American Ranger ALERT: We Must Hunt Down This Cop-Killer

All Americans, especially those in Washington state, need to keep a lookout for MAURICE CLEMMONS, the alleged murderer of four cops in a cowardly ambush killing. The following article is from Fox News:

* * * *

Police Seek Ex-Con in Ambush on Wash. Officers
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Fox News

A man with an extensive criminal past — including a lengthy prison sentence commuted by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee nearly a decade ago — was being sought Sunday in a deadly ambush on four police officers who were gunned down inside a coffee shop.

Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer told reporters that Maurice Clemmons, 37, was believed to have been in the area around the time of the shooting, but declined to say what evidence might link him to the shooting.

Clemmons has an extensive violent criminal history from Arkansas, including aggravated robbery and theft, the sheriff's office said. He also recently was arrested and charged in Washington state for assaulting a police officer, and second-degree rape of a child. Using a bail bondsman, he posted $150,000 and was released from jail last week.

Still unclear was why a man entered the coffee shop and gunned down Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39; and Officers Ronald Owens, 37; Tina Griswold, 40; and Greg Richards 42.

We have no motive at all," Troyer said. "I don't think when we find out what it is, it will be anything that makes any sense or be worth it."

The four officers were with the 100-member police department of Lakewood, which adjoins the unincorporated area of Parkland, where the shootings took place.

Richards' sister-in-law, Melanie Burwell, called the shooting "senseless."

"He didn't have a mean bone in his body," she said. "If there were more people in the world like Greg, things like this wouldn't happen.

An impromptu memorial of an American flag, flowers and candles decorated the front yard at Renninger's home. His family declined to speak with reporters.

On Sunday night, a motorcade of dozens of police cars and motorcycles with lights flashing escorted the bodies of the four officers to the medical examiner's office.

Troyer said investigators believe two of the officers were killed while sitting in the shop, and a third was shot dead after standing up. The fourth apparently "gave up a good fight."

"We believe there was a struggle, a commotion, a fight ... that he fought the guy all the way out the door," Troyer said. "We hope that he hit him." Investigators were asking area medical providers to report any gunshot wounds.

In 1989, Clemmons, then 17, was convicted in Little Rock for aggravated robbery. He was paroled in 2000 after Huckabee commuted Clemmons' 95-year prison sentence. Huckabee, who was criticized during his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 for granting many clemencies and commutations, cited Clemmons' youth. Clemmons later violated his parole, was returned to prison and released in 2004.

Troyer said the gunman entered the coffee house and walked toward the counter as if to place an order. A barista saw a gun when the man opened his jacket and fled out the back door. The man then turned and opened fire on the officers as they sat working on their laptops

Troyer said the attack was clearly targeted at the officers, not a robbery gone bad.

"This was more of an execution. Walk in with the specific mindset to shoot police officers," he said. "There were marked patrol cars outside and they were all in uniform."

Troyer said the officers were catching up on paperwork at the beginning of their shifts when they were attacked at 8:15 a.m.

Two employees and a few other customers were in the shop during the attack. None were injured. All were interviewed by the Pierce County sheriff's investigators.

There was no indication of any connection with the Halloween night shooting of a Seattle police officer.

Authorities say the man charged with that shooting also firebombed four police vehicles in October as part of a "one-man war" against law enforcement. Christopher Monfort, 41, was arrested after being wounded in a firefight with police days after the Seattle shooting. He remains hospitalized in stable condition, the hospital said Sunday.

The officers killed Sunday were a patrol squad made up of three officers and their sergeant. No threats had been made against them or other officers in the region, sheriff's officials said.

"We won't know if it's a copycat effect or what it was until we get the case solved," Troyer said.

The coffee shop, part of a popular local chain, is on a side street near McChord Air Force Base in Tacoma, about 35 miles south of Seattle. The shop is in a small retail center alongside two restaurants, a cigar store and a nail salon.

Investigators were checking surveillance video from multiple sources, trying to identify a possible getaway car, Troyer said.

"We lost people we care about. We're working to find out who did this and deal with him." Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor told reporters at the scene.

* * * *

This guy needs to be brought to justice ASAP....

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

The Future in Afghanistan from General Petraeus

The following article from Parade Magazine is written by Colonel Jack Jacobs, my company commander when I was in Infantry Officer Candidate School in 1969. He was an extraordinary young man as a captain then; he has become an expert commentator for NBC and has written his own book about his military experiences. As you will see at the end of the article, Jacobs was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in Vietnam. He received this award just before our class graduated from OCS.

* * * *

He oversees U.S. forces in 20 countries—including Iraq and Afghanistan -
General Petraeus Gives A War Briefing

by Col. Jack Jacobs

published: 11/29/2009 in Parade Magazine

He looks like a wiry, weather-beaten cowboy, a coiled spring with a leather face. He talks quietly, in measured phrases. With a neutral accent you can’t quite place, his speech has a comforting cadence. Still, you can almost feel the dynamic tension in his brain as he pauses from time to time to choose his words carefully.

He is U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, the boss of Central Command. He is responsible for everything that happens—or fails to happen—in an area of operations that spans 20 countries in Southwest and Central Asia, including two where American troops face danger and death every day: Iraq and Afghanistan.

As President Barack Obama recently studied his national-security team’s recommendations on how to prosecute the war in Afghanistan, I spoke with Petraeus at his headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla.

Thirty-five years ago, I was an Army captain on the faculty at West Point, and Petraeus was a young cadet there. I remember him well. He was soft-spoken, but his eyes betrayed an intense, almost burning, spirit. I asked him why he became a soldier in the first place, and he said, “I lived not far from West Point and became familiar with its people. They had discipline and were dedicated, and I wanted to be just like them.”

