When I joined the Army back in 1991, my original plan was to spend a couple years as an enlisted infantryman and then apply to become an officer. I still believe that’s the right way to serve as an officer; there is not a single officer in the military today who would not have improved with prior enlisted service. So around the two year mark of my enlistment I went down to a Green to Gold briefing at Fort Lewis. For those of you who don’t know, Green to Gold is an Army program that takes enlisted soldiers and puts them on a track to become officers after a period in College. In the briefing, however, they told me I could not qualify for a four year scholarship unless I chose to attend a predominantly black college. At the same time, the Army leadership was offering full four year ROTC scholarships to any 18 year old high school students who wanted one, and with none of the same racist restrictions. After thinking about it overnight, I realized it was all bullshit, and that I wanted nothing to do with the Army, at least as an officer. I realized that the Army leadership was sick and racist, and actively discriminated against enlisted men who wanted to become officers. So I did the rest of my time honorably, got out, and here I am, an incredibly successful part-time blogger who gets to post on this blog when nobody is watching.

Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago, when I went to visit the Army recruiter in Ukiah, CA, in an advisory capacity to a young man — the son of a family friend — who wanted to serve his country as an infantryman. While we were there, I made sure the recruiter explained how the GI bill benefit worked. He also explained that everyone in the Army is eligible for tuition assistance while on active duty, and that the Army is serious about getting its enlisted soldiers time to learn. I thought that was a good thing. It jibed with my own experience of getting to take advantage of a similar program in the early 90’s which paid for classes I took with my unit in between deployments. Thumbs up. But then today, I noticed that the Army and Marine Corps have announced they are going to take away the tuition assistance consideration.

Here’s the thing, though. I’m willing to bet that conversations about Army tuition assisctance benefits between recruiters and future soldiers like the one I witnessed a couple weeks back have been happening for years all across the country, from Ukiah to San Diego to Austin to Boston, and that there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers who signed up, at least in part, based on this tuition assistance consideration. And for each one of these soldiers, there’s probably an influencer like me who — at least in part — made his recommendation to the future soldier based on that consideration as well. The cheap target here is Obama. After all, he chose to prioritize golfing with Tiger Woods and sending $250,000,000 to the Muslim Brotherhood, and flying on Air Force one for date nights with Michelle to New York City and million dollar vacays to Hawaii over putting the money into defense. And he has failed to submit a budget on time for 4 of the last 5 years. And the unserious budgets he has submitted were voted down unanimously by the Senate in each of the last two.

But the real target for blame here is, I think, the Army leadership, specifically those field grade and general officers who, perhaps because so few of them have enlisted military experience, prioritize members of their caste by fucking over enlisted soldiers in favor of, say, fucking over ROTC or West Point cadets.

Now I know what you’re going to say if you’re one of these officers. You’re going to say something to the effect that: “Education isn’t as important for enlisted soldiers as it is for officers.” Or maybe you’re going to say to the private, “Hey Private, you signed on the dotted line and you agreed to everything in your contract including the part which specifically says in subsection b part 4 Section IX that nothing the recruiter promised which is not in the contract is guaranteed so shut the fuck up and do pushups.” Or even better you’re going to blame the victim and say “Oh booh hoo, the recruiter lied to you.” And then you’re going to elbow one of your officer buddies, or perhaps one of your sychophantic senior NCO’s and say “I bet Private Snuffy thinks he’s the first soldier a recruiter ever lied to ha-ha-ha!”

To which I feel obligated to respond on Private Snuffy’s behalf: Fuck you in your fat, bleached asshole.

Interesting piece by Bill Keller, Editor at the New York Times. Money shot:

I was struck by the gratuitous quality of one remark she tossed off during that Rolling Thunder rally in Washington the Sunday before Memorial Day. When an NPR reporter asked what had brought her to the event, she replied, “It is our vets who we owe our freedom — not the politician, not the reporter — it is our vets, so that’s why we’re here.”

There is, I suppose, a gracious way to translate her comments. She might have meant to convey something along the lines of: “I’m sincerely humbled by the sacrifice our veterans have made to defend the freedoms I enjoy in my capacity as a politician and Fox News media pundit.” But I think we all know she meant nothing of the kind.

