JosephH

I would have to also disagree with the notion that it doesn't matter how you rack gear. If this is a partner you climb with on a regular basis then you should come to some compromise or another if speed, rythmn, and operating in concert mean anything to you. Having your gear act together both for yourself and with a partner means having some system where you both understand what you're doing with a minimum amount of confusion and communication. This may not seem like a big deal, but if you ever get in a truly bad situation, not having your act together individually and collectively can literally become the difference between life and death. Random behavior is not your friend when it comes to honing down your instincts and skills with pro.

You are going to have a very, very good time... As others have said, second as many good routes as humanly possible and pick up a few classic easy leads for yourself -- but try to second as much as possible and really study the pro. It's a great opportunity, at a fabulous place, at a perfect time of year...

Jim O. and I were out yesterday and were up on the "ledge" when I happen to look down at the strip between the tracks and the river and saw 4 black shapes moving east on the single track trail through the grass. At first I thought they were moving fast for cows, then they were the wrong shape for cows, then maybe they were pigs, then wolves, and finally it dawns on me that it's a mother bear and three healthy sized cubs! We watched momma lead them to a point about 100 yards east of the SE corner and then she took them up and over the tracks presumably back up to near where we park on the road on their way back up the mountain. Maybe she brought them down to the river to teach them to fish or something. Another couple was up on the ledge that had returned from the valley and were just lamenting they hadn't seen any bears - only to see them here. Pretty exciting anyway, made our day, and was a real treat.

How about the sheer number of climbers today? Anyone got stats on the number of climbers by year since 1960. What would happen, hypothetically, if gyms and bolts disappeared and all that remained was trad climbing. I suspect we have generated our own problems (just the fact that there is something called the "American Safe Climbing Assoc (ASCA)" is probably highly indicative that we are responsible...).

One of today's headlines in the NYT: U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq If this keeps up unanswered it will be very analogous to the current situation in Afganistan - We'll be holed up behind the green line and in Saddam's various palaces claiming to control the country while the locals who really control it fight it out amongst themselves on the way to the big 3-way fandango.

Post deleted by JosephH

Zinni is the real deal - he always looked out for his men and was a believer of Gray's approach of getting everyone out from behind their desks - if you don't believe it from him I don't know whose views you would accept. [Cpt., For 500k you might have to stop protecting the Germans and French - maybe even the Japanese - could be the end of the free world as we know it... ]

A lot of years went by before we used any type of belay device. What we typically did do was clip a single biener to the tie-in point of our harness or sling so the gate was up-and-in and then had the rope from the climber go through it and around the waist for the hip belayed. The single biener added friction, but mostly ensured good control over the rope in a fall - and there were lot's and lot's of them...

Cpt. Not particularly, again in a simpler context I would agree, but not Iraq or Afganistan. Your Commander-In-Chief has assidiously avoided formally declaring war on anyone for lots of practical [business-related] reasons. And whatever it is he considers this "conflict" to be, he declared victory on the deck of a carrier some time ago. So, the "war", declared or otherwise, is over and what we now have is an incredibly piss-poor occupation. If you are debating the difference between war and occupation - go for it... And my "trip", high or otherwise, is pretty irrelavant to a discussion of the nature of this or any other conflict. And I suspect if it were possible to get the facts you'd find out that roughly 1/2-2/3's of the IED casualties to-date have been killed with munitions that easily could have been secured in the first two weeks of the conflict had Rumsfield been remotely interested using adequate force levels initially (more like 250-300k) and had actually managed to bribe the Turks with $32 billion so we could have had a northern front to tackle the Arab conclaves immediately. No, I didn't "fail to mention" that at all - we have about a long, long bi-partisan history of installing miserable despots to do our commercial bidding (and usually supress democracy at every turn) only to be bitten on the ass by them later. It's amazing how we don't learn that half the battles we fight are battles of our own making.

