Bumper cars at sea … again

Chinese naval vessel in near collision with US Navy cruiser

Ah, the games that nations play at sea. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt … a couple of times.

Back lo these many years ago, when I did my first tour of duty aboard a beat-up old World War II design destroyer, we used to play the same game that the Chinese seem to want to play in the South China Sea (and probably will start playing in the East China Sea), only we played it with the Russians.

It got to the point that in late 1972 or 1973, the Soviets and the Americans signed an agreement setting out the rules for our “games.” Not that they always followed the rules, but then I did my tour before the rules really went into effect. Life was interesting at those times when the two navies played in close proximity.

As I was explaining to my pretty wife, the old Meredith (DD-890) had a few encounters with the Soviets, both their spy ships and their warships.

The first encounter I remember came shortly after I had joined the ship’s company of the Merry-D and we had put to sea on our journey to the Mediterranean for seven months. We were part of the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D Roosevelt’s escort screen that included a DLG guided missile destroyer (now would be a CG guided missile cruiser), a DDG guided missile destroyer, a guided missile frigate (FFG), a big destroyer (post WWII design, but all guns) and two small destroyers (WWII all gun designs) (Well, everybody had anti-submarine rocket launchers – ASROCs – but only the Gs had surface to surface and surface to air missiles).

Once we passed the 12-mile limit, the FDR picked up another escort: A Soviet trawler. At least that was its cover story … I don’t they ever put a net in the water or pulled any fish from the sea … but in reality it was a Soviet spy vessel that would follow the FDR everywhere it went in the Atlantic. All you had to do to locate it was to look 3,000 yards astern of the carrier and there she would be bobbing along at whatever speed it took for her to keep station.

Well, a couple of days out of our homeport, the Admiral on the FDR wanted to do a “line ahead” formation. I don’t remember how it happened exactly, but it ended up that our “station” in the formation was 3,000 yards astern of the carrier.

Now, you should see what is coming here, but we needed to be where the trawler was and as we came up to take our slot, the trawler – like the band that refused to yield the field in the song of the time – wasn’t budging, despite several efforts to tell it to please move. Well, we got within maybe a ship-length or two, side to side, when the little trawler looked up and blinked and slide away.

It was obvious from some of the actions of the crew on deck they were not particularly happy with us, but nobody swapped any paint and it was a no-harm-no-foul situation.

Another time, however, in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Egypt, things got considerably more tense.

We had been following a Russian heavy missile cruiser for about 10 days to two weeks because Naval Intel had word it was to test fire one of its SSMs – which was going to be the first time they had ever fired a missile of the type outside their Black Sea training areas. It was the day before they did their test shot that things got really dicey.

It started off relatively quiet, with us tagging along with the little Russian task force of five or six ships, with the cruiser at its center. Among its escorts were a mine warfare vessel and a Kashin-class guided missile escort (the equivalent of one of our DLGs at the time) with two double-rail anti-aircraft missile launchers – one fore and one aft – and two twin 76mm gun mounts – one fore and one aft.

Just to set the table, Merry-D carried two twin 5-inch (127-mm) gun mounts, both on the front of the ship. My battle station was the pointer on the No. 2 (Mount 52) mount just in front of the bridge. It also was my work station where I was responsible for its care and feeding. It gave me a ring-side seat for much of what transpired in the next two hours or so.

First, it started with the little (about half our size) mine warfare vessel coming over to signal us by signal lamp that we were “in a missile test area and would we leave”.

Our response was: “We are in international waters and we intend to stay on our present course.”

The Russian then started playing the “rendering honors” game with us. By tradition, when two warships pass at sea, depending on which one is on which side (and I don’t remember which is which), one of them is supposed to have its crew stop and salute the passing ship. The game makes for some interesting maneuvering by ships as they try to force the other ship into rendering honors to them.

During that whole evolution, the Russian kept telling us to leave the area. After about an hour or so of playing this game, the Russian ship headed back to where its task group was milling around, about 10-12 miles away.

Then its big brother, the Kashin comes over to talk to us. As she passed down our port side at about 1500 yards (which is really close at sea) I saw the normal complement of people walking on her deck doing normal things. I watched as the Kashin slid around behind us to come up on our starboard side to parallel our course at about 1000 to 1500 yards off and began to pace our speed.

I immediately started getting suspicious that something wasn’t kosher when I noticed there weren’t any people wandering her weather decks any more. Then, I saw both of the 76mm gun mounts break centerline and begin to traverse in our direction.

Now, I am no rocket scientist, but I already was climbing up to the hatch of Mount 52, when the speaker on the front of the bridge blasted out:

“GENERAL QUARTERS! GENERAL QUARTERS! ALL HANDS, MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS. THIS IS A SILENT GQ. MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS VIA INTERNAL ROUTES. DO NOT RUN ON THE MAIN DECK.”

I hopped into Mount 52, closed the two access hatches to the outside deck, opened the hatch to the handling room below and started lighting off the power drives for the rammers, the shell and powder hoists and the traverse and elevation for the guns. Then I went and sat in my seat at the left side of the left gun and opened my sight box.

The mount quickly filled with the 14 people who manned it at general quarters and a very tense 45 minutes ensued. I could hear the hoist cycle as they brought up powder and shells.

The mount captain opened his top hatch in the armor plate, so we were able to hear much of what transpired from the wing of the bridge.

We couldn’t understand what the Russians were saying with their bull horn, but we heard our captain respond with good American seaman’s English what they could do with their suggestion (and then the intel people had provided us with a Russian translator and it was repeated in Russian).

This bandying back and forth went on for quite awhile and I can remember muttering to myself that I hoped the captain wouldn’t piss the Russians off too much. I wasn’t so much worried about the Kashin, because at that range I knew I wasn’t going to miss when I pulled the trigger if we started firing and our 5 inch shells were going to do a whole heck a lot more damage to him than his 3 inches shells were going to do to us.

I was, however, worried about the heavy cruiser 12-15 miles away that it might want to plop one of the SSMs in our lap and that we probably would not survive.

After about 45 minutes, the Kashin gave up and sailed away and we secured from GQ. The next morning, the cruiser fired its missile, the intel people got their pictures and electronic readings and … well that is a whole other story. There also are other stories of playing with the Russians, but it never got quite as tense as that day off Egypt.

The thing was that I learned that both we and the Russians had enough experience at sea by that time that we weren’t about to do anything really stupid. Unfortunately, from the initial reports, it doesn’t seem like the Chinese have got that experience yet and they face a steep learning curve.

Yes, folks, it does appear that we do live in interesting times … it just may be possible that our domestic travails may pale against what may happen in places far away.

Freedom isn’t free

My progressive friend out west got me to laughing … and thinking … with his not unexpected Veterans’ Day rant on Facebook about the dangers of the military industrial complex … quoting Dwight Eisenhower, who was right and wrong, but is cited by progressives whenever they want to blame the military and the defense budget for not funding all the entitlements programs they want.

He contends that pretty much all of conflicts that the U.S. has been involved in his adult life have not been “good wars.” I can accept that.

