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

Category: Big Pentagon

  • Mattis to refocus training on warfighting

    Mattis to refocus training on warfighting

    According to Fox News, Secretary of Defense Jmes Mattis has directed the service chiefs to concentrate training on fighting wars and to spend less time on the social aspect of service persons’ time;

    The secretary wants each service to examine its military education to “regain a concentration on the art and science of warfighting” and look into the hours of “mandatory force training that does not directly support core tasks” such as flying jets, jumping out of planes, and hundreds of other U.S. military missions essential to defending the United States and its allies.

    One official with knowledge of the discussions surrounding the memo told Fox News, “servicemembers spending too much time on senseless training that is really a waste of time.” One U.S. military officer said there is “too much sexual harassment training” and not enough time spent at places like the shooting range, for example.

    Imagine the culture shock – leadership that wants it’s trigger-pullers pulling triggers.

    People make fun of the Desert Storm “100-hour War”, but they don’t understand that we had been training for exactly that war for more than a decade. It was like a very long Table XII run at Grafenwoehr. We’d had tougher runs at the National Training Center. The reason it only lasted 100-hours was because we were trained properly for it. The Joint Training Center was geared towards fighting wars, until the 90s when it was retooled for “Meals-on-Wheels” operations and the fighting force lost it’s edge that it had to resharpen in the crucible of combat in the GWOT.

    With diminished funding for defense, it only males sense that the Defense Department refocus on fighting wars and away from fighting boredom. I hear that we’re still fighting wars somewhere.

    Mattis also wants the working group to look into “hiring practices for the [DoD] civilian workforce,” which some senior military officers have complained has become too large in recent years despite Obama-era cuts involving tens of thousands of uniformed servicemembers.

    “There are more civilians working for the Pentagon than there are uniformed troops in the Navy and Air Force combined,” Katherine McIntire Peters, deputy editor of Government Executive Media Group, wrote in a recent op-ed. Peters put the Defense Department’s civilian work force at 770,000.

    That’s 770,000 people that we’re paying to not pull triggers in the Defense Department.

    Thanks to Mick for the link.

  • Pentagon considers canceling program for immigrant troops

    NPR reports that the Pentagon program designed to give troops an alternate path to citizenship, Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) is under the gun because some of the 10,000 troops weren’t truthful about their academic certifications.

    The recruitment program began in 2009 to attract immigrants with medical or language skills, such as surgeons or Arabic speakers. It allows visa holders, asylees and refugees to bypass the green card process to become U.S. citizens.

    The founder of the MAVNI program, retired Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, said the security concerns are overblown. “If you were a bad guy who wanted to infiltrate the Army, you wouldn’t risk the many levels of vetting required in this program,” she said…Three Defense Department officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to discuss the memo publicly, said the Pentagon is trying to balance national security concerns with the military’s needs for specialized skills immigrants can provide. In some cases, the officials said, the Army wasn’t using the program as intended, putting MAVNI recruits in roles that didn’t match their skills.

    […]

    [The] screening process has overwhelmed the Army’s resources. According to the Pentagon memo, those security checks have “diverted already constrained Army fiscal and manpower resources from their primary roles.”

    Stock said many MAVNI recruits were left in limbo.

    “The Army said you can ship to basic training after you complete the background checks. But now they’ve canceled all the background checks so nobody can ship to basic training,” she said.

    So as many as a thousand people in uniform might be left with no protections from federal action to deport them when their visas expire.

    The Pentagon should keep it’s promise to the troops who haven’t been untruthful and, if the program is too expensive to be worthwhile, they should cancel it, but still keep the promises that they’ve made. It sucks when they unilaterally decide to break faith with veterans, it has happened to all of us at one time or another.

  • Pentagon delays recruiting transgender troops for six months

    Chief Tango sends a link to the Washington Post which reports that the new Pentagon chief has decided to delay recruiting transgender troops for six months.

    Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has delayed a plan approved by the Obama administration a year ago to begin allowing transgender recruits to join the U.S. military, providing the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-month reprieve that they requested, the Pentagon said Friday night.

    The decision was made on the eve of a deadline set a year ago by then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter. The services can now delay processing transgender recruits until Jan. 1, following another review of accession plans and providing information about how doing so will affect the military and its lethality, Mattis said in a memo. Details about that review must be provided back to Mattis by Dec. 1.

    The defense secretary said in the memo that the delay “in no way presupposes an outcome,” but after consulting with top generals and other senior defense officials, he determined more time is needed before making a decision.

    The folks at the Palm Center emailed me to let me know that delay will somehow affect readiness;

    For the past year, transgender troops have been serving openly and have been widely praised by their Commanders, as is the case in 18 allied militaries around the world including Israel and Britain.

