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

Category: Military issues

  • Stupid hippie math

    Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades writes about a post that he found at Outside The Beltway which naively discusses this chart;

    Gabriel Malor does a fine job of dissecting the author, Doug Mataconis, and his assumptions that there is no threat great enough to justify our military expenditures and that there is room for cuts in our military budget. But I’d like to add a couple of points;

    When was the last time we were attacked, and what was the percentage of the world’s military spending of al Qaeda at the time of that attack? Where will the next attack come from? Aren’t we the target of nearly every mouse-sized government in the world and so our defense budget is nearly half of the entire world’s expenditures because we have to be prepared to defend our interests from half of the world?

    Not only do we have to protect ourselves from every halfwit dictator and despot in the world, we have to do that without killing anyone, which would, apparently, improve the recruiting efforts of the forces arrayed against us.

    We have to be prepared for artificially protracted campaigns because we allow our own citizens to give aid and comfort to all of our enemies at any given time. We have scores of dunder-heads who protect our enemies’ own war-making mechanisms with their scrawny bodies.

    Not only that, we have to protect our defense facilities from the idiots in our own country who think it’s cool to interrupt our own security efforts. And we have to be non-lethal about it – a dimension not afforded our enemies and potential enemies.

    Then factor in the fact that most of our allies won’t live up to their regional responsibilities unless they can put us in the vanguard so the the world has a convenient scapegoat in the case that the adventure wasn’t executed as expected.

    In short, if the US wasn’t spending for defense like we are, the world would be a less-tolerable place to live. And just dick-measuring military spending doesn’t come close to telling whole story. Stupid hippies.

  • In the Wreckage of an Almost-Shutdown

    Today, a lot of us are taking a slightly ragged breath and relaxing a bit. Last night, around 11PM, a deal was reached that would extend for a week the operations of government as we know it. This is particularly meaningful for all of our servicemembers, many serving in harm’s way, who had already opened up Mypay to reveal a LES with only half the pay anticipated for it. This will allow them to get their midmonth pay.

    Let me stress, for those few who might happen to be unaware, that unlike the rest of the government, when the military isn’t getting paid, the military is still working. People don’t stop trying to kill them just because they’re not getting paid. Instead, it’s just another worry on their mind, preventing them from being fully focused on the dangers surrounding them, because they’re too busy wondering if their family will be able to pay the rent or buy groceries.

    I’d like to take a moment to thank those organizations that went above and beyond in order to make sure servicemembers didn’t have to worry about where their family’s next meal would come from: such as the Navy Federal Credit Union, that promised all servicemember’s mid-month checks would be covered by the institution. I’d also like to thank (and this is rare) the VA (or as Brandon Friedman likes to remind everyone, Veterans Affairs) for putting out a Veterans Guide to the Shutdown, to help address the justified concerns many veterans had about whether their disability checks and education benefits would arrive on the 1st.

    However, what really needs to be addressed is not so pretty: why did it come so close in the first place? A lot of people in both political parties want to blame the other party. But really, both parties are to blame, and both parties gambled way too much with the lives of people who have already given up a lot to serve their country.

    The one bare-minimum standard any governmental body that deals with money has is to pass a budget for the next year. But nobody wanted to pass a budget before the elections, because then they’d have to deal with possible consequences for their votes. And after the elections, when Democrats realized that they were going to be out of power next year, they hurried with pushing through the healthcare reform, instead of worrying about doing their job and passing the budget.

    But the Republicans aren’t off the hook yet. Passing a budget was their job, too, and they chose to focus on ideological battles also. They decided to play a game of brinksmanship to show how tough they were for the next budget fight, ignoring the people it was going to impact. They tried to create a temporary bill that supposedly would fund the Pentagon all year, and the rest of government a week, to save the military, but then again added ideological riders on it.
    Why do we put up with this? People on both sides, why do we act as though our party protects veterans and servicemembers? I think we need to acknowledge that both sides use us for photo ops and for talking points on the halls of Congress, but when it comes down to it, they don’t really care.

  • Staying in Iraq?

    Gates: U.S. troops could stay in Iraq for years

    It would depend, he said, on what the Iraqis want and what Washington is willing to give.

    Time will tell, but there certainly are precedents. Personally, I dunno if it’s a good idea, or would even have a point. Said another way… Just what would keeping an even smaller force in Iraq accomplish? Who would it deter?

    In Korea the phrase ‘tripwire’ has been used with some accuracy, for instance. In Iraq I’m afraid ‘target’ would be the word?

    Gates added: “Well, I think that would be part of any negotiation,” Gates answered, “… whether it would be for a finite period of time, whether it would be negotiated that there be a further ramp down over a period of two or three years, or whether we would have a continuing advise-and-assist role that we have in a number of countries that just becomes part of a regular military-to-military relationship.”

    Let’s hope the NCA can approach any negotiations with a clearer focus than the recent past might suggest.

    Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive has weighed in.

  • “No boots on the ground” promise reconsidered

    AndyFMF sends us a link to a CBS News article in which Gen. Carter Ham told Congress that President Obama’s promise that there would be “no, boots on the ground” in Libya is virtually meaningless;

    Asked if the U.S. would provide troops, Ham said, “I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that’s probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail.”

    Ham also told lawmakers that Libyans government forces are hiding among the civilian population…that’s never happened to us before and its completely unexpected. So a strictly air campaign isn’t working out so well, I’m wondering what’s the recourse.

    But we’ve known for years now that the president is not averse to telling lies he has no intention of keeping.

  • Proposed Alaska law to allow equal drinking rights for troops

    An Alaska lawmaker is tries to flout Federal transportation money that holds states hostage to a federal drinking age in exchange for the right of troops to come home from war and legally have a beer;

    An Alaska lawmaker who served in Vietnam is pushing a bill that would allow active-duty service members under 21 to drink alcohol as long as they could produce an armed forces identification card. Those under 19 — Alaska’s smoking age — would be allowed to buy tobacco products.

    “It’s not fair that one guy in a fox hole can go home and have a beer while another guy in the fox hole can’t,” said Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Anchorage. “It’s not about drinking, it’s not about smoking, it’s about equality. If you get shot at, you can have a shot.”

    But Lynn’s bill has received a cool reception from the state’s armed forces commanders, who worry it would encourage unhealthy behavior in a military that wants to reduce smoking and curb drinking.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know what the commanders want. But they’re not our parents and we’re old enough to make our own decisions. Tons of service members have had a beer and lived through it.

    Thanks to Paul for the link.

  • Military will not be paid during shutdown

    ROS sends us this link from the Air Force Times;

    Service members will not get paid and a significant number of Defense Department civilian employees will be furloughed, a senior Obama administration official said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters.

    You can tell that Military Times’ Rick Maze, the Obama propagandist, was involved in the article;

    Military personnel would continue to earn money during a shutdown, but they would not immediately be paid past Friday “until we have money again,” the senior administration official said.

    They don’t get paid until the 15th anyway. Does anyone honestly think they’ll let the shut down go past a few days? All the GOP needs to do is wait them out through the weekend.

  • Male-on-male rape in the military

    Newsweek has published an article entitled The Military’s Secret Shame about epidemic-levels of male-on-male rape in the military. Now, I know the military hasn’t changed that much in the nearly two decades since I retired that it’s as common as Newsweek makes it sound;

    In the staunchly traditional military culture, it’s an ugly secret, kept hidden by layers of personal shame and official denial. Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from just over 30,000 in 2003.

    I don’t doubt that it happens occasionally – we get soldiers from the general society, not from a farm somewhere where they train from birth.

    It wasn’t until 1992 that the Defense Department even acknowledged such incidents as an offense, and initially only female victims were recognized. But last year more than 110 men made confidential reports of sexual assault by other men, nearly three times as many as in 2007. The real number of victims is surely much higher. Even among civilians, sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. In the military the silence is nearly complete. By the Pentagon’s own estimate, figures for assaults on women likely represent less than 20 percent of actual incidents. Another study released in March found that just one in 15 men in the Air Force would report being sexually assaulted, compared with one in five women.

    What? Rape wasn’t illegal until 1992? Bullshit. Who do they think they’re talking to? And what are they calling “sexual assault”? Getting kneed in the ‘nads? Or the rapes that they breathlessly recount in the article, the three i read were totally implausible – there would have been ample evidence of the assault which should have triggered an investigation. A drill sergeant who raped a trainee? Really? Drill sergeants get investigated for every word they say – no one would have investigated a rape charge? One guy who was raped with a soda bottle – no physical evidence there, huh?

    Of course, Newsweek says that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should improve reports of these crimes.

    In my two decades of military service, mostly in the Infantry, the biggest exclusive man club in the Army, I never heard of one incident of same sex rape. Like I said, it probably happens, but it’s impossible that it’s as rampant as Newsweek claims. Of course, hiding behind the lack of victim reports make the story less believable.

  • Army; Stetson to replace beret

    Army Stetson

    OK, the only reason I’d be for this is to stick a finger in Shinseki’s eye;

    In a fingertip-to-the-brim nod to its American frontier history, the Army is changing hats again – returning to the tumultuous days of the horse Cavalry in the wild west and adopting a dark blue Stetson as the official headgear for the current force of 1.1 million Soldiers.

    “We figure the Stetson will be popular with the troops,” said Sgt. Maj. Bob S. Stone, Army Uniform Board headgear task force president. “It’s been a while since we have changed the headgear, so it’s time. Plus a Stetson is functional and down right American.”

    “Why in the heck are they doing to us what they did to the snake-eaters?” asked one officer familiar with the board’s deliberations. “If you ain’t Cav, you ain’t ought to be wearing a Cav hat. That just ain’t right.”

    But the sheer functionality of the wide-brimmed American-classic Stetson won over the majority of the board.

    “You can keep the sun out of your eyes, the hat won’t melt to your head on a sunny day, and female Soldiers can tuck long hair under a Stetson a lot easier than with the current beret,” says Stone. “Plus we’ve already gone back to blue jackets for the service dress uniform. The Stetson actually completes the look.”

    Mandatory wear date? Oh, a year from now…On April Fool’s Day. Who says the Army doesn’t have a sense of humor?

    Thanks to Just Plain Jason for the link.