French and Indian War: American Involvement

The Colonies became involved when George Washington and a few of his men decided to expel the French from Ohio. They marched to Fort Duquesne -- the construction of which had actually been started by the British -- but realized that the fort was too strong for them to capture. So, they built Fort Necessity nearby as a way to challenge the French. It worked. The French not only attacked, but also captured Fort Necessity in 1754. The English did not declare war on France until 1756, but for the Colonists, the war began much sooner. Fort Duquesne was finally captured by the British in 1758.

Fort William Henry was featured in the film "The Last of the Mohicans."

Sources
Ohio History Central
Travel and History

French and Indian Wars

The French and Indian Wars were fought from 1689 to 1763, ending shortly before the American War for Independence. The series of wars consisted of four primary wars. The first was 1689-1697 King William's War, which consisted primarily of attacks on British frontier colonies in the Colonies, and ended with the Peace of Utrecht. The second, King George's War, was fought from 1739-1748, though the American Colonies did not become involved until 1744. King George's War ended with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. The French and Indian War lasted from 1754-1763 and ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763, with the French loss of control over Canada to Great Britain.

Sources
Reference Center
Ohio History Central

Blogathon 2009!

Welcome to the next twenty-four consecutively lucid hours of my existence. As a participant in Blogathon 2009, I will be posting a blog every thirty minutes for twenty-four hours -- with a final total of 49 blogs by 9AM EST tomorrow -- in order to raise money for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). So far, donors have pledged to contribute $105 to IAVA. Although I never set a goal, I never expected to raise that much money! Thank you to everyone -- your support really means a lot to me.

After a bit of conversation and chai at the coffee shop this morning, I picked up B and, following a miscommunication that led to an incredibly stressed return sojourn home, immediately stole the living room television and popped "The Last of the Mohicans" into the DVD player (once D gets here, the guys will most likely take over the television with video games of some sort). I had originally planned to watch a movie pertaining to every major American war (hence "The Last of the Mohicans"), but unfortunately it seems that my plans will be undone. But, I couldn't find a War of 1812 or Korean War movie, anyway.

Time permitting, I hope to post blogs pertaining to military history, interspersed with current news or writing prompts. The blog will have a bit of a different atmosphere for the next twenty-four hours, but I hope you will still find it enjoyable.

It is now 9:00 and I have chai. Although I don't think it's caffeinated. At least it has sugar.

War of 1812

On June 18, 1812, President James Madison declared war on Great Britain. His declaration led to a three-year war that is, according to some, the Colonies' true war for independence. The War of 1812 ended on December 24 with the Treaty of Ghent.
The first battle, though not actually part of the War of 1812, occurred on November 7, 1811 between General Harrison's forces and Tecumseh's forces. It ended with Tecumseh's defeat. The final battle occurred on January 8 in New Orleans.
The "Star Spangled Banner" was also inspired by events during the War of 1812, Napoleon was defeated, and Washington was burned.

Sources
The War of 1812

Midnight

Countdown: 15 hours
Pledges: $115
Future Blog Posts: 18

Since I'm strapped down to my laptop, D and Sarah are currently in the kitchen making pizza. Despite the fact that I made a ginormous pot of fried rice earlier this evening, we're all starving.

Dad: Well . . . I'm going to bed -- unlike you!
Me: Thanks, Dad.
Dad: You have my heartfelt support.

Victory? What Victory?

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained.

"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."

First of all, I highly suggest reading the article in its entirety. Second of all. . . .
If they're not being sent to win, then don't send them in. When is victory not the goal? Aside from when it pertains to Afghanistan, of course. Why should we be worried about using the word "victory?" "Victory" is simply a word, some organized characters, until they're given meaning. Until we emerge from this war victorious. Regardless of what our government decides, I believe that our troops will emerge victorious. The politicians may lose this war, but our military will not.

My Role Model

I snagged this from Hot Air. Michael Yon is one of my role models, and I hope to someday follow in his footsteps. I love his photography, his writing, his work in general.

"Sign me up for the next war!"

U.S. troops say companies that recruit military translators are sending linguists to southern Afghanistan who are unprepared to serve in combat, even as hundreds more are needed to support the growing number of troops.

Some translators are in their 60s and 70s and in poor physical condition — and some don’t even speak the right language. . . .