What Bill Keller doesn’t know is that Mrs. Palin was referencing a powerful poem by Father Dennis O’Brien, USMC:

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer,
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

What Bill Keller also doesn’t know is that former Democrat Zell Miller quoted the poem in his speech during the 2004 Republican National Convention:

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more of the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And our soldiers don’t just see freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home. It has been said truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. [cheers] It is the soldier, not the poet who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.

What Bill Keller doesn’t know, apparently, could fill up an entire op-ed piece. Or a newsroom.

Mmmm… Only one word to properly describe this: Delicious.

You’re entitled to your opinions about what Bradley Manning is accused of having done. Certainly I don’t have a lot of pity for him if he is proven guilty. But via Instapundit comes a link to some other bloggers — primarily lefties, but whatever — who are troubled by how the military is handling his case. I’ve read through them, and did my own research and you know what? They make some pretty good points:

1) Bradley Manning was arrested in May 26th of 2010. He was charged on July 5th with several UCMJ violations and then with 22 additional counts on March 2nd of this year. Since July 29th, 2010, he has been at the brig in Quantico, classified as a “Maximum Custody Detainee.”

2) It is difficult for me to believe that in ten months, the military has not had enough time to put together its case against Mr. Manning. This does not qualify, to my mind, as a speedy trial. In New York, for example, the state may wait no longer than 6 months for all other than murder cases, else the charges are dismissed.

3) The conditions of Manning’s detention at Quantico include a) being held in a 72 sq. foot cell (or the equivalent of a space 8 feet wide by 9 wide). The cell has no window. Somewhere in this 72 square feet is a toilet and a sink. He is not allowed any contact with other detainees. He is allowed access to one book and one magazine, as well as limited access to television. I know that the effect of such a detainment on me would be debilitating, and according to one of PFC Manning’s regular visitors, so it has been on PFC Manning:

“David House, the computer scientist permitted to visit him twice a month, said in December 2010 that Manning’s mental and physical health were deteriorating; he said he had watched Manning change from an intelligent young man to someone who appeared catatonic, and who had difficulty conducting a conversation…”

4) Though the legal concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is not part of the Constitution, it is an accepted principle alluded to in several articles and amendments to that same Constitution, and is a well established principle all the way back to English Common Law. While I accept that a serviceman gives up some of his freedoms and agrees to live by a harsher set of laws than the rest of Americans, whose freedom he has signed up to defend, I don’t think it’s fair to assume the opposite. And so I am saddened that so many milbloggers I know and respect — I’m looking at you, Jimbo, because you’re better than this — are assuming that PFC Manning is guilty until proven innocent.

5) A “Prevention of Injury” order is in effect for PFC Manning. This means he must be checked on every five minutes. He is not allowed to sleep during the day — or at any time after 5 am. He is additionally required to sleep naked, and to stand at attention in the morning, naked. However:

…the Brig psychiatrist assessed PFC Manning as “low risk and requiring only routine outpatient followup [with] no need for … closer clinical observation.” In particular, he indicated that PFC Manning’s statement about the waist band of his underwear was in no way prompted by “a psychiatric condition.”

It strikes me that PFC Manning is either a suicide risk, or he isn’t, and that since the Army’s own psychiatrist has said he is not a suicide risk, the Army’s jailer ought to respect that professional decision. That she has not respected the psychiatrist’s opinion is deeply troubling. I’m suspicious that she is either abusing her power, or the Army is paying for a psychiatrist it has no use for. Not good. And so I am inclined to agree with PFC Manning’s lawyer — an Army Lieutenant Colonel, with Iraq experience — that this treatment is punitive and not justified.

6) Let’s keep in mind that at least some of the prosecution’s case against PFC Manning will rely on the testimony of Adrian Lamo — a convicted felon who stands to gain personally by helping the state prosecute PFC Manning.

