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, "War means fighting, and fighting means killing."

And in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

Historically, fewer than one in 20 major insurgencies succeeded.

Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century, insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case, but that was because the European colonial pow ers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not, from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good.

The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.

Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

In most cases, the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win.

The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.

Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.

Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We've allowed far too many myths about the "innate goodness of humanity" to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we're unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that's evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we'll face even grimmer conflicts.

Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims. We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban's Mullah Omar would only unite their followers. Well, we haven't yet gotten Osama or Omar, but Zarqawi's dead and forgotten by his own movement, whose members never invoke that butcher's memory. And no one is fighting to avenge Saddam.

The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech, which the global media is delighted to broadcast.

Dead, they're dead. And killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don't kill.

Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.

Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March?

The greatest immorality is for the United States to lose a war. While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime. Soldiers are human, and no matter how rigorous their training, a miniscule fraction of our troops will do vicious things and must be punished as a consequence. Not everyone in uniform will turn out to be a saint, and not every chain of command will do its job with equal effectiveness. But obsessing on tragic incidents - of which there have been remarkably few in Iraq or Afghanistan - obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.

Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.

Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against U.S. policy that dwarfed today's let's-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950s and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam. Imagine if we'd had 24/7 news coverage of those rallies. I well remember serving in Germany in the wake of our withdrawal from Saigon, when U.S. soldiers were despised by the locals - who nonetheless were willing to take our money - and terrorists tried to assassinate U.S. generals.

The fashionable anti-Americanism of the chattering classes hasn't stopped the world from seeking one big green card. As I've traveled around the globe since 9/11, I've found that below the government-spokesman/professional-radical level, the United States remains the great dream for university graduates from Berlin to Bangalore to Bogota.

On the domestic front, we hear ludicrous claims that our country has never been so divided. Well, that leaves out our Civil War. Our historical amnesia also erases the violent protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the mass confrontations, rioting and deaths. Is today's America really more fractured than it was in 1968?

Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.

Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda's Vietnam, not ours.

Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.

The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there's nothing more we can do. But we're not there yet, and leaving immediately would guarantee not just one massacre but a series of slaughters and the delivery of a massive victory to the forces of terrorism. We must be open-minded about practical measures, from changes in strategy to troop reductions, if that's what the developing situation warrants. But it's grossly irresponsible to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq - an allegation that ignores history.

Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."

Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it.

Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless other imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedoms and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors:

Israel genuinely wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map.

As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Saudi money continues to subsidize anti-Western extremism, to divide fragile societies, and encourage hatred between Muslims and all others. Saudi extremism has done far more damage to the Middle East than Israel ever did. The Saudis are our enemies.

Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.

Muslim extremists would like everyone to believe this, but it just isn't true. The collapse of once great Middle Eastern civilizations has been under way for more than five centuries, and the region became a backwater before the United States became a country. For the first century and a half of our national existence, our relations with the people of the Middle East were largely beneficent and protective, notwithstanding our conflict with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. But Islamic civilization was on a downward trajectory that could not be arrested. Its social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, its lack of scientific curiosity, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a single modern state that served its people all guaranteed that, as the West' s progress accelerated, the Middle East would fall ever farther behind. The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.

None of us knows what our strategic future holds, but we have no excuse for not knowing our own past. We need to challenge inaccurate assertions about our policies, about our past and about war itself. And we need to work within our community and state education systems to return balanced, comprehensive history programs to our schools. The unprecedented wealth and power of the United States allows us to afford many things denied to human beings throughout history. But we, the people, cannot afford ignorance.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, strategist and author of 22 books, including the recent "Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century"

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

The average old guy, on the other hand, has consumed 126,000 gallons of beer, and a jaunt through the desert in the heat with a beer with an M-60 would do wonders for his beer belly. (Note there are 24 hours in a day and 24 bottles in a case...another convenient way old guys use to measure time!). An 18-year-old doesn't like to get up before 10 a.m. Old guys always get up early to pee.

