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

Category: Military issues

  • The Mattis ouster discussion

    Several of you sent us links to articles about the Obama Administration ingraciously dismissing Marine Corps General James Mattis, most of the links went back to Thomas Ricks’ article in Foreign Policy magazine. If it was anyone else, I’d probably believe the story, but it’s not, it’s Ricks, the same guy who wants to bring back the draft and brags about the firefights that he’s “covered” (not witnessed, covered). I get the sense that Ricks is also wrong on this story, regardless of how much I want it to be true;

    I am told that General Mattis was traveling and in a meeting when an aide passed him a note telling him that the Pentagon had announced his replacement as head of Central Command. It was news to him — he hadn’t received a phone call or a heads-up from anyone at the Pentagon or the White House.

    The White House wrote back to Ricks and told him that Mattis had been in a discussion with them over who his replacement would be, I’d tend to believe that. Not because the White House is particularly honest, but rather because Mattis is known as a “mad dog” and wouldn’t hold his tongue if he thought he was being screwed.

    The disagreement that was supposed to trigger Mattis’ dismissal was that he pressed the National Security Council on “what ifs” in regards to Iran. That doesn’t sound like a particularly heinous crime that would get a war-planner of Mattis’ reputation fired.

    Ricks updates his article this morning;

    The Mattis-Donilon disagreements weren’t just about Iran. Other issues on which Mattis was pushing the White House to think deeper and harder, I am told, were “Afghanistan, concerns about Pakistani stability, [and] response to the Arab spring.”

    The mishandling of Mattis is a larger part of an attempt by Donilon to centralize foreign policy making in his office, with DOD and State as implementers. My guess is that this is doomed.

    The Marines are watching this intensely, but the other services also are taking note. The careerist generals will take the lesson that go along gets along. The duty-before-career guys will either go to ground or leave. Hence this incident likely will be a factor in shaping the character of the general officer corps for several years.

    Like I said, I trust Ricks as far as I could toss his ample ass. I seriously don’t see a story here, and I may wrong. But it looks to me like Ricks is just trying to justify his Pulitzer.

  • Dempsey considers lowering standards for women in combat

    Our least favorite Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, in his press conference on Thursday along with our least favorite Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, hinted that he just might consider lowering the standards to let women in the jobs which might take them into combat, according to the Washington Times;

    When a reporter mentioned that the Pentagon’s stance appeared to keep open the possibility that some occupational specialties would be off limits to females, Gen. Dempsey responded: “[I]f we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”

    Of course, that’s the one thing they said they wouldn’t do in the beginning of this whole discussion. but, in light of the two female Marines who dropped out of the infantry officers’ course, not because they couldn’t meet the academic standard, but rather because they couldn’t meet the physical standard because of who they are, I guess they’ve had second thoughts.

    They know that the social scientists are going to demand to see numbers and the only way to get what they think is equity, they have to lower the standards. But then, That’s what I’ve been saying for years. It’s not like they didn’t know – they’ve always known. They just ignored it so they don’t have to say out loud that women are not equal to men for biological reasons.

  • TAH on CNN again

    Matt Smith from CNN called yesterday and we chatted about women in the military…what else, right?

    And it’s one echoed by Jonn Lilyea, a former infantry sergeant who now publishes a military blog, “This Ain’t Hell.” Lilyea, who fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, said he believes physical standards will be relaxed “in order to force the acceptance of women in the combat arms specialties.”

    “I know it’s an eventuality, because the social scientists at the Pentagon are going to want to see numbers that get accepted in there so they can show how just the whole thing is,” he said.

    Dempsey said the services can still recommend closing a particular specialty or unit to women — but “They have to explain why, and I think there will be the right amount of scrutiny on that.” And Lilyea said he wasn’t reassured by Dempsey’s insistence that the brass is supportive.

    “I’m sure they all stood and saluted and said ‘Yes sir’ and marched out smartly, but I don’t think they’re all 100% behind it,” he said.

    I mentioned that the chiefs did the same thing for DADT – the chairman and the Secretary of Defense publicly claimed that ll of the services were on board, but then we found out later that there was some dissension. Anyone who spent a day in the military knows that this will create more headaches than it’s worth. Remember the huge dust-up a few years ago when General Anthony Cucolo tried to make pregnancy a court martial offense in Iraq during a war? Yeah, well, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

    And, John sends us a link to a Tweet by Valerie Jarret yesterday. While the boys at the Defense Department is trying to send women into combat, Jarret is trying rally support for her cause;

    Jarret tweet Violence Against Women

    Kind of incongruous, isn’t it? Will the Taliban be forced to abide by the Violence Against Women Act?

  • The women in combat discussion continues

    I’m still in my pajamas because I haven’t stopped on this discussion all day. Not that I’m complainin’, I’m just sayin’. But I’ve run across some real moron statements in my reading today. For example, Tammy Duckworth, the newest Congresswoman from Illinois and former VoteVets associate felt the need to endorse the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision to allow women in the combat arms specialties. Of course, there’s not much chance that she’ll get called back into the service due to her position and the fact that she’s a double amputee, but she makes the most moronic statement I’ve read all day in Stars & Stripes;

    As a combat veteran I know the inclusion of women in combat roles will make America safer and provide inspiration to women throughout our country.

