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

Category: Military issues

  • Pr0ngrapher not getting love from the Guard

    According to the Associated Press, Idaho Guardsman SSG Amy Weidner lost her full time Guard job because some members of her unit found her porn site;

    In her tort claim, Weidner said her husband agreed to the making of the [pr0nography] and that the couple has been injured by the Guard’s actions. Weidner went from working fulltime and making $59,000 a year to working one weekend a month and two full weeks a year, making $8,000.

    “Claimant’s rank has been denigrated, her authority has been taken away from her, her full-time job has been forfeited, and the failure of the command to enforce its own rules and regulations other than against claimant, has caused severe hardship for claimant and her husband, her work performance and her reputation,” the tort claim states.

    And, as if it needed to be said she has also made allegations of discrimination, sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.

    Weidner’s website offered photos, video and live on-camera chats with subscribers. Weidner used the name “Sandy Blaze” and didn’t identify herself as a member of the military. She promoted the site when it launched with a tweet saying, “Hello soldier boys. You can visit me…for some treats. I Support the Troops!!!”

    Weidner has been in the Guard since 1998 and a full time Guardsman since 2004, and I guess she didn’t appreciate it, because from what I understand from Guardsmen I knew, a full time position is highly prized.

    There are still pictures on line, none that I feel like sharing. Meh, nothing spectacular, but certainly not conduct becoming for a staff sergeant. Did she think that no one in her unit looks at pr0n? See, they call it a “world-wide web” for a reason.

  • President’s remarks complicate military prosecutions

    The New York Times makes the case that President Obama’s recent remarks regarding military sexual assault cases will alter the outcome of those trials by causing “unlawful command influence”;

    “Unlawful command influence” refers to actions of commanders that could be interpreted by jurors as an attempt to influence a court-martial, in effect ordering a specific outcome. Mr. Obama, as commander in chief of the armed forces, is considered the most powerful person to wield such influence.

    The president’s remarks might have seemed innocuous to civilians, but military law experts say defense lawyers will seize on the president’s call for an automatic dishonorable discharge, the most severe discharge available in a court-martial, arguing that his words will affect their cases.

    “His remarks were more specific than I’ve ever heard a commander in chief get,” said Thomas J. Romig, a former judge advocate general of the Army and the dean of the Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kan. “When the commander in chief says they will be dishonorably discharged, that’s a pretty specific message. Every military defense counsel will make a motion about this.”

    And of course, civilians won’t understand the military culture and therefore, demonize the whole process when someone gets to walk free because this President doesn’t understand the military culture. And we’ll have Congress trying to alter the UCMJ because they don’t understand.

    Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.

  • SFC James Robert Jones; Identity theft of fellow soldiers

    Chief Tango and Preston send us links to the story about Sergeant First Class James Robert Jones, who worked for the IG’s office at Fort Campbell, KY, is accused of stealing the identities of deployed soldiers as well as the identity of a deceased soldier to apply for loans. Of course, he says he’s not guilty;

    In an email to The Associated Press on Thursday, Jones said he is not guilty of the charges.

    “What I find the most disturbing and shocking about these charges is the allegations that I would use information from deceased soldiers to pull off this so-called scheme,” Jones wrote. “I am embarrassed and saddened for the government that they would stoop to a level of using a fallen soldier’s sacrifice in order to provide a dramatic element to their case.”

    Jones said he has been in the Army for nearly 20 years and was in the inspector general’s office at Fort Campbell for close to two years. Jones said he served in Afghanistan in 2010 and was wounded three times. A voicemail greeting on Jones’ cellphone included portions of the song “God Bless the U.S.A.”

    According to the article, he would make loans in other people’s names and then spend the cash. Twice he was successful in getting loans from the Fort Campbell Federal Credit Union and the Navy Federal Credit Union. He’s also facing charges of lying to federal investigators – CID and the Secret Service. I’d check on the thrice wounded thing, too, because it looks like he’s trying to set up a “the PTSD made me do it” defense.

  • Combat role for woman should include their eligibility for the draft

    The Stars & Stripes has an article from the Ohio Springfield News-Sun, in which they discuss the possibility that women would be included in a future draft, and of course, the reporter gets quotes from the most experienced person that he can find – a 19-year-old girl who hasn’t even been to basic training yet;

    Kristi Schweers, a 19-year-old Springfield resident who leaves this summer for Marine Corps boot camp, is a proponent of the all-volunteer military.

    “Not everybody is military material,” Schweers said. “Not everyone is ready and willing to die.”

    She doesn’t like the idea of anyone, male or female, being drafted, but thinks women are more than up to the challenge of fighting in the toughest of combat units.

    “When it comes down to it,” she said, “the strength we have is insane. We give birth. C’mon, you can’t top that.”

    Yeah, well, not all men are “military material”, yet they were drafted despite their qualifications. And, oh, yeah, giving birth is just like combat. No, really, it is.

    When Jimmy Carter reinstated draft registration when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1980, the question of whether women should be included or not went to the Supreme Court and they held that, because women couldn’t fill combat positions, they could be subject to the draft. Well, now that this administration has removed that restriction, women should be lining up at the Post Office to register within 30 days after their 18th birthday like men have been doing to some extent for the last 30 years.

    Line up, ladies.

  • Females fail Marine Infantry Officers’ Course again

    The Washington Times reports that two more female Marines tried and didn’t quite make the standards at the Infantry Officers’ Course, although they’re getting closer;

    It reported Wednesday that one of the women was pulled for falling behind schedule. The other made it to the course’s end but did not meet its standards, as did six men, the newspaper said.

