Perspectives

 Perspectives is the "opinion" page of War On Terror News.  Here we analyze the actions of the battlefield and political arena for what they mean to America's National Security and future.

 

Historical Perspective - The 21st Century

As we entered the 21st Century, Saddam had continued to rattle his cage and his sword.  There was a new President to test, and he looked weak given the contentions of the 2000 elections.  It wouldn't be Saddam that tested him, but a plot long in the works from Al-Qaeda.  It came close to cancellation.  It was delayed by a few months.  Had word gotten out that one of the 20 terrorists had gotten arrested, it wouldn't have gone off, but little enough was known of the threat to understand an entirely new and different technique would be tried, and partially succeed.

Americans had been trained to comply with the orders of hi-jackers, to not be the dead hero, but the live survivor.  So, on 9/11/2001, when Islamist Terrorists slaughtered the crews of 4 airplanes, the passengers initially responded in the manner they had been taught to.  They obeyed the orders of the terrorists, expecting to be rescued eventually by Law Enforcement or Better.  They didn't expect they'd be flown into the twin towers in a fiery explosion. 

The towers were built to withstand the impact of an errant 707, so the authorities thought they could deal with the fire and it would be a smaller number of fatalities.  They didn't initially think the towers would fall, but the planes were bigger than what the towers were built to withstand and the planners had not expected the planes to be purposefully crashed into the towers with full tanks of fuel.  The explosion blew off the fire proofing.  The fuel flooded to the depths of the building.  As the fire burned against the unprotected steel, it bent and twisted, under the weight of dozens of floors of concrete above it.  The steel buckled, with thousands of unarmed civilians killed.

A third plane was flown into the Pentagon, which was also designed to withstand an attack, but not of the impact of a 747 loaded with fuel.  The building burned for days, but did not have 50 stories above to cause it to fall into itself.  It would be re-built within a year.  Red-tape and squabbling would delay the re-construction of the World Trade Center for a decade, but the Pentagon was quickly rebuilt.

The terrorists had hoped to murder 250,000 American Civilians on that day.  In that aspect they failed.  The passengers of the fourth plane got word of the attacks.  It broke them of the sheep mentality of obeying the orders of Islamist terrorists, as death was the worst that could befall them, and death was a given if they complied.  They chose to fight, for their lives, and the lives of their fellow Americans. 

"Let's roll!" Todd Beamer shouted as the passengers rushed the terrorists.

America was shocked.  The World was shocked.  And for a moment, Americans were united, determined and resolved.  The question still remained of how we would respond, but there was little doubt we would respond.  And the new President determined it would not be the manner of the past.  It would not be just a few million dollar cruise missiles blowing up mud huts and rocks in a land lost to time.  This time, we would bring the terrorists to justice, or bring justice to them.  The President had been in office long enough to submit a DoD budget, but not long enough to see the budget enacted.  Congress still had to pass it.

On 9/11/01, two teams of the 5th Special Forces Group had been packing up in conclusion of their mission to train our new Uzbekistan allies.  Their mission had just changed.  Their new mission was to prepare for their brothers to arrive, to convince the Uzbek government to allow it, to find a place for their brothers, to help plan the invasion of the Taliban led government of Afghanistan.  Within weeks, a few hundred members had deployed from Fort Campbell, Kentucky through Uzbekistan, and into Afghanistan.  Within 2 months, the Special Forces Troops of 5th SFG(A) had inserted into Afghanistan, linked up with the local opposition to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and had begun raining down explosives on Taliban Government Troops. 

Americans cheered Victory after Victory, as the Taliban fell and then Kabul and Kandahar faster than anyone had dreamed possible.  By the Anniversary of 9/11 in 2002, it appeared that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan.  They had been killed, captured, or escaped, like cockroaches with the lights on, to melt into the populations of other lands.  We hadn't yet caught Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahari, or Mullah Omar, so there was still work to be done, but our Troops had to go find the fight, and the Taliban were slinking away in the few times we found them.

Pakistan was helping to round them up on their side of the border.  The #3 position in Al-Qaeda was regularly getting killed or captured.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Zubadiyah, and others were regularly captured.

Both sides of the aisle were "determined" to end terrorists and their state sponsors.  Iraq had one of the longest records of supporting terrorists.  It had been paying $25,000/head for suicide bombers in Israel for decades.  The Fallujah and Nasiriyah Al-Qaeda camps were known and reported about to Congress, but not widely outside of it.  It was just a mundane point with little surprise to those with a real knowledge of the Middle East.  Only on the surface did it seem strange.

When Bush Junior went to Congress for authorization for military action against Iraq, Pelosi, Hillary, Bill Clinton, and Harry Reid attested to the "fact" that this wasn't a ploy, that they knew Saddam had WMD, because they had the same information when Clinton was President.  But while WMD was the most advertised reason, it was only one of dozens of reasons, BOTH sides of the aisle voted to authorize war.  The Egyptians, the British, and others confirmed that Saddam had WMD.  And it was a matter of historical record that he had used them against both the Kurds and the Iranians.  The French and Germans opposed the War, mainly because they had their hand in the cookie jar.  They were selling Saddam weapons, and getting cheap oil on the black market from Saddam.  They knew the evidence would be damning, when we went in.

Whether you wish to believe the politicians, that they believed the authorization for war was political theater, or their original words, that Saddam had to be taken out, one way or the other, they had authorized a war against Iraq.

It took several months for the forces to arrive in Kuwait, prepared for war, and about 3 weeks for the "smaller footprint" force to defeat Saddam's military.  "No plan survives the battlefield intact," but the Iraqis did initially welcome Our Troops.  The war was won at a pace faster than the Generals anticipated or wanted.  There were miscalculations.  The Generals had avoided permanent damage to the Infrastructure and expected they could repair the power grid quickly.  They had not realized that Saddam had failed to maintain it during the decade of sanctions.

The Military planners had anticipated the large scale surrenders they had seen in Desert Storm, which would be convertible to an Iraqi Security Force, quickly.  They had not anticipated that Iraqi soldiers and policemen would melt away into the population, on fears of the de-Ba'athification orders.  The political administration set up in Iraq to oversee the transition to the people of Iraq had failed to learn the lesson of the Cold War; that people had been forced to join the party (Ba'ath or Communist) if they wanted to succeed behind the curtain.

When it came down to it, the transitional governing authority wasn't ready for the rise of criminals and the abandonment of posts of the Police Forces.  Saddam had cast his hopes on surviving in hiding long enough for a guerrilla force to run the Americans out.  Soon, he was captured, but the Al-Qaeda that had slipped out of Afghanistan were slipping through Syria to plan operations in Iraq.  Some had been there all along, such as al-Zarqawi.  He had a long history of terrorism, was already wanted in his homeland of Jordan, and had worked with Al-Qaeda as a trainer in Afghanistan.  When push came to shove, and he needed a little more international support, he made the final pledge, a blood oath to bin Laden, in exchange.

Iran had grown quiet over the last few years, concerned that they were next.  Libya's Qaddaffi had gotten more than a little concerned, considering past grievances.  Qaddaffi decided it was time to give up his own WMD program, before US Troops took them from him.  He upped the ante and started giving up information on Al-Qaeda and its operatives.  He did everything he could to demonstrate he was reformed, and out of the terrorism business.

But Iran noticed the political discord in the United States.  Quietly, it began to agitate the Shi'a against the US.  It wasn't difficult.  The Shi'a remembered that they had been slaughtered by Saddam in the 90's, after they had been encouraged to rise up against him.  They had grievances with the Sunni.  And it was a Sadr that had mentored Khomeni.  Muqtada al-Sadr may have assassinated his own father to gain his own seat of power, but he had established himself as the leader of a Million Man slum, where no other was allowed to give out charity.

Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda and Sadr's Mehdi Militia found common cause in fomenting "sectarian violence" to embarrass the Americans, who had a policy, initially, of staying out of "Green on Green" violence, ie. disputes between locals.  The 2nd War in Iraq had begun, and no one knew it.  It worked well for Iran, as the more they funded and equipped the Mehdi Militia to kill Americans, and the more their allies in Syria slipped Al-Qaeda terrorists in, the more divided the American Politicians became.

The other side of the aisle began to remember how the "defeat" in Viet Nam had brought them to power, and pronounced Iraq a defeat every time they saw a camera.

Eventually, the Shi'a moderate, al-Maliki was forced to choose between giving up power, or embracing the Islamist firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr.  He chose to remain in power, at all costs.  He made alliances with Sadr and his Iranian allies.  Maliki had not won the election, but in a parliamentary election he didn't need to.  He built a coalition, of Shi'a extremists to vote him into power.  He took up common cause with the Iranians, and insisted on US Troop withdrawals, long after Obama started begging him to let them stay.

As Al-Qaeda was defeated in Iraq, it abandoned the field of battle.  It returned to Pakistan, to Afghanistan, and was reborn in Somalia and Yemen.  Osama is dead, but Al-Qaeda is not.  Islamist terrorism is but one means of Islamist oppression.  Political Islamism is another tool in the arsenal to achieve Sharia Law, the oppression of women, and the elimination of Israel.  And it was "political Islamism" that would prove organized and ready to take the reins of power when elections were rushed in Egypt and Tunisia.  Tunisians fled as Islamists returned to write the new Constitution.  The Muslim Brotherhood pushed for earlier votes, not later when Hosni Mubarrak fell.  The sooner the better, for the only organized element on the political landscape.  Egyptians, like Iranians, are not prone to oppressing the people, to forcing segregation of the sexes, to illegalizing the education of women.

If "rights of independent thought" were to be predicated with "as long as it doesn't contradict Islam or the laws of government" as stated in the Iranian Constitution, the Islamists would need to write it.  And if they were going to write it, they would need to hold the elections while they had the organizational advantage.

We had recovered from the defeatist 70's.
And the Rewards of the 80's had carried through the early years of the Bush Admin.
Then came the "Peace filled 90's"

I protest the killing of Christians: Die, Muslims, Die!

The international airwaves quivered with outrage yesterday as news leaked out of US Troops disposing of - among other things - Islam's "Holy Book."

From the land of Perpetual Outrage came word of protests outside Bagram:

Video Source: france 24, International TV Network Afghan protests erupt over Koran 'burning' at US Bagram air base AFGHANISTAN, Thousands of Aghans protested at Bagram Air Base, the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan, on Tuesday, as local laborers found out that NATO personnel had been burning Korans at the base. With news of the protest still coming in, MSNBC is reporting that the base saw 2,000-3,000 protesters today. "Afghan demonstrators used slingshots and fired guns in the air while U.S. helicopters responded with flares," reads the MSNBC report. "The demonstrators — shouting "Die, die, foreigners!" — started gathering in the morning after learning of the incident." According to MSNBC and The New York Times, local Bagram employees reportedly found the charred remains of Korans in the trash.

NATO Commander Gen. John R. Allen has already issued an apology for burning. "ISAF personnel at Bagram Air Base improperly disposed of a large number of Islamic religious materials which included Korans," Allen said, referring to NATO's International Security Assistance Force, in The New York Times report, which politely went with Allen's "disposal" euphemism in its headline. "When we learned of these actions, we immediately intervened and stopped them. The materials recovered will be properly handled by appropriate religious authorities."

Take careful note of the idiot near the beginning screaming 'I urge all Muslims to sacrifice themselves..."

Everybody and their dog (but not Bratdog) have rushed to camera to apologise to all the Afghan people, from General Allen, to Panetta to - of course - the Mouth In Chief himself. A directive has also gone out for extra (sensitivity) training for our US Troops on the correct disposal of such reading material.


I reported on this last night on War On Terror News here, and This Ain't Hell has this.

According to the Beeb this morning, at least four protesters have followed the suggestions of the guy in the video telling them to 'sacrifice' themselves. So far, 4 dead and many injured as the second day of the 'any excuse to blame the infidel foreigners and joooooos' noise gets underway.

Over at Jihad Watch is this:

General Allen clearly has now idea how weak and pusillanimous his repeated apologies in this video will make him appear to many, if not most, of "the noble people of Afghanistan." He should know enough about Islamic culture to know that it respects strength and sees apologizing and attempts at conciliation as weakness, only to be despised.

Note also the General's eager endorsement of Sharia provisions regarding treatment of the Qur'an, and unquestioning acceptance of the fundamental proposition that the burning of these Qur'ans was something heinous and to be apologized for in the first place. He makes no attempt whatsoever, even in the gentlest way, to suggest that rioting and calling for killing people because of the burning of these books is irrational, unjustifiable behavior.

And even though his assumption of a duty to enforce Sharia in this case is a matter of tactics, not belief, it is unwise: it will not win the hearts and minds of Afghans, and it sets yet another bad precedent for the responsibility of Infidel authorities vis-a-vis Sharia....

[...]

What if 2,000 Americans rioted and protested against General Allen's imbecility? Would we get an apology, too? An apology for the waste of the "nation-building" exercise in Afghanistan, and for the U.S. Government's bowing to Sharia? Are violent and irrational voices the only ones that U.S. authorities heed?...

 

Good question, and go read the rest of that here.

So MY question is this: When are we going to see all those *moderate" muslims angrily rallying against burning of Christian Holy Books (ya, know, like the Bible), and when are we going to hear reported - breathlessly and earnestly by the msm, of course - on "thousands rallying chanting "Die, Muslims, Die!" for the depraved killings of children and the ongoing murder of Christians around the world by demented disciples of the religion of peace and followers of the Koran?

Here, let me start the rallying protest cry: Die, Muslims, Die!

(Yeah, that makes about as much sense as the pathetic but dangerous *protests* in Bagram today, and that IS my point. )

Historical Perspective - The "Peacefilled" 90's

Still, Clinton had decided that if Bush could cash in the "Peace Dividend" by cutting the size of the Military, he should cut it even more. After all, it was an era of peace, right? The Clinton Administration envisioned the Military being used in Peace-Keeping operations, not Wars. Operations like Somalia. It would be a kinder, gentler Military, under UN mandates. So, when the Ground Commander in Somalia said he needed Armored Personnel Carriers and C-130 Gunships, the Clinton Administration denied them on the basis that it would appear too aggressive.

When a successful operation in Mogadishu resulted in fatalities, and a hostage, Clinton couldn't retreat fast enough. The media played up the operation as a tactical defeat, though the Troops on the ground had fought bravely, against overwhelming odds, achieved all of their objectives, decimated the enemy, and left the battlefield on their own terms. The Rangers and Delta Operators had dealt Al-Qaeda its first tactical defeat, without even knowing Al-Qaeda was there. The Politicians in Washington turned it into a strategic defeat, adding to the lessons learned by Osama bin Laden, and his developing strategy.

After the demonstrated resolve of the 80's against Qaddaffi, the state sponsors of terrorism, principally Iran and Libya, had pulled back the reins on the PLO, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. The Communist Terrorists of Europe had melted away. And the IRA had made peace with Britain. Terrorism was on the decline in the 90's.

When a Cop Kills a Marine...

