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

Category: Big Army

  • We Once Had an Official “Red Badge of Courage”

    I’d guess many if not most TAH readers have read Steven Crane’s Civil War novel The Red Badge of Courage.  And I’d also guess that virtually all TAH readers know a bit about the Purple Heart and its history.

    But like the main character in Crane’s novel, with one minor change in history we easily could have ended up with a literal “red badge of courage” for wounded soldiers vice today’s Purple Heart.  In fact, the Army actually did have and award such a thing – for a period of roughly three months.

    Many TAH readers know that the Purple Heart was not the first decoration used by the Army to recognize combat wounds.  The World War I Wound Chevron preceded the Purple heart.  It was a gold chevron worn on the lower right sleeve of the uniform where today’s Overseas Bars are worn, and was instituted in War Department General Orders 6 of January 12, 1918.

    Army Wound Chevron, 1918-1932
    In fact, when the Purple Heart was instituted in 1932, conversion of a previously-awarded Wound Chevron to a Purple Heart was authorized but was not mandatory.  Though regulations during World War II apparently proscribed wearing both, it was also not unknown for World War I veterans who had been wounded in both wars to ignore the prohibition and wear both their World War I Wound Chevron(s) and their World War II Purple Heart(s).

    But the Wound Chevron was not the first decoration or badge used to recognize combat wounds.

    The Wound Chevron itself was preceded by a different but short-lived means of recognizing combat-wounded soldiers.  The Army Wound Ribbon was the original Army recognition for combat wounds.

    The Army Wound Ribbon was a ribbon-only award.  It was also a very short-lived decoration – it was awarded for a period of roughly three months. It was created by order of the Secretary of War on September 6, 1917 and implemented by the War Department on October 12, 1917.  It was formally rescinded on January 12, 1918, with the directive creating the Wound Chevron.

    The ribbon was scarlet with a rather wide white center stripe.

     

    Army Wound Ribbon, 1917

     

    I wasn’t kidding with the title above.  As you can see, for a short while the US Army really did have a literal “Red Badge of Courage” for combat wounds.   And had the Army not taken that little “side trip” down Wound Chevron Way, my guess is that we’d use that same scarlet and white ribbon today – almost certainly with an accompanying medal – instead of the Purple Heart to recognize individuals wounded in combat.

     

    Hat tip to Sparks’ comment here regarding the Red Badge of Courage for prompting the research that led to me finding this little bit of history.

  • That “cutting staff” thing

    Last night I wrote about Marty Dempsey and his promise to the American people to cut the number of flag officers and their perks. His number was 15% – blaming the Bush Wars for the unprecedented expansion of staffs. Defense News reports today that “[t]he size of the Pentagon’s vast oversight organizations grew by more than 15 percent from 2010 to 2012”. Funny how that same number pops up. Despite the fact that then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called for cuts to size of staffs, that isn’t what happened;

    The Joint Staff, for example, grew from 1,286 people in 2010 to 4,244 people in 2012, a 230 percent increase.

    “The problem is the bureaucracy is more resilient than even the most powerful secretary,” said Arnold Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, consultant and member of the Defense Business Board.

    As a point of reference, Marty Dempsey became the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in April, 2011, so he can be reasonably blamed for the unprecedented increase in the size of the Joint Staff, and now he’s talking about cuts like some great savior. And, for what did he increase the staff’s volume? Our strategy in the war against terror during his tenure has been to withdraw from Afghaistan, how big of a staff do you need for that?

    Like I said last night, they need to fire those flag officers officers who have entrenched themselves in their private fiefdoms and successfully avoided any meaningful employment, i.e., deployments and command. And the prince of all Generals, Marty Dempsey should be the first to go.

  • Dempsey ready to cut stars he says

    The Stars & Stripes reports that Marty Dempsey says that the Department of Defense is ready to cut admirals and generals from their rolls – 144, about 15%, is the number, but, it’s only the beginning in my opinion. They should cut about half along with their sergeant majors. In fact, they should cut every enlisted member who has served during combat without serving in combat and are currently in the pay grades of E-8 and E-9. They should fire every E-8 and E-9 who hasn’t served in a leadership position while in those pay grades.

    Dempsey also says that he will try to cut back on flag officers’ lavish lifestyle…and, oh, that was all Bush’s fault by the way;

    Though the DOD claimed money is not at the heart of the cuts, spending on officers has become excessive with the free flow of funds during wars, creating bad habits that need to be curbed, Dempsey said during a recent visit to Japan.

    “We got in the habit of surrounding general officers with a level of support that was probably excessive in some ways,” he said.

    The perks for generals and admirals include lavish quarters, personal jets, chefs, speech writers, security details, aids and schedulers.

    “What’s it going to look like if somebody sees you staying in the Ritz-Carlton … for four days and doing one hour’s worth of work?” he said.