    […]

    “The women seemingly failed primarily due to struggles with upper-body strength,” embedded reporter Dan Lamothe wrote. “In one example, they both struggled to climb a 20-foot rope required twice. One Marine made it all the way up it once, but could not do it again. The other woman — and a couple [of] men — were unable to make it up the rope one time.”

    The article makes it clear that there were men who failed for similar reasons in the class, so there is nothing surprising about the results to those of us who have been saying the same things all along since Leon Panetta made the political decision based solely on how he felt about the issue. The people who will be surprised are the social scientists who will think that something is inherently unfair about a system that doesn’t graduate females based on their sex.

    Thanks to UpNorth for the link.

  • Dempsey to combat arms: Prove it!

    Our buddy, Rowan Scarborough, in the Washington Times writes today that Chariman of the Joint Chiefs, Marty Dempsey, has moved past the point from which women will have to prove themselves equal to men in regards to assigning females to combat arms specialties;

    ArmyGen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that if a service wants to keep a job as a male-only occupation because of its high physical demands, the service will have to show why those tests should not be lowered to accommodate women.

    Tests of strength are particularly important to special operations. About 15,000 combat positions, a fraction of the 1.4 million active force, are subject to integration.

    “The only option now is to offer reasons why they can’t do it,” said an Army special operations veteran who believes U.S. Special Operations Command will cave to White House demands to include women. “I haven’t heard that anyone has the courage to say they can’t do it, either. Maybe the new [military occupational specialty] can be 18P — Special Forces camp follower. Is that PC enough?”

    An ArmySpecial Forces soldier said the qualification course at Fort Bragg, N.C., to earn the Green Beret is so demanding that the Army will have to lower standards for some tasks in able for women to succeed.

    So, there you go. I’ve said since the beginning of this most recent series of discussions that the generals are going to do whatever it takes to please their political masters and it looks as if none of them have the courage to speak up.

    So where are these all-important veterans in Congress? Other than Duncan Hunter, I haven’t heard a peep out of them. You’d think that Miss Lindsay Graham who drags out his commission at every opportunity would stand up for future warriors who will have to fight the next war after substandard training. And where the Hell is John McCain, who understands the rigors of war more than most?

  • USSC overturns DOMA; DoD rushes to give benefits away

    So, you didn’t really think that the Defense of Marriage Act would stand up under the scrutiny of this court, did you? The is the Supreme Court that gave us Obamacare, for Pete’s sake. But anyway, as soon as the decision was announced, Chuck Hagel rushed out a statement that would give benefits to same-sex couples, you know, because they’ve kept their promises so well to, well, regular couples. From Stars & Stripes;

    “The Department of Defense welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision today on the Defense of Marriage Act,” it read. “The Department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies. The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses — regardless of sexual orientation — as soon as possible. That is now the law, and it is the right thing to do.

    “Every person who serves our nation in uniform stepped forward with courage and commitment. All that matters is their patriotism, their willingness to serve their country and their qualifications to do so. Today’s ruling helps ensure that all men and women who serve this country can be treated fairly and equally, with the full dignity and respect they so richly deserve.”

    Last year, they wanted to strike down the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy so they could openly serve. That’s all they wanted – to be able to serve without hiding who they are. So, the camel got his nose under the tent, and voila!

    Honestly, I don’t care about gays serving in the military, I just don’t like being lied to about their intentions. Oh, just so you same-sex couples know, when it comes to those benefits that you get promised, they break their promises all of the time. They tell us that, as retirees, we’re unsustainable and then they pile a bunch new people into the system, so enjoy it while you can.

    And, oh, by the way;

    The Pentagon will have to decide whether only legal marriages qualify for benefits or whether those in domestic partnerships are eligible as well, Panetta said in his memo.

    […]

    The outlook is more complex for veterans in same-sex marriages, McKean said. The statute that governs veterans benefits defines a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a wife or husband.”

  • Army’s deep cuts

    Chief Tango sends us a link from Stars & Stripes which reports that the Army is making even more cuts to the security of our nation by slashing 12 combat brigades from the force and slashing manpower by nearly 10%;

    By reducing the number of headquarters and increasing the number of battalions per brigade, Odierno said the Army is “increasing our tooth to tail ratio.” He added that while there would be some civilian job losses, many civilian positions are in place to support the basic functions of a post, and won’t be affected.

    Odierno said 10 BCTs would be cut from 10 Army installations: Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, N.C.; Fort Campbell, Ky.; Fort Carson, Colo.; Fort Drum, N.Y.; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Knox, Ky.; Fort Riley, Kan.; Fort Stewart, Ga.; and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. Another two BCTs used for soldier training will also be cut, officials said.

    An eleventh BCT in a location still undecided will be cut in the future, Odierno said.

    So history is repeating itself, once again. Of course, we’ll have the reserve and Guard units to fill the holes, right? As long as the Guard and reserves don’t mind spending almost as much time in uniform as they would if they were active, then I suppose, retention and recruiting will suffer. Well, luckily, we can still depend on the draft, right? I’m sure no one would avoid the draft, despite the fact that the government has been largely unwilling to deal with draft dodgers and deserters in any meaningful manner.

    And, oh, yeah, I’m sure the impact won’t be felt by communities who largely depend on military presence like Fort Drum & Jefferson County, NY. Although the defense issues are primary, the economy will also take a hit. I wonder if we can get the Constitution changed so we can get four more years out of this administration.