My two cents

I read the article that I posted because I thought it was interesting. Sometimes, when I get bored and don’t have anything to do, I surf some of the newspapers Op-Ed sections, just to get a sense of what people are thinking back home. I really enjoy the New York Times, and the Washington Post. I even read Al Jazeera, The San Diego Union Tribune (Holy crap, me a conservative?) And the Las Vegas Sun. It’s always nice to get around.

So, I was surfing the Washington post when I stumbled on this editorial about staying the course. I thought it was really interesting that somebody was actually implying that we should be studying an increase in troop levels, instead of discussing a drawdown. I have to agree with that, I think we should be talking about an increase.

I am not sure how long ago it was, but in one of my rants, I talked about what happens when the Pentagon draws down troop levels. Well, in the article, it said that there are approx 150,000 troops in Iraq, and roughly 2.6 million people in the services. So, let me shed some light on these numbers, because as you read it, you think, well, damn, there are lots of people we can send.

First off, take 95% of the total strength of the Navy out of the numbers. Navy ships float off shore, fly in the sky above Iraq, and work in numerous specialty fields across the spectrum, but you can’t say that just being within 400 miles of the Persian Gulf counts as a troop movement. Most of these Sailors will never see the ground here, because the job they hold doesn’t bring them closer to the street. Yes, the Navy has certain personnel on the ground, but somebody has to be on the ships, subs, and other Navy related jobs around the globe. You can’t take the crew of the Carl Vinson and put them on security duty around Diwaniyah.

Next, eliminate 80 percent of the air force structure. The same problem exists here as it does with the Navy. It takes an estimated 3 hours of maintenance for every hour a plane is in the air, and it takes a small platoon of people to keep these birds running day in and day out. Remember, the Air Force is flying some of the most technologically sophisticated gear ever built by man, so keeping them running is a priority. Also, they your not going to see the Air Force guys in force, armed and attacking Objective Alpha, so you might as well remove that total.

So what does that leave you with? Naturally the Army and Marine Corps. The problem here is that it takes a lot of people to equip and prepare the modern infantry unit. More so now than ever before, you might need a battalion of men to keep an battalion of men in the field. Somebody has to bring the ammo, make the food, prepare the camps, supply, ship, and account for millions of dollars worth of equipment. I f I can stretch this out, almost 70 percent of the Army strength is focused on keeping the other 30 percent in a state of combat readiness. The similar thing can be said of the Marine Corps.


So, where do these extra people come from? It’s simple really, but as the armed forces become more technologically sophisticated, you need more administrative support and logistical support to run it. Basically, you need to put the fobbit on the street. (GASP!) Now, the incredible fobbit is the guy who lives on the Forward Operating Base. Typically, he is an administrative guy, or a staff guy, or a supply clerk, armorer, mail clerk and cook. These willing or unwilling warriors make up a huge number of people. Yes, some of them get off the camp and participate in patrols and stuff, but a larger number of these personnel don’t, and that is where you make up the difference. If you think about it, yes there are 150,000 people in the theatre, but maybe only 20-30,000 of them are actually combat arms guys. So, that leaves a significant gap that can be filled quickly. Finished with that report? You are on patrol. That vehicle not getting fixed today? OK, you’re on convoy today. Its not payday, so disbursing goes down to 50% and the rest, get your gear. You could add a significant presence on the street if you did this.

Now, I understand that these people are not completely trained for the streets, but that can be answered easily. Every unit has a training program, and every unit needs to use that element to train there people. I mean, that’s what we get paid to do, right? Fight and win wars. Imagine how much we could get done, if we had an extra 30,000 personnel on the streets. Imagine how we could control the streets, the crimes, the murders, if we had extra people.

We don’t need less people on the streets, we need more people. The drawdown is a mistake, a political decision to ensure the Republicans are in the White House and MSNBC has something to bitch about, in HD no doubt. What we need to do, is more efficiently use the forces we have. Fobbit’s be damned, its time to earn your paycheck.

Staying the Course

Staying the wrong course in Iraq
A troop drawdown would lead to less security and further the perception that the U.S. is losing.
June 28, 2006

FOR THE LAST three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy of wishful thinking in Iraq, operating under the hope that some deus ex machina — either elections or the capture of insurgent leaders — would salvage a deteriorating situation. Well, Iraq has now had three successful nationwide ballots. Saddam Hussein has been captured. Abu Musab Zarqawi has been killed. And still violence continues to intensify in Baghdad and the Sunni provinces to the west and north.

