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

Category: Big Army

  • Pentagon to depend on 19th Century technology to protect DC

    So, we’re going to blimps, huh? What with all of the surveillance technology that the government uses, the pentagon is planning to use blimps over the capital “detect any low-flying missiles or enemy aircraft that might be headed to the capital”. Yeah, I believe that. From Fox News;

    Raythoen, a defense contractor, said last year that these aerostats can carry powerful surveillance systems capable of tracking people and vehicles from miles away, the report said. The Army, though it did not rule out the possibility of mounting these cameras, reportedly said it has no current plans to install them.

    The Washington Post reported that the Army said in a letter to the newspaper that it did not conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment because there is no intention of collecting any personally identifiable information.

    “The primary mission .?.?. is to track airborne objects,” the Army said in the letter to The Post. “Its secondary mission is to track surface moving objects such as vehicles or boats. The capability to track surface objects does not extend to individual people.”

    Now, I’m not paranoid or anything, but it’s odd that they’ve decided to use this now that I’m retiring (next Friday) and they won’t be able to track my movements and blogging from my government computer. But, they’ll be able to track me with this blimp thing from DC, so I’m sure they’re only spending this money to keep an eye on me. But, like I said, I’m not paranoid, nor do I place an irrationally high value on my blogging.

  • Senators; “Failures in leadership — General Dempsey”

    In the Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes about the conclusions of six Republican Senators on the Intelligence Committee who wrote in their report that our buddy, Marty Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs is largely at fault for the failures at Benghazi because he failed to have a plan to react to terror attacks in North Africa, in general and Benghazi specifically;

    “The tenure of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has been marked by what we view as significant deficiencies in command,” the six wrote in an addendum to the committee’s Jan. 15 report on Benghazi. “From Syria to Benghazi, there has been either a profound inability or clear unwillingness to identify and prevent problems before they arise. Given the known operating environment in Benghazi, much less North Africa, a strong military leader would have ensured there was a viable plan in place to rescue Americans should the need arise.”

    “General Dempsey’s attempts to excuse inaction by claiming that forces were not deployed because they would not have gotten there in time does not pass the common sense test,” they wrote. “No one knew when the attacks against our facilities in Benghazi would end, or how aggressive the attacks would be. That is the whole point of a pre-established emergency rescue plan-so that the length of the attack alone does not dictate the rescue or survival of Americans.”

    If you guessed that Susan Collins was the only Republican on the committee to refuse to sign on with the other six, you’d be correct…you wouldn’t be surprised, but you would be correct. I’m only surprised that Dempsey didn’t blame the folks in the consulate for their cultural insensitivity which caused the attack – you know like he blamed the troops for the green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan.

    Of course, we’ve already read that General Ham briefed Panetta and Dempsey on the situation in Benghazi hours before they even found time to talk to the president about the attack, so Dempsey’s excuse that there wasn’t time to respond falls flat.

    Mr. Panetta also deployed two special operations teams, one in Europe and one in the United States. They did not arrive in a staging area in Sigonella, Italy, until 10 hours after the crisis ended.

    Gen. Dempsey has said there were no combat aircraft available in time to provide help.

    Yeah, that’s kind of the point.

    I’m only sorry that it has taken anyone this long and the loss of lives (in Libya as well as Afghanistan) for people to begin to recognize that Dempsey is an incompetent boob. You know, like we’ve been trying to tell them for years.

  • DoD to accommodate “individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs”

    Pinto Nag sends us a link to an NBC article that says that the Pentagon wants to relax grooming and uniform standards in order to “accommodate individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs” meaning that they’re going to allow religious symbols like beards and turbans and stuff. I guess Sergeant Major of the Army Ray Chandler, the fellow who wants to get rid of people who have tattoos is on board with this one;

    NBC News obtained an early draft of the new Department of Defense instruction which states that the military will make every effort to accommodate “individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs” (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) of service members.

    It goes on to say that unless doing so could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, health and safety, or any other military requirement, commanders can grant service members special permission to display their religious articles while in uniform.

    Requests for religious accommodation can be denied when the “needs of mission accomplishment outweigh the needs of the service member,” the directive will explain.

    Yeah, well, if you can get a tight seal on your protective mask with a beard, I’d go along with it. Again, it’s people who don’t understand that military has standards for a good reason who are writing all of these fuzzy feeling rules.

    It goes on to say that “it is particularly important to consider the effect on unit cohesion.”

    Each individual service member has to re-apply for new permission at each new assignment, transfer of duty stations, and for each deployment.

    Yeah, that won’t last long. I can just imagine Joes telling their new sergeant that their last unit let them do something that they can’t do at their current assignment. I can’t imagine a beard being hygienic at all. When I had mine for a few months a couple of years ago, food would jump up into my beard from the plate, I swear. It smelled like my last meal for hours afterward.