... jumping to conclusions can lead to embarrassment and entrenchment.  The initial reports will never have sufficient information, and sometimes, there are people better situated to assess the situation. 

So, when I started reading reports that an Orange County California Deputy had fatally shot a serving Marine, in front of his daughters, I took a wait and see approach.  Military and Police are fellow Sheepdogs, though, at times, the fraternity has been strained.  Not every Veteran and not every Police Officer is Honorable, but the norm is that the average in both are risking their lives to protect Our Citizens.  And when two Honorable Sheepdogs meet, the exchange should be one of mutual respect.

But that was not the case at Orange County's San Clemente High School.  On 7 February 2012, at approximately 4:50AM, Pacific Time, a Deputy, who is also an Instructor in the Police Force, encountered an unarmed Marine NCO, with his two school age daughters.  The Marine was shot to death by the deputy, in front of the Marine's children.  Those are the facts.  Other parts of the story are less clear, as the story has changed with time.

"Law enforcement sources say Darren Sandberg, a instructor who joined the sheriff's academy in 2011, was responsible for the Feb. 7 shooting at San Clemente High School that killed Sgt. Manny Levy Loggins." KTLA-TV, Los Angeles

Historical Perspective - The Bush Senior Years

America was again respected in the World. Americans again had Pride in the Nation. And America elected one of the "most qualified" Presidents to replace him, despite his lack of charisma. Bush Senior was a World War II fighter pilot, a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, a Vice-President, and had a host of other things on his resume to demonstrate he could do the job. He soon reaped the rewards of Reagan's Arms Race. In his first year, the Iron Curtain crumbled, to the disbelief of the world. The Berlin Wall fell, the Velvet Revolution succeeded in Czechoslovakia, the Romanians hunted down and hung their brutal Communist Dictator, and the rhetoric of Perestroika and Glasnost overpowered the Soviet Union itself.

Those who had grown up in the Cold War, that remembered the brutal crackdowns of the past, waited with baited breath, expecting another, but the Soviet Army was demoralized, hungry, and tired of substituting anti-freeze for vodka. The floodgates to West Germany were opened by the Czechoslovakians and East Germans packed into their cardboard cars and took the Southern route into the West. The Autobahns of West Germany turned into traffic jams of the oppressed in cars that could barely do 60mph on roads where 120mph was the norm.

Soviet Troops were selling everything for nothing, as the Communists could no longer afford their paychecks. There's more than one report of a Soviet Soldier selling a T-72 for a case of vodka or two. The number one currency in Moscow became Marlboro cigarettes, followed by Levi Jeans, and the US Dollar. A new world of peace was being ushered in.

Historical Perspective - American Pride Returns in the 80's

A recession is when a neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.
-- Quote by Ronald Reagan, Labor Day Address at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey (September 1, 1980)

Perhaps, little was expected of the Actor-President in 1980, and little was made of his experience in governing California. He became known as "The Great Communicator," because he knew how to talk directly to each American, through the TV camera. He got the reputation of being the "Cowboy" President, and demonstrated a will to collaborate with allies, or to go it alone, if NATO & Europe were unwilling to stand up for Freedom. The economy was still in dire straits in 1982, but the new Terrorist Tyranny of Iran had ensured that Our Diplomats were on their way home before Reagan could finish his inauguration ceremonies.

"Thomas Jefferson once said, "We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works." And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying."
-- Quote by Ronald Reagan

American Morale needed a boost in the early 80's, but the bad times were not over. Islamist Iran didn't recognize National boundaries, but was founded on the concept of spreading its ideological and political model across the entire Muslim world. To this end, it fomented discord in its neighbor Iraq, and ended up in an 8 year war that pitted Ba'athist/Arab Nationalism against Islamist/Internationalist Islamism, and financially supported the terrorist Palestian Liberation Organization, until it could produce the alternative Islamist terrorist, Hezbollah.

Israel invaded Lebanon to uproot the PLO, while Islamist Iran used the results to create support for Islamist terrorists rather than the Secular PLO. Hezbollah gained momentum by bombing the US Embassy in Beirut, followed by bombings of the French, Brits, and finally the US Marine Barracks. Within 48 hours, Tip O'Neil's Congress had passed legislation forbidding the President from increasing actions against the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. With Iran having brought America to her knees in 1979 and their surrogate Hezbollah pushing American Peacekeepers out of Lebanon, Iran's Islamist dictator, the Ayatollah Khomeni was looking powerful, and America looked weak. Many world leaders and experts still expected the Islamist Iranian government to be a short-lived phase though. Culturally and Historically, the Iranian people were not prone to such abuses.

I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.
-- Quote by Ronald Reagan during the Second Presidential Debate against Walter Mondale (October 21, 1984)

America needed a victory and Grenada proved to be one. Few had heard of the Island Nation in the Caribbean before President Reagan announced the rescue operation to save US Medical students from the Communist Government. The Cuban troops and Grenadian Communist military were defeated nearly before the President announced that we had gone in. For the first time since World War II, the American Military had a clear cut Victory, not a stalemate which returned to pre-war division as was Korea, not a politically induced defeat, despite battlefield Victories as was Viet Nam.

And it was not the only Victory. The Space Shuttle lifted off, with such great success that the Soviet Union copied the plans and built their own.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
-- Quote by Ronald Reagan during Remarks at the Annual Convention of Concerned Women for America held at the Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Virginia (September 25, 1987)

The "Cowboy" President had instilled a little Pride in America, and was determined to rebuild the Military to a level that it could win if the Soviets ever attacked. And it looked as possible as ever that the Cold War could turn hot. Despite Peacenik protests outside the White House calling for a unilateral disarming of US Nuclear Weapons, Reagan increased research, development, and fielding of more accurate and more effective weapons, catching up and surpassing Soviet capabilities. He put an end to reliance on "Mutually Assured Destruction" as the only deterrent to a Nuclear War, with the development of SDI, or "Star Wars" as it was then known, which was designed to shoot down inbound Soviet Nukes, before they hit American cities.

Reagan increased funding for Military Equipment and Training. The Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force were finally getting Modern Equipment and the opportunity to perfect their skills. The Soviets and Warsaw Pact had more troops and more equipment, but US Troop Morale was rebounding, and they were getting the means to defeat the Soviets from a greater distance.

Little is said today about the fight at our back door, but Reagan was committed to turning the tide. He trained and equipped the Salvadorans and Nicaraguans against the Communists. The peaceniks protested it, and propagandized against it. And to this day, they gather annually to protest the training of Latino Military Leaders at Fort Benning, Georgia. The Reagan Doctrine established that the Western Hemisphere would not tolerate Soviet or European or Asian interference in the affairs of Our Southern Neighbors. His policies quietly turned the tide in Latin America. Democracy was preserved in El Salvador and restored in Nicaragua and Grenada.

And it was in the 80's that Lech Walesa organized Polish Workers into an illegal union against the oppression of Polish Communism. The world held its breath, waiting for a crackdown reminiscent of the 1950's and 1960's by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Many thought Ronald Reagan's strong words of support for the Poles were just rhetoric, but the Soviets couldn't risk that he would follow through. Pope John Paul II was a Pole, and stood with his people. The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, had proven herself a resolute ally of the "Cowboy" President, and when the East German Communists began mobilizing up for what appeared to be a crackdown, so too did US Troops in West Germany.

Friend and foe alike, had to take Reagan at his word, because he had proven often that it wasn't just rhetoric, but that he had the backbone to follow through. And with an increasingly well-trained and equipped Military to back up his words, the Soviet Communists and Warsaw Pact weren't willing to push too far. While Communism continued to oppress its people, to send its political dissidents to the Gulags of Siberia, it stopped short of an invasion to prop up the Polish Communists.

The Soviet Dictators were going through their own crises as well. The Old Guard was dying off as fast as they could be named Premier and the Arms Race was eating up their meager economic resources. Reagan was spending 6.3% of GDP on the Military and the Soviets were able to buy more with less because every worker and every resource was owned by the government, but those workers had little incentive to do more than they must and were highly inefficient in doing it. It was costing the Soviets far more to maintain parity than it was costing the Americans. And it wasn't helping that their troops were increasingly demoralized with a lack of supplies and defeats in Afghanistan.

Soviet propaganda victories were turning against them. When they planned a massive river crossing, the substandard equipment failed, with entire tank crews drowning, trapped inside their steel coffins, as their buddies listened on the radio. While the KGB was cranking out fraudulent US Military documents, only the propagandists of Communism in the West claimed to believe they were real.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
-- Quote by Ronald Reagan, Speech at the Berlin Wall (June 12, 1987)

But Terrorism was a regular occurrence. Communist Terrorists in West Germany and Italy were very active, murdering diplomats and capitalists. And Qaddaffi of Libya was doing his best to prove himself a bigger player than the Ayatollah of Iran. While the Red Army Brigade was bombing the PX in Frankfurt, Qaddaffi managed to get a bomb into a Discotheque in Berlin. Qaddaffi fashioned himself a future emperor of Africa. He set up training camps for the Irish Republican Army in Libya, Liberian Rebel Charles Taylor, and whoever would oppose the West.

President Reagan ordered a retaliatory strike on Qaddaffi, despite French refusal to allow overflight. The strikes struck close to home for Qaddaffi, though later it would be shown that Qaddaffi's daughter had not been killed as he claimed. America was finally putting an end to turning the other cheek to terrorists, and Qaddaffi got the message. He ramped down the terrorist attacks, and the rhetoric.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
-- Quote by Ronald Reagan

Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.
-- Quote by Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation on the Fiscal Year 1983 Federal Budget (April 29, 1982)

By the end of his Presidency, America had recovered from double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, a defeated Military, and a deteriorating economy and industrial base, to a world leading economy. American Car Companies had not re-gained their undisputed leadership, but they had recovered, partly by cross-pollenization with the Japanese companies. Ford and Mazda had bought into each other. GM and Toyota had created Saturn in a joint venture. And Chrysler had joined forces with Mitsubishi.

America was again respected in the World. Americans again had Pride in the Nation. And America elected one of the "most qualified" Presidents to replace him, despite his lack of charisma. Bush Senior was a World War II fighter pilot, a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, a Vice-President, and had a host of other things on his resume to demonstrate he could do the job. He soon reaped the rewards of Reagan's Arms Race. In his first year, the Iron Curtain crumbled, to the disbelief of the world. The Berlin Wall fell, the Velvet Revolution succeeded in Czechoslovakia, the Romanians hunted down and hung their brutal Communist Dictator, and the rhetoric of Perestroika and Glasnost overpowered the Soviet Union itself.  The East and West Germanies re-united under capitalism, as no one had thought possible only a few years before.

The 80's were an American Decade where Freedom Triumphed and Pride returned to a Nation.  There were no apologies for being the Light on the Hill.  America Was Great and the whole world knew it.

We had recovered from the defeatist 70's.
And the Rewards of the 80's had carried through the early years of the Bush Admin.
Then came the "Peace filled 90's"

Historical Perspective - The Defeatist 70's

"Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it."

As I watch events unfold in the world, I increasingly remember parallels I have lived through. I've reached a point in life, where I realize that the current generation has no memory and little education in those same events. Growing up, I had a tainted view of Viet Nam, and elder relatives that spoke in terms of the Great Depression. I laughed at my cousin's crazy afro and bell bottoms, as he attempted to jump on the latest trends, and felt the pains of friends and family as the Nation went through the gas shortages, high inflation, and high interest rates of the Carter years. The American Steel companies were already locking their doors.

In the 1970's, the American people felt defeated. American Politicians & Peacenik Protestors had forced a defeat in Viet Nam. An American President had resigned in disgrace. An Old Ally in Iran had been overthrown, and an Islamist dictatorship had taken over, and taken our Embassy hostage. The Big 3 US Automakers looked ready to shutter the factory doors, as they couldn't compete for American consumers with cheap Japanese imports. Inflation and Interest Rates had hit double digits in the United States. And Nations were falling to communism around the world.

The US appeared impotent in the face of a 3rd World insurgency that had invaded Our Embassy and was holding Our Diplomats hostage. Presidential interference in the manner in which a rescue operation was carried out led to a disaster in the desert, while his "diplomatic" efforts made America look the fool.

Re-Learning War Fighting

As US politicians re-affirm their commitment to cutting the Military, to pulling out of Afghanistan, and returning to a "training mission,"  I think back to earlier years, of these wars, and to years prior, when the primary mission of the US Military was to fight other Armies.  To hear it told in many circles, one might conclude that we haven't fought another Army since World War II, or for some that remember the Forgotten War, Korea.  Though few attempt to outright deny we fought the Taliban government in 2001, the current arguments downplay or ignore that the War fought by 200 members of 5th Special Forces Group then was against the Taliban ran government of Mullah Omar, which is now the Taliban terrorist group, ran by Mullah Omar.

And few point out that while the War against the Taliban in Afghanistan was very much "made for Unconventional Warfare," i.e. Special Forces and other Special Operations Forces, the War in Iraq, against the Saddam Army was a classic Conventional War, involving Tank vs Tank Divisions.  Those that fought those Wars, and trained for those types of Wars before then, are Senior NCO's and Officers now, or have ETS'd or Retired now.  They are the very Soldiers most likely to be pushed out under the current purges, if they're still in.  Many of today's Senior NCO's weren't in the pre-9/11 Military.

Army Wife Silenced

I was disheartened by the mob mentality I watched unfold when a new and young Army Wife published a post that demonstrated her youth, her frustration, and her ignorance of the world she had only recently entered.  The charge was led by a Colonel's wife, who is connected to a Non-Profit, and to much of the MilBlog community.  She used her influence to call for what amounted to a very public internet lynching and to pressure the young NCO's chain of command.

This is not to say that the young wife was correct in her statements or conclusions, but watching it unfold was like watching a sitcom of the popular High School girls going after the new girl in the school.  The young wife must have been online when the pack attacked, because she turned off comments before the angry abuse hit 20.  The Colonel's wife was already crying foul that she didn't get her lashes in on the young lady, even as she deleted my comments condemning the behavior.  She has since deleted her accusation on the WOTN wall that alleged I had attacked her personally, rather than recognizing that it was her actions I had condemned.

To clarify the realities behind the emotional attacks: There is a difference between Active Duty Soldiers, and Reserve, and National Guard Soldiers.  They are all Soldiers, and I served in all 3 types of the Army.  The sacrifices are different.  None are a cakewalk.  But there are differences, just as there are differences in the way men and women think, the way Mexicans and Brits look, and the way C130 and F15 pilots fly.  Noting these differences for what they are is no more wrong than describing a criminal on the run for his race.  Pretending they don't exist is political correct BS that creates one-size-fits all plans that fit no one.  And it creates the frustration the young Army Wife was attempting to clarify.

And the jackal attack that followed creates the reluctance of Troops in introducing their wives to organizations that might exhibit the behavior.  As some MilBloggers are asking why fewer are entering the world of public discourse, the attacks, which resulted in her Army husband being called on the carpet by a Senior Officer in his command, demonstrate the perils of Troops considering the telling of their stories.  Yes, that NCO publicly defended his wife's right to expression, but he was not the one that wrote the offensive blogpost.  He was however the one that suffered the repercussions and is licking his own wounds, along with his ostracized wife.

