This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Hondo

  • Not A Good Week in the ‘Stan

    Fox News is reporting yet another Green on Blue incident in Afghanistan, this time in Helmand province.  Three US troops are reported dead at the hands of an individual wearing an ANA uniform.  The individual was reportedly “helping” US forces train local police.

    This is the third green-on-blue incident reported this week.  The article gives no indication whether or not the US troops were in possession of their weapons at the time of the incident.  However, the shooter apparently did escape.

    The Taliban has predictably claimed responsibility, and further claims that the killer joined the insurgency “after the attack”.  Believe that last point if you want; I’m not sure I do.  I’m guessing there’s a good chance the Taliban is telling a half-truth and that he may have been a Taliban plant all along.

    The incident is reportedly under investigation, and further details were not available.

    I’m glad I’m not at Bagram AB this week.  Standing at attention, saluting, alongside Disney Avenue during 3 different Fallen Comrade ceremonies in the same week would be kinda tough.

    And I don’t even want to think about what their unit comrades, friends, and families are going through right now.

    May the dead rest in peace, and may God comfort the bereaved comrades, friends, and  families of the fallen.

     

    Edited by the author to add information that should have been obvious, but in the pre-6AM hour when this was written unfortunately was omitted  – and shouldn’t have been.  Unit comrades, friends, and families obviously are hit harder by something like this than anyone else.  My apologies for failing to emphasize that initially.

  • If You Doubted That the UN Was Useless . . .

    . . . then you might want to read this article.

    Yeah, that’s the same Sudan whose president has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for “crimes against humanity” for genocide in Darfur. But the UN apparently has no problem with giving them a seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

    And we  (the US taxpayer)  pick up 22% of the cost of the UN’s everyday budget and 27% of the cost of UN peacekeeping operations.  “Your tax dollars at work.”

    Maybe those John Birch Society billboards about the UN from the 1960s were right after all. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

  • MDA Gets New Director, Apparently For Good Reason

    Rank has its privileges. To an extent, that’s as it should be.

    But sometimes, those in high positions abuse their positions and their authority. To me, it’s particularly galling when they do so through abusing their subordinates. And as the case of our recent Johnson of an adulterous former Brigade Commander shows, sometimes they get away with being abusive for a while before getting nailed for other reasons.

    However, every once and a while an abusive senior leader gets fired simply for being an asshole. And it seems that’s happened at MDA.

    The SECDEF has announced that LTG Patrick O’Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, is being replaced and will retire. His replacement will be RADM James D. Syring, who has also been nominated for promotion to Vice Admiral.

    Apparently LTG O’Reily was a . . . real piece of work. According to a recent DoD IG Report, LTG O’Reily reportedly “engaged in a leadership style that was inconsistent with standards of senior Army leaders and a violation of military [ethics] regulations.” Examples given were

    • yelled at subordinates in public and private
    • demeaning and belittling employees
    • behaved so poorly that six employees quit
    • loudly attacking senior staff members on a personal rather than professional level
    • telling a senior official over the phone, “If I could get my hands through the phone right now, I’d choke your f—-ing throat.”

    Really classy behavior, general.

    Yeah, I understand that individual leadership styles vary.  Yeah, I understand that a leader sometimes has to be an asshole towards a few who just don’t “get it”.  And yeah – I understand the need to “kick ass and take names” sometimes, even at very senior levels.

    But there’s a right – and a wrong – way to do that. And attacking subordinates publicly, on a personal level, ain’t the right way to do it. What I learned was “praise in public; chew ass in private; and don’t get personal.”  It sounds to me like O’Reily was rather out of control.  IMO, the Army probably did the right thing in “encouraging” O’Reily to retire – now.

    Obviously the DoD IG – and senior DoD leadership – agrees.

    Maybe O’Reily “caught the PTSD” worrying about how that next BMD test would turn out. If so, maybe the VA can get him into an anger management class or two during his retirement.

  • This Is A “Good Deal”?

    According to one our resident TAH liberals (yes, I’m talking about you, insipid), Social Security is a “good deal”.

    Well, I guess everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But if it’s such a good deal, someone needs to explain to me precisely why. Especially now that workers retiring today and earning average lifetime income levels– both single retirees and dual-wage earner couples – are now projected to get less in benefits than they’ve paid in Social Security taxes during their working lifetimes.