Petraeus graduated among the top 5% of his class and chose to join the infantry. He became a paratrooper and a Ranger and was promoted rapidly. The Army sent him to graduate school, and he earned a Ph.D. from Princeton. In 2000, he was promoted to brigadier general. His subsequent rise from one star to four was extraordinarily swift.

Some critics say that Petraeus has always been voraciously ambitious, with his sights set on the highest rank and responsibility, but the general himself said, surprisingly, “Even at West Point I was never committed to a long career in the Army and instead fell in love with it incrementally.” Whatever his thirst for authority, he is now in charge of campaigns whose outcomes will affect America’s security for decades to come.

Petraeus made no bones about the problems he sees in Afghanistan, where operations are under the command of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who reports to Petraeus and was two years behind him at West Point. “Security has deteriorated in the course of the last two years,” Petraeus said, and he agreed with the assessment of his boss, Adm. Michael Mullen, who is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the situation in Afghanistan is now perilous.

Petraeus acknowledges that after eight years of war against a determined and elusive enemy, many Americans, including some members of Congress, question whether the war in Afghanistan remains worth fighting. Petraeus himself, however, has no such doubts, even as he predicts that the campaign there could last another decade—or even longer.

After quickly ousting the Taliban and its al-Qaeda comrades in 2001, the general explained, the U.S. became preoccupied with Iraq. Afghanistan was ignored, and the enemy returned. Permitting Afghanistan once again to become a homeland for Islamic terrorists and revolutionaries—as it is currently on the verge of becoming—creates too much danger for a large portion of the world, Petraeus said. Like McChrystal, he believes that the U.S. must fight both the terrorists of al-Qaeda and the insurgents of the Taliban—and that doing so successfully will require more troops.

The decision to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq from the current 120,000 to about 50,000 by August will allow some troops to be shifted to Afghanistan, where about 68,000 Americans already serve. But what kind of forces does the U.S. need there?

“Afghanistan is not Iraq,” Petraeus said. “Iraq has had strong central government for a long time. Afghanistan has not.” His view on the nature of power in Afghanistan—namely, that village and tribal traditions are what matter—results in a strategy far less dependent on massive force and more on helping local leaders provide for, and protect, their people. From such a perspective, conventional units like infantry brigades are less useful than special-operations forces—small, nimble, clandestine outfits that can eliminate pockets of terrorists in the most inaccessible places and train local militias to defend themselves.

I asked whether the U.S. has enough unconventional troops to implement such a strategy effectively. “You’re right,” the general replied. “We don’t have sufficient people who are trained in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. But Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates has directed an expansion of these forces. It’s a growth industry, and we will get what we require.”

The war in Afghanistan is complicated by the nature of the enemy. Its fighters don’t wear uniforms that identify them as Taliban or al-Qaeda. “There is a wide spectrum of enemy,” Petraeus said. “There are a few true believers, but there are many others who support the enemy only because they feel threatened or intimidated and are just trying to survive.”

Any strategy the U.S. puts in place in Afghanistan will be affected by the problems of its neighbor, Pakistan, a nation that is politically fragmented, culturally divided, unable to control large swaths of territory within its own borders—and armed with nuclear weapons.

“I used to think that Iran was the most dangerous place on earth,” I told Petraeus, “but now I’m not so sure. It’s probably Pakistan.”

He reflected silently for a long moment. “To be sure,” he said finally, “Pakistan is dangerous. But something happened about six months ago that may improve security in the region for a long time to come. The Pakistani military, government, and clergy joined hands and dedicated themselves to the elimination of security threats inside Pakistan.”

After the U.S. invasion in 2001, Petraeus went on, the Taliban fled Afghanistan for the lawless tribal territories of neighboring Pakistan. There, its fighters lived largely undisturbed. Eventually, they began to operate openly and with ease. In April, they captured Buner, a district of 500,000 people only 60 miles from Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. Though ultimately routed from the area, the Taliban’s resurgence was a wake-up call to Pakistan’s fractured leadership.

At the time of my conversation with Petraeus, Pakistan’s army was on the offensive in South Waziristan, a border province insurgents use as a staging area for attacks on Americans in Afghanistan. Thus far, the results on the battlefield had been good, but the Taliban was retaliating with deadly suicide bombings designed to weaken Pakistan’s resolve.

“The Pakistanis should be commended for their courage,” Petraeus said. Yet his statement begged the question of how long Pakistan’s fortitude can persist in the face of increasing carnage. Weakness in Pakistan will make Petraeus’ job in Afghanistan extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible.

Once the President settles on a strategy for Afghanistan, I asked, what will America need, besides more troops and good intelligence? “Time,” Petraeus replied, “and, as General McChrystal observed, lots of humility.”

Petraeus was deeply moved by an occasion in July 2008 when he presided over the simultaneous re-enlistment of hundreds of U.S. troops. Many had already served three tours in combat and were facing yet another separation from family and friends. “I don’t think I will ever forget the strength of their commitment to service and sacrifice,” he said.

I have met many generals and admirals. Many have often been outspoken, opinionated, and occasionally impolitic, especially in difficult circumstances. David Petraeus seems different. While all professed a love of their nation, Petraeus echoed my own experience and that of many other combat veterans.

“We fight to defend the country, and we fight to accomplish the mission,” he said. “But most of all, especially when combat is most difficult and dangerous, we fight for each other.”

Col. Jack Jacobs (U.S. Army, ret.) is the author of “If Not Now, When?: Duty and Sacrifice in America’s Time of Need” and the on-camera military analyst for NBC. He received the Medal of Honor in 1969 for bravery in combat in Vietnam.