In situations like this, maternal figures in my life would have retorted to those that attacked with: "Well, I hope you are happy with yourselves."

So, what should have happened?  Those elder, popular wives should have dropped the New, Young Army wife an email that recognized the woman's frustration, but pointed out the errors.  National Guard Soldiers do wear a tape that says "US Army" because they are Soldiers.  There are no such things as "Company" patches, but the unit patches worn by the Vermont National Guard are only as different from the Recruiting Command patch as are the 82nd Airborne patch is from the Recruiting Command patch.

Yes, that Recruiter served elsewhere, before he served as a Recruiter, and he'll serve somewhere else in the future, if he stays in.  His war stories are different than those of the Soldiers of the Vermont National Guard.  They served in different places, with different people, at different times.  There is a difference between coming back and preparing your rucksack and dufflebags for 3 weeks in the field, or preparing your resume to go out looking for a job in a down economy.  Yes, Active Duty Troops deploy more often than Reserve Component.

But being the wife of a National Guard Colonel does not excuse you from acting with the same grace, experience, and respect expected of an Officer's wife on Active Duty.  Having a dedicated Facebook following does not afford you the right to treat a young wife, fresh into her life as the Primary Supporter of ONE Soldier in such an aggressive manner.  If you believe that the young wife's actions reflect on a young NCO, imagine how much more a very public Colonel's wife's actions reflect on him.  Should he be reported to the TAG, and reprimanded to the TAG for YOUR words?

Why did I get involved?  After all, it wasn't my business?  Condemning the actions of the popular girl isn't going to win me more friends, and may even cause her fans to quit reading.  I spoke my mind because what was happening was wrong, regardless of how errant the young lady's words were.  It is easy to cheer on the crowd.  It is easy to be silent when you know the crowd will disagree.  It isn't the right thing to do, to sit on the sidelines, when you witness a mob of your "friends," ganging up on the new girl.

What I won't do is send a pack of readers to attack those involved.  No, I don't believe the primary individuals involved understand why their actions were wrong, nor that they can be convinced of it.  And while I do believe the young woman might have been able to understand where her errors were wrong, I doubt this experience will change her distaste any time soon.  Unfortunately, what is done, is done.  I can only hope that those that joined the lynching will think twice before joining the mob, should a similiar situation present itself, in the future.

American Marine Faces Execution in Iran

On the 18th of December 2011, Iranian TV announced that they had captured an "American Spy" and broadcast his "confession."  Amir Mirzaei Hekmati had been illegally held since at least September 2011, and subjected to interrogations for at least 3 months.  An Iranian Islamist Court sentenced him to death on 9 January 2012, after a half day show trial.

His "crime?" "Fighting against Allah."  In Iran, that is a "crime" punishable by death.  The "evidence?"  His confession that he was a US Marine who had deployed to Iraq & Afghanistan.

Picture courtesy of www.FreeAmir.org

But what was Amir's real purpose in being in Iran?  He was there to visit his grandmother.  His parents had emigrated to the United States before he was born.  Amir is an American, born in Flagstaff, Arizona.  When he applied for his travel visa, he stated his background.  If he were a "spy," he wouldn't have said he was a former Marine.  He would have said he was a clerk at Best Buy or 7-11, or a college student, but he wouldn't have carried a US Military ID, if he had thought there was a need to hide it, i.e. if he were working for an Intelligence Agency of an adverserial government.

Video: General Petraeus' Opinions on Afghanistan

There are some that dislike General Petraeus, for partisan purposes, but for the majority of America, he is the most trustworthy and honest person on the public stage.  We trust him, because he doesn't blow smoke up our collective butts.  When things are going poorly, he says so, without regard for what politician or party will be faulted for it.  When things are going well, he says so.  When things need work, he says so.  When a strategy works, he doesn't care if its sponsored by the Democrats or the Republicans.

"It is vital to (US) National Security Interests that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban not be able to re-establish terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan."  GEN David Petraeus, 3/18/2011, interview with Michael O'Hanlon on the National Review, above.

"The Iranian Revolutionary Guards force (are) training, equipping, and financing insurgents in Afghanistan." ibid.

"We have to prevent them from (terrorists/Al-Qaeda) operating anywhere, including Yemen and elsewhere." "We need to displace them from Pakistan." ibid

"We have to help them (Afghans) to build those institutions."  "We have to have a comprehensive COIN strategy." ibid

"Troop Levels To Be Determined by..."

... "conditions on the ground," "in consultation with the Ground Commanders."

"the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda" President Obama, West Point, December 1st, 2009

These are things we have heard from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and other Administration officials.  I am not the first to have pointed out that the very opposite occurred, that the decision was made to cut Troop levels in Afghanistan before the first Soldier in "The Surge" received his orders to go.  Nor am I the first to point out that this is the wrong time, i.e. in the middle of war, to cut the number of Troops available to fight these wars.

"..a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country"  President Obama, West Point, December 1st, 2009

Candidate Obama campaigned on making Afghanistan, the just war, his top priority.  General McKiernan told him he needed more Troops, but was fired for telling the truth, i.e. that Our Troops had not wantonly or negligently, attacked and killed hundreds of civilians.  General McChrystal told the POTUS he needed more Troops, and found himself on the outs with the Administration for trying to convince the POTUS to send them.  He was fired for airing his frustration, in a private conversation, publicized by Rolling Stone, fired for telling the truth that the POTUS wasn't just, not listening, but not even giving him the time of day.  General Petraeus was given the post of Director of the CIA, rather than allowing his retirement, to mar or expose the record.

On July 15, 2008, at the Woodrow Wilson Institute, (above) candidate Obama not only called for the invasion of sovereignty of then ally, Pakistan, but also noted the Taliban as an enemy, and stated that we MUST win in the war against the enemy of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.  What has been done?  And What has changed in the War in Afghanistan?

"I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat." President Obama, West Point, December 1st, 2009 "This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards." ..."our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan."

President Obama made good on his promise to bomb Pakistan from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which alienated the Pakistani people and government.  When, in the earlier days, Pakistan pushed the Taliban out of parts of Pakistan, the US Generals did not have the Troops to provide the anvil, to stop the Taliban from escaping into Afghanistan.  Within only a few years, under the current POTUS, the former ally of Pakistan has gone from an active military campaign against the Taliban, to a return of supporting, training, and equipping the Taliban, against the US and Afghan government.  After a few years of the US Administration embarrassing the former ally of Pakistan, both in diplomatic, and military policy, Pakistan not only threw US Military personnel out of their country, but shut down the supply lines they had maintained for a decade.  In short, this Administration turned an active ally into an ally of the enemy.

"We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government." Obama, ibid. "what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world."

But has the situation in Afghanistan improved?  NO.  After 10 years of war, 75% of the violence has occurred in the last 3 years.  For the 5th year in a row, Taliban violence against Afghan civilians has increased, and more have been killed than at any time since 200+ men of the 5th Special Forces Group removed the Taliban from government.  What has changed is Obama's admission that the Taliban are the enemy.  In 2011, Biden and Obama shocked the Troops getting shot at by the Taliban, by saying that the Taliban are not the enemy.

"There are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing." Obama, ibid.

Why did they do this?  It wasn't because the Taliban had stopped shooting at us.  The Taliban admit they've lost ground in 2011, but not the will to fight.  In fact, their resolve has increased, by knowledge that the US and NATO are pulling back and pulling out, which was announced before Obama said he would send fewer Troops than General McChrystal said he needed.  In December 2009, Obama stated that he would begin pulling out in July 2011, "based on conditions on the ground."  In July 2011, he did begin pulling out, despite conditions on the ground, 25% more violent than in December 2009.

"Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort."  Obama, ibid. 

Yes, I opposed, as did so many Veterans, putting a timeline on, and announcing a timeline to the enemy of when we would quit the fight.  Leaked intelligence reports indicating it has strengthened enemy resolve, increased violence in Afghanistan, and the obstinance of the Administration in pulling out those Troops, DESPITE conditions on the ground, and despite the counsel of Generals, proves that we were correct in opposing announcing the retreat before the battle.

" that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering" Obama, 2009, West Point

I'll leave you with the Presidents words.  It seems that he has lost his resolve, or that they were just empty words, that meant nothing to him:

"American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now - and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies."  Obama, 2009, West Point

Related Articles:

Blackfive on the Pakistani ISI & retreat from Afghanistan.
Troy Steward, of Bouhammer, on the Politics of Retreat.

McChrystal Fired, Obama Translated
Obama Speech Firing McChrystal
Bios: GEN David Petraeus
Bios: LTG Stanley McChrystal
McChrystal - What Happens Now?
Rumors of McKiernan's Firing
General McKiernan Fired

The Necessity of Negotiations with the Taliban?

What makes "now" the right time to "end"the War in Afghanistan?  Is it because we have defeated the enemy?  Is it because the democratically elected government of Afghanistan is now stable?  Is it because the enemy is on their knees?  Has the Taliban declared they would treat women as humans?  Is the war just un-winnable and it's time to give up?  Is the Administration declaring defeat?  Or, have we met our objectives?

Before we can ask if we've met the objectives, we have to ask why we went to Afghanistan in the first place?  On September 9th, 2001, Al-Qaeda assassinated Mahmood Shah, the leading anti-Taliban General.  On 9/11/01, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists, having trained in the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, attacked the United States, in New York City, in Washington DC, and over the skies of Shanksville, PA.  They murdered nearly 3,000 Civilians in the United States.  Their goal was 250,000 dead Americans.

In September 2001, the US Government requested extradition of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and other co-conspirators of the attack, from the Taliban ruled Afghanistan to the United States for trial in the war crimes and acts of terrorism of the United States.  Democrats and Republicans were united.  Both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush stated that other Nations were "either with the United States, or against us."  The Taliban government of Afghanistan called "the bluff."  It decided that it would protect its benefactor, believing that it could survive the historical cruise missile retribution attacks they had become accustomed to in the previous decade.  After all bin Laden had married Mullah Omar's daughter, not to mention given the Taliban a lot of equipment.

Denigration to "Honor" the Sacrifice of Veterans

Some people "just don't get it."  No matter what you say, how you say it, you're not going to get through their drug clouded mind what is and is not acceptable behavior.  In this particular case, we're talking not just about a generation that grew up believing they were entitled to do whatever they want, and have responsibility for none of their own actions, but took that a step further and decided that their own lack of responsibility meant also that they could desecrate the very symbols of sacrifice others have paid in blood, sweat, and tears to provide them the prosperity and security to live their lives in Freedom.  And when called on it, by those who are represented by that sacrifice, their response is: good, we wanted the publicity.

The group in question advocates for the legalization of pot.  I'm not going to weigh into the merits of legalization vs. prohibition of marijuana.  It is illegal, under current law, except in California, for "medical purposes."  It is the right of every American to attempt to convince the rest of America or the states or their local governments that a law should or should not be enacted, including potheads.

"The PoW flag is not copyrighted and is open property. It is a gift for all Americans, to do with as they see fit."

America, When Will You Stand Up for Veterans?

Military Retirees, under 65, probably have another job that can pay their Health Insurance Costs.  We need to convince them to use that Insurance plan instead of the one they earned by 20+ years in the Military.  Obama Administration. (paraphrased, they would never say it that clearly.)

This is what the Administration calls "not breaking faith" with Our Troops and Veterans.  I had a rather heated discussion about this with a civilian friend, who happens to support Obama.  She felt that the disgust I voiced with the Administration, and with those that continue to justify his slashes makes Veterans and Troops appear to be just a whiny special interest group.  She didn't understand how I could confuse her Support of the Troops, with annoyance that she attempted to justify the Administration's calls for culling the force.  And she typed the same lines the Obama Campaign has used to justify the cuts.  The Proposals include:

Increasing and adding new enrollment fees for retirees (for Tricare)
Establishing a new enrollment fee for the TRICARE-­‐for-­‐Life program
Implementing additional increases in pharmacy co-­‐pays
Obama proposals in January 2012, in the DoD "Defense Budget Priorities" previously proposed in the Obama Budget Proposal in September 2011 which was marketed as raising taxes on "the rich" while "raising revenue" to a greater extent from Military Retirees & Veterans.

So, how do I express myself better?  How do I better explain why it is wrong for the American Government to break its contract with the Veterans that have protected this Nation?  Why is it morally and legally wrong to charge Military Retirees for Health Care?  Why is it the responsibility of the American People to stop this?  Who can do that and How?

Strategic American Wargaming

I just came across this strategic, long-term, war game, designed for the future Generals to test their skills at prioritizing Defense spending, Future Force.  You can buy and play the war game for yourself, as can our strategic enemies.  I would expect they already have.  I have not, so I have to rely on the words of the left aligned "Foreign Policy" organization for what Michael Peck found out about the game.  In turn, he relies on the left aligned CNAS, for his "strategy" in the game.

From what I gather, there are only a few things that the game player can influence in the war game.  It appears that one cannot choose their enemies, or alter the budget allocated to fight those enemies.  As such, it has value to the intended users of the game, i.e. Generals who must work with the resources politicians allot them to fight the enemies they've foreseen.  We don't choose who will attack us, but there would be value in allowing strategic planners to test their skills against different sets of enemies.

The game was designed prior to the announcement by the Obama Administration that it wants to cut another Half-Trillion from the Department of Defence, but implements the calls by the left to abandon the ability to fight against Standing Armies, as we did in 2003.  Michael Peck, of Foreign Policy, played by the left-leaning playbook, with the forces that will be available after the currently approved Troop cuts. 

Beginning the game with two conflicts: a major groundwar, and a counter-insurgency, along with 3 peacekeeping deployments, this is very similar to the situation of 2007.  So too, are the locations: Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and two he doesn't name.  Using the doctrines of the left-leaning CNAS, he discovers he must cede one of the 5 to the enemy.  He discovers that based on the current policies, he can't maintain the peace in 3 locations, AND win the two conflicts.

Media Matters: Front Page News

On the front pages of the international msm this past week:

Airman 1st Class Matthew R. Seidler, 24, of Westminster, Md.
Tech. Sgt. Matthew S. Schwartz, 34, of Traverse City, Mich.
Senior Airman Bryan R. Bell, 23, of Erie, Pa
Staff Sgt. Jonathan M. Metzger, 32, of Indianapolis, Ind.
Spc. Robert J. Tauteris Jr., 44, of Hamlet, Ind.
Christopher A. Patterson, 20, of Aurora, Ill.
Spc. Brian J. Leonhardt, 21, of Merrillville, Ind.
Pfc. Dustin P. Napier, 20, of London, Ky
Pfc. Michael W. Pyron, 30, of Hopewell, Va
Pfc. Neil I. Turner, 21, of Tacoma, Wash

You might be excused if you missed the msm headlines on these Fallen American Heroes this past week.

