It's Been Fun

Hey guys-

I have not written for the past two weeks because of the end-of-semester crunch that normally comes about this time of year. As I sit at my desk tonight, I find that the end of the semester has come upon us already. This will be my final post for the Intro to American Government Blog Project. I would like to thank Professor Dubnick for providing this opportunity. Also, I would like to thank those who read my blog. I'm not sure yet if I will continue this blog. I may also start a new one, but I'm not sure about that either. Either way, this project has been fun and I hope it gets an A for the effort.

Thanks for reading.

Signing off,
John H.

The Infantryman's New Best Friend

The M-16 Service Rifle

Hey All-

As you may have guessed, this article is about replacing the M-16 service rifle. The M-16, which has been in service since 1964, was first used in combat during the Vietnam War. It has been modified through the years to be able to serve as a mount for secondary weapons, like the M-203 grenade launcher.

The M-16 was designed during the Cold War to surpass the Soviet AK-47 assault rifle in all means of comparison. The M-16 fires more quickly and more accurately than the AK-47, and is also lighter. However, the AK-47 is more durable than than its American counterpart, and its bullets cause more damage due to their tendency to tumble after being fired.

The most critical flaw of the M-16 is its tendency to jam and misfire, especially under less than perfect conditions. This flaw has caused some in the military to call for the replacement of the M-16. Many options have been considered, including the Special Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR. The SCAR is in its final stages of development and will enter initial service with U.S. special operations troops. The SCAR is lauded for its flexibility of variants (from Close Quarters Combat to Sniping). Whether or not it is more durable than the M-16 is yet to be seen.

The FN (Fabrique Nationale) SCAR Mk. 16 (top) and Mk. 17 (bottom)

al-Sadr Allies Leave Iraqi Government

Muqtada al-Sadr

Hey All-
Some more bad news from Iraq today. Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered Iraqi lawmakers loyal to him to leave the Iraqi government. The six lawmakers have resigned in response to Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki's refusal to push for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. There is also speculation that al-Sadr's Mahdi Army insurgents could return to the streets. The Mahdi Army has not challenged coalition forces since August of 2006, but recent events may change this.

My feelings on a timetable are no secret, as you can see in my other posts. If the Mahdi Army wants to pick a fight, I believe that it will only justify our staying longer in Iraq. It seems counterproductive for both sides, really.

al-Maliki Rejects Calls for Withdrawal Timetable

Nouri al-Maliki

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki today dismissed calls for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Speaking from Tokyo, where Mr. al-Maliki was signing reconstruction loans, the Iraqi leader said that withdrawal of troops depends on "how confident we are in the handover process".

al-Maliki's statement comes as battles raged through central Baghdad today, resulting in the wounding of 16 U.S. soldiers. The statement is also in response to demonstrations Monday by Shiite protestors against the presence of U.S. troops. These rallies were sponsored by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

I do not believe that a timetable is the right way to approach the situation in Iraq. I have said it before, but here goes again. A timetable merely gives the terrorists a benchmark to try to beat. They will step up attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops in an attempt to force U.S. troops to withdraw early. Also, though there is progress, Iraqi troops are not prepared to handle the security of their country yet. If we leave now, chaos will reign, and Iraq will become another Vietnam.

Taliban Stronghold Toppled

This news comes from today's Yahoo News bulletin, and from the Associated Press before that. NATO and Afghan forces have driven Taliban fighters from a stronghold in the southern region of Afghanistan today. The breakthrough came during a drive toward the Afghan city of Sangin, in Helmand Province. The drive is part of a larger NATO offensive, Operation Achilles, meant to clear Helmand Province of Taliban opposition to pave the way for work to continue work on a hydroelectric dam, which has the ptoential to power the entire southern part of the war-torn nation.
This latest progression is, hopefully, part of a new trend of progress in the nation that is the War on Terror's first battlefield. Afghanistan has the potential to prosper, if the wolves can be held off long enough for her to regain her legs.

A Belated Honor

Hey-
Last Thursday, a group of heroes from another time received recognition for their deeds from a grateful nation. The Tuskegee Airmen, were honored with the Congressional Gold Medal by President Bush and Congress. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor that Congress can bestow on an individual.
President Bush saluted the men, a significant gesture because commanders do not salute their soldiers in the military, they merely return the gesture when saluted. Bush said that the purpose of the salute was to "atone for all of the unreturned salutes and unforgivable indignities" endured by the Airmen.
The Tuskegee Airmen were an all-black squadron of fighter pilots who served in the Army Air Corps, the predecessor to the Air Force, during World War II. They were not allowed to train or serve with their white counterparts. The nickname was earned because of the place where they trained, Tuskegee Field in Alabama. They were also called the "Red Tails" because they painted the tails of their aircraft red to distinguish themselves from other squadrons.
These airmen are true heroes to their country, not just because of their exploits, which are commendable, but also because they stepped up amidst discrimination and adversity to serve.

Deadline Set for Withdrawal From Iraq

Hey-
A news story just broke on cnn.com concerning the war in Iraq. The Senate has voted by a narrow margin (52 to 48) to establish a timeline for ending combat missions in Iraq and withdrawing troops from the war-torn country. The bill sets a deadline of March 31, 2008 for all combat missions by U.S. forces to cease and troops to be rotated out of Iraq. The House passed a similar bill setting a deadline of August 31, 2008. The Bush Administration threatened a veto on the Senate bill because of the deadline, something Democrats may not be able to override.
I believe that setting a deadline is a mistake. Yes, this war has dragged on for far too long, but setting a withdrawal date only serves to encourage stronger resistance. It will encourage the terrorists to attempt to push us out of Iraq earlier than our deadlines for propaganda reasons. I do, however, like that the Senate bill includes training goals and suggestions for the New Iraqi Army and other security forces.

The Iraq War began in March of 2003 and has cost the lives of over 3,200 U.S. servicemen.