So I’m putting the Army on notice. The Army needs to get off its fat fucking ass and try PFC Manning. If New York prosecutors can put people on trial within 6 months, high speed Army cheese-officers can sure as shit do it in ten. If the military’s own psychiatrist says PFC Manning is not a suicide risk, then the military’s jailers need to show some respect for that opinion. Bottom line is, the Army needs to stop trying to act like Barack Obama and have it both ways. Either PFC Manning is a suicide risk, which indicates he is insane, which would bolster an insanity defense, or PFC Manning is not insane. And if PFC Manning is not insane, he needs to be treated the same way as every other soldier accused, but not yet convicted, of a crime.

Listen, if PFC Manning is proven guilty, I’m open to the death penalty as punishment. But by taking so long to try him, the military is making me suspicious that it doesn’t have a real case, and is trying to coerce some kind of a confession out of him, or against Julian Assange.

If so, that shit ain’t right.

And for those of you who just know deep in your heart without yet having all the facts that PFC Manning is guilty, I’d like to point out that the best way to assure that the military doesn’t abuse its power against innocent soldiers like you or the Haditha Marines is to make sure it doesn’t abuse its power against guilty ones. I’ve seen the military throw soldiers under a bus, and so have you.

— Uber Pig

According to recently leaked cables, the Obama administration agreed to give the Russians the secret serial numbers of each Trident missile in the British nuclear deterrent. It did this against the UK’s plainly published policy, and against its privately stated wishes. No doubt Mr. Obama, and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, believe this is to be a sound application of “Smart Power,” which “…involves the strategic use of diplomacy, persuasion, capacity building, and the projection of power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and have political and social legitimacy.” Or perhaps smart power is just a re-imagining of realpolitik from the Metternich era. In any case, surely Great Britain would seem hypocritical were it to complain of another country acting in it’s own self interest, in light of Lord Palmerston’s words from 1848:

Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

So yes, I suppose it’s true that Britain is a second rate power today, behind the US and China. And yes it’s true that we manufactured their Trident missiles, which is how we know the serial numbers in the first place. And as Mr. Obama’s defenders will probably argue, it may also even be true that giving the Russians those serial numbers is a piddling little thing, and doesn’t compromise Britain’s defense in any meaningful way. But it’s also true that Britain has a lot of pride, and a history. And for most of the last century, that history has been influenced by a special relationship with us, the United States of America. Fighting on our side, it lost 885,000 soldiers during World War I 383,000 soldiers and sailors more during World War II.

It’s worth remembering that many of these British deaths during World War II came while fighting almost entirely alone against Nazi totalitarianism and an odious Imperial Japanese death cult. My Grand Uncle Eric, a merchant marine radioman from Cornwall, was one of the survivors of that terrible war, having had three cargo ships sunk underneath him. Many men of his generation weren’t so lucky at Dunkirk or Singapore. Nor were 1,415 of the 1,418 man crew of the Battlecruiser HMS Hood . During 1941 they went down with their ship, just three short minutes after a shell from the Bismarck slammed into her powder magazines. Ted Briggs, one of just three hypothermic survivors pulled alive after three hours in the cold water, testified to “…the sacrifice made by the squadron’s navigating officer Commander John Warrand, who stood aside and allowed him to exit the compass platform first,” and of “…the squadron commanding officer, Vice-Admiral Lancelot Holland… last seen still sitting in his admiral’s chair and making no attempt to escape the sinking wreck.”

after Pearl Harbor, the British fought with us in North Africa, at Anzio, and at Monte Cassino. They suffered 2,700 casualties alongside 6,600 of ours at beaches code named Juno, Gold, and Sword, and 17,000 more fighting against the Japanese around Imphal. That fighting, incidentally, is probably best described by George MacDonald Fraser’s “Quartered Safe Out Here.”

Britain was with us during the First Gulf War, and in Korea, though during the 50’s they began to realize that with only a third of our population and a bombed out industrial base, they would have to play a secondary role, a point made abundantly clear by President Eisenhower when he left their paratroopers hanging during the Suez crisis of 1957. And who can say whether Britain’s decision, in the wake of this perceived disloyalty, influenced their decision to let us handle Vietnam on our own? The point was certainly well taken by Ronald Reagan, who made nice with basing rights during the Falklands war.