Maybe you saw these stories on the front pages of the international msm:

TF Spartan Paratroopers Rescue Afghan Child
UK and Afghan Troops help open critical new school

I'm sure you saw these on the front pages:

Ghazni District Transfers Security
Afghan boy with severe cleft palate has reason to smile - courtesy of Coalition Forces

How about combat news from our Troops?

ANA, Marines clear out last insurgency from southern Helmand
New ANA elite snipers graduate course
Operation Tageer Shamal: Afghans, Marines take control west of Helmand River


Did you miss this story of our British Troops 'just doing their job,' making a difference for the people of Afghanistan?

YORKS soldiers on patrol in Helmand

I am *sure* you all saw this video as the top story of the broadcast media last week. It is an interview with a Security Chief in Marjah, on how things have changed since the Taleban has been thrown out - defeated.

Video: Marjah after the Taleban - Security Chief Tells of Progress


No, you saw none of these on the international front pages, BUT I found them and posted these (and others) on War On Terror News.

What we all saw on the msm front page news, and as top story on the broadcast media, was a story about four Marines who filmed themselves doing something very stupid. Whether or not you agree with the act they did is not at issue for me, but the fact they recorded it? Yes, THAT was stupid, and I have to wonder how they ever thought such a film would not become 'news,' given the 24/7 insatiable appetite of our msm, who seem to salivate at every opportunity to show OUR Military in a bad light.

Military Cuts are 'strategic guidance'???

The BHO administration is at it again: renaming their actions, and world events, to further their own political agenda. Their latest efforts to deflect and defuse miltary analysts and commenters/critics' responses to their latest round of slashing of the US Military budgets - while their Troops are at war, and while their Veterans are returning from those wars - is to call their knife wielding abomination "strategic guidance."

Strategic guidance???? This fits the BHO MO perfectly, and is line with such things as his renaming the Global War on Terror some benign mumbo jumbo, which nobody I know bought into.

Since BHO went before the cameras for a press conference the other day at the Pentagon - something no other president in US history has done - flanked by 'supporting' Military personnel, I have watched as the media has dutifully repeated his words, and joined the chorus of calling these dangerous cuts something they are not! The DoD is working overtime to convince the public that there is "nothing to see (or worry about) here. Move along now!" but make no mistake. What BHO is set to have our Defense Dept do, has nothing to do with US National Defense needs, and is partisan, all politics, all the time. If that were not the case, why does he so often preface his announcements of Military issues with "I kept my promise'? Don't believe me? Do your own research. It wouldn't take you long to prove my point. Courtesy of the internet, there are lots of videos of his "I kept my promise.'...

Today from the DoD, as article as another Military leader is interviewed about the US 'strategic guidance':

Official: Strategic Guidance Recognizes U.S. NATO Commitments

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9, 2012 – As the United States implements new strategic guidance that increases its focus on Asia and the Pacific, it also needs to pursue “smart defense initiatives” as it continues to honor its NATO commitments, a senior defense official said today.

Budget constraints will demand new efficiencies and new approaches to collective defense, Julianne Smith, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO policy, told reporters at the Foreign Press Center here.

Smith joined Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Phillip Gordon in explaining how the new strategic guidance will impact defense in the European theater.

“The trans-Atlantic relationship remains an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world,” Gordon said, with Europe remaining the United States’ principal partner in promoting global and economic security.

“And so the strategy outlined last week reaffirms our commitment to European security,” he said, and continued commitment to the so-called Article 5 responsibility to aid any NATO ally in the event of an attack....

More here, if you must. "...reaffirms our commitment to [... ]security...' Really? As I said to a Veteran the other day, 'can these politicans be serious'? Same for some of the Military bigwigs I have seen and heard, as the Mouth In Chief shares oh so sincerely with the msm his vision of America's future. I understand very well that our Military leaders have to be seen to being in step with the MIC if they want to keep their jobs, but the politicians? Even those of us non-Military types, and with even one brain cell with which to read, know that now is not the time to be slashing Military or Defense budgets to the extent that BHO is planning. No.

War On Terror News can always be relied on to give the straight goods:

01/07/2012

The Latest Obama Purges of the Military

 

I am not a fan of politicians, but less so when they tell us how grateful we should be that they're about to put the big green weanie up our rears, without an ounce of lube. What does this statement mean?

"We’re also going to keep faith with those who serve" President Obama, 6 JAN 2012, as he announced new massive cuts to the military.

I've been hearing that line for months now, even as the Administration has ordered 49,000 US Soldiers into the unemployment lines, after tossing 10,000-100,000 Northrop-Grumman employees on the street who were building the F-22, and 20,000 National Guard Soldiers out of the service. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was the first I heard utter the phrase, even as he attempted to blame Congress for the cuts he had already requested, and ahead of the most recent cuts he announced. This came after cuts of $550 Billion by the same Administration. So when I hear this Administration tell me that they will "keep the faith" with Troops and Veterans, I know there's something bad coming down the pike.

The latest round brings us to $1.1+ Trillion in cuts to the Military, at the same time the Administration increased the Federal Debt to $15.3 Trillion. Yes, every part of government except the DoD and Veterans Administration budgets have ballooned. DoD budgets have not only been cut but misused. ...

[...]

The Obama Administration tells us that he plans to increase commitments in the Pacific, while at the same time cutting the number of Troops & Equipment available for these new commitments. It says we're going to rely on alliances for our security, and specifically mentions NATO, which has also cut its defenses significantly in the last decades, to the point that during the Libyan War, the US had to give them munitions to fight the "non-war" that Obama never consulted Congress for, though it was our munitions being launched from our ships and airplanes destroying Libyan buildings and TV stations, because they were "supporting the regime" in a dangerous manner...

 

GO read the rest of this here.

Just in case that wasn't clear enough for anyone, WOTN revisits the issue of slashing Defense budgets - oooops, I mean 'strategic guidance' of course! - in this:

01/07/2012

As Politicians Abandon Our Troops & National Security

In 2008, candidate Obama told us he would make Afghanistan his top priority. In 2009, he told us he would listen to the Generals, that he would "fully support our Troops." In 2010, he told us the situation on the ground would shape his decisions on how many Troops to authorize the Generals to have to fight the enemy. In 2011, he told us he would "keep faith" with the Troops who have fought our Wars.

"We will back you up to the hilt, because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done." President Obama 10/26/2009, Florida

The situation in Afghanistan did NOT dictate the reduction of forces there. Not only did he not send the Troops General McChrystal, and General McKiernan before him, requested, but he announced the "drawdown" when he announced the half-stepping measures. As a result, General McChrystal & General Petraeus had only enough Troops to surge into Helmand and Kandahar, keeping only enough Troops in Paktika, Paktia, Jalalabad, and Khowst, to hope it wouldn't get worse.

General Allen has promised to use whatever resources the politicians allow him to fight for Victory. That means he is now pushing into the Eastern Provinces, while attempting to hold on to the Victories in the South. The War in Afghanistan has become its own version of the 1+1 policy of the Clinton Administration. That policy decision was also budget driven to decrease the size of the military to a point that the Nation would "be able to win one war, while holding another to a stalemate," until forces were available from the first war. General McChrystal, General Petraeus, & General Allen have been forced by politicians to fight the War in Afghanistan the same way, trying to win in one region of the country, while holding others to a stalemate.

And if this Nation, combined with our NATO allies, cannot win the War in Afghanistan alone, then we must abandon the myth that we could hold a second war to a stalemate long enough to win the first War in Afghanistan. And that is occuring before his cuts. The new policy can't be considered a 1+1 policy, but a +1 Defense posture. The Administration hopes that the military can fight to a stalemate long enough for someone to "end the war."...

 

GO read it here

WOTN also has video proof of BHO the candidate, who was singing a very different tune then as he aspired to the highest office in the land. Go! To some of us, it doesn't matter what words BHO or his minions spout. We know it is all about politics, and money. We know that slashing things like Military budgets speaks to those supporters to whom candidate Obama promised 'hope and change.'...We also know - because we pay attention - that yes, all budgets need to be cut in these austere times, as deficits and debtloads rise globally, a trillion here, another trillion there. We get that, but cutting Defence budgets to the point of insanity in such dangerous times, even if the 'Taleban is not our enemy'? There is NO 'splaining that away as a smart move.

In case you think that only Americans are being subjected to this insanity of ensuring National INsecurity, you should know that Canada has also been going full steam ahead with slashing critical budgets. Since Prime Minister Harper finally got his long-sought majority government this last election, the knives have been out as all federal departments were told to cut their budgets by 5% over a 3 year period..This week comes word that some of those departments have now been told to cut their budgets by 10% over a one year timeframe. Care to hazard a guess as to which departments have been given these 10% goals? I'll tell you: Defence, CSIS - the department whose mandate is supposedly Canada's Security - AND Foreign Affairs. Read more on this over at the CBC, where these details could be lost in a story whose main focus is the unions bellyaching about job loss. These cuts all the while the government is going to give a $5million private contract for an assessment of global threats! Hello? And yes, while Canadian Veterans are having to fight their government when they return from the sandbox, for benefits that they have earned in service to their country. THAT story another day. Again, though, politicians both side of the border (and in Britain, I might add) slashing Military and Defence budgets with apparently very little regard for a) their side of the contracts they made with our Troops and Veterans, not to mention our allies, and b) at a time when the threats are gaining momentum worldwide, slashing the very people trained to counteract such threats.

So if we believe that it is ALL about the money, and I do, (and BHO's constant election campaign promises, of course) it seems to me that there are many other places that budgets in America could be slashed, without jeopardising the US national security. Wouldn't you know it, that with very little internet searching (and a little help from my friends....) I found some funding projects, that should be cut to save the sadsack US economy that would have zero effect on national security.

Daily Caller has this list of what they call (and I have to agree) Top Ten Stupidest Government Spending items:

By Taylor Bigler - The Daily Caller 12/20/2011

As the fight over how to fix America’s overspending habit ended in a stalemate this year, the federal government spent billions of dollars in 2011 on some unusual projects. And according to a new report from Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, $6.5 billion of it was wasted.

The list includes more than $100,000 on a video game “preservation” center, $120 million in salaries to dead employees and $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere — all in a year when the federal deficit rose by nearly $2 trillion.

Coburn’s “Wastebook 2011″ report lists 100 of the most egregious spending boondoggles.

Here are the top 10 most ridiculous things the federal government paid for this year:

10. $764,825 for a study on how college students use cell phones and social media

The National Science Foundation awarded the University of Notre Dame this grant to study the mobile and social media habits of college freshmen. We can tell you exactly how college freshmen use mobile phones and social media: for 3 a.m. texts and phone calls to that girl in American History. We could have saved the government a lot of money. Just ask us.

9. $136,555 for teachers to retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England

This grant, awarded to teachers from Kent State and Eastern Illinois Universities, allowed Middle English lit fanatics to take the trip outlined in Canterbury Tales. We’re betting £10 that the tour guides just make up half of the landmarks.

8. $55,660 on butter packaging

Kriemhild Dairy Farms received this chunk of change to package their grass-fed cow butter. The funding isn’t the only thing that’s too big: The butter itself is 85 percent fat.

7. $606,000 for a study about online dating

Columbia University researchers received over a half-million dollars to study online dating. Maybe the Ivy League nerds who conducted this study should put down the lab coats and go to a bar — or at least the library....

 

Yes, there is more here. Really? Yes, really. Almost defies belief, doesn't it? Just those items taken off the gravy train would save a bundle, and their demise would leave more dollars free for the National Defense budget. One of my favourites from that list? $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail...No, you can't make this stuff up!

These may be a Top Ten, but there is no shortage of 'special' projects that Americans' tax dollars pay for, that apparently the feds deem so important that they would rather cut Military and Defense budgets than do away with such things as the mating habits for quails.

While reading for this column, I learned that earmarking as we know it, in its present form, was not always a seemingly obligatory sneaky way to add ridiculous pet projects onto important bills, and hope that nobody notices. Over at SwineList in a column called: Time to End Earmarks Once and For all, I found this bit of history:

[...] Even as federal power vastly expanded during the twentieth century, Congress did not earmark extensively until the 1980s. Instead, Congress would fund general grant programs and let federal and state agencies select individual recipients through a competitive process or formula. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees named specific projects only when they had been vetted and approved by authorizing committees. Members of Congress with local concerns would lobby the president and federal agencies for consideration. The process was aimed at preventing abuse and allocating resources on the basis of merit and need.

From 1991 until the enactment of the moratorium for the 112th Congress, earmarks steadily increased in frequency and size. A 2007 report from the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Inspector General found that between 1996 and 2005, DOT earmarks increased in number by 1,150 percent and in value by 314 percent. As vocal critics such as Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) have noted, earmarks have greased the skids for runaway spending and bad policy for decades. Politically powerful politicians in Washington began using earmarks as a currency to buy votes on bills that members would not otherwise vote for. The secrecy involved in this process invited the use of earmarks to fund wasteful projects, such as the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” that was included in the 2005 transportation bill.

Taxpayers were hopeful that this practice would come to an end with the passage of the earmark moratorium for the 112th Congress. Unfortunately, that hope was misplaced. Analysis of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by Citizens Against Government Waste identified 111 earmarks – 59 of which matched exact language from previous earmarks. A December 12, 2011 report produced by Sen. McCaskill’s office identified 115 earmarks worth $834 million in the NDAA. Twenty Republican freshmen who campaigned against earmarks were among the requesters....

Imagine that! This is a must read here for very enlightening facts on the practice of earmarking. The final paragraph on it says what needs to be done, but remains pessimistic that there is any political will to actually do something about the absurd projects being funded while serious matters - oh, like National Defense and the health of our Veterans - go on the Obama chopping block.


As referenced above, Senator Tom Coburn keeps track of these things. In his December 2010 edition of WasteBook: A Guide to Some of the Most Wasteful and Low Priority Govenment Spending of 2011, he has this:

Dear Taxpayer,

Robot dragons, video games, Christmas trees, snow cone machines, and chocolate.

This is not a Christmas wish list.

These are just some of the ways the federal government spent your tax dollars this year.

Over the past 12 months, Washington politicians
argued, debated and lamented about how to reign
in the federal government‘s out of control spending.
All the while, Washington was on a shopping
binge, spending money we do not have on things
we do not need, like the $6.9 billion worth of
examples provided in this report. The result:
Instead of cutting wasteful spending, nearly $2.5
billion was added each day in 2011 to our national
debt, which now exceeds $15 trillion....

You may well ask - or at least you should be asking - what sort of projects does your government see fit to fund, all the while making sure that the Military has to argue for every dime they get? Take a look:

1) Politicians Partying on the Taxpayer Dime – (Presidential Election
Campaign Fund) $35.38 Million

2) Mangled Mango Effort Could Hurt Farmers It Meant to Help –
(Pakistan) $30 Million

In 2009, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) undertook a four-year, $90 million effort to spur hiring and sales among Pakistani businesses. Two years later, the USAID Inspector General (USAID OIG) found ―no measurable increases in sales and employment....

