Thanks for the instructional videos over the past few days. They help a lot. Now we're off to do some MU's. (no alarms for the next 30 mins would be nice)

Aloha

Just watched Matt G. and the bar muscle-up. No rings in my gym yet. I had carpal tunnel surgery some years ago and my wrists are still somewhat tender. Any thoughts on technique? Padding? Considering giving it a go tomorrow. Thanks.

Comment #2 by Bingo raises an important issue concerning carpal tunnel surgery. If it is required-insist on a surgical technique where the scar doesn't cross the wrist crease. Otherwise you can end up with a "tender" scar that can take years to resolve in an active person. Free and unsolicited medical advice.

Interestingly, my scars (bilateral surgery) do not cross the wrist crease. My tenderness stems from the amount of surgery that was necessary both distal and proximal to the tunnel (I waited a looooong time to pull the trigger). Nonetheless, my wrist is likely to object if I try to duplicate Matt's technique. Thoughts?

Just wanted to express my extreme gratitude for the amazing videos!!!!! I am thankful for this site and everyone who contributes. Thanks Coach!

Im looking to invest in a set of rings. Anyone know of a website or store that sells a decent pair of them for a resonable price?

Hey guys, My coworker and I(firefighters) substituted the 800 meter runs from friday with running up and down four stories of stairs eight times. Due to Ice and snow limiting our availability of safe running area. Our times were in the 20 minute range, we did the DLs as perscribed, and our legs are now gelatin. Do you think the stair climb was comparible to the 800m run?

#6-

www.ringtraining.com CrossFit friendly.

Ditto on the, "thanks for the vids." They've been a great help.

Dan

I love reading those Micheal Yon articles.

#6 Brian, www.ringtraining.com

#7 Evan, sounds good and great job specific training for us FFs.

Xfit was going great for the last month, starting to see and feel the results. Unfortunately after doing the dead lifts on Wednesday i went to the hospital for some abdominal pain. turns out I had appendicitis and the tore it out Thursday morning. Anyway I should be back to crossfit training in about 1 to 2 months.
Thanks for the great workouts coach keep ‘em coming.

I really love those Micheal Yon articles.

Crossfit women rock. How come there are always guys in the videos?

I was hoping you guys could help me out. I can really only workout three days a week (possibly four) and was wondering what would be the best way to go about it. Should just take the standard crossfit three days in a row and spread it out over monday, wednesday, and friday? What do you guys that dont have the time to workout 5 or 6 days a week do?

Thanks in advance

#8 - thanks for the quick answer, that was what I needed to know also.

#13 - I'll be interested to watch this discussion. I expect to be in that boat when I get back from Iraq and into a real job.

#13 -

This is my experience with CrossFit training. I started a year ago and decided to make a total commitment to the program. At the time, I was just about to turn 41, I was deconditioned and overweight by about 25 pounds, so I had a ways to go. So, I did 3 on/1 off. Occasionally, I missed a day (sore, sick, job conflict, family, etc.), but basically stuck to the program.
I understand your limits on time. I own my own home building business, so time is always scarce when you operate 7 days/wk, throw in a weekend Marine reserve duty commitment each month, and top everything off with time for my wife and three kids. However, I really wanted to make a change and so my goal was to follow the 3/1 as closely as possible. It was hard at first to change my schedule to meet my goal, but I did it by sticking to the program. So, I got back in shape and lost every overweight pound I had put on. Now, I'm in the best shape I've been in over 20 years!
My wife, who has always been into training and has been a personal trainer for years, got into CrossFit in April after seeing the gains I had made in a few short months. Realizing we needed a CrossFit-centric gym, we turned our garage into one. Last July, we both got certified and started CrossFit Ocean City in August. (So, now add training clients/group classes to the time-crunch mix I described earlier!)
What I've found from my experiences and those of people who have trained with me is this: if you're training 2 or 3 days/wk, but you're also doing other things on the off days (running, swimming, whatever sport), it's a great supplement. If you aren't doing CrossFit 4 to 6 times per week, I don't think you'll experience the same neuro-endocrine response and see the same results.
I can't say for sure that this is true for everyone out there, but this is just what I've observed from my own experiences and observing the 35 or so people that have trained with us since August. Granted, this isn't a large sampling of the population, but this is a decent size for this area and the size of our CrossFit operation. On a side note, the age ranges in this group runs from early 20 somethings to 69 year old men and women, and training in both group and one-on-one.
The most difficult groups to "convert" to CrossFit are those guys you see in the gym on M/W/F doing 3 sets of 10 on each machine and the bench week in/week out and those women who refuse to give up the cardio-bunny aerobics programs. But again, those that "dropped" their current programs and did CrossFit only for 6 weeks haven't gone back. The reason is that they committed to the 3 on/1 off and got hooked!
Bottom line is that I don't know what your situation is (work, family, etc.) that limits you to only 3 days/week, but if you can possibly make it your goal to do more than just M/W/F, you should do it. Even if it means going to the gym at 5 am, or building your own gym by carving out space at your house, you can find a way to CrossFit more than 3 days/week if you truly want to commit. It also helps to find a partner to train with, or someone to coach you.

