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.

Imperialist America

Military assets deploy to help the Philippines

I would really like people to take a long hard look at the list compiled in the above link.

For Americans, it is a lesson of what those tax dollars go for.

For non-Americans, it is a lesson of how the Americans lead from the front.

I know there are those who will piss and moan about American taxpayer money being diverted from needs at home, but what they don’t realize is that this effort is a better demonstration of what the US is about than anything else I can think of.

Note that those resources, designed for war, also can be used to fight the ravages of nature.

Those resources, designed for war, are an instrument to bring supplies to where they are needed because that is a task that is vital to succeeding in conflict.

Understand people that the ships on that list represent a significant proportion of the Pacific Fleet which is spread from the India Ocean to Antarctica to the Panama Canal to San Diego to Japan and Korea.

Journalist were asking: Where is the help for all those people stricken by the devastation of the typhoon?

Well, look no further. And you have to remember, those people helped by those Americans will remember. This is what power is all about.

There is hard power … and that is the ability to fight … and there is soft power … and that is the ability to bring help where it is needed.

For all those who complain about America’s role in the world, there are people in the Philippines (and other places around the world) who will be eternally grateful for the Americans’ presence.

I have seen this first hand. It is one of the reasons that I have been so proud of the men and women who wear the uniforms of the American military. It is part of the reason I was proud to share that honor with them. These people are really a beacon of hope for so many around the world.

Lastly: Yes, this is done in the interest of America. It is to advance the interests of the United States. If that makes the US imperialists, then I am proud that we are.  We may be different from the imperialists who have gone before, for we really are far less ruthless and we really do ask for far less they our predecessors.

My goodness

President tells Congress about US mission in Somali

It seems that the French fiasco in Somali at least got the president to admit that there is a War Powers Act. I hope the progressives are happy.

Now, if he would just to the same about the US support for the French intervening in Mali.

WMDs in Iraq redux

Syria moving chemical weapons

(You really need to read the above link on Huffington Post)

Oh, great, now if Syria does something with its non-nuclear WMDs it has become a red-line for the Obama Administration.

I want to see the uproar from the Democrats and the Progressives. Where is it? Do they really think the intelligence is any better now than it was in 2003? I mean the Syrians deny they have any, so shouldn’t we believe them?

I think we should institute at least 12 years of sanctions against the Assad regime, but first his regime has to invade Lebanon or Turkey or Iraq or Jordan … or Israel (Gasp) … after which the UN throws his troops out to restore the status-quo-ante. Then let him be in violation of at least19 UN Security Council resolutions.

AND then we have to get a separate resolution giving him a last chance to change … after which, we have to get yet another UN Security Council resolution authorizing the US to act. I think that is where George W. went wrong, he forgot the last one.

I guess the hypocrisy of this article just makes me puke.

Not that I don’t think the threat isn’t real … and probably should have something done about it … unfortunately, I don’t think the US has the capability right now to do anything about it. Sorry this isn’t a mission for an A-Team or Delta Force or the Navy’s Seal Team 6. And we don’t have forces enough in the area to pull it off, unless the Turks get generous.

The Navy is short of aircraft carriers, now that the Big E has retired (with its replacement several years down the road from completion).

Where are you progressives? I want to see you en masse in Lafayette Park keep our president, that you just voted to put back into office, awake at nights with your chants about how there are no WMDS.

Isn’t that what jail is?

PFC Manning says he was held in a cage
It seems that the accused leaker of classified documents to Wikileaks, Army PFC Bradley Manning, was upset he was held in cells after being arrested for violating his oath as well as host of other Army regulations.
WHAT THE YOU KNOW WHAT?
Hello, since when was a jail cell anything but a cage?
Is this guy for real, or is he living in some nether world? I am sorry, but you get yourself arrested – inside the military or out – you are not going to some swank four-star hotel. Nope, you are going to be cooped up in rather uncomfortable surroundings, usually not much worse than the accommodations for the poor line-doggies who are serving out on the front lines.
I am sorry, but his case has dragged on long enough – courtesy of himself and his defense lawyers – and it about time the court martial begins.
If the defense team tries to justify his alleged conduct, then as far as I am concerned the kid should get a swift ticket to the Big House at Fort Leavenworth where he can rot for all I care. If the Army can’t prove that he was the source of the material that Wikileaks put on line, then he can walk … but if the military can prove that he was the source, then the young man can just hang, literally and figuratively.
Unfortunately, this baby-faced baboon is trying to get people’s sympathy in a world where sympathy often gets people killed. It seems to be forgotten that this soldier VOLUNTEERED for his job. He voluntarily agreed and swore oaths that he would protect the information he was privy to from unauthorized release to unauthorized persons. If he has no more integrity than to honor his voluntary obligations, then such a charlatan deserves whatever punishment the service deems fit for the crime.
Please, however, save me from the “but he only was doing what he thought was right” argument. If he was being compelled to serve, I can buy it, but he volunteered.