You know why I can accept that? For two reasons:

First, he is entitled to his opinion and that opinion can be as wrong as I think it is, but it is still his view and he can have it. That is why I was associated with the U.S. military for 26 years, so he could have his views.

Second, there ain’t no thing as a “good” war. Nope, there are only dirty ugly violent destructive deadly horrendous conflicts that if you are lucky you can end rather quickly with a minimum of the aforementioned consequences.

He told me I should have learned something when I was dual-hatting all those years I spent in the military, military reserve and as a Department of the Army civilian employee. Well, I would say to my friend, I did … over and over and over again.

What did I learn? Well a number of things.

First, Freedom is not free. It comes at a pretty high price. Not just in national treasure and blood, but work and effort and doing things because they have to be done, not because you want to do them or you like to do them.

Second, I learned that there truly are evil and nasty people out there in the world. And while I do believe that most people would just rather go along to get along and live and let live, there is a substantial minority that doesn’t see the world that way.

Some of those people, I do believe, honestly believe that they are just doing things to make things better for others (for whatever reason or cause). The rest, they are just evil. Sorry, but there are really bad people in the world and they really are there.

How do I know that? Well, unfortunately, I have seen their torture chambers (and ours are nothing like them). I have read enough reports and interviewed enough people who saw much worse than I did, to understand that there are some people who do things that just defy my imagination (and I bet my progressive friend’s too)

Now, I know the sacrifices that service men and women of each generation make. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt as the expression goes … because I too have made some of those sacrifices and incurred my own burdens from that service. Granted, like most of my life, I think I had it fairly easy … compared to the real Hades that many of my comrades, predecessors and successors went through.

I learned enough to validate the view I had in high school: War is a really dirty, ugly, nasty business and the best thing is to avoid it, or at least get it over as quickly as you can. Unfortunately, sometimes the path of violence is the only solution.

In those cases, to me anyway, a portion of the Weinberger/Powell doctrine applies: If you have to fight a war, then you don’t do halfway measures. You bring the biggest baddest force you can and you end the war quickly … anything else is a crime and a travesty. Unfortunately, in places like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, the folks who planned the operation forgot that little maxim. That is why the aftereffects were so disappointing.

For example, I had no problem with kicking some Iraqi butt in 2003. The list of reasons for the Saddam Hussein regime to go was long and very verified. I thought we were about 12 years too late, but then I understood we didn’t have the same legal footing to stand on that we did in 2003. Not to refight the argument, but yes, there was ample legal footing for the invasion to proceed and with UN Sanction … and yes there were weapons of mass destruction found, and the capability and facilities to produce more, only not in the quantities anticipated. (Of course, when even the bad guys think they have them, it is hard not to believe them).

I had no problem with kicking some Taliban butt, for that matter.

Unfortunately, after World War II, the U.S. set a bad precedent. We tried to rebuild what we spent so much smashing … because that is what you do in wars – you smash things and you break them and you kill people.

Well, rather than just do the job, we Americans think the better idea is to stick around and help the smashed pick up the pieces. Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan (under the Cheney/Rumsfeld Doctrine) we went in a light as possible to do the job, but not heavy enough to emphasize that times had changed. We also really didn’t know what we were doing when it comes to rebuilding South Asian nations, so we really stepped on it.

So, have I learned anything from that experience? Yup. It is called don’t fight a war unless you really truly want to win it and then you fight it with everything you got and as violently as you can until the other side hollers “Uncle” and one of your guys is standing over the other guys with a bayonet on the end of his rifle and saying rather emphatically: It is over now, ya hear?

However, I didn’t learn that sitting behind our moats will protect us from anything and that the bad guys will be content with that.

Thank you, Libyans … stand up and be counted

Benghazi counter protest

Libyans storm Ansar-Al-Sharia compound

Libyan protesters overrun militant compound

Libyans attack militants

Libyan counter-demonstrations

These demonstrations being reported where Libyans protesting the death of the U.S. ambassador and the destruction of the American consulate in Benghazi show something that needs to be shown in the Muslim/Arab world. It shows Muslims/local residents standing up and taking back their communities.

I, for one, want to salute these people and commend their bravery.

One of the principles of asymmetrical warfare is that the fighters have to be able as Mao Tse-Tung put it “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.”

In this case, it seems that the sea maybe getting hostile to some of the “fishes” and that is a welcome sight. If we hope to see any end to the Islamicists violence, this is what it going to take, just as it would take in any urban neighborhood here in our country that wanted to take back the streets from the gangs and hoodlums of today … or anytime in our past.

This shows that there may yet be hope in the Middle East.

Random thoughts again

Innocence of Muslims controversy

Egypt indicts 8 in movie flap

Good backgrounder on the movie

It seems the new Egyptian government wants to pander to the mob. Ok, I can understand that … even if pandering to the mob usually is wrong.

Granted, the movie “Innocence of Muslims” is a piece of trash and insulting to almost anyone with active brain cells, and it almost a criminal assault on one’s intellect, it does not rise to the level of a capital offense. Not in reality, however, in Egypt, people who face such charges are indeed facing a possible death sentence.

This is how so stupid, and I use that word advisedly, in the Muslim world – especially in the Muslim Arab countries – things have become. We Americans wonder what is with these people? Well, folks, there are two things going down here.

1. Is third parties are stirring the pot to increase their personal power and influence.

2. Some people, some cultures, some social systems, just have no tolerance for differences opinion. They have no tolerance for satire or parody. In short, they have not sense of tolerance at all.

I don’t say that because I think these people are evil or essentially bad people. No, in their world, what they think and do is entirely correct and proper. Unfortunately, from many of us in the West, it is totally incorrect and improper. Ironically, many people from this end of the world who applaud or approve the actions like these of the Egyptian government probably fail to realize that with their views, they probably would be among the first to go to the guillotine.

Prosecute the promoters

Unfortunately, we have those in the U.S. who fail to see the point that freedom does not mean they or anybody else gets to trump up charges to suppress views, however fallacious, however wrong, however bad they may seem. The people who hold those views, in this case, are the victims and not the criminals.

A good argument against prosecution

 

Rumors of war

Israel v. Iran

Azerbaijan v. Armenia (or Russia v. Turkey)

China v. Japan

China v. its neighbors in the South China Sea

Syria v. Syria

I guess if you look at it, it really is a pretty bleak world out there. Whether it is the ongoing war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) or the threatened or ongoing conflicts in the Middle East or the ones threatening in Central Asia or with Iran versus whomever, or the Chinese versus whomever, it seems that the news is full of warnings and rumblings that would lead some people to think war is right around the corner. Well, maybe I am an optimist, but I don’t think so.

Yes, the low intensity (to the rest of us) conflict in Syria will continue as will the ethnic clashes elsewhere between Shia and Sunni, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, Christian and Animists, Catholics and Protestants (although that has cooled down a log in recent years).

I know the Israeli-Palestinian/Iran confrontation has my friend out west up in arms. He seems to think that the next two weeks will see Israel attack Iran, or so he told me about a week ago. I told him that it could happen but I wasn’t of the opinion that it was all that likely.

