Leadership Archives
"Common Sense," Indeed
By Lt Col P
One of our senior legislators gave an interesting take on the nature of responsibility and accountability two days ago:
""I don't want to be critical of the committee. But common sense dictates that members of Congress shouldn't be held responsible for what could be mistakes by staff unless there's reason to believe the member knew or should have known," Rangel said."
Think again.
You're the man in charge; you've been at this game for years. You know the deal.
With great power and authority comes great responsibility. Ask any battery commander or ship's captain who's been relieved for what a subordinate did or did not do. Try that line on them and they'll laugh in your face.
The ultimate accounting for a pol comes at the ballot box. In his case, I think he might just get another pass. Sad.
How Much Is Private?
By Townie 76
From today's New York Times, Captain (Retired) Shannon Meehan is quoted.
'“To me,” Mr. Meehan said, “the healing power of being able to write through everything, talk through everything, really helped me make order of it.”'
Victory: Accept No Substitutes
By Lt Col P
Check this out, a very interesting opinion piece from yesterday's WaPo about the nascent Iraq.
But my Iraqi friends were surprisingly upbeat about the future, even after Sunday's terrible bombings. "In every sector, Iraq is coming back to its normal mode," said one. "There is no way it will slip back," insisted the other. I wondered at their confidence on such a day, but that is part of the Iraqi toughness.Rather than talking about the bombings, we talked politics. My friends sharply criticized the incumbent prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. But as we were debating, one turned to me with a smile: "Here we are talking about who will run the government after the elections. Could you do that in any other country in the Arab world?"
As night fell, Petraeus and his party flew to Camp Victory, near the airport. "Baghdad can be a cruel place," he told me. "You have to keep a grip on your hopes." But as the Black Hawk skimmed over the city, Baghdad seemed to be teeming again, despite the morning's events.
Amen on that. Because of steadfastness and a single-minded pursuit of victory, Iraq has the opportunity to rise above this, as awful as it is. Iraq can be the master of the situation, instead of the victim. Who knows what would have happened if we'd let the BFQs run the show?
Victory: Accept no substitutes.
Beyond Duty Released
By John
Few stories break the heart like Shannon Meehan and Roger Thompson's Iraq War memoir, Beyond Duty. Meehan, a 1st Cavalry Division tank commander and VMI graduate, may as well have titled it "heavy lies the crown," as Beyond Duty is the first book I've read that fully captures the crushing burden of combat leadership.
Meehan and Thompson (a professor of English at VMI), started writing the book after disaster struck -- Meehan, freshly promoted to acting company commander during an offensive into insurgent-infest Baquba, called in an airstrike which killed a house full of Iraqi civilians. Beyond Duty details that fateful day in the prologue, the rest of the story's arc rides wave after wave of hyper-realistic tension ultimately leading to Meehan's antagonizing decision -- send his men into the dragon's mouth and possible death, or safely negate a house full of unknown occupments with a precision guided airstrike.
I've read my share of Iraq and Afghanistan war memoirs, God knows there's plenty of them out there. This, however, is the first "under the helmet" account of the terrifying nature of MOUT operations that I've read. Further, Beyond Duty forces the audience to come to terms with the immense responsibility we place on kids who are often times fresh out of college. The decisions Meehan faced were terrifying, yet through those unforgiving experiences, the light of this wonderful generation of young men and women shone through. The tougher the fight became, the faster Meehan ascended into a strong, confident leader. The great tragedy of Beyond Duty --and indeed it is a tragic tale-- was that after an uninterrupted record of deeply admirable and virtuous leadership, one bad decision completely unraveled Meehan's confidence and demeanor. Indeed, the pain doesn't stop after the wound has healed.
Read Beyond Duty. Understand what we ask of these young men and women, the angry seas we ask them to navigate, the agonies of combat, and the crushing burdens of leadership.
Shannon and Roger will be on the Ed Morrissey Show at 4pm EST, Thursday 24 September. Our friends at WRKO Boston also have a must-listen interview up with Shannon and Roger, click through for the link.
Finally, I'm proud to say that Capt Shannon Meehan will be joining us here at OPFOR full time as a blogger. I expect that will happen when the buzz from Beyond Duty calms (and it's buzzing loudly, folks -- pass the word).
Quote of the Day
By John
"All the guiding principles of military operations grow out of the one basic principle: to strive to the utmost to preserve one's own strength and destroy that of the enemy.... How then do we justify the encouragement of heroic sacrifice in war? Every war exacts a price, sometimes an extremely high one. Is this not in contradiction with "preserving oneself"? In fact, there is no contradiction at all; to put it more exactly, sacrifice and self-preservation are both opposite and complementary to each other. For such sacrifice is essential not only for destroying the enemy but also for preserving oneself - partial and temporary "non-preservation" (sacrifice, or paying the price) is necessary for the sake of general and permanent preservation. From this basic principle stems the series of principles guiding military operations, all of which - from the principles of shooting (taking cover to preserve oneself, and making full use of fire-power to destroy the enemy) to the principles of strategy - are permeated with the spirit of this basic principle. All technical principles and all principles concerning tactics, campaigns and strategy represent applications of this basic principle. The principle of preserving oneself and destroying the enemy is the basis of all military principles."
Mao Tse-tung "Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan" (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 81-82.
Want to get inside the mind of a guerilla? Read Mao. He inspired more successful insurgencies during the 20th century than Lenin ever did.
Good Luck, God Speed to Col P
By John
Ladies, Gents -- our own LtCol P will be jumping off for the CENTCOM AOR within the next 48 hours or so to do God's work with the Marines (who, by the way, seized a major Taliban stronghold this morning).
Good luck Sir! Come back in one piece and leave your enemies in many. And remember Kipling: "they shall praise thy zeal, so long as the red spurt follows the steel."
Sayeth LtCol P... many thanks to all for the kind words and encouragement. I will endeavor to live up to expectations. I must also add that OUR MAN SLAB is also outbound, in his case for a year. Make sure you wish him well, also.
Quote of the Day
By John
“The mission is an 18 yr old with a rifle. All else is support.”
I love it.
Medal of Honor Count Questioned?
By Lt Col P
Saw this yesterday on foxnews.com:
The very nature of this medal requires that its recipients be judged at the highest standards, yet I would not want to think that the count is being sandbagged. (I also don't like the suggestions that numbers of awards are derived from numbers of casualties.) Every act of heroism stands on its own, and we cannot (should not) manufacture or inflate the circumstances surrounding them. I do wish we had living recipients in this war, not because because I'd want anyone to go through what MoH holders have to go through, but because I know we have men like that now in the armed services. And they deserve to be recognized.
Army Tears Down the Cyber Wall: Facebook, Twitter, Flickr No Longer Blocked
By John
This could be the most logical shit I've heard in a while -- "These are sites that soldiers are encouraged to use to get the Army message out. The Army has a presence on these sites. ... There is no reason to block them"
Being a blue-suiter, it's always a little shocking to hear of military units snubbing the safer path in favor of what's best for the service. I'm just not used to it. Here's hoping that the Air Force figures out what everyone already knows. Crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath. Danger Room had the original scoop.
Hero of the Day
By John
Six generations walking the New Orleans beat and an oh-so-little stint in that D-Day hullabalo
Sgt. Major Manuel Curry passed away last week at the age of 84, after serving more than six decades in a city he loved. Officials say he was likely the longest-serving active-duty law enforcement officer in the nation."A true statesman lies before us today, right there," said NOPD Maj. Robert Bardy, who spoke during Curry's funeral mass at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church.
NOPD Chief Warren Riley said that Curry wasn't just a "figurehead."
"Up until his passing, he was still very, very active. Very alert," Riley said. "He still drove a police car, he still went to scenes."
Before joining the NOPD in 1946, Curry served his country in WWII, and saved countless lives as a medic during the D-Day invasion of the beaches of Normandy.
During Hurricane Katrina, the then 80-year-old Curry stayed at his post at the Sixth District.
Another Retiree With Too Much Time on His Hands
By Townie 76
I am a big fan of the Non-Commissioned Officer Corps, and I feel the year of the NCO is a good thing, however the some of the suggestions of Jimmie W. Spencer (CSM, USA RET) in this week’s edition of the Army Times are just plain wrong. They are listed below in quotes and my thoughts on each one are contained below the suggestion.
Read More »
Quote of the Day
By John
Reagan at Normandy
By John
In what I consider to be the finest speech ever delivered by a US president, including Gettysburg.
Opportunity, Missed
By Lt Col P
As promised, a few comments on the article I linked below, on the very beginnings of what turned into the Anbar Awakening. On what could have been, possibly, but wasn't an alternate ending to OIF-2.
Let's get a few things out of the way. First of all, VF is not a publication I normally read. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever read it. Second, the author and the editors probably have a deep-seated policial axe to grind with the Bush Administration. All that being said, the essentials of the story are, as far as I know, correct.
As far as I know. And in this case, I know a good deal. Among other things, Colonel John Coleman (VMI 76, and an exceptional officer) told me the tale a few years ago, when he was about to retire. It was clear to me that this was an exceptional story, and when he suggested (!) that I keep it to myself for obvious reasons, I had no problems with that. Col onel Coleman thought then that this was an effort well worth pursuing. To put it another way, I thought it was a stunning turn of events; if anything, that article is a mild version of events.
What makes Coleman's opinion the key to understanding the opportunity that was offered here-- and missed-- is that if anyone would have been in a position to scoff at counterfeit engagements, it would have been the I MEF leadership. They had been forced, virtually at gunpoint, into a union with the Fallujah Brigade, and had endured more than their share of charlatans and hustlers. (They had also had a taste of the real deals too, like the Showanis.) If Colonel John Coleman thought that the people he met with were speaking with authority, and were capable of doing what they said, he would have the experience to know it.
Furthermore, I have had all of this confirmed by a 3d CAG officer I know well, who was deeply involved with economic engagement before and after this. And, I have seen the documents in Mr Jones's possession, and unless they are very clever fabrications, they bear out the facts. They are priceless historical documents, and I hope they get preserved properly.
I said that, as far as I know, the essentials of the story in the article are true; but I think the author jumps the rails in a few places. For one, he places the blame squarely on the Bush White House. That's one possibility, but not a certainty. There were others involved, and they shouldn't be let off the hook so easily.
What I think is beyond a doubt is that if we had taken the risk and accepted this offer at face value, we'd be a year ahead of where we are now. I have often said that the failure to score a decisive blow at Fallujah in early 2004, or rather the failure to allow I MEF to deliver that blow, set us back a full year. We could have recovered, at a much reduced cost, all of that time and more. And a lot of good men paid the price. But there's nothing to be done about it except to square up to the facts and absorb the lessons.
Bogus Awards Claims
By Townie 76
The Sunday Telegraph reported that a British Major, a member of the Royal Artillery, who was attached to the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Regiment, was arrested for falsifying his accomplishments in order to be awarded a Military Cross.
There has been concern about so-called “medal inflation” creeping into the Armed Forces, under which units have ended up with a larger haul of medals for actions in Helmand than they would have received under similar circumstances in previous conflicts.
Read More »
Is it Treason?
By Townie 76
Sic Semper Tyrannis has been running a serious of articles on the Representative Jane Harman affair, for those who have not been following this rather sordid affair, Representative Harman was wiretapped talking with representatives of foreign intelligence service in which they sought her influence in matters of interest to their nation in return they would try to influence her selection as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Read More »
More On Ricks and the Service Academies
By Lt Col P
As a follow-up tp Townie's post below, go here to see the WaPo online discussion of Ricks' idea to shutter the service academies and send all the would-be cadets to Ivy League institutions, etc etc. There is much to be skewered.
My only comment from the original article is that I have never seen Ivy Leaguers as being particularly dedicated to national service. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can count the number of them I've run across in 20 years in the Marine Corps on the fingers of two hands, with two middle fingers left over. Now, they're all good guys, and good officers, but it's the rest of their alumni I wonder about. I just don't see them beating the path to the all-volunteer force that would suggest it's time to make a big change.
Go, draw your own conclusions. I'm sure Al Qaeda is duly impressed with "crackerjack smart."
