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

Category: Military issues

  • INF Treaty Issues

    Back in 1987, the USSR and the USA signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This treaty banned either nation from having or developing conventional and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km.

    While both signatories have periodically expressed displeasure with the treaty’s limitations, until 2011 each party generally seemed to be in compliance. However, in 2011 Russia (which accepted the treaty’s obligations on the inheriting the former-USSR’s nuclear arsenal after breakup of the USSR) apparently began violating the INF Treaty by conducting development associated with at least two weapons systems: the SS-25 and the SS-26.

    The current Administration disclosed this violation to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee in 2012. But they didn’t make any details regarding the violation public at the time.  In fact, it also seems that the Administration “neglected” to brief NATO on the matter until either late 2013 or early 2014 – and only briefed NATO  after the press reported the Russian violation in late 2013.

    Seems to me that NATO would have a great interest in this issue, and would want to know the details.  And you’d think we’d brief our NATO allies posthaste on something that important to their security, too.  But I guess not.

    In mid-2014, the current Administration finally accused Russia of violating the treaty.  However, ever since they’ve apparently continued to refuse further public disclosure of details – including sitting on a report recently prepared by DoD analyzing the treaty breach.  Per Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, that DoD report is currently “tied up in the White House”.  The Administration says it hasn’t released the report because it is “classified”.

    Um . . . yeah. I’m thinking the delay and obfuscation here regarding discussing the matter – and releasing DoD’s report – is more because the report is politically embarrassing to the Administration.  I’m guessing that report shows very clearly just how Russia thumbed its nose at the USA by a supine, spineless Administration regarding the INF treaty and got away with it.  But I guess I could be wrong.

    Regardless:  if I were to place a bet, I’d bet we see these details about the time we see those on proposed the Iran nuclear deal.  Both are just textbook examples of that “openness” promised us by the “most transparent Administration in history”.

  • Guard and Reserves can’t account for their troops

    Chief Tango sends a link from Stars & Stripes which reports that the Government Accountability Office has determined that the National Guard and the Reserves have no idea how many of their soldiers are ready to deploy. You might remember that is important because the Pentagon and the White House are expecting the gaps in staffing and manning in the active force left by sequestration are supposed to filled by the part-time services.

    The nonpartisan GAO also determined that hundreds of soldiers who were reported as ready to to serve were actually ineligible to mobilize and deploy under Army guidance.

    The inconsistencies suggest the components’ overall nonavailability rates as of January — 22 percent in the Reserve and 21 percent in the National Guard — could be even higher.

    […]

    Without quality data that is readily available to leaders at all levels … the Army and its Reserve component leaders will not be able to adequately monitor and manage the availability of soldiers who make up over half of the total Army force,” the GAO said.

    The GAO blames the inconsistencies on the inability of some data systems to interface. Gee, where have we heard that before? Also, that personnel clerks are improperly trained and units have staffing shortages.

    So basically, the Pentagon cobbled together a plan to deal with personnel cuts and presented it to the White House, but they didn’t have a way to implement that plan. That’s the first time that’s ever happened.

  • About That Iran Nuke Deal . . .

    I’m reasonably sure that most TAH readers think the current       group of fools and tools in DC helping the POTUS screw things up by-the-numbers       Administration’s proposed nuclear deal with Iran is a serious mistake, and should be rejected.

    One would expect the Administration’s political foes to oppose the deal.  But it’s not only the Administration;s political opponents who have issues.  For starters, Alan Dershowitz – one of the few liberals out there who IMO actually seems to have his head screwed on straight when it comes to terrorism – has come out strongly against the deal. (He has some pretty harsh criticism of the POTUS’s efforts; the linked article is IMO definitely worth a read.)

    It also seems that two senior Members of Congress from his own party – Sen. Schumer of New York, and Rep. Eliot, also of New York and ranking Minority Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee – have now publicly stated their opposition to the deal.

    I just don’t understand that stance.  I mean, really: what’s not to like about a deal that gives away the farm to a nation that has declared you an enemy; which the Administration itself acknowledges will provide financial support to international terrorism; and which the Administration refuses to allow to be read by the public?

    Further, a lady named “Clinton” has reportedly “cautiously embraced the deal”.  And we all know that her judgement – particularly regarding foreign policy – is always “dead on target” and above reproach.  I mean:  just look at Benghazi, her use of email, and her hiring practices.  So what’s not to like?

