Category: Military issues

  • “Girls” in combat

    The discussion about females in combat continues. In the Ventura County Star they talk to girls barely out of puberty to get sense of what women think about the idea. Girls like 14-year-old Sarah Trujillo who was influenced by her father’s war stories;

    “I was so excited. I was jumping up and down,” said Sarah, who at 14 still has at least four years before she can sign up.

    But the Oxnard High School freshman who compares her dad’s dog tags to “a beacon of amazingness” said she knows she wants a military career.

    “This is really what I want to do,” Sarah said, before falling back into drills in her Junior ROTC class. “I’ve been wanting to do this for a long time.”

    Yes, a long time. Like since she was ten, perhaps. They go on to interview other “girls” most of whom are enamored with the idea, but don’t plan on taking the path to combat themselves. They cite reasons that girls “want” and are “willing” to fill the combat jobs. Unfortunately, those probably aren’t the best reasons. James Robert Webb, son of Senator Webb, and an infantryman writes on his blog, Puckingninja says that “wanting” and “willing” aren’t reason enough for “girls” to join the infantry;

    Plain and simple, if you admit women into the Infantry, you must ask them to be men. This is completely unfair, as women are not physically just smaller men – they are completely different. Now, this is not the same as equality in society – that is a completely separate issue.

    In society writ large there are examples of these physical differences. One of these is the Olympics, where there are separate events for both men and women. As Ms. Duff pointed out during our discussion, women have 50% less upper body strength, and 25% less lung capacity. Because of this reality, the physical standards for women in the military are significantly and justifiably lower. The Infantry itself is a lot like your university’s football team. They’re a bunch of mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, testosterone charged, physical machines (to be clear I say this out of love). These men didn’t join the Infantry because the uniforms were cool or they wanted money for college. They joined to push themselves to the limits of human endurance, and well, because over the past 10 years were promised a chance to take a shot at another human being… legally.

    Do you really want your daughter hanging out with men who have that mentality?

    Yeah, this decision from the perfumed princes who doing their best to please their president is being acted upon for all of the wrong reasons. I want someone to ask them if they truly think this will make the military better in terms of warfighting capabilities. Because I want to get a good belly laugh from their answer.

  • Distinguished Warfare Medal; New medal for cyber warriors

    Distinguished Warfare Medal

    Andy and Mustang sent us this link. Both thought it might be satire, but it comes from the Associated Press, known for (un)intentional mistakes, but not satire. But anyway, it seems that the Pentagon is hard at work creating a new medal for those folks who stand-off from the war zone but participate in combat from their remote location;

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to announce Wednesday that for the first time the Pentagon is creating a medal that can be awarded to troops who have a direct impact on combat operations, but do it from afar.

    The Associated Press has learned that the new blue, red and white-ribboned Distinguished Warfare Medal will be awarded to individuals for “extraordinary achievement” related to a military operation that occurred after Sept. 11, 2001. But unlike other combat medals, it does not require the recipient risk his or her life to get it.

    According to the AP, the new medal falls between a Bronze Star and Silver Star in order of precedence. I wonder if it comes with a valor device, you know, if they still take out the enemy but accidentally drop their Egg McMuffin on the floor, but recover it before the 5-second rule gets it.

    Officials said the new medal will be the first combat-related award to be created since the Bronze Star in 1944.

    According to the Pentagon criteria, the medal gives the military a way to recognize a single act that directly affects a combat operation, doesn’t involve an act of valor, and warrants an award higher than the Bronze Star.

    I guess I don’t have to wonder whether it was Bite Me’s idea or not.

  • Another Comes Home

    PFC James Hare went overseas in 1949.  Not long afterwards he ended up in Korea.

    He was captured.  He died in a POW camp, and was buried in a mass grave.

    His remains were in a group of 450 sets of remains returned by North Korea in the early 1990s.  It took a while, but PFC Hare’s remains were finally positively identified.

    PFC Hare will be laid to rest today near Cumberland, MD.

    Rest in peace, my elder brother-in-arms.  Rest in peace.

  • North Korea Makes Bang-Bang

    In case anyone missed it:  North Korea conducted a nuclear test overnight.  It’s estimated to have had an explosive yield of 6 to 7 kilotons – or between 1/3 and 1/2 the yield of those used during World War II.

    Even China was not amused, and reportedly summoned the North Korean ambassador to their foreign ministry for immediate consultations.

    Perhaps the UN will actually grow a pair and impose meaningful sanctions this time.  As the kid in “Angels in the Outfield” said:  “Hey, it could happen!” – but I’m not holding my breath.

    No word yet on when the hermit state plans to begin growing sufficient food to feed itself, or to provide a reasonable standard of living for their proletariat.

  • Lady SEALs

    Stu sends us a link to an article by Darlene M Iskra at Time’s Battleland in which poor little Darlene has confused actual reality with Hollywood’s reality. Reading the article about the possibility of allowing women in the ranks of the Navy’s SEALs, you can almost hear Darlene creaming all over herself. She also includes an image of a shorn Demi Moore in her role as “GI Jane” as well as a video clip from the movie.

    I believe that is an accurate depiction of what any woman who tries this will have to endure. It is not for the weak of heart. As I stated in my December 21 post, now we just have to wait for the right women to volunteer and put themselves on the line.