Not such an old problem

Pentagon’s fiscal bath
Assuming the President and Congress don’t come up with a some sort of deal by Dec. 31, 2012, the fiscal crunch facing the government really is going to bite … especially at the Defense Department.
The DOD is going to take, supposedly, about a $1 trillion hit over the next five years, or about $200 billion per year. That is from its regular budget and not including the “war” supplementals that have funded Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. With the U.S. basically out of Iraq and in the process of pulling out of Afghanistan by the end of 2114, then it would seem that there should be a nice little “peace dividend” to be had.
Unfortunately, as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta points out, the need for bodies to fill out the necessary ranks is going to bump up against any efforts to continue to modernize the capabilities of the military service, with either the size of the force having to be drastically reduced or modernization and future procurements deferred. Why is this? It is because the cost of maintaining the individual service member is rising and has been since the advent of the all-volunteer force.
It is funny, because I predicted this situation way back in 1971 in a paper I wrote for a political science class on adopting the all-volunteer force (even had a nifty graph that went with it). Be that as it may, the problem is that housing, feeding and providing medical care for volunteers, an increasing number of whom are married and bring with them the obligation to provide dependent care, has eaten a larger and larger component of the military’s budget each year and that is not going to stop unless the situation can be changed.
There is a way to change the calculus, but I doubt the Pentagon or Congress would ever go for it. The Pentagon, for instance, would not like it because it probably would reduce the number of flag officers (generals and admirals) on active duty and that definitely is a non-starter. As for Congress, well, let it suffice to say that it might hamper its irresponsibility.
Anyway, my plan – which actually was printed in the Congressional Record many years ago courtesy of  South Carolina Sen. Fritz Hollings (D) – would replace each reduction in active service members by increasing the number in the reserves by 2 or three times the reduction. This is sort of a return to the pre-World War II model of military force manning that depended far more than today on the Reserves and National Guard (militias).
In addition, the military could – but it is not likely – return to service rank structures that existed before 1970, when pay grade inflation hit to make up for the lack of pay increases as inflation racked the military pay scales. In other words, instead of paying soldiers more at their current rank, they allowed promotions to higher rank to compensate for the low pay. Hence, the job once done by a corporal was now assigned to a sergeant; and what was done by a staff sergeant was done by a sergeant first class; and jobs that were usually done by first lieutenants was now being done by captains, jobs done by majors was now done by lieutenant colonels, etc.
Now, the key is increasing the size of the Reserves – such as the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. Currently the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard combined have about the same number of members as the active component of the Army. It is a figure that according my research even 40 years ago provides a really inadequate 1:1 ratio. The ratio should be closer to three or four reservists for every active duty service member (and is in most countries).
The best benefit of such an approach, from a budgetary standpoint, is that is costs about 30 to 40 cents to fund a reservist for every $1 it costs to maintain an active component member. So, assuming that you increase the ration to 2:1, you still can cut up to 20 percent of the personnel costs for the active component. That sure would make the progressives happy, but I doubt that many of them would be volunteering to fill the additional ranks of needed in the reserves.
And that is the problem with the reserves: Manning. I only once served in a reserve unit (in the 18 years I served in the Naval Reserve and Army National Guard) that was at full strength (and it didn’t have enough officers and included only 13 people of all ranks). The problem being is that (a) being in the Reserves does impose some sacrifices on what is essentially a civilian lifestyle and (b) as the last 15 years have pointed out, there always is the probability that you might be mobilized for up to two years out of every six. That really puts a damper on motivating people to join up.
But a political upside is that such a ratio would put a damper on the political leadership haring off on military adventures. It is one thing to send in off-the-radar active component people, but when you start calling up people’s neighbors, the political cost starts to climb … which really is a good thing, when you think about it.
Anyway, don’t look for Congress or the Pentagon or even the President to come out and endorse such economizing in the defense budget. It makes too much sense. It is too logical and therefore definitely is not among those things that should be considered.
Besides, it is too restraining on presidential options, and the options the generals and admirals can offer to a president.

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.

Comparative militaries

Numbers in the military

Money spent on the military

Ok, I get it: The U.S. spends a whole lot more money on its military capabilities than anybody else. Doesn’t necessarily mean its military is all that much larger than anybody else’s, because it isn’t. There are any numbers of countries that field armies that are larger per capita than the U.S. counterparts or spend more money per capita or as a portion of their gross domestic product (also known as GDP) than the US does.

In fact, there even a few countries whose military establishment is even larger than that of the U.S., as shocking as that might seem.

Still, the U.S. military remains, arguably, the best trained, best equipped, most powerful force in the world.

Well, part of it is that the U.S. does put more bucks into its military might than anybody else (in aggregate). The old saying is that you get what you pay for.

However, as the world shows us time and again, you can spend big bucks on the gadgets and toys and other things (like paying the troops, their medical care, housing their families, giving them a fairly nice retirement plan), and still find yourself stretched to meet the challenges of much more frugally funded and equipped forces in the world.