The situation is particularly dire in Iraq's capital. In May, according to the Los Angeles Times, 2,155 homicides occurred in Baghdad, 85% of the national total. "The situation has worsened considerably in the last couple of months," blogger Alaa wrote at messopotamian.blogspot.com on June 16. A week later, the New York Times reported that the chaos was spreading even to the Mansour district, Baghdad's Beverly Hills. "It's falling to the terrorists," said one resident. "They are coming nearer to us now. No one is stopping them."

This dire assessment cannot be dismissed as knee-jerk negativity from media naysayers because it matches the picture painted by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. In a June 6 cable reprinted in the Washington Post, he reported that local embassy employees were finding it difficult to function outside the Green Zone amid rampant crime, fundamentalism and sectarianism. Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has launched Operation Forward Together in an attempt to regain control of his own capital. This crackdown is in only its second week, and it is too soon to tell if it will work, but there have been several terrorist atrocities since it started. The problem is that Forward Together relies heavily on police officers who are so sectarian and corrupt that they are part of the problem, not the solution. No extra American (or Iraqi) soldiers have been sent into Baghdad. Former viceroy L. Paul Bremer reported that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told him in 2004 that with two extra divisions, "I'd control Baghdad," but those extra divisions — 35,000 to 40,000 soldiers — have never been forthcoming.

Instead, news leaked out this weekend that a drawdown of U.S. forces may take place starting in the fall. It is possible that this withdrawal plan, like earlier ones, will be shelved, but this announcement sends the wrong message at a critical time. The message is that the Pentagon is more concerned with finding an exit strategy than a winning strategy: precisely the charge that Republicans level at Democrats.

IHAVE NEVER been a dogmatist on the issue of troop levels. I was not one of those who criticized the original invasion force in 2003 for being too small. There were enough troops to take Baghdad, and there were legitimate reasons to fear that sending too many Americans would cause a backlash. Better to have focused on supporting Iraqi security forces — except there were none to support. The Iraqi army was dissolved by the U.S., and no serious effort was made for a whole year to field a replacement force, creating a security vacuum that has never been filled. By now it should be obvious that the "light footprint" approach has not worked. It has increased, not decreased, resentment of the United States because Iraqis are aggrieved by the breakdown of law and order. Yet there appears to be no serious rethinking of this flawed strategy at either the Pentagon or the White House. The administration may think it doesn't have any more troops to send.

It's true that the armed forces are overstretched and need to be enlarged, but there are still just 150,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq out of 2.6 million in the active-duty ranks, reserves and National Guard. More soldiers could be found to police Baghdad if this were deemed a top priority.Some in the administration may think that increasing troop numbers, which may bring more casualties, would be political poison.

But what's really hurting Republicans politically is not the number of troops in Iraq, or even the continuing casualties. It's the perception that we're not winning. If a heightened troop presence could establish security in Baghdad, the president and his party would reap a reward at the polls.The fact that the administration continues to "stay the course" with a losing strategy suggests the need for a change of strategists. The president needs a new secretary of Defense — and possibly new generals — who would be more focused on finding a way to win rather than to withdraw.

Saw this in the LA Times

Saw this commentary in the Times Op-ed section

At war with Iraqi law

Killing Zarqawi robbed Iraqis of the chance to bring him to justice.
By David Luban, DAVID LUBAN is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and has taught for the last year at Stanford Law School. His book, "Legal Ethics and Human Dignity," will be published in 2007 by CambridgeJune 13, 2006

LAST WEEK'S killing of Abu Musab Zarqawi may mark a turning point in the struggle against terrorism and the insurgency in Iraq. But the fact that he was killed by a pair of U.S. bombs, rather than captured and turned over to the Iraqis for trial, does no favors for Iraq in its struggle to establish the rule of law. Nor does it help that the bombing killed five others — maybe terrorists, but maybe innocent civilians.