    I’d like her to explain to her constituents how this will make the country safer. And in light of the two women who washed out of the Marine Infantry Officers Course, the only two who volunteered, how does that inspire anyone? But generally, the only people I’ve read who are whooping and hollering about this decision are women who will never serve as combat soldiers.

    And, yes, she has a Purple Heart for wounds received in combat, but what does she know about real close up combat? She was wounded when the helicopter she was flying was shot down, so she never humped a ruck, never kicked a door down, never pointed her weapon at someone who was trying to kill her. Never maneuvered a squad or platoon in a firefight. So that “As a combat veteran…” thing rings a bit hollow.

    Earlier today, when I read one of my Facebook friends of the VoteVets variety celebrating the decision, I asked if she was going to reenlist to take advantage of the new policy. I got the sound of crickets in return. Another, of the IVAW variety (not Army Sergeant), who I asked the same question, made several excuses as to why she wouldn’t.

    And then I read, thanks to our buddy Adam Weinstein at Mother Jones, that idiot who calls himself the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marty Dempsey, says that allowing women in the combat occupations will cure the sexual harassment problem;

    If the United States had previously allowed women to serve officially in military combat roles, including special operations forces, there might be fewer sexual assaults in the armed services, the Pentagon’s top general told reporters Thursday.

    Having studied the issue of rampant sexual misconduct in the ranks, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that he has concluded that the phenomenon exists partly because women have been subordinated to men in military culture: “It’s because we’ve had separate classes of military personnel.”

    Really? This ranks right up there with his conclusion that the green-on-blue attacks were the result of cultural insensitivity on the part of our troops in Afghanistan. How are we separate classes? I’ve seen women at all ranks, including General Officers.

    Dempsey and Panetta went on to tell the media that the service chiefs were all behind the policy. They said the same thing about the DADT policy change, too. Then we found out that not all of the service chiefs were particularly happy about it. Then the Secretary and Chairman said that the services can request opt-outs for some jobs. I don’t see that happening. Demi Moore did a great job at BUD/S, so that’s proof that women can handle any job, right?

    “We want to make sure we get the standards right, and we don’t overengineer them either,” Dempsey said.

    What? The standards are already policy, what do you have “get right” if you’re not lowering the standards, either for the entire force or just women?

    Asked whether the military’s elite Seals and Green Berets might soon see female recruits, Dempsey said he had discussed that with Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno and Marine Commandant James Amos, both combat veterans themselves. “I think we all believe that there will be women who can meet those standards,” he added.

    Yeah, if you bring the standards to their level. It’s not the women’s fault, it’s the fault of the social scientists and the Tammy Duckworths who are going demand to see numbers that justify their efforts, and the military being under the command of civilians who don’t understand how important training standards are to the entire force, just collapse like a Kmart lawn chair. Again, the folks who are going to make the most noise are the ones who don’t have to do the job.

    And, yes, I understand that women have performed admirably in the last couple of wars when they have “found themselves” in contact with the enemy, but, you know unintentionally bumping into the enemy and engaging in a firefight, is a damn sight different from actively seeking and pursuing an enemy hoping that it will result in a firefight. You’d think that Dempsey would be able to tell the difference and explain that to his boss.

  • USS Guardian – An Update

    I wrote a few days ago about the USS Guardian running aground near the Philippines.  The latest word is that the ship is taking on water, the crew has been evacuated, and that the ship will have to be “lifted off the rocks” in order to be freed.  It will reportedly take another week or two to free the ship.

    That’s not good.

    The grounding occurred in an offshore area of the Philippines that has been declared a marine park and a World-Heritage site.  Another report indicates that the ship ignored radio warnings from Philippine park rangers that they were nearing the park, refused to let Philippine Park rangers permission to board in order to check paperwork, and told the park rangers to take their complaints “to the US Embassy.” (This second report is from what appears to be a blatantly anti-American source, so it’s perhaps best taken with the proverbial grain of salt.)

    It’s beginning to look like s fair number of people on that ship might want to start working on resumes.

  • TAH on CNN

    Steve Almasy from CNN emailed last night for an interview about Women in Combat. Unfortunately, it was after my bedtime so I missed his email until this mroning. It looks like he just took some quotes from the blog for his article today;

    Jonn Lilyea, one of the founders of the military blog “This Ain’t Hell,” wrote that he thinks it was an “ill-considered decision.”

    Lilyea, a former sergeant who fought in Desert Storm, wrote that he is opposed to women in combat units, not because women are a distraction but because he thinks the Army and other services will be required to accept more women than are qualified or can be trained.

    “If we’re doing this to make the military better, fine, but if we’re doing it just to beat our collective chest and show how just we are, then that’s how a lot of body bags are going to get filled,” he wrote.

    Of course, my quotes were embedded in the article between Tammy Duckworth and Kayla Williams, two of the VoteVets alumni. Neither are in uniform. I asked one of my Facebook friends who is also a VoteVets alum if she was going to reenlist now, and she never responded. I noticed the newsies are all getting quotes from women who won’t be serving in combat arms units. I don’t see them asking women who are currently serving any questions – women who potentially might be forced into those combat arms units if the social scientists don’t see the numbers they want to see.

