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

Category: Military issues

  • The demographics of military suicide

    Let me begin by saying that even one suicide by a veteran or active duty member of the military is an absolute tragedy. Bobo sends us a link to an Reuters article about the study that was recently conducted by researchers at Joint Base Lewis McChord. Mark Reger of the group told Reuters;

    Suicide rates were similar regardless of deployment status. There were 1,162 suicides among those who deployed and 3,879 among those who didn’t, representing suicide rates per 100,000 person-years of 18.86 and 17.78, respectively.

    Leaving the military significantly increased suicide risk, however, with a suicide rate of 26.06 after separating from service compared with 15.12 per 100,000 for those who remained in uniform. Those who left sooner had a greater risk, with a rate of 48.04 per 100,000 among those who spent less than a year in the military.

    Service members with a dishonorable discharge were about twice as likely to commit suicide as those who had an honorable separation.

    “This is the first time such a huge, comprehensive study has found an increased suicide risk among those who have separated from service, particularly if they served for less than four years or had an other than honorable discharge…”

    The researchers also tie in gun ownership to the suicide rate, but that is to be expected – what they don’t filter out is the number of suicides from methods other than firearms. Also they skim over the part where military members sometimes bring baggage from civilian life to the military with them. To me, the folks who are forced out early are in that group because they have difficulty adjusting to the military – which would explain why that group is twice as likely to kill themselves than those who deployed. Maybe the pentagon ought to look into making everyone deploy in order to take advantage of therapeutic benefits.

    Deployments seem to be a suicide vaccine. Deploy your sergeant major to save his life!

  • “Bad Idea, Sir. A Really Bad Idea.”

    It didn’t take too long. Some [insert adjective of choice here] individuals in the 5-sided asylum have sent the Good Idea Fairy over to the new SECDEF’s office to whisper a batch of nonsense in his ear.

    Personally, I wish someone would grab that little winged troublemaker and . . . “give them a firm handshake and a warm cup of soup.” Then clip their wings and send them on a one-way journey to the Aleutians.  (smile)

    Unfortunately, it looks as if the SECDEF apparently is seriously considering implementing some of the nonsense

    Why do I say that? Well, the other day Fox News reported that the SECDEF is considering allowing the military to relax certain military entry standards to “attract more qualified manpower” (or some similar wording). Entry standards being considered for relaxation include current physical, pre-entry conduct, and age restrictions.

    Frankly, I’ve got no problem with relaxing age restrictions; I’ve never really understood the rationale behind those. If a person is physically qualified and can do the job at age 40, in my book they can serve. If they won’t be able to serve long enough to qualify for retirement because of age restrictions on military service in Federal law, have them sign an acknowledgement of that fact on entry – but still let them serve. We found in World War II that older troops generally worked out OK.

    It’s the other standards being considered for relaxation I find troubling.

    Relaxing physical standards IMO is hugely problematic. People in uniform – regardless of their MOS – can end up in combat. That’s true of clerks, mechanics, supply specialists, truck drivers, HQ staff, you name it. The enemy gets a vote in what happens, and sometimes hits areas we don’t expect.

    If new troops are not physically capable of performing to current standards due to a relaxation of same, then IMO they stand a much better chance of coming home in a body bag than someone who can.  And while that’s bad enough, they’ll also quite possibly bring their battle buddy along with them for the ride.  That’s even worse.

    I don’t know about you, but the prospect of seeing that doesn’t thrill me at all. And I’m guessing it doesn’t thrill the people who might have to fight alongside those who are admitted under relaxed physical standards, either.

    Bottom line: the military’s current physical standards have, by and large, worked. There’s no compelling reason to change them.

    Lowering standards for pre-entry conduct is similarly problematic. We’ve done that multiple times in the past. Each time we’ve done that, we’ve ended up with a marked increase in “problem children”. So the argument in this area strikes me as specious as well.  Seems to me that we’ll be buying more problems than it’s worth.

    But that’s not what bothered me most about the SECDEF considering this. Rather, it was one particular career field singled out as an example where relaxed standards would help.

    The career field specifically discussed as an example in the article linked above was the cyber career field. Lowering physical and pre-entry conduct entry standards for that field is IMO a monumentally bad idea.

