HABBANIYAH, Iraq (July 1, 2008) – Working from sunrise to sunset, repairing damaged vehicles and delivering essential supplies to the infantry companies is the name of the game for Motor Transportation (Motor-T) Marines in Iraq.
Marines with Combat Trains 1 and 2 of 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 1, have driven more than 9,000 miles during their five months in Iraq, helping to keep the battalion in the fight.
“We travel to about 20 different locations to re-supply the (infantrymen) with supplies that they need,” said 1st Lt. Nathan J. Loomis, the Motor-T officer-in-charge. “We deliver anything from fuel, water, food, supplies, repair parts… whatever the unit needs, we take it to them”
With infantry units relying more heavily on mobile patrols, Motor-T’s job has become even more important in accomplishing the battalion’s mission.
“The (infantrymen) aren’t going on as many foot patrols as they have before, so if we weren’t there to fix-up the trucks, they wouldn’t be able to complete their mission as proficiently,” said Cpl. Anthony J. Kim, a 26-year-old maintenance shop chief from Chicago. “If they have a (vehicle) problem, we fix it. We are basically their mobility.”
Although the combat train’s have been in and out of Camp Habbaniyah several times per week during their first five months in Iraq, only one incident has occurred in the near 100 trips on the road, but the Marines stay alert and are confident they have the proper training if something were to happen again.
“Because of the training we’ve (completed), if something were to happen, we would know exactly what to do,” said Lance Cpl. Brent C. Glays, a MK-19 gunner with Combat Train 2.
With their Iraq tour nearing the end, the Marines are excited about returning home, but are determined to finish out their deployment strong and go home knowing their mission in Iraq was accomplished and they brought everyone they came to Iraq with back home safely.
This edition features stories on Police Transition Team 8 performing security patrols, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment Golf Company performing personal security, and 937th Engineer Company 5th Platoon performing a route clearance.
 | ||||||
|
|
| ||||
| ||||||
July 3, 2008
It is the Soldier
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to receive emails from www.thomasmore.org. If you wish to unsubscribe, click here.
Global Warming. How much is science -- how much is politics?
A variety of viewpoints from both believers and skeptics
of catastrophic man-made global warming.
By Cpl. Chris Lyttle
FALLUJAH, Iraq (July 1, 2008) – Marines with Company L, 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat team 1 and Iraqi firemen with the Fallujah Fire Department teamed up to battle a fire that destroyed structures at Entry Control Point-5 (ECP-5) June 25.
The ECP controls traffic and safeguards entryways into the city of Fallujah.
No one was injured and the cause of the fire is under investigation, but it is suspected to have started from a faulty light fixture, said 1st Lt. Travis Bowden, the company’s executive officer, who was on duty as the watch officer when a Marine alerted him that one of the wooden structures at the ECP was engulfed in flames.
“I contacted the battalion and they called the Fallujah Fire Department,” Bowden said. “They got on deck and started using their water trucks and everything they had.”
Marines said although the Iraqi firemen responded incredibly fast, nearly seven huts were already burning when they arrived. The first firemen to arrive fought the blaze with water cannons until they ran empty and Marines used every extinguisher available on post.
“The (Iraqi firemen) had maybe three or four trucks doing runs for about two hours trying to get all the water they had on the fire,” Bowden said. “Both Marines and the firefighters were on the hoses trying to get the flames down. Once that first hut went up (in flames), it was too much for any number of fire extinguishers to handle,” Bowden said.
Gunnery Sgt. Jason Armistead, Company L gunnery sergeant, described how quickly the fire took over every structure while he and others attempted to fight it.
“We got about twenty fire extinguishers and (the fire) just kept spreading too fast,” Armistead said. “So then we grabbed some axes. About seven or eight of us were trying to chop down the side of a hooch (wooden hut) trying to keep it away from the other ones. The fire kept jumping from hooch to hooch and it was starting to go around us.”
At that point, Armistead told the Marines to get all of their personal gear from each hut that they could salvage, but because of the fire’s rapid growth, few items were saved.
Lance Cpl. Kyle Van Beekom, a heavy equipment operator with Combat Engineers Battalion, attached to 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, without regard for his own safety, drove a forklift to the fire, and removed gasoline-fueled generators, a 200-gallon gas tank and moved the wooden buildings away from the flames to prevent it from spreading.