I don't think I answered your question directly and I rambled a bit, but hopefully I gave you some food for thought.

Regards,
Steve

All I gotta say is:

Red
Hot
Chili
Peppers.

Thank you very much.

#13-

I don't know what your situation is, but I will tell you the best thing about Xfit to me is how little time it takes me. After a new job and a baby, there was no way I could still go to the gym every day. I built a xfit gym in my garage (now in my basement in my new house) and I now complete my entire workout in the time I used to spend just getting to and from the gym. I usually workout in the mornings and never spend more than 30 mins total. I work about 50-60 hrs a week and the rest of my time goes to wife and kids.

If you haven't done so, read the cf article about building a home gym. It pays for itself in about 6 mos of gym fees, gets you in better shape, and frees up so much time.

I"ve done nothing but the WOD for the past couple years and I'm in the best shape of my life.

Yon articles are great information. Just read "Gates of Fire" last night. Photos are the best of this war we'll see. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/gates-of-fire.htm/

#16 - Steve, thanks very much for commenting.

As much as I've been obsessed with the idea of a CF gym the last few weeks (an option for after my Navy life ends), I hope I can find my way down to see your operation. I also live close to Skip Chase's place in Mt Vernon, and look forward to seeing MT Baker CF when I return. Considering the cert in Vancouver in June ...

On a totally different note, for Kate and others who have wondered where the moderate Muslims are and what they say, I recommend "The Great Theft" by Khaled Abou al Fadl - I've read this four or five times and I built a 70 slide brief from it for training here in Iraq. I'm very grateful to have found it. Also, I'm attaching a link to a discussion by a moderate, and I've seen others like it, I hope it addresses your concerns to some degree. At the least, it is very interesting. I wonder why these folks don't get more western press - not enough headline power I suspect.

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1363wmv&ak=null

#16 and #18 thanks

So it looks like the 3 on 1 off schedule is very important to getting the most out of crossfit. Currently I have been able to follow the schedule, however next week I planned on returning to training brazilian jiu-jitsu about 2-3 times a week. My concern is I will not have time to Xfit 5 times a week, in addition to the fact that I am not sure how my body will hold up and I am afraid I will overtrain.

thank again

Michael yon's reportage is first rate, Pulitzer quality. #13- Do whatever you can to get your XFit boat on the water. My office is very close to the Y where I workout, so I was quickly able to get on the 3/1 schedule. If you can't, try MWFri, throw in Sat/Sun. Before long, you'll find yourself waking up at 4:30, wondering what fun Coach has posted for the day and getting after it. #16 Steve Rakow-well put. I'm sure you're an inspiration to everyone who trains with you. Live strong!

I can't imagine a program that offers as much benefit in such a minimal time allotment.

I haven't yet started doing the CFWU, do to my own work/family time commitments; my goal is start doing the workout in the am (not easy; I am NOT a morning person) so I can get the whole thing in...

Thankful for the rest today. Looks like I'll be giving the Zone a rest too, given the Super Bowl party I'll be attending...

GO BEARS!!!

20min 5k... now the rest begins ;-)

#21 I agree GO BEARS!

Poll:
Bears or Colts to win the Superbowl

WOD PainStorm XXII 47:00 left "the hard" column and double-unders.

Day behind. 120PU/120Dips
22:22 (Honest!)

