With the news that a major terrorist cell was broken up just days before the final preparation of executing the plot involving blowing up American airliners over U.S. territory using liquid explosives comes with a realization - again - that the West is at war, whether we like it or not.

To gain an understanding of what the 7 or 8 major fronts are in the war on terror, may I suggest reading this article. (h/t: Powerline)

What bothers me is that the West appears to take this war seriously, but doesn't behave as if crushing terrorism is worthy to be undertaken.  This means going to war un-hogtied against terror organizations and state supporters of terrorism.  Better that thousands of people die instead of tens, hundreds of thousands, or even millions (in case of nuclear warfare).

Peggy Noonan advocates ending the Cuban embargo.  Ryan Sager of Real Clear Politics agrees with her.

Does anyone see a potential problem here?  How about the development of Cuba based on Chinese-based economics?  Freer economy, no freedoms whatsoever.  Granted, Cuba is 90 miles from the United States and has a large Cuban American population in Florida.  But still...

No easy solutions.  I think the embargo should end as long Cuba can gaurantee rule of law governing the economic dealings with the United States and that travel restrictions are lifted between countries, but no U.S. direct aid to the Cuban government unless it is freely elected.  That's all I can think of now.

With all the rumors swirling about Castor - I mean - Castro's demise - I thought it wise to read into what the United States would do.  I found (via Ask.com) on GlobalSecurity.org this gem of a paper by Lt. Col. Lynch, USMC written 1995, it is a long read, but an excellent summary of the history of Cuba and how Castro came to power and how he thinks up to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 (unfortunately - little history thereafter).   I knew already that one of the stipulations for the removal of the Soviet missiles was the guarantee that the U.S. would not invade Cuba.  It isn't the whole story, but this Marine has written up a really nice paper and discusses the problems that Cuba will have that might require military intervention.  Here is an lengthly excerpt well worth your time to know of a Marine's perspective of Castro and Cuba in 1995:

                  Especially for military professionals, however, the pursuit of U.S. national security interests implies that continued involvement and/or intervention in Cuba remain necessary.   Should that involvement dictate the use of military force, it is most likely that with the history of U.S. intervention in Cuba, this force will be in support of operations that can most likely be classified as Operations Other Than War (OOTW).

Consequently, should the use of OOTW be required, it will be necessary to accurately evaluate the threat. As previously discussed in this thesis, however, one of the United States' greatest failures when intervening in Cuba was not understanding Cuba.  In OOTW operations, this key inability will prevent success unless the larger political-military aspects of a crisis in Cuba are evaluated in terms of Cuba's political, judicial, administrative, diplomatic, economic, and social aspects.   Subsequently, any such evaluation should include not only an analysis of the type of insurgent strategies used, but also what methods should be followed to counter an OOTW threat.  For the United States and its allies, the methods to be used can only be determined by understanding past Cuban reactions which must include an evaluation of Cuba's historical relationship with the United States.  Key to understanding this relationship must be an awareness of Castro's belief that the Cuban Missile Crisis still remains an unresolved chapter in Cuban history and that Cuba still continues to wage a "Cold War" struggle with the United States.  Most especially, the essence of that struggle needs to be analyzed and understood for what it means to Cuba and how it relates to a new, post-Cold War order focusing on the "humanitarian" use of force and "humanitarian" intervention rather than old, Cold War conflicts.

The essence of Castro's post Cuban Missile Crisis struggle with the United States needs also to be considered in light of the type of operations that will, most likely, be conducted in Cuba in the future.  As history repeats itself, it is most likely that these struggles will be either peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, or peacemaking.  Conditional to the type of operation used will be the amount of control exerted by the opposing forces.  Thus, still reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis is the amount of control exerted by Castro which, to a large extent, still exists within Cuba today.  Consequently, the obvious form a military operation may take in Cuba will depend on the existence of Castro.

Should Castro not be alive or if he is unable to maintain control, such operations must also consider the strength of his designated successor and/or the strength of competing factions.   Also of consequence is the level of support provided by the Cuban Communist Party, its ability to continue the "Cuban Revolution" after Castro ceases to be a force in Cuba, and the strength of any alternative parties.  All of these scenarios, however, require an understanding of Cuba and its past, of which the Cuban Missile Crisis forms an integral part…

              Now, approximately 35 [ed. note – now almost 45] years following the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis… [t]he United States still enforces an embargo on Cuba while Castro still continues to be an irritant to U.S efforts in the Caribbean.

Consequently, although Cuba no longer enjoys Soviet economic subsidies and military support, the struggle between U.S. democratic ideals and Castro's communism continues.  While U.S. efforts regarding Cuba have borne little success, it is obvious that Castro's feet are still planted in Cuba, and that socialism and an inherent distrust of the United States linger.