Under the laws of war, Zarqawi was undoubtedly a legitimate target. Enemy commanders are fair game. And no one outside his family should shed tears for Zarqawi, who maimed and murdered hundreds with ruthless brutality. Moreover, there may have been valid military reasons to blow him up rather than capture him. According to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, military officials feared that going in on the ground risked Zarqawi's escape, even though U.S. and Iraqi forces had surrounded the house Zarqawi was in and, indeed, had taken over the entire village.

Nevertheless, there is something disturbing about targeted killing when capture is possible. Suppose that police in the U.S. surrounded the house of a domestic terrorist — let's say John Allen Muhammad, the Washington-area sniper. We would be outraged if the police simply blew up the house and everyone in it. Everyone knows that the police shouldn't act as Muhammad's judge, jury and executioner, and no one would accept the explanation of "collateral damage" for the deaths of the other people in the house. Ruby Ridge and Waco were disasters, not victories.

In an essay in "The Future of the Army Profession," Tony Pfaff (an Army lieutenant colonel and a veteran of the Persian Gulf and Iraq wars) explains that the professional morality of police and warriors differs sharply. In Pfaff's words: "Police are always looking to use the least force possible. But Marines and soldiers are trained to defeat enemies…. They are always looking to use the most force permissible." The gap between police ethics and warrior ethics creates tough decisions in Iraq, where U.S. troops function as both warriors and police, where some adversaries are enemies and others are criminals, and where innocent civilians are everywhere. Pfaff asks the crucial question: "Do civilians have a right to expect the kind of protection U.S. citizens would receive if the same kinds of operations were conducted in the United States?" On a traditional battlefield, the answer is obviously no. Combat is no place for search warrants, due process or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And, although the traditional rules of warfare forbid intentionally targeting civilians, they do allow attacks that harm civilians, provided the military advantage is proportional to the harm. Human and civil rights don't vanish in wartime, but they shrink dramatically. The problem is that in the war on terror, it isn't obvious where the battlefield ends.

That problem extends far beyond Iraq, for the Bush administration insists that in the war on terror, the battlefield can be anywhere and the president can declare where the realm of law ends and the realm of war begins. That is why Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago, could be declared an "enemy combatant" and held for years without trial. That is why hundreds are interned in the legal black hole of Guantanamo, perhaps indefinitely — and why, when three detainees there killed themselves Saturday, Guantanamo commander could proclaim their suicides an act of war and not the product of the despair of those without rights, without a future. In a war on terror that may go on for decades, the result will be a decades-long reduction of peacetime rights, with civil liberties debased to the level of battlefield rights.

To avoid that danger, we should opt for law whenever we have the choice. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials, and we would do well to remember how they came about. Winston Churchill wanted to kill the top Nazis without a trial, and Josef Stalin wanted to kill the German officers as well. It was the Americans who insisted on using law where it had never been used before and giving the Nazi leaders fair trials. That decision heralded the human rights revolution and marked a decisive advance in the rule of law.

In Iraq, the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein, despite its flaws, represents the legacy of Nuremberg. By bombing Zarqawi rather than arresting him, we robbed the Iraqis of the chance to do justice to a mass murderer — and we proclaimed, once again, the supremacy of war over law.

OK, this is my section where I get to open my trap. Forgive me if it isn't as regal as Dr Ludan, I am tired from being in the heat all day. No, don't forgive me. I am to tired for sentiment. LOL


You know, it must be nice to sit in some air conditioned building, with a staff and nice job, and some 70,000 dollar luxury boat in the parking lot, and write about how you feel the use of a bomb to kill a terrorist is not in the best interests of the country. I know that sounds pretty common, somebody who blasts somebody else by saying “Must be nice to be on the other side.” Well, no matter how hard I try, I just don’t see where people get this stuff from, so I am going to use that opening.

On the one side, I am sure Dr Luban is a professional and does a lot of research before he puts pen to paper. I am sure he is well respected and highly regarded in his field, with many years of experience in ethics and civil rights, criminal justice, and the responsibility of lawyers. He writes with flair and purpose, his comments are direct and recommendations are very well crafted. I am sure Dr Luban is a master in his chosen fields, a brilliant professor, and a wonderful author. That being said, I am very sure that Dr Luban has never been on the wrong side of an RPG. Ever had an IED go off 20 feet from your head, Dr? Ever go up against Zarqawi’s evil minions firing AK-47’s on an open street? Ever wake up in the morning and wonder if today was your day to die? Probably not. So let me say a couple of things from this side of the street.