Just like in the East or South China Seas, some sort of naval clash could happen at any time, but I am doubtful that it would degenerate into a full-blown war.

Why am I so optimistic: Because at the moment, none of the involved parties really have all that to gain by sparking large scale armed conflicts. Granted, I am not in the heads of any of the leaders anywhere but most leaders are not suicidal and unless you have a much better than even chance of prevailing in whatever level of combat you are willing to gamble will result from your initial move, then you aren’t about to make that initial move.

Of course, unfortunately, that does not factor in the individuals on the ground (or sea) at the point of conflict who just might make those stupid decisions that usually trigger a major conflict.

Still, before we head for the bunkers, I think we all should just take a deep breath and consider that war often is just a rumor and we can wait to verify it before jumping off any cliffs.

Global War on Terrorists revisited

As you read, keep this picture in your mind. It is Libyans trying to pull the U.S. Ambassador to safety.
US Ambassador to Libya killed
US suspects jihadists in Libyan attack
Strike in Libya suspected to have been coordinated
Not all agree that all are Anti-American
Some help evacuate ... but four die
For those who thought the Global War on Islamic Terrorists was over: Think again.
This war probably is just beginning. As Winston Churchill said after the climax of the Battle of Britain in 1940: This is not the beginning of the end, but it is probably the end of the beginning.
The Islamic terrorists basically won the prelims and round 1 (9/11), with the US basically winning on points round 2 (we got Osama Bin Laden and a few others of the top leaders of the Al Qaeda gangs), as well as knocked Saddam Hussein out of the box (yes, he was supporting Islamic terrorists, just not Al Qaeda Islamic terrorists, directly). However, that does not mean the fight is over.
The question, now, is where do we go from here? Well, as the latest 9/11 attacks on 9/11/12 indicate, the forces wanting to do harm to the United States are still organized and still capable of organized and well executed attacks. Anybody who thought differently needs to reevaluate their perspectives.
Having said that, it would be easy to go off the deep end and blame all Muslims for what transpired this week, when obviously that would be untrue. Just as those in the Islamic world blame all Americans and all Christians for all the evils that they perceive in the world also are mistaken.
Still, whatever percentage of the Muslim world it is, the number of jihadists and fanatics that see the world through a prism that allows only Islam to shine through is very large and very dangerous. Whether it was the demonstration at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, or the demonstration/attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, there are those in the Islamic world who are willing if not to use violence, then to threaten its use, to protest speech that is protected in other parts of the world and in a more perfect world would be protected in their own parts. However, the tolerance necessary for that to happen apparently is not available among these people.
So, how do you impose tolerance on people. Force rarely works. It just tends to piss off people who weren’t pissed off in the first place but got caught in the crossfire. The U.S. has plenty of experience with that racket and we never seem to learn from it.
Of course, the object is to make it in the enlightened self-interest of those who live in the area where it is unsafe to be an American or a Christian come around to the point of view that making life unsafe for Americans or Christians, or for that matter any minority, definitely is not only not in their own interest but also not in the best interest of those contemplating acts which make it unsafe for Americans or Christians.
We hope that the governments in Egypt and, especially, Libya have already gotten that message. All the things I said in my post “Something wrong here” hold very true. But it is time for the new regimes in Libya and Egypt to step up to the plate and demonstrate that they have gotten the message. Libya appears to be making the appropriate noises, while the new president of Egypt seems to be blaming the victims. That is not appropriate.
No, I feel our Arab Muslim friends need to get themselves out of the playpen or schoolyard mentality or they just might get treated like children.
I have said before and reiterate here, the Islamic world is in desperate need of a rapid period of reformation and enlightenment, much like the Christian west went through three to five centuries ago.
If modern Muslims can get past the violence that is in much of the Quran (just as there is much in the Christian bibles – mainly in the Old Testament, however), then possibly the impending clash of civilizations won’t happen. Still, if only 1 percent of the billion or so Muslims in the world hold to the ways of Islamic Jihadists, we are talking about 100 million people. That is an awful lot of people bent on making war.
The words you see now coming from Americans is merely frustration and exasperation. I would dare say that most Americans really don’t want to go to war with Islam or its radical jihadists. Nope, we would rather sit home and enjoy our family lives, just like most Muslims would like to do the same.
The problem, apparently (on the Muslim side of the equation), is that the religious and political leaders keep stirring the pot. There comes a point, unfortunately, when following people like that becomes counterproductive, if not downright unhealthy, particularly if you are messing with the 900-pound gorilla.
If the gorilla loses its temper (to really mix clichés) it is going to be like the bull in a china shop and a whole lot of things are going to get broken, hurt, killed, etc. that don’t have to get killed, hurt, broken or destroyed. It is not going to be a pretty sight.
The problem is with the Islamic jihadists, no matter how they try, they are not going to kill the 900-pound gorilla without a whole lot of the world suffering. It then behooves the rest of the world to choose sides.
Now, I am not saying this 900-pound gorilla is perfect, or ever will be a perfect gentleperson, but it can be reasoned with and it can willingly reach mutual accommodations. It is, however, not a pacifist. It will strike out when wounded or angered, just like any human or any other animal.
The question then becomes in this Global War on Islamic Terrorists, does the rest of the world want to sit on the sidelines and hope the big guy doesn’t get so mad that he starts doing things that he and they will regret. Remember, despite what you think, there are no Roger Rabbit bullets yet … they still are Dumb-Dumbs.
I don’t have the answer, other than to say to the rest of the world: I suspect that American patience and tolerance is wearing thin. Whether you want to admit it or not, but the Americans have been asked to play global constable and firefighter for the last 70 years and I suspect that a lot of Americans are about ready to hang up those badges.
Some of you might want to say “great, just want we want,” but be careful for what you wish for. Without the restraints of the badge, Americans might turn out to be just like you … only with a lot more firepower. Is that what you want? As much as I hate having to have had carried that badge, I would rather we operate under its restraints than without it. It could get awfully ugly and I hate that type of ugly even more.
We would really rather see all those people, Muslim and not, who don’t agree with the Islamic jihadists to stand up and take back their neighborhoods. It is their town. They have to live in it and if they don’t want to see it smashed flat because some big hammer came crashing down to smash some bad guys, then maybe they should take care of the bad guys.
Just some random thoughts here; I won’t venture to say they are coherent, but they are one American’s reaction to the world.

Post Script: You want a clue about what happened in Libya ... watch the movie "Rules of Engagement", it came out in 2000.

Hazardous duty

Taliban threaten to kill Price Harry/aka Capt. Wales

Capt. Harry Wales, British Army, AKA Prince Harry, is doing his bit for Queen and Country in Afghanistan and once more is clambering into the breach and the local bad guys there are not happy. In fact, they either are going to run him out of the country in fear for his life, take him captive or kill him, if they have their way.

