A viewer sent this picture to WJLA in DC today;
Remember this while you’re shoveling out today. Thanks to Jerry920 for the link.
Category: Military issues
-
The Real Deal
The milblog community just exposed and destroyed another phony. Jonn, TSO, and everybody else involved should be proud and definitely deserve more credit (which was pretty much none) than they got in the local Houston media.
I think its appropriate that after spending a lot of time talking about a phony hero that some time is spent talking about a real hero who legitimately earned a stack of medals and ribbons and someone who is disrespected and dishonored by fake pieces of crap like Michael Patrick McManus.
When I was a boot PFC just out of security forces school, I had to spend eight months at Marine Barracks Washington (aka 8th and I) in order to obtain a security and weapons clearance so I could serve as part of the Marine detachment at Camp David. I was part of the guard force at the barracks and it was easily my most miserable time in the Marine Corps. The duty consisted of standing post for 12 hours on your feet with 12 hours off for sometimes weeks at a time because of a poorly-crafted security plan for the barracks. What made things particularly bad was that most (but not all) of the officers and SNCOs who served at the barracks while I was there were there for one thing only: to advance their careers. 8th and I is the home of the commandant and several other general officers and if you look at the bios of many Marine Corps general officers you will find that they spent time 8th and I. For this reason, the place attracts alot of ladder-climbers who put their own personal careers over the well-being of their Marines. Many combat decorated NCOs and Staff NCOs got thrown under the bus at 8th and I by these careerists. For these reasons, there wasn’t a lot of trust in and respect for the officers and senior enlisted leadership at Marine Barracks Washington while I was there. I was very happy to get out of that place and move on to Camp David.
However there were a few exceptions and the most universally respected officer was Capt. Joshua Glover. When I was at 8th and I, Capt. Glover was the platoon commander of the Silent Drill Platoon. Capt Glover took care of not only his Marines in the SDP, but also Marines in other sections of the barracks. The guard force was always happy when Capt Glover was Officer of the Day. He would make a point of touring every post and spending time at each one to talk to the Marine sentries, sometimes for up to an hour. For a young PFC standing a 12 hour post by himself, this meant the world and made that miserable and lonely duty go by a lot quicker.
Captain Glover was also a highly decorated infantry officer. He served three tours in Iraq with 1st battalion, 5th Marines, including the invasion, the first battle of Fallujah, and a tour in Ramadi. For actions during the first battle of Fallujah, Capt Glover earned the Silver Star. You can read about it here or pick up a copy of Bing West’s No True Glory, in which Capt Glover’s actions are discussed in great detail. Capt Glover also received two purple hearts, a Navy Commendation with a V, and a Navy Achievement Medal with a V. It should also be pointed out that is likely that Capt Glover didn’t have to go back for a third tour to Iraq. In the Marine Corps, in most circumstances, after two deployments you rotate from a fleet unit to a non-deployable unit like 8th and I, the drill field, or some instructor billet (sometimes you don’t have a choice in the matter). This is done for a very good reason and helps insure that Marines get a break from the stresses of the fleet and that Marines just back from combat can train the next generation. However, Capt Glover knew that 1/5 was going back into the meat-grinder and wanted to be there with them.
Capt. Glover receiving his Silver Star from General Hagee
Captain Glover rotated back to a deployable unit around the same time I left Camp David for 2/1. I didn’t hear anything about him after that. Today, when I logged on to Facebook I saw a post by a Marine I served with (Dave who was with 3/8 in Afghanistan) mentioning that Capt Glover had been wounded back in November in Afghanistan and tonight he would be ringside at the UFC fight thanks to UFC fighter Brian Stann (I couldn’t embed the video but Stann talks about Glover in the fourth video from the left here). Capt Glover was wounded while participating in a rescue operation for two paratroopers from the 82nd (who unfortunately drowned in a river). There is a possibility he may lose one leg. More details about what happened can be found here at Glock Talk. This was Capt. Glover’s either third or fourth time being wounded and his fourth combat deployment.
Captain Glover is the real deal. I hope McManus serves a long time in a deep dark hole for disrespecting men like Capt Glover.
(Thanks to Dave and other Marines from the Yankee White community for the heads-up on what happened to Capt. Glover)
UPDATE 02/06/2010: I received more information from a friend an fellow Marine who was in my platoon at Camp David (Steve, another Marine who is the real deal) about Captain Glover. I was wrong about some of the details about his injuries and circumstances behind his injuries. I have updated the post accordingly. Steve says Captain Glover is at Walter Reed is doing pretty well. If I get more information, I will update this post. Again, I would not have known about any of this without Marines from the Yankee White community.
-
Moatengator memories
About a year ago, I vacationed in Panama and made my brother-in-law take me out to the old drop zone we used on Howard Air Force Base and, of course I blogged about it. Several people from the unit, nicknamed Moatengators, found the post and commented. One of them sent me a load of pictures this week that he wanted me to share. Here’s a picture of our donor waiting for the chopper behind our barracks;
-
Poking the DADT bear
It amuses me how upset everyone gets over DADT while there’s a war going on. The Secretary of Defense and his staff were in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee telling the world that they fully support the President’s policy, which is nothing more than jumping in bed with butt-hurt gays. For what? How will this improve our strategic position in the Middle East?