* * * *

If you put a man in charge because you have faith in his leadership abilities, then LET HIM LEAD. General Petraeus has stated his plan for Afghanistan. Considering his success in Iraq, he should be given the chance to carry out his strategy in Afghanistan as well.

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Remember Our Troops at Thanksgiving

On Thanksgiving Day in 1970, my platoon and I worked our way toward a landing zone where we were scheduled to receive a Thanksgiving dinner as part of a resupply. A few hundred meters short of the landing zone, we stumbled upon a North Vietnamese bunker complex which was, thankfully, unoccupied.

It was a gigantic complex, complete with large bunkers and even classrooms. We had to clear every single structure, but there were no bad guys or enemy supplies. I radioed the coordinates to my company commander, and we moved to the landing zone to wait for the resupply helicopter.

A couple of Red Cross girls (we called them Donut Dollies) were on the chopper, and they delivered our turkey, stuffing and other food. It was great to see a couple of attractive "round-eyed" girls. We were out in the jungle with enemy soldiers not very far away, but the touch of Americana raised everyone's spirits.

Just as we were about to enjoy the food, we received word that our unit was dropping gas on the bunkers we had cleared. This was an effort to make them unusable for the enemy. Unfortunately, those making the drop misjudged the wind, and we started to get a little tingling in our eyes.

We had to pack up everything, including the Thanksgiving meal and the Donut Dollies, and move to another landing zone a long distance away. The girls weren't used to moving through the jungle, so they were understandably a little scared about the proximity of the bad guys.

We eventually made it to the other landing zone and enjoyed the meal. The Red Cross girls flew away on the helicopter while we moved out on our next mission - with full stomachs and renewed energy.

Today, in Iraq, Afghanistan and other lesser known places around the world, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are holding the line in the war on terror. They have placed their lives on the line for all of us, and some of them have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Remember them in your prayers on Thanksgiving. Without their efforts, this would be a much different world.

For my fellow warriors who may read this, may God protect you this day and every day. You are indeed appreciated by those you left behind...

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

A Cop's World: Sometimes It Ain't Easy

The old woman died while her husband spent the night in the hospital. She was 83; he was 87. They had been married for over sixty years.

Shortly after the paramedics pronounced her dead, the old man arrived home. Along with another officer, I met him at his car and informed him of his wife's passing. He was stoic but obviously shaken.

I stood by with a social worker while the funeral home prepared to remove the old woman's body. Then the old man asked if he could see his wife one more time.

We walked him up the stairs to his apartment. Just climbing those stairs was tough for the old man because time has taken its toll. Walking is difficult, even with a cane. With halting steps, he entered the bedroom where his wife had been found; we waited by the door.

The old man walked up to the woman with whom he had shared over sixty years. He touched her face, her neck, and her hand. We had learned that there were no other family members and, at their age, the elderly couple had outlived all of their friends. The old man was now completely alone.

After a couple of minutes, he slowly turned and started to walk out of the bedroom. Then he stopped and turned to look at his wife again. With halting steps aided only by the cane, he walked up to her for the last time. He touched her face, looking at her as if he were waiting for her to open her eyes and smile. To tell you the truth, I was starting to have a tough time myself because the emotion of the moment was affecting all of us. Yeah, cops have feelings too.

The old man came out of the room and sat in a living room chair. Looking up at the social worker, he said, "What do I do now?" I looked around the small apartment and, even though I had never met the couple, the place now had an eerie emptiness about it. There was an unfinished sandwich on the kitchen counter. Next to the television was a stack of old movies from the 1940s. I looked at the small loveseat and pictured them sitting together, holding hands, and sharing memories while they watched some old Fred Astaire movie.

There was a time when they were young, when they danced to the music from some big band, when they looked into each other's eyes and shared their hopes and dreams. They had lived that future, but one of them was destined to be the first to die. The old man must now walk alone into a hazy, solitary future.

The rest of us will gather with our families on Thanksgiving. We will laugh, share food and memories, and savor the joy that fills our homes on holidays. The old man will sit alone, grieving for his lost love, and pondering the uncertain days ahead.

When we say our prayers before our Thanksgiving feast, give thanks, but also remember those whose own holiday will be a lonely one.

Remember the old man...

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Night Shift is a Health Risk for Cops

The following article appeared in today's Orlando Sentinel. Anyone who has had to work overnight shifts will relate to this:

* * * *

Health risk for cops: Night beat

By Jeannine Stein, Tribune Newspapers

Midnight shift workers often find it hard to get enough quality sleep on a consistent basis. Police officers are not exempt, often working late shifts and overtime as part of their jobs.

A new study suggests that their schedule may cause cops to develop metabolic syndrome, a cluster of symptoms including high blood pressure, insulin resistance and high triglycerides that advance development of such conditions as stroke, cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes.

The research, published in the current issue of Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, focused on 98 police officers who were part of the Buffalo Cardio-Metabolic Occupational Police Stress study, which began in 2003. The participants had their blood pressure checked, took a blood test and had their waist circumference measured. They also filled out a questionnaire focusing on lifestyle choices such as sleep habits, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use.

Researchers discovered that in general, those on afternoon and midnight shifts were younger than those working during the day, and predominantly male. Overall, 30 percent of the police officers on the night shift had metabolic syndrome. In the general population, that number was 21 percent, taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The younger officers on the night shift (average age 36.5 years) also had higher rates of metabolic syndrome than their age group in the general population.

* * * *

For those of us who have worked these shifts, such information really comes as no surprise.

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Check Out the Website for My Book: "My Last War: A Vietnam Veteran's Tour in Iraq"

I hope you will continue to visit my new website at www.MyLastWar.com. You can get information about my book, view the book trailer, and even order the book!