Dr Luban says that by killing Zarqawi, we have done no favors for the Iraqi’s struggle to establish law. I don’t believe this to be true at all. There is an overwhelming feeling among the average Iraqi citizen that there is no real laws. It’s difficult on a daily basis to establish order, not because it can’t be done, but because there is an incredible amount of corruption, at every level. Ministries, agencies, militias, religious groups all have their own agendas here, and it is impossible to tell where the allegiance of any one person may go from time to time. I believe that killing Zarqawi proves to the Iraqi people that the government means business. The Iraqi police were the first one on the scene (a VERY big thing here, because it appears to the local people that the attack was done with the help of the Iraqi police) and they were doing a good job at the scene. The people over here understand that the leader of Al Qaeda was killed, and that means that if you are a terrorist, sooner of later, we will find you and kill you. Now, had Zarqawi chose to give himself up freely, I am sure that the government would have been more than happy to put him on trial. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case, and the problem is that there really isn’t much of a law to go on. All things considered, the people (especially the Shia) are glad he is dead. The struggle to establish law will go on, and in time they will get it right. Zarqawi, however, will not be around for that glorious day. Pity.

That leads me to my next point. He assumes that when Donald Rumsfeld says that we had the village surrounded, he was completely surrounded and there was no way he was ever going to get out. Ever seen an Iraqi village on the map? There is a huge tactical problem involved in attempting to surround a village in this country. I have participated in sweeps that encompass entire sections of a village, and it takes a considerable amount of manpower to do that. Ever street corner, every building, every hole in the ground has to be covered, and still its even money that if you were dedicated, or you know the area, then you know where to go and can get out. Sure, we could go in and try to arrest or contain him, but the collateral damage involved if Zarqawi wanted to stand and fight would have been much more significant. Yes, it’s sad if anybody that may have been in the house was an innocent victim, but terrorists in this country don’t go to the houses of innocent people, take over, and spend the night. I would bet serious dollars that he was at a home of supporters, suppliers, or strategists who knew who he was. He wasn’t going to give himself up, and the Iraqi forces, regardless of what the higher ups say, are not readily able to take on the kind of task that would have been required to root him out. This isn’t the same as capturing Saddam, this guy was going to fight back. Easier to take him out of the equation with a bomb, than with a blowgun.

That made me think of another quick question? If we wanted to save him for Iraqi justice, would you be the guy to give him the subpoena? I will be more than happy to drop you off so you can go in and walk him out.

Dr Ludan asks the question "Do civilians have a right to expect the kind of protection U.S. citizens would receive if the same kinds of operations were conducted in the United States?" To answer, yes they do. I believe every government should provide the kind of protection that US citizens receive. The problem is that not every government is the US government. The police in the US don’t get rockets fired at them. The citizens in the US don’t get murdered in broad daylight because they were born a certain religion. The citizens in the US don’t get killed because they work for the government as a street sweeper. The citizens in this country do. You can’t compare the rights of the US citizen with the rights of the Iraqi citizen. In America you are born with those freedoms. In Iraq, you die because you used them. You simply can’t compare the rights and privileges the US citizen has to those of any other country. To do so assumes that those people in the other country enjoy the same freedom and protections that Americans do. Basically, you are comparing Canadians and Australians to Americans. Not much difference there.

There is something that needs to be understood here. If you are a criminal, at least in America, you have rights. Those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and if you are living in the US, you have the ability to draw upon them to protect yourself. If, however, you are an enemy combatant, you do not have those rights afforded to you. How ironic it would be if we captured Osama Bin Laden, then afforded him the same protection under the US law that he tried to destroy. If you are an American citizen, and you choose to make war against your own country, then you should not be entitled to its protection, and if you are Jose Padilla, aka Abdullah al-Muhajir (which means something like warrior who comes from a foreign land) well sorry buddy, you really should have listened to your mother when she said “Bad association spoils useful habits.” Better luck in your next life. If you are currently residing in a cell in Guantanamo Bay, because you were captured and you are/were/will be/was/continue to be a terrorist, and you decide to hang yourself (Muslims don’t commit suicide, they martyr themselves, which is a whole story in itself) well, I guess that’s just the way it is. The fact that you hung around this many years is still some kind of miracle. I guess you must have some story to tell that you haven’t told yet. The end state of this is that you can’t assign these people the rights and freedoms of the citizens, because these people have chosen to fight against those very same citizens. How many people were killed in the Trade Center attacks, the Pentagon? How many people were killed in a field in Pennsylvania? We can’t assign these people the rights that those who died, never got to use. I recall Timothy McVeigh died, and I didn’t see to many people crying about that.

