Category: Military issues

  • Should veterans endorse candidates?

    Do you remember the Center for a New American Security which was pushing for radical changes to the military retirement system? Well, now they’re warning that we veterans should sit down and shut up during political campaigns.

    The problem is that very few American voters make the distinction between retired military personnel and those on active duty, notes the study, which was also written by Kyle Dropp and Peter Feaver. Active-duty personnel are not allowed to wear uniforms at political events and make political speeches.

    The campaigns, in turn, are aware of this and tend to recruit the highest-ranking retirees they can find to support candidates, particularly “flag officers” – admirals and generals.

    “Retired senior officers may think they are drawing fine distinctions between the formal institution of active-duty military and their own views as retired citizens, but the truth is that no one, especially not the campaigns, is very interested in their views as private citizens,” the study says.

    While the report finds that these endorsements do not appear to notably sway voters, the problem is that over time these endorsements have the potential to erode trust in the military.

    Yeah, since the military is most trusted institution in this country, and the government’s most successful agency, I’m sure there’ll be eroded trust because we endorse leaders. I don’t remember anyone complaining when Medal of Honor recipient, Paul Bucha publicly came out in 2008 and supported Barack Obama for president. But, now when a group of Special Operations folks come out to attack Obama, it’s suddenly going to “erode trust in the military.”

    This is particularly true of some of the negative political ads this campaign season, when retired Special Operations Forces officers attacked President Obama for discussing the strike on Osama bin Laden’s compound, Golby says.

    “The real downside to negative ads is that they do create a perception that the military doesn’t support one candidate, and they raise questions about whether military leaders will be able to faithfully carry out the orders of the other party,” he says.

    Yeah, please provide an example of that ever happening in the history of the United States. In fact, when certain people did indeed refuse to serve as ordered, like the birthers, members of the military were quick to condemn them, regardless of our political stripe.

    And then they quote Martin Dempsey’s scolding of the Special Operations Speaks criticism of Obama as if Dempsey has no political dog in the fight, or as if Dempsey’s words are so sage, we’d have to agree.

    It sounds more to me like the lack of public endorsements from veterans is not helping the campaigns of Center for a New American Security’s choices for this season. Here’s a warning from me to the Center for a New American Security; the fact that you involve yourself in projects that are not in the interests of veterans, you’re in danger of having trust in anything you say eroded.

  • I’d Guess This Could Get Pretty Ugly

    We all know that the rules for military personnel, government civilians, and contractors vary – with contractors having perhaps the most leeway regarding personal conduct.  But it appears that things may have gotten just a little bit out of hand at one of our security contractors in Afghanistan.

    Full-blown batshit crazy of out of hand, to be precise.

    One of the US security contractors in Afghanistan – Jorge Scientific – is alleged to have really paid attention to employee morale.  As in drunken parties, open drug use, sophomoric stupidity, and other absolutely unprofessional and asinine behavior. There are also insinuations of either lack of supervision (or turning a blind eye) and/or similar bad behavior on the part of some in uniform having the responsibility to supervise this contractor’s work or while visiting the contractor’s facilities.

    It got so bad that two former employees quit in disgust, went home from Afghanistan early – and filed a lawsuit.  And it turns out they took a little cellphone video supporting their claims before they left.

    Oh, and did I mention that one of those captured on that video has admitted repeatedly using illicit drugs, corroborating at least part of the two former employees’ story?

    The contract under which this “wonderful” behavior occurred appears to have been W911QX-1O-C-0096, let on 4 October 2010.  The value of the contract appears to be a bit over $47M.  Unfortunately, if the contract is structured in the typical base-plus-option-years form they’ve likely just started an option year – and are thus probably on-board for the next 12 months, like it or not.

    ABC News now has the video, and reputedly was planning to air the story on “World News Tonight” and “Nightline” yesterday.  I didn’t watch either program, so I don’t know if they did or not.

    Looks like somebody’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

  • Female colonel sues military to include women in combat

    Ring knocker, Army Col. Ellen Haring, was disqualified from commanding a Female Engagement Team in Afghanistan and she’s now decided that a lawsuit against the Pentagon is the only way she can get more women on casualty lists in proportion to male combatants says the LA Times;

    Throughout her 28-year career, the lawsuit alleges, “the career options available to Col. Haring, as compared to a man who graduated in her [West Point] class, have been limited.” The exclusion policy “institutionalizes the unequal treatment of women,” said the suit, filed pro bono by a Washington law firm.

    That discrimination culminated for Haring with the special operations job, she says.

    “There was this open acknowledgment that they knew they were violating the combat exclusion policy,” Haring said of her training at Ft. Bragg. “It was decided, well, we’re going to support this program and not worry about the exclusion policy.”

    Haring challenges a Pentagon contention that women are not able to carry a wounded 200-pound man off the battlefield. She said her husband and son, a weightlifter, both said that neither would be able to accomplish that feat.

    “We’re being held to standards that most men can’t meet,” she said.

    Yeah, that’s totally unfair that she can’t carry a wounded 200-pound man off the battlefield. But not as unfair as it is to that wounded 200-pound man who just discovered the fact that his life depends on someone who thought that a lawsuit would qualify her for a waiver to having to actually perform that task.