Attempted first MU on bar. Non-starter. There is just no translation of any number of palms toward PU to the palms away false grip. Then tried on hanging handles (no rings). Still no go. Loooong way to go to add this skill.

pjminni #13:
I have a work schedule that is fixed and which prevents me from a strict 3 on/1 off schedule. For example, I take every Monday off, and occsionally must take Wednesday off as well. So in a typical week I get 5 CF work-outs in. My issue on my mandatory rest days is upper body, so If I'm feeling frisky or if the week is going to be funky I may throw in a running WOD like "Michael" or alter one like "Birthday 26" from CFSC on a Mon. or Wed. These workouts are so short and intense that I am often in and out, warm-up/WOD/recovery, shower and dress in under 45 minutes. But, and this is a significant but for you, CF is all I have time for. No BJJ, no tennis or squash, very little golf, etc.

That said, ANY CF is better than whatever else you have been doing to gain fitness for life/BJJ, or whatever. If you can only fit 3 days in, so be it. If you can steal time on the weekends for a CF workout, though, that's 5/week. Not pure 3on/1off, but not too shabby.

Welcome aboard. Fasten you seatbelt...

Dan #23

Yer a far, far better man than I...
I looked at Painstorm and Pukie was giggling just from reading it. Hat's off to you and anyone else who walks THAT walk!

D.

"easy week"
Rested y-day. Did 15 Ring MU's for time today.

2:50

+fingerboard session

practiced a Fran type complex
specific wu

5 rounds:
10x thrusters@95lbs
10x kipping pull-ups
5x HSPU

All rounds done in 65 secs, way too slow, near term goal is 40 secs/round, full recovery between rounds. Finally found the Rippetoe hamstring bounce in the thrusters, so that's something anyway.

Yon's coverage is very useful. If you read the MSM, our guys seem utterly overwhelmed and we're DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED. Same Stuff, Different day.

We have by far the most competent, most dangerous military in the world, but the hysterical types forget that.

I'm going to put a brief speculation out there, that makes sense based on my understanding of the opposition.

As I've said often, if this war is lost, it will be lost state-side. And it appears to me that there are a legion of folks out there who have hated Bush for 7 years, and who are finally starting to smell blood, to smell vulnerability.

They have their "70%" opinion poll--which may or may not say what they claim it says, both in terms of absolute accuracy and more importantly in the interpretation of that data--and they figure that should be it; we should quit. The "people" want it. Never mind that they have been diligently working propagandistically both to demonize American efforts abroad, and underrepresent our many successes.

This propaganda effort is intensifying. There are dozens of websites out there that will tell you anything bad about Bush, America, or our efforts in Iraq that you want. None of them even attempt impartiality. They start with outrage, give the faithful a few "tools" to go out and sow confusion, and they do. And you see these dumb things cut and pasted by ignorant people all over creation. This isn't the only website I go to.

I am going to state simply that Bush is not Johnson or Nixon, and America today is not the America of 1970. It is getting very, very close to a case where leading Democrats can accurately be painted as not only unpatriotic but borderline treasonous. They have no plan, and are only using the war to drive a wedge between as many Americans as possible, and George Bush.

In my view, given capable rhetoric on the part of leading Republicans--and I have John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in mind here, among others--our public is going to wake up to what is going on, and the Democrats are going to have a stain on them that will take a generation to erase.

I went hiking today for 2 hours
Then at the gym I did:
10 Muscle ups
10 Dips
10 Pull Ups
10 Dips
10 Pull Ups
Ran 1/4 Mile

If you have ring dips, can you do 30 Ring pull ups and 30 Dips to sub for the MU? Or is there some other formula that works? I know the MU are a bear no matter what. Thanks for the help on this one.

Front squat 5x5

135,165,175,185,185

4 rds of 400m run, 25 box jumps, 25 push ups, 15 pull ups

Press 3x15
75,65,65

A terrific phone interview of Michael Yon by Glenn and Helen Reynolds was posted in the past couple of days. Download at http://tinyurl.com/37tbl9

6'/175#/m

BW BP 30 reps
800m run
BW BP 20 reps
800m run
BW BP 10 reps
800m run

21:00 (80% BW DB BP)

Here we go...gloves are off. The main stream leftists are letting their feelings show.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24292_Daily_Kos-_Arkin_Was_Right_The_Military_Owes_Us&only

Barry, Interesting post as usual. I have wondered if the Dems and Dem supporters realize they are now invested in failure, and understand the implications thereof. If at this point, it turns the other direction, Iraq emerges as a legitimate self sustaining nation, and Iran retreats to its impossible task of sustaining itself (vice intimidating its neighbors), the Dems will take a beating they know they won't survive. They have actually placed themselves in a position from which they have bet their viability as a party against our nation's success in Iraq. It is astonishing to consider.