You say “In a war on terror that may go on for decades, the result will be a decades-long reduction of peacetime rights, with civil liberties debased to the level of battlefield rights.” For the average American, even the average American prisoner, his rights will not be debased. That is because there are people who believe in the rights of its citizens so much that they would fight for years to get people to vote to pray in school, or not pray in school. That takes dedication, belief, and a sincere desire to do the right thing. The Nuremburg trials took place after the war. The trials were for war criminals, much like the trial of Saddam Hussein is now. Zarqawi is not a war criminal, he is a terrorist. He kills for the sake of fomenting fear, not for some government. Al Qaeda is not a government; it is, essentially, a corporation, run by a CEO, which needs money and supplies to continue operations. How do you destroy a corporation? You destroy the leadership. You cut off the supplies and the money. You stop buying the product. Maybe a couple of 500 pound bombs will keep the wannabe’s from going to the store.

Everything is a good story

Watching the news these past couple of days, I am yet again astounded by the audacity of the American news media. I have a question, and I am sure, as I sit around the table with my counterparts, that I am not alone in my asking.

Whose side are the media on?

I watch with total fascination, the circus surrounding the death of the terrorist I will call "Z." I mean, props to the media for feeding into the frenzy that was coordinated and conducted by the people at the Pentagon, but the stories the past couple of days probably surpassed anything the think tankers at Comedy Central (aka the Pentagon) could have ever dreamed up. I actually watched a story with the byline "DID AMERICAN SOLDIERS ABUSE THE BODY OF "Z?" Give me a break!!!! The network, who shall remain nameless (MSNBC) reported today that American soldiers reportedly jumped on the body of "Z" when he was brought out of the bombed out coffin he called a safe house. Now, forgive me if I am a little unsensitive, but do we really care? Is this news? I think the average American would have probably tossed him off the gurney, just to watch his head bounce up and down off the pavement. I am sure that a couple of the Iraqi's would have liked the Americans to bring him back to life, just so they could kick his ass again. This is a terrorist people!!! Who gives a crap what happens to him, as long as it ends up being six feet under. Does it matter that his picture was photoshopped so he looked presentable? That question was actually asked by a reporter. Does it matter that the Iraqi's were the first ones on the scene? Does it matter that he tried to say something before he died? Not to me, not to my guys, and probably not to the hundred or even thousands of relatives of the soldiers, Marines, Airmen and sailors who this guy has killed or hurt.

Another thing. Yes, what happened in Haddithah was unfortunate, and possibly even criminal. But its amazing that the only country that seems to care about it is us. Not a bad thing, mind you, because it shows that we have a system of laws and it works. But the people in this side of the world could care less. Funny, but if you abuse them, they get really offended and tend to riot, protest, or commit random acts of violence. Of course, if you just kill them, then they don't care to much about it. Not because they are soft, but I think its because that is what they know. Now, the reason I say this is because this country has always been ruled by the gun. He who holds the trigger, holds the power. These people have been oppressed, abused, mistreated and held at gunpoint for the better part of a couple thousand years, so killing is a way of life over here. Its what they know and understand, which is why I think that sometimes they are so unconcerned about dying. But we seem to hold court in the press, and the press is out to make these guys guilty before the trial, because thats what people want to see. In the end, I think, that if the press need blood and gore to fill the news and appease the corporate interests that pay them, well, there is plenty of it around here. My thought is that this will be news for a long time, and it will be swept under the table when the press finds something even bloodier to write about. So, guilty or innocent, its not my job to say. But the press seems to have already made up their minds.

I did notice that, instead of giving the people who did such a fine job finding and killing "Z" a heartfelt thanks, the press went straight for the blood shot. Well, let me say, for the hundreds of Iraqi soldiers I work with, a thumbs up and congratulations for a terrific job.