Well, this is where the rubber meets the road, as we used to say back in my armored days. Will the good captain do what he obviously wants to do and show all those doubters that even if he is currently the third in line to the British throne, that he can serve his country as well as any other Briton in a very dangerous place? Two points, for Harry for at least talking somebody in the British hierarchy into letting him do the job he trained to do.

Yes, it makes him a high-value target to some people, but it also shows that the monarchy is willing to put its own on the line in support of its government’s policies. I just hope they have the intestinal fortitude to stay the course.

You all may not agree, but Capt. Wales life was never meant to be simple or easy. That comes from living in the fishbowl as a member of the royal house. Grant him his due in that he has tried to be what any second or third son of British gentry has done throughout its history and that is make a place for himself by serving the nation in the military.

The history buff in me remembers there is an old saying about noble families in Great Britain: To the manor goes the first born (i.e. he inherits the family wealth), to the church goes the second (not so much anymore, especially with royals), and the third son goes into the military (Army/Navy, it doesn’t matter) to make his own fortune.

Being a royal makes him a target, but that has always been the case for royals on the battlefield. It was the reason he was pulled from his first tour in Afghanistan a few years back because his highers got cold feet about exposing him. Maybe they will show a bit more of the heralded stiff upper lip, the Brits allegedly are known for, this time.

My hat (Kevlar, if I still had one) is off to the young prince and I wish him well for he definitely is going in harm’s way. May God grant him a good ship, and a good crew to take care of him and it, and may he always find a fair wind to guide him back to base.

At this point, I am not going to debate whether his presence is something that should be happening. I only hope that he and his fellow tommies, as well as all the other members of the ISAF force in Afghanistan will do their best to keep each other alive and do what they can to defeat the Taliban and its allies … or at least convince them that after more than 30 years of warfare, maybe it is time for the tribes to stand down and let the villagers live in some sort of peace.

I don’t look for that to happen, because as the Brits learned a century and more ago, the Afghans are tough fighters and they never seem to give up or surrender to anybody - regardless of what flag they carry.

As for Harry, he is going to earn his hazardous duty – aka combat – pay this go around, as well as his spurs as an airmobile cavalry trooper with his AH-64.

Random Thoughts for a busy news day

Today has so many things going on, and I have little time to research them all. So, I am going to comment briefly on a bunch of issues that I most likely will come back to.

Jobs report

The monthly jobs report is out and the numbers are dismal. The question I have is that if the unemployment is at 16 percent for young adults then what are all these young people doing? How are they surviving? Otherwise, why are they not rioting because they are starving? I am not talking about the Occupy folks. They are a bunch of overeducated romantics looking back for a Summer of Love. I am talking about the others. What are they doing? Revolutions start with less.

Venezuela seizes American ship captain

What are Hugo Chavez’s minions thinking? They are upset that their port authorities found three “assault” rifles in the locker for the ship’s anti-piracy squad … weapons that allegedly were declared when the ship arrived in Maracaibo. Now, they apparently arrested the captain on weapons smuggling charges and seem to be holding the crew. This is not only silly but it verges on being ridiculous the more that comes out.

Haqqani network squeaks

The Haggani network in Afghanistan and Pakistan says things will go badly for the American hostage they are holding if the U.S. government lists them as a terrorist group. Sounds like the shoe fits. Unfortunately for the American, he is about to become a casualty in the Global War on Terrorists.

Obit for the Arab Spring

It seems that analysts are saying that the great hopes for freedom, liberty and democracy in the Arab world are dying. Ah, were you surprised? You shouldn’t have been. It would have been nice, but the Arab countries are reverting to their traditional tribal styles. That will have to change before the other things happen.

So much for thoughts now. Thunder outside. Need to take precautions.

Justice upheld

Canada orders deportation of Iraq War resister
It seems a U.S. Army soldier who had a change of heart and fled to Canada to avoid the possibility of being deployed to Iraq no longer is welcome there.
The soldier has been given new marching orders and that is to leave Canada. I am glad our neighbors have declared the soldier persona non grata, although its impact on family members might be difficult.
The soldier, who apparently has four children and a spouse, was living in Toronto and was given until Sept. 20 to leave Canada. Tough, I suppose, but then again, the usual defenses about leaving an army don’t really apply here. The soldier was not drafted into the Army. The soldier was aware that the Army was fighting a war. So, there is no case for saying the soldier was coerced or forced into doing something they didn’t know they were going to do.
Soldiers volunteer for service these days in the United States and not just conscripted into the military, and then swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution and to OBEY the lawful orders of the officers appointed over them. There is no clause in there that if you disagree with those orders that you can just ignore them, and nowhere does it say if you get tired of what you are doing or don’t want to do what you are going to be told to do that you can just vote with your feet and skip out. Sorry, but that is not an option.
No, the military adheres to some archaic ideas like your oath is your bond. That when you swear something it actually means something, like you will hold up your end of the bargain you made. The military doesn’t promise that you won’t go somewhere that you do not want to be, do not like and do things that you don’t want to do. Sorry, but that is not what you signed up for.
Now, the Canadians could have given this soldier continued sanctuary, but they already have turned two others back to the U.S. and the worst they got was a year in jail. I am sorry, but even our military prisons aren’t that bad that a soldier is being harshly treated by being sentenced to serve 12 months behind their walls. It is difficult for me to see how the Canadian government could have decided on “humanitarian” grounds that the soldier could not come back and face the consequences of the desertion in time of conflict. Granted, it is not like the “old” days when they shot or hanged deserters.
Canada has to look to its own order and discipline in its own defense forces and realize that allowing soldiers to just vote with their feet anytime they don’t agree with their superiors is really a very bad idea. Bad for discipline, bad for good order and definitely bad when the soldiers are  fighting for their lives.
In addition, it is sad that integrity has become something of a passé trait among Americans. No longer, it seems, that when you make an agreement, or a pledge or a promise or swear an oath, that it means much. Sign a contract? Tear it up, it doesn’t matter. Find a loophole, get out of it anyway you can, even if it means violating the law. The law, you say? But that is only meant to apply to idiots and fools. It is meant to be bent, broken and ignored as long as it interferes with our feeling good and enjoying life, especially if it means we might have to face some hardship.
Sorry, soldier, but you swore to do you duty. You didn’t and now it is time to pay the piper.
Oh? Did I happen to mention the soldier was a woman? Sorry, shouldn’t matter. I know it did when I was in, but that was wrong then and it is wrong now.

What reality?