Samuel P. Huntington; The Soldier and The State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations
By Townie 76
Samuel P. Huntington; The Soldier and The State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations; Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard University; 1957
Several weeks ago, during my move to Northern Virginia, as I was separating my books into categories, I picked up the late Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State, I did so for two reasons, as he had just recently died I wanted to gander at his first work which had a decided impact on the United States Military and two because of some research I am doing, I thought he would be a good starting point. I first read this book while a Cadet at the Virginia Military Institute, and again while in graduate school, so my intent was only to scan particular chapters of the book. However, once I began reading, the genius of Huntington was once again evident to me, I have gone back and reread the entire book.
Read More »
Hartford: 85-degree roll?
By Bull Nav
That's what Navy Times is reporting.
Investigators think the attack submarine Hartford rolled 85 degrees after it collided with the amphibious transport dock New Orleans in the Strait of Hormuz on March 20, according to a Navy statement.
Not to mention, there was some more damage.
“Despite the roll, engineering investigations have confirmed the propulsion plant of the submarine was unaffected by this collision,” the statement said. “However, Hartford sustained damage to its sail and periscope, as well as the port bow plane.”
The collision punched a 16-by-18 foot hole in New Orleans’ fuel tank, and two interior ballast tanks were damaged, the statement said.
I had heard that the bow plane was damaged, and after examining my model of SCRANTON, it appeared to me that the ship would have to roll at least 75 degrees in order for the bottom of NEW ORLEANS to come in contact with the port bow plane (assuming that the bow of NEW ORLEANS struck the sail of HARTFORD). Also, I noticed that in no picture of HARTFORD was either periscope raised, leading me to conclude that something could have happened to them, too.
They will be spending a long time there getting fixed. Keep the crew in your thoughts and prayers as they have a lot of work to do.
Where Are the Qualified Army Senior Leaders
By Townie 76
Makes one wonder if the Army has anyone on its bench who can be a Combatant Commander, from my foxhole I doubt it.
HARTFORD damage photos
By Bull Nav
Courtesy of the Navy website and Navy Times, there are some telling pictures out today on the damage this fine warship suffered.
090321-N-9909C-211 BAHRAIN (March 21, 2009) The Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Hartford (SSN 768) pulls into Mina Salman pier in Bahrain where U.S. Navy engineers and inspection teams will asses and evaluate damage that resulted from a collision with the amphibious transport dock ship USS New Orleans (LPD 18) in the Strait of Hormuz March 20. Overall damage to both ships is being evaluated. The incident remains under investigation. Hartford is deployed to the U.S. 5th fleet area of responsibility to support maritime security operations. (U.S. Navy photo by Cmdr. Jane Campbell/Released)
CMDR. JANE CAMPBELL / NAVY / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS This photo released by the U.S. Navy shows the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Hartford pulling into Mina Salman pier in Bahrain on Saturday.
There will be more to follow. Suffice it to say this is bad.
Leadership 101
By Lt Col P
The FedEx CEO holds forth on what the Marine Corps taught him, and how he used it to build his business.
Colonel Ripley: In Every Clime and Place
By Lt Col P
I reported for duty with 1st Battalion, 10th Marines (1/10) on 16 June 1990. One of the first battalion events I attended was the farewell parade for Col John Ripley, who was relinquishing command of 2d Marines. (BR (and frequent commenter) Neal was in 3rd Battalion 2d Marines; the CO of that battalion is now Commandant.) You see, at that time, the infantry regiments in 2d Marine Division had "habitual relationships" with the supporting artillery battalions. 2d Marines "owned" 1/10-- and deployed with them to various mountain and cold weather exercises in preparation for the long-anticipated day when we'd have to mount out and defend Norway against the Soviets-- and Col Ripley called us "4/2," the fourth battalion, so to speak, of his regiment, hence our connection to him. From there he went to VMI to take over the Naval ROTC unit.
Read More »
Or, We Could Kill All The Pirates
By Lt Col P
Against the dictates of all common sense, and fine historical examples, this shit is still going on.
On a Vital Route, a Boom in Piracy Somali Marauders Step Up Attacks in Gulf of Aden; Shipping Costs SoarABOARD A YEMENI COAST GUARD VESSEL -- Somali pirates plying the Gulf of Aden in speedboats equipped with grenade launchers and scaling ladders have launched what the maritime industry calls the biggest surge of piracy in modern times, sending shipping costs soaring and the world's navies scrambling to protect the main water route from Asia and the Middle East to Europe.
We have discussed this before, always with the same tone of disbelief. WTF, over? This is an ugly problem, but a simple one, and one that has a remarkably simple solution--
Kill all of the pirates.
Seriously. Why do we allow a handful of khat-addled assholes to dominate one of the world's most important sea lanes? We, the western powers, have sufficient naval units in the area to take care of the problem in very quick order. What we lack is the will. We apply an idiotically high standard of judicial due process to a situation that doesn't lend itself well to a judicial solution. Anyone who has dealt with Somalis can tell you that they laugh at western legalisms, and what they perceive as western weaknesses. And then they redouble their violent efforts to take what they want from you. They do react very well to a boot on their necks, and a gun to their heads. Then they tend to wise up quickly.
Here's how it needs to be done. Oil tanker sends distress call, takes evasive actions insofar as it is capable. (Or better yet, armed men aboard oil tanker defend by fire.) Coalition forces despatch vessels and boarding parties. Pirates who survive ensuing gun battle are lined up by the rail and shot in the head, then dumped overboard. Pirate boats are burned. If their bases or villages on the coast can be identified, said bases are raided and destroyed. No fuss no muss, no ransom, no hostages, no skyrocketing costs.
Damn, sometimes we are our own worst enemies. At the very moment we need to keep oil flowing freely at the lowest possible prices, our own flaccidness jacks up the price.
Read More »
Accountability: The Axe falls on the GW
By Bull Nav
I have been wondering for some time when this was going to happen.
SAN DIEGO — The skipper and executive officer of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington were fired Wednesday, Navy officials said, in the aftermath of an investigation into the May 22 at-sea fire that blamed unauthorized smoking that ignited improperly stored flammables.
Ships have fires. Not a lot but they happen. Most are small and quickly extinguished and usually don't require even a port visit to repair.
The GEORGE WASHINGTON has been in port San Diego since late May undergoing evaluation and repairs. It missed its scheduled relief of the USS KITTY HAWK and participation in the RIMPAC exercise.
The fire has forced the delays in the turnover of both ships and crews in San Diego, now scheduled to begin Aug. 7 when the Kitty Hawk arrives in San Diego, Navy officials said.
George Washington is slated to leave San Diego on Aug. 21 for Japan, where the ship is expected to arrive in late September, they added.
I had an instructor once upon a time who insisted that accidents did not happen: they are caused.
When you find the cause is lax standards, you punish those responsible, which on a ship is the Captain. He is held accountable.
Its unfortunate. But in my mind they were lucky: no one died.
Suck It Up, Pretty Boy
By Lt Col P
Boo hoo. Cry all you want. Plenty of other soldiers and their families have a lot more to cry about.
I hope the Army screws every last day of active duty out of him, and that he misses any chance he ever has to play pro ball. You took the money, young man, and you took a space that someone else, say someone else truly dedicated to the cause, could have taken.
PERMITS. A nation-wide drain on the military.
Read More »
Musings on the USAF
By Townie 76
John and I have been having a private email conversation for several months regarding the state of Air Force leadership. Let me say upfront that I have a great deal of respect for individual members of the United States Air Force. In fact, my only Brother Rat to make General Officer, is in the Air Force, and believe it or not is not a rated Pilot.
Read More »
How does this happen?
By Bull Nav
Over the weekend, while I was at NAVSTA Great Lakes, unbeknownst to me,
An autopsy revealed that a Great Lakes Naval Training Center recruit found dead on Route 41 Sunday died of a mixture of drugs.
According to Lake County Coroner Dr. Richard Keller, 20-year-old James Stephens of Texas died because of a mixture of heroin, cocaine and an anti-anxiety drug called Benzo Diazepines.
Stephens body was found early Sunday near the Crossland Economy Suites, 1177 S. Northpoint Blvd., between routes 41 and 43 and south of Route 120. There were no signs injury or trauma.
He had not been in the Navy for very long (according to a Navy Times article):
Navy spokesman Matt Mogle said Stephens joined the Navy five months ago as a fireman recruit. Stephens was enrolled in an engineering program at Naval Station Great Lakes.
But again: how does something like this happen?
The young man had been in the Navy for all of 5 months, and now his division officer is going to be writing a letter to his family. Its not going to be a letter about how heroic he was. No, to the contrary it is going to be one that I don't think any family would understand.
Who was watching out for him? I thought we were teaching our young men and women about teamwork and about how they need to take care of each other.
My heart goes out to his family.
How We Fight
By John
Interesting video, though -in typical Air Force fashion- they named it as cumbersomely as possible: Spherical Situation Awareness in the Groundfight .
Some this should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Wynne and Mosley were canned and I'm highly suspect of military leaders who toss around meaningless company words like "habits of thought" and "spherical situation awareness." You know what George Marshall said about war?
The art of war has no traffic with rules, for the infinitely varied circumstances and conditions of combat never produce exactly the same situation twice. Mission, terrain, weather, dispositions, armament, morale, supply, and comparative strength are variables whose mutations always combine to form a new tactical pattern. Thus, in battle, each situation is unique and must be solved on its own merits.It follows, then, that the leader who would become a competent tactician must first close his mind to the alluring formula that well-meaning people offer in the name of victory. To master his difficult art he must learn to cut to the heart of a situation, recognize its decisive elements and base his course of action on these. The ability to do this is not God-given, nor can it be acquired overnight; it is a process of years. He must realize that training in solving problems of all types, long practice in making clear, unequivocal decisions, the habit of concentrating on the question at hand, and an elasticity of mind, are indispensable requisites for the successful practice of the art of war. The leader who frantically strives to remember what someone else did in some slightly similar situation has already set his feet on a well-traveled road to ruin.
In other words, you can't condense the art of war into bullet points or powerpoint presentations or.... nifty little phrases like "spherical situational awareness." And I'd submit to you that forming predictable "habits of thought" is a terrible characteristic in a military leader.
But the video sure is purty! Style over substances? No... not the Air Force!
New Air Force Nominations
By Bull Nav
OK, so today SECDEF announced his recommendations for nominations for Secretary and Chief of Staff:
WASHINGTON, June 9, 2008 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has recommended that President Bush nominate Michael B. Donley, the Defense Department’s director of administration and management, to be the next secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, commander of U.S. Transportation Command, to become Air Force chief of staff.
I don't know anything about either of these folks, so I invite your feedback and comments.
Specifically for all you Air Force types (or those who deal with the AF on a regular basis), are the SECDEF's choices going to give you the type of leadership that is truly needed right now?
John Says: Yes! General Schwartz is a career tactical airlift/special forces flyer. I figured it'd be either someone with that type of background or a bomber pilot with experience in the nuclear delivery mission. This is a historic hand off -- fighter pilots have ruled for a long time. Now command goes to a man who has spent his life in the tactical, black world. So is it safe to say that the rise of the Special Forces is complete?
Air Force Top Leadership Out
By Bull Nav
If this report in Air Force Times is correct, they are:
Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley are expected to be asked to resign Thursday, Air Force Times has learned.
The stunning development follows a series of high-profile scandals and disagreements between Air Force leadership and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the past year, during which both the Pentagon and congressional leadership have increasingly expressed frustration about the Air Force’s top bosses.
The last straw appears to be a report on nuclear weapons handling by Navy Adm. Kirkland Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion. The critical report convinced Gates that changes must be made.
I guess SECDEF just does not like the way the Air Force is doing things. I sincerely hope (if this report is accurate) that this will be a change for the better.
UPDATE: according to ABC, this has been confirmed by a "senior defense official."
Officer Rot
By John
No comments, good discussion already raging at the link.
I am on board with that...
By Bull Nav
President Bush today to the Israel's Knesset:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Outstanding.
Somebody, however, is a little upset with this...
Gunday Sunday: Charlton Heston
By Lt Col P
Charlton Heston, actor, patriot, veteran, civil liberties activist, died yesterday in California.