A recent quote by GEN Barry McCaffery (ret): "If we had 10 years at present force levels we'd havea 95% change of success." Obviously, we have no where near that amount of time - largely because of the factors you mentioned above, and the expectation at the outset that this would be quick and easy like Afghanistan was.

I would suggest that The Bush Administration starting this event without advertising that it would take ten years was the strategic error most likely to cause failure, given what is observable about the media and its appetite for bad news over good.

All that aside, I will hope your assessment is correct.

Caught last night's Super Bowl anti-war commercial. It somehow has changed the talking point from "we support the troops, but not the mission" to "If you support the surge (mission), you don't support the troops." Orwell, anyone?

"We send you to war and we bring you home."

Would not soldiers constitute a subset of "we"? Perhaps that fact was overlooked, as the denizens of that particular dark hole seem to think that their opinions are the only ones that matter.

Of course, I expect nothing less than intellectually empty but nonetheless condescending rhetoric from these children.

There will come a time soon when "we" get to find out what "we" really think.

Yes,

Soldiers constitute a subset of the aforementioned "we." And, it is worth noting that there are a decent number of active and inactive soldiers who do not believe that we should be engaged in the war in Iraq.

It is also worth noting that 1. they represent a relatively small susbet when compared to others, and 2. they relenquish many of their constitutional rights when they volunteer for the military.

Fortunately, in America all opinions matter.... even more forunately, the opinion of the majority is the arbiter of most disagreement, within some constitutional bounds.... as occassionally agreed upon by elected representatives.

Zach

Absolutely true. And the Commander in Chief is still, by careful design and thought, in charge of the military, once given the go-ahead by Congress, which Bush has in this case.

If this nation had been governed by opinion polls for the duration of its' history, it would no longer exist, in my view.

Let's face it, Zach: that 70%, whatever it means, is good propaganda for you and your fellow travellers, and you're doing your level best to cause as much damage to the cause of American victory as you can.

It's always interesting to me that leftists level the same sorts of criticisms--often using precisely the same verbiage--against this nation that the Soviets used to, and the Cubans do today. Why is that Zach? Because the Cubans know more than we do about freedom and economic development?

Zach...what many constitutional rights might those be?

Zach... What is a the DECENT number of soldiers that disagree with the war?

Here's an oldy but goody on Stalinist memes:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260

Another, that makes good sense, is this summary of the Russian influence in the development of international terrorism, and the importance of the international drug trade:

http://www.worldthreats.com/al-qaeda_terrorism/Douglass%20-%20True%20Origins%20of%20Terrorism.htm

People, we are in a battle for our soul as a nation and culture, and we aren't fighting hard enough.

Thinking clearly is a start. A good next step is finishing what we started in Iraq. That is what our enemies want us IN NO CASE to do.

Joey,

Someone with a deeper understanding of the UCMJ will have to keeo me honest here, but I believe that upon volunteering for service, soldiers surrender many of their rights to privacy, unwarranted search & seizure, etc...

IVAW and Military Families Speak Out report over 1800 registered members of their organizations that are on active duty and a multiplier of 10 that remain anonymous.

Barry, what do you find offensive in the following statement?

"There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Iraq. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home... The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible....

Our continued military presence in Iraq allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.

Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Iraq. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .

That we are retreating, and dishonorably. I note nothing in there speaks to the lives--American, Allied, and Iraqi--that have been lost working for victory, and that there is no regard whatever given for the lives of those who have trusted us.

Is it worth 100,000 Iraqi lives, Zach, to save several hundred American lives, and to jeopardize our credibility, national security, and sense of honor and integrity as a nation?

Does the word honor mean anything to you? Is it better to die standing, or to live grovelling?

The soldiers I talk to volunteered to complete a mission. The mission isn't completed. I have no doubt 100% of them would love nothing more than to leave tomorrow. I also have no doubt that the bulk of them want to finish what we started.

Wasn't this discussion quite recently about the fact that the bulk of those ACTUALLY FIGHTING THE WAR continue to support it, and that it is primariliy those who aren't fighting it who want to discontinue it? Doesn't that disallow pretended concern for the troops as a ploy? You may be fooling others, but you are now permanently pegged in my mind as a disingenuous propagandist, likely collaborating with others.

Barry,

The comments I just quoted were those of John McCain in reference to our engagement in Somalia under President Clinton. I edited the word "Somalia" in favor of "Iraq."