Troops say low-skilled and disgruntled translators are putting U.S. forces at risk.

“Intelligence can save Marines’ lives and give us the advantage on the battlefield,” said Cpl. William Woodall, 26, of Dallas, who works closely with translators. “Instead of looking for quality, the companies are just pushing bodies out here, and once they’re out the door, it’s not their problem anymore." . . .

The company that recruits most U.S. citizen translators, Columbus, Ohio-based Mission Essential Personnel, says it’s difficult to meet the increased demand for linguists to aid the 15,000 U.S. forces being sent to southern, Pashto-speaking provinces this year as part of President Barack Obama’s increased focus on Afghanistan. Only 7,700 Pashto speakers live in the U.S., according to the 2000 census.

Mission Essential’s senior vice president, Marc Peltier, told The Associated Press that the linguists the company deploys to Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries meet government standards. The military sets no age or weight requirements, he said. . . .

How translators come to believe they won’t face danger could originate with recruiters.

“They’re going to tell you whatever it is to get you hired,” Spangler said.

Khalid Nazary, an Afghan-American citizen living in Kabul, called Mission Essential about a job and let an AP reporter listen.

He asked if he would go to “dangerous places.”

“Oh, no, no, no. You’re not a soldier. You’re not a soldier. Not at all,” the recruiter, Tekelia Barnett, said. “You’re not on the battlefield." . . .

“They say you’ll get a shower once a day, have access to Internet and TV, call home six times a week,” Woodall said. “And when the guys get out, they’re completely shell-shocked. They’ve been lied to." . . .

The translators said dozens of linguists quit soon after arriving in Afghanistan in recent weeks. Spangler declined to provide numbers but said “quite a bit” resigned or were fired because they were too old, unfit or couldn’t speak Pashto. . . .

But Gamez said soldiers need translators now, and that some feign sickness to avoid work.

This is insane. Someone teach me Pashto and ship me over there. I'm nineteen years old, so there's no worry about me keeling over from a heart attack (though heat exhaustion might be a problem). I might not be able to keep up with Marines, but I'm stubborn enough to keep trying. And for $210,000 a year and the opportunity to serve my country, you wouldn't have to worry about me quitting (just surviving). I also won't require Internet service (just give me a journal) or phone calls home six times a week -- which seems a bit excessive in a war zone. But as for showers . . . well. I suppose we all have to make sacrifices.

Unemployment

"The government says the number of newly laid-off workers seeking jobless benefits rose last week, though the report was distorted by the timing of auto plant shutdowns" (FNC).
Unemployment, regardless of the means by which it is dealt, still results in the loss of a job, a steady and most likely necessary income. "Distorted."

In preparation for the Blogathon (for which $40 in donations has been pledged to IAVA!), I've been attempting to do some research on military history. So far, I've found some interesting information on the 4080 Strategic Reconnaissance Wing, as well as the U-2, and I've been looking for information on Operation Grasshopper and Operation Quarterback (Vietnam War). I am very much looking forward to twenty-four hours of blogging, and have even recruited a friend to spend most (if not all) of the Blogathon with me.

"If it's so good, why doesn't Congress have to be on it?"

I found this on Reboot Congress.

Working Best Under Pressure

Obama noted in a nationally broadcast interview Tuesday that "the House has put forward a surtax," but was noncommittal about whether it should actually be part of the reconstituted health care system he is pushing.

The president also said on NBC's "Today" show that he is pushing hard for legislation before Congress's August recess because "if you don't set a deadline in this town, nothing happens. The default in Washington is inaction and inertia."

However, the administration has already proven that even deadlines don't ensure that action is taken -- they've already missed the six-month deadline regarding Guantanamo.

Bring Bowe Back

23-year-old [PFC Bowe] Bergdahl was serving with a unit based in Fort Richardson, Alaska, earlier this month when he vanished, just five months after arriving in Afghanistan, officials said. He was serving at a base near the border with Pakistan in an area known to be a Taliban stronghold (FNC).

On July 2, two U.S. officials conceded a soldier had "just walked off" his base near the border with Pakistan with three Afghans after his shift, but wouldn't release details. Four days later, the Taliban claimed "a drunken American soldier had come out of his garrison" and was captured by mujahedeen (FNC).