Generations of movie-goers know him by his major roles. Even greater numbers of Americans are indebted to him for his outspoken advocacy of Liberty. He marched for civil rights in the 1960s. In the 1990s he ascended to the presidency of the NRA and added his voice and considerable presence to the fight for the 2nd Amendment, retaking the moral high ground and fearlessly venturing into campus lions' dens and MSM cesspools. He never backed down and always did it with a smile and a good-natured challenge to his audiences-- good advice for us.
Let's not forget that he also served in the US Army Air Force in WWII, in an unglamorous but vital theater of the war. Like millions of others, including most of his fellows in the entertainment industry, he did what he was called on to do, when and where he was needed. There too is good advice for us.
Godspeed to you, Mr Heston. Keep your front sight clear and your powder dry. Thanks upon thanks for all you did for your country.
Fox Fallon Out as CENTCOM
By Bull Nav
As I am sure most everyone has heard by now, ADM Fallon has submitted his resignation (and retirement request) which has been accepted by SECDEF. The official release is here at Defenselink.
Most folks point to this Esquire article as the straw that broke the camel's back.
I remember when he took over last year and thinking that he was overstepping his bounds as a Combatant Commander. You might be a 4-star, but the CINC is the one who makes the policy.
At home from work tonight, I got a call from a guy I know at work. Nice enough fellow, younger, tends towards the Dem side of things. He has not been in a leadership position and does not understand what that means. He wanted to know if this was normal, if anyone else in this type of situation would have resigned.
I explained to him command and accountability. I explained to him the Oath of Office and what it entails. I explained that when you can't follow the bosses policies, then it's time to go.
Not sure if he got it...
I hope ADM (soon to be retired) Fallon enjoys retirement. Wonder where he will pop up next?
A Foul Case of Appeasement
By Charlie
Thought I'd Highlight Dr. Seuss's other patriotic work ahead of a CGI flick this weekend.
Also, the Lorax is about the tragedy of the commons, not preserving the environment or the precious "trees". But don't get me started...
So I was reprimanded the other day...
By John
Because the abbreviation for "Lieutenant" in my powerpoint briefing was soldier-style LT instead of Air Force style Lt. Exact words? "Son, this is not the Army." Noted.
In other news, I hear there's a war going on.
Thanksgiving with the Boss Man
By John
Mike Yon breaks bread with General Petraeus, and reports on Baquba five months after Arrowhead Ripper:
Back in May, just before operation Arrowhead Ripper, there were about 60 violent acts per day. Now there are about 6. The markets are opening and the streets are again filled with people. I thought the veterans of Baqubah might like to know that their efforts have made a tremendous difference for the people here. You fought hard. This writer saw it. Your sacrifices truly meant something.
Hotel Tango: Vodkapundit
Ivan Embraces Transformation
By John
Are the Ruskies reading from the book of Rumsfeld? Russian Army Chief of Staff Yuri Baluyevsky says da.
In a press conference last week, Baluyevsky said that:
Russia's Armed Forces, like all militaries in the world, would be putting an emphasis on quality, not quantity."It will be a leaner but meaner, well trained and equipped, and professional force," the general said.
......
"As for the modern Russian Army, it is not the Army that we have inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union in the early 90's," Baluyevsky added. "Today it's a totally new Army. As for the number of men, in the Soviet times the Army had more than 4 million servicemen and now it is a bit over 1 million. As you may notice, it has shrunk by 3 million."
Nice of him to do the math for us, I almost got out my calculator.
In Russia's case, you can certainly make the argument that they're in bad need of upgraded training and tactics, despite the fact that their improvement from the First Chechen War to the Second Chechen War was extraordinary. The bar was set pretty low after Ivan took an Afghanistan-esqe whupping in the first war, but I digress...
Lighter and leaner is the new hotness in today's global defense establishment. The problem is, while many nations have some force multiplying technology that allows for a reduced military, few are advanced enough to sync up geographically dispersed units into a single fighting force. That's a type of synergy that only the US military enjoys, where pilots drop bombs on targets in Iraq while sitting in an air-conditioned trailer outside Las Vegas and forward air controllers call in B-52s from Guam to drop iron on Tangos in Afghanistan.
Russia has some technological standouts. They make superb fighters, tanks, and SAMs, but they can't tie it all together. Glonass, the Russian GPS constellation, sucks, their comm sats are relics of the Cold War, and they seem more interested in supporting the grunt with indiscriminate artillery bursts than precision air strikes. They want leaner and meaner, but so far have only accomplished the "leaner" end of their transformation.
No doubt Ivan will one day develop a capable net-centric approach to warfighting. But, as the success of the Surge is creating a movement to undo 16 years of US defense cuts, by the time Russian catches up, warfare may have already evolved to the point where the lean, mean fighting machine is obsolete.
Petraeus' New Crew
By John
Petraeus helping pick new Generals:
The Army has summoned the top U.S. commander in Iraq back to Washington to preside over a board that will pick some of the next generation of Army leaders, an unusual decision that officials say represents a vote of confidence in Gen. David H. Petraeus's conduct of the war, as well as the Army counterinsurgency doctrine he helped rewrite.The Army has long been criticized for rewarding conventional military thinking and experience in traditional combat operations, and current and former defense officials have pointed to Petraeus's involvement in the promotion board process this month as a sign of the Army's commitment to encouraging innovation and rewarding skills beyond the battlefield.
Some junior and midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been particularly outspoken in their criticisms, saying the Army's current leadership lacks a hands-on understanding of today's conflicts and has not listened to feedback from younger personnel.
"It's unprecedented for the commander of an active theater to be brought back to head something like a brigadier generals board," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former head of the Army War College.
Not that it's completely related, but when George C. Marshall took over as Army Chief of Staff, one of his first moves was to unload the hodgepodge of Army generals who had spent a career drinking the "old war" kool-aid. Controversial plan at the time, yeah. But it revolutionized the force, effectively destroying the Army good old boys club, a bunch of stubborn old bureaucrats who gave Billy Mitchell the boot while the Nazis were developing a brilliant choreography of infantry, armor, and aircraft known as the blitzkrieg.
The restructuring paid off. Omar Bradley was promoted from straight from Lt Colonel to Brigadier General, skipping over the rank of full colonel. George S. Patton was a colonel in 1939. By 1943 he had three stars. Dwight Eisenhower was rotting away in a staff job up until 1942, two years later he was leading Operation Overlord as Supreme Allied Commander. And so it went.
So do I see a bit of a connection here? A brilliant leader going sapper on Big Army's cumbersome checklist style of officer promotion, so as to better posture the force to fight tomorrow's war?
Yeah, you betcha.
Update: Whoops, a belated Hotel Tango to W.Thomas Smith at The Tank. Lo siento, dude!
SECDEF Gets Some
By John
Robert Gates seems to know what he's about:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the Iraq war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.Gates, who met with members of Congress on Wednesday, said that he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funding around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
As a result, he said that he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.
Some members of Congress believe the Pentagon can switch enough money to cover the war accounts, Gates said. But he added that he only has the flexibility to transfer about $3.7 billion — which is just one week's worth of war expenses. Lawmakers, he said, may not understand how complicated and restrictive the situation is.
The House on Wednesday passed, 218-203, a $50 billion bill that would pay for the wars but require that troops start to leave Iraq in 30 days.
I like the idea of hitting Congress where it hurts, constituencies that care more about their jobs than Iraq, but -if things go nuclear- how effective is it going to be? Without pulling out the map, aren't most representatives -sans Senators- from military areas generally conservative and pro-mission? I've got the big ones in mind, Norfolk/VA Beach, Fort Hood, Fort Bragg/Pope AFB, certain areas of San Diego, etc.
I was talking with Charlie a few days ago (yes, he's finally home), and we both noted how much the military has suffered from the Clinton-era cuts and then the later Rumsfeldian Transformation snafu. While we can't posture ourselves against a single, solid threat like the USSR anymore, both Charlie and I agreed that we need to elevate our capabilities to a much higher level of general readiness, given the instability and unpredictable nature of our new enemy.
Anti-war representatives love to toss around these canned, meaningless press releases about how the wars are "breaking" our Armed Forces, when -in reality- their underfunding of the military is placing more strain on the force than the wars ever could.
Think about it like this. If you've neglected your Armed Forces to the point where it can't deal with the stresses of two small wars (where your combined enemy numbers approximately 25,000 bad guys), then you have failed your servicemen and women.
Can you defeat an enemy ideology by throwing money at the problem? Who knows? Reagan seemed to think so....
Kill the Air Force!
By John
Robert Farley sees a brave new military world over at the American Prospect: a world without the US Air Force.
What it does on its own -- strategic bombing -- isn't suited to modern warfare. What it does well -- its tactical support missions -- could be better managed by the Army and Navy. It's time to break up the Air Force
Here's the column: What's the Air Force for?
I was flattered to join Robert, the Danger Room crew, Jason Sigger of Armchair Generalist, Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, and David Axe of War is Boring in a roundtable discussion on whether or not the Air Force should be rolled back into the Army.
I'm closing comments on this one, I'd rather have you guys go over to Prospect and weigh in there.
I will say this. Although not everyone agreed that we should burn the AF (I voted nay), feelings were unanimous that the Air Force is without a compass and a paddle. I joked with Robert about the amount of hate mail that he'd get over this one, but honestly.... good on him for recognizing the problem, and organizing a non-partisan roundtable to talk out solutions.
Also, my buddy Bruce at QandO launches his own discussion about Robert's column here.
Progress
By John
Finally, an Air Force general who speaks my language.
On the use of UAVs to help identify fires in southern California, Brig. General James Poss says "This is the United States Air Force you are talking to. We designed these things to locate targets -- to help us start fires, not put them out."
Hey, he's no General Mattis.... but compare that line to this cumbersome quote from Chief of Staff General Mosley: "America depends on the Air Force to maintain global reach, global power and global vigilance today, tomorrow and into the future" and you can't help but to feel a little foward momentum.
Drinking the Blue Kool-Aid
By John
I've talked before about how horribly inept the Air Force has become at the fine art of public affairs. Right now, the AF is in the middle of a large-scale modernization effort that is as controversial as it is needed. They have a fleet of aircraft that are falling apart, with the average age of most airframes being appx. 27 years.
The modernization plan is expensive. Way expensive, actually. And the Air Force is having a tough time justifying the acquisition of $200 million dollar fighter aircraft while the Army and Marines scream for funds to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wouldn't hurt to start talking like human-freakin-beings instead of a corporate cliche machine. Take this Air Force news story on a senior leadership conference onfleet modernization:
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Rodney J. McKinley underscored the impact these strategic plans have on Airmen who accomplish the Air Force's mission."I'm very pleased with the level of discussion and critical thinking that went on here today," he said. "Our Airmen should know that their service's top leaders are fully engaged and working hard to ensure that (they) have the right tools at the right time to defend the nation in the fight tonight and the fight tomorrow."
The summit concluded with senior Air Force leaders -- including major command, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve leaders -- sharing a common vision of a comprehensive, capabilities-based force structure plan to enable continued Air Force mission success.
"America depends on the Air Force to maintain global reach, global power and global vigilance today, tomorrow and into the future," General Moseley said.
Today, tomorrow, and into the future. BLECH. Yeah, that's going to win us plenty of support. What a meaningless quote. Instead of considering the Air Force's need for new jets, I'm still trying to figure out the difference between "tomorrow" and "into the future." Maybe next time we go in front of Congress for funds we can justify it by farting out the core values then demanding a 30 billion dollar check.
The Air Force is not going to be able to win the political backing needed to modernize until they reengage themselves in this fight. That means they stop talking like Hal from 2001: A Space Odyssey, cowboy up and sacrifice some of their new fast movers for a big honking fleet of COIN birds. You know how many A-10s you can get for the price of a single F-22 Raptor? 20. 20. And a full compliment of 22 Super Tucanos for nearly the same price. Even cheaper is the MQ-9 Reaper. We should have so many CAS birds flying over CENTCOM's AOR that you could walk from Baghdad to Djibouti to Kabul on their wingtips.
Yeah, I know that doesn't fit the neat and tidy Five Rings concept of Air War. But if the Air Force really wants to get in the fight, that's precisely what they need. They've got to stop thinking about fighting other states, at least for a while, and start thinking about killing Tangos.