Barry, you don't know what you are talking about... Someone is going to have to break the news to you, someday that your understanding of constitutional law, world politics, recent history, propaganda techniques, etc... are nowhere near the level of competence at which you think they are.

I don't claim to be an expert on any of these subjects, but I also don't go around brow-beating away any chance at rational discussion.

From your posts, it appears to me that you listen to too much talk radio.

For the record, Michael Yon is doing great work.

Zach,
Was the US withdrawal from Somalia honorable? Did it honor the sacrifices made by those that died there? Did it leave the USA in a respectable light? Where did Osama Bin Laden get the idea that the USA was a "paper tiger"?

A side note, when I read that speach, it sounded a lot like the rebuttal speech to the Stat of the Union, this year.

Blake,

Nope.. as a matter of fact, I think that our withdrawal from Somalia was a raging disaster.

It was, however, a decision reached by our elected representatives through careful, deliberate and constitutionally protected debate.

Presidents, Congressmen, Senators... all can make mistakes, and all of their decisions can and will be second-guessed, debated, and even reversed.

The notion that debating whether or not we should be engaged in the war in Iraq is somehow treasonous or disregards the best interests of our troops is offensive in its stupidity. No war ever fought by our country has gone without public debate before, during and after. Nor have all the wars we have engaged in been a good idea. T think otherwise is wildly naive.

Zach

Zach,

I don't listen to talk radio, watch Fox news, or read anything but books and the newspaper. These things are really pretty simple, in my view.

We have an enemy who is using mass murder of civilians to try and demonstrate to the world that we lack the tenacity to endure difficulty over any reasonable--in the context of world history--timeline.

If that is what John McCain said with respect to Somalia, I have to disagree with him. I don't agree with him on every issue, and unfortunately like all politicians he has to respond to public pressure.

The overarching point you are missing (actually, I don't think you're missing this point at all, but let's pretend for the sake of argument) is a lot of the public pressure is being created as a result of leftist subversion of much of the media. It is a predictable result of massive leftist disinformation campaigns that seek to vilify aggressive actions abroad, regardless of whether or not they are ACTUALLY in our self interest.

Your little game proves nothing, except that you play games, and that Republicans sometimes pussy out.

Zach...here ya go stud

Some of these organizations heros:

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=36627&archive=true

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1168676/posts

Quite the reputable organizations...I love the multiple connections to Socialist and communist front groups.

Then there is also Cindy Sheehan...

Comparisons between Somolia and Iraq are moot are in many ways.

Mostly because it was clear that President Clinton did not have it in him to do it right. He went with the politically easy approach and others paid the price...mostly the Somalies.

I don't care if your disagreement is treasonous or not. It is the stupidity of the arguements coupled with the omission of facts then replaced with false assertions that gets me...especially when time aqfter time the organizations and individuals are found to be linked to Marxist principles or organizations.

Simply put, it is more disinformation from leftists to create political gain and historical re-writes

You guys are a riot.... nothing anyone can say or do will get in the way of your world view in which you are idealogical soldiers, fighting in the trenches against the evil Marxist menace.

Anything left of your opinion is pure evil... Fortunately, most of the country is not at the level of hysterical paranoia that you are.

Have a nice day.

Zach

Zach, if you think we are paranoid than I strongly urge you to go to the library or book store and at least glance at "The Venona Project, Decoding Soviet Espionage in America". For that matter, the NSA used to have it up on it's website. Google it. But the ultimate reality is that there actually was a large scale, systematic aproach to subverting American policy. That is global politics.

Zach,

The bottom line is that your own position is demonstrably inconsistent, and you have been entirely unable and unwilling to demonstrate how you are in any way attempting to support policies that further American interests. You are a leftist shill and a liar, in my estimation.

It has nothing to do with generalized ideas that I am applying uncritically to anyone who disagrees with me. It has everything to do with a careful appraisal of YOUR specific incongruities. In fact, the one painting a wide swathe of unjustifiable, blanket generalities is you. And that's the technique you've been taught, isn't it?

I'll ask you again: what is YOUR plan for Iraq, that protects American interests, and avoids mass bloodshed?