    […]

    In light of the success of transgender military service, the extensive research confirming that inclusive policy promotes readiness, and the sad history of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ loyally-serving transgender troops deserve to know whether Secretary Mattis stands by the claim he made at his confirmation hearing that LGBT troops can indeed serve in a ‘lethal’ military. Stonewalling on full inclusion will, just like ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ compromise military readiness.”

    You know what “comprises military readiness”? Focusing on things that have nothing to do with readiness. The current crop of transgender troops serving openly began their careers by lying, that’s not a thing that enhances readiness.

    You know what else compromises military readiness? Throwing taxpayer money intended for defense down a dark, bottomless hole to pay for elective treatment by transgender people who will demand that their condition be classified as a service-connected condition and that it must be treated at no cost to them. Not to mention that they bring a whole new slew of psychiatric problems to their units while we are in the midst of a world-wide war against terror.

    Someone who can’t wait six months for a decision by the Pentagon isn’t going to do well during a year-long deployment.

  • Pentagon seeks delay in transgender recruiting policy

    According to The Hill, the service chiefs have asked the Pentagon for a delay in institution of the last administration’s plan to accept new transgender recruits.

    According to the AP, which cited unnamed officials, three of the four service branches wanted more time. The Army and Air Force wanted a two-year delay, while the Navy requested a one-year delay at the request of the Marines, which is under the Navy’s purview.

    The four service chiefs met with Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work about the issue this week, according to the AP.

    The chiefs believe the extra six months before implementing the policy would give the services time to gauge if currently serving transgender troops are facing problems and what necessary changes the military bases might have to make, the AP reported.

    Not to mention that there’s this on-going war thing happening on three continents that probably deserves more attention than the social engineering policies of the last administration.

    The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) argued that a delay would harm readiness.

    “Each day that passes without implementing the final piece of this important policy harms our military readiness and restricts the Armed Forces ability to recruit the best and the brightest,” Stephen Peters, HRC national press secretary, said in a statement.

    Yeah, that strikes me as so much horseshit. How does recruiting youngsters who can’t accept nature’s decision on their gender identity make the military more effective? How does that help our deployed troops kill our nation’s enemies in greater numbers? It only wastes money on social glad-handing that could be better spent on readiness and training.

    While the services are trying to work out the deployment of thousands of troops to fight terrorism, they don’t need the distraction of the social integration of deviant lifestyles.

  • Inside James Mattis’ Pentagon

    Inside James Mattis’ Pentagon

    Chief Tango sends us a link to Defense News where Scott Maucione gives a peek at the priorities in the Defense Department of Secretary James Mattis;

    If you want to sell something to the Defense Department, make sure it can help kill someone.

    That’s what Acting Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology James MacStravic says the Pentagon is prioritizing under the new administration.

    […]

    “If I can’t discuss an acquisition issue in the context of lethality, I have immediately lost the secretary’s interest. His first question every time I bring an acquisition question, opportunity, investment decision to him is, ‘Tell me again how this contributes to lethality,’” MacStravic said.

    “It doesn’t have to be lethal in and of itself, but he wants to understand how it’s improving the current lethality of the force, not what it will be in five years, because Secretary Mattis works under the supposition that we could go to war at any time … it’s more important to know what will work in the field right now than to be confident about what will work in the field in five years because we don’t know what the threat will be in five years.”

    Mattis’ predecessor, Ash Carter, was more interested in the future, evidenced by his support for ending the A-10 Warthog program for some nebulous replacement somewhere down the road, while the troops involved in Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan need air support today. The difference between a war-fighter and a paper-pusher. Carter seemed uncomfortable with admitting that there was a current war he needed to fight.

    Mattis has retained the programs begun by Carter while focusing on making his mark on way the Pentagon does business today on the battlefield.

  • Pentagon delays action on transgender ban

    The Military Times reports that the Pentagon is delaying action on the transgender ban that the previous administration had scheduled to lift on July 1st.

    It’s unclear how Defense Secretary Jim Mattis eventually will rule on the matter, though in the past he has cast doubt on whether such moves ultimately advance the military’s principal national security objectives. In early May, his deputy distributed a memo to the services’ top leaders affording them an opportunity to raise concerns about the policy’s implementation. As first reported by USA Today, the memo was carefully crafted to explain that plans would proceed “unless they cause readiness problems that could lessen our ability to fight, survive and win on the battlefield.”

    A Pentagon spokesman, Army Lt. Col. Myles Caggins, would not address the prospect for delaying transgender accessions, saying only that there’s been no change to existing military policy allowing transgender troops already serving to do so openly. “And,” he added, “just like their fellow service members, [they may] receive all medically necessary care.”