He said the date was July 14 and that he was captured when he lagged behind on a patrol. It's clear the video was made no earlier than July 14 because Bergdahl repeated an exaggerated Taliban claim about a Ukrainian helicopter that was shot down that day (AP).

So, there are three different accounts of how Bergdahl was captured. The first, that he simply "walked off . . . with three Afghans," would suggest that he was deserting. Who were the Afghans? The second would explain why he was captured, as I doubt a drunk would be much of an opponent, especially were he to forget his weapon. How did he obtain alcohol in a war zone? Why was he careless enough to imbibe in a war zone? The third, a claim made by Bergdahl, states that he "lagged behind on a patrol." That statement doesn't say much for the US Army, if soldiers are letting their comrades lag behind in a war zone and be captured (which I highly doubt they are). However, as I have no combat experience, I have no idea how patrols function, or how one would obtain alcohol, or what Bergdahl was thinking if he strode off the base with the Afghans. Perhaps he was going for a late-night walk.

Honorary War Vet

IAVA to Name Colbert Honorary War Vet
Political pundit Stephen Colbert could be named, if his petition on IAVA receives 25,000 signatures (there are currently almost 15,000), an Honorary War Vet.
Quite frankly, regardless of how entertaining the man is, he's still an entertainer. He hasn't earned a uniform or taken an oath, and he's not a warrior. To bequeath upon him such a title is to mock the true warriors who fight and bleed and die for us. Colbert is already famous and well-recognized. Despite his tour to Iraq to entertain the troops, I still feel that he isn't worthy of the title.

And We Won't Be Back 'Til It's Over Over There!

The Pentagon's chief said Thursday he could send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year than he'd initially expected and is considering increasing the number of soldiers in the Army.

Both issues reflect demands on increasingly stressed American forces tasked with fighting two wars.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates' comments came during a short visit to Fort Drum in upstate New York -- an Army post that that he said has deployed more soldiers to battle zones over the last 20 years than any other unit. Two Fort Drum brigades are headed to Iraq later this year, and a third is currently in Afghanistan.

Asked about Afghanistan by one soldier, Gates said: "I think there will not be a significant increase in troop levels in Afghanistan beyond the 68,000, at least probably through the end of the year. Maybe some increase, but not a lot."

So far, the Obama administration has approved sending 68,000 troops to Afghanistan by the end of 2009, including 21,000 that were added this spring.

I would first like to ask how Sec'y Gates intends to increase the Army's size. Though I've not spoken with any recruiters lately or researched any numbers, I'm sure that the Army's size will increase as long as volunteers are willing. Maybe they'll send roving recruitment vans to kidnap young men off of the streets. Secondly, I would like everyone to note the fact that "the Obama administration has approved sending 68,000 troops to Afghanistan by the end of 2009, including 21,000 that were added this spring" (FNC). That's 99,000 troops. Ninety-nine thousand men and women. The end to the War on Terror Overseas Contingency Plan definitely seems to be in sight.

Racial Condescension

The president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce accused Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday of racially condescending to him during an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.
Republican members of the committee had sought the testimony of Harry C. Alford, an opponent of a climate change bill that narrowly passed in the House.
Alford said in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of his organization when he argued that the bill would have devastating consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.
But he took offense when Boxer countered his statement by quoting an NAACP resolution that approved the climate change bill and putting it on the record.

Alford believed the statements to be racially condescending, saying that, "'I'm the National Black Chamber of Commerce and you're trying to put up some other black group to pit against me'" (FNC). In response, Boxer protested that, "'There is definitely differing opinions in the black community, just as there are in my community' . . . adding that she was trying to show the diversity of support behind the climate change bill" (FNC).

While the statements may have been relevant, I'm certain that other relevant statements exist that have been made by other racial communities. In my opinion, Alford played into Boxer's use of the race card with her, "differing opinions in the black community, just as there are in my community" statement. If she's not being racially condescending, then she shouldn't have created the line between the two racial communities, in my opinion. On the other hand, no group, regardless of racial, political, or religious affiliation (or any other affiliation, for that matter), always agrees. It should only stand to reason that the NBCC and the NAACP would be at odds from time to time, and the mention of their difference in perspective should only be noted as such -- not as a condescension. I would also like to note that, regardless of how offensive any statement may be, we do live in a country in which its citizens are granted the right to freedom of speech.