I finally saw Saving Private Ryan tonight. I know, I know: but my husband used to just pop it into the DVD player without telling me: I'd hear it playing downstairs in the media room. And I couldn't, you know, watch it without seeing the beginning. (This is what we call, in the trade, a "rationalization.")

Actually, that might be a great way to watch it—minus that first 20 minutes. I've been hardened in the past two years by Band of Brothers, The Passion of the Christ, The Pianist, and (just last night) House of Sand and Fog. So I guess I was ready. But I knew the landing on Normandy beach would be awful.

Attila-Hub assured me that if I could get through the first 20 minutes, I'd be fine. He didn't tell me it might be the longest 20 minutes of my life.

It's beautifully done, though I don't think it's as good as Band of Brothers, which gives one a good ten hours to get to know these guys. You live with them, drink with them, fight with them, shower with them. They become a part of your life, especially the second time you go through the series.

On the other hand, Saving Private Ryan pioneered the filming techniques that Band of Brothers relied upon. They both have that Tom Hanks imprint.

All I want to do, watching either work, is weep with gratitude for all the men who died so I can be free—or at least so Europe can be. I want to bring them flowers, kiss the earth where they are buried. Maybe I will some day.

And I want to require every single French person to watch at least one of these, especially Private Ryan. They owe us that, dammit.

Posted by: Attila at 01:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Dean, the updated oaths for all five branches of the military (yes, they included the Coast Guard). Ooo rah.

Posted by: Attila at 03:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Via John of Aargghh! comes news of another innovative charity whereby those of us watching the War on Terror from the sidelines can help the young men and women who are fighting to keep us safe.

It's called Adopt a Sniper, and it's run by a former police sniper who's committed to making sure our guys have the best equipment they can possibly have. Because he knows the kind of gear these people need, and where to get it, he fills a gap other civilian groups can't.

Sain said he was inspired by the close-knit “sniper fraternity,” whose military and civilian police members are unusually interwoven. “A lot of SWAT [members] are former military, and a lot of them are reservists who are now going over” to Iraq and Afghanistan, Sain said. “And even if you’re not military, getting shot at is getting shot at, no matter where you are.”

Sain said he knows “what it’s like not to have the equipment you need.” In 1994, Sain said, “I watched a guy hold a baby out a door through my sniper scope. I couldn’t see [well enough to shoot the man]; it was dark and I didn’t have night-vision equipment.” As Sain watched helplessly, the man shot the baby in the back.

Sain said he is determined to make sure no deployed military sniper will ever be in that spot — unable to do his mission or worse yet, in danger, because he doesn’t have the right gear.

There's more information at the web site, in case you know of someone who might need equipment. And please consider sending them your spare change.

Posted by: Attila at 11:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Kelley sums up what we're all thinking.

My husband and I took advantage of our one-week break in The Sopranos to start watching The American Revolution on Sunday nights (this is the A&E production on same, and it's a good one). The idea is to start it around now, be in the thick of it around Flag Day in mid-June, and finish up by July 4th--at the rate of one episode a week--so we can know what we're celebrating on Independence Day. Every year, especially once we have kids. As a matter of fact, depending on when the final Sopranos season finishes up, we might be able to get Band of Brothers in for the few weeks before Memorial Day. I truly love that show, and I'd love to see it every year as well.

* * *

(And I'd say the appeal of Band of Brothers is 98% being absorbed in the events, and in awe of the men who made these sacrifices--and only 2% finding the two male leads amazing . . . actors. Really good actors, Damian Lewis [as Major Richard D. Winters] and Ron Livingston [as Captain Lewis Nixon]. I mean, what if I had to act in a scene with the two of them, and there was this contrast of Lewis's fairness vs. the Livingston's dark, dark hair? I wonder if they have any bisexual tendancies . . . ?

Sorry. And me married and everything! Long walks and cold showers. And cornering one's spouse.

Remember when they told you female sexuality would peak at 30-35? It isn't so much a peak as a plateau. You've been warned. Long walks, cold showers. And have a husband who is persuadable at a moment's notice.

Enough red-blooded American female talk. But you know our soldiers died so it could be okay for women to be human, and treated as such. Especially in our current war, the one against Islamo-fascists. They don't like red-blooded American girls. Not at all.

As has been pointed out by far cleverer bloggers than I, the fact that we have choices, and flexibility, and openness--all the stuff of freedom, whether it's picking out music or being able to dish about how sexy certain actors are--is a debt we owe our young men--and some women--in uniform. No matter how mundane the choice--or even ignoble the thought--we have it [or can articulate it] because of these people.)

So we're back full-circle: freedom isn't free, and there are many who paid dearly so we could live normal lives in safety across the water.

Posted by: Attila at 12:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

. . . from a former Navy Intel officer, now living in the Upper Midwest. This is my cousin, who gathered intelligence during the Vietnam War. He has a thing or two to say about the Abu Ghraib scandal.

I am not sure I agree with what they did, and I don't know if I condone it, but having been in the service during a war, I certainly understand it.

