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

Author: Hondo

  • This Had to Be Kinda Embarrassing . . . .

    Dunno if everyone caught this, but apparently late last week the crew of an ANG C17 made a minor error.

    Well, maybe “minor error” is a slight understatement. The error consisted of landing on a 3,500’ runway at an airport on an island near Tampa vice the 11,000’ runway at MacDill AFB a few miles away.

    I’m guessing that landing certainly made for a high APF day for those onboard.

    There was no crash, and the aircraft was apparently not seriously damaged. It was later able – after removing cargo and pax – to fly out and return to operational use.

    Kudos to the pilot for managing to land safely on a very short runway. But I’m guessing he or she has a bit of explaining to do. And I’m also guessing his/her career prospects may well have taken a rather sharp downturn, at least in the short-term.

    Predictably, the incident has generated a bit of discussion.  I’m no aviator, so I’ll pose my questions here:

    • Just how bad of a screw-up was this?
    • Do the pilot/co-pilot need to start working on their resumes and/or making plans on how to use their GI-bill to get education/training in a different career field?
    • Has this incident killed their chances of getting post-service employment in the commercial aviation industry?

  • Dallas Wittgenfeld – A Recap

    There’s been a lot of rambling and invective on the recent Wittgenfeld threads at TAH (here and here).  As a result, it’s been easy to lose track of precisely what claims our “friend” Wittgenfeld actually has and has not made – and which of those claims are valid.  Since he’s now entered in the Ballduster McSoulpatch Memorial Stolen Valor Tournament, it’s probably best to have that info immediately available.  So I thought I’d take a shot at summarizing Wittgenfeld’s claims and their status.

    If anyone finds what they feel to be an error in the information below, please let me know and I’ll correct it – provided I agree, of course.  (And if you’re reading this, Wittgenfeld, the only way I’ll accept corrections from you is if they’re accompanied with paperwork you haven’t provided previously.  Like a copy of your CIB orders, for example.)

    The Legitimate Claims

    1.  Wittgenfeld claims to have served on active duty with the US Army.  That claim is backed by his DD214 and his FOIA report.  He served on active duty from Sep 1968 to July 1972.

    2.  He claims to be a Vietnam Veteran.   This claim appears valid.  Per the assignments section of his FOIA report, he served in-country from Aug 1969 to Aug 1970.

    3.  Wittgenfeld claims to have seen combat in Vietnam.  This claim appears accurate.  Per the assignments section of his FOIA report, Wittgenfeld saw combat in Vietnam with 2 different units.  The first was D Co 151st Inf (Ranger) – which was reflagged D Co 75th  Inf (Ranger) while Wittgenfeld was assigned to the unit (Aug 1969 to Apr 1970).  The second was HQ 2nd  Field Force Vietnam (HQ II FFORCEV) from Apr 1970 to Aug 1970.

    4.  Wittgenfeld claims to have an Air Medal for his service in Vietnam.  This claim appears accurate.  He was awarded one Air Medal, NOT for Valor, while assigned to HQ II FFORCEV.  (The orders for this Air Medal have been removed from their former location on-line.  However, I personally reviewed these orders prior to their removal from their former location on-line; they appeared legitimate.  I will attempt to coordinate with the owner of the site where they were formerly posted to have them re-posted.)

    5.  Wittgenfeld claims he has two Purple Hearts.  This claim appears accurate.  He was awarded  two Purple Hearts while assigned to HQ II FFORCEV.

    6.  Wittgenfeld claims to have been awarded the Army Commendation Medal with V Device (ARCOM w/V).  That claim appears accurate.  Per his DD214 and FOIA Report, he was awarded the ARCOM w/V, apparently while assigned to D Co 151st Inf (Ranger).

    7.  Wittgenfeld claims to be Airborne.  That claim appears accurate.  Per his DD214 and FOIA report, Wittgenfeld is Airborne qualified.

    8.  Wittgenfeld claims to have been a drill instructor.  That claim appears accurate.  After his return from Vietnam, per the assignments section of his FOIA report he served as a Drill Instructor (Oct 1970 – Jul 1972).

    9.  Per his DD214, Wittgenfeld received an honorable discharge.

    10.  Based on new information brought to my attention on 9 October 2012, it appears that Wittgenfeld’s CIB is legitimate as opposed to questionable.  Apparently US Army Vietnam (USARV) –  in an exception to Department of the Army regulation and policy of the day – authorized 05B RTOs serving with infantry units whose primary duties were to accompany infantry units on tactical operations to be awarded the CIB.  While I have not yet personally located and verified the full text of the USARV exception, the exception is unambiguously referenced in a decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  The ABCMR doesn’t tend to get things wrong.

    OK, so much for the “good”.  Now for the “bad” and the “ugly”.  And, finally, my attempt to make sense of it all.