    No, I’m not kidding.

  • More Predictable Sensationalism from the Media

    We all know the media lives on sensationalism. But the willingness of the media to manufacture the sensational out of nothing is sometimes breathtaking.

    Take this article from the LA Times. Here, the headline breathlessly reads “Sikh temple shooting: Gunman had been on investigators’ radar”. The article goes on to begin

    Federal investigators had “looked at” Sikh temple gunman Wade Michael Page more than once because of his associations with right-wing extremists and the possibility that he was providing funding to a domestic terrorist group, but law enforcement officials at the time determined there was not enough evidence of a crime to open an investigation, a senior U.S. law enforcement official said.

    The implication is obvious: Federal law enforcement knew about the guy and should have been investigating him as a domestic terrorist. If they had, they might have prevented this tragic incident.

    However, later in the article a rather key fact comes out.

    But the FBI is prohibited under federal law from collecting information on U.S. citizens not suspected of committing a crime. In order to open a domestic terrorism investigation, FBI agents must believe a suspect has threatened violence, has broken federal law and is trying to advance a political or social agenda.

    So, the media states that federal law enforcement knew about the guy, thus implying authorities could (and should) have prevented the crime. But they later admit that federal law prohibits federal law enforcement from collecting information on US citizens who aren’t criminal suspects. And the guy, while apparently a racist idiot, hadn’t done enough to warrant suspicion of a crime – and thus an investigation.

    Great journalistic work, LA Times. Imply one thing in the lead-in, then undercut your own implications later in the same article. Sheesh.

    If the LA Times has a problem with the underlying law that bars federal US law enforcement collection of info on US citizens who aren’t suspects, they need to state that fact. But that is also tantamount to sanctioning a police state.

    Gee, ya think that maybe that’s why the LA Times didn’t “go there”?

    And if you don’t want to “go there”, LA Times – don’t castigate law enforcement for obeying the law. That’s rank hypocrisy.

  • Tell Me Again Why We Should Support the Syrian Opposition . . .

    . . . when some of the major players are our enemies?

    Why do I say that? The Muslim Brotherhood has apparently set up shop there and raised a militia to fight against the Assad regime. They aren’t exactly friends to the West or western culture. And al Qaeda is apparently also there working behind the scenes with the Syrian opposition. I just don’t get it.

    And if the way Libya and Egypt have turned out are any indication, apparently neither does the Obama administration.

  • This Doesn’t Surprise Me One Bit

    Recent reporting indicates that there likely was an attempt to stop the Aurora gunman during his murderous rampage. Unfortunately, as we all know that attempt wasn’t successful.

    It’s being reported that Jonathan Blunt – a Navy veteran with 3 tours in the Middle East between 2004 and 2009 – apparently tried to stop the gunman during his rampage. He died in the attempt.

    Well done, Sailor. You did your duty, even though you were not currently serving. Rest now in peace.

    I only wish you’d been armed. If so, maybe you – and several others – might have lived to see another day.

  • Let’s See What our Liberal Brethren Say About This One

    Seems as if even the MSM must be closet racists.

    Apparently NBC is in a bit of hot water. Recently, they ran an ad featuring a monkey performing gymnastics. They ran it four times.

    Usually, that would be perceived as just an attempt at humor in a TV ad. However, in this case NBC rant the ad in question for the 4th time immediately after Gabby Douglas won the Olympic Gold Medal in women’s all-around gymnastics.

    Gabby Douglas is of African-American decent. Oops.

    NBC has since apologized, saying that “no offense was intended” and stating the timing was a mere unfortunate coincidence. Frankly, IMO that’s probably exactly the truth.

    But I’m curious as to whether our liberal readers here at TAH are going to buy that. After all they seem to have castigated some of the authors here for doing the same – if not for far less.

    What about it, insipid? Joe? Knees2TheBreeze? Does this prove that NBC is a racist organization? Or was this just an unfortunate coincidence – e.g., and unfortunate choice of ads at precisely the wrong time – that should be ignored?

    And if you’re going to say the latter – the explain why authors here don’t get the same consideration from you. It wouldn’t be because you’re being hypocritical, would it?