    Cyber workforce authorizations can be either civilian or military. So, if a cyber “slot” is military, presumably there is a good reason for it being so coded – e.g., that the individual has a reasonable probability of being deployed to combat, or that military knowledge and experience is essential to their performance of duty in a noncombat environment.  Ergo, that means there’s a good reason for them to meet the military’s physical requirements.  Period

    If a qualified individual interested in such a position cannot (or doesn’t want to) meet military physical requirements, then perhaps they should be offered one of the civilian positions instead.  Why?  Well, for starters:  because meeting those physical standards just might save their butt one day if and when the organic fertilizer impacts the rotating air circulation device.

    Second: it’s my understanding that the vast majority of cyber slots tend to be at major HQs (which tend to be located in relatively safer rear area) and in CONUS. In today’s DoD, there is no shortage of civilian employees in either CONUS or major headquarters – including those HQs located in combat zones. Further, DoD can require prospective civilian employees to sign a mobility agreement acknowledging the fact that they may be sent anywhere in the world, to include hazardous locations, as a condition of employment.

    This further undercuts the argument that military-side physical standards need to be “relaxed” for the cyber career field (or pretty much any other career field, for that matter).  If push comes to shove, DoD can augment any military shortfall with civilian personnel.  Lowering current military physical entry standards simply isn’t necessary.

    But it’s that other standards area being considered for relaxation – pre-entry behavior – that really bothers the hell out of me when you’re talking cyber.

    You see, DoD’s cyber workforce is typically highly cleared.  That’s necessary given what they do and the knowledge required to do it.

    If you can’t get them cleared, then there’s no point in recruiting them in the first place.  So it seems logical that relaxing pre-entry conduct standards when recruiting them also strongly implies  relaxing the standards governing the process of granting those same individuals security clearances.

    Doing the latter is IMO a monumentally bad idea. Why? Two words. The first is “Manning”. The second is “Snowden”.

    The SECDEF IMO desperately needs someone to come talk to him about this subject. And that individual needs to read the title of this article to him.

    We don’t need a bunch more body bags coming home because we’re recruiting people who are not physically able to perform routine military duties if push comes to shove. And we damn sure don’t need any more Mannings or Snowdens with access to the nation’s secrets, either.

  • Transgender ban discussion at the Pentagon

    The Miami Herald discusses some of the issues that the Pentagon is struggling with in regards to folks with Gender Identity Disorder who say that all they want to do is serve in the military like everyone else.

    Much of the opposition centers on questions of where transgender troops would be housed, what berthing they would have on ships, which bathrooms they would use and whether their presence would affect the ability of small units to work well together.

    There also are questions about whether the military would conduct or pay for the medical treatment and costs associated with any gender transition, as well as which physical training standards the troops would be required to meet.

    The military has dealt with similar questions as it has integrated the ranks by race, gender and sexual orientation. And in many cases comparable worries have been raised, including whether the changes would hinder small units that often have to work together in remote, confined locations for long periods of time.

    Yeah, that’s all probably the least of our worries. How about someone answer me the question “Why?” We have the best military in the world the way it exists today, so what about this issue would possibly improve their ability to kill large numbers of the enemy and destroy their stuff?

    There are already a large class of the US population who think that the military is a huge welfare system – people like Andre Shepherd, the deserter who was living in his car before he saw the Army as his way out of poverty. Then there was Kimberly Rivera, another deserter whose husband saw her service as his way out of Walmart and her parents’ basement.

    Now, the Gender Identity Disorder crowd will see the military as their free source of swapping out their uglies. I pity the squad leader and platoon sergeant who has to sort through these issues for the first time.

    The argument is that “other nations” have dealt with the issue, so who cares? We’re not “other nations”. We’re the United States of America – the country that changed the course of human history. We’ve never followed “other nations”, so why should we start now?

    This is another useless issue that won’t help our military kill more of our enemies, but will cost money that should be spent on training and weapons that will kill more of our enemies.

  • 60 Minutes and Women in Combat Training

    60 Minutes and Women in Combat Training

    Last weekend, 60 Minutes managed to set aside its usual liberal camera and interviewing angles to film female Marine officers attempting to pass the historically secretive Combat Endurance Test, an entrance requirement to the Corps’s Infantry Officer Course. In the past, the Marine Corps has kept details of this very difficult course and its entrance requirements under wraps in the belief it is better for our adversaries not to know exactly what goes into the making of a Marine infantry officer. That the Corps allowed CBS to film as much of it as they did was surprising to many Marines. My belief is that the Corps wants the world to see firsthand that it is the physical requirements of Marine infantry officer training keeping females out, not some bull-headed misogyny, as so many feminists contend.