    Well, if they’re only doing an hours worth of work every four days, the math tells me that they can afford to cut 39 flag officers for every one they keep on the payroll. And how does a lavish lifestyle spring from a war? The Pentagon did that all by themselves, the decision makers making their own lives more comfortable – it has nothing to do with war, it has to do with self-serving pricks – and Marty Dempsey is their prince.

    It’s the kind of stuff that comes from a Secretary of Defense spending $36,000 every weekend to be with his family on the other side of the country and paying the taxpayers back $300 for the trouble, ya know, because he deserved it for all of the tough work he did slashing the shit out of Defense for his boss.

    Yes, the military life is going to be austere in the coming months and years, they don’t need to continue to pay those guys who’ve done their level best to avoid leadership positions in combat. They should endeavor to retain those who have experience in combat, those who haven’t made a career of being a self-serving pogue. There is no room in the lean days ahead for perfumed princes, but we already know who will get to stay on the train and who will be sent packing.

  • Hagel ends furloughs for SHARP staff

    I guess the Pentagon is completely married to this idea of having a sexual harassment/assault response program, because according to the Stars & Stripes, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has mandated that SHARP staff is immune from furloughs;

    Hagel last week ordered the military to review and recertify all 25,000 personnel working in programs to prevent sexual assault and help victims. The announcement followed a Pentagon announcement last week that a sexual assault response coordinator at Fort Hood, Texas, was being investigated for pandering and sexual assault. And earlier this month, an Air Force officer who oversaw that service’s sexual assault response branch was charged with sexual battery, accused of approaching a women in an Arlington, Va., parking lot and grabbing her breasts and buttocks.

    Among other measures, Hagel also ordered a DOD-wide search of work areas for “degrading, offensive materials” and told the Pentagon’s acting general counsel to evaluate a program to provide military attorneys to advocate for victims.

    It kind of reminds me of anti-gun legislation – they’re trying to look like they’re doing something, anything just to look busy – like those staff NCOs who walk around all day with clipboards and a scowl so people think they’re busy when they’re only making circuits to the snack bar. But it’s good that Hagel is really working to spend his dwindling budget in a way that contributes to national defense instead of something stupid. That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.

  • DoD Ignoring history

    The Military Times reports that the Defense Department is preparing to send a report to Congress that was two years in the writing. According to Military Times the report touts Reserve Forces as more cost effective than a large active duty fighting force;

    According to a draft copy of the report obtained by Military Times, the Pentagon analysis concludes that Guard and Reserve troops not only are cheaper when in drilling status but also when fully mobilized, in part because their overall compensation is lower when taking into account noncash benefits such as retirement accrual and health care.

    Moreover, the overall costs for outfitting units with reservists are lower because part-time troops do not tap many military perks such as family housing, DoD schools, installation-based family support and the moving stipends that active-duty troops get every few years when they are reassigned, according to the draft report.

    Yeah, it’s as if Task Force Smith, Kaserine Pass and the First Battle of Bull Run never happened. I have nothing against the Reserves, but even they’ll admit their training is lacking compared to the active duty force.

    During Desert Storm, reservist combat units were called up in case war went on longer than it did and in the months during the train up, none of the reserve units, as far as I know met the standard required before they were certified for combat. There was a buttload of reservists who went AWOL at Fort Hood during their training. I’m sure with the current crop that wouldn’t happen. I have more confidence in reservists today than I did the reservists of my days – but so much has changed since then. And this is a return to those old days.

    It appears that the only thing the Defense Department is defending these days are their jobs in the Pentagon. They’re certainly not defending this nation in any recognizable form;

    The Pentagon disavowed the draft copy obtained by Military Times, dated April 26, 2013.

    “The draft report was released prematurely and there are some inaccuracies; the department does not stand by it,” said DoD spokeswoman Lt. Col. Elizabeth Robbins. “We cannot comment on the report prior to the final version being completed and sent to Congress.”

    But a Pentagon official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the data appear finalized even if the language that fleshes out the 34-page report may undergo further revisions. Congress passed a law in 2011 requiring DoD to draw up the analysis, but it remains unclear when an official version will be finalized and released publicly.

    Remember when they were talking about drawing down the active force before Desert Storm, and some units had to be reconstituted in the midst of their deactivation to respond to Saddam Hussein, but at least they had a large, trained active force to deploy and the only reservists were support units. How are we going to respond to threats in 2016?

  • Liberation Trilogy Complete

    A quick note for those interested in US military history – and specifically the history of the US Army during World War II.

    Some of you may have heard of Rick Atkinson.  He’s been working on a 3-volume history of the US Army during World War II for several years.  He called the 3-volume series the “Liberation Trilogy.”

    The first volume, “An Army at Dawn”, covered the North Africa campaign.  It was published in 2002.  It received the Pulitzer.Prize for History in 2003.

    The second volume, “The Day of Battle”, was published in 2007.  It focused on Sicily and Italy.  It did not receive a Pulitzer, but was nonetheless excellent.