What was that line by Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: Adapt, improvise and overcome.

As an American, I sometimes am dismayed by the amounts we spend on our military forces. But then I step back and look at the reality of it. For its size, we do have the most professional corps of troops in our military services. I suppose that comes from the fact that it also is the best paid, nation-state funded military in the world, with – again arguably – the best benefits for the individual soldier that the world has to offer.

It is among the best trained forces in the world, so that is a good thing. I am a big believer it training troops. The better trained they are, the better prepared they are for the reality of conflict. The better prepared they are, the more likely they will survive in combat.

I also realize that like it or not America is called upon to be the “global cop”. You may not like it. I might not like it. Unfortunately, it is the way that things are. When bad things go down, everyone starts asking: Where is the nearest U.S. carrier task force or amphibious ready group? Why aren’t the Americans doing something about this?

Not that the Americans should be doing something about these things, but it seems that a large number of people look to the Americans to lead and  do something about them. Good, bad, indifferent, it still is the case.

For example, Syria: Our “friends” in the area are looking to the U.S. to at least support, if not provide leadership, to them. Hence, there is a military planning task force of 150 Americans in Jordan today … just to help the Jordanians prepare for any untoward consequences of the civil war in Syria.

And don’t be surprised if there aren’t a bunch of NATO planners (with a substantial contingent of Americans) talking with their brethren in Turkey about potential needs the Turks may have if the rumbles on its border with Syria continue to worsen.

The problem with the American military is that it is well-paid and very well equipped. Those things don’t come cheap. Oh, we could have a much larger military establishment, with lot cheaper weapons, but then that would come with a much higher human cost, which Americans are much more averse to seeing.

For example: Iraq, over eight years, cost the Americans about 6,000 dead. The British, in the 1920s, lost 1,200 in one battle. If that had happened in the latest Iraq war, it would have been over, right there.

Still, does the U.S. need such a powerful military? That is a good question and one I know Americans are quite divided about. Actually, one will find that Americans are quite happy holding contrary thoughts.

Americans always have looked askance upon a large standing military force. It smacks too much of opportunities for military coups and tyrannies. For that reason, there is such a strong tradition in the U.S. for civilian control of the military and for its members, particularly its officer corps, to remain as much as possible non-political and non-partisan.

On the other hand, particularly since World War II and the Cold War, Americans have been – and rightly so, to my estimation – almost terrified of a surprise attack catching the U.S. unawares and unprepared … sort of like 9-11 did.

In addition, Americans have this intense desire – not all that different than anyone else - to be respected (despite what you think, Americans still have somewhat of an inferiority complex toward the older and more established nations and cultures in the world … we are a bit like the nouveau riche), but not only respected, but also loved. We can’t seem to understand why everybody just doesn’t love us and respect us. I mean we have pretty much the most affluent society and our political system pays so much homage to the individual and individual rights, what is not to like and love? And we have this wonderful, almost Star Wars-like, military that is the envy of just about every military commander in the world (If we had just had half the weapons and gadgets at our command, they think)

For most Americans, we just don’t understand that being respected and being loved are two entirely different things and what makes you respected often does not lead to you being loved, and vice versa.

Americans don’t like to think of themselves as imperialists, and in the traditional sense, we are not (we don’t usually take over land; we merely try to get the people there to act like we do). We do not make good imperials. We are not ruthless enough or willing to pay the price to be imperials.

Ironically, I suspect, there is a reason that none of the First World powers have used their military forces to settle their disputes in recent memory and that is directly related to the power of the United States, and to a lesser extent to the power of the former Soviet Union. It was not in the interest of the US or USSR to fight a large scale conflict (even in conventional terms) involving First World technologies. It would have been a bloody mess, literally. That “peace” is the result of each playing “cop” in their respective spheres of influence and basically helping each other in the other areas. (You may not agree with this analysis, but I think if you examine it from a historical perspective, you will find it has a certain modicum of support) This not to say that there were not any “proxy” wars, because there were, but the two big guys kept a leash on the participants to keep them from going global.

So, when you look at the military “might” of America, you need to keep it in perspective: What is it there for?

Answer that question, and you have a better understanding of why the U.S. spends so much on its military and why, probably, it should continue to spend big bucks on it.

Not the CIA (nor the Marines)

Satellite photos reveal DOD installation where Navy SEALS trained.

This is one reason I get so really hacked off at today’s so-called journalists. They just can’t get their facts straight.

First, Navy SEALS are not the CIA. They don’t belong to the CIA. They operate independently of the CIA. They may coordinate with CIA paramilitaries but they still fall under military command.

Second, the assault on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan basically was a military operation: Military helicopters carrying military personnel to conduct a military assault on a military objective.

Now, to some people, confusing intelligence operations with military operations is merely a sematic exercise, but confusing the capabilities and responsibilities is always a bad idea.

No, the CIA is not the military. The compound in North Carolina was a military installation where military special operations forces trained. It was not CIA agents training there.