    (For the record: yes, the previous two paragraph are indeed satire and/or sardonicism.)

    Schumer’s argument for opposing the deal appears quite well-reasoned.  If you’re interested; you can read it here.

    I’m thinking this deal is now in serious trouble. And I’m also thinking . . . that’s just too bad. (smile)

  • About That Recent “Gunfire” Near Camp Shelby

    Well, there was another possible shooting incident near Camp Shelby yesterday. Same MO: maroon truck, single occupant observed near the perimeter of the installation when apparent shots were heard.

    This time the authorities have a suspect in custody. The individual in custody is Alfred Baria, age 61.

    After his apprehension Baria claimed he had “made his truck backfire” as he drove near the installation.  He further claimed he can make his truck “backfire on command”.

    The police obtained search warrants for Baria’s house and vehicle. When they searched his vehicle, no weapons were found – but in his vehicle Baria had what appeared to be a pipe bomb (PVC pipe, 6” to 7” long, capped, and painted OD green). It was later determined to be fake.

    No shell casings were found near the scene or in Baria’s vehicle. It’s unclear whether Baria (or anyone else) actually fired any shots at troops on Camp Shelby.

    Authorities stated that Baria doesn’t seem to have any ties to terrorist organizations. He also doesn’t have any known “headspace and timing” issues.

    Perhaps Baria was merely playing a not-so-funny practical joke.  Or maybe he’s a dipstick and attention whore who just had to attract attention to himself.  In any case, however, his plan kinda backfired on him. (Yes, the pun is intentional. And given his claim that he can make his truck “backfire on command”, IMO it’s apropos. [smile])

    You see, it seems Baria also has a felony record – apparently for past drug crimes. And when they searched his house authorities seem to have found weapons.

    Baria is now facing charges of four counts of “disturbance of the peace of a person”. He’s also facing two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm due to his felony record.

    What a dumbcluck.

  • Just When You Think You’ve Heard It All . . .

    . . . you see something that makes you realize you definitely haven’t.

    Wanna take a guess at what the current POTUS is blaming his predecessor for now?  If you guessed “for Iran’s nuclear program becoming a serious issue” – well, give yourself a cigar.  According to the POTUS’s latest speech, the Iranian nuclear program apparently only became a concern because of US operations against Iraq starting in 2003.

    Of course, despite the statements in his latest speech that the Iranian possession of a nuclear warhead poses a “danger”, apparently the current POTUS feels that the Iranian nuclear program really poses only a negligible threat to the USA.  I say that because he’s reportedly OKed a deal that appears to leave the Iranian nuclear program essentially intact and unchanged, and only asks the Iranians to give up something amounting to the combination of “Jack” and “Squat”.

    For such agreements we all know that often the “devil is in the details”.  And I’d sure like to read that proposed agreement for myself to see what he’s signed the USA up to do – and what Iran’s agreeing to do as well.  But I guess we’ll have to “pass it to see what’s in it”.   The POTUS won’t make the contents of that proposed agreement do public.

    Seems to me we’ve had to do something like that  – e.g., “pass it to see what’s in it” – at least once before.  I guess keeping the details of the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran under wraps must just be some more of that “most transparent Administration in history” stuff the POTUS keeps touting.

    Sheesh, and GMAFB.  Did he really keep a straight face while spouting that BS?

    The Iranians are still referring to the USA the “Great Satan”.  They still preach “Death to America”.  They are pursuing a nuclear program for one reason, and one reason only:  to acquire a bomb.  Once they do, they’ll use it – either against US interests, or against Israel (who they’ve repeatedly vowed to destroy).  Or they’ll supply it to some international terrorist group who will do the same on their behalf.

    This regime running things today in DC really should start calling itself something like “Clueless Convergence.”

    Of course, after this last claim that just might be an insult to clueless fools everywhere.

     

  • Seventy Years

    Seventy years ago – on 6 August 1945 at roughly 08:15:45 AM Japanese Standard Time, which converts to 7:15:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time the previous day – the Japanese city of Hiroshima ceased to exist.  On 9 August 1945, the Japanese city of Nagasaki followed suit.

    Less than a week afterwards, the Emperor of Japan publicly announced his acceptance of Allied surrender terms.