    (more…)

  • C’Mon, Army Times – At Least Get the Headline Right!

    As Reagan might have said: “There they (the media) go again.”

    Army Times recently had a headline that, to be blunt, appears to be BS. And it appears to be BS due to either slipshod reporting or a deliberate decision to misrepresent reality.

    The headline claims that extra costs associated with Pakistan’s closing the normal supply routes for Afghanistan last November are over $2 billion. However, that figure is not supported by the information in that article itself.

    The figure was apparently obtained by adding additional Army costs for higher than projected fuel prices AND the closure of the Pakistani supply lines to Afghanistan ($1.7B), plus additional USAF costs for airlift ($0.369B) and C17 engine maintenance ($0.137B).  The article doesn’t identify any additional Navy costs, or any others for the Army and USAF, that are associated with  Pakistan closing the Afghan supply lines.

    These three items total $2.206B – which is pretty close to the figure given in the headline.  I’d guess that’s where the number came from, and that someone didn’t add correctly and got $2.1B instead.

    However, not all of these increased costs are due to the Pakistani supply line closure.  The Army buys one helluva lot of fuel; it uses a lot of that fuel in places outside of Afghanistan.  And as I recall, fuel costs spiked worldwide recently – to nearly $4/gallon in the US – which I’m sure was far more than originally projected.  The closure of the supply lines in Pakistan had nothing to do with that part of the Army’s increased costs included above.  And the USAF clearly states that only part of their costs for additional airlift and C17 maintenance are due to the supply line closure.  Calling all of those cost increases the result of closing those Pakistani supply lines is therefore bogus.

    Bottom line:  very shoddy work, Army Times.  I have little doubt that Pannetta’s estimate of an extra cost of $100M/month last month was low.  But based on what’s presented in the article, your estimate doesn’t appear to be any more accurate.

  • Remembering Iran . . . .

    On the day we celebrate our freedom, perhaps it’s apropos to remember just how fleeting freedom can be.

    A recent news headline indicates “concern democracy will be fleeting in Egypt” after the recent takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood.  IMO, there is damn good reason to be concerned.

    Many TAH readers might be too young to remember the details – but the Iranian Revolution did not begin with the pro-American Shah leaving Iran in early 1979 and Khomeini’s subsequent return.  Rather, the Iranian Revolution derived from what had been an “under the radar” anti-Western Islamist opposition movement for years – a movement which objected to the Shah’s modernization efforts as being “against Islam”.  In Khomeini, it had a charismatic (if exiled) leader, and also had democratic allies within Iranian society. In late 1978, those directing the Iranian Revolution made a play for power by disrupting Iran’s society through public demonstrations. The attempt was successful, and the Shah was forced to depart. Khomeini then returned.

    However, the Iranian Revolution did not immediately install Khomeini as a theocratic dictator on his return to Iran.  The Iranian military at first opposed giving Khomeini and his allies political control of Iran.  After a brief struggle the Iranian military relented, and an interim government was formed.  Elections were soon held and a regime led by democracy advocate Mehdi Bazargani was installed.  Hardline Khomeini supporters subsequently isolated Bazargani, neutralized him politically, and then systematically eliminated all non-radical elements from the “Revolution”.  Within a few months, they’d succeeded – and had also pushed through a new constitution making Iran effectively a theocracy.

    We’re still feeling the effects 33 years later.

    Fast forward 33 years.  In Egypt, we’ve seen a long-term, anti-Western Islamist opposition movement – the Muslim Brotherhood – oppose a pro-American government for years. The Muslim Brotherhood finally took to the streets and forced a longstanding US ally from power.  The Egyptian military at first opposed giving control to the Islamists.  However, after a brief period of unsettled violence, an interim government was formed. Elections were held; and the Muslim Brotherhood has now been elected elected to lead the Egyptian government.  It is now in the process of installing it’s own leadership as the Egyptian government. And that leadership is also calling for the return of the charismatic mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, Omar Abdel Rahman – who is currently in a US prison for that crime.

    I swear I’ve seen this film before.  And in terms of the United States’ interests and national security, it kinda sucked the first time around.

  • Fair Winds and “Green” Seas . . . .

    Remember that $26.75-per-gallon “green” biofuel that the Navy was talking about using a few months ago? Well, don’t worry – the Navy got a price break on the stuff.  It won’t cost that much.

    It’s now going for “only” $26-per-gallon.  And that’s good, because the Navy just announced it will soon use a bunch of it.

    Per published accounts, this month the Navy will send 5 ships to participate in a multinational exercise off the coast of Hawaii. They will be fueled, at least in part, by the stuff. Ain’t progress wonderful?

