Category: Military issues

  • Gay troops perform at air base fundraiser

    OK, I’ve avoided this story for a few days, probably because I’m a homophobe, they’ll say, but my inbox has been filling up with tips about it, so I guess you want to discuss it. According to Stars & Stripes, at Kadena Air Base on Okinawa, gay troops stationed there, sponsored by OutServe, put on a drag show for a fundraiser;

    Amid the unexpected success, OutServe carefully avoided any mention of politics, but its variety show comes at a pivotal time for gay civil rights in the United States, with many states passing laws dealing with marriage or debating individual liberties.

    It is also a sign of the times within the military; just a few years ago, gay and lesbian drag performances on a military base would have been unthinkable and potentially a cause for dismissal from the service.

    The repeals of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act — the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages — have allowed gays and lesbians in the military to be open with their sexuality for the first time.

    Yay! Isn’t that wonderful? I remember the good old days when OutServe and their cohorts at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network told us that they wanted to repeal the Clinton-era Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy so that servicemembers who were gay could serve, that it was all about some imagined “right to serve” in the military. There was no larger agenda, just simply service.

    I only made it about ten seconds through this video, so I don’t blame you if you don’t either.

  • Six female Riverines to deploy

    Riverine women

    Ex-PH2 sends us a link to the Navy Times which reports that six women have completed training successfully for duty as Riverines and will be deploying with their unit, Delta Company, Coastal Riverine Squadron 2 at Portsmouth, VA.

    They’re currently in Cherry Point, N.C., in the midst of pre-deployment training, according to a Navy Expeditionary Combat Command spokeswoman, waiting for the go-ahead.

    “Since these women are already assigned to CRS 2 Delta and have completed the required riverine training, there will be no time lag between congressional approval and report dates,” Barbara Wilcox said.

    The Navy’s two other riverine units — Squadron 4 in Virginia Beach, Va., and Squadron 3 in San Diego — are next, she said. Squadron 3 has a company deployed and Squadron 4 just returned from deployment. Once they’ve completed post-deployment procedures, they’ll begin integrating women.

    Well, good for them. My complaint about women in combat arms units is that they must meet the same standards as the men with the standards being adjusted and that appears to be the case here, so more power to them.

  • A short range view of History

    Gulf war

    In today’s Washington Post appears Andrew J. Bacevich a history professor, a retired Army colonel and a Gold Star father who vocally opposed the Iraq War and George W. Bush. He has decided that the US doesn’t need a large Army. That an Army smaller than the one we had before Pearl harbor would be just fine. In fact, we don’t need many tanks, either. Of course, I’m guessing that the good professor wrote this before recent events in the Crimea which sort of exposed to the world that which realists have suspected all along – that the new Russia has the colonial ambitions of the old Soviet Russia.

    This isn’t 1940. Moreover, as an instrument of coercion, that smaller army would be more lethal than the much larger one that helped defeat Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. Given a choice between a few hundred of today’s Abrams tanks and a few thousand vintage Shermans, Gen. George Patton would not hesitate to choose the former.

    Nice try, Colonel Bacevich, but we’re talking about an Army that won’t be facing 1944’s Tiger tanks, but Russian T-90s or some variant. Let’s try to avoid hyperbole, shall we?

    Yet to judge by outcomes, the Army is not a force for decisive action. It cannot be counted on to achieve definitive results in a timely manner. In Afghanistan and Iraq, actions that momentarily appeared to be decisive served as preludes to protracted and inconclusive wars. As for preventing, shaping and winning, this surely qualifies as bluster — the equivalent of a newspaper promising advertisers that it will quadruple its print circulation.

    Weak sauce. There was almost a decisive action with US armor in the first Gulf War, the first war with Iraq, until the history professors and politicians stuck their nose in and didn’t let us finish off Saddam Hussein. Then in the second war in Iraq, there was a decisive victory using US armor when Saddam’s statues fell. But, what the history professor should have learned from that war is that the enemy will attack you where he finds your weaknesses and so an army must be prepared in all aspects of warfare.

    Defense per se figured as an afterthought, eclipsed by the conviction that projecting power held the key to transforming the world from what it is into what Washington would like it to be: orderly, predictable, respectful of American values and deferential to U.S. prerogatives.

    The “Global War on Terror” put that proposition to the test, with disappointing results. Putting boots on the ground produced casualties and complications, but little by way of peace and harmony.