    CBS correspondent David Martin focused on one female 2nd lieutenant, a very determined and prepared young woman, and followed her through the grueling 14-hour physical test. An overabundance of both strength and determination are essential to completing the 16-mile course that is riddled with difficult obstacles, both physical and mental. To make the test even more challenging, the candidates do it in full combat gear, which can approach or even exceed a hundred pounds. And just as the Corps has maintained since the push for women in the infantry began a few years ago, it ultimately is the combination of that weight and lack of upper body strength that keeps women from completing the course. The promising young candidate whom reporter Martin followed was done in, like so many others, by a rope climb, where upper body strength is paramount.

    I watched this 60 Minutes segment and just shook my head – my belief, as a former infantry non-commissioned officer, once again confirmed that women simply are not physically suited for the unique physical needs of a combat infantryman, and not just in matters of strength. I thought nothing more about it until today, when I received an e-mail from a buddy retired in Guam that contained collected observations on the 60 Minutes piece from some of his many Marine friends around the world. Most were surprised, as I was, by the fair and balanced presentation, but some of them wished that CBS would have shown the courage to address stickier issues.

    My combat was in tropical Vietnam, so I’m familiar with field conditions there. Over the years I’ve conversed with enough infantry veterans of our Middle East wars and the medics who cared for them to confirm my suspicions about field conditions in that region – particularly in Iraq, where we were fielding very large units spread over very large, remote areas of desert terrain. The one condition of infantry field conditions that has held constant from the first war our nation fought to present battlefields has been that it is a physically dirty business, an extremely unsanitary process that exceeds in filth anything you are likely ever to experience in civilian life.

    Due to excessive sweating, constant contact with dirt and dust, and very infrequent opportunities to bathe, even most superficially, dermatological disease is rampant, from opportunistic fungal infections the troops refer to as “crotch rot” or “foot rot” to untreated cuts, scratches, and insect bites that become secondarily infected to the point of requiring hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. In Vietnam, I went on patrols, set up ambushes, and conducted other ground operations with young men so filthy that their own mothers couldn’t have picked them out of a lineup. Many had open, suppurating sores and boils caused by the omnipresent thorn bushes and the unrelenting biting insects. Leeches were common, fleas and lice less so but still there.

    Another constant problem on the battlefield is intestinal disorders that many times result in uncontrollable and explosive diarrhea. I couldn’t count how many times I saw a young trooper suddenly dump his gear and drop his trousers right on the trail, in full view of every member of his team. And no one thought anything of it, save the poor guy who had to squat there with his naked butt and his family jewels on full display while he loudly evacuated his bowels to the hoots, laughter, and catcalls of his team. Even routine defecation and urination are public functions for infantrymen, including officers and NCOs. When you are in Indian country, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy, or even a desire for it, because to be out of sight of your team for even minutes is to be at risk of sudden death or capture.

    In spite of all the physical misery they had to endure, those tough young paratroopers I so proudly served with sucked it up, cussed their officers and the Army, and continued the mission, because they did not want to be medically evacuated, leaving their buddies shorthanded in battle. It is this “serving while sick with no privacy” aspect of service in the infantry that those of us who have lived it and survived it would like to see included in every discussion of whether or not women should serve in the infantry.

    It looks like the Marine Corps is well on its way to demonstrating the validity of the lack of upper body strength issue, but it would be interesting to hear what an objective panel of gynecologists, preferably some who have served in the infantry and combat at some earlier point in their lives, have to say regarding the hygiene problems associated with menstrual events and increased risks for feminine disease that women in the infantry might experience under conditions such as I’ve described above. And now that I think of it, how about a panel of military psychologists examining the effects on young women of public urination and defecation while surrounded by grinning, highly aggressive young males, who you can bet your last dime of combat pay aren’t about to avert their eyes?

    How about addressing those issues on a follow-up segment, 60 Minutes, and then another follow-up dealing with the sexual ramifications, which is another critical issue unto itself?

