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

Category: Media

  • Why the internet has milblogs and Spencer Ackerman can’t be one of them

    I’ve heard people I respect rave about how brilliant Spencer Ackerman is, and I’ve always thought he was a bit of an empty shell and this POS he wrote today with Noah Schachtman proves I was right. The piece is entitled “U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam“. The two stooges start out with their attention grabbing first paragraph;

    The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a “total war” against the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of “Hiroshima” to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the “civilian population wherever necessary.”

    Shocking, huh?! But the “documents” that they obtained are a power point presentation to set up a scenario for officers to use for their war planning in a seminar at the Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College. Ackerman and Schachtman take lines totally out of the context of setting the guidelines for the discussion and use them as declarative statements that seemingly present the world as the author of the slides sees the current situation. For example;

    “We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam,’” Dooley noted in a July 2011 presentation (.pdf), which concluded with a suggested manifesto to America’s enemies. “It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.”

    Yeah, a manifesto. It’s a phase of the war game, dickbrains. Here’s the slide he’s talking about;

    See, where it says “Phase I”. That means that this is the second phase of the discussion. Phase I theoretically failed, so officers are asked to consider what the appropriate reaction to the conditions to Phase II are. But Ackerman and Schachtman think that it’s a propaganda piece to convince officers that we have no choice but to wipe out Islam.

    Army Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, the guy who wrote the slide presentation, doesn’t, nor do the people he lectures, have the influence to formulate national defense policy. Anyone with more than half-a-brain would know that this is merely a scenario for discussion and not the policy of any defense institute.

    I urge you to read the whole breathless piece and look at the slide show and see if you arrive at the same level of alarm that these two dilwads reach.

    Thanks to Daniel for the link, but I’ve been thinking about this all day.

  • Latest underwear bomber was a double agent

    Associated Press writes that the latest failure of al Qaeda to take down an aircraft headed for the US was actually foiled by the man they had sent to the airport with the ‘splodies in his underoos;

    The would-be suicide bomber, the man al-Qaida entrusted with its latest device, actually was a double agent working with the CIA and Saudi intelligence agencies, officials said Tuesday. Instead of sneaking it onto a plane in his underwear, he delivered it to the U.S. government and handed al-Qaida its latest setback.

    So, even though everyone is calling this an intelligence success, it’s still dumb luck. What if the terrorists had picked someone else to wear the drawers instead of this intrepid agent of ours?

    And I guess another thing that we should be concerned about is how the AP found out, and wouldn’t making this public kind of ruin our chances at doing it again? And I’m pretty sure that AQ knows who this guy is, so isn’t his life in a little bit of danger?

    In other words, I’m glad that I know, but I’m not so sure that you should know.

  • CIA prevents use of upgraded underwear bomb

    The CIA stopped a potential underwear bomber from boarding a flight while he was still in Yemen. According to the Associated Press, the detonation device was supposed to be more reliable than the one which toasted the nuts of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab over Detroit on Christman 2009;

    The FBI is examining the latest bomb to see whether it could have passed through airport security and brought down an airplane, officials said. They said the device did not contain metal, meaning it probably could have passed through an airport metal detector. But it was not clear whether new body scanners used in many airports would have detected it.

    The would-be suicide bomber, based in Yemen, had not yet picked a target or bought his plane tickets when the CIA stepped in and seized the bomb, officials said. It’s not immediately clear what happened to the alleged bomber.

    Although they kept it quiet for a week, the AP released the story a day before the Obama Administration had asked them to release it because AP wanted to get ahead of the planned release tomorrow.

    The attack was supposed to coincide with the anniversary of the death of bin Laden.

    Thanks to Sporkmaster for the link.

  • David Maraniss: Obama’s military connection

    Washington Post’s David Maraniss reaches out and gives the Obama campaign a happy ending today in what can only be considered a real piece of crap entitled “Obama’s military connection“. Maraniss tells us that Obama was born to be commander-in-chief of the military because he knew people who knew people who had been in the military. And because he “chaffed” against the anti-war generation of the sixties.

    The photo for the article is one of Obama having a conversation with General McCrystal, the man Obama was destined to fire when it was discovered publicly that McChrystal’s staff didn’t respect the president who wouldn’t grant the commander’s requests and recommendations for fighting the war in Afghanistan. So, yeah, Maraniss’ contention is falsified before you even begin reading.