Report of conflict in Syria
I watched the above news report by an Independent Television News reporter that was aired on NBC in the US with incredulity.
I was not shocked by the bombing. I was not shocked by the artillery shells going off. I was not shocked by the flames in the buildings. I was not shocked by the riflemen and grenadiers firing their weapons. I was not shocked by a six-year-old boy lying wounded in a hospital. None of that was any surprise to me. You know why? Because that is what war is all about.
It seems that Amnesty International didn’t get the meme from the International Committee of the Red Cross: What is going on in Syria is a war, a civil (well a very uncivil really) war.
The Amnesty complains that the bombs and artillery are “battlefield” weapons, as if the “battlefield” was some sort of prizefighting ring or jousting field for medieval knights. What alternate reality are these people living in? War is not a prizefight or a joust.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like seeing non-combatants get caught in middle of a battle, but that is going to happen, especially when the combatants decide to duke it out in cities.
War is not a place where you send in unarmed observers to keep a running tally on who does what to whom. That is a recipe for getting the observers killed. It amazes me how much the news gatherers of today seem to treat war as some kind of video game. Believe me, it isn’t and it never was. Still, we see these reports decrying the fact that the battles have any impact on “innocent” civilians.
Well, as we have seen around the world, unless you are under about the age of five, there are no “innocents” per se in a combat zone. You usually are for one side or the other. You just try to stay neutral in a combat zone and I will make a wager that neither side will trust or respect you. Both will think you are working for the other side, unless you are working for them.
Still, we have people in this world who put on the blinders and think that war is anything but the cruel, ugly, deadly, terrible thing that it is.
I am sorry people but war kills people, indiscriminately. It destroys things, indiscriminately. It maims things, indiscriminately. That is what bombs, and rockets, and artillery and mortar shells, and grenades, and mines, and bullets do. They are not discriminate. They don’t just hit the bad guys, or the bad places. Just ask the nine people wounded in New York City Aug. 24, 2012. The police did not intend for their bullets or the shrapnel from their ricochets to hit anybody but the killer that they were trying to put down.
I will pretty much guarantee that the pilots of the planes in that video or the gunners on the artillery or mortars that landed in the video or the guns being fired by the people in the video were not deliberately being aimed at non-combatants. Not on your life. Those gunners, bombers and shooters where just hoping that the rounds that they were sending down range were going to hit “the bad guys” and, you have to remember in war, the bad guys includes those who support and back the fighters.
Now, I suppose, in some alternate universe, the prizefight paradigm or the joust model exists and the spectators can line up in the stands and watch the battle without expecting any harm to come their way. However, that is not how it is in the real world; and in Syria, as well as many other places around the globe, we are living in a real world.
Whether it is diplomatic personnel in Mexico (even if it was two US Marines assigned to the embassy) or a bunch of people meeting with a terrorist leader in Pakistan, or a clash between tribal forces in Africa, that is the real world. Bullets fly, bombs drop and people are wounded or die. That is the reality of war.
It helps to remember that war is not glorious. War is not gallant flags waving.
War sometimes is necessary, unfortunately, and the only thing to do in a war is to apply enough force quickly and efficiently enough to get one side or the other to quit fighting because it is no longer cost effective, whether in human lives or wealth expended. To do anything else is, indeed, a war crime.
The human tragedy is that we cannot agree on what is good or bad, or who should be in power or who should not. All too often, because we are basically sore losers or the winners are not magnanimous, we end up with people taking up arms to make their cases. That really is all that wars are, political and economic discussions extended to a different sphere that uses violence, death and destruction to resolve the differences.
There apparently is no antiseptic alternative to war, unfortunately, although democratic societies where the people agree to compromise and abide by the majority rule, if it respects minority rights, come closest to it.
Regrettably, it seems that that willingness to compromise and share, to be magnanimous, is a quality that is sorely lacking in the modern world, despite what the people at Amnesty International and other people and organizations of like mindset want to believe.

Blame America first

Iraq helps Iran skirt sanctions

Iran calls Israel an insult

Syrian airstrikes continue

China warns Japan over islands

North Korea threatens US

Politically incorrect guide to U.S. interests

I am always fascinated by those who blame the United States for all the woes in the world … as if the Americans had that much power. I am sorry, but superpower or not, the U.S. never has been in “control” of anything outside the U.S., much less control of events inside its own borders.

There are those who look at the conflicts around the world and say “Well, what are you going to do about it America?”

Whether it is the civil wars in Syria, Iraq, Sudan or Congo; or threatening conflicts between Japan and China, or the Chinese and Filipinos, or the Chinese and the Vietnamese, or the Indians and the Pakistanis or the Israelis versus Iran … or even the U.S. versus Iran, do you really think these conflicts are being triggered by remote control? Do you really believe that there is some nefarious group that is manipulating all these conflicts? Give me a break. The answer is much simpler than that: Nobody is in “control” or you can say everybody is in control. In each of these conflicts, there really is very little the U.S. – or you or me, for that matter – can do to influence their resolutions.

The problem is, as the problem has been throughout history, is that there are individuals – good, bad or indifferent – in each one of the above countries who is making guesses about what they can or cannot do and which would maybe result in an outcome that is to their benefit and the benefit of their country. Those guesses probably not all the educated, or educated so much that they still don’t know what they are doing.

In Syria, there are so many players playing so many angles who knows what will happen. I sure don’t, but I can tell you this: It will be a bloody mess, literally and figuratively.

In Iraq, despite eight years there and a significant contingent of American “advisors”, the Americans are not calling the shots and nobody is being “handled.” The Iraqis and their leadership are going to play the game to suit their own interests and not necessarily the country’s best interests.

In Sudan and Congo, the same metric is going down but with different players and, sorry folks, but the U.S. not only won’t, but can’t do anything to affect it.

The events in the South and East China Seas? You think Beijing or Tokyo or Manila or Jakarta or Hanoi really are going to jump when the U.S. says: “Ok, boys, everybody back in their corners.” Do think the North Koreans are going to stop blowing smoke about “sacred wars” if the U.S. would just sit down and talk to them like they were rational adults?

Like the U.S. is going to have a whole lot of influence over Pakistan and be able to tell it and its neighbor to stop rattling each other’s cage.

And Israel and Iran? Why does the Iranian leadership have to keep rattling their sabers? It just makes the Israelis rattle theirs. A friend of mine said everything would be all right if the Israelis would just settle their long-term problems with the Palestinians. Hello? What planet is he on? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought Bill Clinton came within inches of that goal in 2000, but Yasser Arafat walked out at the last minute. I am sorry, but compromise sometimes means accepting a 95 percent solution rather than a 100 percent solution.

As for the Israelis, I don’t like a lot of their policies, especially the settlement policies, but you know, I can halfway understand them. Even then, they gave up all the settlements in Gaza in a bid to trade land for peace and a fat lot that got them.

I know there are those who blame the Israelis for all the conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, but I think that is a red herring. It would seem, at least for Gaza, that Egypt has had as big a role, if not bigger role in what has happened in Gaza. You do know Egypt ruled Gaza for almost 20 years and still has a border with Gaza, with their own border guards on it. I suppose, if they had wanted, they could have flooded Gaza with humanitarian aid at any time over the last 60 years … but they didn’t and they probably won’t … at least not with any aid that would create a self-sustaining, functional economy. Same goes for Jordan with the West Bank.

Still, one has to remember - despite the announcements by the Iranians and others in the Muslim world - that the Holocaust DID happen. Six million European Jews and about four million others were systematically murdered by the German Nazis. A good chunk of the Israelis are descendants of the survivors and they have decided never again.