The Pomp and the Toils of War
By John
You want to talk memorable scenes in Patton? Everyone always throws back the opening speech, George C. Scott juxtaposed against a towering American flag, gruffly speaking of our national love for the "sting" of battle.
Me?
Yeah, I like Patton the warrior. But I love Patton the mystic. The poet. The historian.
My favorite scene in Patton wasn't the defeat of the Afrika Corps, or the seizure of Palermo, of even the legendary opening speech. It was this scene. "I was here."
Hardass generals are a dime dozen. Patton's roughness isn't what immortalized him.
It was his poet's heart. That's what made Patton Patton.
Read More »
"He Didn't Have Any Quit In Him"
By Lt Col P
Just saw Marcus Luttrell on Bill O'Reilly, talking about his fellow SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient, LT Michael Murphy. O'Reilly asked him to tell us about LT Murphy's character, what set him apart. Set him apart even from those who are in a different league altogether.
"He didn't have any quit in him," came the reply.
About a year from now we'll select our next President, a whole new House of Representatives and a good number of Senators. Are we going to vote for quitters or for fighters?
If you need some guidance, remember LT Murphy and his men-- no quit in them.
Sub-Standard Troops: Keep ‘em?
By Charlie
As my endless deployment draws to a close, I have a philosophical question to offer up to the readership of the blog. Should below-standard soldiers be retained by the Army, or thanked for their sub-standard service and be shown the door?
In any organization, you will have some folks that just aren’t up to the professional standards of the group. In the civilian world, these people are usually fired. In the Army, however, there is a current retention crunch that is persuading many commanders to retain troops despite their performance simply to couch their numbers. Unit manning numbers now reflect on a commander’s evaluation report, giving them an incentive to keep troops in their units, whether they meet standards or not.
So should soldiers be kept on the books if they desire to stay and serve their country but can’t pass the PT test or meet their unit’s duty requirements? A standard is just that, and allowing people to not meet it sets a new standard. Also, some soldiers simply need the right leader to motivate them to meet the standard. However, some troops who have been in for a while are set in their ways, and simply lack the ability to change.
I have my own thoughts on this, but I’d like to get some feedback from the audience on this. Thoughts?
***UPDATE: Let's stipulate that the standards here are either physical or poor performance, not UCMJ.
The Hammer Swings
By Bull Nav
It looks like the Air Force is taking their little nuclear weapon incident from August seriously and some heads are gonna roll:
The Air Force has decided to relieve at least five of its officers of command and is considering filing criminal charges in connection with the Aug. 29 "Bent Spear" incident in which nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly flown from North Dakota to Louisiana, two senior Air Force officials said yesterday.
I was wondering if something like this was going to happen.
You just don't play around with those things.
Although some details are not yet publicly known, officials familiar with the investigation say the problem originated at Minot when a pylon carrying six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was mistaken for one carrying unarmed missiles. Minot had been in the midst of shipping unarmed cruise missiles to Barksdale for decommissioning.
Sounds to me like someone got a little careless.
That initial mistake was followed by many other failures, ultimately allowing six nuclear warheads to slip outside the Air Force's normal safeguards for more than 36 hours. The warheads were airborne for more than three hours and sat for long periods on runways at both air bases without a special guard. Air Force officials say there was little risk that the warheads could have been detonated, but the lapses could theoretically have led to warheads being stolen or damaged in a way that could have disseminated toxic nuclear materials.
This is what happens when you settle into a "routine" and get lackadaisical about major evolutions.
Every time you have a major incident like this, it is a leadership issue. Period.
Clearly standards were not being enforced and that comes from the top.
What is Wrong with the Air Force?
By John
Buckle up folks, this one is a bear.
JERUSALEM, Oct. 13 — A study of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war commissioned by the United States Air Force and to be published this month concludes that Israel’s use of air power was of diminishing value as the fight dragged on because it was used without enough discrimination.Although the war was widely criticized in Israel and abroad for relying too heavily on the air force, the study argues that air power remains the most flexible tool in fighting groups like Hezbollah, because ground forces alone could not have achieved Israel’s aims. Israel’s error, the study concludes, was insufficient discernment in its airstrikes.
By bombing too many targets of questionable importance for its aims, and not explaining why it bombed what it did, Israel lost the war for public opinion, according to the author of the study, William M. Arkin, an expert in assessing bomb damage. “Israel bombed too much and bombed the wrong targets, falling back upon cookie-cutter conventional targeting in attacking traditional military objects,” Mr. Arkin wrote. “Individual elements of each target group might have been justified, but Israel also undertook an intentionally punishing and destructive air campaign against the people and government of Lebanon.”
If this guy could stick to straight-shooting analysis, I'd have no problem with the Air Force drawing on him as a resource. The problem is, everything that he writes is corrupted by his ideology. His military "analysis" was slanted enough to draw the attention of The Weekly Standard back in 2003:
For starters, he is the scribbler who launched the assault on Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin a week ago by providing NBC with tapes of Boykin speaking in churches, and then followed with a Los Angeles Times op-ed that accused the general of being "an intolerant extremist" and a man "who believes in Christian 'jihad'" (Arkin later admitted on my radio program that Boykin never used the term "jihad").Arkin also wrote that "Boykin has made it clear that he takes his orders not from his Army superiors but from God--which is a worrisome line of command." This statement, like the "jihad" quotation appears to be pure fiction.
ARKIN TOLD ME he got his tip on Boykin's faith talks from a Pentagon source, which suggests that the general has an enemy inside the Pentagon. But if, as most of Boykin's critics have argued, the danger presented by the general's private talks about his faith is their effect on the Islamic world, then why did Arkin rush to publicize these private, little-noticed talks that he believes will hurt the U.S. abroad?
The answer is best found in Arkin's own speech to an audience at the U.S. Naval War College on September 25, 2002. In this lengthy and vitriolic attack on the Bush administration, Arkin admitted to feeling "cynical about the fact that we are going to war to enhance the economic interests of the Enron class," and declared that "the war against terrorism is overstated." Arkin believed, in fact, that the war "is not the core United States national security interest today." He rhetorically asked the audience: "Aren't I just another leftist, self-hating American?" and condemned the administration for taking "enormous liberties with American freedoms." "The war against terrorism," he said, "if it is a war at all, is not World War II or the Cold War, and it is grasping at empty patriotism to claim that it is." He warned of "our tendency to fall back upon secrecy and government control." And he concluded by warning that our foreign policy "convey[s] the wrong message, which is that we have no values, that we are for sale...."
Arkin caused a national uproar earlier this year when he accused American soldiers of being "mercenaries." So yeah, while he's got the cred to talk about the war, it's pretty obvious that his inability to separate factual military analysis from his strong political convictions makes him completely unreliable as an analyst.
So let's analyze his analysis.
“Israel bombed too much and bombed the wrong targets, falling back upon cookie-cutter conventional targeting in attacking traditional military objects,” Mr. Arkin wrote. “Individual elements of each target group might have been justified, but Israel also undertook an intentionally punishing and destructive air campaign against the people and government of Lebanon.”
So if I'm reading this correctly, Israel restricted itself to "cookie-cutter" aim points against strictly military targets, while they waged an unrestricted air war against the Lebanese people.
Yeah, it confused me too.
This is junior high crap, real armchair general stuff. If the US Air Force is "influenced" by Arkin's report, then the Air Force has bigger problems than its budget. Israel's air war was a highly sophisticated, force-centric campaign. Sophisticated enough, the Israelis thought, to do the job of ground troops. Hence the light grunt footprint back in summer 2006. Which, both Arkin and I agree, was foolish..... although for completely different reasons.
Here's a simplified version of the problem:
Arkin is regurgitating a popular meme in anti-war circles, that the Untied States and Israel indiscriminately use air power in their quest to defeat Islamic terrorists, despite the fact that Hezbollah is clearly the one ignoring the established law of armed conflict. It's become a common trademark with Arkin's military analysis. He disguises his opinion pieces by garnishing them with all the right military language, "target sets" and "precision air campaigns," and his only interest seems to be in pushing his ideology.
So that's that. He's a self professed leftist (not that there's anything wrong with that) and his analysis fits a common leftist narrative.
The bigger question is, why did the Air Force hire a used car salesman like Arkin? Or to paraphrase Michael, the OPFOR reader who sent me this link, "What is wrong with the Air Force????"
The New York Times answers:
While critical of how Israel used its air force, Mr. Arkin defends the flexibility of air power in counterterrorism. Although Israel was retaliating for a Hezbollah raid that captured two soldiers and killed others, he considers the war pre-emptive. He said Israel used the raid as a pretext to destroy most of Hezbollah’s longer-range Syrian and Iranian missiles and launchers, which posed the largest threat to Israel.In a post-9/11 world, Mr. Arkin said, the likelihood of the United States’ engaging in another ground war like Iraq is very small. A better model is the fight against the Taliban in 2001, he said, emphasizing air power, special operations and covert action. The 2006 conflict was only the second war of “pure counterterrorism,” he said, which is why the Pentagon wanted to study it.
Why did the Air Force hire Arkin? Because Arkin makes the Air Force relevant again. He writes what they want to hear: that air power is critical to a successful COIN strategy, that properly executed air campaigns can win low-level wars, and that technology -not boots on the ground- is the key to winning to the War on Terrorism.
Think it'd piss off Arkin's buddies at Human Rights Watch and Greenpeace that he's one of the biggest advocates of Secretary Rumsfeld's failed Transformation concept?
This is what the Air Force needs to be told, folks. With the Soviet Union dissolved, they have a dozen secondary missions and no primary one. There's no big bad Bear to fight anymore, just a loosely organized confederation of platoon sized cells..... mosquitoes that the Air Force wants to kill with its cannons. They need someone to say that they're still important, so they hired Arkin to say it.
Unfortunately, despite Arkin's expert "bomb assessment," the Lebanon War proved one thing. This war is a grunt war, it can't be won with the "flexible" employment of air power, or any use of air power for that matter. It takes hearts and minds to win hearts and minds folks, something that a PFC running patrols in Mosul could tell you....but William Arkin and impressive academic resume could not.
The Air Force's Crappy New Language
By John
Back when I was a transition student, waiting to enter official Air Force technical training, I pulled some hours in the base protocol shop. I wasn't too excited about the job, until I found out that we'd be working with base public affairs. PA was actually my first choice on my "dream sheet" for assignment selection. I was kind of bummed when I didn't get it, but that quickly turned to relief when I started learning more about the career field.
One thing I learned to hate about the way Air Force personnel handled the media was their fierce determination to be as rigid and uninformative as possible in press releases. Here, I'll give you an example:
COMBINED AIR OPERATIONS CENTER, Southwest Asia - A U.S. Air Force F-16CJ Fighting Falcon dropped precision munitions near Al Nussayyib, Iraq Sept. 25, killing Abu Nasr al-Tunisi and two other Al Q'aeda in Iraq operatives.
They were killed when the aircraft, assigned to U.S. Central Command Air Forces, dropped two laser guided 500 lb Joint Direct Attack Munition GBU-12 bombs, destroying the terrorist safe house where the three were meeting
"Air power is crucial to setting the conditions for stability in Iraq," said Lt General Gary L. North, Combined Air Forces Component Commander.
He continued with, "Air power overhead provides capability to the fight with precision targeting which was used on Tuesday to ensure these individuals could no longer target innocent Iraq citizens."
You could pratically write a formula for these obtuse canned statements. Acknowledge the overall mission, define impact, and outline your contribution to the overall good. I remember a colonel calling my friend (a PAO) into his office and delivering a 30 minute ass-chewing over an article in which the colonel felt he was misquoted. Turns out he wasn't misquoted, my friend had simply used the parts of the interview that were pertinent. He had quoted the boss word-for-word. Probably left out the part where "Air power is crucial to setting the conditions for stability in Iraq."
It's as if John Madden is doing the war's play-by-play: "scoring is the key to winning, Al." Ugh.
It's not all PA's fault. Somewhere along the line Air Force senior leadership developed this universal lame-speak. Listen to a dozen colonels talk and 11 of them will give you quotes that are so similiar and ambiguous you could interchange each quote to fit a different news story.