When you read the book, please give me some feedback, either by email to TheRangerCop@aol.com or by leaving a review at Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble.com.

Thanks again for your support.

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Lewis Millett Dies at 88 - Awarded the Medal of Honor

We have lost another great American warrior. The Washington Post tells the story of Medal of Honor winner Lewis L. Millett, who died on November 14.

* * * *

Lewis L. Millett, 88
Daring soldier was awarded Medal of Honor

By Adam Bernstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Lewis L. Millett, 88, a career Army officer who was briefly and somewhat misleadingly court-martialed for desertion during World War II and went on to receive the Medal of Honor for leading a bayonet charge during the Korean War, died Nov. 14 at a veterans hospital in Loma Linda, Calif. He had congestive heart failure.

Col. Millett, who sported a red handlebar mustache, cut an audacious and unconventional path during his 35 years of military service. He led daring attacks in two wars and was instrumental in starting a reconnaissance commando school to train small units for covert operations in Vietnam.

He also was an Army deserter. He later said he had been so eager to "help fight fascism and Hitler" that he left an Air Corps gunnery school in mid-1941 -- months before the U.S. entry into World War II -- to enlist with the Canadian army and go overseas. He manned an antiaircraft gun during the London blitz before rejoining the U.S. Army, which had by that time declared war and apparently was not being overly meticulous in its background checks.

As an antitank gunner in Tunisia, he earned the Silver Star after he jumped into a burning ammunition-filled halftrack, drove it away from allied soldiers and leapt to safety just before the vehicle exploded. Not long after, he shot down a German Messerschmitt Me-109 fighter that was strafing Allied troops. Col. Millett, who was firing from machine guns mounted on a halftrack, hit the pilot through the windshield.

He had fought his way through Italy, participating in the campaigns at Salerno and Anzio, when his paperwork caught up with him. A superior officer told him that he was being court-martialed for his desertion to Canada and that his punishment was $52. He also received a battlefield promotion for fearlessness in combat.

His letters back home were unfiltered epithets aimed at the chain of command. "Letters were censored in World War II, and the next thing I knew I was standing before the battery commander," he told the journal Military History. "He told me that the War Department had ordered three times that I be court-martialed. They finally did it to prevent someone from really throwing the book at me later. Then a few weeks later they made me a second lieutenant! I must be the only Regular Army colonel who has ever been court-martialed and convicted of desertion."

During the Korean War, he received the military's highest awards for valor, including the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross, for two bayonet charges he led as a company commander in February 1951.

"We had acquired some Chinese documents stating that Americans were afraid of hand-to-hand fighting and cold steel," he told Military History. "When I read that, I thought, 'I'll show you, you sons of bitches!' "

He was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading a charge up Hill 180 near Soam-Ni on Feb. 7. When one of his platoons was pinned down by heavy fire, he placed himself at the head of two other platoons and ordered the men to charge up the hill.

According to his Medal of Honor citation, he bayoneted several enemy soldiers and lobbed grenades in their direction while rallying his men to fight. Grenade fragments pierced Col. Millett's shin, but he refused medical evacuation.

"Despite vicious opposing fire, the whirlwind hand-to-hand assault carried to the crest of the hill," the Medal of Honor citation read. "His dauntless leadership and personal courage so inspired his men that they stormed into the hostile position and used their bayonets with such lethal effect that the enemy fled in wild disorder."

Charles H. Cureton, director of Army museums at the U.S. Army Center of Military History, said that Col. Millett's intimidating, close-combat bayonet charge was "very unusual. By the time you get to the Second World War, the range of lethality of weapons is such that a bayonet charge is very hazardous."

Lewis Lee Millett was born Dec. 15, 1920, in Mechanic Falls, Maine, and grew up with his mother in South Dartmouth, Mass., after his parents divorced. After his Korean War service, he went through Ranger training at Fort Benning, Ga., and was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division as an intelligence officer. He later was sent to Vietnam as a military adviser to a controversial intelligence program called Phoenix, which killed thousands of suspected Viet Cong and their sympathizers in an effort to destroy the Viet Cong infrastructure in towns and villages.

He said he retired in 1973 because he was convinced that the United States had "quit" in Vietnam. He championed the return of U.S. prisoners of war from Vietnam and then worked as a deputy sheriff in Trenton, Tenn., before settling in the San Jacinto Mountains resort village of Idyllwild, Calif., across the street from an American Legion post.

His first marriage, to the former Virginia Young, ended in divorce. His second wife, Winona Williams Millett, died in 1993. Survivors include three children from his second marriage, L. Lee Millett Jr. and Timothy Millett, both of Idyllwild, and Elizabeth Millett of Nevada; three sisters; a brother; and four grandchildren.

A son from his second marriage, Army Staff Sgt. John Millett, died in the 1985 airplane crash in Gander, Newfoundland, that killed more than 240 U.S. service members returning from a peacekeeping mission in the Middle East.

Reflecting on his career, Col. Millett once told an interviewer: "I believe in freedom, I believe deeply in it. I've fought in three wars, and volunteered for all of them, because I believed as a free man, that it was my duty to help those under the attack of tyranny. Just as simple as that."

* * * *

An inspiring story about a man who was a legend among his fellow warriors. Our condolences to Colonel Millett's family and friends.

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Hackers Take the Fun Out Of Facebook

After much prodding and encouragement, this old Baby Boomer entered the world of Facebook. It was a lot of fun for a while - the personal page, the networked blog aspect, the fan page for my book.

Then came the hacking.