The question that always bugs me is why people can’t keep the two straight. Yes, SpecOps people operate in a very foggy environment, but they still are military warriors and not armed spies and intelligence agents.

I guess it is like the Marine Corps. You do know that there are no other riflemen defending our shores than Marine riflemen. Nobody else carries weapons but Marines and the Marines always do all the fighting. Just ask a Marine

Oh, PS: Like Michael Yon pointed out, this was one hell of an OPSEC violation, but then who the heck cares. SEAL Team 6 is just a bunch of wigged-out warmongers and who cares if they get killed or compromised.

More on conspiracy theories

It always amazes me when people deny they believe in any conspiracy when they say “But I don’t think it happened that way.”

Time out! If you don’t believe something happened the way that it has been explained, then the burden sort of falls on you to come up with an alternate explanation to solve the mystery. Either it was an act of God, or humans did it and that means a conspiracy of some sort to execute and cover-up the real explanation.

For example, over the years, I have read or seen a host of books, documentaries, movies, etc., or in some cases actually interviewed people with first-hand knowledge of the events on Dealy Plaza on Nov. 23, 1963. And yes, while it is possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the shooter, there remains no credible alternative explanation for those events. Oh, I know about the commission in that found the tape that allegedly recorded a fourth shot and I have interviewed people who had statements from people who said there was someone on the grassy knoll. I also have seen people debunk the magic bullet mystery. So, my final point is, does it really matter? No. Because nothing we do now will either bring back John Kennedy or change the events of that day (or all the history up to now).

What about the controversy over the President’s birth certificate? It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t unless you really want to screw up the country, which if you get the president declared ineligible, and therefore nullify everything he has done for the last three and half years, will happen … in spades.

Hell, he may have been born in Kenya or somewhere else in the Third World, but it doesn’t matter now, and it is time to get over it.

Same thing with the people who say the “official” and “unofficial” reports that explain how the events unfolded on Sept. 11, 2001, can’t be true. There is no way that 19 ragheads could cause that much damage and kill that many people. Yes, there is … and it happened.

Oh, you say, but I am just saying I don’t believe the official explanation. It leaves too many questions unanswered. Then provide your own beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise, let it lie.

The problem with those who reject these explanations, as I said before, is that the burden then falls on you to come up with a working alternate explanation. Now, it gets really fun when you do that, because you have to explain away the hijackings, or change their backers somehow from the people who have said they were the organizers and planners, and in one case, the hijacker who screwed up and got himself arrested two months before the operation took place.

Then, since the aircraft didn’t significantly damage two nearly forty-year-old buildings, and fires and other debris from the collapsing towers didn’t trigger the collapse of a third building, one is left with having to come up with an alternative. You need to develop one that a) creates the conditions that will allow the buildings to collapse, b) has a reasonable possibility for it being executed without detection, c) is backed by some group that has the money and the resources to do the job, d) has the ability to sway a whole slew of people to produce multiple products that ignore the explanation of the real cause, e) has a damn good reason to go out on a limb to make it happen, f) and do this under the spotlight of every media organization in the world without anyone on the team – from top to bottom – ever letting on.

I will admit that there probably are  gaping holes in the 9/11 Commission report, but I am willing to bet that they got most of the facts right. Just as I know there are holes in the Warren Commission report, but in the end, I suspect that they got the facts basically right.

This basically holds true for all conspiracies.

Don’t get me started on the military pulling off an operation of this magnitude, even a rogue group of Special Operations folks. The movies make them look like miracle workers … and I won’t deny that they are pretty damn good, but they still put their pants on the same way the rest of do and have to tie their shoelaces just like anyone else and are just as prone to have Mr. Murphy riding on their shoulders as anyone else. There has never been a military operation at any time that went off without a hitch.

The best one of those has to have been the Israeli raid on Entebbe to rescue a planeload of hostages, which succeeded. However, it still left one person behind, had one rescuer KIA and basically everybody knew about it and who did it within 24 hours.

Of course, I could be stupid, blind and ignorant and maybe all those movie magical toys do exist and there is some super-secret organization that kills all its members who might leak any information about its operations when they come back.

You believe that? Well, then look at the book just released on the takedown of Osama bin Laden. That is my exhibit No. 1.