You see, no one took Mister Hitler seriously when he wrote about and said what he planned to do. The Israelis are not about to make the same mistake twice. When you have somebody saying they want to see you eradicated because you are an insult to the world and others say they just want to wipe your nation off the map, then people with the Israelis’ background tend to take them at their word. Preemptive strikes usually work better than second strikes, basically because you often can take out much of the other side’s abilities to do any damage.

If you think the U.S. is about to be able to call the shots for the Israelis, then you are sadly mistaken. Yes, the U.S. is their bosom buddy and has helped them for years, but in the end, the Israelis are going to do what they think is in the best interest of their own survival (with the minimum of acceptable losses and casualties on their side).

Granted, the Iranians (one really should call them Persians to understand the length of their history) should be proud of their heritage, but they also should understand that in the 21st century, the empires of centuries and millennia ago are not about to be resurrected. Unfortunately, the ayatollahs and IRGC never got the meme.

The whole thing points to the probable future that it is going to get awfully violent around the world, whether it is Latin America, Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Eurasia. And don’t think North America or Europe is immune, because they are not.

In the United States we have seen what appears to be an uptick in political violence. It almost makes one dread what will happen this fall.

Whatever happens, please try to remember: The Americans are not in control. The multinational corporations are not in control. The Zionist Conspiracy is not in control.

NO ONE person, entity, group or thing is in control. And with all those actors and factors, mistakes are going to be made and my bet is that things are going to get really, really ugly.

Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but the old saying is “if you want peace, prepare for war” and maybe you will get lucky.

Covert orders?

President signed covert orders aiding Syrian rebels

Something tells me that people in the U.S. need to reexamine the definition of the word “covert” because it is obvious that when it comes to the American government, very little is covert. Definition of "Covert"

cov·ert (kvrt, kvrt, k-vûrt) adj.

1. Not openly practiced, avowed, engaged in, accumulated, or shown: covert military operations; covert funding for the rebels. See Synonyms at secret.

2. Covered or covered over; sheltered.

When something is being reported by practically every major news-reporting agency in the world … it is hard to argue that something is being kept a secret.

President Obama, apparently, sometime in the last year signed a “secret” intelligence “finding” (basically an executive order) authorizing American intelligence agencies covertly to provide aid and comfort (and presumably weapons, etc.) to the forces opposed to the Syrian regime. So much for doing anything secretly. But then again, it is not much of a surprise either.

Now, I have a problem with all this. You see, I am tired of my political leadership getting embroiled in various and sundry conflicts, uprisings, liberation movements, etc., especially in the Middle East. Sorry, but if I have learned anything in the last 25 years or so, it is regardless of whatever intentions the U.S. may have … it ain’t gonna work, especially if we are trying to do it on the QT.

Now, I am not so opposed to maybe passing ammunition and holding coats, but that is about as far as I am going to go right now. Still, I would hope that our esteemed Congress people would have enough sense to keep cool heads about them and do what is in the best interest of the country and not necessarily what is politically cool to do. Oops, what a fool am I am? Like that is ever going to happen in my lifetime or probably my grandchildren’s lifetimes.

Granted, President Assad of Syria is a pretty scummy character and probably ranks up there with our old friend Mr. Hussein over in Iraq. But we have been down that trail once, no need to try it again. Too many pacifists and progressives would get upset and we probably don’t have the troops right now to do it up right.

Of course, there are all sorts of reasons to be concerned about the outcome in Syria because it really will have a snowball effect in the whole region. Unfortunately for the U.S., very few of the outcomes are positive in relation to our interests.

Short of a direct attack on the U.S. (not just U.S. interests but the good old U.S. of A.) I very much doubt that the people who really need to be involved in the decision making process about what role the U.S. should be playing in the area (I.E. The U.S. Congress) will do anything but blather. Besides, it is election season, it is August (and all right and left thinking Congress people are going to flee the swamp that is the District of Columbia, despite air-conditioning), so it is going to be squawk season.

Still, I just wish some people either in D.C. or Arlington or McLean could keep their damn traps shut. It is really is annoying, from the perspective of an old soldier, to see these “leaks” about so-called “secrets”. I am just glad I am not on the tip of the spear, because their job is tough enough as it is without blowing bugles and beating the drums that they are there.

The M-1911 returns

Marines pick Colt for new pistol

Mr. Browning probably would be happy. The U.S. Marine Corps recently let a contract for the pistol to be used by its special operations community and the contract went to a company offering basically a version of the venerable pistol that John Browning designed a century ago and was designated the M-1911.
The M-1911, known as the Colt Automatic, was designed by Mr. Browning when he worked for the Colt Firearms Company way back when. It has since been built by a variety of other manufacturers but the basic design and parts have always been the same. It literally is a work of art, as far as I am concerned.
The Colt .45, or just THE FORTY-FIVE, as it is fondly remembered by about three or four generations of Americans, has been carried by soldiers in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the first Persian Gulf War. It has been carried by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not “officially” for most of them because the U.S. military switched in the late 1980s to the Beretta M-92 in 9 mm.
Why has the M-1911 returned to service with the Marines? Because it does the job, period. The .45 shoots a relatively unsophisticated .45 caliber bullet (.45 of an inch in diameter bullet) that travels at a relative slow speed (roughly 800 feet per second) but when it hits a person, the bullet tends to stop the person. A 9mm doesn’t do this, nor does the similarly-sized .38 caliber bullet. I don’t know what the magic is, but it has something to do with physics, but there are literally thousands of stories floating around veterans and handlers of the .45 Colt of its stopping and knockdown power. In other words, when you get shot with a .45 Colt, you will know it, in spades.
Since I joined people like Alvin York, Audie Murphy, and countless other American heroes when I carried the .45 M-1911A1 Automatic Colt Pistol (mine, however was made by the Remington Arms Company) as my personal sidearm in the Persian Gulf War I (with all of 16 rounds for it, but that is another story), I have a special place in my heart for the old Colt. I never had to fire it, but I had confidence that if I hit what I aimed at, it was going to stop them and at least make them think again about coming after me. (Of course, after my 16 bullets were gone, I was going to be in deep doo-doo).
I am glad that Mister Browning’s pistol is back in service and once again protecting U.S. servicemembers as they go in harm’s way.

Roger Rabbit Bullet?

Guided bullets for snipers

The Dumb-Dumbs

Holy Toledo! They done invented my “Roger Rabbit Bullet”.

It seems that they have invented the “guided bullet” that homes in on its target. Wow, that is neat. The only problem, according to the article above is that it has to see a laser target designator in order to home in on the target and then it can only hit a circle with an 8-inch radius around the laser point.

Shoot, it doesn’t quite reach the fire and forget stage where you tell the bullet what target to hit and where to hit it. Also, it is an awfully big bullet (.50 caliber and about four inches long). I will bet your shoulder hurts when that baby goes off. And when it hits somebody, they really will know that they have been tagged.

Of course, it is only for snipers and really effective only at extreme ranges. I guess that means that the poor snuffies on the line will have to do with the old unguided bullets for a long time because they do their shooting at ranges that you don’t need a laser target designator to spot the target; you just point and shoot.