Cheney had 7 deferrments of experience in Vietnam - He and Rumsfield are complete posers - Powell knows better and advised against going into Iraq the first time (I'll be stunned if he takes another four years of abuse - but then he knows whoever those fools replace him with would be a disaster...). As far as Iran and Lebanon, our forays in both were disasters one and all - the boneheads kept trying to treat them like Latins and were all but repeatedly, laughed out of the Middle East (Bush Sr.'s CIA and VP experience was mostly in South/Central America). And Panama, please! just like Saddam, our boy turned around and bit us on the ass - set'em up, knock'em down - now that really took putting on the ol' military thinking cap (will we be crowing over Grenada next...). The troops in all cases did great, the political, intelligence, and military leadership in all three were a disaster.

Cpt., In a simple environment (e.g. Panama, Grenada, Falklands) I'd agree with definition #1, but in this case I think we're really dealing with a situation better defined by defs #2-4.

Wars are won or lost - had we declared one, we could consider our having won it. Occupations/conflicts on the otherhand are not won, they are resolved - the question is can this occupation, now fiat accompli, be resolved to our advantage? This isn't Japan, Germany, or even Vietnam. They all had relatively homogenous populations organized into highly structured societies within fairly stable borders and with long cultural heritages. Afganistan and Iraq are pretty much the opposite: recent, artificial amalgams of tribal and more modern societies with clashing cultural, religious, and cultural interests. Throw in fundamentalist vs. secular interests and a lack of women's rights on top of the rest and add a long regional history of brutality and you pretty much get a state you wouldn't want to run if you were of a sound mind. [To put it in perspective (not completely revelant) - after the fall of the Soviet Union, a New York Times reporter, in a fairly harsh interview with the President of Kazakstan, asked if he weren't being a bit heavy handed suspending citzens' rights to free assembly. The President replied as kindly as he could while trying to explain that four thousand Kazaks standing around isn't peaceful assembly - it's not even a riot, which would constitute a group reaction to something - no, four thousand Kazaks standing around for more than a few minutes is mayhem and shouldn't be encouraged at the present time.] The reason Bush Sr. called of the dogs at the walls was precisely because he was smart enough to realize that bringing down Saddam would unleash the same sorts of contained rivalries set loose in the former Yugoslavia. This was definitely a "reap what you sow...", tar-baby deal going in and Dad was right to steer clear of the whole mess. We have now has cut loose the opposing interests of Shiites, Kurds, and Arabs with a good dose of Iran to boot. If it spins out of control they will only be fragging us to get at each other. I still maintain that no one short of a U.N.-commanded military presence will be able to back out with anything resembling gracefulness. And under no other terms/circumstances will we get help from the EU or Russians. There are simply no further military solutions, only political ones. A pure democracy would lead to another Iran with the immediate [bloody] succesion by the Kurds (with the oil) and a revolt by the Arabs. A partition of the country would also make no one happy, particularly in the international community. That leaves the need to make an attempt at, and succeed with, an effort to establish some form of government based on proportional represtentation - and good luck with this crew. There really is no "happy" prognosis now that we've gone and stuck our nose/foot in the door. That sucking sound you hear is the billions per month from your paychecks rushing out that crack in the door for years to come instead of improving and securing your country... P.S. And don't forget Afganistan where we only control Kabul and have ceded the rest of the country back to the warring Warlords whose brutality created the opening for the Taliban in the first place. And Afganistan was easy compared to Iraq...