Now get back to work, and find that "O" guy.

A cold breeze, or a smack upside the head?

The heat was getting to be pretty unbearable this evening. We had set up a small raid, and we were having some problem trying to establish the right location of the house in question. We were looking for a white house, with date palms in the front, and a metal gate painted blue with what appeared to be an 8 pointed star on each door. We were pretty sure that this was the right house, and we were stacked on the gate, reading to bust in.

It’s funny to see how little things, small things, can make a simple play fall apart. We had been given some information from an informant, and it seemed to be solid information. We had pictures, names, dates, places, and exact locations. We consulted, over the next 24 hours, every asset we could in the arsenal of intelligence, in order to establish that the information we had was confirmed. We could place the insurgent at the seen of the incident (in this case, a vehicle bomb); we had his name and affiliations with other militant groups. It was a perfect package.

The Iraqi’s were pretty excited about it, because for some reason they were in a good mood and were a little edgy to get moving. We organized a raid force package, trained them as well as we could to re-enforce what we hat previously done. We practiced entry drills, alert drills, and action drills. This team looked sharp, and as good as they could possibly be. From a distance, they almost looked and moved like American forces, and I was very proud of them.

At H-hour, the Iraqi’s and the team, my guys, moved quickly and smartly onto the assault vehicles. They moved well, they had all their gear on, and they looked fantastic moving up and down the streets, quietly and effectively. When they arrived near the target site, they dismounted fast, got into formations, and moved down the street, covering corners, looking at danger areas, and protecting each other like true professionals. We arrived at the alleged house, stacked up on the wall outside the gate, weapons in one hand, a set of bold cutters nearby; waiting for the go command. In my head, I was pumped and ready to roll in. We were saviors, freedom fighters, warriors out to preserve justice and enforce the law of the land, and whoa to those who would stand in our way, lest they be crushed by the forces that god has created. Silently, in the heat, we waited for the word…

And waited….

And waited…

Nothing. No go signal. No smoke. No radio chatter. No hand signals. Nothing at all. I look over to the command cars, and see a lot of fingers pointing in all directions. I see lips moving, and the look of confusion on a lot of faces. This can’t be good. I stand up, and ease the tension. The Iraqi’s, so quiet and courageous, bust out cigarettes, take off helmets, and sit down. This is not what I had in mind. I walk over to the command car, to find out what is going on. It’s simple, I am told. This is not the right street. We are looking for street 18, this is street 16. Simple fix, I say, lets go to street 18, it should be 1 or 2 blocks south. Well, that’s the problem, I am told, the next street is street 9, and the one north is street 22.

So, I ask, basically, we are nowhere close to where we are supposed to be? I ask, with my eyes closed because the sweat is burning now.

“No, we will find it, but it’s going to take a bit longer.”

“Well, how much longer?” I grimace.

“In-sha’allah.” (God willing).

Shit.

So, for the next hour, we move up and down, left and right, house to house, looking for another white house, with date palms, and a blue outer gate. You know, its funny, but you never notice how few white houses there are over here. They are just never around when you need one. We repeated the drill 5 more times. Move, stack, look (heads shaking), move again, stack, look (heads shaking), etc. After two hours of it, we were done. My shoulders hurt, my knees hurt, my head is pounding, and my ego is crushed. The Iraqis, well they were smart, they quite 3 houses ago.

From all of this, the lesson I got was simple. I should say it was a reminder, because I knew this already, but I had forgotten it.

1. Never trust an Iraqi with a map. He can’t read it, especially if it’s in English. And even if it was in Arabic, which it isn’t, 9 times out of 10, it’s upside down. (Those of you who remember that mistake know who you are, and I won’t name names.)

2. A good plan, executed well, is better than a perfect plan. The longer you take to plan, the greater the potential for somebody to overlook something, because the plan gets naturally more complex and involved. Next time, bring the guy you caught. He knows where he lives.

3. If at first you don’t succeed, go home. Don’t spend hours looking for something when you’re not even close. The needle doesn’t get bigger in the haystack, but the haystack gets larger by the minute.

Now, I pride myself in my ability to manage the small details, execute plans, and come up with brilliant yet simple solutions to complex problems. Every now and then, it’s nice to get a slap in the face kind of wake up.