    So, the good colonel professor figures that we’re unprepared at fighting armored warfare, our enemies will oblige us and fight us only in manner in which we’re prepared. Instead of looking at the long term history of warfare, he’d prefer to look at the last war exclusively – because that war, standing alone in history, supports his vision for a depleted military force. So we can have more Gold Star fathers.

    A real student of history would look at the First Battle of Bull Run, Kasserine Pass and Task Force Smith, but Colonel Bacevich has a political point to enforce. Weak sauce, Colonel.

    Thanks to Chock Block for the link.

  • Military vs. domestic spending

    Fox News reports that the day after Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel proposed massive cuts to defense spending, President Obama proposed massive spending for roads and bridges, highlighting the administration’s divisive nature. When they wanted to increase costs to retirees (after they raided our $770 million healthcare surplus), they said if they didn’t, training and the active force would suffer. That didn’t work so well, so now they’re pitting national defense against domestic spending;

    The president talked about the stimulus-style plan during a stop Wednesday afternoon in St. Paul, Minn. Officials say the money, as proposed, largely would come from “pro-growth business tax reform.” But aside from the challenges in pushing tax reform, Obama could have a hard time making the sell when his military leaders, just days ago, were complaining about the budget crunch.

    […]

    “President Obama claimed that the $830 billion stimulus would spend money on shovel-ready projects that would repair our country’s infrastructure,” RNC spokesman Jahan Wilcox said in a statement. “If the president couldn’t fix our economic problems the first time, then why would we trust him with another blank check?”

    The Preamble to the Constitution reads;

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Now, what part of that covers roads and bridges? I see “provide for the common defense” right there spelled out simply. I don’t see “provide for roads, bridges and mass transit”, though. Of course, the founders didn’t anticipate that there would be roads and bridges in the future, huh? So we’ll just pencil that in.

    Oh, by the way, they plan on paying for it with the same method they used for their plan for full employment – hoping something happens. The same method they use for their energy programs – hoping unicorn farts are a good renewable source;

    The administration is calling for $150 billion from tax reform changes, combined with existing funding for road projects, to fund the plan. A White House “fact sheet” said the nation’s transportation system is facing a “funding crisis” — and needs the money for everything from highway improvements to new light rail and bus projects to mass transit ventures.

    The Highway Trust Fund finances federal highway and transit programs but is forecast to go broke as early as August.

    Funny how when discussing “tax reform” makes me think that it won’t be good for us taxpayers-the opposite of when we talk about tax reform when it’s Republicans using those same words.

  • Defense budget battle

    The Associated Press reports that the Obama Administration has a tough fight ahead if they try to adopt Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s plan to slash the Defense budget by cutting troops and aircraft that have no plan to replace;

    The skepticism from both Republicans and Democrats augured poorly for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s vision of shrinking the Army to its smallest size in three-quarters of a century and creating a nimbler force more suited to future threats than the large land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade. Tuesday’s advance of a new veterans bill also suggested Congress may be more interested in increasing military spending in a midterm election year.

    The cuts “will weaken our nation’s security while the threats we face around the world are becoming more dangerous and complex,” Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two leading GOP hawks, said in a joint statement. “Now is not the time to embrace a defense posture reminiscent of the years prior to World War II,” they said, without outlining substitute cost reductions.

    From Fox News, the Congressional Budget Office speculates that the whole reason behind the cuts is so that the administration can spend more money on domestic programs, ignoring defense needs;

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen , D-Md., told Fox News the draw down from two wars is a logical time to save defense money. “We do not need for the defense of our country to be able to have a defense doctrine that calls for fighting two land wars at the same time,” he said.

    But history is filled with hard lessons in disarmament. Churchill warned a pacifist Britain, worn out from massive loss of life in World War I, of its unpreparedness for war with Germany as early as 1934. In 1936, he said in a speech to a disinterested Parliament, “A lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes… until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong… these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

    McKeon offers a contemporary reprise of Churchill’s words. “The price is going to be paid for this whether it’s in the Middle East, whether it’s in the Pacific, whether it’s in Europe,” he said. “I don’t know where. I don’t know when. I don’t know how, but some bad actor is going to challenge us.”