I hate to beat a dead horse, but the subject has been brought up. Zach, since you mention treasonous behavior... Let us first define treason as "consist[ing] only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" (Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution).
Now, the radio broadcasts of "Tokyo Rose" were deliberate attempts at undermining the American morale in the Pacific front. Presuming for arguments sake that Tokyo Rose was indeed an American citizen [Iva Toguri D'Aquino], does this not constitute both adhering to and providing aid an enemy of the United States? So, if Jane Fonda made radio broadcasts and posed for propaganda photos that were used to the same effect (undermining American troop morale in Vietnam)... can this not also constitute adhering to the enemy and providing them aid and comfort? How would you compare and contrast the actions (radio broadcasts) of Jane Fonda and "Tokyo Rose"?

Furthermore, what was the American Left's reaction to Jane Fonda's behavior?

What is one of the biggest lessons learned by the Vietnam War? That the way to beat the American military is not through direct confrontation, but rather by defeating American public support back home. What was the involvement of many leading Democrats in the 1960/70's anti-war movement and how did this impact American public support for the war? Why are the same people pushing us to make these mistakes again?

One last thing. I am not arguing the constitutionality of speaking your conscience. Realize however that actions have reprecutions. So to do words. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because people can get hurt. If you play an ad during the Super Bowl, knowing the troops will be watching, and your message is "if you support the surge, you don't support the troops"... what is the aimed effect at the morale of the troops in theatre?

Barry, you calling me demonstrably inconsistent is rich... show me inconsistencies in what I've written.

The thing that is so obviously troubling to you about me is that my position doesn't fit in to a neat little box of either lef or right, conservative or liberal, etc...

Blake,

In my opinion a surge of 20,000 or even 50,000 falls dramatically short of the mark... it comes nowhere close to the time-tested and proven quantities of soldiers needed to occupy and pacify a nation the size of Iraq. As far as I can tell, it's a politically motivated band-aid that won't get us anywhere closer to our goal, and it will only spell more troop and civilian deaths. Does this make me smoehow "anti-troop?" Not even close...

The aregument that opposition to the war in Iraq expressed publicly is somehow disheartening to the troops is a dangerous one. It basically forfeits all power of public debate once a president has committed them to action. That's just a recipe for totalitarianism.

Public debate, by citizens and elected representatives is constitutionally protected, and our soldiers are sworn to protect the sanctity of our constitution.

If the question is whether or not debate is disheartening to our troops, then perhaps limiting of information to the troops is the answer. It was not so long ago that our troops were granted extremely limited access to news and information while engaged in battle.

However, I think it's a silly argument, always perpetuated by those in favor of continued engagement in a given war or conflict... regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. Somalia is a good example. Clinton argued that lack of fortitude in the legislative branch and among the general public would make it harder on our troops to perform.

The fact of the matter is that he was right, as you are now.... but, the constitution trumps that argument. Period. There are multiple examples of how the constitution makes law-enforcement, military action, legislation, etc... a cumbersome process, and I'm thankful for it every day. History is full of examples of governments, nations, states, etc.. whose demise lay in their efficiency.

Anyway, back to work.... I have a gym to run, and a baby to take care of at the same time..

Zach

Zach,

How do you reconcile a call for a new President as a prospective solution to our problems in Iraq, with an unwillingness to commit our troops to the long term?

What is your plan for Iraq to protect our national interest, and avoid massive bloodshed?

What is the source of your "knowledge" on the "necessity" of more troops? How many books of military history have you read?

As far as I can tell, you are simply parroting leftist positions, indiscriminately, adding no facts of your own, consistently avoiding fair questions, and throwing out red herrings like the need for more troops, without actually being willing--were such a thing possible--to support that troop surge.

Your basic position, as far as I can tell, is to call for ANYTHING other than what is possible or even likely.

That is not a position. That is a nuisance, and it is currently widespread, and no less ill-founded because of it.

You side-stepped my questions.

In regards to public discourse, there is an obvious difference in debating the merits of a war on "Meet the Press" or demonstrating peacefully in front of the Capitol versus travelling to the country we are currently waging war against and making radio broadcasts using the enemies radio system, and spewing ant-war rhetoric at US troops.

Would you agree that in public discourse, one should act responsibly? In other words, one should adhere to the facts as much as reasonably possible and own what they say. Rather than flip-flopping every two weeks. Or let's say if we have a Senate Intelligence Comittee hearing on WMD intelligence in Iraq, shouldn't all 10 members sit through the entire 4 hour session, instead of 5 members leaving within 15 minutes to go to a breakfast photo-op? (C-SPAN is a wonderful thing!)