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • 2d ACR on parade near Russian border

    2d ACR on parade near Russian border

    Estonia

    The Washington Post reports that troopers of the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment paraded through the streets of Narva, Estonia just a few hundred meters from the Russian border on the occasion of Estonia’s Independence Day;

    Russia has long complained bitterly about NATO expansion, saying that the Cold War defense alliance was a major security threat as it drew closer to Russia’s borders. The anger grew especially passionate after the Baltic states joined in 2004, and Russian President Vladimir Putin cited fears that Ukraine would join NATO when he annexed the Crimean Peninsula in March last year.

    The Post also reports that US tanks participated in Latvia’s Independence Day celebrations a few months ago. I think it’s odd that many of the so-called liberal Left in this country call us occupiers and an imperial power, but these countries welcome our troops and include them in their celebrations of self-determination.

  • Plus ça change . . .

    . . . plus c’est la même chose.

    Russia Boosts Arms, Training for Leftist Latin Militaries

    Sounds kinda like “Back to the Future” to me. So, with apologies to Pete Townsend:

    Meet the new Rus
    Same as the old Rus

  • Michael Bogoslavski; MD vet threatens “mass violence” in DC

    Someone sent us a link to a Fox Baltimore article about this Michael Bogoslavski who was making threats of “mass violence” against Federal employees in the national Capitol Building.

    Michael Bogoslavski, 33, was charged by complaint with transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure another person. The complaint was filed on February 3 and unsealed on February 4. After a hearing Wednesday Bogoslavski was ordered to be detained pending trial.

    “With the help of the Threats of Mass Violence state law passed last year, my office was able to work with Cheverly Police to detain Mr. Bogoslavski and obtain a warrant which led to the removal of firearms from his home,” Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Angela D. Alsobrooks said. “I want to thank all of our law enforcement partners for their quick actions that removed Mr. Bogoslavski from our community and may have prevented a tragedy.”

    According to the affidavit a federal employee who worked in the U.S. Capitol received text messages from Bogoslavski stating that he was planning to come to the employee’s work place with guns and shoot the employee and others. The affidavit includes portions of the alleged text conversation. One of the alleged texts states; “IM COMING AND SHOOTING ANYONE IN MY F*****G WAY”

    AKO says that Bogoslavski is indeed a retired Sergeant E-5 and his last assignment was at the Warrior Transition unit at Fort Belvoir, VA. But I guess that this “Threats of Mass Violence state law” is only useful for removing veterans from Maryland’s communities and not random civilians who send death threats across state lines.

    According to Toshiba, Bogoslavski’s behavior was related to a domestic dispute, a tiny fact that the Fox Baltimore article left out;

    According to an affidavit, a U.S. Senate staff member married to Bogoslavski received threatening text messages Monday. The spouse said Bogoslavski planned to come to the Capitol with guns and shoot the staffer and others. Bogoslavski also is accused of threatening “to die suicide by cop.” The Cheverly Police Department took him into custody that day.

    Of course, that doesn’t mitigate his threats, but at least it doesn’t make him look like a berserker anti-government veteran nutjob.

  • 5 Female soldiers pass Ranger Assessment Course

    5 Female soldiers pass Ranger Assessment Course

    The Washington Times reports that 5 female soldiers passed out of the two-week Army National Guard Ranger Training and Assessment Course.

    Out of 122 soldiers to start the course, 48 percent passed. There were 43 male dropouts in addition to the 21 women, Army Times reported Wednesday.

    […]

    “This first iteration of an integrated RTAC has provided significant lessons learned as we conduct a deliberate and professional way forward to the integrated assessment in April,” Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, said in a statement, Army Times reported.

    In my mind, the idea that the standards are realistic is solidified, at this point. Of course, the social engineers won’t see it that way.

    From The Army Times;

    The five women are all officers.

    The Army announced in January that it plans to conduct a one-time, integrated assessment at Ranger School in April.

    I’m sure the social engineers will se this as a failure of the system, rather than a failure of the individuals who couldn’t meet the standards for whatever reason. But the success of even one woman would prove that the standard isn’t impossible.

    But, of course, the social engineers aren’t the people who will have to deal with the consequences of lowered standards, nor will they feel even a twinge of guilt when the body bags start filling up.