“The hooch we were trying to take an axe to; he (Beekom) rammed it about four or five times,” Armistead said. “He drove the (forklift) completely into the fire, trying to keep it pushed back and he kept the fire from jumping. Of course all of the hooches burned down, but that enabled us to get more gear out.”
More than 90 Marines lost everything they owned, including personal possessions and issued equipment. The company immediately adjusted to logistical setbacks, living arrangements and daily operations continued seamlessly, Bowden said.
Although the fire created a setback for the Marines, there was a silver lining- the generosity from Iraqis and stateside supporters.
Bowden said in this case, the assistance role was reversed. After the fire, Iraqis helped clear the debris with dump trucks and others came to offer building materials. A nearby ice factory owner delivered ice and food to the Marines.
“It’s definitely different,” Bowden said. “It just shows a lot of progress we’ve made in helping them out so much that they’re willing to reciprocate that now. They’re lending us a hand when we’re down and out so that we can recover.”
Bowden added that stateside supporters have been in constant contact with the battalion, inquiring how to help the Marines.
“Stateside (support) has been extraordinary,” Bowden said. “I don’t know how many emails and letters we’ve received. It’s just an outpouring of everyone trying to give a little bit. It has been overwhelming.”
Armistead described how the company is adjusting in the aftermath.
“Collectively, we all know it’s a bad situation, but no one’s complaining,” Armistead said. “We’re just doing what we need to do to continue on with the mission. We’re just accepting the fact that we’ve got to live on. The battalion is doing a good job of getting the military gear back that we lost. The response from the other units around us and the people back home has just been unreal. They gave us necessities so we could get by.”
Bowden added that the Marines are enduring the loss and looking ahead.
By LCpl. Casey Jones
RAMADI, Iraq (June 22, 2008) - Mahmoud Yassin Marre, a middle-aged Iraqi contractor from Ramadi, stands proudly on the third floor of the newly-constructed 17th Street Municipal Building in the heart of the thriving city. Looking out on the city below, he sees a region undergoing a rebirth.
The streets are jammed with cars and horns are sounding by the second, similar to New York City during the hectic five o’clock rush hour. In the park adjacent to the building a businessman decked out in a vogue black suit gives an affable wave to an Iraqi policeman nearby. The city and its citizens show no signs of fear or fret.
Ramadi is no longer defined as a city torn apart by bombs and violence. Instead, the city is being redefined by peace and a booming reconstruction effort by the locals and both Iraqi and Coalition forces.
The new municipal building is the latest addition to the reconstruction efforts. The building, prior to its renovation, was used as a student dormitory. During intense fighting early in the war, the building was almost destroyed and complete renovations were required to salvage the structure.
“The building needed a complete overhaul,” said Capt. Angel Torres, the Commanding Officer of Civil Affairs Detachment 2, attached to 1st Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 1. “The building was hit by almost every type of munitions known to Coalition forces. It was just a frame with a big hole in the middle of it.”
Security gains in the region have allowed the Iraqi people to begin helping to reconstruct the city, often referred to as “the Eye of al Anbar.”
“As an Iraqi civilian, I can honestly say the insurgents are no longer in Ramadi,” Marre said with a look of resolve and confidence. “The security situation is a lot better right now than what it used to be. The people of Ramadi thought Coalition forces were here to destroy the city, but now they see they are here to help and protect us. Everybody wants to have a good relationship with Coalition and Iraqi forces now.”
Torres echoed Marre’s thoughts on the rebuilding and security situation. Without peace, renovating the city would be impossible, Capt. Torres said.
“The security situation right now is very good,” the 29-year-old Irvine, Calif. native said. “Having peace and security was the first step in the rebuilding process. Now, the Iraqi forces are in control here, allowing both forces to continue to reconstruct and further build the capacity of their government.”
The municipal building will essentially be the local government’s city hall. The building will be occupied by the mayor, city council members, and other elected and appointed city officials.
For the last year the city’s mayor, Latif Obaid, worked inside the police headquarters for an added layer of security. Now, with the security improvements, the government believes the city is secure enough to place the mayor’s office in a separate location.
“Having the mayor’s office at the (police headquarters), Coalition and Iraqi forces were insinuating the mayor needed the police for protection,” Capt. Torres said. “By moving the Mayor, we’re now saying the mayor and the police are separate entities.”
The three-story structure, will also serve as a symbol of perseverance for the rest of the recovering region.