 

You think I'm kidding? There is more:

 

5) Paying for Pancakes – (D.C) $765,828
Almost $800,000 of federal taxpayer funds went to subsidize ―pancakes for yuppies in the nation‘s capital. [That was paid to IHOP, and you really have to go read to find out why.

One of my personal favourites (but no surprise to me) is this one:

7) Dead Federal Employees Continue to Get Benefits Checks – (U.S. Office of Personnel Management) $120 Million

The federal government sent an average of $120 million in retirement and disability payments to deceased former federal employees every year for at least the past five years.

In a September 2011 report, the Inspector General (IG) for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management found that ―the amount of post-death improper payments is consistently $100-$150 million annually, totaling over $601 million in the last five years.

In one example the IG found, an annuitant‘s son cashed his dead father‘s checks for 37 years. The son‘s scheme, which cost taxpayers more than $500,000, was discovered in 2008, when he himself died. ―The improper payment was not recovered, the IG reported...

I am sure that most of my readers already know that the US pays millions in aid to China, and that is included in this list. To read the details is almost jawdropping. Really.


How about almost half a million dollars to this project?:

11) Drug-Themed “Mellow Mushroom” Pizza Restaurant – (TX) $484,000

Our nation currently faces many challenges; a shortage of beer and pizza, however, is rarely cited as one of them. Still, a private developer received nearly half a million dollars in federal funds to build Mellow Mushroom Pizza Bakers, a nationwide pizza chain, in Arlington, Texas.

Okay, I have to ask, WTH are the feds smoking to think that this kind of funding is acceptable? Hello?

Another gem:

19) Children, Prisoners, and Others Who Don’t Own Homes Awarded
Energy Efficient Home Improvement Tax Credits (Internal Revenue
Service) – $1 Billion

As much as $1 billion or more in tax credits for energy efficient residential improvements109 are being claimed by individuals with no record of owning a home, including prisoners and underage children.

 

How about funding for a Magic Museum, or over $500,000 to make a documentary about, and I quote, How Rock and Roll Contributed to the Collapse of the Soviet Union. That's number 16 on the list. Oh the name of this movie? Rockin' the Kremlin. These projects are included in a 98 page pdf document, and the other examples are equally outrageous, unless of course you think that Rockin' the Kremlin, or TVs for rural Vietnamese villagers are more important than, let's say, funding the Troops, or ensuring the VA is adequately funded so it can function at optimal levels for our returning Wounded Warriors, for just one example.

These items listed here are just the tip of a very big iceberg, and I haven't even gone into to all the assinine 'green' projects that have been funded to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars, before they go on to fail miserably. Every American should be screaming from the rooftops, and demanding accountability from every politician who snuffles up to what they see as a bottomless public trough. For the complete document, go here.


If that list is not enough, try here for another list of even more areas that could be cut to help the US money problems. That is Citizens Against Government Waste. Read these sites, bookmark them, start getting really angry, America.

Nobody denies that in these times that belt tightening is a must, on all levels of government. However, it seems to me that if BHO can stand at the Pentagon and say the Military and Defense budgets must be so drastically cut, he should first take a look at what America should be cutting, and yes, Americans should be demanding such a process be implemented before one more Military-designated dime, one more Troop, is chopped from the budget.

It is more than time for every American to start demanding their politicians get serious about solving the budgetary issues, and cut the budget to the bone, on items that do not directly impact the safety and security of ALL Americans - even those who don't eat pancakes. As this very short glimpse here shows, to continue funding absurd projects is NOT the way to address the bottom line.

Wake UP, America.

As Politicians Abandon Our Troops & National Security

In 2008, candidate Obama told us he would make Afghanistan his top priority.  In 2009, he told us he would listen to the Generals, that he would "fully support our Troops."  In 2010, he told us the situation on the ground would shape his decisions on how many Troops to authorize the Generals to have to fight the enemy.  In 2011, he told us he would "keep faith" with the Troops who have fought our Wars.

"We will back you up to the hilt, because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done." President Obama 10/26/2009, Florida

The situation in Afghanistan did NOT dictate the reduction of forces there.  Not only did he not send the Troops General McChrystal, and General McKiernan before him, requested, but he announced the "drawdown" when he announced the half-stepping measures.  As a result, General McChrystal & General Petraeus had only enough Troops to surge into Helmand and Kandahar, keeping only enough Troops in Paktika, Paktia, Jalalabad, and Khowst, to hope it wouldn't get worse.

General Allen has promised to use whatever resources the politicians allow him to fight for Victory.  That means he is now pushing into the Eastern Provinces, while attempting to hold on to the Victories in the South.  The War in Afghanistan has become its own version of the 1+1 policy of the Clinton Administration.  That policy decision was also budget driven to decrease the size of the military to a point that the Nation would "be able to win one war, while holding another to a stalemate," until forces were available from the first war.  General McChrystal, General Petraeus, & General Allen have been forced by politicians to fight the War in Afghanistan the same way, trying to win in one region of the country, while holding others to a stalemate.

And if this Nation, combined with our NATO allies, cannot win the War in Afghanistan alone, then we must abandon the myth that we could hold a second war to a stalemate long enough to win the first War in Afghanistan.  And that is occuring before his cuts.  The new policy can't be considered a 1+1 policy, but a +1 Defense posture.  The Administration hopes that the military can fight to a stalemate long enough for someone to "end the war."

"The 2nd goal of my new plan will be taking the fight to enemy in Afghanistan & Pakistan."  "The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan."  "I will make the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be."  "This is a war we have to win." "Lasting peace will come only if we heed General Marshall's words and grow the Afghan economy from the bottom."  "We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary." "While ensuring the military aid (to Pakistan) is used to take the fight to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."  Senator Obama, 15 July 2008

Fatalities in Afghanistan were three times higher in 2011 than they were in 2008.  The War is not "over."  Our Troops have performed well, but partisan political decisions in Washington, continue to dictate that the war will "be ended" instead of won.  The Administration announced on Thursday that the strategies and tactics (COIN/Counter-Insurgency) that stabilized Helmand, and defeated the enemy there, would be abandoned, in favor of the policies (Counter-Terrorism) used in Pakistan to alienate the population and politicians there.

And just as General Allen attempts to apply pressure to the enemy in the Eastern Provinces, politicians are cutting his resources.  The decision was made in 2009, by President Obama, as he promised it would be made based on the situation on the ground.  Not only did he decide to give General McChrystal fewer resources than he needed in 2009, but to remove those resources (Troops) before they could finish the job, meaning that as General Allen needs those Troops now, in Eastern Afghanistan, they're being pulled out by Obama's dictates, for political reasons, despite the "consultations with Commanders."  Not only are Troops being pulled out of Afghanistan, but being cut from the Army; 22,000 this year and another 27,000 in the next few years.  And on the 6th of January, Obama announced even more would be cut; thrown into the unemployment lines.

The Administration tells us the budget cuts are the result of the strategy changes, but the opposite is true.  The "new strategy" or rather political policies were shaped by his decision to cut the Defense budget.  His budget policies have prevented the military from winning one war while fighting a second to a stalemate and forced the Generals in charge of wars to instead to win one region of one war, while holding another to a stalemate.  The President won't even use the word Victory in relation to Afghanistan, because even he knows his policies undermine the Generals' ability to achieve it.

If Afghanistan were his first priority as he promised in 2008, if he had listened to the Generals as he promised he would in 2009, if the situation on the ground were the basis of those decisions, if National Security were the reason for his DoD budget requests, if he were bearing "true faith" with Our Troops, he would be sending more Warriors to Afghanistan to Win across that Nation, not cutting Troops from the Military, and pulling Troops out of Afghanistan.

Instead, he is cutting benefits to the Troops, charging them for Health Care, reducing Retirement benefits, and reducing the number available to replace them on the battlefield.  Instead he had to be shamed into even sending half of the Troops General McChrystal requested and is pulling them out before General Allen can finish the job.  Instead of supporting the winning strategy and tactics of COIN, he is replacing it with the Biden policy of Counter Terrorism which alienated Pakistan.  While his "diplomatic" demands of former allies have given rise to Islamism in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya, he has ignored the slaughter of protestors for democracy in Syria and Iran.

While we face a Middle East now at risk of being unified by Islamist tyrants that hope to ban Women's education, increase the legalized "right" of husbands to beat their wives, Obama is pressuring Afghanistan to open talks with Taliban leaders that presided over the Afghan Government's oppression of Women.  Those terrorists were captured in Afghanistan under the prior Administration, and are to be given offices in Qatar to negotiate their return to power, under this one.  These are the same terrorists that invited Al-Qaeda to train for the 9/11 attacks in the Islamist dictatorship of Afghanistan.  Why is he pressuring the democratically elected leader of an ally to negotiate with terrorists that hate America?  Because Obama wants to "end the War," not to win it.

While this President has demonstrated that he is not afraid to cut the Military or undermine Generals even as they fight Wars against our enemies, there would be less resistance to those cuts if we weren't "at war."  That's why he decided to change the label of war to "overseas contingency operation" in 2009.  But don't think this is an endorsement of the opposing party in Congress.  They've put up little resistance to the cuts this Administration has requested.  It is not just the fault of the Harry Reid Senate and the Pelosi House that Congress has allowed the Military to be slashed.  It is also the responsibility of the Boehner House to say "No More Cuts."

Here, Senator Joe Biden predicts failure in Iraq, complains that too much is being asked of Our Troops, and says General Petraeus is the only one who believes it can be won.  Here he says Iraq can never be a peaceful democracy:

The Latest Obama Purges of the Military

I am not a fan of politicians, but less so when they tell us how grateful we should be that they're about to put the big green weanie up our rears, without an ounce of lube.  What does this statement mean?

"We’re also going to keep faith with those who serve" President Obama, 6 JAN 2012, as he announced new massive cuts to the military.

I've been hearing that line for months now, even as the Administration has ordered 49,000 US Soldiers into the unemployment lines, after tossing 10,000-100,000 Northrop-Grumman employees on the street who were building the F-22, and 20,000 National Guard Soldiers out of the service.  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was the first I heard utter the phrase, even as he attempted to blame Congress for the cuts he had already requested, and ahead of the most recent cuts he announced.  This came after cuts of $550 Billion by the same Administration.  So when I hear this Administration tell me that they will "keep the faith" with Troops and Veterans, I know there's something bad coming down the pike.

The latest round brings us to $1.1+ Trillion in cuts to the Military, at the same time the Administration increased the Federal Debt to $15.3 Trillion.  Yes, every part of government except the DoD and Veterans Administration budgets have ballooned.  DoD budgets have not only been cut but misused. 

Zero Default; Zero Tolerance

As the Economy plummeted, the Military tightened its recruitment standards and Congress lowered the enlistment incentives.  Re-enlistment bonuses shrank, and Congress decided against more than the legally required pay raises.  Senator Webb, a Veteran himself, and normally on the Pro-Troop side of his party put it this way: with the Economy in bad shape, we don't need to pay the Troops more to recruit the numbers we need.  He was right of course.  The recruiters have been turning away qualified applicants for some time.  Only the National Guard is missing its decreased recruiting goals.  People are signing up for a job, instead of for the Mission.

And with the process of cutting the force by another 49,000, the Army has an opportunity to weed out bad apples, right?  Between the bad economy, the increase in new recruits, and the looming cuts, the Army has to figure out who to fire, and has little incentive to tolerate any misbehavior.  This is a good thing, right?

On the heels of bad publicity over DUI's and "Sexual Assaults" and "hazing" and the repeal of DADT, "Zero Tolerance" isn't just a buzzword, but an excuse to toss out the excess, for the least of allegations.  In the Sexual Assaults report, an allegation, even if unproven, of inappropriate contact or words, is sufficient to discharge from the military.  Innocent until proven guilty isn't applied.  There are cases of individuals allegedly slapping someone's butt in a line of Troops, where insufficient evidence exists to prove misconduct, yet the individual was tossed out.

Cutting Troops in A Time of War?

In a recent conversation about the pending cuts to the number of Active Duty Troops, a reader asked, "but with the end of the War in Iraq, aren't these 'overflow' Soldiers unnecessary?"  (I'm paraphrasing.)  The base of the discussion is that the current Administration is cutting 49,000 Soldiers from the Active duty Army.  The question is whether this is a responsible thing to do, while we continue our War in Afghanistan, or if the end of the War in Iraq, and the Administration's plan to "end" the War in Afghanistan means that these Troops are no longer needed and hence can be thrown into the unemployment lines.

Some would argue that these aren't wars at all, that the Administration calls them "Overseas Contingency Operations," but to the Troops on the Ground, getting shot at, political correctness does not translate into a change of reality.  Nevertheless, we've been at war for 10 years, and one would think that we've increased the size of Our Military since the attacks of 9/11/01.  And we did, by a little bit, sorta, but most of the increase in Troops serving every day of the week has been by activating units and members of the National Guard and Reserves.  Other shortfalls in manning were filled by sending in Air Force or Navy Troops to back-fill the Army and Marines, in ground operations, in places that Navy and Air Force personnel wouldn't normally be assigned.

What's Another Trillion or Two?

The POTUS has said he's going to ask for another $1.2 Trillion debt increase.  That's $1200 Billion or $1,200,000 Million.  It seems that Trillion is just such an unfathomable number that it seems imaginary to those who are being given the bill: the taxpayers.  Unlike prior debt increases, Congress doesn't have to approve this one.  All they have to do is not fly back to Washington and oppose it.  Yeah, they agreed to that when they agreed to have the "Supercommittee" solve the spending crisis last year.

Hillary and others in the Administration have called these budget deficits the most dangerous National Security issue we face, but they just can't seem to figure out how to stop spending like drunken college kids on their parent's credit cards.  Many politicians have been accused of "tax & spend" policies, but this Administration has preferred to spend first and tax later.  They figure if the Nation is in enough financial crisis, the taxpayers will take their bitter medicine, that the opposition will approve higher taxes.

But how did we get to a $15 Trillion dollar Federal Debt?  Partially, it was a $Billion or two at a time.  During Reagan's years, after 200 years of Federal Debt, he was asking for increases of, on average, less than $110 Billion each.  It was only in the 1980's that the Total Federal Debt exceeded $1 Trillion.  As he re-built Our Military and bankrupted the Soviet Empire in the arms race, America attained the position of the most technologically advanced and best trained military in the world, capable of defeating the Communist Hordes that were threatening Europe.  After 40 years of Communist Imperial expansion, the Cold War enemy lost ground to Freedom for the first time in Grenada.  At the end of his 8 years, the Federal Debt stood at $2.85 Trillion.  The tide had turned in El Salvador to democracy.  Nicaragua's Communist Dictatorship was falling.  And Americans found their pride again.

How About a Little Income Equalization?

Did you hear the news?  The Income gap between the rich and poor has widened.  The Organization of Economically Developed Countries came out with their list based on 2008 incomes and it "isn't pretty" for the United States.  Now, I've seen how some of the rest of the world lives, and I've seen how those "below the poverty line" in the United States live, so I was curious what it actually meant.  I'll get to their recommendations to "fixing it," later.