Of course, that is the problem with small arms. The projectile is just too small to integrate all those fancy devices that can guide to hit what you want it to hit. You see, nowadays, when you shoot a pistol or a rifle at short ranges, you really don’t have time to mess with telescopic sights. I mean those sights are helpful, and the attached laser designators are really nifty assistance, but up close and personal, it is less about accuracy as it is about volume and weight of your fire power.

That is what makes war so impersonal. You see, when you fire a bullet, it only goes off basically in a straight line in the direction you have your muzzle pointed. The bullet doesn’t care really what gets in its way. People, property, dirt, it is all the same to the bullet. It will just hit it with whatever velocity and mass that it has and let that energy do the work.

IF the first shot doesn’t take the target down, hit again, and again, and again, as fast as you can and hopefully the cumulative effect will be able to do the job. The problem being that with all those unguided objects flying through the air, they really are only addressed to the occupant of the space through which it passes.

Now, trained soldiers usually can do a fair job of using whatever sighting devices to maintain a certain amount of accuracy, but studies have shown that that accuracy declines as the adrenaline flow goes up as incoming rounds get closer and closer. This is strictly a human thing and is hard to overcome.

Still, bullets, being bullets, really don’t care who or what they hurt. They just do it.

Maybe someday, the Dumb-Dumbs from the Roger Rabbit movie will become Smart-Smarts, but I doubt we will see that anytime soon.

War v. Law Enforcement

NY Times: US Officials sued over deaths in Yemen
Fox: Families of US citizens killed in Yemen drone strikes file suit
The families of two American members of the Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula organization are suing the American government for killing their relatives with missiles fired from unmanned aerial reconnaissance craft - UAVs.
It seems, they feel that being a member of a quasi-state organization that has declared war on the United States does not qualify their family members to be shot on sight. The American Civil Liberties Union, who I sometimes think thinks the U.S. Constitution applies worldwide, has taken their case to federal court to charge the deaths were wrongful because the individuals involved were never charged with any criminal act and thus deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed due process.
Ok, first of all, I haven’t a clue how this case will play out in the courts. I just don’t know where the courts will come down on this issue or whether the courts will even accept that they do have jurisdiction in the case (a very real possibility).
The problem as I see it is that what we have here is a failure to understand the difference between “war” and “law enforcement.”
In war, the rules of law enforcement as applied in the U.S. do not apply. I am sorry, but the bad guys do not have to be given an opportunity to surrender. They don’t have to be read their constitutional rights when they are arrested or detained. In fact, they can be killed by just about any means available. Ok, international law, as reflected in the Geneva/Hague Conventions, does say that certain weapons really aren’t allowed, but that is open to interpretation.
For example, it really isn’t kosher to use a 2000-pound bomb to kill a single person standing in the desert. Not to say that it doesn’t happen but somewhere in the language of the conventions are passages about the “appropriate” use of force to kill people.
Another example, the white phosphorus used to generate smoke screens and to mark targets is not supposed to be used directly against dismounted troops. Phosphorus does create rather nasty wounds that are difficult to treat, as I can attest to. However, it can be used against buildings and vehicles in the open. What happens when there are dismounted troops next to armored vehicles? White phosphorus is a perfectly valid and effective weapon to use on armor (it burns through it), but what about the poor troops outside? Are you supposed to ignore what might be your best weapon against the armor in order not to violate the prohibition against using it against troops in the open? Good question and one my soldiers and I would debate around a campfire at night. Remember, however, when your life is at stake, there are no rules. It is kill or be killed and you want to survive.
Okay, in this case, the father was killed while riding in a car that was hit by an air-to-surface missile. Now was that a legitimate target? Well, he was in Yemen, but the Yemeni government lets U.S. UAVs fly over its country assisting in its fight against the Al-Qaida bunch.
Again, does that make it illegal, as the ACLU contends, to kill a member (who happens to be an American) who is aiding, abetting and controlling portions of a group that openly admits it is waging a war against the United States? Now, in a ”real” war between two nations the answer would not only “yes” but “HELL YES!”
But then is the war with Al-Qaida really a war? The ACLU would tell you it isn’t and in that case the law enforcement paradigm holds: You have make every effort to arrest the person alive (regardless of the hazards to the persons making the arrest), read them their rights, offer them an attorney and tell them that anything that they say can be used against them, bring them to a court in the U.S., charge them, try them … and then maybe, just maybe, you can put them to death. This is known as due process.
This standard really is hard to apply in combat … and so the debate is whether the use of armed UAVs is governed by the laws of crime or the laws war? And what if, the American is only one of several people in the target area – non-Americans and some of them are combatants and some of them aren’t? And then, what if they are not innocent civilians but don’t qualify as combatants according to the definitions in the conventions? The conventions allow you to summarily (without trial) execute illegal combatants and spies.
Murky, isn’t it?
This is the problem with the so-called Global War on Terror. Is it a war-war or is it a law enforcement “war” like the war on drugs or organized crime?
Some, such as me, see the GWOT as a war-war. We authorized the president back in 2001 to seek and destroy the parties responsible for the attack on the U.S. on 9/11. In essence, Congress declared war on Al-Qaida. It didn’t issue a “declaration of war” in the technical sense in that those only really apply to inter-nation conflicts. Al-Qaida really isn’t a nation, although it has at various times controlled parts of several, including Yemen and Afghanistan.
Others, such as the ACLU, say it is not a war but a law enforcement problem, even if American laws don’t apply outside the boundaries of the United States (as a general rule) and very few nations are going to enforce those laws for us. In many cases, those governments are going to actively contest the right of U.S. law enforcement agents operating in their country to capture miscreants.
Personally, I think the case should be thrown out by the first U.S. District Judge that gets the filing as a frivolous lawsuit because the law enforcement paradigm does not apply and the court, therefore, has absolutely no jurisdiction on which it has a right to hear the case.
Sorry, folks, but your relatives chose the bed they made … and unfortunately for you, they got blown up.
Besides, if your relatives had the chance, I am pretty sure they would have tried to kill me.

Civil Wars

Reference story: IROC declares Syria a civil war

The International Committee of the Red Cross has declared that the conflict in Syria is a “Civil War”, but what does this mean. Wars aren’t civil, they are highly uncivil.

Now that means very little to the Syrians right now, the fighting will go on until the Assad regime is ousted or the rebellion is crushed.

But to the rest of the world it now means that a different set of rules governing warfare can now be applied, probably retroactively. You see, under the international “laws of war” certain things can be done in combat and certain things cannot. Now, what can or cannot be done is governed by the type of conflict. If it is merely a riot or a terrorist attack, a certain set of things are considered the appropriate response. If it is an insurrection, then another set applies. If it is a civil war, a third set applies and if it is a state vs. state declared war yet another set of rules apply. And if it is an undeclared war, or some military action ordered by the UN, then probably another set applies depending who is trying to define the rules.