“The building is symbolic,” said Chief Warrant Officer 2 Eric Jett, a 34-year-old Oceanside, Calif. native and team leader with Civil Affairs Detachment 2. “It will be a landmark, a keystone building, in the center of Ramadi. It will symbolize to the locals that their government is back on its feet.”
Marre, who was raised only a few blocks away from the newly-built structure, wanted to further expand on the symbolism. He wanted the area to be an inspiration to all Iraqis and to serve as a reminder that Ramadi is now free from terror and violence.
The unwavering contractor, with his own money, built a statue in the park near the building to emphasize that reminder. The statue was built on the site where a picture statue of Saddam Hussein, the ousted former dictator of Iraq, once stood.
“We decided to place a statue with a bird and a globe in front of the building,” Marre said. “The new statue is meant to be a symbol of peace in Ramadi; a new chapter for the city. In the past, Saddam’s face was at that site. It was meant to instill fear in us and remind us that he is an enemy of peace. We removed the old statue as a way of saying this is the new Ramadi, free of Saddam and free of violence.”
The upcoming weeks will be a particularly crucial point in time for the city, as the province's capital has scheduled several buildings to open and many more renovations of previously existing structures.
.
TISSUE ALERT
Posted on Myspace by Smittys Place
Smitty Description: The oral history of the night that inspired our National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner. Listen to this story of our great Veterans during the war of 1812, have your children listen to this, your friends, your family, and your neighbors. May God Bless and deliver safely our brave men and women who at this very moment are laying their lives on the alter of freedom so we may live without fear!
.
.
Cross posted from Rethink
Written by Ashok Karra
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
For My Republican Readers: Why Do We Need a Party? And How Are We Going To Win Elections In the Future?
All of us are familiar with the story that the Founders were opposed to political parties, and those of you who have gone through the previous posts on faction and equality can see deep arguments for why parties are a problem. The two I'm thinking of right now are:- Parties increase the chance that a majority faction imposes its will.
- Parties make it hard for us to relate to each other as citizens; we think of each other as means to an end (pro-choicers ally with leftist evangelicals to get what they want), or we attack each other for similarly artificial reasons.
1. Problem: the Republican party is in shambles. Congress is most certainly lost for several cycles now. Most observers are placing blame at President Bush, but truth be told, everyone blames President Bush for everything. I actually think he was the last great hope for saving this party, and it was the structure of the political landscape that was too big an obstacle.
Consider - in 2000, when Vice President Gore was whining, Republicans were furious. Those "Sore Loserman" buttons were hilarious; there wasn't DailyKos with the sort of leverage it had but there were plenty of right-wing media outlets online with almost similar power. It didn't look like this party had anywhere near a dour mood. In 2002 and 2004 again elections were delivered and it looked like the Republican party was a force to be reckoned with for some time.
People underestimate just how good a campaigner President Bush is - we might never have seen anyone as good at campaign strategy as he is. Consistently the base was energized and new voters were being pitched to, for a time. Furthermore, he and Rove had a strategy to bring in Latino voters: he had (has) real concern for the future of the party, knowing that a party that's growing old and with an active but small Evangelical component can't win elections forever.
The deepest problem with this story - the reason why the Republican party has fallen apart now - is that President Bush was too good, and up against too much. Could any one person really build the Republican party for the future?
We, who were Republicans, took too much for granted.
I'll prove it to you - go onto right-wing websites and ask how many people on those sites are younger than 40. It's hilarious talking to other conservatives: numbers of them I've talked to dismiss younger people, the ones sometimes paying their Social Security now, as "dumb" and "ignorant" (I'm not going to humiliate the person who said this. I don't talk to her anymore anyway). It's really clear most people on the Right are older, much much older. And they're doing their best to keep younger people away from the party, by setting a tone that makes it sound like young people have no concerns besides drugs and getting laid.
Case in point: I should vote Democrat. I know very few on the Republican side right now who could care less for what I teach. Why don't I just vote for the party that will give federal dollars via a blank check to universities and give me more opportunites for a cush tenured job? Where does the Republican party cater to my self-interest, given the fact I do have qualifications and make something of them every single day?
Not once in these last 8 years of Republican rule was a serious attempt made by the party to build the party.
People want to blame Republican candidates for this. But that's utter nonsense: the issue is larger than any given candidate. The young/old divide has occurred because the party has no common ground other than a vague appeal to values.
The same thing holds for the Democrats, btw: Senator Obama has so little experience that he might turn out to be one of our most conservative presidents. Who knows how the reality of holding power and being in charge of the military will shape him? And it's not like he keeps his promises. What motivates Democrats right now is a vague sense that he's Progressive. But there's a big difference between catering to the Samantha Power crowd and actually endorsing their views because you believe them.