Perhaps you saw the news a few day ago when scores of Facebook accounts were hacked into. This happened to me, and I became only one of many victims. Suddenly, people who had befriended me were being sent obscene messages and pornographic videos - in MY name!

I dealt with this for a couple of days, changing my password multiple times, changing my email address, sending dozens of apologies, and dealing with indignant messages asking why I could send such a thing. Finally, it appeared the attack was over.

Then, yesterday morning, it started over again. I deactivated the account, but while I was driving around in my patrol car dealing with a multitude of police issues, I thought about it.

Facebook is just too much trouble. Yeah, I got a lot of encouraging messages to "hang in there" or "don't worry, it's happened to me" and others.

Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to constantly watch my back on Facebook since Facebook obviously doesn't do a very good job of watching my back for me. So I decided to close my pages out.

I'm still dealing with bad junk on my computer and may have to pay someone to fix it. Okay, there are a lot of nice people on Facebook. I will miss the exchanges and the good stuff. But enough is enough.

I hope my friends will still continue to check in with the blog here at American Ranger, as well as the website for my book at www.MyLastWar.com. But as far as Facebook, until that organization cleans up its act, I won't be there.

Thanks to all and may God continue to bless America...

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Veteran's Day: Thanking America's Warriors for Their Service

Another Veteran's Day dawns with America's warriors still fighting the good fight. In the streets and deserts of Iraq, in the mountains and plains of Afghanistan, and in many other lesser known battlefields throughout the world, our troops are engaged in battle with those who would destroy our way of life.

With the recent "Lone Wolf" terrorist attack at Fort Hood, we are reminded that our troops are in danger wherever they are. With strength of heart, goodness of soul, and the determination of warriors, they continue to stand between us and those who would hurt us.

On this very special day, American Ranger remembers all of those courageous men and women who have served in uniform throughout America's history, as well as those brave warriors who have died on our behalf.

Today, I hope that you will take time to remember them as well.

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Is This The Future of Health Care Under Obama?

Here is a report on the health care debate that was done by John Stossel for 20/20. If this is the future of the health care system here in the United States, we are in deep trouble:



Barack Obama now says he doesn't want government run health care, but that's not what he really believes or wants. It's also not what he has said publicly in the past.

Does that count as a lie?

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Health Care Debate - It Ain't Over Yet

Okay, the Democrats, led by the vicious Nancy Pelosi, have passed the House version of the socialist medical bill. (The Californians who elected this woman are nuts.)

Throughout the America where normal, average people live, there is a large amount of wringing of hands, screaming in the dark, and dusting off of the "Don't Tread on Me" flags. However, do not despair, my friends. It ain't over yet...

Before any health care bill can be passed into law, the Senate must pass its own version, and there are already problems with those guys. Then, if the Senate does manage to pass its own health care bill, the Senate and House versions must be reconciled into one final bill that has to be passed by both chambers of Congress.

It will then be time to wipe the tears from the Statue of Liberty. Because President Barack "The One" Obama will sign it into law.

Of course we must fix the health care system in this country. But turning the whole thing over to a government that can't even produce enough swine flu vaccine is crazy. Continue to put pressure on your senators and representatives. Write them, call them, stand outside their offices, and annoy the hell out of them. Make them understand that, if they vote for the final version of this monstrosity, we will vote them out of office the next chance we get.

It's a shame that annointing such traitors with tar and feathers and riding them out of town on a rail became illegal....

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Heroic Fort Hood Cop Stops Killer

She'll surely say that she was just a cop doing her duty, but Fort Hood police officer Kimberly Munley's training paid off. Wounded in her encounter with the Fort Hood killer, she will forever be credited with ending this bloody massacre:

* * * *

Fast-Acting Officer Stopped Rampage
From CNN

FORT HOOD, Texas (Nov. 6) -- A civilian police officer who shot the Fort Hood gunman four times during his bloody rampage stopped the attacker cold, a U.S. Army official said Friday.

Officer Kimberly Munley of the Fort Hood Police Department is a "trained, active first responder" who acted quickly after she "just happened to encounter the gunman," said Lt. Gen. Bob Cone, Fort Hood's commanding general.

Cone said the officer and her partner responded "very quickly" to the scene of the shootings -- reportedly in about three minutes.

Munley "just happened very fortunately to be very close to the incident scene," Cone told CNN's "American Morning."

He said she shot the gunman four times and was wounded herself in an exchange of gunfire with him.

"Really a pretty amazing and aggressive performance by this police officer," Cone said.

Authorities have identified the alleged gunman as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, an Army psychiatrist. They said he opened fire at a military processing center Thursday at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and wounding 30.

Cone was asked if Munley's shots brought down the assailant and stopped him from shooting.

"That's correct," Cone said. "The critical factor here was her quick response to the situation."

* * * *

Well done, Officer Munley!

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

"Lone Wolf" Attack Strikes Fort Hood

We have talked about the dangers of the Lone Wolf terrorist before in "American Ranger". We had another post (link here) following a previous such incident.

Scattered throughout America, in our small towns and in the big cities, are Islamic extremists plotting to attack Americans. Some of these self-described "holy warriors" may be acting on behalf of Al Qaeda. Others are Al Qaeda "wannabees" who have created their own little terrorist "clubs". A few are individuals who believe they are creating plots inspired by God. When they are ready, or when some type of emotional crisis sets them off, they execute their attacks on innocent men, women, or children.

The incident at Fort Hood will be investigated, and we will eventually learn whether or not there were signs or warnings that this Army officer was preparing his own "jihad". So far, it sounds like he had expressed his fundamentalist feelings in arguments with his military peers. Such sympathies with our enemies should have triggered some type of investigation, but we do not yet know if that happened.