If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real brainteaser. Even boot camp would be far easier for old guys. We're used to getting screamed and yelled at and we like soft food. We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We like them almost better than naps.

They could lighten up on the obstacle course however. Nobody that has ever been in combat has seen a 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor does anybody do pushups after completing basic training. Can you hear the Drill Sergeant for the first “Antique Military Brigade” now, "Get down and give me ... er ... one?" Actually, let’s be realistic. The running part of physical fitness is kind of a waste of energy anyway. No one outruns a bullet, particularly a terrorist. Old guys also have the distinct advantage of patience. They would make incredible snipers without having to remember why or who.

An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's still learning to shave, and if his behavior is exemplary, maybe someone will give him the cord to his electric shaver as a Christmas present. An 18-year old has difficulty carrying on a conversation, let alone wearing pants without the top of his butt crack showing and his shorts sticking out. He's hasn't figured out that a pierced tongue catches food particles, and that a 400-watt speaker in the back seat of a Honda can rupture an eardrum, or that a baseball cap has a brim designed to shade his eyes, not the back of his head.

These are all good reasons to keep our kids at home to learn a little more about life before sending them into harm's way.

But now, we old guys are a different story. We can track down those dirty rotten cowards who attacked us on September 11th. The last thing an enemy would want to see is a couple of million old farts with attitudes. Even after 30 years of military service, please let me be the first to reenlist and go to Iraq. Then all we ask is to get the liberals out of our way! Winning would be measured in days, not years.

While were at it, us old farts are proposing a new medal to be awarded to deserving members of all branches of the Armed Forces and National Guard. We’ve decided to call it the “Jimmy Carter Freedom Medal.” It is to be awarded to those who have been sent into action with explicit directions to not fight, who follow orders to throw down their weapons and flee upon contact with the enemy or an illegal alien, without firing a single forbidden shot. The design is a bright brass disk with a bas-relief image of the hindquarters of a rabbit, suspended from a yellow ribbon.

They ought to take us old guys.

Red State Patriot

At the end of the 20th century, the Bi-Polar world ended with the implosion of the former Soviet Union. The US defense strategy and posture had been dictated by this bipolar conflict between industrialized powers for the better part of half of a century. It has been widely recognized that the defense strategy and military posture of the United States needed to be changed to reflect this change in the defense needs of the country. Donald Rumsfeld became a leading advocate to make these dramatic changes in a process that came to be called “transformation”. This change would dictate future needs in terms of acquisition of weapon systems, maintenance of existing systems, personnel needs and training. It was thought that shifts in technology and needs would allow the US military to “do more, with less”, using technology as a force multiplier.

The “War on Terror”, the proxy name for what is actually a war against the global Jihadist movement, made manifest the military needs in the new century far sooner than most had expected. At this juncture, it is now apparent that an essential element of the new armed forces structure was neglected when the US military was transformed. In addition to the recognition of a new strategic doctrine, we also need to address a new “goals and use” doctrine to accompany the new forces. The Cold War model included at least a presumptive “goals and use” doctrine which defined the mission of the Department of Defense as a defensive force, to be used for both deterrent and as a reactive force to curtail Soviet territorial aggression. A successful strategic doctrine must have defined not only its means, but its goals and an acknowledgement of its limitations; to wit, a defined strategy on when and how to engage an enemy.

Col. Harry Summers, in his book, “On Strategy, a Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War”, pointed out that any military is designed to “kill people and break things”. The same is true of a “transformed” US military. In our war with the global Jihad, we are unlikely to often encounter the type of fixed defenses and large mobile formations that modern warfare has been designed to defeat. Our opponents have a more dispersed nature, and are consequently harder to fix and destroy.