Conspiracies: Tactics versus logistics

9/11 Truthers
I have been having an interesting discussion with another of my progressive friends out west. This person, methinks, that I am a raving idiot, but I don’t return the favor. I just blame the differences in our world prisms.
The contention, in the above link, is that the three World Trade Center buildings (1,2 and 7) were not brought down by factors related to the impact of the two passenger jets that struck Towers 1 and 2, but a government-caused controlled demolition. While I respect the sincerity of the people in the 90-minute video, I also respectfully disagree.
Why do I have a problem with their argument? Well, it goes back to something you are taught in the military, especially if your career lasts long enough:
Amateurs talk/think/are concerned with tactics, while professionals talk/think/are concerned with logistics.
In short, you can have the best tactics and equipment in the world, but if you don’t have the logistics to get them to where you need them to be utilized and the ability to support them, then they are useless.
So, you can argue all day long about “how” the World Trade Center buildings actually collapsed and, in the end, you will basically have an argument about the tactics (physics) of how the buildings came down.
The question then has to revolve around how those physics came into play and, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, that is where if you rule everything else out, then even the most improbable of answer comes into play … which usually is the simplest or Occam’s Razor solution.
Note, while I respect the points made in the video, I am reminded that not all evidence is equal … and often, in science, you find what you are looking for, not for what is there. They make that point about the “official” and “unofficial” reports that support the hypothesis that the planes (and their hijackers) ultimately were responsible for the structural failures.
The problem I have with all government/military conspiracies is that they depend on absolute secrecy and the integrity of that secrecy. I am sorry, but that never happens, at least not when you are dealing with more than one human being.
So, to assume the people in the video are correct:

1. First you have to have someone who has the skills, capabilities and resources to achieve the objective. Obviously, this is not something you can pull off on the spur of the moment. It takes considerable planning and preparations. Note that even Al Qaeda took years to get their people trained and into place. So, you are talking about years for someone or some organization, resources (money) and foresight to train the operatives who were to place the exotic explosives along with appropriate control devices, as well as have someone develop the exotic explosives and control devices. This type of training would be impossible to keep secret. These types of explosives and control devices also would be very difficult to keep secret.
2. Second, you would have to find a way to model what you wanted done, and then apply that modeling to the structures involved. That, the demolition expert would tell you, is not done on the drop of a hat, but takes considerable time to develop the optimum method to achieve the objective. So, what you are talking about is a group of people who can go unobserved, basically, for several months – if not years – in the three buildings preparing the explosives for their eventual use. Is this possible? Theoretically, possibly; practically, no. Somebody not involved in the effort is going to notice something that should not be there.
3. Third, you would have to arrange a suitable “cover” to give an alternate explanation to the event … otherwise, you are leaving a trail that leads back to you. That would mean, in this case, that the hijackings had to have been government-inspired/controlled. Are you serious? The US government? The one that routinely can’t find its left hand with its right, much less has any clue what it is doing. Even the best of the best, like Seal Team Six and the 160^th Aviation Regiment (Special Operations), have things go wrong – big time wrong. Witness the “oops” with the helicopter left in Pakistan when ST6 people assassinated Osama Bin Laden.

Assuming all that is correct, then exactly what would be the motive? Invading Afghanistan? Get real. Invading Iraq? No one seriously thought Iraq was involved in 9-11. (Yes, Saddam was busy helping all sorts of terrorists, just not the ones involved in 9-11) Helping Halliburton? Give me a break. Ok, helping the military/industrial complex? Hello, ever heard of herding cats? Defense contractors are very much like cats; they are out for themselves and not the industry.
So, to believe the 9-11 Truthers (like the Birthers),  you have to suspend all the disbelief about what is accomplishable logistically, and accept their view that what happened tactically is the only possible explanation.
Now, I am not saying I am an expert on anything (although I was trained how to use explosives and how they are made and what they are made of), it just seems to beggar belief to accept the dogma of the Truthers. For, no matter how or what caused the buildings to collapse, you have to answer the questions of who did it, how they did it and why they did it. This is not just an intellectual exercise of what if. Just saying, but it couldn’t have happened that way, doesn’t wash. Not when there are competing theories out there. You have to answer the total package.
Unfortunately, their explanation doesn’t. The various reports pointing to 19 terrorists hijacking aircraft being the proximate cause does. It may seem improbable, but the others have to be ruled out due to lack of evidence to support the entire package.
 

May be life yet in the War Powers Act

President sends letter to Congress

Hallelujah! President Obama this week sent a letter to Congress, as required by the 1970s War Powers Act, to inform it that he had dispatched troops to Libya who might face combat.

The President at least is observing the letter of the law this time. Last year, when U.S. Special Operations troops were on the ground in Libya and in planes either over or near the embattled country, he thought it was not necessary to follow the law.

Of course, given the nature of the current crisis in the Muslim world, he probably should crank up the copy machine and just change the country to announce where he is sending the next group of Marines, since another two such fleet security teams reportedly have been dispatched to different embassies.

It might be that it is election season, but I am glad to see the President at least telling Congress what is going on. Now, if his administration would be a little more open about what happened in Libya, and other countries where U.S. embassies have been under siege. Hiding behind the supposed FBI investigation into the deaths illustrates a law-enforcement mindset and not a combat mindset. That, unfortunately, is unfortunate because it seems to ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists have declared global war on America.

Too bad Congress can’t just declare war on the Islamic terrorists, only they don’t have a state, per se; they don’t have a government; they don’t really claim sovereign control over any land. They do, however, have a flag … I wonder if that is enough?

Anyway, kudos to President Obama. You did the right thing.

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.