The special relationship was back on track for the First Gulf war, surviving the tragedy of an American A-10 destroying a British personnel carrier, and tragically ending the lives of 9 young squaddies and since 2003, in spite of vicious and prolonged protests at home, they’ve helped us in Iraq. But perhaps most importantly, from Mr. Obama’s perspective, it’s worth pointing out that ever since 2001, they have steadily asked large numbers of their best young men and women, including the third in line to their throne, to serve alongside ours in what Mr. Obama has always claimed is the good, and the just war — the war we are currently fighting in the cold, ignorant mountains of Afghanistan. The war that is not going as well as any of us would like.

The war where we need all the help we can get, because we can still lose it.

So this has all been a long way of saying that the British have been our friends in the past, and they are our friends for right now, but there is nothing set in stone saying they will remain our friends into the future. Because a friend’s political support should not be taken for granted, the sacrifice of a friend’s soldiers should not be taken lightly, and at a minimum, a friend’s closely guarded nuclear secrets should not be shared like a giggling schoolgirl. Not without your friend’s permission. Not even if you think your friend doesn’t know what’s in his own best interest. Because there’s a difference between a friend and a lackey. And when you confuse a friend of many wars for a lackey, shooting spitwads at him behind his back just to score points with a bare-chested bully like Putin, it doesn’t make you look cool. It doesn’t make you look smart or powerful.

What it does is this: It make you look stupid and weak.

More here from Powerline and here from Instapundit.

Of course we don’t have all the facts yet about the recent mass murder in Arizona, and blaming it on political hate speech by anyone is, at this point, irresponsible. Which is why I was so heartened to see Matt Bai of the New York times point out this potential irresponsibility, before indulging in an irresponsible orgy of his own:

It wasn’t clear Saturday whether the alleged shooter in Tucson was motivated by any real political philosophy or by voices in his head, or perhaps by both. But it’s hard not to think he was at least partly influenced by a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon.

The problem here doesn’t lie with the activists like most of those who populate the Tea Parties, ordinary citizens who are doing what citizens are supposed to do — engaging in a conversation about the direction of the country. Rather, the problem would seem to rest with the political leaders who pander to the margins of the margins, employing whatever words seem likely to win them contributions or TV time, with little regard for the consequences.

Consider the comments of Sharron Angle, the Tea Party favorite who ran against Harry Reid for Senate in Nevada last year. She talked about “domestic enemies” in the Congress and said, “I hope we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies.” Then there’s Rick Barber, a Republican who lost his primary in a Congressional race in Alabama, but not before airing an ad in which someone dressed as George Washington listens to an attack on the Obama agenda and gravely proclaims, “Gather your armies.”

Since Mr. Bai has chosen to go down this irresponsible road, I’ll follow him, if only to ensure a thorough, and equally thoughtful exploration of political hate speech by prominent politicians who pander to the margins of the margins. Though, of course, I’ll be exploring the left side of the road:

Hello TAH readers.  My name is Uber Pig, and some of you may be familiar with my work over at Blackfive.  I’ve been lurking for a while, waiting for something to say here, something worthwhile.  And then just a few minutes ago a good friend of mine, and a former Marine, emailed me this op-ed published in the Stanford Daily, as we both have a connection to that august university.  Fisking an opinion like this is quite often the hoary trick of an amateur writer, but in this instance I feel compelled to soil myself, and beg your forgiveness:

Op-Ed: ROTC is our choice. Let’s make the right one

While the debate over the prospect of ROTC returning to campus continues in print, the majority of the Stanford student body has yet to take ownership of this issue. But with the ad hoc Faculty Senate committee having already set a deadline for community submissions (Nov. 22), now is the time for allstudents to get informed and make their views heard.

Sorry, how does one take ownership of an issue?  And in what way is “taking ownership” of an issue different from just, well, discussing it, like adults, instead of pretending we’re in an alcoholics anonymous meeting?  But I digress:

One impediment to student involvement in the debate thus far has been the framing of arguments in terms of Stanford having an “obligation” to permit ROTC to return (Kyle O’Malley and Evan Storms writing in the Stanford Review on Nov. 7) or what Stanford “owes” students enrolled in ROTC (the Stanford Daily editorial board on Sept. 29). To be absolutely clear: Stanford is a private institution and has absolutely no obligation, legal or otherwise, to either permit or prohibit ROTC’s presence on campus.