Evidently, the average income of the top 10% of Americans is $114,000/year.  Now, I'm not sure how this works, but according to the CIA, 30% of Americans are in the top 10% of income earners, while only 2% are in the bottom 10% making $7,800/year.  But if one goes with OECD data, that puts the average income at $60,900/year.  That's not bad for an economy that produces $47,200/year in actual goods (GDP per capita).  Of course, if we only count the workforce, we produce $95,257/year in actual value, and that is pretty impressive.  But the disparity between the top 10% and the bottom 10%, according to the OECD is 14.6x.

The OECD didn't make it easy to find the data, and they didn't examine disparities in places like China or North Korea, but it appears even the CIA finds that information difficult.  Still, the OECD did find some "shining examples" of places that do it better, like Download OECD-France Inequality, Download OECD-ItalyInequality, & Download OECD-Spain Inequality.  Since these are in the top 10% of economic powers, perhaps we should do what they are doing to alleviate this disparity.  France has a disparity of the top 10% and bottom 10% of only 7x while Spain is at 10.9 and Italy is at 10.1.

How could they possibly achieve such numbers?  The Average income (using the same formula above) is $42,574 in France, $33,106 in Italy, and $25,349 in Spain.  While OECD didn't give the data to figure out what the bottom 10% in the US earn per hour, it works out to $8.49/hr in France, $3.40/hr in Italy, and $3.24/hr in Spain.  The French produce $73,158/workforce member, while the Italians produce $71,245 and Spaniards produce $59,290. 

We can reduce the disparity in income here too, if we did what they did.  According to the CIA, the US tax burden is 14.7% as opposed to France 48.4%, Italy 46.7% and Spain 35.7%.  Take a look at your gross income on your paystub.  Are you willing to take half of that so we can all make the same amount?

The Growing Power & Threat of Islamism

A while back, I created a map overlay demonstrating the worldwide threats, with a focus on Islamism but also including secular and Communist regimes that ideologically or violently oppose us.  The world has changed since then.  Reluctant allies have distanced themselves in the last 3 years.  Lasting allies have fallen.  Old enemies have fallen to new enemies.  And my current picture editor isn't as good as the one I had then.

There is one small speck of good change in the world.  The Sudan split into two nations, helping to decrease the mass genocide of Islamists killing Christians and Animists in the newest Nation of South Sudan.  The South Sudanese have an uphill battle to establish their new government and this success began its path years ago.  North Sudan remains Islamist, in greater concentration.

Unfortunately, Islamism has spread dramatically in the last year, both in its violent attacks and in its takeovers of governments.  Tunisia was the first to fall, followed by Egypt, while the Islamist party of Turkey retained its power.  Some have hailed these as successes for democracy, but it is a failure of US Foreign Policy and a blow to Freedom.

The Obama Administration's response to seeing mass protests against an old ally was precisely as was the Carter Administration's.  Both in Tehran 1978 and Cairo 2011, the Administration urged a Military Coup against an allied leader.  The difference is that the Egyptian Generals were actually able to hold the reins of power for a short period of time, while the Iranian Generals had never really taken the concept as reasonable.  In both cases, the protestors were a mix of those supporting Freedom and Democracy and those supporting Islamism.  Forces for Democracy outnumbered forces for Islamism, but the Islamists were better organized.

Last Minute Legislation & Kicking the Can Down the Road

Have you noticed how many times in the last few yearsthe politicians of Washington waited to the last minute to vote on key legislation barely averting a government shutdown?  The tactic of take it or leave it brinkmanship is not new, but I don't recall it being used so often as it has been in recent years.  The 2011 budget, which should have been passed by Sep 30, 2010, was kicked down the road by weeks at a time for all of 2011.  The Debt Ceiling was lifted at the very last minute.  In each of these cases, the vote offered no time for negotiations.  The choice was to support all the earmarks, ie. pork, or be responsible for shutting down the government.

The 2012 Budget, which should have been passed no later than Sep 30, 2011 is currently being held up because the House is pushing for a full year extension of a Social Security Tax cut, as the POTUS said he wanted, until the House said they would push for it, and the Senate didn't.  Now, the Senate has decided they won't even work on a compromise until the House approves what they've voted down.  The bully tactics of the Senate Millionaires club are pretty bold, based primarily in a belief that voters will blame the majority party of the House, rather than the majority party of the Senate.

The most basic, most routine responsibility of Congress is to develop and approve the Annual Budget of the Federal Government.  This isn't some surprise to the members of Congress.  They know they have to do it every year.  They know it is due by 30 September every year.  There is no reason that this shouldn't be worked out well ahead of the deadline.  And there is no legitimate reason for the Budget to include money for researching why Monkeys fling dung or preservation of the history of video games.

Biden & Obama's DC Adventure

It's been an interesting week, as we learned that the current POTUS considers himself more accomplished than all but 3 others, and VP doesn't view the Taliban shooting at us in Afghanistan "the enemy."  Blows my mind to be honest.  If we give these guys another 4 years, the POTUS should proclaim himself more important than George Washington, and the VP will probably be telling us that there is no North Korean nuclear threat.  They're both arrogantly ignorant.  I never thought Robert Gibbs should have lasted a week, but he made those two look smart, and they should hire him back.

Oh, I'm sorry, he already thinks he's done more than George Washington!?!?  Evidently, he thinks Truman did more than Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington as well.  The Founding Fathers, supposedly did less than the guy that came along 240 years later?  Winning the Cold War was less influential than "ending" the War in Iraq?

The Washington Post would have us believe that he not some type of egomaniac that puts himself above the First President, but a dupe who fell for a gotcha moment.  But Obama did in fact say that ONLY his first two years, when he had absolute power with an absolute majority in both houses were enough to outshine even Thomas Jefferson, who put an end to piracy in his time, on Foreign Policy, that he has more legislative achievements than George Washington who oversaw the implementation of the Bill of Rights in his own first two years.

Meanwhile, Biden sits in his back office and opines that though we went to war with the Taliban, that we tossed them out of power, though they regularly throw acid in the faces of girls learning to read, that they are not the enemy.  And that's the guy who tried to comfort us by saying he would always be in the room when Obama was making important decisions?

These are the guys that told us there were no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, that more guns in fight meant only more targets on the battlefield, for the enemy, that told us that no matter how many Troops we put on the battlefield, we would lose?  These are the guys that after campaigning on Afghanistan as the first priority, and the "good war," had to be forced to send re-enforcements?  These are the guys that told us that there were only 50-200 Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan when they took office are telling us there are still only 200?

These are the guys that tell us we should shift our Department of Defense budget from Troops and F-22's to Solar Panels?  And are doing it?  In every year that these two have been in office, the Budget Deficit has been TRIPLE the record year, while the DoD budget has shrunk.  In a time of war, they've started a 3rd, without Congressional Consultation, much less authorization, and cut the number of Troops to fight them.

Arrogantly ignorant, or Ignorantly Arrogant?  You choose, but it appears that Biden is rubbing off on Obama.

Pragmatic Views on Overcoming Insidious Ambivalence Towards Our Troops

So, Assoluta Tranquillita tells us the top words of the year are Pragmatic and Ambivalence.  I immediately wondered how many of the Top Ten I could work into a single article.  I expect, with more dedication, I could have used them all, but I immediately decided to avoid some of them.

Even the least interested politicians have noted the great disconnect between Our Troops and Our Citizens.  Unfortunately, the most interested of the vitriolic politicians want to re-connect Troops and Citizens by force, in order to undermine popular support for the Mission of Our Troops, i.e. they wanted to re-institute the draft, to force the unwilling to fight for Freedom.  The former Representative Charles Rangel-NY, was the primary force behind the move, before he left Congress amidst allegations of misconduct.  Mr. Rangel was a Veteran himself, but his belief was that if "the rich" sent their sons to War, alongside the minorities, both would push for an end to the Wars.

The slogan of ethnic and impoverished genocide was used early in the anti-War propaganda, but had no legs.  The Military is drawn from across the whole of America, but the fatalities had demonstrated that Caucasian Men bore a disproportionately higher brunt of the fighting.  The diversity of the Infantry was stunted, not due to some arbitrary system, but instead by the choices made by Individuals voluntarily enlisting in the Marines and Army Infantry.  Proportionately, Hispanic Men are also more likely to join the Infantry and bear the brunt of combat.

Bradley Manning: Sex, Lies, & Espionage

So, Bradley Manning's excuse for betraying Our Nation is he's gay:

"The defense revealed that Manning had written to one of his supervisors in Baghdad before his arrest, saying he was suffering from gender-identity disorder. He included a picture of himself dressed as a woman and talked about how it was affecting his ability to do his job and even think clearly."¹

In 1992, he would have been asked by recruiters prior to enlistment if he were or ever had been homosexual.  He would have been asked by Security Clearance investigators the same question.  It would have disqualified him for a clearance and entry into the military.

In 2002, he would not have been asked, but had he told, he would have been removed from the military.  In 2009 & 2010, when he told that he was homosexual, he was supposed to have been removed from the military.  The picture above comes from Manning's FB page and was posted prior to his arrest.  His defense for his crimes is that his homosexuality drove him to commit espionage.  His spymaster's (Julian Assange) defense against sexual assault charges is that his homosexuality prevents him from having (wanted to have) assaulted those women.

Manning's defense specifically asked the investigators if they had looked for the gay defense evidence.

"We already knew before we arrived that Pfc. Manning was a homosexual," Special Agent Toni Graham said.

Veterans Don't Want Your Pity...

... not even if you call it "compassion, sympathy," or "intellectual empathy."  We are not "victims," even if you prefer to use the term "survivors."  Why do I bring this up?  For years, the media has been portraying Veterans and Troops as victims of circumstances beyond their control.  Recently, even the Washington Post (please note that the gratitude demonstrated by Kid Rock should not be confused with pity of intellectuals) noted that Veterans and Troops feel the pity of Citizens, rather than Respect, for what we have done.  But more to the point, a particular reader has been attempting to justify her feelings of sympathy for our "misfortune" to me.  She has changed the labels, over time, as I've explained why we don't want pity, and how we are not victims, but the underlying attitude has not changed.

In recent decades, it has become unpopular to use words that define certain things.  Instead, alternate words are used to re-label the same concept, in a more politically correct manner, altering the meaning of the new word, while not changing the reality of that being defined.  Sometimes, these new labels are applied for political purposes, such as changing "War" to "Overseas Contingency Operation," which does nothing to alter the reality on the ground.  When an enemy is setting off explosives and shooting bullets at you, it doesn't matter what the politicians want to call it, it is combat, even if they label an Infantryman a "Non-Combat Troop," and the enemy, "man-made disaster makers."

What is a victim?  According to Merriam-Webster:

 

The Difference between MedEvac & CasEvac: Video Update

It never ceases to astound me that the self-proclaimed experts are so ignorant of the basic terms and definitions and too lazy to find the definitions they wish to elaborate on.  In recent months, that has been one self-published journalist on a crusade to remove MedEvac markings from DustOff helicopters.  He has recently proclaimed that the definitions of CasEvac and MedEvac are just too murky to figure out, for him, and hence beyond the comprehension of his readers, the Generals, and politicians he's trying to convince.  Previously, he couldn't figure out what "Arab" means.

So what does the Army say is the difference?

a. Medical Evacuation. MEDEVAC is defined in FM 8-10-6as the timely, efficient movement and en route care by medical personnel of the wounded, injured, and ill persons, from the battlefield and other locations to MTFs (medical treatment facilities). The term MEDEVAC refers to both ground and air assets. Divisions are equipped with both ground and air MEDEVAC assets.

b. Casualty Evacuation. CASEVAC is defined as movement of casualties to initial treatment facilities and movement of casualties to MTFs in the combat zone. It does not include en route care by medical personnel and implies that nonmedical assets (UH-60s or CH-47s) are being used to move casualties. CASEVAC should only be used when the unit has a large number of casualties (exceeding the ability of the MEDEVAC aircraft to carry) or MEDEVAC is not available.

Those Pesky Veterans Are Bankrupting the Nation?

To hear some people talk about it, the Nation can no longer afford to provide Health Care and Disability payments to Our Veterans.  The Obama Administration says they need to pay for their own health care to a greater degree.  We "all" need to "share in the sacrifice."  And others point to 10 years of war and question how we could possibly afford to fulfill Our National promise and obligation to those that volunteered to put their lives in harm's way.  Surely, the number of Veterans in the Nation is rising, and the number that have earned disability checks and care for their injuries is rising as well, right?

No.  As of 2007 (VA's most recent information), there were 3x as many Veterans over 65 than under 40. Of Our Living Veterans, more than 39% are over 64. In fact there were twice as many Veterans over 80 than there are Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.  As of the end of 2006, according to CBS (in 2009), 947,000 Viet Nam Veterans were receiving compensation for their disabilities.  This compares to only 181,000 current conflict Veterans receiving compensation (of at least $1).  "Officially" we've been at war longer, and in two Nations, than we were in Viet Nam, though that doesn't account for the early years of the Viet Nam War.

Why are there so many more Viet Nam Veterans than current conflict Veterans?  A greater burden has been placed on a smaller number of people.  In Viet Nam, a very high percentage of Veterans did one deployment and one term of enlistment.  In today's conflicts, a very high percentage of Troops have served multiple tours.  And we have fewer Troops deployed.

Sex Crimes in the Military

There are facts and suppositions, followed by hype and speculation, that swirl around the question of sexual assaults, rape, and deviant behavior in the Military.  Fortunately, actual facts and figures are also available, even if under-reported in the media.  Unfortunately, some of the data is still presented in murky terms.  Let's face it, politics and social causes do not always want to report the facts.

I have not weighed in on this issue previously, because I didn't have the hard data to provide a true assessment.  Fortunately, I now have a copy of the Download DoD_Fiscal_Year_2010_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault_in_the_Military (2) report on the issue.  There is good news in it, but it is a very long report, 622 pages.  And even at that, I contend that some of the data is defined poorly. 

I have NO sympathy for perpetrators of sexual crimes.  It appalls me that some that wear the uniform commit such crimes, but I also recognize that Our Troops come from all walks of life, and represent a small slice of the civilian population from which they are drawn.  I find that the punishments in both civilian and military life for these crimes is insufficient, but also that the majority of Americans would not support the severity of what I do believe to be appropriate.

Also, I recognize the reasons why a victim of sexual assault might decide not to report the crime, or to decide not to pursue prosecution, though I wish that all victims would pursue prosecution to the maximum extent of the law.  I know victims that have not reported it, that did not even tell me, until it was beyond anyone's ability to take the appropriate actions.  I would encourage those that are victims of such crimes to report it as soon as possible, and to seek the counsel of a trusted leader if they are in doubt as to how to handle it.  The NCO's I've known and respected have taken as dismal an opinion of the criminals involved as have I.

