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

Category: Military issues

  • That Hagel thing

    Of course, despite fierce opposition, the president has nominated Chuck Hagel for the Secretary of Defense during the President’s second term. it almost makes sense that Obama would nominate Hagel, because Hagel shares Obama’s world view. Hagel voted for the war in Iraq, then backed off and called it a “war for oil” like a stupid hippie. He joined Harry Reid in condemning the Iraq surge as “getting bogged down” like Vietnam. As if hippies were writing his talking points.

    The Democrats need a Republican to be the Secretary of Defense – Leon Panetta was the first Democrat in that position since 1997 – and I guess they thought Hagel would be a good choice because he was a squad leader in Vietnam and he was also a friend of that partisan veterans organization VoteVets. Jimbo at Blackfive writes about Dana Milbank at the Washington Post who thinks all of that trumps any actual position on the issues that affect the troops. Because we’re all chickenhawks if we oppose Hagel.

    I read that the Democrats think that Hagel will apply the lessons we learned in the war in Iraq to the upcoming confrontation with Iran. Yeah, well, the lesson that we should have learned is that countries in that region don’t respond to economic pressure – they only understand strength. And that’s how the surge worked in Iraq. The insurgents in Iraq thought that the Democrat win in the Congress was going to result in an immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq, instead we injected thousands more into the war and they were disheartened and decided they’d be better off joining us than fighting us.

    But Hagel nor Obama see the lesson that way. they’re convinced that their sanctions will work, even though there’s not one example of that outcome in recent years. Remember that Qaddafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction when he thought he was next in line for an invasion after we invaded Hussein’s Iraq? All they understand in that region of the world is strength, and the only thing they respond to is force. Neither Chuck Hagle nor President Obama recognize that simple truth.

    Of course, that’s probably good news for the troops because I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t be very happy fighting a war that no one would have any intention to win. We’ve had enough of those the last few years.

  • Breanna Manning’s sentence reduced

    This is the most ridiculous thing I can think of; Jerry 920 sends us a link from the Associated Press that the judge in the Breanna Manning trial, Col. Denise Lind, has determined that Manning’s sentence will be reduced because she has determined that he was mistreated while he was being held at Quantico.

    Lind found that Manning suffered illegal pretrial punishment during nine months in a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. She awarded a total of 112 days off any prison sentence Manning gets if he is convicted.

    Manning was confined to a windowless cell 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing. Brig officials say it was to keep him from hurting himself or others.

    The judge said that Manning’s confinement was “more rigorous than necessary.” She added that the conditions “became excessive in relation to legitimate government interests.”

    He hasn’t even been sentenced yet, so how is she knocking time off of his sentence when he hasn’t even been declared guilty. And what if his sentence is life? How do you knock 112 days off a life sentence? I guess this is her way of telling us he’s not going to get life.

  • Women in no hurry to join infantry

    The Associated Press‘ Pauline Jelinek reports that she’s talked to dozens of women in the military and they don’t seem all that interested in joining the ranks of infantrymen;

    For the record, plenty of men don’t want to be in the infantry either, though technically could be assigned there involuntarily, if needed. That’s rarely known to happen.

    […]

    A West Point graduate working in the Pentagon estimates she’s known thousands of women over her 20-year army career and said there’s no groundswell of interest in combat jobs among female colleagues she knows.

    She asked to remain anonymous because in the military’s warrior culture, it’s a sensitive issue to be seen as not wanting to fight, she said. But her observations echoed research of the 1990s, another time of big change in the military, when interviews with more than 900 Army women found that most didn’t want fighting jobs and many felt the issue was being pushed by “feminists” not representing the majority, said RAND Corporation sociologist Laura Miller.

    Funny how the “activists” are more interested in women in the infantry than the women who would have to serve are interested in the whole thing. I had male troops who shouldn’t have been in the infantry, and after they found out what the job would really entail, did their best to leave.

    I still fully expect the “activists” to force this issue down the Pentagon’s throat and issue them quotas for integration, because it’s all about social issues, not an effective fighting force.

  • About That Former MDA Director . . . .

    LTG Patrick O’Reilly, former director of the Missile Defense Agency, received a Christmas present this holiday season.  The SECDEF determined that O’Reilly  had “served successfully” as a Lieutenant General – thus allowing O’Reilly to retire at that grade.