I cannot honestly say I feel bad for those prisoners. Having been in the field and collecting intelligence, I can tell you we miss out on a lot of good intel by interrogating as we do. I consider myself a civilized person, but a very rational part of my mind refutes the cries of the liberal do gooders (and many honestly good people) in thinking that when you fight people who follow no rules, you must win by following the rules.

I do not really believe that we stoop to the level of the terrorists when we employ their tactics. It matters not the size of our forces: the bad guys will eventually wear down the morale of the good guys by decrying their use of tactics the terrorists themselves use. With the press bombarding the public with negatives, it is an uphill battle to win against someone fighting with no rules, when you yourself are bound by civilized actions.

My biggest fear is that the press will scare honest Americans into self-destructing with all the negativity. Also my biggest dilemma is how far do we go into the rules (or non-rules) of the terrorists. A truly sticky problem here. According to some rules of war, it was a crime. More realistically, it was a horrible lapse in judgement by a bunch of young people in a situation most Americans won't experience even in their worst nightmares. In addition, the brass will engage in a full-court cover your ass (liberally stuffed with bullshit), and those few will suffer the brunt. Six ruined careers and probably six ruined families.

For what it's worth, it looks like some of the shit that getting thrown around is, in fact, landing on officers. And while we may never settle the issue of responsibility (that is, Army Intel vs. CIA vs. the MPs) in a totally satisfactory way, the rest of the world is seeing the U.S. reacting to this, including Congressional hearings. The Arab world saw the President of the United States offer an apology. Much as that action may defy logic in some bloggers' minds, it made a big impression on many observers, a few of whom asked, "hey--how come our leaders never say they're sorry?"

It's a good question, and one for which even Al-Jazeera doesn't seem to have a real answer.

Posted by: Attila at 04:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

Donald Sensing on why people--people like me, I think he means--need to stop making excuses for the guards who abused Iraqi prisoners. And/or stop comparing these crimes to those that occurred under Saddam.

The absolutist point of view (this is always wrong, we cannot ever condone it or even accept it) appears to be the dominant view among the Milbloggers, as it runs counter to their training (which is damned gratifying). I'm just not sure it encompasses all the truth.

For more, see Sensing's comments thread, in which some people explain why torture may be justified under some circumstances. Not fun reading, but important, I think. The best comment was from someone named Yehudit (whose home page is here):

I also agree with Donald that torture should never be officially sanctioned. This may have been in the Atlantic article: they interviewed an Israeli human rights worker who said that in her experience, if any torture is allowed (even by special warrant) it always grows into gratuitous abuse, it is never restrained to the specific case. She said you have to make it illegal, knowing it will go on anyway, but make sure the interrogators know they will face heavy punishment if they are caught. If they are convinced it is necessary anyway, if they are willing to take that risk, then they will go ahead, but they will be much less likely to use it gratuitously.

I don't happen to think this applies to the current situation, in which the guards were apparently trying to keep the Iraqis awake, and either went over the line or were ordered over the line (I want to see the evidence presented at trial) but it's probably the best balance between letting thousands die for our principles in a ticking time-bomb scenario vs. becoming the thing we are supposedly fighting against.

Hat tip: James, who doubtless disagrees with me heartily on this score. (I may stop actually writing and just link to Outside the Beltway from now on; it would certainly save time. Or I could re-title my blog the OTB Amplification Page.)

Posted by: Attila at 01:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

James discusses the standards for training of MPs, and how these are going up: there will be more specialized training for military prison guards than there have been in the past. But he points out that every soldier is instructed in such basics as the Geneva Convention and general standards for treatment of prisoners, and those who are MPs are given a special course in this as well. James has insisted all along that there is no way the soldiers involved did not know they were acting outside accepted guidelines.

(Non-military people: no matter the branch of service an MP [Military Police member] is in, he or she always gets the MP training through the Army. For instance, my husband is a former Marine, but he received his MP training at an Army base.)

Posted by: Attila at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Blackfive, the Navy Cross was just awarded to Marine Captain Brian Chontosh for his heroic actions during the drive to Baghdad last spring. He was in charge of a string of vehicles that was suddenly ambused. Under heavy enemy fire, he ordered the Humvee he was in straight toward the enemy position, and jumped out firing. When he ran out of ammo he switched to his sidearm; when his sidearm ran out he used AKs seized from the dead Iraqis. He killed 20 and probably wounded as many. And he saved the lives of his fellow Marines.

Blackfive's commenters inform us that "it's 'OOH-rah,'" contrary to the way the news stories about Chontosh have the Marine saying. Nice to know; I hate to wake my husband up for little questions like that.

OOH-rah, indeed. And Semper Fi. This guy is the real deal.

Posted by: Attila at 11:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

There's a great discussion going on at Outside the Beltway regarding Donald Rumsfeld, and whether or not he'll be asked to resign from the administration. Novak thinks so, and is quoted taking the temperature of the Army (in particular). James makes the point that only someone like Rumsfeld--who doesn't care whether or not people like him--could achieve what he has in such a short amount of time, in terms of transforming the military into the lean machine it (almost) is now. more...

Posted by: Attila at 02:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.