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

Category: Military issues

  • Now, This Is a REALLY Good Idea . . . .

    Have I got a deal for you.  How about we buy a bunch of stuff, then immediately put it in “mothballs” instead of use it?  Good deal, right?

    Uncle Sam and DoD certainly would never do that with a bunch of new airplanes – right?

    Think again.  As in to the tune of over $565 million.

    I understand that at some point terminating a contract just doesn’t make economic sense.  But couldn’t we have figured this out before we ordered 21 of these?

  • Super 61 video

    Jerry920 sends us a link to 60 Minutes which has uncovered the video of “Super 61”, the Black Hawk helicopter piloted by Cliff Wolcott in Mogadishu on October 3, 1993 as it crashed;

    The footage that will bring viewers back to the start of the mission, the battle and the downing of “Super 61,” the call sign of the doomed helicopter, is military surveillance footage shot of the mission. It captures the scenes on Oct. 3, 1993, in Mogadishu that inspired the film.

    The article says that more of the video will be broadcast on Sunday Oct. 6 on 60 Minutes.

  • Registration open for 2014 U.S. Army Small Arms Championships

    The Army Marksmanship Unit wants us to tell you about registration for the 2014 U.S. Army Small Arms Championships;

    The U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (USAMU), in conjunction with the Maneuver Center of Excellence, will host the 2014 U.S. Army Small Arms Championships Jan. 26-Feb. 1. The “All-Army” competition is open to all Soldiers – active and reserve component — of all ranks including, West Point and Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets.

    The USAMU hosts the “All-Army” in order to raise the standard of marksmanship across the force and increase overall Army combat readiness.

    There is no cost to compete in the championship and ammunition is provided to all competitors. USAMU Soldiers will conduct small arms firing schools and hands-on training prior to each match. Instructors include Olympians as well as world, national and interservice champions. As the Army’s critical intent is to develop combat firing skills at the entry and intermediate level (as well as recognizing superior skill at the highest levels), Soldiers will compete in separate Cadet, Novice, Open and Pro classes based on their competition experience. Soldiers will fire M-16 or M-4 service rifles at distances between 25-500 yards and M-9 pistols between 7-35 yards in a variety of courses of fire. There is also a combined arms match, where competitors employ the rifle and pistol in a number of exciting stages of fire that simulate close-quarters marksmanship.

    During the pistol and rifle matches, there will be an Excellence-in-Competition (EIC) Match where all Soldiers can earn points toward their EIC Marksmanship Badges. The prestigious EIC badge takes precedence over standard qualification badges. In addition to individual awards, battalion-level and up teams can compete for team awards and unit recognition.

    Range capacity for this event is 240, so early registration is encouraged. Once registration exceeds that number, Soldiers will be placed on a stand-by list for the competition.

    For additional information and to register, visit the USAMU website at www.usamu.com or contact Michael Behnke, the USAMU chief of competitions, at (706) 545-7841 or michael.j.behnke.civ(at)mail(dot)mil.

    So, go shoot some paper for freedom.

  • Government shutdown & the VA

    The Washington Times reports that Congress passed the latest of a long stream of stop gap bills to continue funding the federal government without actually passing a budget. However, the bill delays Obamacare for a year, which has prompted the White House to announce that the bill is DOA, because you know, the word “compromise” isn’t in their vocabulary as anything that the rest of us would recognize. They delayed the healthcare bill in regards to employers, but not for the rest of us.

    Aided by some Democrats, the GOP passed legislation to repeal a widely despised Obamacare tax on medical devices, to halt the entire health law for a year, and to ensure troops get paid even if the government shuts down.

    The votes send the spending bill back to the Senate, though Majority Leader Harry Reid called the moves “pointless” and has already ruled out negotiating on any of the Obamacare measures. He said he will not accept any strings attached to a bill to keep the government open past the midnight Monday deadline.

    Our buddy, Austin Wright at Politico writes that the House bill contains a provision to keep paying the troops and the DoD civilians who support them;

    The GOP unveiled a bill on Saturday that would ensure service members continue getting paid if Congress is unable to pass a bill to fund the government past midnight Monday, when the fiscal year ends and current appropriations expire.
    Continue Reading

    The measure would also ensure continued pay for civilian employees of the Defense Department and Pentagon contractors who “are providing support to members of the Armed Forces.”