  • Robot Joes

    The Washington Times reports that the Army is looking at replacing soldiers with robots. I guess they never watched the Terminator series. Doesn’t Skynet mean anything to anyone anymore?

    Defense News reported that Gen. Cone, head of the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, said, “I’ve got clear guidance to think about what if you could robotically perform some of the tasks in terms of maneuverability, in terms of the future of the force.”

    He also said at the Army Aviation Symposium in Arlington that he also has “clear guidance to rethink” the traditional size of the infantry squad, currently at nine.

    The general then said that more unmanned ground vehicles are on the way, Defense News reported. He also said that while the Army was pursuing a goal of shrinking its soldier count from 540,000 to 490,000 by 2014, and to 420,000 by 2019, an even smaller force could still prove successful – and his staff was currently forming an advisory panel to see how that could be accomplished.

    I don’t think the general is actually talking about replacing infantrymen with robots, but the article makes it sound like he is contemplating it. I can see replacing truck drivers with remote control stuff, or using robots to carry an infantry squad’s equipment, or something like that. But you really can’t replace an infantryman with a robot. Half of an infantryman’s job is to bitch, complain and try to make himself comfortable. Now if they can program all of that into a robot, I’ll be impressed.

  • Gates approved then rescinded Peralta’s MOH

    We’ve discussed Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta and his final act to save his fellow Marines, the act that cost him his own life. In his book, Duty, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says that he approved, then rescinded Peralta’s Medal of Honor, according to the Marine Corps Times;

    In his book “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” Gates said he was convinced by the evidence the Marines presented, and had submitted his medal recommendation to the president before deciding to withdraw it.

    “The medal recommendation had been endorsed by the proper chain of approval, including the secretary of the Navy and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, the documentation also included dissenting views from the medical forensic community and the undersecretary for personnel and readiness,” Gates wrote in a chapter titled “One Damn Thing After Another.”

    So, let me get this straight, he approved the recommendation when he read the statements from Marines who were on the spot and witnessed the act, but then he changed his mind when he looked at what pogues who weren’t there had to say? I guess that little incident could be the theme of Gate’s whole tenure at the Pentagon. He wasn’t listening to people on the ground, he was listening to the “experts”.

    “As a result, I personally interviewed several senior officers in Peralta’s chain of command, and in light of the unanimous support of the entire uniformed leadership involved, I approved the recommendation. I was satisfied that Sergeant Peralta met all the criteria and deserved the Medal of Honor.”

    Soon after, Gates wrote, he learned of a complaint made to the Defense Department Inspector General that alleged Peralta could not have acted consciously to cover the grenade and save fellow Marines’ lives.

    Gates should have just kept his mouth shut after he retired. I hate him more each day, usually more at the end of the day than when it began.

  • Generals immune from COLA cuts to pensions

    I know this will surprise you, especially since generals like Ray Odierno and Marty Dempsey have been vociferously supportive of personnel cuts to Pentagon costs, but the Army Times reports that the latest cut to retirees pensions won’t affect general officers;

    In 2007, Congress passed a Pentagon-sponsored proposal that boosted retirement benefits for three- and four-star admirals and generals, allowing them to make more in retirement than they did on active duty. The Pentagon had requested the change in 2003 to help retain senior officers as the military was fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and wanted to entice officers to remain on active duty.

    That means a four-star officer retiring with 40 years of experience would receive a pension of $237,144, according to the Pentagon. Base pay for active-duty top officers is $181,501, according to Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. Housing and other allowances can boost their compensation an additional third.

    […]

    But the [Congressional budget] deal [which impacts most retirees’ pensions] does not affect the 2007 enhancement for top pension, which has allowed pension rates for those officers to spike. Figures for 2011 show that a four-star officer retiring with 38 years’ experience received a yearly pension of about $219,600, a jump of $84,000, or 63 percent beyond what was previously allowed. A three-star officer with 35 years’ experience would get about $169,200 a year, up about $39,000, or 30 percent. Before the law was changed, the typical pension for a retired four-star officer was $134,400.

    Yeah, so, I guess we know why they mind hiking medical costs on the rank-and-file. I probably wouldn’t mind much either if i had a $200k/year pension to fall back upon. Well, until I think about the rank-and-file on a pension less than 10% of my own. Buncha self-serving little pricks, the perfumed princes telling the rest of us to sacrifice for the good of the nation, while they’re laying in their silk robes, their grape-peeler at their feet.

    Thanks to ROS for the link.

  • Cutting pension growth; The lazy way out

    In the 90s, we all remember how the Clinton Administration “balanced the budget” by slashing military spending. By the end of the decade, soldiers were enduring turnstile deployments to hand out sandwiches around the world. Retirees were forced out of Tricare and into Medicare when they turned 65. There was a training ammo shortfall. All training dollars were spent on the “Meals on Wheels” operations. Troops and their families were on food stamps. What few troops there were left after the manpower cuts. After a decade of turning that around, it seems that we’re headed back in the same direction.