Distant from the fight and hated for a controversial acquisitions program, I've always felt that the Air Force is the most disliked service in the Armed Forces. Image is a huge issue with the force right now, and our Public Affairs methodology isn't helping.
I wish the Air Force would shoot straight in these interviews. Talk like men, talk like leaders... instead of talking like robotic bureaucrats.
Take my man General Mattis, for example. When asked in an interview if there would be an increase in the deployment schedule, the hard-charging Marine general replied:
You know, we are at war and the enemy gets a vote in this thing. If the enemy makes a press, a full-court press, and we have to react, we would shrink the dwell (the time troops spend between deployments). It's whatever it takes. But we, what we will not do is permit the enemy an initiative that we don't check him on.
"Full court press" and "check him." You'll never hear an Air Force officer talk like that, not anymore at least. But that's how Americans communicate, that's what America understands. No wonder the public doesn't know what's going on over there. We'll never win the political side of this fight if we keep using this stiff, alien "take me to your leader" dialect.
The Air Force had a General Mattis once. An unapologetic warrior, disdained for his bluntness but so damn alpha-male that you couldn't help but to want to follow the man. A cigar-chomping sonuvabitch who fantasizes about slaying his enemies and made batsh*t crazy claims like we'll "bomb them back to the stone age."
Smartest thing I've heard all day
By John
OMG!!!! Ear porn!
"A committee has often been described as a cul-de-sac down which good ideas are lured and then quietly strangled," said Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command, during a panel discussion with top Air Force generals in Washington."My thought is let's put somebody in charge of this, let's hold him accountable, and let's see if he can't sort this out," he said.
Yah Keys may run the Air Force's premier command, but he's still in the minority. The Air Force hearts committees so much they may as well write a contract for Hallmark to poetically scribe their love for the things on a pretty pink card with a white lace trim.
Trying to think of the dude who said that committees are groups of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.
Committees are the intellectual afterbirth of bureaucrats who can't make a decision. They're popular in big clunky organizations like corporations, the government, and the military because forming a committee is a leader's surefire, never-fail strategy to weasel out of accountability. They guarantee that no stigma for bad calls end up in the permanent performance file.
So what happens? Agile thinkers, improvisers, and folks who just plain make smart decisions find that their prudence isn't the stratifier that it once was. Committees enable bad leaders to rise to the top, while the innovators tread water. Drinking the bureaucratic kool-aid is the only way to get ahead these days.
Unless you're in combat.
But what about the other 90% of the military?
Committees suck.
Oh yeah, the article is about UAVs or something.
Quote(s) of the Day: Warrior Talk
By John
Because after all the shaky-kneed sissy talk post-Petraeus testimony, I'm feeling the need to honey your ears with dialect of real men.
Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that "we are holding our position." We're not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're going to go through him like shit through a goose!
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders:
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all.
Language so sweet it makes me want to light up a smoke and cuddle.
The Military and the Constitution
By John
Hey, so Small Wars Journal doesn't have a monopoly on deep-minded strategic thinkers/bloggers. We just have to import ours, har. This bit comes from Colonel Hank Foresman, a VMI alumn (of course), currently serving as Chief of Transformation Third Army Operational Maneuver Future Plans.
Colonel Hank Foresman
Many of us in the United States military have not given much thought to what our Oath of Office means. We begin that oath by swearing or affirming that we “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [we] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” we then swear that we “will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over. . .so help [us] God.” Unlike many militaries our allegiances is not to the Head of Government, but rather to the fundamental law of our nation, The Constitution of the United States.
So what does that Constitution say about the military. It says very little, but by reading what it does say, it is clear, that it was the founders intent, nee their desire that whilst declaring the President the Commander-in-Chief, they clearly intended that the Congress would be the dominate branch in administration of the Armed Forces. Congress was given first and foremost the power to declare war. Whilst formal declaration of wars have ceased to be fashionable, clearly the intent of the founders was that prior to the commitment of the Armed Forces of the United States that the Congress of the United States would give their assent. So why is this power given to the Congress and not the President. For a very simple reason the founders of our nation were well aware of the misadventures, which had occurred under the prerogatives of a nations sovereign. They understood the lessons of a common shared history, a history that had seen Royal government ignore the desires and weal of the Parliament, to fight wars without the assent of Parliament and to demand later that Parliament pay for his adventures. The founders sought to ensure that they alone, as the representatives of the citizens of the United States would commit the United States Armed Forces.
Read More »
Not on the Night Stand
By John
But, it should be.
Was watching Monday Night Football, Bengals-Ravens, and there was a short spot on Carson Palmer's (Bengals Q) offseason reading....
Palmer loved it, apparently. High marks on Amazon, too. I love how football and the military share the same warrior ethos. It's just so damn American.
Book Review: Supreme Command
By John
This one comes from Colonel Hank Forsmen, VMI '76, so it'll be far more serious and cerebral than any review coming from this guy. Col H wrote this back in 02, so it is a bit dated, not that the date really matters, given the subject material.
Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime
A quick read of the Washington Post or The New York Times in recent weeks and months will see quite often the name of Eliot A. Cohen. Mr. Cohen is an academic. He has experience both as a reserve military officer and a former political appointee in the Department of Defense. He is the favorite academic of his mentor Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfweitz and his boss Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other members of the neo-conservative cabal who advise President Bush. Mr. Cohen work on the relationship between the military and civilian leadership is a must read by all who wish to profess a knowledge of current military thought and strategy. His work, somewhat modeled on Gerhardt Ritter’s seminal work on the relationship between the German General Staff and the Kaiser, The Sword and the Scepter, (4 Volumes originally written in academic German, 2000 plus pages. The English translation is as ponderous)) will never achieve that works reputation for heft and breath of scholarship and analysis.
Mr. Cohen’s thesis is that the proper relationship between the civil and military is one of which the military is subservient to civil authority. He cites as his examples Lincoln’s relationship with the Union Army in the Civil War, Clemenceau relationship with the French Army in World War I, Churchill’s relationship with the British Army in World War II, and finally David Ben-Gurion’s relationship with the Israeli General Staff in the 1948 War for Independence. While one in theory would like to agree that at all times and in all places the military should be totally subservient to civil authority, reality, pragmatic common sense and experience have demonstrated time and time again it is balance between military and civil authority which achieves success.
Read More »
On OPSEC
By John
So I chatted briefly (very briefly) with the AP last week:
Report: Official Military Sites Breach Security More Than Bloggers
An Army investigative report obtained through a Freedom of Information request found that official Army Web sites violated operational security more than military bloggers.The report was obtained by the Washington, D.C.-based Electronic Frontier Foundation under a FOI request and published in Wired Magazine.
Rebecca Jeschke, spokeswoman for EFF, confirmed her organization had obtained the information through an FOI request and given copies of it to Wired. She also e-mailed copies to the Associated Press on Aug. 18.
The documents were sent to EFF by Will Kammer, chief of the defense directorate for FOI requests made to the National Security Archive.
Dave Foster, spokesman for the Army at the Pentagon, said he would seek comment on the report but it might not be available until today.
“This is about control, not operational security for the Pentagon. They’ve got an unchecked release of information coming from theater, and it makes them nervous,” said Air Force Lt. John Noonan, a blogger. Noonan, who asked that his unit not be identified, said soldiers are motivated to stay within the rules so they don’t get into trouble.
Has anyone asked why the Pentagon is more susceptible to breaches than bloggers? It's the accountability, stupid. Soldiers and soldiers alone are responsible for comments made on their blogs (see Scott Thomas Beauchamp), whereas the folks who maintain these DoD websites have layers of bureaucracy to hide behind.
Who do you think is going to be more careful?
A Pox on Recalls
By John
Another one for the bloated Air Force bureaucracy files...
Received a phone call from the Squadron this morning, but I was in the shower so I missed it. This was the voice mail:
Lt Noonan this is Capt XXXX, informing you of a format five recall due to Hurricane Dean. (My immediate thought "Ok. I live in the Rocky Mountain northwest"). Please report to the squadron in uniform and inform your flight commander if you have any relatives in the Caribbean. Thank you.
Huh?
A group wide recall was instituted over this?
Color me a bit frustrated. I don't have to work today until 10pm, so visiting the squadron in the morning is a bit irritating.
Common sense would dictate that if anyone (a) had any family stranded and (b) needed the Squadron's help with emergency leave, funds, etc... that person would be intelligent enough to...you know, ask for help.
We make too much work for ourselves in this business.
Army Brass, Not Bloggers, Violate OPSEC
By John
No surprises here. Awesome work from my buddy Noah Shachtman.
Army Reports Brass, Not Bloggers Breach Security:
For years, the military has been warning that soldiers' blogs could pose a security threat by leaking sensitive wartime information. But a series of online audits, conducted by the Army, suggests that official Defense Department websites post material far more potentially harmful than anything found on a individual's blog.The audits, performed by the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell between January 2006 and January 2007, found at least 1,813 violations of operational security policy on 878 official military websites. In contrast, the 10-man, Manassas, Virginia, unit discovered 28 breaches, at most, on 594 individual blogs during the same period.
The results were obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, after the digital rights group filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.
"It's clear that official Army websites are the real security problem, not blogs," said EFF staff attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Bloggers, on the whole, have been very careful and conscientious. It's a pretty major disparity."
The findings stand in stark contrast to Army statements about the risks that blogs pose.
Shachtman also posted the Army's rather weak attempt at damage control, from spokesman Gordon Van Vleet:
There are many more Army web sites and web pages available for review on traditional Army web sites than there are BLOGs and BLOG pages, therefore because of volume alone, it must be expected that there will be more violations found on the traditional web sites.
I'm calling shenanigans. So is Noah:
Um, no. For two reasons:1) While the audits do show that more official pages were scanned than blog pages, it is nowhere near the 65-to-1 ratio of .mil-to-.com security violations.
2) The Army itself doesn't have a very strong handle on how many pages were scanned, really. In The Army Web Risk Assessment Cell's presentations, numbers contradict one another, or are transposed from one month to the next. For example, AWRAC came up at different points with five separate figures for the number of .mil pages scanned in September 2006. The documents show that the number of breaches may have been as high as 4,052 on official military sites, and as low as 14 on blogs.
It was said at both milblogging conferences and begs repetition, the Army needs to look inward before dedicating resources towards policing blogs.
A Modest Proposal on Base Defense
By John
That last post got my brain churning.
Remember those loser Al-Qa'ida wannabes, the Fort Dix Six?
Right after they were busted by a one-hour photo clerk, our base sprung into action. Instead of a partial gate ID check (driver only), they took the drastic action of a 100% gate ID check!
This struck me as particularly stupid. The Fort Dix Six all had IDs as pizza delivery drivers, so I didn't really understand how making the Colonel's wife show her creds with the Colonel in the vehicle enhanced security.
It reminded me of a story relayed to me by one of our OSI agents. A couple of years back, the federales busted a local Dominoes driver for passing information to "a foreign intelligence agency." Everyone knew the guy, he'd deliver his pizzas and chat up the customers. Turns out he wasn't just being friendly, he was fishing for information about the base and base ops.
The point here is that bad guys can get on the base if they want to, period.
So anyway, while security forces aggressively check old ladies' and little kids' IDs, they also forbid licensed concealed carriers from carrying their firearms on base. An entire base full of trained Airman, not one of them allowed their constitutional right to carry a weapon (unless they serve as base cops).
What I'm asking here is simple. What would be a more effective way of defending your installation? Treating your Airman like men and allowing concealed carry, or upping the mandatory ID check?
The former seems a bit more proactive, I think.
Leadership Discussion: Bright Lights and Dim Bulbs
By Lt Col P
As a military officer or non-commissioned officer, would you like to be handed a dim-witted go-getter or a smart slacker?
Political Statements in Uniform
By Slab
I'm sure everyone by now is familiar with Friday's incident at Yearly Kos. Jon Soltz, a moderator for one of the panels, silenced a soldier who stood up to speak in support of the surge. Why? Because the sergeant in question was in his Class A uniform.
Jon Soltz was right.