    The article begins by recounting the day in 2002 when Obama first became the darling of the anti-Bush party when he spoke out about “the rush to war with Iraq” – the fact that the speech was given more than five months before the first combat soldiers entered Iraq makes one wonder why the “rush” took so long.

    But anyway, Maraniss tells us that Obama couldn’t relate to the creaky anti-war songs that were playing before his speech. Somehow, that’s proof that Obama has a connection to the military. But, that’s not all;

    The cultural geography of those formative years also shaped his perspective. Obama was in Honolulu then, surrounded by military installations. Hickam Air Force Base, Schofield Barracks, Fort Shafter, Pearl Harbor Naval Station and Hawaii Marine Corps Base were all part of his adolescent environment. He grew up comfortable with the military culture, not alienated from it. Some friends came from military families. One of his buddies dated an admiral’s daughter, and they would borrow the old man’s car to tool around the island.

    Which leads to the least-appreciated aspect of Obama’s connection to the military — race. That buddy was known as a hapa, the Hawaiian term for someone of mixed heritage; like Obama, he had one black parent. Oahu was a diverse and colorful place, a mix of cultures and languages, but fewer than 1 percent of its residents were black, and almost all of those were connected to the military.

    Yeah, by knowing a guy who dated an admiral’s daughter and drove the admiral’s car, well, that’s more proof. And because he grew up around military bases and most of the black people in his neighborhood were in the military. That’s an indisputable connection to the military. It’s almost as if he’d been through basic training and served for years, isn’t it?

    And, oh, don’t forget that his grandfather had been in World War II – so some of his genetic material had been in World War II, as well. Maybe he deserves some WWII service medals.

    Look into the faces of the soldiers who greeted Obama in Afghanistan this month, black and Latino and white, and you can almost feel the visceral connection with a president who has a diverse background.

    Certainly, just by looking like some of the soldiers makes you one of them. Yeah, those are the only points Maraniss made in the whole piece, if you don’t believe me, read it for yourself. I was at least hoping that Maraniss would reveal that Obama had taken some seminars in the relationship between War and Politics, or some other mental masturbation on that level, but Maraniss’ point couldn’t be that sharp – it’s always about race and shit that doesn’t matter.

    Maraniss is f’n idiot, and so is everyone at the Washington Post who thought it was a good idea to put that POS into the cached memory of the internet.

  • Single arrest in Norfolk mob beating

    I absolutely hate to link to World Net Daily, but in this incident, they seem to be the only ones reporting it (which makes the report mildly suspicious all by itself). But at their link, sent to us by Hondo, they’re reporting that Norfolk police have made a single arrest in the case of the mob beating of two Virginian-Pilot reports we talked about yesterday.

    Police arrested the suspect this morning, but authorities will not release his name due to his age. According to the Virginian-Pilot, he has been charged with throwing a missile at a vehicle, a felony, as well as two counts of simple assault by mob, destruction of property and participation in a riot, all misdemeanors.

    But at a press conference today, interim Norfolk Police Chief Sharon Chamberlin said the department is not investigating the case as a hate crime.

    “At no time in our investigation or in statements taken from the victims did it appear this assault was racially motivated,” she said.

    Oh, wait, I finally found the article in the Virginian-Pilot;

    [Interim Norfolk Police Chief Sharon] Chamberlin added that police believe only a few people were involved in the attack.

    “It is important to clarify that 30 people did not carry out the assault,” she said. “There was a large group in the vicinity, but our investigation and the statements of the victims show that no more than a handful of people were involved.”

    Of course, that statement is for the tourists since the beating happened in a popular entertainment district.

  • American Homecomings

    Scott Blanchard of the York (Pennsylvania) Daily Record and Sunday News sent us a note about their project that they’re involved in along with other news organizations and sponsored by the Denver Post called “American Homecomings“. Scott say that the project “will chronicle the lives of several military members as they return from Iraq and Afghanistan.” He continues;

    This project, which will run for a year, includes a nationwide searchable database of veterans’ resources, and other things we think will make it worth checking out for returning veterans and their families.

    There’s also a blogroll which includes us and many of our friends, and so, I’ve added them to our blogroll, too, but you should check them out daily, even though it’s connected to our mortal enemy the Denver Post. I support anything that has a potential to help the troops, especially when they come home.

  • How to misunderstand the CIB

    Chief Tango sent us a link to a Washington Post article about a young lieutenant who mistakenly shot a subordinate Pfc. David H. Sharrett II. If there is any truth to the story, he certainly deserves to be investigated. But, it’s clear to me that the Washington Post doesn’t understand the Combat Infantryman Badge. First, look at his headline;

    The story goes on to describe how the Army is investigating the award of the CIB to now-CPT Timothy R. Hanson;

    Then-Lt. Timothy R. Hanson was given the “combat infantryman badge” specifically for his actions on Jan. 16, 2008, according to a document supplied to Sharrett’s father, David H. Sharrett Sr., last week.

    I don’t know how the CIB could have been awarded “specifically for his actions” on a certain day since the CIB is a qualification badge given for a period of service, it not a medal given for specific actions. That’s why it’s called a badge and not called a medal. the Army is fairly specific on that point;

    Awarded to personnel in the grade of Colonel or below with an infantry or special forces military occupational specialty who have satisfactorily performed duty while assigned as a member of an infantry/special forces unit, brigade or smaller size, during any period subsequent to 6 December 1941 when the unit was engaged in active ground combat.

    Basically, you only have to be assigned to an infantry unit lower than a brigade while they’re being shot at by an enemy. The orders for the award are issued to groups of soldiers who served during the same time period – nothing about it has to do with “specific days”.

    The Army compounds the confusion;

    Thursday evening, Army spokesman George B. Wright Jr. said that ”the Army takes matters of improper award allegations very seriously. In the case of Lt. Hanson’s Combat Infantryman Badge award order dated March 27, 2008, the Army has directed a formal review of the award. The review is ongoing, and expected to be complete within the next two months.”

    I don’t know what the Army could be reviewing. If the Captain served in an infantry unit in combat, he deserves the badge – and the Army should tell the Post that instead of trying to mollify them with false outrage.

    I’m not defending Hanson, nor am I trying to make a case for him keeping his CIB, I’m just trying to clarify the award here. Like the Army should have done in the first place.

  • Bacevich: Military leaders need to take responsibility for troops’ actions

    In today’s Washington Post, Andrew J. Bacevich writes that the problem in Afghanistan these days is that the commanders aren’t taking enough responsibility for their troops’ malfeasance;

    For too long now, command accountability for our troops’ misconduct in wartime has been more theoretical than real. The latest scandal to erupt in Afghanistan — photographs of American soldiers amusing themselves with dismembered Taliban corpses — suggests that it’s past time to confront this problem.

    On the question of accountability, the military’s ethic is clear: With authority comes responsibility. More specifically, commanders bear responsibility for everything that happens within their jurisdiction. This decree supposedly applies to high-ranking generals as much as lowly lieutenants.

    He concludes;

    Leaders shape institutions. But no leader is irreplaceable — sometimes nothing beats replacing a few near the top to focus the attention of the rest. For an American military well into a second exhausting decade of continuous war, this is one of those times.

    You might be surprised to read that I agree with Bacevich, but not in the way he’d like me to agree. Leaders do indeed shape institutions. And the military’s top leader hasn’t taken responsibility for one thing he’s done since he assumed that mantle. How else should his subordinates act?

    Yes, I know, Bacevich wants Obama to fire Gen. John Allen from his post as commander of our forces in Afghanistan, but I think it would do more good for our intentions in Afghanistan to be secured if we fired Allen’s bosses.

    We have Leon Panetta raping military retirees while he takes $32,000 trips home every weekend. And Panetta’s boss, the President, sitting on his hands while the economy falls to pieces. Neither take responsibility for their own malfeasance, more interested in blaming nebulous banks, oil speculators and the previous administration for their woes and inability to effectively act on what they are paid to do.

    Now, I don’t expect Bacevich to be intellectually honest and extrapolate his theory so that it affects directly the mission in Afghanistan and the effectiveness of our troops there. That would cost him job at the Post. But as you read his piece, you can see that there is no other solution to the problems in Afghanistan than removing the leadership in November.