And I’m sure this point is technically correct.  On the other hand, it’s probably worth mentioning that the federal government has no obligation to support research or provide money in the form of Pell Grants to Stanford students if Stanford University discriminates against the military.  Otherwise known as a branch of the federal government.

This is an important and exciting fact. It means that we, as students, have complete freedom to decide whether or not we want to permit the military of this country to have an ROTC presence on our campus. Obviously there’s no guarantee that the University’s final decision will reflect student opinion, but we can surely be confident that our views, if expressed openly and articulately, will play a significant role in the administration’s decision-making process.

Oh yes.  I can feel the excitement.  It’s electric.

So the question we must all consider is clear: should we permit the military to have an ROTC presence on campus? The answer will logically depend on what the effects of on-campus ROTC would be and, if the effects of on-campus ROTC would be positive overall, whether Stanford’s resources could instead be allocated in ways that would have greater positive overall effects.

One can debate the logicaliciousness of the positivicity regarding the effects of on-campus ROTC all day long to the student body in general, when the benefits accrue only to that minority of Stanford students who have availed themselves of the ROTC program.  While you’re at it though, it’s logically consistent to examinize how much positive value MECHA brings to the university as a whole when most students aren’t Arab, and how much positive value the various gay and lesbian support programs bring to the university as a whole when most students are heterosexual.

Of course, if the effects of on-campus ROTC would be negative overall, as my research has led me to suspect, there is no need to consider the opportunity cost of allocating Stanford’s resources to this cause. However, if your own research leads to a different conclusion with respect to the effects of on-campus ROTC, don’t forget to also consider the fact that, by allocating resources to ROTC, Stanford would not be in a position to allocate resources to some other, potentially more beneficial, project.

Which would those be, dickhead?  More frisbee golf?  !#%k off.

As for the probable effects of on-campus ROTC, one way to approach the issue is to ask why the military would ostensibly jump at the chance to establish an ROTC training center on our campus. Would this enable them to significantly increase the number of scholarships they grant? Probably not. The number of scholarships is largely determined by the military’s need for officers (which, incidentally, is currently quite low in all branches other than the army). And even if it would increase the number of scholarships or cause more students to join, I’m not sure that convenience should be the dispositive factor in students’ decisions to dedicate nine to 12 years of their lives to the military.

No, you’re not sure of anything.  Are you?

Would it enable the military to train ROTC candidates more efficiently? Again, probably not. While it may be less convenient for the students being trained, it is surely more efficient for large numbers of students to be trained in a single location than in multiple smaller training centers. (One exception might be if Stanford was to bear a significant portion of the cost of establishing the on-campus center, which would, in my view, be a highly questionable use of University resources.) So what would be the military’s motivation for coming here?

Right on, bubba.  Let’s send all the Stanford students who wish to train for ROTC to Reno or something.  Pool the resources, as it were.  While we’re at it, let’s do the same thing for people, like the opinion’s author, who hate the military.  Give them a place they can all get together and pool their resources and horror stories about the movies they’ve seen about Vietnam.  And then let’s call it San Francisco State University.

Michael Schwartz, professor of sociology at S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook, offered the following explanation last year: The military hopes a “highly visible presence on (especially a high prestige) campus…will provide the opportunity for the military to integrate itself into campus life.” He continues: “ROTC programs on…campus allow the military to burnish its image while presenting its distinct point of view about national and global issues to the campus.”

Observations such as these leave me seriously doubting the positive effects of on-campus ROTC. But whatever your conclusions, I urge you to take ownership of this issue. Do your own research, talk to other students and make your voice heard, while also remaining open to changing your opinion if presented with new information. The future character of our campus depends on it.

Sam Windley LL.M. ’11

Sam, I’m very optimistic about the future character of your campus.  On the other hand, I’m not optimistic about your future as an attorney.