Shades of the missiles of October

Iran will strike US if Israel attacks
Iran to send warships to US coasts
Ok, this is how the Big Boys play their silly games.
Big Boy 1: If you don’t do what I want, I will bomb you.
Big Boy 2: You won’t bomb me, but if someone else you are buddy-buddy with does, then I will bomb you. Oh, and by the way, that buddy-buddy, we are arming and financing groups who hope to blow them off the map, which, come to think of it, is just a good idea. Another thing, you know your fleet, which has been sitting off our coast for years … well, we are going to send our own to sit off your coast.
If you think this is about Iran … well, you would be partly correct. It also is pretty much what happened 50 years ago that literally brought the world to the brink of nuclear war and it could have happened if the two sides didn’t blink. Scary isn’t it.
Well, in this case, Iran sees itself as the U.S. under John Kennedy and the U.S. playing the role of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev, with Israel playing the role of Cuba.
In October of 1962, the world held its breath while the U.S. and the Soviet Union stared down the barrels of their nuclear-armed missiles over the Soviet Union’s installation of nuclear-tipped rockets in Cuba that could reach about a third of the United States.
Cuban Missile Crisis
Now, there are some similarities, but I really think it only is in the mind of the Iranians.
First, the U.S. has not installed its missiles in Israel. I think sometimes much to our chagrin; Israel has developed its own missiles and its own warheads (something Mr. Castro never did).
Of course, Cuba was concerned that the big, bad U.S. was going to try again to overthrow his regime (it botched the first try, which it usually does, it seems). Israel has put up with the Iranian regime trying to overthrow (actually see the entire state and its people eliminated) its government for more than three decades. Iran has spent a lot of money on the project and done a wonderful job arming its proxies with a lot of rockets and mortars and other stuff that goes bang and boom.
Second, like it or not, the U.S. (sort of by default) is like the enforcement arm of the United Nations. It is (whether the Iranians or the American people like it), unfortunately, looked to as the world’s constable. You might not agree with this assessment, but it is what the U.S. was doing in Korea, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, for many years, what we now know as the “Korean War” (1950-1953) wasn’t called a “war.” It was called a “police action” or “conflict.” Again, most of the world is waiting for the U.S. to do something, like it did with Libya last year, with Syria.
Now, the problem for the Iranians is similar to that problem that faced the regime of Saddam Hussein 10 years ago: They have a severe credibility gap. Whether you believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or not, Iraqi deceptions and actions did not really lend credence to their denials. Such is the case now for the Iranian government.
Whether or not you think the Iranians plan to build one or more nuclear devices and possibly use them on Israel, their denials do seem to lack a certain amount of credibility. In other words, they say one thing, but a lot of the available evidence indicates that they are doing something else.
Now, I don’t blame the Iranians for building nuclear weapons. It makes perfect sense in many ways, especially if you are trying to recapture a world role from 2,500 years ago. For many reasons – religious, economic, ideological – the Iranians want to be treated and looked at as THE Big Kid on their block. Their neighbors are not so sure that is what they want and a lot of the world would rather the nuclear genie stays in its bottle and not spread to any more.
So, where will all this go? Haven’t a clue. Israel may decide that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is too great to its survival and bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. The U.S. will probably try to jawbone Israel into not doing it, but in the end, that decision will be Israel’s.
Of course, the U.S. may end up playing cop and bop the Iranians itself. But that will take an awful lot of prompting from other world actors and continuation of Iranian saber-rattling. Unfortunately, the rattling of sabers to get attention is a time honored practice among humans, and it usually gets out of hand.
So, unfortunately, I suspect that the situation with Iran will get infinitely worse before it gets better. A lot of people probably will die and a lot of property will be destroyed. Why? Because competing self-interests could not be resolved any other way.

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.

Applying the law equally

Judge strikes down Ohio early voting law

Ok, I hope I got this correctly.

The legislature of State of Ohio standardized its early voting procedures. Before that the people wanting to vote early had to check with their local county board of elections (all 88 of them) which had different hours on different days. However, it seems, they could vote on the Saturday, Sunday and Monday prior to the election (even if hours on Saturday and Sunday were reduced in some counties but not in others). The new legislation cut off early voting on the Friday before election Tuesday so that local election boards would have time to prepare for Tuesday.

However, the legislation allowed an exemption for those serving in the military or coming back from overseas, to vote on Monday (it is unclear whether the local boards had to be open on Saturday and Sunday). The judge ruled that exemption was unconstitutional infringement on the privilege for those not covered by the exemption and that if early voting was extended to the serving military and/or people returning from overseas to vote on Monday, then everyone should have until Monday.

Ok, I can buy that or, an alternative interpretation could be that those who could have voted until Monday now have to vote by Friday. I admit, I am not a legal beagle but it would seem to me that with the exemption struck down, then early voting for the majority would be the time that stands. But then, what the heck, it is just a law right? We can ignore those we don’t like.