I also have a strong belief in the right of the accused to a fair trial, and to face their accusers.  I have known some that have been falsely accused and some that falsely accused others, almost exclusively in the civilian world.  The American Justice system rests on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and this does make prosecution difficult in many cases of sexual assault.

So, on to the good news!  Of all investigations initiated by the military, prior to October 1st, 2009, only 45 were incomplete as of October 1st, 2010 and 1,614 investigations were completed in FY10 of new cases (3,158).  And of the Combat Zone reports in FY 2010 only 163 (251 victims) of the alleged attackers were in the military.  I would like to present the comparison to FBI data of similar crimes in the civilian population, but my searches for that information provided me with only estimates, rather than with the hard statistics I've looked at in previous years.

Of the cases resolved (1614 of those completed in 2010, including 980 initiated in prior years), only 85% were alleged to have been a US Service member attacker.  There were 1759 victims in those cases and 26% were "wrongful sexual contact" as opposed to rape (28%) or aggravated sexual assault (30%).  Disciplinary action was taken in 1,025 cases in FY2010, but not taken in 910 cases.  The primary reason for no punitive actions were that the victim declined to participate in the case (334 cases) or a lack of evidence (335 cases).  In 344 cases, the defendant was cleared of a sexual crime (101 cases cleared of all wrongdoing).  In some cases, the US Military did not have jurisdiction (i.e. the defendant was not US Military) or was completely unknown.

I must stress, the cases involved include those that are not a Violent Criminal Sexual Attack.  They do include inappropriate sexually based actions.  I wish I could break down the statistics precisely, but the information is just not presented well enough, even in 622 pages, to be 100% what the breakdown is.  And even where the information is precise, it sometimes conflicts with itself (minorly) in the same report.

But there is also supposition in the report.  And that has been used by politicians and "activists" to misportray reality.  In fact, in researching the information here, I came across a politician who seems to do so purposefully, or for lack of ability to read.  As I mentioned, I understand why a victim would choose not to report.  I know more victims of sexual assault than I care to believe is "normal," in American society.  And those are almost exclusively civilian sector attacks.  But how does one accurately assess the true incidence of sexual assault versus the number reported?

In order to combat sexual crimes, one must make potential victims and potential heroes aware of how to report it, how to stop it, and ensure that authority figures know how to not make it worse should it occur.  The Military has gone to great lengths to make sure all Service Members have the information necessary to not only stop an assault, but to ensure that the criminals are prosecuted and removed from the ranks.  By doing so, this increases the percentage of victims that will report it.  That is a good thing.

More than 92% of US Troops have faith in the Military System to do the right thing, and believe that they have been given sufficient information to take the correct actions, should they become aware of such a crime.  The Military has a system in place that completely protects a victim, even should they be unwilling to "go on the record."  It is called a "restricted report."  What this means is that victims are more likely to report a sexual assault in the Military than outside the Military.  There are literally layers of leaders and specialists to go to.  A victim does not have to ask a stranger (Law Enforcement) to believe them, nor to tell someone that knows them.  They can get personal help, even if they aren't willing to take the stand in prosecuting the culprit.

But there is a percentage of Troops in the Military who report "unwanted sexual contact" in blind surveys.  What does that mean?  Well, for one person, it may be a hand on the shoulder from someone they suspect of wanting more, while for another it may be an "accidental" bump that they don't think was accidental, or for another an intentional placement of the hand on the butt or thigh.  Quite frankly, the question is flawed and subjective.  That extrapolated percentage is 4.4% of females and 0.9% of males.  It is extrapolated, because they didn't ask everyone and then they used the percentages to suggest how many might have experienced it.  "They" then surmised that more than 19,000 Troops (of more than 1.4 Million) had experienced an "unwanted sexual contact."  From that, "they" suggested that "unwanted sexual contacts" were reported only 29% of the time.

That politician I mentioned?  She turned that "unwanted sexual contact" into "sexual assault."  Yeah, that's a LOT more dramatic.  She also turned the statistics around.  Instead of that representing 29% of reported "unwanted sexual contacts," it became 13% of reported "sexual assaults."  The press (ABC) took her "statistics" as gospel, without reading the 622 page report for themselves.  She is Rep Jackie Speier, D-CA.  She got 44 co-sponsors (in 24 hours) for her bill based on the erroneous information, and introduced a new Non-Profit to profit off of the falsehoods.  And that was reported on the 17th of November, i.e. last week.

There were 3,158 reports of sexual misconduct in the military, including 2,410 unrestricted reports and 882 restricted reports, filed in 2010.  Of those, 134 of the restricted reports were later converted to unrestricted.  That means that 2,410 cases (of all sexual misconduct) can be investigated and 747 cannot be prosecuted, but those 747 can get the victim assistance they need. If DoD's percentages are correct, that would be less than 11,000 cases of sexual misconduct (as opposed to the larger number of cases of "unwanted sexual contact" or the smaller number of those that would be rape.)  But 92+% in the military trust the military to do the right thing, so even that number seems high.

Of those 2,410 reports in 2010, 1033 were reported within 3 days, while another 619 were reported within 1 month, and 378 forensic examinations were performed, including those that filed 111 'restricted reports.'  This affects the capacity to prosecute cases because the least subjective evidence is the forensic evidence, and the greater the amount of time after the incident, the harder it is to prove.  37% of victims declined to participate in prosecution of the culprit, which further complicates the ability to put criminals behind bars.  Without the testimony of the victim, which should not be compelled against her will but should compel every protection for her, prosecution may be impossible.  93% of all Service Members understood their responsibility to stop a sexual assault if they were to witness it.

ONE sexual assault IS too many, but again we have to realize that the Military is a small slice from across the American population.  The Military must (and does) prosecute and toss out those bad apples, but no test will 100% prevent them from slipping through the screening process.  It does no  good to inflate the numbers (aside from those that profit financially or politically from inflated numbers).

So, how do we "fix" this?  First, by accurately reflecting the problem.  Secondly, by ensuring the potential victims understand that Military Leaders won't tolerate the scumbags that do it.  Thirdly, by ensuring that false accusations (as opposed to unsubstantiated cases) are prosecuted as well.  I.e. by ensuring the actual criminals are punished severely and that the innocents are protected.  The "innocents" being those falsely accused and those attacked.  Persecutions of those unjustly accused simply adds to the disbelief against those that falsely portray their innocence.  Future "juries" of one's peers should not be contaminated by the memory of someone they know to have been unjustly prosecuted.  We have to rely on the evidence and facts, despite knowing that some of the guilty will go free.

And for the bad news.  Ten percent of those unrestricted reports and 13% of those restricted reports were male victims.  This is not the kind of thing the proponents of the repeal of DADT want to talk about.  Why?  Because that means there IS a problem, even in the military where homosexuality was not allowed, with homosexual sexual violence.  It means there is a HUGE sexual violence problem in the sexual crimes of secretly homosexual community.  Even Rep Speier included this male-male sexual violence.  One-third of those she put on stage were male victims and 1/2 of those quoted by the ABC report were.  If there is an under-reported aspect to sexual violence, it is homosexual (male-male) sexual attacks. 

And here, I will go to the Download DoJ Rape Survey 2010, because I can't find their hard facts.  The DoJ finds, through contracted surveys that 1 in 1000 adult men, 92,748, are raped 1.2x annually, and that 90% of them are raped by men.  It estimates there are 876,064 cases of females raped annually, or 8.7 rapes per 1000 women. That is ONLY rape, not the additional categories of sexual crimes reported by the Department of Defense. 

And those numbers get considerably worse.  The Survey suggests that 1.9% of all American male kids and 9.0% of female children were raped.  It says that .8% of the females were raped by females and 89% of males were raped by males.  It says that 21.6% of female children raped were less than 12 years old and 48% of males raped were less than 12.  If true, that means 9,062,730 women were raped as a child, and 1,762,212 males were, including 1,548,369 men that were raped by men, when they were still a kid.  It means that 72,502 women were raped by women when they were kids.

According to the DoJ survey, 743,217 American men were raped before they were 12 years old, 661,463 of them being raped by a homosexual male.  That is 60,133 cases of homosexual rape on boys under 12, every year.  Why is the lesser number of male victims relevant.  Because there are fewer homosexual males conducting a larger percentage of rapes than there are heterosexual males doing the same.  According to some, between 2% and 13% of the population is homosexual. If we go with 10%, that means out of a population of 9,274,800 homosexual men, 661,463 male children under 12 were raped, or an incidence rate of 7.13% of the population, or 16.7% of boys raped before they were 18, contrasted with 9% of all female children and 14.8% of ALL women who have been raped during their entire lifetime.

ALL rape is despicable but the rape of children is far more despicable because the victim is robbed of innocence, is scarred for life, and is unable to defend themselves.  I did not set out to highlight the incidence of homosexual sexual predators, nor did I expect to come across that information.  It's not "politically correct" to mention such things.  But not talking about it does not make it go away.

What else should be done?  Well, one must also look at who are the victims and who are the perpetrators of the crimes.  Overwhelmingly, these are lower ranks and younger individuals.  Why is that pertinent?  Well, because if we are to accurately gauge the difference between military and civilian assaults we must know what age group we are comparing, on both sides of the coin.

And with the majority of sexual assaults in the military occurring among those under 26, the closest data we have is sexual assaults on College Campuses.  According to some estimates, the rate of rape at College is between 20% and 25% of all female students.  And, one in 12 male college students admitted activity that met legal definitions of rape.  In comparison, Our Troops are boy scouts, even if one were to believe the worst case "estimates."

What else can we do to prevent the problem?  Instruct ALL women in self-defense and situational awareness.  It is NEVER the fault of the victim, even if she's walking naked through a drug infested ghetto, and even if she's known for promiscuity, but knowing what NOT to do, knowing what to do, can mean she's never in the situation.  It is always the criminal's fault for the crimes he commits, but if we empower women to exact pain on the perpetrator, fewer cases will exist for prosecution.

I am under no illusion that sexual assault will ever be 100% reported or 100% eliminated, whether in or out of the Military.  It should never be condoned or covered up.  There will always be a few cases of false allegations and there must always be a presumption of innocence.  But when we catch a sexual predator, we must investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.  We cannot force victims to relive the crime, and must protect them to the extent legally possible, but that protection must include the encouragement to put the criminal behind bars for the longest possible time, to prevent the possibility of other victims.  And because even one attack is too many, we should not attempt to falsify the numbers for political or financial purposes.

It appears that in 2010 there were approximately 884 allegations of rape in the military and if the 29% report rate is close to being right, approximately 3,050 total rapes, in a population of 1.65 Million, or an incident rate of less than 1.85 per 1000, which is far less than the civilian population, and extremely less than the college population (250 per 1000), which is the closest comparison in demographics.

UPDATE: Of FY2010 cases in the US Army, 791 Service Members, of 956 assailants, were alleged in the crimes against 945 victims, including 690 Service Members.   There were 396 allegations of rape against a Soldier (474 allegations total), 93 Soldiers of 120 allegations of Non-consensual Sodomy, 287 Soldiers of 326 cases alleged to have committed Aggravated Sexual Assault, and 32 of 37 allegations against Soldier of Aggavated Sexual Contact. There 365 allegations (of 433 cases) of Abusive or Wrongful Sexual Contact or Indecent Assault.  Allegations of sexual misconduct were more likely to occur in non-combat rather than combat areas.

The Army closed 1028 cases in FY2010.  300 (29%) were court-martialed.  161 Allegations (15.6%) were deemed to have insufficient evidence to proceed, following an investigation.  Of the 131 cases 12.7% where the victim chose not to participate in prosecution, 1 suspect was court-martialed and 26 were given Non-Judicial Punishment. 65 cases (6.3%) were tried by non-US Military authorities (civilian or foreign military).  8 Defendants and 3 Victims died prior to prosecution. 

The Army investigates EVERY "unrestricted" allegation of sexual assault, with an average investigation time of 93 days.  As of October 1, 2010, 520 of 1390 investigations initiated in 2010 were pending completion. 41% of (572) victims reported the crime within 72 hours, while 7% (102) reported it after a full year.  42% (582) of non-combat zone attacks occured on weekends. 935 of the crimes occured between 6pm and 6am (off-duty hours).  11 victims filing an unrestricted report and 15 filing an unrestricted report, reported an incident that occured prior to entrance in the US Army.

50 of 373 resticted cases involved a male victim, while in 27 cases the sex of the victim was not reported. 4 of 37 restricted cases in a combat zone involved a male victim.

Looking through the cases (posted in this section), it appears a great number are between Initial Entry Trainees and a good number of the cases involve groping, rather than rape.

If there is one thing that the US Military should be good at, it is defining the terms used, but they always seem to throw in a catchall, general term on top of an otherwise specific definition.  Some of the definitions they include are:

 

For the purpose of this Directive and SAPR awareness training and education, the term ‘sexual assault’ is defined as intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or cannot consent. Sexual assault includes rape, forcible sodomy (oral or anal sex), and other unwanted sexual contact that is aggravated, abusive, or wrongful (to include unwanted and inappropriate sexual contact), or attempts to commit these acts.

Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 6495.01, is current as of October 6, 2005.

‘Consent’ means words or overt acts indicating a freely given Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)  Program

"Restricted Reporting:" Allows a Service member to report or disclose to specified officials that he orshe has been the victim of a sexual assault. This reporting option gives the member access to medical care, counseling, and victim advocacy, without requiring those specific officials to automatically report the matter to law enforcement or initiate an official investigation.

DoDD 6495.01. Washington, DC: DoD. E2.1.10 *Note: Victims in California cannot submit to a forensic examination while maintaining victim confidentiality.  In all other areas of the military, victims of rape can submit to a forensic examination with confidentiality.  In such cases, the evidence is maintained for 11 months, before the victim must decide to unrestrict the report, for purposes of prosecution, or allow the evidence to be destroyed at the 1 year mark.  This affects victims in Arizona as well, since the treatment center is in California.

 

DoDD 6495.01 defines Unrestricted Reporting as: A Service member who is sexually assaulted and desires medical treatment, counseling, and an official investigation of his or her allegation should use existing reporting channels (e.g., chain of command, law enforcement, or report the incident to the SARC). When notified of a reported sexual assault, the SARC will immediately assign a [SAPR] VA. Additionally, at the victim’s discretion or request, the healthcare provider shall arrange a SAFE (forensic examination) to be conducted, which may include the collection of evidence. Details regarding the incident will be limited to only those personnel who have a legitimate need to know.

Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis. The definition included both attempted and completed rape. 
Department of Justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the "Right" Size for the Military Force?

The current Administration has requested and gotten approved cuts of 49,000 US Soldiers, in the Active Army alone.  In 2009, it began to cut 20,000 from the National Guard, quietly, without publicity.  This year, Fiscal Year 2012, which began on October 1, 2011, begins the Active Army's implementation of the 1st cuts implemented by the current Administration.  This is not the first time in military history that the military has been reduced in size, but it is the first time that it has occurred during a war.  And the Secretary of Defense, along with members of the Joint Chiefs have warned that these cuts may not be over.