All of us must remember that the war on terror has no front lines. The fanatics who want to destroy us are the ultimate guerrillas. They are not only in Iraq and Afghanistan; they live and work among us here in the United States and within the borders of our allies around the world.

Their agenda is not a pretty one, so we must use our eyes, ears, and common sense when we see, hear, or learn about something that doesn't seem right. Then we must contact authorities. Every police agency in this country has someone who is designated to handle such complaints.

Whether it is a burglary in progress, a suspicious person, a questionable package, or some other unusual event, Americans have done a good job with their "neighborhood watch" programs. Community oriented policing has enhanced the communication between citizens and law enforcement.

We must extend this cooperation to the prevention of terrorist attacks. The American spirit will not permit these Islamic thugs to destroy our way of life. We will work together to protect our homes, families, and businesses.

If by chance YOU are a "Lone Wolf", or the member of a terrorist cell, or part of a group of "wannabees", understand this - we are looking for you, and we will hunt you down like the animals you are.....

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

American World Strategy - Difficult Choices for the United States

This essay by the global intelligence analysts for Stratfor, is long, but it's filled with valuable insight into the history of American strategic choices, including the perilous ones facing us today:

* * * *

Obama and the U.S. Strategy of Buying Time
November 2, 2009 | 2003 GMT

By George Friedman

Making sense of U.S. President Barack Obama's strategy at this moment is difficult. Not only is it a work in progress, but the pending decisions he has to make -- on Iran, Afghanistan and Russia -- tend to obscure underlying strategy. It is easy to confuse inaction with a lack of strategy. Of course, there may well be a lack of strategic thinking, but that does not mean there is a lack of strategy.

Strategy, as we have argued, is less a matter of choice than a matter of reality imposing itself on presidents. Former U.S. President George W. Bush, for example, rarely had a chance to make strategy. He was caught in a whirlwind after only nine months in office and spent the rest of his presidency responding to events, making choices from a menu of very bad options. Similarly, Obama came into office with a preset menu of limited choices. He seems to be fighting to create new choices, not liking what is on the menu. He may succeed. But it is important to understand the overwhelming forces that shape his choices and to understand the degree to which whatever he chooses is embedded in U.S. grand strategy, a strategy imposed by geopolitical reality.

Empires and Grand Strategy

American grand strategy, as we have argued, is essentially that of the British Empire, save at a global rather than a regional level. The British sought to protect their national security by encouraging Continental powers to engage in land-based conflict, thereby reducing resources available for building a navy. That guaranteed that Britain's core interest, the security of the homeland and sea-lane control, remained intact. Achieving this made the United Kingdom an economic power in the 19th century by sparing it the destruction of war and allowing it to control the patterns of international maritime trade.

On occasion, when the balance of power in Europe tilted toward one side or another, Britain intervened on the Continent with political influence where possible, direct aid when necessary or -- when all else failed -- the smallest possible direct military intervention. The United Kingdom's preferred strategy consisted of imposing a blockade -- e.g., economic sanctions -- allowing it to cause pain without incurring costs.

At the same time that it pursued this European policy, London was building a global empire. Here again, the British employed a balance-of-power strategy. In looking at the history of India or Africa during the 19th century, there is a consistent pattern of the United Kingdom forming alliances with factions, whether religious or ethnic groups, to create opportunities for domination. In the end, this was not substantially different from ancient Rome's grand strategy. Rome also ruled indirectly through much of its empire, controlling Mediterranean sea-lanes, but allying with local forces to govern; observing Roman strategy in Egypt is quite instructive in this regard.

Empires are not created by someone deciding one day to build one, or more precisely, lasting empires are not. They emerge over time through a series of decisions having nothing to do with empire building, and frequently at the hands of people far more concerned with domestic issues than foreign policy. Paradoxically, leaders who consciously set out to build empires usually fail. Hitler is a prime example. His failure was that rather than ally with forces in the Soviet Union, he wished to govern directly, something that flowed from his ambitions for direct rule. Particularly at the beginning, the Roman and British empires were far less ambitious and far less conscious of where they were headed. They were primarily taking care of domestic affairs. They became involved in foreign policy as needed, following a strategy of controlling the seas while maintaining substantial ground forces able to prevail anywhere -- but not everywhere at once -- and a powerful alliance system based on supporting the ambitions of local powers against other local powers.

On the whole, the United States has no interest in empire, and indeed is averse to imperial adventures. Those who might have had explicit inclinations in this direction are mostly out of government, crushed by experience in Iraq. Iraq came in two parts. In the first part, from 2003 to 2007, the U.S. vision was one of direct rule relying on American sea-lane control and overwhelming Iraq with well-supplied American troops.

The results were unsatisfactory. The United States found itself arrayed against all Iraqi factions and wound up in a multipart war in which its forces were merely one faction arrayed against others. The Petraeus strategy to escape this trap was less an innovation in counterinsurgency than a classic British-Roman approach. Rather than attempting direct control of Iraq, Petraeus sought to manipulate the internal balance of power, aligning with Sunni forces against Shiite forces, i.e., allying with the weaker party at that moment against the stronger. The strategy did not yield the outcome that some Bush strategists dreamed of, but it might (with an emphasis on might) yield a useful outcome: a precariously balanced Iraq dependent on the United States to preserve its internal balance of power and national sovereignty against Iran.