Greg, I don't think the U.N. will be particularly more effective in any military sense - they will however diffuse the increasing tensions that create more terrorist. And believe me, if I thought there was any effective way to "take the fight to the enemy" with large scale military engagements I would be on it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately there really isn't. Look, it's not that different than climbing in the sense that as much as we want to lash out (freak out in climbing), we will be far safer if we remain calm act methodically. First of all, rogue states aren't terrorists, and there is only one way to kill terrorists and that's with solid human and electronic intelligence, small special ops teams, and Predators - not army brigages. The Israelis are doing it on the West Bank one automobile at a time quite effectively from an ops perspective (terrible from Peace perspective). That's effective as you can get, but it still doesn't stop the bus bombings - that's because the "terrorists" aren't terrorist, they are people with specific grievances and they will not stop under any circumstances until those grievances are addressed. The Russians have all but obliterated Chechnya with a harsher version of the approach we're taking now and it hasn't worked particularly well and won't there because they've just keep pissing the survivors off further. I'd love the luxury of lashing out at the folks who attacked the U.S. but it wasn't Iraq and it wasn't Afganistan. Iraq had no Islamist terrorists, abetted no Islamist terrorists, was incapable of threatening us. In fact, Al Qeeda hated Saddam as he was a secularist. Iraq, aside from the Saddam problem, was the most secular country over there with the highest literacy rates (particularly among women). No aspect of our security was enhanced by attacking Iraq. Afganistan did harbor terrorists, but if that's the criteria why are we stopping at the Pakistan border? Pakistan is where they are held up know. If we want to get Osama and his crew we'd have descended on Pakistan and Iran - not Iraq. In fact you take Team-W at face value and say that Iraq and Afganistan are legitimate fronts on the war on terror and add up all the Al Qeeda killed or captured to-date than it's costing us something on the order of $2-400 million per terrorists (and the destruction of the Guard and Reserve system). 9/11 cost Al Qeeda something like $10-15 thousand per casualty. This is neither a calm, intelligent way of fighting terrorists, nor is it sustainable. We are simply playing into their game creating breeding grounds and fanning fundamentalist flames. Monetarily this is the same game Reagan played with the Russians - get them to spend themselves into exhaustion. This is no time for clumsy, lumbering about with our military accomplishing little more than pissing people off; we should have been using those funds and time to build up security at home, build up our human intelligence abroad, learn to work better with allies, and quietly hunt down every human responsible; and at the same time having some serious conversations with Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and North Korea. That would have made us safer and not just "feel good about doing something...". Our operations in Iraq and Afganistan have been about as effective (and are going to feel about as good) as punching a large paper wasp nest in the long run. In biological terms the approach Team-W is taking now is a lot like using antibacterial soaps - it make you feel good about the fact the you're doing something and you are killing 99% of the bacteria - the problem is the 1% are begin to reproduce and are incredibly nasty and after awhile your home is now actually getting more dangerous with every use. And no U.S. Government will ever "unleash" the military under circumstanses such as we have today because they know it isn't an effect solution - it kills thousands of the wrong folks for every one of the right ones. Again, the only real long-term solution lies in effective geo-political policies combined with small, but relentless search and destroy missions against the leadership of those unwilling to compromise and live in peace.