Anyway, it seems everybody gets until Monday to vote in Ohio … that is if they don’t want to vote on Tuesday, which is Election Day, but we want people not to have to inconvenience themselves on Tuesday. It might discourage participation in the election. They might have to stand in a line.

Anyway, my sympathies to the county election officials and I just hope they have their ducks in a row.

We band of brothers

Capt. Wales' support network
The United Kingdom’s Prince Harry probably already knows he is not a normal human being, but he needs to work on it a bit.
Still, from a trooper standpoint, Capt. Harry Wales has burnished his credentials a bit: He is a trooper in more ways than one. Not only is he a qualified armor officer, but now – like his big brother – is a qualified helicopter pilot (although one with Cavalry spurs of an AH-64 pilot). I will say this for the Wales brothers; they seem to be good leaders and good flyers.
Now, for Capt. Wales’ little dustup in Las Vegas: What was it they say about Vegas – “What plays in Vegas, stays in Vegas” – well, in this case (as in most actually) it doesn’t.
Ok, he is a single 28-year-old Army officer with lots of money to spend. You expect him to act like monk or something? However, being humanly rowdy, his fellow troopers can appreciate his hijinks and his hijinks are something of a tradition in the British army.
One of my favorite authors, John Masters, was a former British brigade commander who rose up in the Gurkha regiments during the late stages of the British Raj in India and during World War II. Read any of his books on British army life, or his autobiography, and you will find such hijinks sprinkled throughout the life in a British officers’ mess (off duty time). It seems it is part of the ritual.
Given the type of life soldiers live, such reaffirmations of being alive take on a special meaning that is difficult, if not impossible, to explain to people who haven’t “been there.” However, to those who have, then they know a solidarity that makes soldiers (of all uniforms) truly a band of brothers. Prince Harry has expanded his “band” to encompass a multitude and I have no doubt that were he to lead a charge, there would be many followers.
In a sense, that is what leadership is all about. Making contact with your followers and getting them to identify with you enough that they will follow you into Hell and back.
(Of course, I wouldn’t recommend such hijinks in today’s environment of cellphone cameras and the internet. Too many people just won’t understand when it inevitably gets out.)
Shakespeare put it best in Henry the Fifth (You know Harry is another version of Henry):
Henry V's Crispen Day Speech
“But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.”

MAN THE BARRICADES! The minions are planning to overthrow us.

Military terror plot uncovered

When I first read the headline on this story about four soldiers, I thought: My goodness, who in the Army has gone off the deep end this time?

Then I read it was about three privates and a sergeant and I broke out in giggles. Obviously the folks who were putting that story out with all sorts of fears of a military coup in the US have little if no knowledge of the military. You might take a sergeant and three-member work deal and get a job done like moving something or cleaning a vehicle, but overthrow the nation? Somebody needs a reality check.

So they spent $87,000 buying arms and equipment. So what? Apparently they got the money from an insurance policy on someone they killed. Like that has never happened before?

I guess what gets me is some people go into hyperdrive anytime anybody in uniform does something wacko. Now, I know it is pretty much de rigor that Americans are distrustful of a large standing Army. It has been that way since the founding of the republic. Even now, the size of our military, in proportion to our population, is approaching the smallest it has been in three-quarters of a century and probably is fixing to get even smaller. But soldiers are humans too and the country of 300 million-plus can send some pretty strange people to serve.

Still, three privates and a sergeant? A great military coup that is going to make. The blind leading the blind is more like it.

An E-5 sergeant basically is the first rung on the non-commissioned officer ladder, while E-3 privates first class are the basic cannon-fodder of any army. We are not really talking about highly trained or highly skilled and educated soldiers here. We are talking about soldiers who have mastered the basic fundamentals of the art of war, mostly from a tactical perspective and definitely not from either the strategic or logistical perspectives.

Now, if it had a O-6 or two, then it might have been a little threat, but if you want real threat, then the people involved have to be flag officers (O-7 and above). They know where all the keys are hidden.

Mounting a military overthrow of the nation, while maybe a soaring dream to some people, is an exercise that would take a lot more planning and effort to pull off than you are going to find in four snuffies.

The whole affair made me think of John Brown’s raid on the federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry in 1859. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, John Brown, a raving abolitionist (against slavery person), took about 20 people and seized the arsenal (which made rifles and such) on the Maryland-Virginia border (it is now in West Virginia, but that is another story) with the hope of sparking an uprising among slaves in the area. The raid lasted long enough for a bunch of troops, under a colonel by the name of Robert E. Lee, to make the trip from Washington, D.C., to Harpers Ferry and storm the arsenal. In less than 5 minutes the raid was over.

Harpers Ferry raid

Mister Brown was hanged and two years later, the Civil War started to decide the issue of whether, as Mister Lincoln said, to determine whether the nation could live half free and half slave.

If these snuffies really had tried to do anything, it would have taken maybe a squad (10-men) of MPs to break it up.

The sad thing is that stories like this reflect a propaganda that tarnishes the actual professionalism, honor and courage that really imbues today’s American military. These four yahoos will get what they deserve, if not in civilian court, then in military court after the civilians get through with them.