Many Americans, perhaps even most, regret the U.S. intervention in Iraq. And there are many, again perhaps most, who view broader U.S. entanglement in the world as harmful to American interests. Similar views were expressed by Roman republicans and English nationalists who felt that protecting the homeland by controlling the sea was the best policy, while letting the rest of the world go its own way. But the Romans and the British lost that option when they achieved the key to their own national security: enough power to protect the homeland. Outsiders inevitably came to see that power as offensive, even though originally its possessors intended it as defensive. Indeed, intent aside, the capability for offensive power was there. So frequently, Rome and Britain threatened the interests of foreign powers simply by being there. Inevitably, both Rome and Britain became the targets of Hannibals and Napoleons, and they were both drawn into the world regardless of their original desires. In short, enough power to be secure is enough power to threaten others. Therefore, that perfect moment of national security always turns offensive, as the power to protect the homeland threatens the security of other countries.

A Question of Size

There are Obama supporters and opponents who also dream of the perfect balance: security for the United States achieved by not interfering in the affairs of others. They see foreign entanglements not as providing homeland security, but as generating threats to it. They do not understand that what they want, American prosperity without international risks, is by definition impossible. The U.S. economy is roughly 25 percent of the world's economy. The American military controls the seas, not all at the same time, but anywhere it wishes at any given time. The United States also controls outer space. It is impossible for the United States not to intrude on the affairs of most countries in the world simply by virtue of its daily operations. The United States is an elephant that affects the world simply by being in the same room with it. The only way to not be an elephant is to shrink in size, and whether the United States would ever want this aside, decreasing power is harder to do than it might appear -- and much more painful.

Obama's challenge is managing U.S. power without decreasing its size and without imposing undue costs on it. This sounds like an attractive idea, but it ultimately won't work: The United States cannot be what it is without attracting hostile attention. For some of Obama's supporters, it is American behavior that generates hostility. Actually, it is America's presence -- its very size -- that intrudes on the world and generates hostility.

On the domestic front, the isolationist-internationalist divide in the United States has always been specious. Isolationists before World War II simply wanted to let the European balance of power manage itself. They wanted to buy time, but had no problem with intervening in China against Japan. The internationalists simply wanted to move from the first to the second stage, arguing that the first stage had failed. There was thus no argument in principle between them; there was simply a debate over how much time to give the process to see if it worked out. Both sides had the same strategy, but simply a different read of the moment. In retrospect, Franklin Roosevelt was right, but only because France collapsed in the face of the Nazi onslaught in a matter of weeks. That aside, the isolationist argument was quite rational.

Like that of Britain or Rome, U.S. grand strategy is driven by the sheer size of the national enterprise, a size achieved less through planning than by geography and history. Having arrived where it has, the United States has three layers to its strategy.

First, the United States must maintain the balance of power in various regions in the world. It does this by supporting a range of powers, usually the weaker against the stronger. Ideally, this balance of power maintains itself without American effort and yields relative stability. But stability is secondary to keeping local powers focused on each other rather than on the United States: Stability is a rhetorical device, not a goal. The real U.S. interest lies in weakening and undermining emergent powers so they don't ultimately rise to challenge American power. This is a strategy of nipping things in the bud.

Second, where emergent powers cannot be maintained through the regional balance of power, the United States has an interest in sharing the burden of containing it with other major powers. The United States will seek to use such coalitions either to intimidate the emerging power via economic power or, in extremis, via military power.

Third, where it is impossible to build a coalition to coerce emerging powers, the United States must decide either to live with the emerging power, forge an alliance with it, or attack it unilaterally.

Obama, as with any president, will first pursue the first layer of the strategy, using as little American power as possible and waiting as long as possible to see whether this works. The key here lies in not taking premature action that could prove more dangerous or costly than necessary. If that fails, his strategy is to create a coalition of powers to share the cost and risk. And only when that fails -- which is a function of time and politics -- will Obama turn to the third layer, which can range from simply living with the emerging power and making a suitable deal or crushing it militarily.

When al Qaeda attacked what it saw as the leading Christian power on Sept. 11, Bush found himself thrown into the third stage very rapidly. The second phase was illusory; sympathy aside, the quantity of military force allies could and would bring to bear was minimal. Even active allies like Britain and Australia couldn't bring decisive force to bear. Bush was forced into unilateralism not so much by the lack of will among allies as by their lack of power. His choice lay in creating chaos in the Islamic world and then forming alliances out of the debris, or trying to impose a direct solution through military force. He began with the second and shifted to the first.

Obama's Choices

Obama has more room to maneuver than Bush had. In the case of Iran, no regional solution is possible. Israel can only barely reach into the region, and while its air force might suffice to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, and air attacks might be sufficient to destroy them, Israel could not deal with the Iranian response of mining the Strait of Hormuz and/or destabilizing Iraq. The United States must absorb these blows.

Therefore, Obama has tried to build an anti-Iranian coalition to intimidate Tehran. Given the Russian and Chinese positions, this seems to have failed, and Iran has not been intimidated. That leaves Obama with two possible paths. One is the path followed by Nixon in China: ally with Iran against Russian influence, accepting it as a nuclear power and dealing with it through a combination of political alignment and deterrence. The second option is dealing with Iran militarily.

His choice thus lies between entente or war. He is bluffing war in hopes of getting what he wants, in the meantime hoping that internal events in Iran may evolve in a way suitable to U.S. interests or that Russian economic hardship evolves into increased Russian dependence on the United States such that Washington can extract Russian concessions on Iran. Given the state of Iran's nuclear development, which is still not near a weapon, Obama is using time to try to head off the third stage.

In Afghanistan, where Obama is already in the third stage and where he is being urged to go deeper in, he is searching for a way to return to the first stage, wherein an indigenous coalition emerges that neutralizes Afghanistan through its own internal dynamic. Hence, Washington is negotiating with the Taliban, trying to strengthen various factions in Afghanistan and not quite committing to more force. Winter is coming in Afghanistan, and that is the quiet time in that conflict. Obama is clearly buying time.

