Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
"They're probably the two best guys I've ever known and the two best guys I ever will know," says their friend and academy classmate Ben Mathews. "I think it means something that they're together. It's terrible that they had to give their lives, but they're shining examples of what Americans can strive to be."
Brendan was days from beginning SEAL training in San Diego when the news of Travis' death tore his world asunder. His sister, Erin, had always viewed him as indestructible and was taken aback to hear him hurt so badly. "That was the toughest part," she says. "It was the first time I ever saw Brendan in a different light. Not that he wasn't still tough, but maybe he was a little more vulnerable."
The Navy would not allow Brendan to leave for the funeral. In his fury, he briefly considered quitting. Instead, he dedicated his training to Travis and won the coveted "Honor Man" spot as the top graduate of his class.
On missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Brendan wore two personal items — his wedding ring and a metal wrist band Travis' parents gave him to commemorate his friend. At his wedding reception in 2008, he handed Travis' mom, Janet, the gold trident pin he received for completing SEAL training.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
THE SYRIAN regime of Bashar al-Assad on Sunday made a desperate effort to distract attention from its continuing, bloody assaults on its own people. Hundreds of Palestinians were bused from refugee camps near Damascus to the de facto border with Israel in the Golan Heights, where they broke through a fence and invaded a nearby town. Surprised and badly outnumbered, Israeli troops eventually opened fire, killing at least one person. Crowds of Palestinians also marched on Israeli border posts with Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; all together more than a dozen fatalities were reported.
Palestinians demonstrate every year against Israel’s founding, and Facebook organizers helped drum up support for Sunday’s marches in the style of the Arab Spring. But no one can reach the heavily militarized Syrian front with Israel without the consent and cooperation of the Assad regime. That Syria’s allies in Lebanon and Gaza, Hezbollah and Hamas, were visibly involved in the demonstrations was also telling. Like the dictatorship in Damascus, the terrorist groups are profoundly threatened by the Arab demands for democratic change — and trying to switch the subject to Israel is the region’s most familiar political gambit.
Sadly, we know the answer to the Post's question, and it's almost certainly "no." While the paper's editorial board praised the Obama Administration for "calling" the Damascus government on its latest maneuver, that criticism came rather late. The White House has largely been silent while Bashir Assad's security forces slaughtered protesters in the street; by some accounts, at least 1,000 Syrians have been killed by the military and police since the anti-regime demonstrations began over a month ago.
And, as the Post observes, Mr. Obama himself has not yet publicly condemned the violence, or withdrawn our ambassador to Damascus. Administration officials have promised to "adjust" relations with Syria if the situation worsened. Now, with Mr. Assad provoking a conflict with Israel, hasn't the time come for that "adjustment," as the editorial asks rather pointedly?
Unfortunately, there are those in Washington (and even Israel) that prefer the current devil in Damascus to what might come next. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had no problem calling for the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, but the departure of the younger Assad is a different matter. Sure, he's a brutal despot, but Mr. Assad is a known quantity. Besides, there are still those in government (hellooo...Foggy Bottom) who still hold hope that Bashir Assad could be instrumental in the Middle East peace process.
We hate to burst their bubble, but hopes of a lasting peace between Syria and Israel evaporated years ago, about the time that Mr. Assad put his camp squarely in the Iranian orbit. As Tehran's closest ally in the region, it's Syria's job to keep pressure on Israel, by supporting terrorist proxies, keeping them supplied and dominating affairs in Lebanon.
Sunday's border incident was nothing more than a transparent ploy to shift focus from Assad's own domestic troubles by provoking another confrontation with Israel. Most assuredly, there will be more. The Syrian dictator has yet to crush the pro-democracy movement within his borders; accomplishing that goal will require something along the lines of the 1982 Hama massacre, which claimed the lives of at least 15,000 residents of that city. Assad clearly wants world attention focused elsewhere during the next phase of his crackdown, so why not stir things up with Israel?
The danger, of course, is that any border skirmish between the two countries can quickly escalate into full-scale war. And don't believe that option isn't on the table. As we noted recently, the battle for the future of the Middle East is being waged in Syria. The Assad government will do anything to survive and Iran is fully committed to that effort. Without its friends in Damascus, Iran would lose a valuable proxy in the fight against Israel and face severe difficulties in maintaining Hizballah's grip on Lebanon.
All the more reason for the U.S. to get even tougher on Damascus. The administration's Middle East peace envoy, former Senator George Mitchell, stepped down over the weekend, affirming that the process is dead--and has been for years. Mitchell's departure also demolishes the notion that Syria is ready for serious talks with Israel, so the White House has no reason to maintain that charade any longer. It's time for that "adjustment" in relations with Damascus, beginning with the withdrawal of our ambassador, comments on the Syrian situation from Mr. Obama himself, and more support for Israel.
What are the odds of those events actually happening? You can probably answer that one yourself.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
"The one thing I would tell you," Gates told a meeting with about 1,000 Marines at Camp Lejeune, N.C., "... is that I think there has been a consistent and effective effort to protect the identities of those who participated in the raid, and I think that has to continue."
Friday, May 13, 2011
The outcome of the attacks was far from the doom presaged in the press. “All of the Taliban involved in the Kandahar attack were either captured or killed,” a military source with detailed knowledge of the offensive told The Washington Times. “Needless to say, not the greatest start to their vaunted spring offensive.” In late April, the insurgents announced the offensive would begin on May 1, but the heroin poppy season was not over and the leadership may have been preoccupied with what our source euphemistically called “revenue-enhancing activities.” The most significant event on May 1 was when the Pakistan-based Haqqani terrorist network sent a 12-year-old boy wearing a suicide vest into a marketplace in eastern Afghanistan, killing seven civilians and wounding 34, including women and children.
The promised large-scale offensive didn’t materialize on the date promised, and throughout the week, that sector was relatively quiet. This was no accident. According to the International Security Assistance Force, the ground for the Taliban defeat had been well prepared. “It’s not like we were sitting around waiting for the Taliban to do something,” our source said. “Throughout the winter we were extremely aggressive. We pressed the fight.” During the first week in May, the number of Taliban complex attacks was lower than during the same period in 2010. “The Taliban don’t have the same sanctuaries or weapons caches they used to have,” our source said. “And a lot of their higher level leaders are gone.”
Earlier this month, Time magazine likened early attacks in the Taliban spring campaign to the 1968 Tet Offensive. So far, that comparison appears ridiculous. But the "strategists" at Time may be ultimately vindicated. Tet was actually a stunning military defeat for the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong allies; likewise, the new offensive in Afghanistan may prove to be an equally serious setback for the Taliban and their Al Qaida allies.