Basically, the rules are meant to salve the consciences of people who are not in the line of fire, because the people in the line of fire will tell you the rules don’t apply and never have and never will. You do whatever it takes to survive and win and let God and the politicians sort it out afterwards.

Most people don’t understand that. They think that combat can be fought like a joust or a prize fight with the Marquis of Queensbury rules … but that is not reality and in the real world is liable to get a lot of people killed unnecessarily. Still, if you violate the rules in today’s world, at least in certain countries, you can expect to be hauled up on whatever charges those who want to bring them bring and in whatever venue they want to bring it. Note to some of these people: Sorry but the US Constitution really doesn’t apply anywhere but in US territory. I know that is a disappointment, but it is the truth.

For example: One standard applies to the US forces, no matter where they go, and that standard, unfortunately rarely applies to the people they are fighting. If the Americans used IEDs or even mines on civilian roads, something serious disciplinary-wise is going to happen to the soldier(s) responsible if they are caught. Americans are not supposed to fight that way. Not that it isn’t an effective tactic; but it is not the way Americans are supposed to behave.

Now if the “bad guys” do summary executions or other punishments on civilians, use IEDs or suicide bombers who the flip cares. If the Americans do it, well here comes the mob to hang them. I am not saying that the Americans shouldn’t be disciplined, but for heaven’s sake that is more for discipline and control than it is because it is against some arbitrary rule. However, it gets more press over here than the multitude of sins committed by our asymmetrical enemies, who rarely, if ever seem to publicly punish their troops for shooting villagers, blowing up civilians and destroying people and property.

So, as far as Syria goes now, the wise folk in Europe sitting back in their ivy-covered halls of the International Criminal Court can feel good about doing really nothing to stop the obscenity that is what is going on in Syria.

Nope, no matter who wins, there will be some bureaucrats, jurists and lawyers in The Hague lining up to prosecute whomever they don’t like for possible war crimes.

Well, I have a message for these people: War is a crime.

No, war is not a crime, nor is it moral. It IS amoral. Moral and immoral things can be done during wars, but by and large war is simply amoral. In reality, it simply is the slaughter of large numbers of people, combatants, non-combatants, civilians and illegal combatants on a large scale, usually on a mass industrial scale using some pretty horrific ways to die.

While wars will have to be fought, at least by those who wish to be free of oppression, the most moral thing that can be done in war is to use, as Pappy told me about getting into a fight, any and all means necessary to bring it to an end. That is the important thing; to get it over as quickly as possible and hopefully with as little blood split (on your side) as possible.

And in war, one must remember that the battle isn’t over until some poor slug of an infantryman is standing over the enemy with his bayonet-tipped rifle pointed at the enemy and saying in no uncertain terms: The battle is over now, you understand.

Unfortunately, Mister Rumsfeld, Mister Cheney and Mister Bush didn’t listen to people like General Shinseki when they told them that and hence here we are still in Afghanistan and spent eight years in Iraq.

Tribute to the American Soldier

A good friend of mine from my days as a civilian US Army employee down in Georgia posted this link on his facebook page. I chose to share it with you because of what it says about the American service members today. Particular the young men who serve in the Queen of Battle, The Infantry. This is one Frenchmen’s view of the American infantry there. I thank him for the soldiers who are there and who serve around the world. Despite what you might hear about them, all in all, they are a pretty good bunch … not only as soldiers but as human beings.

http://nakedliberty.com/2010/12/a-french-infantrymans-view-of-american-soldiers/

Women in the Infantry

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/12/12684555-women-in-the-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer?lite

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-05-13/women-combat-military-marines/54942550/1

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

Women in the infantry? Some want to see it, others don’t … count me with the others, at least not in mixed gender units.

It is an interesting argument and one that the US will have to wrestle with over the coming years as it tries to level the playing field, especial for women officers in the military.

There has been some (in my opinion, not enough) debate about what role women should play in the military. Should they be allowed in fighting roles or not? Well, I guess that depends on the service. Having not had experience in the air services, I cannot comment with any experience on that issue. But I have had experience both afloat and on the land (with on the land having had women in my unit) and those experiences have definitely brought me down on the side of those who say that women should not serve in infantry units.

Now, I am not saying – nor have I ever said – that women cannot make outstanding combat fighters. They can, without a doubt. In fact, I suspect that women can be far more ruthless killers than men but I can’t prove that or document it. I would just rather not have them in my unit, thank you, as it creates too many distractions and potential problems.

The Marine captain, in her article says women should get over it, “we are not all created equal.” That’s for sure, in so many ways.

The point I always argued was a) standards have to be uniform and b) how do you deal with basic biology and primal instincts. You see, at least in my experience, standards are not uniform because allowances “have to be” made for the differences in feminine physiques from the male physique. While in cardio fitness this may have some validity, but when it comes right down to it, if you have to hump 30 pounds of personal gear and ammunition, plus at least 70 to 100 pounds in a rucksack, then it doesn’t matter if you are a man or a woman … if you want to do the job, you have to do it, period … no slacking.

That is life in the infantry, and as the captain pointed out, history shows that women, for the most part, are not able to do it over time physically.

But it is the other half, part b, which I have found to be really problematical. I am sorry, but to hijack an old cliché: Men are men and women are women and ever the twain shall meet. I don’t care what you do, or how you try to do it, hormones win every time. To think otherwise is to be incredibly naïve … if not stupid, but at least silly. You absolutely have to find a way to deal with the taboo subject of the sexual dynamic.

Granted, I grew up in a time when the male-female roles were fairly well defined and that is changing. Part of me always says “women and children first” and the guys take the hindmost and their chances. Sorry, I was well conditioned as a child and a young man.

As part of my observations, I noticed that a whole bunch of hue and outcry was made over the execution of an Afghan woman on video. Her crime, apparently, was she was sleeping with both of the rivals for the leadership of that particular Taliban group. That sums up my argument against women in my unit in a nutshell. No matter what happens that conflict is going to happen. Not might happen, it WILL happen.

Having been the non-commissioned officer in charge of taking care of 10 to 35 soldiers, I can tell you that it is a tough enough job without having to factor in allowances for the different genders. Nope, don’t want to go there, ever again. Been there! Done That! Lord, I wish I could lose the T-Shirt!

Having served on US Navy destroyer with a crew of little more than 225, I can attest that adding the sexual dynamic to that equation would have just made what was difficult at times, down right impossible. You pack 200-plus people on something that is maybe a football field long, about the width of maybe a four-lane street, with two or three decks, crammed with power-plants, workshops, living spaces and weapons systems (make a mistake in the first or the last and you definitely risk shortening not only your life span but everybody else on board) for extended periods of time and I guarantee you: Bad things will happen. Again, it is not a case of might happen. Bad things will happen.

When bad things happen in military formations, well, bad things happen at the sharp end of the stick and people die. You may not want them to die, but they will. Even when things are going swimmingly down in the trenches, people will die. It is what happens in war, which is what the military formations are designed for.

Ok, I will grant you, there are many roles for women in the military, but being in the infantry, or armor or on a small warship like a destroyer or a submarine is not one of them.