    As reactions to my previous posts have shown, there is a remarkable resistance by men to any change in personnel policy.

    Yeah, well, i think it’s a movie, and just because the ACTORS in a MOVIE tried to keep the ACTRESS in a MOVIE from making it in SEAL training in a MOVIE, that doesn’t mean that REAL instructors will do the same. Obviously, Darlene hasn’t met any real SEALs, but that doesn’t stop her from making outrageous claims.

    The Navy’s implementation plan is due to the defense secretary by May 15, and the plan for integration of Special Operations not until January 2016. By then I hope that women who desire these assignments will be in training, in preparation for what will be viewed through a microscope by those who want to see them fail.

    But ladies: “Don’t give up the ship!”

    As in, don’t give it up for lost and abandon it. At least one of you will prevail.

    So, why don’t you do it, Darlene, since it’s so important for some reason to all of womanhood? I have no problem with female SEALs who meet the established standard. I couldn’t, even at my best several decades ago, but the problem here is that people who have n intention of taking part in the training are the only ones pushing this shit.

    If anything, movies like “GI Jane” only serve to scare women away from these positions, and the media’s treatment of entertainment as reality only perpetuate the toxic myths about people who are currently serving.

  • CNO sequestration guidance; the end of national security

    Someone sent us a letter that serves as guidance from the Chief of Naval Operations for that sequestration thing that we were told in one debate between the President and Mitt Romney wasn’t going to happen, oh so many lifetimes ago. Basically, the letter says that there will be no more flying time for pilots, no more ship maintenance, no more depot maintenance for the 3rd and 4th quarters of the year. I guess the world will come to a standstill while sequestration doesn’t happen;

    Sequestration guidance1

    Sequestration guidance2

    From CBS News;

    Late Wednesday afternoon, the 5,000 crew members of the aircraft carrier Truman got the word: they will not be leaving their home port of Norfolk, Va., for the Persian Gulf this Friday, as planned.

    Their deployment is being postponed due to the looming budget crisis. Vice Admiral Mark Fox says that means the U.S. will have only one — instead of the normal two — aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.

    I may be sensitive, but I feel like I’ve been lied to – sequestration is certainly happening.

  • No money for military pay, but…

    Our buddy, Denise Williams, at Chicago Now read our post yesterday about Leon Panetta preparing us for cuts to military pay next year, and she noticed that despite our own cost cutting, there’s still money enough to arm the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

    This short-sighted, misguided and simply foolish aid package does at least have some strings attached. Not in how those weapons will be used, not in securing religious freedom or any other human rights for the people of Egypt, but only in how the aid package must be spent. Simply put, we are giving Egypt money which they then must spend on US manufactured weapons of war. And our elected officials and military leaders in the Pentagon say those strings are there to bolster our economy and ensure US jobs.

    Someone noticed in the comments yesterday, that there’s even enough money to extend benefits to same sex couples in the military – but none for our own readiness, and to keep the good warriors who learned the hard lessons of the last war – you know, the one that is still going on now (Associated Press link);

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has not made a final decision on which benefits will be included, the officials said, but the Pentagon is likely to allow same-sex partners to have access to the on-base commissary and other military subsidized stores, as well as some health and welfare programs.

    Panetta must walk a fine, legal line. While there has been increased pressure on the Pentagon to extend some benefits to same-sex partners, defense officials must be careful not to violate the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. The federal law forbids the federal government from recognizing any marriage other than those between a man and a woman.

    And then there’s that study to see if women can be manly enough. We can spend money on that, but not on retention, and the folks who have to pass on their lessons to the next generation of warriors – you know, like those guys who stuck it out after Vietnam to train my generation.

    It’s almost as if they want to destroy the military and make us vulnerable.

  • Panetta recommends pay cuts for troops

    On his way out the door, Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta takes a parting shot at the troops by recommending pay cuts, says CNN;

    Panetta will recommend to Congress that military salaries be limited to a 1% increase in 2014. The Pentagon has calculated that the Labor Department’s 2014 Employment Cost Index is expected to be above 1% but wants to still cut back on pay because of “budget uncertainties,” a department official told CNN. In 2013, a 1.7% increase was approved, based on the index, which has been the basis for military pay for the last several years.

    Three Pentagon officials have confirmed details of the plan to CNN. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have also agreed to Panetta’s proposed pay plan. Final approval for the pay would come from Congress in the form of the 2014 budget.

    Notice that the Joint Chiefs have signed on to the plot, too. This from the guy who used to spend $36,000 every weekend to spend it with his family while the people he commanded were stuck in a faraway shit hole and wouldn’t see their families for months at a time. Now he’s suddenly worried about defense spending.

    Of course, it could be a ploy to make Hagel look good when he comes in and says something different. But, like I said when Panetta took the job two years ago, he was nothing but a political hatchet man for the Administration. It took them two years of “insider attacks” to finally decide to let the troops arm themselves in a war zone, and now he wants to cut their pay.

    I almost typed a bunch of shit that would have had the Secret Service pounding on my door, so I’d better stop here.

    Thanks to ROS for getting my blood pressure up this morning with her link.