    Last month, Congress decided to cut the rate of growth of military pensions. They explained that personnel costs are eating up half of the Defense budget. The Military Officers’ Association of America (MOAA) explains how that is not exactly true;

    This may sound alarming, especially in light of the Pentagon stating in April of this year that military personnel costs consumed about a third of the budget.

    But the fact is it does consume nearly half the budget if you include all personnel costs — military and civilian personnel, delivery of military health care, and in-kind compensation (DoD schools, commissaries, etcetera).

    What’s difficult to find is what goes into in-kind compensation, because these figures and facts are imbedded in several accounts and only DoD knows how it’s defined.

    But when analyzing the first three budget items — military personnel (MilPers account), civilian personnel (CivPers account), and defense health program (DHP) — history shows in the chart below that these personnel costs over the past 30 years have gone from a high in 1980 and 1991 of half of the defense budget share to now less than 40 percent.

    So, basically, the Pentagon is using personnel costs as an excuse, and not a very valid excuse. And, oh, they’re lying about it all. In Stars & Stripes, the VSOs warn that this is just the beginning for Defense to begin shouldering the political load of cuts;

    “This is what happens when you have an unengaged population whose focus starts to shift away,” said Tom Tarantino, chief policy officer for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “When times get tough, people say everyone has to sacrifice. But not everyone has been sacrificing for the last 10 years.”

    Yeah, see, that’s the problem. The troops shouldered the burden of war, so the rest of the country could head to the mall, now that the economy has made the average American uncomfortable, the troops and the casualties of the war are expected to to shoulder the burden of correcting economical woes.

    In the last week, editorial boards at USA Today and the Washington Post have called the veterans’ opposition out of touch, noting that the military’s generous retirement benefits aren’t comparable to any private sector pensions. The Post called it a “dishonor” not to change a military retirement system long overdue for an update.

    Yeah, when veterans resist cuts to what we’re owed, it’s dishonorable. What’s dishonorable are the lies that are being told in order to screw the true 1% so the 99% can be more comfortable. I don’t see the Washington Post, USAToday or Congress making any sacrifices, or recommending sacrifice from any other sector of the population, including criminals and illegal aliens who are owed nothing.

    Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno tried to defend the cuts;

    Though he would not directly address the cuts to military retirement pay contained in the budget signed in late December, Odierno said the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not looking to cut pay and benefits. Rather, they are trying to reduce rate of growth of pay and benefits.

    Odierno said the military had closed the gap in pay disparity and, in some cases, even exceeded it. Now the service leaders need to look at pay and benefits to ensure the package is accurate and sustainable. Otherwise, the growing cost will force the services to reduce end strength.

    “We have to look at this as a total package,” he said. But as the Pentagon looks to reduce future cost, it has “to be very careful because we don’t want to undercut the foundation of an all-volunteer Army.”

    Yeah, well, Congress should look at the “total package” that they’re dealing with, rather than focus on the Defense Department for their cuts. I’ll remind the reader that sequestration happened because the White House proposed it and implemented it when Congress couldn’t summon the testicular fortitude to cut government across the board.

    Thanks to PavePusher and Chief Tango for the links.

  • Pentagon; social science vs. common defense

    The Washington Times‘ Rowan Scarborough speculates today that the Pentagon is paying more attention to social issues in the ranks than with actually being the Defense Department in spirit as well as their name;

    The Pentagon under the Obama administration has devoted considerable hours in public and private to sorting out same-sex relationships, the roles of women in the foxhole and ways to stop sexual assaults. Now, another issue has arisen: gender transformation.

    The sexual revolution has some traditionalists wondering whether the Pentagon is taking its eye off the ball — the enemy.

    “Every conceivable form of PC is being enforced upon our hard-pressed military with a zeal that only a Russian army zampolit — a political officer — would truly appreciate,” said Ken Allard, a retired Army colonel and commentator. “We are seemingly concerned about everything except the most basic thing: how to fight and win the nation’s wars. If we have forgotten that constraint, let me assure you that our enemies have not, from the Taliban to the drug cartels to the Iranian Quds Force.”

    Of course, this is nothing new to readers of these pages, but it’s nice that a national media has noticed. I’d also remind readers that the social engineers and political officers have injected themselves into the debate over the role of religion in the ranks, they’ve found a platform for gun control, the military is being used for nearly every social issue in the country – everything except closing with and destroying the enemies of our country. It’s almost as if the enemies of freedom have taken over the military and they’re bent on destroying that combat effectiveness of the force by changing everything that has made the US military a force to be reckoned with globally. And then on top of it all, they’re punishing the people who served with cuts to their pay and benefits, not to mention massive cuts to readiness training and equipment, so the politicians can continue to bribe their constituencies with government handouts. But, no that couldn’t be it, could it?