gotterdamerung, Let's be clear, I have nothing but respect and empathy for those that serve and would never disrespect anyone who has, in or out of uniform. But let's agree to separate those folks that wield power from those that deliver it. The current administration loves to wrap the two together as an inseperable whole, i.e. if you're against the war, you're against the troops - nothing could be farther from the truth. I'm actually a very strong supporter of the appropriate and intelligent use of military power - and that's the crux of the problem here - the current engagement in Iraq failed both criteria before we even began. But given we went in against all sane advice, the first month we had the golden opportunity, as the military recommended, to go in with overwhelming force and clean house on their brigades, munitions,irregulars, and potential fundamentalist insurgents. One opportunity - and the administration overrode almost every recommendation the military made relative to how to run a successful campaign to take advantage of it. That trade off was made explicitly to test the Neocons' strategy/fantasy about how to deal with the Middle East. Now that they've fallen on their faces we're in a hell of a jam - and you rightly understand that the issue now is what to do about it. You happen to want to give these folks a chance to make things right, I believe they are inherently incompetent and will only continue to make things worse. They didn't finish what they started in Afganistan and we've now essentially handed that country right back to the very Warlords that made life such a hell for the people that the Taliban had no problem coming to power. The odds are excellent they'll cut and run in Iraq as well, or worse, start a tango with Iran or Syria further inflaming the whole arena and fanning radical fundamentalist movements further. Look, I know you're a fighter - trained and motivated to win - but winning militarily is the simplist part of the equation - wars don't make peace, policies do, and ours are currently either looney, isolationist, or appear morally bankrupt to the world. The saddest aspect of our Middle East policy is it is that it has largely been based on adapting and apply concepts and experience from a hundred years of dubious involvement in Central and South America to the Middle East. That was really the root problem of the Iran-Contragate affair - the naive assumption that people in the Middle East would behave the same way as Latins did when offered arms and money - but being neophytes at cultural diversity they missed a few vital cultural clues like that fact that there are no Latin Suicide bombers. They keep basing actions on naive assumptions about Arab and other indigeous Middle Eastern cultures and trying to drape their [White/Christian] life/worldview on other mostly homogenous cultures with long-lived, stable cultural histories that are radically different than our short-lived, heterogenous culture and it is a disaster everytime. So what to do in Iraq? Neither parties' politicians are going to let you win on the ground militarily because it would be regional suicide as the real battle in the Middle East [like elsewhere] is slowly coming down to one between secular [educated] and fundamentalist [uneducated] societies. W's team, mucked things up and has accelerated that battle in the region and now doesn't know what to do and despite all their retoric they are simply looking for the door or for distracting cover fire. And we are never going to get any help on Iraq - we told the world to fuck off, and now the world is returning the favor by letting us boil in a stew of our own making. There is unfortunately no other intelligent option other than a U.N.-commanded, multinational force relieving the U.S. (of the burden and a lot of contracts) and we'll get no help under any other conditions than those. The other base questions are: Are we safer? And how do we become safer? It is incredibly naive and stupid to believe that by going around and attempting to "take the battle to the enemy" by engaging rogue militaries and irregulars we are somehow going to stave off Terrorism. They aren't Terrorist, they're nutballs and rogues. What we need to do is organize our domestic and foreign Intelligence Services so they look at and listen to existing intel like: the Phillipines begging us to pay attention to the real Al Qaeda terrorists they caught in 1995 planning to use airplanes for attacks; and to multiple FBI Agents begging the Agency to pay attention to real Al Qaeda terrorists in US Flight Schools. We need to radically beef up the Coast Guard and port security and need to find a solution to the absolutely daunting task of avaition/marine shipping container security. We need to intelligently allocate anti-terrorism funding which doesn't mean giving more per capita to Wyoming than New York. And we need to work cooperatively with the International Intel community which is now impossible in the current political climate. We need to do a lot of things that just aren't being done. Safer, with these radical, activist clowns surrounding W I don't feel safer, in fact, I feel less safe every single day (I'd bet money there wasn't and isn't a single rogue nuke or GPS trigger in all of Iraq). I am disappointed by my choices for President this year, but I'll take the unknown Kerry Team over a dangerous and incompetent Team-W every time. [And let's not even talk about Team-W's complete and total hypocrisy relative to North Korea, home of the original nutball with a bottle of Jack Daniels in one hand and eight nukes to the highest bidder in the other (and who hates it when the world's attention is distracted away from him by things like Iraq). I'm sure, though,the fact that they have overwhelming military superiority on the ground within walking distance of Seoul doesn't have anything to do with Team-W's reluctance to convert bluster to muster...] Again, I have nothing but respect for your military experience, but the real lessons from Vietnam and every other war aren't so much military ones as geo-political ones. I wish it was as simple as winning militarily, but globally the real battle isn't one you can fight effectively or win with weapons. War is simply a symptom of failed policy execution or the result of intractable competition between cultures for resources (I'm not sure which is more dangerous to give the Chinese - supercomputer technology or teaching them how to make decent cross-trainers...)