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.

Disturbing defense trends

I am not linked in as well as I once was to things that are happening the Army, but I do try to follow as best I can. I recently was trying to catch up on the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the young intelligence specialist who is to stand trial for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified (if nothing other the FOUO/NFD (For Official Use Only/No Foreign Dissemination) but much classified (which is the next step up) and secret) documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State, and I noticed something that I thought was disturbing about issues that the defense had raised.
Note, I also heard a similar defense argument that Maj. Hassan, the accused killer of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood a while back.
The defense argument in each case is that it is the Army’s fault that the soldier involved did whatever they did which has them facing charges because the Army failed to take preventative actions against the individuals. In other words, the Army should have known these guys were bad eggs, and weeded them out of the basket before they could do any harm. These people are not responsible for their actions, the Army is.
Time out! Does this logic not bother anybody else? It bothers the heck out of me.
You take adults (these people are adults, you know, not little children) who are supposedly responsible individuals, or at least aware what is expected of them, and you are trying to say that they are not because the Army didn’t stop them. Whoa! As the old saying goes, that dog won’t hunt.
Sorry, I don’t care what issues these individuals may have had in their personal lives, it doesn’t excuse conduct contrary to the Universal Code of Military Justice. Unfortunately, in this day and age, few people understand what goes into being a service member and have even far less understanding of the UCMJ. I admit, I am not an expert on the UCMJ, not even enough to be considered a barracks lawyer, but I know enough what usually right and what is wrong in the way of military behavior. I also know that the “well, everybody else does it” defense doesn’t fly, in the military as well as in civilian life.
From what PFC Manning’s attorneys say, it is pretty obvious that a) he downloaded inappropriate material (regardless of whether or not he should have access or not) and b) he gave that information to a foreign national without authorization.
Why he did it really doesn’t matter. I know that will offend some people who think that if you think you are in the right, then there are no laws that cannot be broken. Or those who think that just because you disagree with what somebody else is doing, it is ok to publicize information that will possibly damage the institution, if not those you disagree with. That is a whole bunch of bovine scatology.
What if I think my employer, let’s say a software company that makes games, panders to views or values that I think are wrong. They don’t have to be illegal, necessarily, just things that I think are wrong. Does that give me the right to dump all the source code for all their software out on the internet plus all the bosses’ e-mails that discuss strategy against the competition? Do you not think the company would have the right to fire that me, sue me for everything I have and, if possible, file criminal charges against me for breach of contract and theft of property … basically throw the book at me?
If you don’t think the company has that right … please pull your head out of your derriere.
Essentially, what PFC Manning did is the equivalent or so would any legal bumpkin who had any smarts know that.
So, we plead that it is the company’s fault, because they shouldn’t have let me have access to any of the crap because of my personal problems (I was going through a mid-life – ok a senior-moment – crisis). Just because he allegedly had “gender identity” problems does not absolve him of his culpability for his actions. I am sorry, but that defense doesn’t fly.
Ok, he didn’t like what the government did, or how it did it … when you wear the uniform, you basically have surrendered your right publically express dissent. Sorry, but that is the way things are. In the polling station’s privacy, you can express your political views, otherwise, sorry, but it is prohibited by law and regulation. I hope all of you see the value in having an apolitical military (even if most members adhere to more conservative values) responsive to civilian authorities, rather than having a politically active military that ignores civilian authorities when it comes to domestic policy.
I think it is sad that the legal system grinds so slowly, but like everything else bureaucratic, it does. And it is unfortunately that PFC Manning is the person that he is, and that those who support him are the way they are.
Sorry, but solitary confinement is not torture. Sorry, but it is not.
When you are considered a suicide risk, yes, certain procedures are taken to make sure you can’t create an opportunity to hurt yourself. Sorry, but that has to be done.
Lastly, while you have many rights, all those rights you think you have as a civilian? Well, when you swear that oath when you enter military service, you basically surrender most of them. You no longer are in a democratic republican society, but a military one. Military society is different. In today’s world, you are not forced to join this society; you volunteer. You are not a child when you volunteer, but an adult and you must assume adult responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is understanding that you probably won’t get to do what you want to do most of the time and, in fact, you probably will dislike what you are asked to do a big part of the time. Get over it, it is part of the job.
Based on the information that is in the public domain, PFC Manning is nobody’s hero. He really isn’t a decent whistleblower as a good part of the information that he dumped out on the internet could be obvious to most rational people, but it didn’t help to throw it in people’s faces. That hurt and possibly cost some people their lives. We will never know.
Still, he acted like he didn’t care what happened to his fellow soldiers, to those who serve the nation. I am sorry, but that attitude, when in uniform, will get you jail, if not shot (and not by the official system).
Mister Assange of WikiLeaks can huff and puff all he wants (because it makes him feel good and powerful), but PFC Manning should face the full measure of the consequences for his breaking faith with those who served with in uniform.