    By comparison, standard petroleum fuels of the same type are going for about $3.60 a gallon.  The new fuel therefore “only” costs about 722% as much as the fuel it replaces. (No, I didn’t miss a decimal point there – it actually does cost more than 7 times as much as standard ship fuel.)

    But I guess cost doesn’t matter that much when you’re spending someone else’s money. And just think – you’re also helping to save the planet! Even though the new “green” fuel produces just as much in terms of greenhouse gases as the fuel it replaces – plus whatever was necessary to generate the energy used to produce the stuff from “seeds, algae, and chicken fat”.

    No, I’m not making this sh*t up.

  • Nice Shooting, Marines

    The Marine Corps Times has an article concerning a recent USMC single round precision artillery kill at 36 kilometers. Impressive.

    Precision guided munitions from artillery aren’t that new.  But this one shows that artillery is now close to being able to engage point targets.  Some would say this proves it’s already there.

    Per the article, the round used – the M982 Excalibur – was declared the Army invention of the year 5 years ago while still in development.  Looks like that might have been a good call.

    It can be used safely less than 500′ from friendly forces. I can definitely see how being able to drop a single precision round on a dug-in enemy 150m away could come in handy.

    The materiel development community gets a lot of heat, much of it deserved.  But it looks like they came through here.

  • Hanson: CIB Revoked, Admin Separation In Process

    Some readers may remember Jonn’s article on CPT (then 1LT) Timothy R. Hanson, who received the CIB in Iraq under circumstances that were later questioned.

    A recap, for those unfamiliar with the story.  On 16 January 2008 Hanson led a small group of soldiers (8 total) into an ambush near Balad, Iraq.  Per later investigation, during that engagement Hanson shot one of his own men, PFC David H. Sharrett.  Hanson left the battlefield via helicopter approximately 40 minutes later with two wounded soldiers.  Hanson was uninjured.

    Though wounded, Sharrett was not recovered until 20+ minutes after Hanson had departed the battlefield.  Sharrett died roughly an hour later.  (Times cited here are from my review of the initial AR 15-6 investigation report and vary slightly from those cited in the article linked above).

    I don’t know why Hanson left the battlefield uninjured before he’d positively accounted for all his men; you’ll have to ask him that question.   I’d certainly like to.

    Hanson’s CIB orders are found here.  They note only a single date vice a period of service.  That indicates that the engagement where Hanson shot Sharrett was either Hanson’s first or only actual ground combat engagement during his deployment to Iraq.  Based on what’s been made public, my guess would be “only” – but I could be wrong.

    It is not my place to pass judgment on Hanson; I wasn’t there, and I haven’t seen all the evidence regarding what happened that day.   I don’t know why or how he shot Sharrett.  In the proverbial “fog of war”, bad things sometimes happen.  Hanson’s shooting one of his own men during the heat of battle appears to be one such case.

    But I simply don’t understand Hanson’s leaving the battlefield, uninjured, before positively accounting for all of his subordinates.  Maybe there was a sound tactical reason for his departure at that point;  maybe not.  I don’t know.  But based on what I’ve seen so far, I certainly can’t see a compelling reason for him to leave at that particular point in time.

    In any case, what I think is irrelevant.  The Army has re-investigated Hanson’s conduct and found it wanting.  While Hanson’s actions that day were apparently not determined criminal, the Army has decided that he did not serve successfully as an Infantry officer in combat.  Hanson’s CIB has been revoked, and he is being processed for administrative elimination from the US Army Reserve.

    DA often gets things wrong.  But IMO, they appear to have finally gotten this one more or less right.

    Sometimes the system works.

     

    Additional Background:

    One of the AR 15-6 investigations into this incident may be found here.  It appears to be the initial investigation.  I found the site to be somewhat unreliable, so you may need to try multiple times before you can download the files and view them.   Be forewarned that the files are scanned as images and are very large – 30 to 45 MB each.  If anyone can locate the later two AR 15-6 investigations online, please advise and I’ll post links to them here as well.

  • Schroeder Indicted

    “The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.”  Looks like Paul A. Schroeder- the bogus former Houston-area PTSD counselor for the PTSD Foundation of America Jonn wrote about here and here – is about to find out the truth of that old saying up close and personal.

    A Federal grand jury indicted Schroeder onThursday, June 29, 2012.  The charge:  falsifying his DD214.  Schroeder faces up to $100,000 in fines and a year in jail.

    No, it’s not a felony.  But it’s still a good start.  And if he’s convicted, it’s a Federal criminal conviction.

    You may no longer get prosecuted for lying in a bar, or to your buddies, about your military record due to the recent SCOTUS decision regarding the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.   But I’d still recommend thinking twice before wearing decorations you don’t rate, or forging a DD214 to support a bogus claim.  Those are still Federal crimes; the laws defining them weren’t affected by the recent SCOTUS decision on the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.

    Ain’t that right, Paulie-boy?