    The Washington Post writes that if the standoff continues for a few weeks, Veterans’ Administration won’t be able to pay the veterans who depend on them;

    During the telephone briefing, the leadership of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs committees were told that VA will run out of money to make compensation and pension payments if a partial shutdown is drawn out for weeks, according to aides to two members of Congress.

    The briefing, which was provided by VA congressional affairs, represents a significant change from what the members had previously been told, and from the information the VA has released to the public, according to congressional officials.

    Some expressed concern during the briefing that veterans had not been given adequate information to prepare for a possible disruption in payments that many depend upon. Some veterans live check to check, they noted.

    Yeah, well, veterans haven’t been given adequate information because no one is talking to us. You’ll notice that the VA’s Ebenefits website is down today for maintenance. But there was nothing about the government shutdown when it was working before 9am today. So, yeah, nice dodge, there VA, but if we’re not getting timely information, it’s because you haven’t bothered to give us any.

    “This is a big reason why it’s critical that the House join with the Senate to act quickly and keep the government open without any political games,” said Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Wash.), who is chairman of the Senate budget committee. “Our nation’s heroes, who are already waiting too long for the benefits they deserve, shouldn’t be held at the mercy of gridlock and dysfunction in Washington, D.C.”

    In other words, we’re being held hostage once again – and this time it’s to save the credibility of that broke-dick Obamacare BS.

  • Congress seeks to arm troops

    Chief Tango sends us a link to an Army Times article which reports that Congressman Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas has introduced a bill that would allow troops to carry their personally owned weapons (POWs in Army parlance) while on their particular bases.

    “Why are civilians at a restaurant allowed to defend themselves but soldiers trained in firearms aren’t?” Stockman said. “Why can’t we extend common-sense gun laws like open carry to our soldiers?”

    The Safe Military Bases Act, HR 3199, is Stockman’s response to the Sept. 16 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and is similar to legislation introduced after the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.

    Stockman said mass shootings could be stopped if people on base carried their own guns.

    There’s a reason that military experience counts towards many states’ certification programs for weapons ownership and concealed carry permits – mostly that members of the military are well trained in the handling and safety measures regarding firearms. And they live and work in the biggest gun-free zones in the country – potential targets for every nut with evil intent to become famous. How does that make any sense?

  • SMA talks tattoos

    ROS sends us a link to a Stars & Stripes article in which the Sergeant Major of the Army, Ray Chandler, addressed the most important national security issue facing our troops today; tattoos. Apparently, he is salivating at the thought of the Secretary of the Army signing the new regs into effect;

    Media reports last year identified potential changes to rules governing things such make-up and fingernail polish, hair styles, body piercings, and the length of sideburns, among other items. Chandler, however, only confirmed changes to the policy on tattoos.

    Under the new policy, new recruits will not be allowed to have tattoos that show below the elbows and knees or above the neckline, Chandler told troops. Current soldiers may be grandfathered in, but all soldiers will still be barred from having any tattoos that are racist, sexist or extremist.

    Once the rules are implemented, soldiers will sit down with their unit leaders and “self identify” each tattoo. Soldiers will be required to pay for the removal of any tattoo that violates the policy, Chandler said.

    I suppose that soon as the troops stop getting tattoos, and start to learn more about the Afghan culture, the Taliban will have no choice but to surrender. Way to focus on what’s important, SMA Chandler. Maybe a couple more police calls around the D-Fac will speed up our victory in Afghanistan, too. Just being helpful.

  • Obama & military leaders part ways on policy

    The Washington Post has noticed that military leaders and the President aren’t seeing eye-to-eye on the use of the military as a means to a political end. That’s probably because the military sees itself as a tool of policy that must be unfettered in order to accomplish the country’s stated goals abroad, while the White House thinks that the use of the military is a means to make domestic points with voters and it’s political base.

    About the Afghanistan surge, the Post writes;

    Obama’s relationship with the military was indelibly shaped early in his presidency by the 2009 debate over whether a troop surge in Afghanistan that his generals were pressing for stood a good chance of turning around the worsening conflict.