    The third volume, “The Guns at Last Light”, was released this week.  It covers the liberation of France and the end of Nazi Germany.

    Atkinson’s Wikipedia bio can be found here.  It’s quite impressive.

    Can he write?  In a word – yes.  But you’d expect that from someone who’s been awarded a Pulitzer for History; has had a hand in two others as a journalist; has received the Gerald R. Ford Award for Distinguished Reporting on National Defense; who’s held the Omar N. Bradley Chair for Distinguished Leadership at the National Defense University; and who’s been awarded the Pritzker Military Library Literature Award for Lifetime Achievement in Military Writing.

    But don’t take my word for it; judge for yourself.  A sample of his latest work (the Prologue) can be found here. Excerpts from the other two volumes may be found here (Volume 1) and here (Volume 2).

    I have no economic interest in Atkinson’s works.  But for anyone interested in the history of the US Army – like many readers of TAH – the first two volumes are absolutely wonderful books. I have no doubt that the third will be their equal.

    I’ll let you know how good the third volume is after my copy comes in and I’ve finished it. I ordered it today. It’s the first time in quite a while I’ve bought a book the week it was released.

  • Army’s plan for women in combat submitted

    Jack sends us a link to Military.com about the Army’s plan to begin integrating women into combat-related jobs from which they were previously forbidden. The language isn’t very reassuring;

    TRADOC has started a scientific review working with U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to assist in the development of gender-neutral physical standards for all Areas of Concentration for commissioned officers and military occupational specialties for enlisted soldiers.

    Yeah, well, see, they don’t need to develop “gender-neutral” standards – those standards already exist. That’s just a fancy way of saying that they’re lowering the standards so they can happily report to their political masters (who know nothing about combat) that, unsurprisingly, females are meeting the new standard for combat-related jobs.

    Army officials will submit the service’s strategy for conducting these efforts to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday to satisfy the May 15 deadline for the services to present how they will fully integrate women into combat arms units by 2016, said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Stephen Platt.

    So, with sex scandals popping everywhere in the force, they’re going full-steam ahead with integration of the sexes in every field despite growing evidence that it’s damaging to readiness, because the social experiment is much more important that combat readiness.

    Some of the jobs being reviewed are infantryman, Special Forces officer, cavalry scout and armor senior sergeant.

    But this does not mean the Army has decided to open these jobs to women yet.

    “The Army will review these MOSs and make a recommendation to the secretary of Defense if they should remain closed,” Platt said. “If we find that the assignment of women to specific positions or occupational specialties is in conflict with the department’s guiding principles, exceptions to policy will be requested, which will prohibit their assignment to certain jobs.”

    Do you seriously think that the social engineers will accept the Army’s decision to prevent women from serving in those career fields? Seriously? The hue and cry will break windows from the Pentagon to the Capitol. Don’t piss on my boots and tell me it’s raining.

  • Hagel says you need more training on sexual harassment – yep that’s the ticket

    The Washington Post reports that after ruminating on the subject of sexual harassment for an entire day, Chuck Hagel has arrived at the totally unique conclusion that you need more training. Anyone who didn’t see that coming, raise your hand. Yeah, me, too.

    Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Tuesday evening ordered the armed services to immediately “re-train, re-credential and re-screen” tens of thousands of military recruiters and sexual-assault prevention officers as the revelation of another sex-crime scandal rocked the Pentagon.

    […]

    “He is going to spare no effort to address this problem,” George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, told reporters Wednesday. Little said the public, lawmakers and military personnel “have the right to be outraged” about the Fort Hood investigation.

    Oddly enough, in a link sent to us by Jerry920, NBC reports that a woman who has been charged with sexual harassment at Lackland AFB in San Antonio, TX pleaded guilty;

    Staff Sergeant Emily Allen admitted to having a sexual relationship with a male technical trainee, attempting to have a sexual relationship with another man, and having or trying to develop social relationships with two female and one male technical trainees.

    “She pleaded guilty to having a relationships with all four of the technical school Airmen,” Lackland spokesman Brent Boller said.

    I honestly don’t understand the problem, really, I don’t. But, I’m pretty sure that taking time from training to teach hand and arm signals isn’t the answer. Like someone said in the comments in the other post, the training is already eight hours long. If a lieutenant colonel, a sergeant first class and an Air Force sergeant don’t understand that grabbing various women by the ass, turning your subordinates into prostitutes, and boinking your trainees is against DoD policy, I don’t think more training will fix that. Honestly.

    Ok, everyone who thinks any of that is acceptable behavior, raise your hand. Nope, me neither. And I’ve never had a sexual harassment slide show presentation. Never. I don’t think that the military needs to waste a minute on training people not to be perverts. Maybe they should keep them in the field five days a week like they did to us. Or separate the sexes, like they did to us.

    But training is exactly the solution employed by people with no leadership experience, so I guess we’ll go with that one instead of using some common sense.