When we lost sight of the particular interests that should make us partisan, we became susceptible to how a campaign makes us feel. That inability to be specific, I submit, occurred with candidate-centered elections. Stripping the parties of their power actually alienated us from the electoral process more. Now we can choose what candidate we like, sure, but we have no clue what he stands for.
Whereas if the parties meant something, you would have to be able to articulate reasons for why you liked the party, as opposed to saying "I'm afraid of the other guy." And if you have areas where you and the party disagree, you have to be vocal and make it clear that your voice matters. (Notice that I'm dodging any idea that there was a golden age of American democracy: I submit the process before this was probably too corrupt and insider. This process, though, might border on meaningless.)
So what you're seeing in the Republican young/old problem is an appeal to values so vague that it is the mere tone which causes friction. The older elements just can't stand hearing the younger ones, and that's the divorce in a nutshell. Notice that the older elements drive the mindlessness of conservative media: How many times do Malkin and LGF and Rush and the rest have to repeat the same story? Isn't there something a bit different to talk about? No? We're gonna talk about the same thing for 8 years? Alright...
2. Solution: The Left has it halfway correct online. They've got people talking and creating, they're active. They moved to increase participation here, and that alone won them midterms and will probably win them the Presidency. Even though the Obama campaign uses the Internet more than it uses him, there's no doubt in my mind we would even be talking about Obama if it weren't for the Internet.
Where they have it wrong is that none of this is building a party. Kos can preach "winnerism" and talk in terms of taking the party back, but I don't think the wins are the same thing as having a party.
What a party does is plan for the future: forget Obama. Forget these Congressional elections. What do you want America to look like 10, 20 years from now? And what sorts of citizens will it have and how will it involve you?
The party takes the present concerns and makes them a platform. It gives a vision for America. Statesmen then determine what's feasible and proper and work from there. But that looking ahead is critical: without it, all people do is attack each other over the pettiest of issues. Politics loses any sense of nobility.
I realize some of you probably remember C.S. Lewis saying the problem with Communism is that it believes in the future. That sort of applies to what I'm talking about: in a sense, this is an instantiation of the general will I'm working with here. But on a very real level, making pronouncements like "no one is allowed to think of the future" is simply idiotic. Of course you're thinking of the future. You have hopes. And you should have a place to invest those hopes and deliberate with others, and you should be allowed to look ahead and ask for the country you want. It's a free country.
You don't have that option nowadays. All you're allowed to do is ask for very specific things, like gasoline. To ask for those specific things, you need to embrace "change" and "hope," or conversely the "maverick" who stood up to "special interests." You must make a moral choice based on the tone of the candidate in order to get gas to drop a few pennies. The specific policy doesn't originate from a genuine partisanship, or a real concern on the part of citizens. It only exists because the abstract appeals are so vacuous there's nothing else to say in our media-obsessed world.
You already know the solution. I want to turn as much of the Internet as possible into a real teaching tool. And I want parties to take the lead.
I want the Democrats to help their members learn about John Dewey and the history of American labor and Margaret Sanger and Marx and Rousseau. I want them to be able to talk about Keynes and not have to go to Paul Krugman for quick and dirty talking points. I want to see Democrats that have an awareness of their party and country historically, and where progressivism fits into a larger scheme of ideas. I also want them to know what the other party's ideas are and where they come from. Maybe Ayn Rand and Hayek should be on Democrat reading lists, at the least.
Maybe there should be a Democratic reading list.
I want Republicans to sponsor classes for anyone willing to learn, and yes, I volunteer to teach them. I will gladly teach Lincoln, Jefferson, the Federalist and go back to Locke and Blackstone and all that stuff if need be. I'll even throw in a Bible reading seminar of an interfaith sort - we'll read the Bible as literature.
This sounds ridiculous - the parties as educative - but think about what I'm asking. All I'm saying is that people should know why they believe what they believe. In the absence of formal education caring to do this, and instead only teaching specialized skills for making money, the party that embraced this would do a civic duty of the highest magnitude. It wouldn't just inform its members politically: it would banish the utter chaos and vapidness of what we call politics today and bring back politics simply. We'd be better as people for being citizens, and I see nothing wrong with that.
My Groups
-
Intentional Misinformation In News Updated: 2 hours ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.