He could have handled it better, there's no doubt of that, but according to the basic principles that the military is supposed to follow, he was in the right and the as-yet-unnamed sergeant was not. That soldier had no place attempting to make a public statement in uniform, and by doing so, not only did he violate Paragraph 4.1.1.3 of DOD Directive 1344.10 and Section j of Paragraph 1-10 of AR 670-1, but he set himself up to be silenced by the moderator. If he had attempted to make his statement while wearing civilian clothes and an Army baseball cap, for instance, and Soltz had still shut him up, then conservative bloggers could point out that the moderators were silencing dissenting viewpoints. As it is, we are left with Soltz enforcing DOD and US Army regulations, and the sergeant unable to voice his views because of his choice of attire.
Simply put, if you are a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, you do not make political statements or appear at political conventions in uniform. It does not matter if you are speaking for or against the President's policies. It is not infringement of your right to free speach, it is your responsibility as a servicemember of this great nation. One of the reasons we are "this great nation" is that our military services do not involve themselves in the political process. Individual servicemembers may involve themselves, but not while wearing their uniform, which implies official capacity.
And I've seen the argument that the convention was not political in nature. Please don't attempt to blow smoke up anyone's... well, let's just not kid ourselves. If Kos is involved, it's just as political as the Democratic National Convention. Perhaps even more so.
Some of you may have noticed that I try to keep myself more removed from politics than other milbloggers. That is because I subscribe to the viewpoint that was summed up by a character in Anton Myrer's book Once An Eagle:
When I serve my country as a soldier, I'm not going to serve her as a Democrat or as a Republican, I'm going to serve her as an American.
Accountability
By John
It's important.
Particularly when you make a statement as silly as "..we had Bin Laden just where we wanted him, Tora Bora. We took troops away from there and sent them to Iraq."
That's what Senator Harry Reid said on Face the Nation this morning.
“There appears to be a real disconnect between what the US military was engaged in trying to do during the battle for Tora Bora - which was to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban - and the earlier rhetoric of President Bush, which had focused on getting bin Laden,” says Charles Heyman, editor of Jane’s World Armies. “There are citizens all over the Middle East now saying that the US military couldn’t do it - couldn’t catch Osama - while ignoring the fact that the US military campaign, apart from not capturing Mr. bin Laden was, up the that point, staggeringly effective.”
Why do I have to listen to a million iterations of "Bush lied, people died!" from the nutroots when they obviously have no discernible ability to separate military fact from military fiction?
President Bush to Act on Iran?
By John
Not the double secret sanctions definition of "act," either.
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
I'm calling shenanigans here. This Guardian guy crafted a whole story from some insider's gut feeling.
Bush doesn't trust a Dem to launch an air campaign in response to some rogue dictator snubbing UN sanctions? Are you serious?
Desert Fox, Deliberate Force anyone? That's what Democrats do.
I'm not making a statement in favor of military action against the Iranians or against it. Just pointing out that this story is sensationalist, and should be treated with the same regard as you treat National Enquirer headlines in the supermarket checkout.
Monday Evening Mullings
By Lt Col P
Two items of note this Monday evening.
The first, an essay on resolve and will, "The Battlefield Between Our Ears," from our colleagues at The Torch. Truer words have never been spoken. It applies to us, Americans, as well as to Canadians. There is no military force that can compel us to yield one single inch of ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Only we can do that, to ourselves.
The second is a Michael Yon post on a leadership lesson. It's simply brilliant, both the tale and the telling. If you, like me, have ever suffered under a no-second-chances "leader," you'll understand how powerful this is. It's a lesson that all young lieutenants and ensigns should be required to read. (Scroll down to the last passage, "The Ground Truth.")
Yet Another Unscheduled COC
By Bull Nav
You knew it was coming:
By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer
Posted : Monday May 21, 2007 19:14:12 EDT
NORFOLK, Va. — Cmdr. E.J. McClure, captain of the destroyer Arleigh Burke, was relieved of command Monday by Rear Adm. Dan Holloway, commander of Carrier Strike Group 12, according to a Navy official.
Ship runs aground = CO relieved.
ESPECIALLY off Cape Henry. I have driven in and out of Norfolk many, many times and it is not difficult. The traffic patterns are well-known, the area is well-charted, and with today's navigation equipment, there is no excuse for this.
Reading further in the article, you find that her boss might be in trouble, too:
Destroyer Squadron 2 commodore Capt. Larry Tindal was aboard Burke at the time of the grounding. His status following the incident, “will come out in the investigation,” by CSG 12 officers, the official said.
It is never a good thing when the Commodore is onboard when a ship runs aground. A few years ago, USS HARTFORD (SSN768) ran aground near La Maddalena on the northern coast of Sardinia. Both the CO and the Commodore were relieved. Read the wikipedia article for a great synopsis of the event.
Another article on the ARLEIGH BURKE is located here.
I think we are up to 8 ship/squadron CO reliefs for the year...
Hey Jarhead, This Reg's for You
By John
A crisp salute to Marine Commandant General James Conway for this long overdue reg change:
When the commandant brings his sergeant major with him to visit, you know the drill. There are nine good questions about war, pay, the barracks and training.Then “Pfc. Ten Percent” asks the questions that make everyone else wince. Why is admin so slow? Why don’t Hawaii Marines ever wear their cammie sleeves down? Why can’t 18-year-old Marines drink?
Finally, Pfc. Ten Percent delivers.
The Corps-wide drinking age has been lowered from 21 to 18 for Marines on liberty overseas and for leathernecks taking part in official on-base command functions — including the birthday ball.
The term "underage" should never be used to describe a warfighter.
Of course this would never happen in the Air Force, our nanny service....where leadership actually believes regulation can empower commanders to STOP PEOPLE FROM DYING.
No, seriously. They believe that crap.
So if I get in an accident on my motorcycle, it's my squadron commander's fault for not drilling me with enough motorcycle safety briefings. Authorized underage drinking in the Air Force? Don't make me laugh.
I remember at Air Force field training, a kind of lame ROTC boot camp and an absolutely magnificent waste of time for a VMI man, Cadet Ten pct. asked this forehead slapper: "Sir are Catholics authorized to consume the ceremonial wine used in the celebration of the Eucharist?" The captain had to go confer with a council of other officers to decide as to whether or not Catholic cadets could freely practice their religion. Yes, we're that lame sometimes.
Pressing...
Some Democrats want a draft. Not as a way to increase the size of our Army and Marines -which is necessary at this junction in history- but to make a political statement on the war. But let's pretend for a second that they want a draft because they believe we need more ground pounders to prosecute this war.
You want fresh bodies for the field? Pass legislation that allows an 18 year old to drink in a bar with his CAC card.
Hey, it's no less ethical than drafting unwilling conscripts into the Marines because you want to make some stupid anti-war statement. And if you can think of a more effective recruiting tool than teenage peer pressure, I'm all ears.
Hotel Tango: Goldfarb. Stole the keg pic from him too.
Note from General Petraeus
By John
To our man Blackfive:
Matthew...I wanted to offer my thanks to the bloggers who have worked to provide accurate descriptions of the situation on the ground here in Iraq and elsewhere. Milbloggers have become increasingly important, of course, given the enormous growth in individuals who get their news online in the virtual world instead of through newspapers and television. So please extend my appreciation to them for performing this task -- and, of course, for doing it in ways that does not violate legitimate operational security guidelines. Best from Baghdad -- General Dave PetraeusMatt read the note to the milblogging conference audience right before panel 1 kicked off.
Right after Admiral Fox spoke from Baghdad via live feed.
Which was right after the President spoke via video message.
Just sayin'.
Command Incest
By John
From former AF tactical air controller Jeff Emmanuel:
At a certain location, we had a commanding officer who first came into our unit as a Stan/Eval inspector. After excoriating our commander at the time for failing to comply with a littany of relatively obscure and arcane guidelines and regulations -- something pretty regularly done, generally out of expediency, by SOF units -- he set himself up to come in as our next commander, even though he had never served one day in SOF, on the promise that he would "clean up" our three-straight-year award-winning unit and ensure compliance with every reg he could get his hands on, while also attempting to eliminate any "possibly risky" training practices or events -- a fairly ridiculous goal at a unit whose day-to-day operations often consist of freefall parachuting, open-water and subsurface operations, and other "possibly risky" events.This is endemic in the Air Force, and endemic in the Armed Forces in general.Needless to say, this man was not only unloved, but was ineffective -- his policy-stickler attitude reduced the effectiveness of our teams, as, in order to operate effectively, SOF teams can't be held to the same "three-bags-full" standard of dotting i's, crossing t's, and making perfect hospital corners at all times -- in that atmosphere, not only morale but operational readiness and effectiveness are significantly degraded.
This commander committed the cardinal sins of (a)worrying more about his next promotion than the effectiveness of his unit, and (b) ignoring the primary mission of the men he was tasked with commanding. Instead, he focused on trying to remake the unit (SOF) into the type (conventional) with which he was most comfortable, and which he felt was superior in the sense that it was more willing and able to follow regulations, and was much more manageable by a career desk-sitter who found himself hopelessly out of his element when tasked with leading free-thinking, unconventional fighting men.
And it worries me. In many military communities, we've produced commanders who think that regulation is the highest form of effective leadership. Yet you get this "does not compute" stare back if you make the effort to explain that more regulation can actually harm your ability to fight and win wars.
And that's the real problem.
We need warriors, but we're breeding accountants.
Commitment
By Bull Nav
Yeah, that.
You know, the USMC/USN core values: The part that comes after "Honor, Courage…COMMITMENT" Remember them?
Sometimes, when you you are young, folks tell you, "Honor your Commitments."
When you are older you realize that sometimes you need to, "courage honor your commitments."
Particularly when your commitments, those things which you said you were going to do or were going to support get hard, difficult, or unpopular.
Or perhaps those commitments get to a point where you can achieve personal gain by abandoning them. What to do, what to do…
Such a dilemma.
Well, actually it is not a dilemma. I don't have a problem with commitments. When I agree to do something, by God I am going to get it done.
I will put everything I have into completing the task. Once all the debate/compromise/collaboration is done, it is time to get down and dirty and get the job done. You put your best assets in and go do it. If it gets hard, guess what: you still have to do it. You made a COMMITMENT.
If you have the opportunity for debate, you use it. If you are not going to debate because it might hurt you, then don’t' complain later. Have some principles. Take a stand.
Have some respect for those you sent in harm's way. Those who have given their lives for your decision to send them there. Those who believe that their leaders have the country's best interests at heart and who believe that their elected leaders would not send them on a fool's errand. Those who believe that when the President said and the Congress said it was time to go, they went. And they will go until the job is done. Done right.
If someone is not getting the job done, the guy in charge needs to fire them and get someone who can get it done. Lincoln did. The American fighting man's life should not become a political football to be kicked around and thrown away.
DO NOT renege on your commitments to the men and women you sent to do God's work in the badlands.
We need...we MUST be ONE AMERICA.
Those who oppose us...WANT A DIVIDED AMERICA.
All for one, one for all...
Aw, Hell
By John
In the vein of obtuse military bureaucracy vs. a free-flow of ideas via milblogging, bureaucracy wins again:
The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.There is no word in any of the world's languages that can effectively capture the pure stupidity of this decision. Political fights need political warriors. And make no mistake, this war is a political fight. It's like stripping the Army of tanks before they're supposed to invade Germany.Military officials have been wrestling for years with how to handle troops who publish blogs. Officers have weighed the need for wartime discretion against the opportunities for the public to personally connect with some of the most effective advocates for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the troops themselves. The secret-keepers have generally won the argument, and the once-permissive atmosphere has slowly grown more tightly regulated. Soldier-bloggers have dropped offline as a result.
The new rules (.pdf) obtained by Wired News require a commander be consulted before every blog update.
"This is the final nail in the coffin for combat blogging," said retired paratrooper Matthew Burden, editor of The Blog of War anthology. "No more military bloggers writing about their experiences in the combat zone. This is the best PR the military has -- it's most honest voice out of the war zone. And it's being silenced."
The commenters at Think Progress, who obviously don't read milblogs, are convinced that this is a conspiracy to silence some sort of populist military uprising against the war.
Milblogger Networking
By John
This post at Chap's is pretty interesting. Swabbie Chap and Army Major John from Miserable Donuts worked together to get some ideas on Afghanistan onto the desk of a resident three-star.