    I’ve written about the US nuclear missions against Japan previously.  I have no reason to change what I said then.  Read the original article if you like; it can be found here.

    But I’ll again say this much: if you’re so inclined, perhaps take a moment to say a prayer for the souls of those who died that day at Hiroshima, and for those who died three days later at Nagasaki.  And while you’re at it, maybe add a second prayer – that we never again have the need to use such weapons.

  • Thoughts on the WaPo-Graham Brouhaha

    Jonn recently wrote an article about Senator Lindsey Graham’s military service, and how the WaPo was questioning same.

    Ever since, there seems to have be a bit of confusion about Senator Lindsey Graham’s military career. In particular, his service has raised a number of questions here – and has garnered a rather large amount of negative comment.

    I was curious, so I decided to research the situation. Time to kick the anthill; here are the facts.

    1.  Wikipedia – which I’ll trust in this case to be correct – says Graham graduated from law school in 1981. He received a USAF commission in 1982. He served on active duty as a USAF JAG from 1982-1989, including 4 years in Germany. He then served in the SC ANG from 1989-1995; and in the USAFR from 1995 until his retirement from the USAFR earlier this year.

    2.  Graham has been a member of Congress continuously since 1995.

    3.  DoDD 1200.07, defines the term “key employee”. Further, para E2.1.4.1, specifies that a Member of Congress is by DoD policy designated a “key employee” of the Federal government.

    4.  DoDD 1200.07 also defines the members of the Standby Reserve, as follows (para E2.1.9):

    The Standby Reserve consists of personnel who are maintaining their military affiliation without being in the Ready Reserve, but have been designated “key civilian employees,” or have a temporary hardship or disability. Those individuals are not required to perform training and are not part of the Ready Reserve. The Standby Reserve is a pool of trained individuals who may be mobilized as needed to fill manpower needs in specific skills. The Standby Reserve consists of the active status list and the inactive status list categories.

    5.  DoDI 1200.15, para 5.1.3, mandates that “key employees” who are members of the Reserve Components be transferred to the Standby Reserve.  DoD 1200.07 further specifies that such individuals will be placed on the Standby Reserve – Active Status List (SR-ASL).

    6.  DoDD 1235.09 describes organization and management of the Standby Reserve.  In particular, para 2.b. states that individuals on the SR-ASL may participate in military activities in both active duty and inactive status, but also appears to specify that any such service will be for “points only” – e.g., without pay and allowances.

    7.  Finally, 10 USC 12306 appears to allow individuals on the SR-ASL to request to serve temporarily on active duty in an imminent danger zone.  With the approval of their Service Secretary, they may receive orders to do so.

    The Standby Reserve and how it works (and what it does) is not something that’s exactly common knowledge.  I’d run across it some years ago, and remembered it existed and had something to do with key personnel. But I didn’t really know much about it (or had forgotten the pertinent details) until I looked it up again in connection with this flap.  If you’re curious about the Standby Reserve, this article from the US Army Human Resources Command gives a pretty good overview. I’m reasonably certain that all services handle their SR-ASL reasonably similarly, so it should be pertinent to any RC element.

    . . .

    So, to recap: Graham has been a member of Congress since 1995. He was an ANG officer – with 12+ years TIS, probably a Major – when he entered Congress. When he was sworn in as a Member of Congress, DoD policy allowed him to retain his commission (and transfer to the USAFR) – but required him to be placed in the Standby Reserve.

    Regardless of what you think about Congress, serving as a Member of Congress is definitely a full-time job.  (If you doubt that, find a copy of P. J. O’Rourke’s book Parliament of Whores and read the chapter where he describes a typical Member’s daily schedule – usually nonstop from 7:30AM or so until after 9PM most days, choreographed to the minute much like that of a GO.) We’d expect  someone in a senior elected position in the Federal government devote the vast majority of their time and effort to the job he/she was elected to do, so that’s as it should be.

    DoD also recognizes that being in a key Federal/state/industry position (some key positions are in industry) may preclude normal participation in Reserve duties.  DoD has also decided that allowing Reservists who also serve in one of these key positions to continue their Reserve service is in DoD’s best interests.  That’s almost certainly one reason that the Standby Reserve was created.

    Finally, Graham’s placement in the Standby Reserve wasn’t his choice – DoD told him, “Standby Reserve, or resign your commission.”  So Graham stayed in the USAFR, and played by the rules DoD dictated.