    I’ve previously written that O’Reilly was not exactly the best “boss” in the world.  He was allegedly abusive, and yelled at subordinates in public and private settings.  The DoD IG investigated O’Reilly and substantiated these facts.  Yet there appears to have been no clearly criminal behavior on O’Reilly’s part.  The DoD IG Report of Investigation (ROI) on O’Reilly can be found here; read it yourself if you like.  It’s fairly short, and very little is redacted.

    When I wrote my earlier article linked above, I was convinced LTG O’Reilly was an abusive jerk who fully deserved to be relieved of duty.  After locating and reading the DoD IG ROI, I’m still convinced of that – but it’s also not exactly the “slam-dunk” case I expected.

    Effectively all the DoD IG ROI says is that O’Reilly’s leadership style was very poor – e.g., that he chewed ass in public (sometimes profanely) , he sometimes was overly critical of subordinates; and he didn’t take bad news well.  That’s about it.  No other misconduct is alleged or substantiated.  Its conclusions, quoted verbatim, are:  “LTG O’Reilly engaged in a leadership style that was inconsistent with the JER and AR 600-100.”  I also see nothing in the DoD IG ROI I haven’t seen – though admittedly on a much smaller scale – in numerous otherwise excellent leaders.

    Leadership styles vary; what’s appropriate in one environment may not be appropriate in another.  The same criticisms levied against O’Reilly in the DoD IG ROI can also be accurately applied to an individual named George S. Patton, Jr., between 1942 and 1945.  Or to a guy named Curtis LeMay pretty much anytime between 1945 and 1965.

    In short:  I think the SECDEF got this one right.  O’Reilly apparently was the wrong choice to lead MDA and needed to go; the SECDEF was IMO correct in replacing him.  I don’t really “get” how O’Reilly ended up with 1 star, much less 3.  He appears to have been the proverbial “boss from hell”; in my experience, such behavior doesn’t develop overnight.  He simply doesn’t seem to have the leadership ability one would expect in a General/Flag Officer.

    But being pleasant or even a good leader isn’t the regulatory criteria for determining retired grade; serving successfully at a particular grade is.  And it does appear that LTG O’Reilly served successfully – though not pleasantly or with distinction – for the requisite amount of time before being removed as MDA Director.  So based on what’s contained in the DoD IG ROI I don’t see how the SECDEF had much choice but to allow O’Reilly to retire at his final grade.  There simply doesn’t seem to be evidence of anything but an inappropriate leadership style.

    YMMV, though.  And I’d be interested in hearing what others have to say on the matter.

  • McClatchy; Is the no-draft military creating a warrior class?

    McClatchy writer, Matthew Schofield, in a hand wringing piece in the Stars & Stripes, contemplates the all-volunteer military and worries that we’re creating a warrior class and a government which doesn’t feel repercussions from sending warriors to the field.

    In the wide halls of the Pentagon, the military often is referred to as “the world’s largest family business.” The fear among some military leaders, politicians and experts begins with the belief that as fewer segments of society have family or friends in uniform, others become desensitized to the risks and stresses of military service. The feared risks range from a reluctance to fully support those who serve to an almost cavalier willingness to wage war, reasoning, “That’s what THEY signed up for.”

    Historically, problems with such classes have ranged from the military having too much influence in all walks of society — Prussian officers collected taxes — to being marginalized, as with the so-called “barbarization” of the Roman military, which relied heavily on non-Romans.

    Yeah, well, we don’t collect taxes and we’re Americans fighting for our country, so your historical references are empty. The real problem isn’t us. It’s the same problem the rest of the country has – it’s the culture. Teachers in schools tell their students that somehow military service isn’t a way forward in their lives. They demean the life, mostly because they don’t understand it either. That educator class which has no experience outside of academia, never worked during summer months, but act like they know everything.

    Journalists and politicians like John Kerry (Halp us John Cary) have no problem propagating the myth that the folks who join the military are taking the only route available to them because we’re all miserable failures. And in a culture which touts success, somehow that doesn’t resonate with today’s youths.