I have agreed time and again about the right to freely express dissent in a peaceful and responsible manner. However, do we also take into consideration the perceptions of the enemy? How do they percieve our will to fight, our will to stay, and how long must they hold out before we leave... at what point does public opinion become a guage of the enemy's success?

Barry, plenty of books on the history of war. 40 to 1, citizens to occupying soldiers is a bare minimum... 30 to 1 is more workable. Considering the complexity of the long-standing animosities between the varying cultural sects in Iraq, 20 to 1 is about what we need.

What part of; we need more troops, and here is how many is difficult for you to grasp? I don't have to reconcile anything with an unwillingness to committ troops for the long term... I've suggested as much more than once here.

In regards to new leadership, what part of we need a new president in order to improve diplomatic relations in the region is difficult to grasp? Of course, I know this is not going to happen until January 2009. That doesn't make it any less important.

Instead of looking for nuiances and agendas that don't exist, try reading my words for exactly what they are. You're trying too hard to classify me into either friend or foe of the United States. Try just responding to the merrit of my arguments.

Blake, "Tokyo Rose," Iva Toguri D'Aquino, was convicted of 1/8th count of treason. Later, he was pardoned by President Ford, when it was revealed that the only material witness against her had lied under oath..... Neither she nor Jane Fonda met the constitutional or case-law standards for treason.

You may not like what they did (in the case of Iva Toguri D'Aquino not much really), but that does not make them treasonous.

Also, quite a bit of assumptions there in your second point.... having a discussion on the job performance and integrity of members of the Executive or Legislative branches is a quick downward spiral. Not to reinforce Barry's paranoid perception of me as some subversive, leftist agent, but publicly financed elections would help to moderate their behavior.

Public opinion IS a guage of an enemy's success. That does not make it the responsibility of the citizenry to support a war that they do not agree to. It is the responsibility of those who command the war effort to A.) execute it successfully, and B.) convince the American population of its necessity... representative Democracy 101.

Zach

Barry,

BTW - you may not like the answer, but that makes it no less correct.

20,000 or even 50,000 additional troops is waaaaaaayyyy less than what we actually need.

Zach

Team Lakeland

Neil: Last time did 40 slightly kipped bar MU's in 9:43. This time, between my shoulder bothering me, and a callus ripping I only managed 25 total at around the 12 min mark....

James was slacking in New Orleans.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you have NO workable plan for getting us out of Iraq without the addition of troops you know perfectly well we don't have. The corrollary to that is you are perfectly willing to countenance both massive bloodshed in Iraq, as well as the strong probability that an enemy state will arise from the ashes of the civil war. Is that accurate?

Also, Jane Fonda was NOT acting in a treasonous manner, in your opinion, because she was never charged and convicted of a crime?

I have to say, I would be utterly ashamed of myself to be as evasive as you have been over the last two Rest Days. Unambiguous answers here would be both welcome and, frankly, surprising. I don't expect them, since you seem to prefer weaseling out of committing yourself, rather than admit openly that you want us to fail in Iraq, because you view that failure as supportive of the Democratic Party.

Barry,

As far as I an tell, YOU have no workable plan for Iraq... You may think you do, but in my opinion you don't. I wouldn't begin to extrapolate that you therefore " countenance both massive bloodshed in Iraq, as well as the strong probability that an enemy state will arise from the ashes of the civil war"

That is an incrfedibly insulting accusation, and frankly I'm about sick of hearing you tell me how much I hate America and our troops, how much I want us to fail, etc... With all due respect, Barry, get a grip. I lost friends on 9/11, and I've lost friends in this war. Your baseless insinuations serve only to prove your narrow-mindedness and total lack of touch with reality.

Again, I'm sorry if they don't fit into your highly anatagonistic world view, but my opinions are exactly as I have stated them.

Zach

Zach, you may be surprised that I actually agree with you on the constitutionality of the conviction of Iva Toguri D'Aquino. Hence the "for argument's sake" clause. With respect to Jane Fonda, her actions are most comparable to the "Tokyo Rose" persona who was suspected of being an American citizen (Iva Toguri D'Aquino being the prime suspect at the time). Unlike Iva, there is sufficient documentation of Fonda's exploits to at the very least categorize her actions. Please do not confuse that with seeking a prosection.

Also, would you make a distinction between free and open dissent by protesting in the US and actually going to a country we are waging war against and publicly voicing your protests there (to the enemy)? Or are both constitutionally protected free speach in your view?