With the Pentagon in the middle of all these "miblogs, good for the war? bad for the war?" debates, this seems to be an unforseen bonus. The networking, that is...
It works on the more mundane levels, too. Greyhawk and his wife helped me out with my first PCS by sending a great moving checklist last July.
The whole open communication lines works in with my overarching philosophy on our military, and how we can continue to maintain our effectiveness as a force.
1. Our adapability has proven to be our greatest asset.
2. The constantly growing defense bureaucracy has limited the free flow of ideas between units and services.
3. Milblogs are not constrained obtuse regulation, and can bypass the normally clogged communication channels.
Hasn't really been tested yet, I don't think. And there are plenty of leaders out there who are threatened by the mere thought of an idea coming from anywhere but the man directly below him. Tough. This is a new war and we're always in need of new ideas.
Here's how it works right now, at least in my world:
If I wanted to enact a major change in my group/wing right now, I'd have to first seek permission through my squadron chain of command. Flight Commander, DO, Squadron Commander. With really, any of those three having veto power. That's just to get it to the group commander, who in turn will have to send it to the wing commander. Two more vetos.
And if it is anything remotely significant, the Wing Commander would have to seek out the approval of the numbered Air Force, possibly the MAJCOM. Any and all have to sign off on the proposal. And it just takes one to axe it.
Or, a guy like Chap can just email a guy like Major John through their milblogging hookup, and ensure the right ideas get to the right people quick, fast, and in a hurry.
The intelligence community needs unit bloggers for the same reason, methinks. Wonder if we could setup blogspot for SIPRNET.
McCain Surging
By John
Because "surge" is just such a cool word to use these days. Michael Goldfarb reports:
So this latest poll from ARG confirms what we've all been sensing for some time now, McCain is back! Was it his rendition of "Barbara Ann," which earned him the support of MoveOn.org. Was it the speech at VMI, which set tongues wagging? Or maybe it was just that McCain flourishes as an underdog. Whatever the case, McCain now has the lead in the three states that matter most: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.Nobody would touch him at CPAC, and even this guy -long time McCain fan- was kinda leaning Guiliani back then. Back his VMI speech won me...and no, not just because I'm so blindly in love with my alma mater.
I haven't made up my mind yet, Maverick still has to pick his Goose...but man, I'm getting close.
What can I say? His message resonates and resonates and resonates and resonates with me. Fight the war. Win the war. Simplicity sells, methinks.
Plus, he earned an official seal of badassery during our last long war:
On October 26, 1967, McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile, landing in Truc Bach Lake. He broke both arms and a leg after ejecting from his plane. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around him, spat on him, kicked him and stripped him of his clothing. He was then tortured by North Vietnamese soldiers, who bayonetted him in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton.[10]Seems to be a fighter pilot trend in the grand old party these days. So, Vote Lex 2018 anyone?Once McCain arrived at the Hanoi Hilton, he was placed in a cell and interrogated daily. When McCain refused to provide any information to his captors, he was beaten until he lost consciousness.[11]
When the North Vietnamese discovered his father was the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, (CINCPAC), commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam, he was offered a chance to return home. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation.[12]
Interview with McCain on April 24, 1974, after his return home.McCain signed an anti-American propaganda message as a result of rigorous and brutal torture methods, which to this day have left him incapable of raising his arms above his head. According to McCain, signing the propaganda message is something he most regrets during his time as a POW. After McCain signed the statement, the Vietnamese decided they could not use it. They tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal.[13]McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years, mostly in the infamous Hanoi Hilton, and was finally released from captivity in 1973, having been a POW for almost an extra five years due to his earlier refusal to accept an out of turn repatriation offer. McCain was reinstated to flight status and became Commanding Officer of the VA-174 Hellrazors, the East Coast A-7 Corsair II Navy training squadron.[14].
Proposing a New Air Force Memorial
By John
I'm still pissed about the Air Force memorial. Actually, I'm just kinda mad at the Air Force in general this week.
So a while back, we had a great discussion on how this:
Doesn't compare to these:
Milblogger Tantor proposed a more fitting memorial, a crew chief and pilot prepping a P-51 Mustang for combat. But that was yesterday's Air Force. Me? I think we've found our template for the 21st century Air Force memorial right here:
That's right, the Tops in Blue. Where a bunch of Airmen dress up like muppets and tour the country in a definitively non-military, glittery road-show. And get the official caption: "Tops in Blue members perform for Airmen and Soldiers April 26 at Kirkuk Air Base, Iraq. Tops in Blue's goal is to enhance mission productivity for Air Force members around the world."
When the hell did flashing jazz hands enhance mission productivity?
Sigh.
This is the "blue Air Force" that Tantor spoke of. Either we go with that flashy memorial, or create one of a flight commander handing out a letter of reprimand to a maintenance chief for turning in his unit climate survey a week late. This is your Air Force, they keep telling me.
Assault to the Rear
By John
Although, I've gotta be fair here. Chatted with a major in the French paratroopers who insisted that the the deployed French forces are absolutely desperate to get in the fight (many are still pissed about the French Muslim riots of last year I guess? Hey, whatever moves ya...), but that the French politicos are tying their hands.
The French Army, or their paratroopers -at least-, are kinda eager to shed that white flag reputation...
Hotel Tango: Donovan.
Iraqi Colonel Seeks Shelter in the South
By John
Iraqi Air Force Colonel jumps ship:
An Iraqi air force colonel who fled from Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., where he was in training, is the subject of a wide-reaching manhunt, according to federal officials.The officer has not been identified, and officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could not confirm when he first went missing.
Officials at Maxwell referred all questions to ICE.
“ICE has joined the investigation into the whereabouts of an Iraqi military student, and his wife and two young children who disappeared while attending a U.S. Department of Defense training course in Alabama,” Richard Rocha, a spokesman for ICE,” said in a statement. “Now ICE is working with our international and national law enforcement counterparts, and does not suspect foul play in the disappearances. Furthermore, there is no indication that this case is a national security or public safety concern.”
Rocha said officials would not discuss specifics of the ongoing investigation.
Lt Col Patrick of Duty in the Desert writes:
Too much flicker ball could make anyone want to run. And those volleyball games with crazy rules? Don't ask.
Flicker ball is some stupid game forced upon hapless Squadron Officer School students at Maxwell. Never had to play it during my stint at Air University, but I did suffer under the official "Air Force" version of volleyball, the end result of fusing a 20 pound regulations book with competitive sports.
And yes, it was bad enough to make you want to go AWOL. Although not in Montgomery, AL though, yikes. Not much of an improvement from Baghdad.
Now before Mary Katharine or any Montgomery natives get all huffy-puffy at me for trash-talking a "jewel of the south," I know and acknowledge that there are parts of the city that are beautiful. The area around Maxwell, however, is a dump.
Also, you need to check out MKH's latest Ham Nation. Cracked me up. I know that has nothing to do with an Iraqi officer going AWOL, I just didn't want to start up another post to link.
Hotel Tango: Patrick
RUBS
By John
A general emailed in the past 24 hours threatening to kick me out. The first time the Army threatened to kick me out was in late 2005, just after I published a dispatch called “Gates of Fire.” Some of the senior level public affairs people who’d been upset by “Proximity Delays” were looking ever since for a reason to kick me out and they wanted to use “Gates of Fire” as a catapult. In the events described in that dispatch, I broke some rules by, for instance, firing a weapon during combat when some of our soldiers were fighting fairly close quarters and one was wounded and still under enemy fire. That’s right. I’m not sure what message the senior level public affairs people thought that would convey had they succeeded, (which they didn’t) but it was clear to me what they valued most. They want the press on a short leash, even at the expense of the life of a soldier.Some readers might recall that LTC Barry Johnson denied my embed requests in 2006, but after I wrote “Censoring Iraq,” somehow the door opened up. Strangely, a couple days ago, LTC Barry Johnson invited me to be a panelist at a symposium in Washington D.C. on ”the role of blogs and bloggers in the news environment today. The intent is to help PAOs better understand the issues involved.” Call me suspicious, but my whiskers tingled on that one.
You know, Mike's reference to the Gates of Fire incident got me thinking about his decision to join the fight.
Remember that scene in "We Were Soldiers?" When Joe Galloway tells SGM Plumley "I'm a non-combatant" and gets a gruff "ain't no such thing today" in return?
I think there is place in battle, a certain nexus of intensity where the line between combatant and non-combatant blurs, that washes away rank, profession, class, and belief. Societal norms evaporate, leaving a small group of Americans, brothers, fighting for their fellow countrymen.
In Vietnam, the Army told Joe Galloway to pick up a rifle and stand with his fellow citizens. In Iraq, they are trying to kick Mike Yon out of theater for volunteering to do the same.
Update: Bob Owens has more.
Getting out in your spaces
By Bull Nav
Back when I was a young Junior Officer on my first submarine, my Department Heads, XO, and CO would always admonish us to "get out in your spaces." They did it and we needed to do it. This was especially true during our ritual Friday morning Field Day, in which the crew cleans and preserves the ship. This showed that you 1) cared about who your sailors were and that what they were doing was important, 2) showed an interest in learning about the ship (good, bad, ugly) because what better way to learn than to crawl around in the bilges with the guys who are the experts, and 3) demonstrated that you were not some knighted prince who sat in his stateroom issuing decrees and not following up on what was really being done. As a Department Head, I made it a point to balance my day so that I could get around to find out what was going on. This allowed me a personal view so that I could make changes if necessary or provide horsepower where needed to get things done more efficiently. As a leader, one of your primary functions is to take care of your men because they are the ones who do the heavy lifting and who stand the most chance of injury or death when the bad stuff happens.
That's why this testimony before Congress yesterday made me sick:
Kevin Kiley, the three-star general in charge of all Army medical facilities, seemed stumped as he testified yesterday about his responsibility for the Walter Reed scandal."I'm trying not to say that I'm not accountable," he told members of the House oversight committee.
But try as he might, he couldn't fix blame on himself.How could he not have known that wounded soldiers were living in squalid conditions across the street from his own home? "I don't do barracks inspections at Walter Reed," he said.
I just don't understand why some guys up there at the top don't get it. Our young Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines deserve far more as do their commanders who do take care of them.
An absolutely incredible contrast was MGEN Weightman, who was fired last week as the WRAMC Commander :
Weightman, by contrast, turned around to the McLeods and spoke warmly, addressing Annette directly. "I'd just like to apologize for not meeting their expectations, not only in the care provided, but also in having so many bureaucratic processes that just took your fortitude to be an advocate for your husband that you shouldn't have to do," Weightman said, as Kiley finally turned to face the McLeods. "I promise we will do better."When the two generals were eventually excused, Weightman again turned to the McLeods and shook hands with them; though he spoke quietly, the words "I'm sorry" were clear. Kiley left the room without a glance backward.
You can read the whole thing in the WAPO here. Seems LTGEN Kiley could learn a thing or two from his former subordinate...
Update 07MAR: CDR Salamander has some words on this issue today.
Prince Harry to the Front
By John
PRINCE Harry will be serving on the front line in Iraq by the end of the month.The 22-year-old prince will head for Basra with comrades from the Blues and Royals Regiment within days and will then probably be deployed along the border with Iran.
A senior military source said: "The final details are being sorted, but he is definitely going. Naturally, his royal status has to be taken into account - but he will see action."
Second Lieutenant Harry, who insisted on going, is likely to be in charge of a troop of 12 soldiers in light armoured vehicles.
They are expected to be sent on reconnaissance missions, spending days or even weeks out in the desert. Defence Secretary Des Browne is expected to announce the news on February 26.
He'll be a huge target for Al Qaeda Iraq, and he knows it. The thought of Harry, abandoning his life of incredible luxury, to stand up and defend the crown gives me goosebumps. That's leadership, folks. There's simply no other word to describe it.
Paper Tigers
By John
Michelle Malkin is hitting on a topic that is near and dear to my heart, elected officials invoking the well-being of the military for better political posturing. Michelle's post really focused on Senator Clinton's body-armor initiatives of last year, a plan that most troops found fairly amusing. Take this great post from TF Boggs, for example:
Dear Mrs. Clinton,
Could you please get the Bush Administration to send me some more body armor. My hamstrings are still unprotected and I can still move a little.