It would be a grave mistake to fundamentally alter the nature of our armed forces to solely fight lightly armed terrorists, insurgents, and guerillas. Although they may comprise most of our enemies in the foreseeable future, and although they do present a sufficient threat to national security that the military should be tasked with participating in the struggle against them, they do not pose a lethal threat to our polity. A redesign of our armed forces to wholly task them with this form of low intensity conflict would leave us vulnerable to the true, lethal, threat to our polity, traditional combined arms warfare. Worse still, history has shown us that traditional military means, methods, and materials are remarkably ill suited for fighting against a committed guerilla war. Often the reasons for this poor showing are political rather than military. It has been argued that in fighting guerilla forces, the goal is more political and psychological than military; therefore it should be unsurprising that the military is a poor tool, rendering a less than satisfactory result. Military force should only be used to achieve a military goal. Civilian leadership can define when it is in the nation’s interest to kill certain person(s) and destroy certain targets, and the US military can absolutely achieve unqualified success if tasked within those parameters. However, the military cannot, and should not, be tasked with achieving such nebulous goals as “create a stable environment”, or “establish a new government”, or “make an area safe for democracy”.

During the coming century, in our war with the Jihadists, and possibly in other conflicts as well, we will be faced with the need to destroy certain regimes. This will be because either they are supporting terrorism by providing terror groups with resources, recruits, and refuge, or because they are developing weapon systems that pose a threat to our vital national interest. This could be a direct threat from that country or its intention to provide that capability to others who threaten us. In either case, it will prove necessary to both destroy such regimes, and better still, deter regimes from undertaking those actions at all. As we find ourselves compelled to topple regimes, we will be faced with Colin Powell’s proposed dilemma, “If you break it, you bought it”. The United States traditional military forces and doctrine historically do not fare well in attempting occupation, and it diminishes our strength, agility, and deterrent capabilities to attempt it. Occupation almost always provides the grounds and means for an insurgency to spring up.

It would be possible to go further than that, and say Liberal Democracy’s have a poor record at defeating insurgencies, because that form of warfare is contrary to our reason for being. Insurgencies inherently come from some form of occupation, and Liberal Democracies don’t do occupation. We can “peace keep” between rival factions or a restless population for a short period of time while a normal order reestablishes itself, but if that normal order is not a pre-existing condition, a free society cannot use force to impose order on a population, simply because we refuse to do it at home, and therefore it runs contrary to our national character. The British couldn’t do it forever in their far flung empire and India, the French couldn’t through their empire and Algeria, even the Israeli’s couldn’t in the neighboring territories or Lebanon, and we can’t. The only states that have a prayer of doing “occupation” are states that are totalitarian at home as well. Their polity and their domestic methods make it far easier to adopt an imperial model, since their domestic sensibilities are no different. It is merely an expansion of their borders over other geographic space.

Worse still, it seems that prolonged occupation duties actually diminish the war fighting capabilities of a modern army. This stems from the fact that occupation duties bear more resemblance to police work than the aggressive, fast moving, patterns necessary for victory on the modern battlefield. In essence, the lessons learned and ingrained are the wrong ones. The problems for our military in the next century will require a solution that allows the maintenance of a capable armed force, which utilizes means, methods and doctrines that comport with these realities on the ground in every part of the global theater of operations.

The best method for maintaining a position to achieve our varied goals and objectives would entail minor alteration in our present force structures but a great change in our engagement doctrine. We may be required to periodically use military force to “peace keep” after a hostile regime has been destroyed by our conventional military forces. In addition, we may be called upon to engage in “Peacekeeping” operations as part of a multinational force pursuant to treaty obligations. Neither of these tasks should be undertaken by our main military forces, either rapid deployment or heavy units, since these operations “blunt the spear”. The United States Army needs at least one, possibly two Division size units, specifically tasked as “Peacekeeping” or “Follow On” force. These units would be trained and equipped for operations other than total war. They would be heavy in Special Forces liaison, intelligence, engineer units, military police, Psychological Operations, and Civil Affairs personnel. Their equipment would likewise be tailored to the task at hand, with a greater emphasis placed on high mobility, lightly armored vehicles, such as the Stryker, and less resources devoted to such weapon systems as heavy armor, and artillery. They would retain those air capabilities which have proven effective in urban battlefields of this new era. These forces would be specialized in all the lessons we have learned in such places as the former Yugoslavia, Panama, Mogadishu and Baghdad.