However, as the results of a recent [ed. note - ~1995] poll conducted in Cuba by a group of Mexican television reporters reflects, Castro may still be in power, but the strength of his power is now in question.  As the poll shows, 66% of Cubans indicated they were against Castro, while only 22% indicated that they favored him.  In addition, 77% said he was a dictator whose greatest weaknesses were arrogance (43%) and oppressiveness (35%).  While 64% of the population stated that the greatest successes of the Cuban revolution were health and education, only 17% stated that freedom and equality were successes.  Key to this poll was the analysis that the percent of Cubans who indicated they favored Castro versus those who did not (22% and 66% respectfully) matched the current demographic makeup of Cuba.  In short, sixty percent of the Cubans living in Cuba today [ed. note- in 1995 – has to be higher 11 years later!] were not born when the Cuban Revolution took place.   Although a 1991 Cuban nationwide poll revealed strong support for Castro, with 95% of Cubans favoring Cuba's one party rule while 98% believed Castro to be the most "important political personality of the world," the divergence between the two polls clearly reflects Cuba's new vulnerability as the lone keeper of the Communist faith.177

                  For the Cubans now experiencing the revolution's economic survival, the single most important question is "Where does this leave Cuba?"   As Cuba's Fourth Congress of the Communist Party attempted to deal with this question in October 1991, the grim realities of Cuba's future under communism surfaced.  Deep division within the party centered on exactly what course of action should be taken.  Young reformers, concerned about their future if the party collapsed, pressed for political and economic reform that would breathe new life into the party.  Leaders of the party's old guard argued that, at a time when the revolution was facing its worst crisis ever, any reforms - whether free legislative elections or greater-autonomy for state enterprises - could spin out of control and destroy the revolution and Cuba.178

In addition to Cuban Communist Party concerns, Cuba now also seems to be facing the apathy of its young.  The youth of Cuba who did not experience the birth of the revolution are reportedly more intent on obtaining the benefits of the "West" and of capitalism then on maintaining revolutionary fervor.

              Accordingly, as Cuba continues its economic spiral downward, the "revolution" and its social causes appear to be the only thing Castro has left.  Reduced to its barebones ideologically, Castro attempts to explain away Cuba's current state of economic survival by identifying it as a "Special Period" for Cuba.

              The question, then, of where this leaves Cuba is difficult to answer.  Castro, shrouded in the thick veil of an archaic revolution, continues to address Cuba's problems with antiquated remedies.  Failing to respond imaginatively and boldly to the extraordinary events that shook Cuba following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Castro may, in effect, be causing the demise of his own revolution.

              Unwilling to institute reform or begin a peaceful transition to capitalism or even democratic socialism, the future of Cuba and of Castro's revolution remains in doubt.  Will the revolution survive Castro?  Will Castro seek repproachment with the United States in order to save Cuba?  Or, will Cuba succumb to civil war until a new Castro or Batista assumes control?  Only Cuba can answer that question, and most assuredly the United States must be prepared to deal with the outcome.

Stay tuned!

Hello, back after a nice vacation on a Maine beach and York, PA where my brother got married... Now back to blogging...

On this day in U.S. Military history - July 18, the first major battle between Union and Confederate land armies took place at various engagements around the Town of Manassas located near Bull Run Creek on the dates of July 18th through July 21st.  The Union Army was decisively defeated and the local observers from Washington, D.C. that drove their horses down to the battlefield relayed the news back that winning the war was not going to be easy at all.

Before Bull Run: Blackburn's Ford
The First Battle of Bull Run (nice map here)
A summary of the Battle (wonderful maps here too)

To readers who don't know Marine history, it might be quite something to read about Marines cheering the bombing of Hezbollah.  However, these Marines DO know their history.  In 1983, a Hezbollah suicide bomber blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon and 253 Marines died as a result.
(http: Israellycool)

After a decade plus three years of Israel trying to negotiate with the Palestinians about Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinians have basically given Israel the f... (ahem)... the refusal to compromise.  It is unfortunate that Palastinians are masters of the art of provocation.  Indeed, what was surprising was that the abduction of an Israeli soldier set off a visible and measured Israeli response as over 1,000 rockets had been fired onto Israeli territory since Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip a year ago (that's about 2-3 rockets a day).  Now we have the ongoing Operation Summer Rain (why couldn't they name it "Operation Rain of Fire?" First rule about military operations - it has to sound TOUGH).  If that wasn't enough, Hezbollah has upped the ante by abducting two Israeli soliders and the Israelis have responded with fury with Operation Just Reward (SEE what a difference a name change makes?)

Best wishes to the Israelis and I hope they are able to clean up the neighborhood.

Pajama's Media has a GREAT round-up.

So why did I pick the particular title of this blog?  Because, in war, a good soldier, Marine, sailor or airman doesn't just carry out the orders to take the fight to the enemy, he also seeks to encourage his fellow troopers to do the same as he is doing.  The morale of an army has made or broken kingdoms and nations in human history when it comes to forces of arms.  What is less observed is the morale of the citizenry of that nation-state dictates how great and influential such a state is not only concerning its own advancement, but also on the world's stage.

During the Civil War, Julie Ward Howe wrote a wonderfully stirring song called "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."  When the song was performed with Lincoln in attendence, the President wept and requested an encore.  Union armies started to sing the song as they marched into battle.  Later on, John Phillip Sousa, who became a famous Marine bandleader, would write "The Stars and Stripes Forever" in 1896 which eventually became the official march music of the United States.

While I cannot write songs nor play an instrument, I can and I am, with my words and thoughts as a Republican Conservative, a source of encouragement to my fellow members of the center-right whom have been a source of encouragement to me as well.

I'll make mistakes, I'll disagree with some of you.  We'll rejoice and share sorrows.  Laugh and cry.  It'll be fun!