You should keep in mind that protecting the environment is not really about taking care of the planet - it's about safeguarding your lifestyle - the planet has proven over and over again it is quite capable of taking care of itself. Mercury in fish, collapsed fisheries, loss of habitat, loss of species - it's really only about what lifestyle you want for yourself and your children. Humans, or any species for that matter, that get out of balance will suffer the consequences sooner or later. How? Well, think about it - most of us, fundamentally, really do have a very incomplete, macro worldview of life, whereas microbiologists, parasitologists, mycologists, and virologists tend take in and enjoy a more wholistic and "balanced" view of the world and our place in it as, well, "hosts" to a broader, and more exciting community of life. My personal favorite among popular denials are folks that don't care about habitat destruction and species loss - particularly large mammals and primates. You can tell they suffer from the rather enviable delusion that all the bacterial and viral loads hosted by these species will simply lie down and die with them going quietly into the night. How Disney for them! In reality, however, all of these lower order species will attempt to find other hosts. And though most will fail, guess what! The odds aren't half bad that at least one or two will make the jump to some other abundant host (and hey, that's you - the current life of the [Republican] party!). AIDS, TB, Polio, Flu...Ha! Won't get me! But then those babies don't really try too hard to get you either. World out of balance - hey, you'd be amazed at how frightfully simple the cure is. And to be completely honest, over the next thirty years given the way things are going habitat and population-wise, I wouldn't worry too much about fish, birds, wars, WMD's, asteroids, supervolcanoes, or mega-tsunamis - I'd worry about the little things. And the science, how accommodating, both sides of all these arguments will still make absolutely fabulous hosts - and heck, that's a good thing, it will finally be something we can all just agree on...! [P.S. Here is a link to the description of how one of the aforementioned little buggers hijacks normal cell functions for its own purposes - fascinating read, though, it is science and no doubt highly dubious and debateable: The HIV Gag protein contains a specific sequence of amino acids which it uses to recruit the human tumor susceptibility gene 101 (TSG101). The virus then uses TSG101 to take control of the protein sorting and vesicle formation machinery and use it for its own purposes. ]

Scott, You guys are just relentlessly blinded by something. Do you read? "Rummy's" men deliberately manufactured intelligence to support Neocon fantasies and Israeli interests, are absolutely scorned by the intelligence and military establishments, and have proven again and again they have no regard for the military, our troops, or the people of Afganistan or Iraq. General Zinni, Franks, and Sanchez have all heaped scorn on "Rummy's" crew of posers - there isn't a professional among them when it comes to Intelligence and Military Operations and matters - they are politicians with an agenda/fantasy. And having had "liberties" taken with me by a similar crew while in Vietnam, I do have the experience to take them in turn. I gotta go climbing, see ya...

Scott, That's bullshit. George had total and complete discretion on the force level and military's analysis and recommendation was to go in big. The only reason we didn't was because Rumsfield and the Neocon's were trying to prove their pet theory that they could go in ultra light, decapitate, and all the populace would rollover. That theory would allow them to manage two or three such fronts if necessary (Iran, Syria, etc...). That "theory" was contrary to every intelligence and military analysis done by professionals rather than the posers Rumsfield assembled. To tell the truth guys, I get confused here sometimes, a whole bunch of you appear to support politicians and not the military. They are not the same at all, this administration has a blantant disregard for the military, has ignored the military and intelligence analyses at ever turn and blindly put our troops in harms way to test the amateurish theory of a bunch of civilians. Far from pointing them at an objective and letting them go, this administration has hamstrung every aspect of this campaign to-date and have destroyed the Reserves and Guard while they were at it. If you really supported the military and troops then these are the last fools on earth you'd allow near the power to wield them. Actually the parallels are quite striking: * Cogent analyses that advised against the engagement * Manufactured and manipulated intelligence in liew of assests on the ground * No short or long term exit strategy * No effort to understand the local population needs * No post invasion plans of note What's really different between this and other engagements is most intelligent folks wait until they actually have the country secure before divving up the spoils among their buddies. That way you actually get to enjoy them instead of being annoyed by an endless string of locals with IED's you left laying around.

gotterdamerung, With all due respect to the service you've done - you weren't in Vietnam, and the reason you've probably had a better experience in the military is because all the guys that re-org'd how we conduct operations were in Vietnam and experienced how fucked up things were there first hand. As far as I'm concerned the protests didn't start soon enough and I joined them the day I returned from my second tour. Many of the policies in place at the time, both military and political, would never have been acceptable during the all the ensuing years until now when the crew in office today decided we can make up rules of engagement as we go along. Do you really think this crew gives a rats ass about you or anyone else they've shipped out or thrown a stoploss order on - get real, you have to go back to Vietnam to find an administration less interested in the men and women who are actually putting it on the line. Dwight Eisenhower had an exhaustive in-country study done on what it would take to succeed in Vietnam overseen by one of the toughest frontline commanders from WWII and Korea and he catagorically stated it was unwinnable on the ground. Eisenhower declined to get involved as a direct result of that evaluation and that report was buried by subsequent administrations who had different agendas and didn't care about the folks they'd be sending into harms way. This crew is even worse - amateur hour for Neocon "Intellectuals" (now there is an oxymoron) heavily aligned with Israeli interests. They had intel and in-depth, detailed evaluations that explicitly described the fact that you were going to be listening to 127's whiz overhead and were going to be fragged relentlessly with IED's. Did they commit the force levels the military recommended to prevent or reduce such events - of course not. Hell, they didn't even secure conventional munitions facilities until they had been completely picked over for months (where the IED's come from). Again, I'm sure you served admirably and everyone who does desperately wants to believe they did it for a good cause, but it aint so, and we aren't safer here because of these misguided policies and priorities. If they were going to go into Iraq, then they needed to go in three times bigger and clean the place out of weapons and munitions in the first week or two. Oh, and we won't even talk about the political prowess of a team that can't even bribe the Turks with $32 billion - thank god the Kurds didn't completely write us off after we repeatedly left them hanging out to dry. Like you said, don't even get me started...