The change in our engagement doctrine would be the most critical and decisive element in this position shift for the 21st century. We shall need to recognize that military force cannot always be used along the models created in the 20th century wars in Europe. In fact, the use of that model is deceptive due to the scale of those conflicts. Although the United States succeeded in fundamentally changing the nature of the Japanese culture and possibly the German one, this was due to the appalling level of destruction these societies had endured during the conflict. We now know enough about psychology and group psychology to understand that in all likelihood, these were entire populations who were almost hypnotically suggestible, in a state of collective shock. It is almost forgotten how complete the destruction was of both of these countries and the staggering percentage of the population that had been killed. If we wish to reshape a countries whole culture and polity, we must be prepared to completely destroy its society and civilization, before attempting to replace it with something of our choosing. We cannot simply replace its potentate. If a hostile regime needs to be excised, we cannot plan to build a European style democracy in its stead, nor can we simply let the toxic regime continue if we cannot imagine a European style democracy taking its place. In the 21st century, it is unlikely we will have the political will or moral conviction to so devastate our opponent. We must also acknowledge our own weakness that prevents us from being able to conduct long occupations. Therefore, we are left with the lesser of two evils. We must be willing to use our conventional forces to decapitate rogue regimes, and then leave the locals to sort out a new government. Our brief stay afterwards by one or both of our follow on Divisions should not be treated as occupation, or an unlimited commitment to rebuilding. Rather it should be seen as short window of opportunity for the locals to put together a replacement government, the success or failure of which is entirely up to them. Internally, we must acknowledge that their success or failure is of little consequence to us. This type of military action would resuscitate a practice similar to what was once called "Punitive Expeditions".

When faced with an intransigent insurgency, only the locals can sort out their own order in the long run. Consequently the US should not plan to stay any longer in a country we have toppled, than is necessary to stabilize the immediate aftermath when we create a power vacuum. The most advisable doctrine would be to pull out, yet leave them with the clear understanding that should the power that fills the vacuum antagonize us, it will soon go the way of the last one. We should shy away from long occupations, but we should not shy away from “repeated visitations” until even the most obtuse understand that if they want to stay in power, the one thing they absolutely cannot do is antagonize us.

By David Roth

Had Republicans been conservatives, there would be no need today for them to get back to their roots, to reinvent themselves, to adhere more closely to their core beliefs. You can’t lose something you never had. Had Congressional Republicans been conservatives, they would never have lost sight of their constituency – which is first and foremost, the United States of America and not the Republican Party.

Yes, Republicans were intensely targeted by MoveOn.Org and the Democratic Party. Yes, 3.6 billion dollars was spent nationwide in 2006, much of it orchestrating the defeat of Republicans in general and the few remaining Congressional quasi-conservatives in particular. Yes there was widespread voter fraud. Some things we cannot change and some things politicians clearly don’t want to change. Those Democrats whose vote was motivated by a desire for more socialism, assuming they understood the difference, will deserve what they’re going to get, but in hindsight their children won’t.

How many times have you heard honest, trustworthy, patriotic Democrats (a rare multiple oxymoron) in Congress assert that they “support our troops?” After first voting to go to war ONLY as a political expediency immediately after the carnage of September 11, the Democratic Party’s policies, strategies and tactics have been, from the beginning of the War on Terror, a conscious effort to undermine the Administration’s ability to wage the war and to defend America. Democrats are not so obtuse that they don’t understand exactly what they are doing. They know full well that their behavior ONLY benefits the Islamic terrorists. Incredible as it is, that’s reality. There is nothing naive about a cunning liberal politician.

You would be surprised to learn how many Americans see clearly that the main stream media led by the New York Times (the propaganda arm of the socialist movement) either adopted or originated the anti-war strategy of the Democratic Party. In close concert with Democrats, the print, visual and entertainment media has willfully and recklessly spent (denigrated, demeaned, openly discarded as worthless, wasted) the lives of many young servicemen and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention countless non-combatant civilians, with their intentionally biased and inaccurate reporting, incessant public criticisms of the President, revelations of classified information and open celebration of America’s war dead.

Why, (1) Americans have not risen up in moral outrage, and why (2), Democrats who live only in service to themselves in an intellectual and moral vacuum, have not been tarred and feathered as human defects, is beyond rational comprehension - unless one takes into consideration that liberal (neocon and paleocon) Republicans have behave no differently. Even the Japanese during World War II, renowned for their brutality and inhumanity, didn’t orgasm over the death of every American soldier as do members of the Democratic Party leadership and the United States main stream media. History will someday show, if written by a conservative, that the United States 2006 mid-term Congressional elections were not a competition between moral, ethical and philosophical agendas, but a crass amoral competition for power at the expense of the lives of U.S. servicemen and women.

The inescapable conclusion is that the combination of the American main stream media, the Democratic Party and the Islamic terrorists really did materially influence the outcome of the United States 2006 mid-term elections, just as they did in Spain. Instead of a national outpouring of patriotism and a mandate to President Bush to take it to the bad guys, and in doing so, to orchestrate a quick, decisive and severe end to the madness in the Middle East, the United States electorate instead voted into political office the nation’s most accomplished appeasers, moral and ethical degenerates, and experts on defeat. The United States sent to the world an undeniable and searing message of cowardice with our votes. Thank-you notes from Islamic regimes to the New York and LA Times have likely been mailed, received, framed and displayed in a trophy room with the names of the war dead.

Do Democrats or the main-stream-media really support our troops? In a few words, Democrats and liberal Republicans don’t even support this nation! A conservative’s philosophy is “God, country, and family.” A liberal’s philosophy begins at “self” and it abruptly ends there. Is the Democratic Party dangerous - only in the view of those who were not born brain dead at birth.

Red State Patriot

The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.

Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know.
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.

My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.

Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.

A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.

Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.

"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out there!

Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"

For barely a moment, I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts,
To the window that danced with a warm fire's light.

Then he sighed and he said, "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."

"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
that separates you from the darkest of times.

No one had to ask me, or beg or implore,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before.

My Gramps died at ' Pearl on a day in December,"
Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers.

"My dad stood his watch in the jungles of ' Nam,'
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.

I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.

Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue... an American flag.

I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my wife and my home.

I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.

I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother.

Who stand at the front against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."

"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."

"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?

It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being far away from your wife and your son."

Then in his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and you’ll never forget.

To fight for our rights back at home, while we're gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.

For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled.

It is payment enough, and with that we will trust,
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us.

This poem, received from an internet acquaintance, is attributed to:

LCDR Jeff Giles, SC, USN
30th Naval Construction Regiment
OIC, Logistics Cell One
Al Taqqadum, Iraq

Red State Patriot:

The holiday season is already upon us and some considerable credit is due to our U.S. servicemen and women for our being able to celebrate these festivities. Let's try to return some small measure of what we owe to America’s finest – our nation’s defenders. Let’s you and I, and every true American, make a point to pause on Thanksgiving and Christmas Day, during our family celebrations, to consciously stop what we are doing, if only for a moment, and openly express our gratitude to our American heroes, not only to those on active duty, but our veterans and our dead. With our undying respect and our prayers, Americans across our magnificent nation can proudly give tribute to these patriots, many of whom have unselfishly gone before. Also, throughout the holiday season, try to find a time and a place in your heart to thank any serviceman or woman you meet in public. By their uniform, they are proudly saying that they are unselfishly willing to risk everything for the rest of us. Remember also the nation's first responders who do their best to protect each of us from our own mistakes in judgment, physical accidents and medical misfortunes. We have a great many fine American men and women to be thankful for this holiday season.