I don’t see legions of gay people milling around outside of recruiting stations waiting for DADT to fall by the side of the road so they can do their patriotic duty. I hope when (notice Isaid “when”) DADT finally ends they keep statistics of how many gays join just because there’s no more DADT. I’m guessing “none”.
Take our buddy dicksmith at Vote Vets; three out of the first six posts over there have to do with who is an American and who isn’t depending on their support for ending DADT. Is that really an issue which bears that level of scrutiny and discussion WHILE THERE’S A WAR GOING ON?
I’ll admit that we’ve had a large number of posts related to DADT this week, but it’s only because we love to watch you guys sling snot all over your computer screens. It’s called showmanship. But dicksmith takes this shit seriously, like he’s never going to get laid again until DADT is rescinded. I’m guessing he’s a bottom boy.
But, WHILE THERE’S A WAR GOING ON, there’s the Secretary of Defense snot-eyed in front of the likes of John Kerry professing his undying love for gays (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and the flamboyant lifestyle. Admiral Mullen said;
“I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Mullen said. “For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
Can’t escaped being troubled? That’s a bit flamboyant, too. This isn’t a policy that forces people to lie, it’s a policy that forces people to follow the rules. Is everyone forgetting that before DADT gays were forbidden to serve? DADT was an effective, moderate compromise – but the gay community doesn’t want to compromise. And that’s why they shouldn’t have a voice in the discussion. They won’t quit until there’s a digital-camouflage-patterned feather boa in the 670-1.
Just like the whole discussion of Sikhs and their turbans – they couldn’t wear their turbans in uniform because certain combat conditions might result in their death. But that didn’t stop them from making completely vacuous arguments and the Army caved. I don’t see the Army’s ranks swelling with Sikhs either.
Gates told the committee;
“I fully support the president’s decision,” Gates said. “The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we … best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly.”
Fine, that’s why you’re SecDef, you should support the president’s decision and that should be the end of the testimony to the Senate Committee. There was no need for Mullens to get teary-eyed and dramatic. Salute. Move out. But spare us the editorializing.
I just think it’s damn awful that Gates and Mullins can see the evils of DADT, but they’re absolutely blind to the threat that Nidal Hassan posed to military members.
So what do I think of DADT? I could care less – both sides are being disingenuous. I feel the same way about gays that feel about women in combat – if they can make the standard and follow the rules, they’re welcome. But gays haven’t proven to me they can follow the rules. My objection isn’t moral – I just don’t think they can behave themselves and i certainly don’t believe that the repeal of DADT is the solution to all of our manpower problems.
And there’s more important shit going on in the world that our military should be worried about than having our Secretary of Defense and his staff sitting in front of John Kerry telling him how much they approve of sodomy in the ranks. But that’s just me.
-
Tony Camerino still clinging to his own lies
In his latest missive at VoteVet’s VetsVoice, Anthony Camerino (aka Matthew Alexander) dismisses a Washington Post op-ed piece by Michael V. Hayden because of Camerino’s perception of the Bush Administration’s policy of treating terrorists as terrorists;
Jumping on the bandwagon of fear-mongering and criticizing the Justice Department’s handling of Abdulmullatab is Hayden’s method for shielding against the Justice Department’s investigation of war crimes committed by CIA agents, which may ultimately lead to the top.
Camerino thinks that Abdulmullatab should be treated as a criminal instead of a soldier in the war against America because it “shames” him and “shames” al Qaeda. Is Camerino so naive that he thinks that these Stone Age thugs are influenced by shame? That we can win the war against terrorists by shaming them into submission?
Hayden writes;
We got it wrong in Detroit on Christmas Day. We allowed an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not “an isolated extremist.” He is the tip of the spear of a complex al-Qaeda plot to kill Americans in our homeland.
In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits?
Of course, Hayden is right, there were no al Qaeda experts in the room when Abdulmutallab – he admits the limitations of not having an experienced team. So how does Camerino respond?
Perhaps Hayden lacks perspective of never having been on the ground in the Middle East and working with Arabs or Muslims.
Seems to me Camerino should have been outraged that interrogators like him, with a measure of experience in interrogating jihadists, weren’t doing the work they’re trained to do. Instead, Camerino claims Hayden doesn’t have the experience to judge the situation.
It’s hard to give credence to someone who authorized war crimes, repeatedly, or who’s actions (the torture and abuse of detainees) resulted in thousands of new recruits for Al Qaida, costing us the lives of American troops on the ground.
It’s even harder to give credence to someone who hides behind a pseudonym and makes outrageous claims like our strategy against terrorists creates terrorists with no real evidence other than the word of a few terrorists avoiding questions from an interrogator with less than four months of experience in the field.