    The capability for fighting two land wars existed long before 9/11, it existed because we had an enemy that was a global threat, much like the threat, on a smaller scale of al Qaeda which is gaining ground in the middle east and fighting, with some success in Africa. They’ve already secured portions of Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t far behind, as well as Syria. Did I mention that Iran is flexing it’s puny muscles off of our coast?

    My Obama apologist friends on Facebook tell me that this proposal from the Obama Administration isn’t his fault – that he’s getting bad advice from his generals who are secretly working for the defense industry. I’d almost believe it if they could show me just one instance when Obama ever listened to his generals in regards to anything. Well, that and the fact that I predicted this very scenario way back in 2008 before Obama ever took office.

  • 82d identifies crew of M777

    Pfc-James-Groth

    The 82d Airborne Division identified the crew members of the M777 155mm towed artillery piece who were casualties yesterdays.

    Pfc. James Groth, 22, of Ethal, Wash., a cannon crew member, was killed during this incident. Groth was pronounced dead upon arrival at Womack Army Medical Center. Pfc. Groth is survived by his wife Jordan Nicole Groth and his parents, Wayne and Billie Groth.

    Groth enlisted in the Army in 2012. Upon completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Sill, OK., he was assigned to Bravo Battery, 3rd Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment at Fort Bragg, N.C.

    His awards and decorations include the Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon.

    Sgt. Cory Muzzy, 25, of Pecos, N.M., a cannon crew member is in critical but stable condition at Duke University Medical Center. Spc. Scott Yeates, 30, of Sanford, Fla., a cannon crew member is in serious but stable condition at WAMC.

    The folks who were less severely injured and already released for duty are listed at the link. The cause of the accident is still being investigated.

  • Seven injured, 1 killed in Fort Bragg incident

    The Raleigh News & Observer by way of the Stars & Stripes reports that eight members of the 18th Fires Brigade were injured, one of whom died, in an accident yesterday at Fort Bragg during a live-fire exercise;

    Two of the wounded soldiers were seriously injured, and five suffered minor injuries, said Capt. Douglas Ray, a spokesman for the 82nd. Friday night, one remained at Womack Army Medical Center on post and one was in Duke University Medical Center.

    The families of the soldiers have all been notified, but the Army has not released their names or described the nature of their injuries.

    It’s at least the second live-fire incident in which troops were injured during training at Fort Bragg in three years.

    No other details were released because the incident is under investigation. What is clear, though, is that training for war is as deadly as the war itself sometimes.

  • Sergeant Rafael Peralta’s MOH denied once again

    Ex-PH2 sends us a link from NBC News which reports that Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta has been denied the Medal of Honor once again, this time by Chuck Hagel;

    Hagel is the third successive defense secretary to turn down the award for Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who fellow Marines said smothered an exploding grenade under his body as he lay dying of a head wound during a battle in Iraq in 2004. He was 25.

    Five members of Peralta’s squad nominated Peralta for the medal, and their cause was strongly backed by former Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine veteran who represented Peralta’s hometown in Congress.

    But medical examiners ruled that Peralta — who immigrated illegally to the U.S. and joined the Marines when he got his legal residency card — was already dead and couldn’t have pulled the grenade underneath his body.

    Now, I wasn’t there, but then either were the “medical examiners” who say he didn’t pull the grenade under his body. But we get this link from our buddy, Nicki, from the Washington Post, wherein two people who say they were there testify that Peralta didn’t do the deed;

    “It has always bugged me,” said Davi Allen, a Marine who was wounded in the grenade blast and who said he watched it detonate near, but not underneath, Peralta. After years of sticking to the prevailing narrative, Allen, 30, said he recently decided to tell the truth. “I knew it’s not the truth. But who wants to be the one to tell a family: ‘Your son was not a hero’?”

    Reggie Brown, another Marine who was with Peralta that day, said that as members of the squad scrambled away from the blast, one of them said that claiming that Peralta had jumped on the grenade would be a good way to honor his legacy.

    “I can remember people saying it would be the right thing to do, to say that he did more than he did,” Brown, 31, said in an interview, speaking publicly about the case for the first time. “I disagree with everything my fellow Marines proclaim to have seen.”

    Like I said, I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what happened, but it’s strange that five people testify to what two others deny happened. I’d guess it’s all a matter of perspective. I just think it’s f’d up that medical examiners have more of a say in this than eye witnesses- and that Hagel would put more weight to the “experts”‘ who weren’t there rather than the troops on the ground, especially given his background.