In which case, am I clear that you do not condemn Fonda's behavior and you disagree that; her behavior was not in adherence to the enemy, nor did she aid and comfort the enemy by providing a propaganda weapon that was used against US troops? A simple yes or no to each point, please. (Sorry, I've got no patience for ambiguousness and word smithing.) If no, then we will agree to disagree.

Blake,

Sorry, you may be stepping into the conversation late... I mentioned in the last rest-day post that:

1. Her behavior was stupid at best, deplorable at worst. The distinction lies in her motivation, to which I am not privy.

2. I don't believe her actions were treasonous.

Suffice it so say, I'm not a fan of hers. Nor do I thnk that her actions have or ever have had a significant effect on the outcome of any foreign war.

Free speech, as proteted by our constitution, does not end at our borders.

You'll pardon me, but I have lost my patience with Barry and his never-ending, loaded questions and accusations. I am not one to dumb down my opinion to suit the prejudices of others.

Thank you! I hope at least our exchange has been thought provoking.

Some food parting food for thought. Here is an interesting article on the surge and counter-insurgency in Iraq. I'm not sure what the "right" decision is, but suffice to say that open debate helps breed new ideas toward a solution.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot7feb07,1,6478889.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true

Blake,

Excellent article... Everything there is dead-on, and I think it goes well with a lot of what I've been saying.

The privatization of our war effort, in general, has made our presence in Iraq a gold-mine for private contractors and has set us up much as the French presence in Algiers... We are a distant, occupying force, living lavishly, in the midst of a war zone. Our supply lines are so poorly managed, and there is so much excess that equipment and arms are finding their way into the hands of the insurgnecy.

I still thikn that we simply do not have the quantity of soldiers necessary to occupy and pacify Iraq... The close-quarters nature of occupation and counter-insurgency make the equation pretty predictable, regardless of the technological efficiency of the occupying army. It comes down to a simple matter of managable man-hours.

Zach

Zach,

I've stated my position clearly dozens of times. I believe that we need to, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, do what we can, with what we have, and do it now. Having ideal logistical and strategic conditions is very rare in war, and when they occur, victory usually follows in short order.

I am asking questions to pin you down, because you are consistently contradictory. If you view efforts to get you to draw out the logicial conclusions of your own presuppositions as antagonism, you shouldn't participate in on-line debates.

What I am trying to draw out is, not what "the people" want, but what YOU want. It's a very, very reasonable question--given your persistent criticisms of current policies--and failure to answer is latent antagonism in itself.

To be even more specific: what do you want over the next six months, and what do you foresee as the short, mid, and long term consequences of that position, for America, for Iraq, and for the Middle East as a whole?

That's a question, not a "loaded" question. If you cannot differentiate between them, again, you should not participate in on-line or other debates, except with people who already agree with you.

Zach,

I AM targetting you, but my goal is not to drive you into the ground. It is to drive the IDEAS you are putting out in the public sphere into the ground. In my view, they are ill-founded, inconsistent, and ultimately based on an assessment of what is emotionally easiest in the short and middle term. They take no account whatever of the larger strategic and even tactical considerations in play. They are the language and tone of a generation of people who still feel retreating from Vietnam was the best decision, and who have waited a generation for another opportunity to engineer a humiliating defeat for the US. And they are the lingua franca of the Democratic Party, and a distressingly large section of the more vulnerable or opportunistic members of the Republican Party.

We are in Iraq today, and there are consequences both to staying there, and to leaving, and to the varying positions in the middle. I would of course fully support increasing our troop levels 100,000 or more, and raising Defense expenditures to 5% of the GDP, which a military friend recently suggested to me would represent a large part of the solution. I just don't see how those options can come about in the current political climate.

The discussion is not about solutions of that sort--you for one don't seem to be seriously proposing them, but rather positing their lack as support for a position of retreat--but about all the reasons why we need to leave immediately, and pretend both that we bear no responsibility for what happens, or that there is a strong likelihood of the exact OPPOSITE outcome to what we want, which would potentially be a worse regime than that of Saddam Hussein.

This is a good article on the support Republicans gave to FDR, and represents an informative contrast with today.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10300

Note that the Republicans ran against FDR on domestic policy, while supporting both him and the troops abroad.

The principle issue Democrats have today is that the overall economic climate in the country is good--distressingly good--and their traditional support bases are slipping visibly into oblivion. They have no issues, so they are manufacturing one. They are buying influence on the credit of avoiding the necessity of long term resolution in the face of extremism.

stt 35min