What many of us don't know is that the battle for this piece of volcanic real estate that reeked of sulphur was one of the bloodiest of World War II. Beginning on February 19, 1945, Marine forces, 70,000 strong, fought an unknown number of deeply entrenched Japanese defenders inch by inch, yard by yard, for five weeks. In the end, the Marines took over 25,000 casualties, with more than 6,000 killed in action taking the island.

We would fail in our duty, not just to each other as Americans, but to our brothers and sisters around the world, if we failed to remember the eloquent eulogy delivered by an American rabbi at the dedication of the Marine Cemetery at the end of the fighting.

Rabbi Roland B. Gittlesohn was the first Jewish Chaplain for the Marine Corps. More than 1,500 Jewish Marines were in the invading force at Iwo Jima.

Rabbi Gittlesohn was in the thick of the battle, ministering to fallen Marines of every faith under enemy fire. He shared their fear, horror and despair. His unending efforts to comfort the wounded and inspire the fearful earned him three decorations.

After the battle, the Division Chaplain, Warren Cuthriell, a Protestant minister, asked the rabbi to deliver the memorial sermon at a combined religious service dedicating the Marine Cemetery on Iwo Jima. Cuthriell wanted all the fallen Marines honored in a single, non-denominational ceremony. Unfortunately the Marine Corps, being a reflection of America, was still strongly prejudiced. A majority of the Christian chaplains objected to having a rabbi preach over predominantly Christian graves. The Catholic chaplains, in particular, and in keeping with what was then Church doctrine, opposed any form of joint prayer service.

To his credit, Cuthriell refused to alter his plans. But Gittlesohn wanted to spare his friend Cuthriell further embarrassment, and so decided it was best not to deliver his sermon. Instead, three separate services were held. At the Jewish service, to a congregation of 70 or so who attended, Rabbi Gittlesohn delivered the powerful eulogy he originally wrote for the combined service:

"Here lie men who loved America because their ancestors generations ago helped in her founding, and other men who loved her with equal passion because they themselves or their own fathers escaped from oppression to her blessed shores.

Here lie officers and men, Negroes and whites, rich men and poor . . .together. Here are Protestants, Catholics and Jews together. Here no man prefers another because of his faith or despises him because of his color. Here there are no quotas of how many men of each group are admitted or allowed. Among these men there is no discrimination. No prejudices. No hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest democracy.

Whosoever of us lifts his hand in hate against a brother, or who thinks himself superior to those who happen to be in the minority, makes of this ceremony and the bloody sacrifice it commemorates, an empty, hollow mockery.

To this, then, as our solemn duty, sacred duty do we the living now dedicate ourselves: to the right of Protestants, Catholics and Jews, of white men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the democracy for which all of them have here paid the price.

We here solemnly swear that this shall not be in vain. Out of this and from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn this will come, we promise, the birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere."

Among Gittlesohn's listeners were three Protestant chaplains who were so incensed by the prejudice voiced by their colleagues that they boycotted their own service to attend Gittlesohn's. One of them borrowed the manuscript, and unknown to Gittlesohn, distributed thousands of copies to his regiment. Some Marines enclosed the copies in letters home. An avalanche of coverage resulted with major news magazines publishing excerpts and the entire sermon being read into The Congressional Record. The Army broadcast the sermon to American troops throughout the world.

In 1995, the last year of his life, Rabbi Gittlesohn re-read a portion of the eulogy at the fiftieth commemoration ceremony at the Iwo Jima Memorial in Washington. In his autobiography, Rabbi Gittlesohn reflected, "I have often wondered whether anyone would ever have heard of my Iwo Jima sermon had it not been for the bigoted attempt to ban it."

Hat tip: Suzanne R.