    “From his perspective, he trusted the military and they betrayed him,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a blunt assessment that is shared by many in defense and policymaking circles. The president felt boxed into a political corner by leaks about the troop numbers the generals wanted. After that, “I think this White House made it pretty clear that they intended to run all foreign policy from the Executive Office Building.”

    And form the military’s perspective, Obama betrayed the troops by seeking a political compromise on a military solution in Afghanistan. According to campaign-Obama, Afghanistan was the only war worth fighting, but he only gave the commanders half of the troops they told him that they needed to win. The result has been exactly the outcome that those commanders and the CIA predicted – that the troops are currently withdrawing under fire.

    Obama’s recent threat to use force in Syria to make political points without actualy accomplishing in the region has met with criticism from two of his Defense Secretaries, William gates and Leon Panetta;

    Obama’s two former defense secretaries weighed in on the controversy Tuesday night, saying they disagreed with the president’s decision to seek congressional authorization for a strike. While Leon E. Panetta said a cruise missile attack would have been worthwhile, Robert M. Gates said the plan was akin to “throwing gasoline on an extremely complex fire in the Middle East.”

    “To blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple of days to underscore or validate a point or principle is not a strategy,” Gates said at a forum in Dallas in which the two appeared

    The Post neglects to mention the harsh criticism Panetta heaped on President Obama, the New York Times didn’t;

    Mr. Panetta, also speaking at the forum, said the president should have kept his word after he had pledged action if Syria used chemical weapons.

    “When the president of the United States draws a red line, the credibility of this country is dependent on him backing up his word,” Mr. Panetta said.

    “Once the president came to that conclusion, then he should have directed limited action, going after Assad, to make very clear to the world that when we draw a line and we give our word,” then “we back it up,” Mr. Panetta said.

    The Obama/Biden campaign in 2012 leaned heavily on the military’s accomplishments during their first term, and all the while, the administration was planning to balance the federal debt on the backs of the military and on the veterans who gave them their campaign slogans. Loss of money for training and equipment are plunging the military into a hollow force. Steep personnel cuts are causing the military to lose faith in the commitment to them by the government.

    Their inability to negotiate a successful Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the government of Iraq has allowed that country to fall back into a morass of blood of thousands, turning the clock back to the 2006 Sunni/Shiite civil war. The situation there is causing the administration to examine ways they can get US troops back into Iraq.

    From the Post;

    “The U.S. military feels it has been burnt with half-measures,” said Peter J. Munson, a retired Marine officer who most recently served as a senior adviser to a Marine Corps commander. “There is going to be on the part of our senior military leaders an aversion to using force when you don’t have clear ends and escalation can take on a life of its own.”

    Mostly because military solutions shouldn’t be restrained by public opinion polls and shouldn’t be dressed up to look pretty and clean for public consumption.

  • Rob Wittman, R-Va: Military personnel cuts ” is a place we can go”

    GOP chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rob Wittman, R-Va, according to our buddy, Rick Maze at the Military Times said that he’s amenable to cuts in personnel costs at the Department of Defense;

    If benefits are cut for current troops, any savings could be offset by higher turnover as career service members leave and potential recruits decide not to enlist because of concern the government doesn’t keep commitments, he said.

    He’s willing, though, to consider change in pay, health care and retirement for people who have not yet started military service. “I think that is a place we can go,” he said. “I am very much in favor of this discussion.”

    Asked if he considered current benefits overly generous, Wittman replied: “I think it generous. I think it is fair for what our men and women have been asked to do.” Asked if he thought future service members would be any less dedicated, Wittman said he did not but, he believed it was fair to provide less generous benefits as long as the future members and their families understood the compensation package they were getting.

    So, good, Republicans can talk like Democrats. I guess that means that I can keep my money in my pocket – if I was going to give money to a campaign of a candidate that acts like Democrats, I might as well give it to Democrats.

    Mr. Wittman, tell me why a prospective future member of the military would make the sacrifices that they would be asked to make if there’s nothing at the end of the road? I stayed in the military for my stint because I knew what I thought was going to be the benefits when I finished. I never for a minute thought that Congress would erode those benefits after I fulfilled my part of the bargain like they have done. I don’t for a minute believe that Congress won’t reduce the benefits of currently serving and currently retired service members if they find an opportunity.

    Thanks to Gregg for the link.