Cpt.Caveman & gotterdamerung, Just trying to sort out the posers from folks that know what the fuck they are talking about. Glad to hear you're the real deal. The idle chatter of posers is almost more than I can take sometimes. If you haven't put on the line and aren't willing to than I'm only willing to hear so much bullshit. You guys, well, I may disagree and disagree completely, but I respect that at least you're coming from some place authentic.

So, exactly what were all you patriots doing during: Vietnam? Panama/Grenada? Desert Storm? Did you enlist? Sign up for the reserves? Encourage your children to sign up? And have you signed up to contribute to the current Homeland/Afgan/Iraq conflict? If not, what's the problem? Or is it all really just spray in the end - no action or commitment behind the words?

Describe the watch and it's yours...

Good to know, thanks for the post...

Jason, thanks for clarifying that ranger checks and I agree two grade IV are doable for a capable party that moves fast.

MrRadon, As I have stated elsewhere, I did two back-to-back tours in Vietnam. I'm sure your father also served with distinction and was not one of the small minority of men guilty of war crimes. John Kerry never said your father was in fact one of those men. He simply told the American people what was going on in Vietnam on the ground (and it really was going on, kid). To be honest, I feel sad for men and women that served in Vietnam and still somehow manage to believe that the war was "legitimate" or even a "morally correct thing to do" no matter how honorable their own service was. Those vets either never bothered to learn anything about the people or the history of the country, were blind to the events of the day and what they witnessed, or simply can't live with the idea that it was a dishonorable war and all for naught on top of it. Again, I have no doubt your father and his friends served honorably, but we all did so in a dishonorable war that was run by a dishonest government in support of another wholly corrupt puppet government. John Kerry and others were simply men who were there bearing witness to the truth of what was happening. People that can't handle that truth either have an agenda, are in some form of denial, are trying to spare others, or are trying to spare themselves.

Excuse me, if you bothered to summon the initiative to learn about: - the history of Vietnam - the botched ending of French Colonialism in Vietnam - the prelude to the war (us subverting democracy) - the use of Vietnam as a pawn in a global struggle between US/Russia/China (by all sides) - the corruption of the South Vietnamese government - our endless duplicity with that government - the endless corruption involved with $8 billion in US construction contracts in Vietnam - the ugly behavior and war crimes of a minority of our troops - what John Kerry and other vets actually said on their return (not the spin) In short if you were there, or if you bothered to read a transcript of what John Kerry and others of us that came back from Vietnam actually said you would find that we told the truth - and that your government lied again and again, just as they are now. Given you weren't there, rather than the naively repeating scurrilous right-wing lies such as the one you just did - how about taking on just a shred of responsibility for looking into the facts and history yourself instead of mindlessly parroting trash - then at least you could spray with a degree of credibility you lack now. Kerry and others stood up and spoke for us while we were still over there and couldn't - it will be interesting to see who ends up speaking up for this generation of men and women serving in Iraq. You can be sure in the end though it won't be lying posers like W. & Co. who send our troops to Iraq without armor plate or hardened vehicles. It will be men and women who served in combat operations in Iraq and are in a position to know the whole story. It will be men like Marine General Anthony Zinni. Both he and Kerry were discussed recently by Paul Krugman: