Category: Military issues

  • What is your Major (Cook) malfunction, Birther?

    030807ermey_movie

    TSO sent me a link to an article on Military.com in which R. Lee Ermey wonders who the hell these Birthers are – more specifically, the folks in the military who refuse their orders;

    “I haven’t heard about those guys,” Ermey told Military.com during an Aug. 21 interview. “If I do run across them though, trust me, I’ll square them away.”

    Two GIs deployed to Iraq have insisted that Obama isn’t a legal citizen while another Soldier, Maj. Stefan Cook, has been waging a court fight – first in Georgia, then Florida – to force the president to produce a birth certificate that will satisfy his objections.

    Like me, Ermey claims he supports President Obama’s policy in the war against terror, but he claims he’s independent of political affiliations. Obviously, he thinks that politics have no place in the military – like me. These antics of Major Cook can only end up hurting the military in the end – no matter how it turns out.

  • What’s the use?

    You probably read Uncle Jimbo’s post at Blackfive (by way of Mrs. Greyhawk and DVIDS) about a US Navy helicopter taking fire from some Somali pirates the other day. Uncle Jimbo rightly asks why they didn’t return fire.

    Today’s Star and Stripes reports that a ground-based UAV unit is moving to the area.

    About 75 U.S. military personnel and civilians will be headed to the Seychelles islands in the coming weeks to set up the Reaper operations, which could start in October or November. U.S. Africa Command is calling the Navy-led mission Ocean Look.

    The U.S. will base the Reapers — to be used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — at Seychelles’ Mahé regional airport, Vince Crawley, AFRICOM spokesman, said.

    Two or three months seems like a long time to set up combat operations in a region that is plagued by pirates in little motor boats. The most disturbing part of the article is this line;

    The UAVs would not be armed.

    Then what’s the point? As Jimbo points out, we’re already not willing to let live people shoot at the thugs, so why bother launching more aircarft from which we won’t kill them? We already know that the Left has complained that this type of weaponry that doesn’t get our own troops killed on the grounds that it’s inhumane. Is this more of the Obama Administration pretending to do something about the threats to peace in that region without actually doing what needs to be done?

  • 24 notes

    I guess this is old but it’s the first time I’ve seen it.

    This veteran formed BuglesAcrossAmerica.org to provide a live playing of Taps at every veterans funeral.

    Since the clip played on Fox News Sunday in May, Tom Day says he’s recieved $100,000 in donations and 400 more buglers have volunteered.

  • Bellavia on Beck; The video

    Last night, TSO mentioned that David Bellavia was going to be on Beck. After a few false starts, I finally found the video. I caught the show quite by accident last night (I’m like Ace, I don’t read my own blog, I guess). I’ve met David a few times and he’s pretty entertaining.

    I’m not a Beck fan, but I’m a Bellavia fan.

    The video was on the FNC site for about a minute last night. I’m not sure why they took it down.

    bells-on-beck

  • Is Kennedy eligible for burial at Arlington?

    Susan asked the question, and she deserved an answer. So here’s the regulation from Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations;

    Sec. 553.15 Persons eligible for burial in Arlington National Cemetery.

    (a) Any active duty member of the Armed Forces (except those members serving on active duty for training only).
    (b) Any retired member of the Armed Forces. A retired member of the Armed Forces, in the context of this paragraph, is a retired member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, or a Reserve component who has served on active duty (other than for training), is carried on an official retired list, and is entitled to receive retired pay stemming from service in the Armed Forces. If, at the time of death, a retired member of the Armed Forces is not entitled to receive retired pay stemming from his service in the Armed Forces until some future date, the retired member will not be eligible for burial.
    (c) Any former member of the Armed Forces separated for physical disability prior to 1 October 1949 who has served on active duty (other than for training) and who would have been eligible for retirement under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1201 had that statute been in effect on the date of his separation.
    (d) Any former member of the Armed Forces whose last active duty (other than for training) military service terminated honorably and who has been awarded one of the following decorations:
    (1) Medal of Honor.
    (2) Distinguished Service Cross (Air Force Cross or Navy Cross).
    (3) Distinguished Service Medal.
    (4) Silver Star.
    (5) Purple Heart.
    (e) Persons who have held any of the following positions, provided their last period of active duty (other than for training) as a member of the Armed Forces terminated honorably:
    (1) An elective office of the United States Government.
    (2) Office of the Chief Justice of the United States or of an
    Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
    (3) An office listed in 5 U.S.C. 5312 or 5 U.S.C. 5313.
    (4) The Chief of a mission who was at any time during his tenure classified in class I under the provisions of 411 of the Act of 13 August 1946, 60 Stat. 1002, as amended (22 U.S.C. 866, 1964 ed.).
    (f) Any former prisoner of war who, while a prisoner of war, served honorably in the active military, naval, or air service, whose last period of active military, naval, or air service terminated honorably and who died on or after November 30, 1993.
    (1) The term “former prisoner of war” means a person who, while serving in the active military, naval, or air service, was forcibly detained or interned in line of duty–
    (i) By an enemy government or its agents, or a hostile force, during a period of war; or
    (ii) By a foreign government or its agents, or a hostile force, under circumstances which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds to have been comparable to the circumstances under which persons have generally been forcibly detained or interned by enemy governments during periods of war.
    (2) The term “active military, naval, or air service” includes active duty, any period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and any period of inactive duty training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty.
    (g) The spouse, widow or widower, minor child and, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, unmarried adult child of any of the persons listed above.
    (1) The term “spouse” refers to a widow or widower of an eligible member, including the widow or widower of a member of the Armed Forces who was lost or buried at sea or officially determined to be permanently absent in a status of missing or missing in action. A surviving spouse who has remarried and whose remarriage is void, terminated by death, or dissolved by annulment or divorce by a court with basic authority to render such decrees regains eligibility for burial in Arlington National Cemetery unless it is determined that the decree of annulment or divorce was secured through fraud or collusion.
    (2) An unmarried adult child may be interred in the same grave in which the parent has been or will be interred, provided that child was incapable of self-support up to the time of death because of physical or mental condition. At the time of death of an adult child, a request for interment will be submitted to the Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery. The request must be accompanied by a notarized statement from an individual who has direct knowledge as to the marital status, degree of dependency of the deceased child, the name of that child’s parent, and the military service upon which the burial is being requested. A certificate of a physician who has attended the decedent as to the nature and duration of the physical and/or mental disability must also accompany the request for interment.
    (h) Widows or widowers of service members who are interred in Arlington National Cemetery as part of a group burial may be interred in the same cemetery but not in the same grave.
    (i) The surviving spouse, minor child, and, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, unmarried adult child of any person already buried in Arlington.
    (j) The parents of a minor child or unmarried adult child whose remains, based on the eligibility of a parent, are already buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

    [42 FR 25725, May 19, 1977, as amended at 59 FR 60559, Nov. 25, 1994]

    The short answer is “yeah, because he spent two years in the Army and got an honorable discharge and then got himself elected to Congress” (paragraph (e)(1)).

    Added: Can Adam Kokesh get burial at Arlington if he gets elected to Congress? Nope – he got a General Discharge.

  • Poll numbers vs. National Security

    So, I just think it’s funny (not ha-ha funny) that when Obama’s approval ratings take a precipitous drop, his “non-political” Justice department decides to name a prosecutor and begin investigations into the previous administration’s war against terrorists. What’s even funnier is the LA Times providing cover for the Obama Administration;

    At a time when healthcare and other signature initiatives are in trouble on Capitol Hill and President Obama’s approval ratings are slipping, he now faces the prospect of a long, distracting probe into policies of the Bush administration — policies Obama has already denounced.

    And the furor is likely to be all the sharper because it pits the most liberal elements of Obama’s base against the most unyielding elements of the Republican right.

    Time magazine wants the terrorists to know that help is on the way;

    If the release of the declassified 2004 CIA inspector general’s report fills people with disgust at the use of power drills and mock executions in secret prisons, the Obama Administration wants them to know that Americans need no longer be embarrassed by how their government treats detainees.

    Oh, and buried somewhere in the news, you might have accidentally heard that the Obama Administration used the cover of their announcement to take over interrogations and the investigation into the previous administration to release a Afghan Guantanamo alum back to Afghanistan. That news from DrewM at Ace of Spades. Apparently the guy had been arrested after tossing grenades at Allied troops – hardly a crime, I suppose, worthy of a lifetime of imprisonment.

    In Obama’s defense, though, he promised to put 22,000 more troops into Afghanistan. I don’t remember him saying on which side those troops would be fighting.

    But anyway, it looks like the Obama Administration is once again going to trade our national security for a few points in popularity polls. And the treacherous media, once again, firmly plant their knees on the ground to cover for him.

  • Shuffling the interrogation deck chairs

    There’s a new old policy in town for interrogation – the Associated Press calls it “a new, special terrorism-era interrogation unit to be supervised by the White House”.

    The Washington Post says the new unit will be named “High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group” or “HIG”.

    It sounds like something out of a Brad Thor novel. I’ve nicknamed it the “PPACP” unit – it stands for “Pretty Please, Aw C’mon, Please” because now that the White House has no one to blame except themselves, that’s the only acceptable interrogation technique from here on out.

    AP says interrogators will be limited to interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual. Here are the actual prohibited techniques from FM 32-54;

    interogation-techniques

    In other words, the Obama Administration is taking over the responsibility of interrogations just to prevent waterboarding – all of that other stuff has always been frowned upon and discouraged. the only thing on that list that was used legally by the Bush Administration was waterboarding. And there have been more hippies waterboarded at their demonstrations than all of the terrorists have suffered since 9-11.

    Even pussywillow Matthis Chiroux survived his voluntary waterboarding.

    I think this is nothing more than a token to the peace crowd who are still angry that Obama stepped up troop levels in Afghanistan (which may change soon) and because he hasn’t shut Guantanamo yet.

    But, you can be sure of one thing, now that Barack Erkel is directly overseeing interrogation, the terrorists are shaking in their boots.

  • Just stay in your lane, admiral

    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, if the Washington Post can be believed, has expressed concern that the public support for the war in Afghanistan is slipping;

    Mullen also expressed concern over recent opinion polls indicating that for the first time a majority of Americans do not think the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting.

    I wasn’t aware that military hierarchy was supposed to be worried about the political implications of fighting wars. I’ve always thought that the military’s job was to fight the wars that politicians told them to fight and let the elected representatives worry about public opinion. I’ll grant that President Obama has done a piss-poor job of making the case that we need to continue to press the fight on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it’s certainly not the admiral’s job to comment on public opinion.

    Now, Karl Eikenberry was also on the networks yesterday morning making the same case. My former platoon leader, the ambassador to Afghanistan, should be out there making those statements, he’s a political appointee now. But the Admiral should stick to military issues and leave worrying about public opinion to the folks who get elected.

    In my mind, this how the Obama Administration is putting out feelers to withdraw from Afghanistan, though. The President acts like it’s distracting his domestic agenda, so I’m sure he wants to abandon the tiny resource free country. That’s a mistake…we’d be repeating the mistake we made in 1988 when we abandoned Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops leaving it ripe for the Taliban to pick.