    Like I’ve said, I’m all for women being given the opportunity to serve in combat if they’re willing to subject themselves to the same training and meet the same standards as the men. The Pentagon is obviously trying to integrate women into combat assignments, but, the only two female volunteers for the Marine Infantry Officers have dropped out, for whatever reasons. That doesn’t mean that all women aren’t qualified – it only means that the Pentagon needs a lot of time to study this process. Whining about it in the courts isn’t going to speed things along. You’d think a West Point grad would understand that.

  • We Can Do Better Tour 2012

    Our buddy, Pete Hegseth, sends a link to the latest project of his new Concerned Veterans for America; We Can Do Better Tour 2012;

    The “We Can Do Better” tour is a ten-day East Coast bus tour (October 19-28) of decorated military veterans traveling through campaign ‘swing states’ prior to Election Day to generate awareness of the mounting challenges facing service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and veterans of all generations.

    The bus tour, sponsored by Concerned Veterans for America (CVA), will allow veterans and voters in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio—and across the nation—to hear directly from leaders in the veterans’ community about critical issues like:

    * High veterans unemployment, especially younger vets
    * Persistent military voting problems
    * Growing Veterans Affairs (VA) claims backlog
    * Foreign policy: Libya, Afghanistan, etc.
    * Looming ‘national security’ cuts, known as ‘sequestration’
    * Implications of $16 trillion national debt

    The tour & dates are;

    Pete has invited me to a couple of them, so I may show up to give some support.

  • Second female fails to finish Marine IOC

    According to the Marine Corps Times, the second of the two females who began the first-ever attempt by women to complete the Marine’s Infantry Officer Course has dropped out for unspecific medical reasons of the 13-week course at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. The first woman to drop fell out on a day last month that also claimed 30 males, according to the Times.

    At Quantico, those overseeing the IOC experiment have said that it will involve up to 100 female officers and take at least a year to complete. The Marine official, speaking on condition of anonymity, reaffirmed the Corps’ intent to recruit female volunteers for subsequent iterations of the course.

    “This was just the first shot,” the official said.

    By the way, this is not my victory lap or my “I told you so”. It just happened. I hope that whatever has afflicted the young lieutenant is simple and she gets over it quickly. And I hope this doesn’t give the Marine Corps any ideas about changing the standard.

  • Problems in the Arizona National Guard

    The Arizona Republic reports that they conducted a five month investigation of allegations that members, mostly of their recruiting operations engaged several illegal and immoral acts;

    NCOs engaged in sexual misconduct, collected recruiting fees to which they were not entitled, forged Guard documents, and committed other offenses such as hunting the homeless with paintball guns.

    Investigators asserted that National Guard commanders failed to hold subordinates accountable, in part because many supervisors also engaged in unethical behavior. Many high-ranking officers contend an atmosphere of disdain for discipline persists.

    Non-commissioned officers caught driving drunk in military vehicles were given reprimands. Recruiters found to have forged enlistment records or taken fraudulent bonus pay received transfers. Sergeants who had affairs with teenage recruits were given counseling.

    One NCO who allegedly got drunk with privates and had sex with a female enlistee was allowed to deploy overseas, where he was disciplined for inappropriate sexual relations with two more subordinates. Instead of being discharged from the military, records show, he transferred to the California National Guard as a recruiter.

    Some who sought to uphold Army standards by reporting unethical behavior were shunned, harassed and threatened with demotions.

    I know there are a number of you in Arizona who would have a clearer picture of these allegations. I know that if these are found to be true, there isn’t anyone among us who wouldn’t want these folks to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. By the same token, neither should the entire military service be tainted by the actions of a few.

  • Troops to Jordan

    Stars & Stripes reports that US troops have been deployed to Jordan in an effort to help the country avoid the drama spilling across it’s borders from Syria.

    The task force, which has been led by a senior American officer, is based at a Jordanian military training center built into an old rock quarry north of Amman, the Times reported Wednesday, and is focused on helping Jordanians handle the estimated 180,000 refugees who have crossed the border and are severely straining resources.

    American officials told the Times that the mission also includes drawing up plans to try to insulate Jordan, an important American ally in the region, from the upheaval.

    The officials are reported as saying that establishing a buffer zone between Syria and Jordan — which would be enforced by Jordanian forces on the Syrian side of the border and supported politically and perhaps logistically by the United States — had been discussed, but is only a contingency plan.

    So I guess protesters will be changing their signs to protest our “occupation” of Jordan, too.

  • Panetta makes show of pushing the vote

    The Washington Times reports that Leon Panetta and the Pentagon are going through the motions of encouraging the troops to vote;

    “Reports of precipitous drops in military voting hide the actual experience of a significant increase in military voting this year,” said Mr. Carey.

    The Federal Voting Assistance Program, which helps troops negotiate the confusing patchwork of 50 sets of state rules about absentee registration and voting, is orchestrating the last-minute campaign. Last week, it sent the sixth in a series of “blast” emails to everyone with a military email address. About 12 million emails have been sent out, with one more blast planned before Election Day.

    “If you have not requested your absentee ballot for the 2012 general election, you should do so immediately,” reads the email, which advises troops on how to download the right forms from the program’s website. The instructions include a substitute write-in ballot they can mail if their own ballot does not arrive from their state election authorities in time.

    Yeah, impressive. Except that I have a .mil email account and I haven’t seen the message. I wonder how many of the rest of you have seen it.

    By the way, I hope you guys from a particular unit that is deployed and spent more than 4 hours on TAH the other night clicking 157 links to the stolen valor criminals, took some time to download your own voter registration form. We appreciate your patronage, but please vote.