This begs the question: How big must the military be in order to succeed in it's mission?  Well, the answer depends on the question of what the politicians expect our military to be able to do?  And here we need the historical context of how that has changed in the last 3 decades.

In the 1980's, we faced an expanding Empire, that challenged the United States and Our Allies technologically, as well as exceeded our numerical capacity.  Our Allies in Europe and Asia understood the threat that Communism posed and helped bridge the numerical disadvantage, while we accelerated our technological edge and developed a Professional edge in Troops that volunteered to stand the wall, and in sufficient numbers dedicated their lives to that pursuit.  The mission was defined as the capacity to fight and win TWO prolonged wars/fronts simultaneously.

Yon Crosses Special Forces

What does Yon do when people, including current and retired Troops oppose his rhetoric?  He attempts to shut them down.  What does Yon do when he is caught in a lie?  He makes allegations in an attempt to shut up those with proof of the truth.

Recently, an online forum of  Veterans and Actively serving Special Forces began discussing Yon's recent crusade against Army DustOff.  The question of the forum, "Quiet Professionals" was what their thoughts were of Yon's call and petition to have the Red Cross markings removed from Army MedEvac helicopters.  A few of their members had opinions about the concept, and of the author of the referenced article.  The opinions on the subject matter were strong, but the opinions on the author were to become strong in the manner in which Yon (mis)behaved himself. 

A retired SF Team Sergeant noted: "From what I understand Yon has been "escorted" off some Special Operations bases"

"In any case, insinuations that I have been kicked off of SF facilities damage your standing unless you can provide evidence. None exists; it never happened."  Michael Yon, 26 Oct 2011 1:14AM, continuing with a veiled threat: "I have turned down those opportunities steadily since 2005. Perhaps I should list the reasons. I think you would rather I not."

I've been around enough Special Forces Soldiers enough to know that threats are not well-received, and rarely work out well for the person who issues them.  I've long believed that the silence from the SF community in regards to Yon was primarily a "professional courtesy" as they are not known for public battles.  That is the reason they gained the nickname, "The Quiet Professionals."  They do great deeds with little public recognition, and rarely talk about it outside their own circles.

Who is "Wall Street" and Who Calls for Occupying It for What Reason?

... And What do the Occupiers want?

Wall Street is America.  If you have a 401k, a Mutual Fund, an IRA, a Roth, a TSP, or stocks or mutual fund of any kind, YOU are Wall Street.  Those shareholdersthat CEO's report to?  That's YOU!  The Dow Jones Industrial Average is often cited as an economic barometer, as well as the S&P 500, and other "baskets of stock."  When your retirement account decreases or increases in value, that is a result of ALL shareholders, i.e. Wall Street, making their micro-predictions on how well the company and its slice of the American economy will perform.  When you buy stock, you are buying a part of company.  You become a business owner by buying shares in a corporation.  Chances are you are Wall Street.

The people occupying a park in New York City, and marching in various cities around the Nation and World, claim to be "the 99%."  With the ultra-rich like Nancy Pelosi & George Soros backing them, they're not the 99% who aren't rich.  And with a great portion of Americans owning stock in some manner, there aren't 99% who don't own stocks.  With nearly half of America paying taxes, they're not the 99% who pay or who don't pay taxes.  With the majority of Americans having health insurance, they're not the 99% who do or don't have that.  So, evidently they are the 99% who fictionalize statistics.

The Occupiers claim to be leaderless, but the protests were started by self-described anti-capitalists, a group called AdBusters. Affiliated protest groups have sprung up in dozens of cities across America, as well as countries around the world. The "Occupy" movement was started June 9th, 2011 by a man in Vancouver, Kalle Lasn, and advertised in his own anti-capitalist website/magazine "Adbusters." It receives leadership and support from Van Jones, George Soros, and Nancy Pelosi, as well as others in the super rich category.  Therein lies the hypocrisy, because the claim to being the "99%" is that they are the 99% with less than $593,000/year in income, while Soros, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Pelosi, Keith Ellison, Obama, et.al. are Millionaires or Billionaires.

They have the support of rich Hollywood types such as Michael Moore, Roseanne Barr, Susan Sarandon, and Tom Morello.  Other celebrities lending their support include Keith Olbermann, Anti-Flag, Margaret

Ignoring the Threat of China

Few would deny that China's red star is rising in the world.  In recent years, China has completed the Yellow River Dam, became the largest foreign debt holder of the US Government, and taken over shelf space in American Stores.  Relations between the US and China during the Cold War were a chilly alliance of convenience aimed at developing fear that China would capitalize on any US-Soviet confrontation, by taking over the undefended scraps of the Soviet's soft undefended underbelly.

In decades past, the Chinese had one primary military asset, that could not be ignored: A Billion People they could throw at a regional threat.  And they demonstrated how effective that could be in the Korean War.  When Americans pushed the North Korean Army to the Northern reaches of the Korean Peninsula, the Chinese sent their hordes over the frozen Yalu River to force a standstill that protected Communism's southern flank in Asia. 

The parallels to Task Force Smith can not be ignored today.  Following WWII, President Truman had so slashed the military that North Korea (along with the Soviets and Chinese Communists) felt emboldened to take the rest of Korea by force.  The most that could be mustered to stop the invasion was a small task force, ill-equipped with outdated arms.  The United States alone lost 38,516 Troops alone in a war often forgotten, while more than 778,000 Allied Troops, 2.5 Million civilians, and more than 1.1 Million North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet Troops died in the war that has not been ended officially, and ended in a stalemate of lines in the same place it started.

Yon "Fears a Fobbit"

Michael Yon has made a lot of claims of feats and fame, but fear hasn't been something he's readily admitted.  He claims to have been one of "the youngest green berets" ever minted without explaining why he left the military at the rank of E5, which is unheard of in the Special Forces world.  He has admitted to having killed a man in a bar with his bare hands, without explaining how the court dismissed the case.

But his nemesis is a man he calls a "fobbit" and "crazy."  That man is MSG CJ Grisham, who has been bold enough to admit that he fights PTSD.  CJ has documented his struggles, not so the world around him will feel pity, but to encourage other Troops struggling with it to accept the help that is available.  CJ readily tells the world he doesn't want pity. 

Yon, so distorts the picture of "his fears" that one of his fans alerted the Secret Service.  The fan thought the threat was to the President, not some low-level yapper "reporting" from the confines of a FOB in Afghanistan.  But what was the threat that scares Yon so much?

“I want to rip his head off and piss down his windpipe!” CJ Grisham in response to a verbally graphic description by Yon of a Soldier's death.

Such a statement would likely shock a civilian, as it is designed to do, but be remembered by every Soldier that ever went through Basic Training.  To date, no basic trainee's neck has literally been ripped off, nor necks pissed down, nor have any of the more nasty threats normally associated with this line been executed.  Why? Because the "threat" represents hyperbole, and a sense of disgust fully appreciated by the Drill Sergeant and the Basic Trainee that hears it.  And drill sergeants don't say it as if it's a mere desire, but that it is an event that will happen.

In reading Yon's account, some came to the conclusion that CJ had raped Iraqis, murdered Iraqis, or threatened the President.  CJ has done none of those things, but one of Yon's readers alerted the Secret Service in response.

Yon went through basic training, though he doesn't seem to have learned much there.  In other words, Yon knows this is not a threat to his life.  But Yon is a "green beret," a green wooly hat, according to his story and he has criticized CJ as being a "fobbit" though the record shows CJ has been in combat more than Yon has taken pictures of it. 

Does the "green beret" Yon really fear death from the "fobbit" CJ?  No.  Yon may be afraid to go outside the wire or he may fear that his paypal account will dry up, but he's not really afraid of CJ becoming violent.  He may be afraid that CJ will provide the final nail in his coffin of his embedding career, and more importantly his paypal donations, but if you believe any account from Yon, of his exploits, you can not realistically believe he fears "some fobbit" many miles away from him.  This is just more drama from the drama queen.

CJ's pen is mightier than his sword.  And CJ has demonstrated Yon's OPSEC violations.  In response, Yon has a long history of attempting to get CJ thrown out of the Military.

Am I a member of the "CJ cult?"  No, but I do have respect for a Warrior, who has gone through the trials of combat (unlike Yon), the trials of PTSD, and provided the example to his Troops of how to deal with these things.  I have however, been banned by Yon, from providing any alternate side of any story.  Yon may complain about censorship, but the record shows Yon's very prolific with it.  CJ and I don't always agree, but when we don't, we disagree in a mature manner and discuss the issues as adults.

The Tarnak Saga:
1)  The Bridge Over the River Tarnak Looking at Fact and Fiction of the incident
2)  From Tarnak Bridge to Bruhaha Looking at Yon's obsession for Menard
3)  The Tarnak Scalp That Wasn't  Looking at Yon's claims of scalping Menard
4)  The Yon Conspiracy Over Tarnak: Looking at Yon's Conspiracy Theory Origins

Deviant Behavior
1)  Yon OPSEC Violations: It can't be more blatant but some are in disbelief
2)  Yon Publicizes Video of American Soldier Losing Legs.
3) Banned By Yon!
4) Yon's Attack on PTSD as insanity
5) The Banning of an Angel

Chuck Z Makes Peace with Yon

More Links  (and far from comprehensive but I may add to the list as I can):

Diplomacy of Doves has Failed for Arrogance and Weakness

Politicians are often labeled Hawks or Doves, preferring calls for "negotiations" and/or diplomacy to resolve conflicts, or a strong National Defense and expressed willingness to use those forces to reduce threats to National Security, and deter misbehavors from acting on their desires.

The same parties known as Doves, focus on domestic spending programs, while the party of Hawks has traditionally protected the DoD budget from unacceptable cuts.  The Doves seem to envy the DoD budget, seeing it as money they could use instead to buy Chinese Solar Panels, Chinese made Black Berets, to build Turtle Tunnels, and Multi-Million dollar Monkey Pagodas so 7 monkeys can live in captivated style.  The Doves may claim to be "strong on Defense" but even "The One" who campaigned to place Afghanistan as his top priority, to put diplomacy ahead of the use of force, has done the opposite.

But does the party of diplomacy live up to its slogans?  Have Our Alliances been strengthened and Our Enemies weakened during the era of purported Diplomacy?  Is America more respected now than it was 4 years ago?  Are we safer?  Have our enemies fled the field of battle to negotiate peace and reconciliation?  Or are old allies turning to alliances and friendships with our old enemies?

Not Paying Their Fair Share! Troops & Veterans!?!

Well, the POTUS has declared that he has a plan to reduce the deficit by $1Trillion to $4 Trillion over the next 10 years, depending on what part of his marketing you're reading.  He has said that it's time for all of us to pay our "fair share," and pointed to the words of one of his biggest contributors: Warren Buffett.  Buffett is an astute investor who was able to put together a few million in campaign donations for Obama (and for Hillary) in 2008, ensuring they backed TARP which netted Buffett a few billion more in net worth.

Buffett has campaigned for higher taxes on the rich, for as long as he's been an Obama supporter.  To hear the spin, Buffett is paying less in taxes than his secretary, but Buffett doesn't say that being rich, he doesn't need (and likely doesn't take much of) an income.  He doesn't say how much he pays his secretary, but evidently, this translates into needing to raise taxes on those that make $250k/year, as opposed to the tens of billions that Buffett has in wealth.  At any rate, the reported increase in taxes on the small segment of America would supposedly increase tax revenue by $35 Billion, less than the worth of Warren Buffett, and a small part of the total claimed deficit reduction.  At best, it's a token (<1% to 3.5% of the claimed savings) and a slogan, to politicians, but a helluva cut in takehome pay for the people that employee others.

So, who are these miscreants that aren't paying their fair share?  The ones that will pay to balance the budget deficit?  Well, Military Retirees are evidently a big part of those not paying their fair share.  While the POTUS and his SecDef talk out of both sides of their mouths, the POTUS plans to slash military retirement pay and benefits.  Evidently, Twenty years of risking life and limb, of sacrificing comfort, and time with family, is insufficient to earn a full retirement.  He wants an "independent" commission to rubber stamp his idea of cutting up to 44 years of retirement pay($21 Billion).  And he wants those that do retire to pay for it themselves, with a 401k plan, instead of a retirement plan.

And those health benefits, earned by wounds, injuries, and constantly beating up their bodies?  To get those, the military retirees should pay $200 more in the first year (and increasing every year) to get those treated.  That's $7 Billion more Obama sees in new taxes, er, "savings."  He also wants to increase, again, the amount Combat Veterans pay for their prescriptions to get another $20.6 Billion out of our Veterans.  It seems our Veterans will pay more than the "evil" rich people that sign our checks.

And the $500 Billion he's already asked to be cut from the Department of Defense?  Oh, that's only part of what he thinks should be cut.  He wants to cut another $260 Billion cut and claims another $1 Trillion will be saved by retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan.  Nevermind that he's already planned to retreat from both, and already claimed those savings from doing so.  Nevermind that we're talking about a 10 year plan in a city where only the budget for next year is sometimes approved.

He also wants to cut Medicare ($248 Billion) and Medicaid (and TriCare for Troops and Veterans).  These are likely as much smoke and mirrors as the rest, but he claims his plan will cut $320 Billion over 10 years, beginning in 2017, when someone else would take the blame, if it ever got passed by the 2017 Congress, and it won't.  Oh, yeah, he'll veto it, if he doesn't get to tax the rich, but the 2017 budget won't be passed until at least 2016, so this isn't going to happen.

So, evidently, the biggest portion of people that Obama thinks are not paying their fair share are the Troops, Veterans, the Elderly, Farmers($2Billion), and the poor.  Those are the people from whom he expects to extract 96+% of his budget savings ($965 Billion to $3.65 Trillion), not those "evil" rich people like Warren Buffett and the guy that signs your paycheck($35 Billion).

And, yeah, a portion of that money he's claiming is based on his speculation that the economy will grow over the next 10 years, increasing the taxes we all pay.  Supposedly, the way that will happen is that by increasing our debt, we'll get more tax revenue.  We all saw the signs for that in 2009.  He told us then that if we didn't spend twice as much as he wants to charge us now, unemployment would be 8+%.  When he got his party to pass that, unemployment jumped from 7% to 10% and we haven't seen less than 9% since. 

So, when Obama and Panetta, look the Troops in the eyes, and say "We can't break faith"  with those fighting Our "contingency operations," that's called a poker face.  When they say they will fight to preserve the DoD Budget, now that they've already cut it by $500 Billion?  That's a bald-faced lie.

So, per his claims:
$1 Trillion from retreat from Iraq/Afghanistan.
$320 Billion from Medicare/Medicaid ($248 Billion Medicare)
$260 Billion more from the DoD Budget (on top of the other $500 Billion he already cut)
$47.5+ Billion from Military Retirees
$35 Billion from taxing employers (i.e. the "evil" rich)

And with all that, (or the bigger $4Trillion), he still won't have cut as much in 10 years, as he has increased the debt in 3 years. ($5 Trillion) while cutting the DoD by $500 Billion.

The Plan?