In that sense, Obama's foreign policy is neither as alien as his critics would argue nor as original as his supporters argue. He is adhering to the basic logic of American grand strategy, minimizing risks over time while seeking ways to impose low-cost solutions. It differs from Bush's policies primarily in that Bush had events forced on him and spent his presidency trying to regain the initiative.

The interesting point from where we sit is not only how deeply embedded Obama is in U.S. grand strategy, but how deeply drawn he is into the unintended imperial enterprise that has dominated American foreign policy since the 1930s -- an enterprise neither welcomed nor acknowledged by most Americans. Empires aren't planned, at least not successful empires, as Hitler and Napoleon learned to their regret. Empires happen as the result of the sheer reality of power. The elephant in the room cannot stop being an elephant, nor can the smaller animals ignore him. No matter how courteous the elephant, it is his power -- his capabilities -- not his intentions that matter.

Obama is now the elephant in the room. He has bought as much time as possible to make decisions, and he is being as amiable as possible to try to build as large a coalition as possible. But the coalition has neither the power nor appetite for the risks involved, so Obama will have to decide whether to live with Iran, form an alliance with Iran or go to war with Iran. In Afghanistan, he must decide whether he can recreate the balance of power by staying longer and whether this will be more effective by sending more troops, or whether it is time to begin withdrawal. In both cases, he can use the art of the bluff to shape the behavior of others, maybe.

He came into the presidency promising to be more amiable than Bush, something not difficult given the circumstances. He is now trying to convert amiability into a coalition, a much harder thing to do. In the end, he will have to make hard decisions. In American foreign policy, however, the ideal strategy is always to buy time so as to let the bribes, bluffs and threats do their work. Obama himself probably doesn't know what he will do; that will depend on circumstances. Letting events flow until they can no longer be tolerated is the essence of American grand strategy, a path Obama is following faithfully.

It should always be remembered that this long-standing American policy has frequently culminated in war, as with Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Bush. It was Clinton's watchful waiting to see how things played out, after all, that allowed al Qaeda the time to build and strike. But this is not a criticism of Clinton -- U.S. strategy is to trade time for risk. Over time, the risk might lead to war anyway, but then again, it might not. If war does come, American power is still decisive, if not in creating peace, then certainly in wreaking havoc upon rising powers. And that is the foundation of empire.

Check out the website at Stratfor.com.

* * * *

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar

Marine Veteran Abie Gordon Dies: Veteran of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam

This appeared in today's Orlando Sentinel:

* * * *

He served in 2 great Marine Corps battles

by Jeff Kunerth
Sentinel Staff Writer

Bill Gordon spread his father's life as a Marine across the soft green felt of the pool table.

There was the replica statue of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima that sat on top of the television in Abie Gordon's bedroom at his Longwood home. And the two photographs of that famous flag-raising autographed by the two photographers who were on that island with Gordon on Feb. 23, 1945.

There was the framed proclamation of his service in the Korean War with the inscription on the bottom: "We Few, We Chosin Few, We Eternal Band of Brothers" that hung on the living room wall and the framed acknowledgment of his Purple Heart that adorned the hallway.

There was his father's dress blue uniform that hung in a garment bag in his closet with its rows of medals and block of ribbons from service in World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam.

"These were things he got for doing his job," said Bill Gordon, 61, of Orlando. "From his point of view, in his eyes, I don't think he ever thought he did anything special."

Abie Gordon, the highly decorated Marine of 30 years and three wars, died Wednesday of complications from pneumonia. He was 89. His cremated ashes will be buried in Arlington National Cemetary with full honors.

Gordon, who joined the service at 17, saw action in two of the Marine Corps' most famous battles: Iwo Jima in World War II and Chosin Reservoir in Korea.

Iwo Jima was immortalized in the photograph taken by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal and the Clint Eastwood movie Flags of Our Fathers. But Chosin Reservoir in 1950 is just as revered in Marine Corps lore for the 15,000 men who fought in sub-zero weather against 120,000 Chinese soldiers. The survivors became known as "The Chosin Few" and "The Frozen Chosin."

Gordon didn't tell his son much about either of those experiences, except to admonish Bill whenever he complained about his life being too hard: "Let me tell you what tough is - tough is fighting in 35-degree-below weather and outnumbered 10 to one."

Gordon enlisted in the Marines in 1938 and left in 1968, around the time his son, also a Marine, was fighting in Vietnam. Abie, in essence, grew up in the Marine Corps, finishing his high-school education in the Marines, earning his officer's rank on the battlefield, and leaving the service as lieuenant colonel.

In the process, he earned more than 30 ribbons and medals, including the Purple Heart for being wounded in Korea, the Bronze Star, and five Presidential Unit Citations.

"The Marines taught him everything he learned, and it was duty, honor and country," Bill said.

Abie Gordon raised his don by the code in which he lived: Right was right, wrong was wrong.

"It wasn't about his way or my way. It was always about the right way," Bill said.

Following his retirement to a home on a golf course in 1968, Abie Gordon had a seond career of sorts as a PGA-USGA rules official for 18 years. It was the perfect retirement job for him, his son said.

"He was a right-and-wrong kind of guy."

Abie Gordon also is survived by three grandchildren, Hannah, Nathan and Luke Gordon, all of Orlando.

Baldwin-Fairchild Funeral Home, Lake Ivanhoe Chapel, Orlando, is handling arrangements.

Jeff Kunerth can be reached at 407-420-5392 or jkunerth@orlandosentinel.com.

* * * *

We extend our condolences to the Gordon family, as well as our gratitude for Abie Gordon's service to America.

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com