    I think that’s where the story is, not with us old washed up former soldiers who aren’t going to have this policy forced down our throats.

  • Sinclair’s PR Site

    As regular TAH readers know, I’ve been periodically writing about the case of BG Jeffery Sinclair, US Army, who is currently facing courts-martial for a number of very serious charges.  Jonn vectored me to a couple of links he got from another TAH reader, AndyFMF.  The links are from a website that someone – my guess would be Sinclair’s legal team – has come up with a website touting Sinclair’s innocence.

    I took a look at the website.  I’ll hit the high points and give my impressions below.  Disclaimer:  I’m not a lawyer – just an educated layman with some knowledge of and interest in the law.  Comments/corrections from qualified lawyers, particularly from our military JAG readers, are solicited and welcome.

    1. The site can be found here.
    2. The site appears to be essentially a PR exercise aimed at generating sympathy for Sinclair.  Predictably, it attacks Sinclair’s accuser, his prosecutor, and the evidence against him.  It also touts Sinclair’s history and bio.
    3. It does not divulge the name of Sinclair’s accuser.
    4. It points out some legitimate weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.  Some of the evidence for some of the charges indeed appears weak.  Other evidence presented at Sinclair’s Article 32 hearing resulted in some of the original accusations being dropped.
    5. However, IMO in at least one other area the prosecution team may have really stepped on its collective schvantz.  Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a new prosecution team take over the case prior to trial.
    6. That said, some of the “shortcomings” the site points out are, bluntly, BS.  In particular, they make much of the fact that Sinclair “passed a polygraph” and that his accuser has not taken one.  JAGs out there correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that polygraph results are not admissible in courts-martial proceedings as evidence.  There are numerous known instances of a liar “beating” a polygraph.
    7. The site also makes much of the fact that multiple people had access to Sinclair’s computer, where evidence was found that pornographic images had been accessed – in some cases, when Sinclair was known to be absent.  While that is indeed true, charges relating to specific instances where porn was accessed during a time Sinclair was shown to have been absent apparently were later dropped.  And I’d like to think that the Army actually had the sense to have a good computer forensic tech (the Army indeed has some very good ones) look at the machine in question prior to the Article 32 hearing.
    8. The site admits that Sinclair had a consensual extramarital affair with a subordinate as well as use “bad judgment” in exchanging “inappropriate” text messages (presumably racy ones) with four other women – who were apparently also Sinclair’s subordinates.  That admission alone is enough to end Sinclair’s career.
    9. While the “forcible sodomy” charge against Sinclair may sound weak as his PR site presents it, that charge is likely legally much stronger than Sinclair’s site would lead one to believe.  Past instances of Army Drill Sergeants engaging in consensual sex with trainees have been successfully prosecuted as rape.  This was apparently due to the extreme difference in rank under the theory that the extreme difference in rank and position effectively constituted coercion.  I’m guessing a BG hitting on a junior officer (e.g., a LT or CPT) might well be considered just as coercive a situation as a Drill Sergeant hitting on a trainee.

    Bottom line:  the site strikes me as primarily a blatant and rather transparent PR effort, designed to garner sympathy for Sinclair among members of the public.  Even if Sinclair is innocent, I personally find such a public PR effort distasteful and beneath what I’d expect from a military GO.  YMMV regarding both the site and how distasteful you find it.

    Sinclair at this point has to know his career is over.  He’s now simply fighting to stay out of jail and keep his pension.  I’d guess he probably doesn’t much care about appearances and decorum.

    TSO Adds: Um, this is interesting reading…. (Click twice so you can read it.)

    Um

  • Air Force sweats the small stuff

    So welcome to the world of garrison service; the Air Force conducted a service-wide health & welfare inspection looking for the tiny stuff that bothers senior NCOs when they’re not bothered with finding ways to escape those pesky deployments. From af.mil;

    Commanders inspected thousands of units at more than 100 Air Force installations, where almost 600,000 Air Force military and civilian personnel work. Commanders looked for and removed three broad categories of material: pornographic, inappropriate or offensive, or unprofessional.

    According to the results, in the three categories, the Air Force found 631 instances of pornography (magazines, calendars, pictures, videos that intentionally displayed nudity or depicted acts of sexual activity); 3,987 instances of unprofessional material (discrimination, professional appearance, items specific to local military history such as patches, coins, heritage rooms, log books, song books, etc); and 27,598 instances of inappropriate or offensive items (suggestive items, magazines, posters, pictures, calendars, vulgarity, graffiti). In total, 32,216 items were reported.

    Here’s a .pdf to the list. I had to Google “Doofer Books”, but it looks like the inspectors were of the easily offended variety. But there’s stuff like “newspaper with unprofessional cover”, “offensive item”, Nose Art Poster and “unprofessional calender”. I thought that Nose Art was an Air Force tradition – you know the nose art on aircraft in World War II. I wonder how many man hours were wasted on this witch hunt.

    Thanks to Pave Pusher for the link.