    Yeah, military service is a “family business” because most of us have parents and grandparents who have served and we can filter out the cultural bullshit. On another forum which I participated years ago, I had some bonehead hippie turd try to convince me that because he was so smart, recruiters didn’t want to even talk to him, let alone recruit him. Such are the misconceptions of the types of people who join the military.

    One of my workmates complained that he’d been beat out of a government job because of a “10-point” veteran and he couldn’t figure out why employers put such a heavy significance on military service. Probably because folks who are hiring are learning the value of hiring vets despite the cultural bullshit.

    Maybe it’s because “the best and the brightest” join the military and it’s society’s dregs who spend their hours figuring out who they should vote for in the latest “American Idol” competition and can’t get out of their own way. Maybe it’s not the military service that makes us better people, maybe it’s the other way around.

  • US Troops in the CAR

    The Obama Administration has deployed troops to the Central African Republic to protect US citizens who might still be there while their evacuation is underway, according to the Washington Times;

    Mr. Obama said he took the action “due to the deteriorating security situation in the Central African Republic and the potential threat to U.S. citizens.” The evacuation of Americans from Bangui, Central African Republic, began on Thursday.

    The president said the troops, although equipped for combat, were deployed as a stand-by and evacuation force “solely for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property” until the evacuation from the Central African Republic is completed.

    I just hope that the drones are armed this time and there’s someone near the trigger who isn’t afraid to pull it. Funny thing about those African rebel guys, they don’t really care what your rules of engagement are, and their rules of engagement are “spray and pray”.

  • Marine recruiter’s car shot in CA

    FRONT DRIVERS DOOR

    Art sends us the story and the above picture from an incident that happened on South Highway 85 in California when a recruiter was out driving and his government car was struck by bullets. From a local ABC News station;

    A close-up look at his vehicle shows three bullet holes in the left rear passenger side of the government issued Pontiac, along with two shattered windows. Sheriff’s investigators are not sure if the shooter was in an adjacent lane or possibly in the opposite lanes of the busy freeway.

    It was in the parking lot that the victim called 911 to report the shooting. This triggered a massive response by the California Highway Patrol and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. The southbound lanes of Highway 85 were immediately shut down while a phalanx of deputies combed the three lanes and shoulders for cases from the bullets.

    The report says that it’s unlikely that someone shot at him because he’s a Marine, but you have to wonder why him out of all of the vehicles on any highway in California. It could have been the government plates that triggered the incident.

  • The liberal mindlessness

    The two biggest issues in the news this week are the impending Obama Tax Hikes coming the first of the year and the cuts to defense spending that go with it, and we’re looking at some form of gun control. Both of those things are related to each other in that Liberals don’t like things that make them feel sad and it makes them feel sad that we spend too much money on our own defense, irrespective of the place we hold in the world. They also feel sad when a score of children get shot down in their school. Not that it doesn’t make me sad, too, but the difference is that I don’t blame anyone but the gun man, and his mother who failed to secure the guns in her home knowing that her son was unbalanced, and it turns out that she was going to have him committed.

    They’re not too keen on seeking long term solutions, or looking at the consequences of their outcry, they just want to “do something” that makes them feel better RIGHT NOW! So their solution to defense spending is to let the cuts take effect automatically. Liberals are convinced that our current state of relative peace will continue regardless of what they do today.

    In regards to the gun issue and their simplistic, anti-intellectual solution – stop letting people buy guns and everyone will automatically stop killing other people. Regardless of the fact that it’s no real solution – but it will make them feel better because they did something.

    Just like the tax hike problem, they say they want to have a discussion and a compromise, but what they mean by that is that they want our side to sit down and shut up while we listen to them preach to us.

    Yesterday, they were complaining because the NRA went silent in the social media since Friday’s shootings. Today’s complaint is that the NRA is releasing a statement on the shootings this week.

    There’s no compromise, there’s no discussion until we all accept their solutions without question. When we turn in all of our guns, they’ll still complain about something or other. Just like they complain that the Republican Party is “too white” and then when a Black man is appointed to fill a Senate seat who happens to be a Republican they call him vile names.

    There’s no reason to placate these intellectually vacant turds, so we just put our heads down and drive forward. Liberals have never been in the business of solutions, just doing things that make them feel better about themselves, regardless of who gets hurt in the interim. They thrive on crisis, so if their solutions don’t work, it’s because we didn’t go far enough the first time.