    Like I’ve said, the only policy changes that Pentagon should consider are those policies which affect our ability to kill the enemy in large numbers. This one doesn’t do that. It’s unnecessarily a burden to an already strained budget and does nothing for readiness. Even the discussion about lifting the ban on new transgender recruits is a waste of resources on such a small demographic.

  • Warthog survives

    Warthog survives

    Chief Tango sends us an Associated Press link that announces that the A-10 Thunderbolt, lovingly called the Warthog, will be around for longer than we thought it would a year or two ago;

    In the 2018 Pentagon budget plan sent to Congress this week, the Air Force proposed to keep all 283 A-10s flying for the foreseeable future.

    Three years ago, the Pentagon proposed scrapping the fleet for what it estimated would be $3.5 billion in savings over five years. Congress said no.

    The following year, the military tried again but said the retirement would not be final until 2019. Congress again said no.

    Last year, officials backed away a bit further, indicating retirement was still the best option but that it could be put off until 2022.

    Now the retirement push is over, and the Warthog’s future appears secure.

    “The world has changed,” said Maj. Gen. James F. Martin Jr., the Air Force budget deputy, in explaining decisions to keep aircraft once deemed expendable.

    No, the world didn’t change. What changed was the political climate. The Air Force thought by dumping the A-10, they’d have more money at the cost of American lives on the field of battle. The Pentagon is now focused on winning the war against the evil losers instead of the domestic social climate. There is nothing in the pipeline that can replace the A-10 to provide security for ground forces.

    Two years ago, Major General James Post, Vice Commander of Air Combat Command, told junior officers that “if anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it . . . anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason.”

    Last year the GAO scolded the Air Force for not planning to replace the A-10. Back then I wrote ” the problem rests with the politicians who only want to save money without a thought for how it would affect the ability of the military to fight and win wars.”

    So, yeah, the political world changed.

    Brrrrt on.

  • Pentagon: USS Frank E. Evans losses won’t be added to Vietnam Wall

    Pentagon: USS Frank E. Evans losses won’t be added to Vietnam Wall

    On June 3, 1969, the Sumner-class destroyer USS Frank E. Evans which was on maneuvers in the Sea of Japan South China Sea the day after it was relieved from duty off the coast of Vietnam was struck amidship by the Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne. According to Wiki;

    At around 3 a.m. on 3 June 1969, between Vietnam and Spratly Island, Frank E. Evans was operating with the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy in company with Melbourne which was in the process of going to flying stations and all ships in the formation were running without lights. Melbourne radioed Evans, then to port of the carrier, to take up the rescue destroyer position. The logical movement would be to turn to port and make a circle taking up station on the carrier’s port quarter. However, since the conning officer on Evans misunderstood the formation’s base course and believed they were starboard of Melbourne, they turned to starboard, cutting across the carrier’s bow twice in the process. Frank E. Evans was struck at a point around 92 feet from her bow on her port side and was cut in two. Her bow drifted off to the port side of Melbourne and sank in less than five minutes taking 73 of her crew with it. One body was recovered from the water, making a total of 74 dead. The stern scraped along the starboard side of Melbourne and lines were able to be attached by the crew of Melbourne. Around 60-100 men were also rescued from the water.

    At the time of the collision the commanding officer of Frank E. Evans was asleep in his quarters having left instructions to be awakened if there were to be any changes in the formation. Neither the officer of the deck nor the junior officer of the deck notified him when the station change was ordered. The bridge crew also did not contact the combat information center to request clarification of the positions and movements of the surrounding ships.

    In recent years, the USS Frank E. Evans (DD 754) Association, Inc. has been lobbying for the names of those 74 sailors lost in the incident added to the Vietnam War Memorial, since the World War II-era destroyer had previously been on duty in Vietnam waters. According to Fox News, the Pentagon has denied the request once again;

    The Evans sailors “do not meet the established criteria for the inscription of their names on the wall,” Navy Lt. Cmdr. Courtney Hillson, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said. “The deputy secretary of defense extensively reviewed information and records to make an informed decision.”

    The Evans veterans say the Pentagon has previously granted exceptions to the eligibility criteria for adding names to the memorial, including for dozens of Marines who were killed when the plane carrying them back to Vietnam from leave in Hong Kong crashed during takeoff.

    Until I read the part about the Marines who were killed coming back from liberty pass having their names added to the Wall, I agreed with the Pentagon. Now I’m not so sure.

    The USS Frank E. Evans (DD 754) Association, Inc. lists the 74 fatalities on their website.