    My take is that Graham seems to have done what he could to remain as active as time permitted in the Reserve Components. I’m guessing he “dotted the I’s and crossed the T’s” with respect to getting SECAF approval for all of his time spent in military training/active duty while serving in Congress.  In fact, IMO he seems to have gone out of his way to do considerably more than was required for someone in his position.

    For what it’s worth: if the dates listed in this article are correct (hat tip to TAH commenter AZtoVA), Graham appears to have considerably more than enough service in Afghanistan to qualify for the Afghanistan Campaign Medal and thus legitimately call himself an “Afghan veteran”. If those dates are correct for his military service time in Afghanistan, I counted over 100 days of nonconsecutive service in-country.  (He’s got over 30 days service in Iraq as well, albeit nonconsecutively.)  And if I’m reading the DoD regs correctly, since 1995 he did it without receiving anything but retirement points – e.g., no military pay and allowances.

    I’ve never met Senator Graham. I don’t much care for some of his positions and recent actions, either. But he in my book he served honorably in the USAFR, and appears to have done far more than he was obligated (or would be expected) to do for someone in his position. The WaPO article attacking his service was IMO nothing more than a biased political hit piece.

    And I’ll also say this: in my book, people who denigrated his service in comments here IMO owe Senator Graham an apology.

  • Quietly Doing the Right Thing

    Most regular TAH readers know I’m a baseball fan.  Indeed, one of many things that p!ssed me off at the now-4-years-deceased Usama bin Laden is that my post-9/11 mobilization required me to travel on 4 November 2001 – the night of game 7 of the 2001 World Series.

    At the time, I was an Arizona resident. And yes: if you lived in Arizona and were a baseball fan, that was indeed a magical year.

    I’d have given much to have been in Bank One Ballpark (now Chase Field) that night. I’ve talked to someone who was there; when a certain very tall guy walked out of the bullpen to pitch in relief with 2 outs in the top of the 8th, it was truly an electric moment – followed by an equally electric moment about 15 minutes or so later when Luis Gonzalez choked up and hit a soft single off a guy named Mariano Rivera into center field in the bottom of the 9th to end the game.

    That very tall guy was, of course, Randy Johnson. This Sunday he’ll be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

    But that’s not what this article’s about.

    . . .

    Most regular readers know I’m a fan of Johnson the pitcher.  I personally think he’s got a great case for being the best lefty ever, bar none.  IMO his career is what Koufax’s career might have been absent arthritis and injury.

    But I’m an even bigger fan now. Because Johnson has quietly done something that you may not have heard much about if you live outside Arizona – and he appears to have done it simply because it was the right thing to do.

    Johnson today remains hugely popular in Arizona; he’s still employed by the Diamondbacks today as a special assistant. In honor of Johnson’s induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, at the request of the Diamondbacks the state of Arizona was planning to temporarily rename State Highway 51 in his honor.

    There’s just one issue. The highway – a freeway in the Phoenix metro area – already has a name. It’s the “Piestewa Freeway.”

    As in SPC Lori Piestewa, US Army – a Native American resident of Arizona who was KIA in Iraq on 23 March 2003.

    It turns out no one had asked the Piestewa family their opinion on the temporary renaming. And to put it mildly, they weren’t exactly thrilled with the idea.

    After hearing of the family’s objection, neither was Johnson. You see, Johnson is also a rather large (no pun intended) backer of the US military. He’s made 3 different USO tours to Afghanistan in support of US troops. He’s trying to arrange bringing two Wounded Warriors to his Hall of Fame Induction.

    So a few days ago, after hearing of the Piestewa family’s objections, Johnson apparently asked that the plan to temporarily rename the road be scrapped. It was. The highway will remain named the Piestewa Freeway. It won’t be temporarily renamed in his honor.

    Would it have been better had someone approached the Piestewa family earlier? Certainly. That should have happened well before it did.  IMO, someone should have asked that family’s permission for the proposed temporary renaming long ago – and abided by their wishes either way.  That would have avoided the problem.

    Still:  here, the right thing happened.  And it apparently happened because of one man saying, “No – that’s not the right thing to do.  I’d prefer you didn’t do that for me.”

    I always respected Johnson as a fierce competitor and an athlete. But now, I respect him even more as a man with his head “screwed on straight”.

    Well done, Mr. J.  Damn well done.