Sincerely,
Your secret admirer
When you are constantly supporting policies that undercut the War on Terror, I can almost understand why certain elected officials throw themselves at the opportunity to appear muscular on defense. But these initiatives almost always flop. Consider:
John Kerry, and how he wanted to "double the size of the special forces." Voters unfamiliar with the ins-and-outs of the military heard that and thought "Great! John Kerry really understands this war!" Military guys and gals heard it and thought: "since only a small percentage of the force can make the rigorous cut for special forces, does that mean John Kerry will be doubling the size of the Armed Forces as a whole?"
John Murtha recently said that he wanted legislature passed that would give deployed troops a guaranteed one-year rest before sending them back into Iraq. Voters unfamiliar with the ins-and-outs of the military heard this and thought "hey, this John Murtha guy is really looking out for our soldiers. How could anyone in their right mind vote against such an initiative?" Military guys and gals heard it and thought: "is this guy nuts? He wants to use our well-being as an excuse to pass legislature that will make him more popular with his base, AND tamper with the sensitive rotation schedule? Is he trying to prolong our fight here? Our leadership has said we need to be putting troops IN theater, not taking them OUT! Why isn't he listening?"
And then there's Mrs. Clinton with her "armor soldiers up like a Crusader sieging Jerusalem" initiative. Voters unfamiliar with the ins-and-outs of the military heard this and thought: "hey, Senator Clinton is doing a job that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld should be doing. Those troops need armor, good for her!" Military guys and gals heard it and thought: "Sheesh, yeah we could use some armor upgrades, but let's not go overboard here. The military logistics equation is so complex and sensitive, that disrupting it just a fraction can negatively affect the supply train force-wide. Let's let the experts figure out a solution here."
Logistics, manpower, strategy. This is a holy trinity that should never be tampered with by politicians. Never. Especially politicians who seem to have no clue as to how the military operates. You can't just wave a magic wand and double the size of the special forces, nor can you interject yourself into the troop rotation schedules. And it's fantasy to think that a politician jumping himherself into the incredibly detailed military logistics infastructure is going to somehow boost our ability to effectively prosecute a war. My dad was a Navy logistics guy, he finished up his career with 3 masters degrees and 26 years of service, and I'm not sure that even he had all the subtleties down.
We should leave the warfighting to the warriors. If politicians want to support the troops, they can support the troops' mission, and bring them home victorious.
The Last Snowflake
By John
From Lt.Cmdr Brook Dewalt:
In his six years in the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was infamous for his "snowflakes" -- memos that flew from his fingers giving various staff members and sections sometimes short-notice and short-suspense tasks. Today he sent out a final snowflake, thanking the men and women of the Pentagon for their long hours and multitude of missions. And he granted amnesty for all outstanding snowflakes.
Here's a copy:
**Update** Naturally, Blackfive beats me to it. He's also got a nice Rummy roundup posted.
Adios, Rummy
By John
LT LtCmdr SMASH has superb account of Secretary Rumsfeld's final Town Hall farewell posted:
Donald Rumsfeld is not universally loved in the Pentagon. I'm told that he can be a tough, stubborn, and demanding boss. Rumsfeld is infamous for firing off short memos -- known colloquially as "snowflakes" -- asking next-to-impossible-to-answer questions or demanding revolutionary changes. He came to the building in 2001, promising to transform the Department of Defense from a Cold War force to a more flexible, agile military, better prepared to face the challenges of the Twenty-first Century. Almost six years later, that transformation is well underway, but not yet complete. Along the way, Rumsfeld has stepped on many toes, and slaughtered many sacred cows. Inevitably, he made some enemies, especially among the senior officers and long-serving bureaucrats who were heavily invested in the "old way" of doing things.But the troops, and a solid majority of the officers, love him. This is abundantly clear from the warm reception Rumsfeld receives as he walks up to the podium.
Since I couldn't get inside, I'm thinking about heading back to the office to watch the event on TV. But as soon as Rumsfeld starts speaking, I realize that I'm witnessing history. I'm there for the duration.
Highly recommended.
Recommended Reading: Fire In The Night
By Lt Col P
I just finished reading for the third or fourth time Fire In The Night, the very good biography of Orde Wingate, who was both the founder of the Long Range Penetration Group in the China-Burma-India theater (better known as the Chindits), and the real father of the Israel Defense Force. Eminently readable and full of illuminating references and footnotes, the book sheds some critical but not unsympathetic light on that complex and controversial man.
Read More »
Japan Reaches Down, Grabs Honorable Nuts
By Lt Col P
Japan just took the lead in acting against N Korea, if you ask me. I suppose being right next to the problem, having had practice missiles lobbed over your homeland and having had citizens kidnapped now and then by your nutty neighbors, tends to run your patience down.
Either way you cut it, it's damn good to see some leadership.
I'll now go back to deferring to John on NoKo issues.
Putting Muscle into NGO Operations: Time to Raise Private Armies?
By Lt Col P
The other night I saw a commercial plea from the organization Save Darfur, to urge Congress and the President to do something about the crisis in Sudan. Recently, actor George Clooney also made a public appeal for "immediate UN Intervention."
The commercial was powerful stuff and difficult to dismiss out of hand, Clooney's appeal less so. To him, or rather to his image on the screen, I replied, "Easier said than done, George."
Over the last few days I've thought about it again. I'd like to toss this out to George Clooney, on the off-chance that he reads this blog: I agree that the situation warrants intervention, but I think that if you want the UN to do something effective on its own or through proxies like the African Union, you're asking for the impossible. If you want the US and its allies to intervene, I don't think that's going to happen either, for a long list of reasons.
However, I think this offers an opportunity. In order for the oppressed Darfurians to be made secure and help to arrive, the evil-doers need to be slapped, and slapped hard. The situation requires a motivated, professional armed force with the means and will to create the conditions for recovery. (You ain't getting that from the UN, by the way.)
I suggest that you raise a force by private means and send it to Darfur. Staff it with professional soldiers, and get it working hand in glove with the NGOs. Give it a mission, and tasks, and resources. There is ample precedent-- Executive Outcomes' operations in Angola for one-- and there is legal backing too. The Constitution authorizes Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal.
The results might surprise you, and you would have the satisfaction (and political ammunition) of knowing that you did something where no one else would, and that you solved an intractable problem. You might also get an idea of the real-world problems attanding such a venture, and would have to make some tough decisions and then execute them. What say you?
Random Reagan
By John
Because if the Gipper can't lift your spirit, nothing can....
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States... where men were free."
The Haditha Firestorm
By John
Haditha. I'll keep it short and sweet.
1) If you believe the narrative which dictates that Haditha is some sort of microcosm of military murder, you need to get a life.
2) The military is investigating. Let them do their job. That means you, Democratic Underground.
3) Innocent until proven guilty still applies folks.
All I got.
Finish the Job!
By Charlie
Owen West, writing (in all places) in the New York Times, hits one out of the park. He calls national unity on finishing the job in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists who have been at war with this country for decades.
Somehow Operation Iraqi Freedom, not a large war by America's historical standards, has blossomed into a crisis of expectations that threatens our ability to react to future threats with a fist instead of five fingers. Instead of rallying we are squabbling, even as the slow fuse burns.One party is overly sanguine, unwilling to acknowledge its errors. The other is overly maudlin, unable to forgive the same. The Bush administration seeks to insulate the public from the reality of war, placing its burden on the few. The press has tried to fill that gap by exposing the raw brutality of the insurgency; but it has often done so without context, leaving a clear implication that we can never win.
In the past, the American public could turn to its sons for martial perspective. Soldiers have historically been perhaps the country's truest reflection, a socio-economic cross-section borne from common ideals. The problem is, this war is not being fought by World War II's citizen-soldiers. Nor is it fought by Vietnam's draftees. Its wages are paid by a small cadre of volunteers that composes about one-tenth of 1 percent of the population — America's warrior class.
The insular nature of this group — and a war that has spiraled into politicization — has left the Americans disconnected and confused. It's as if they have been invited into the owner's box to settle a first-quarter disagreement on the coach's play-calling. Not only are they unprepared to talk play selection, most have never even seen a football game.
This confusion, in turn, affects our warriors, who are frustrated by the country's lack of cohesion and the depiction of their war. Iraq hasn't been easy on the military, either. But the strength of our warriors is their ability to adapt.
...
We are clashing with an enemy who has been at war with us in one form or another for two decades. Our military response may take decades more. We have crossed several rivers and the nation is hoping that ahead lie streams. But if they are oceans, we should heed Lincoln's call: "With malice toward none, with charity for all ... let us strive on to finish the work we are in."
Hooah, sir.
Happy Memorial Day Part II
By Charlie
Continuing on our theme this weekend, here's the text of a little speech given at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 19, 1863:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Tire Not. Engage.
By John
My friend Steve Schippert of Threats Watch Why is the defense of this nation a political issue at all? There are those who will argue that it is the manner in which we defend ourselves that is at issue.
That, my friends, is a convoluted disingenuous sheen of reason upon the unreasonable.
A former Attorney General currently vociferously defends a mass murdering dictator deposed by our own forces. An icon of the self-loathing anti-American academic Left, Noam Chomsky, embraces Hizballah, the chief beneficiary of Iran's terror export, and condemns the War on Terror as bigotry wrapped in fiction. A former Vice President travels to the home of fifteen 9/11 hijackers and professes that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" by America and its sitting president and held in "unforgivable" conditions.
These are not arguments of the manner in which to defend America. These are sycophantic rantings of whether to defend her. The flood of emotions in disbelieving reaction range from anger and rage to depression and grief.
We dare not rest as the most important front of the War on Terror and for the very survival of Western Civilization lies not upon the sands of distant shores, but in our own common discourse. The most important battlegrounds are around our dinner tables and in intelligent and persuasive common sense discussion among our peers, seeking the discomfort of battle and the very defense of defense rather than the comfort and unproductive endeavor of agreement among friends.
The line has been clearly drawn. Tire not. Engage.
Beautiful. The War on Terror isn't gay marriage or stem cell research or abortion. It isn't a topic that should be debated during high school forensics matches. We have a category here at Op For called "One Team, One Fight." Charlie and I are constantly searching for examples of one America, one war, one fight. It's how things should be, but aren't. There shouldn't even be a need for a category that recognizes something Americans should be doing in the first place.
Steve ended on a positive note and I agree. Ignore petty politics, fight the good fight, tire not and engage.
On Leadership
By Charlie
Well, in a break from writing about grand strategy, tactics, terrorism, and impending doom, I decided to take a brief break… and write a bit about leadership. Here are some leader lessons I’ve learned from VMI, the Army, and the civilian world. With the college season coming to an end, and many 2nd LTs getting their commissions, I thought it was about time I imparted some wisdom –so here we go:
1. Be Yourself
-Being yourself is important to anyone seeking to lead others. It means not pretending to be something you’re not, not inflating your accomplishments, and not trying to assert yourself as the “top dog” in the group. Unless you are the top dog in the group, so in that case, assert away. Bottom Line: don’t BS people about yourself, because they will eventually find out the real facts. Be yourself, warts and all, and you’ll get respect for it. Unless those warts keep you from doing pushups. In that case, you are worthless.
2. Be technically and tactically competent
-As a military officer, or a civilian leader, being proficient at your job is going to be essential to your career success. In Army jargon, technically competent means knowing how to fire and operate your weapon, tactically competent means being able to field the system in a real-world situation. Knowing your stuff, by the book and in the real world, lends respect to your decisions, which is essential for small group leadership.
3. Don’t expect others to do things you won’t do yourself
-This gets to the heart of leadership philosophies. If you think it’s a good idea for your unit to be physically fit, be physically fit yourself. If your want your group to put in extra hours, prepare to be there with them doing it. If you’re not willing to gut out the consequences of your own directives, reconsider giving them.
4. Know Yourself
-Knowing yourself is distinctly different from being yourself, because knowing what you are capable of is essential when you give your directives as a leader (see #3 and #2.) Also, knowing what you are not capable of is just as valuable. If you know you can’t drink 10 beers at the bar, don’t try to do it. If you are certain of your ability to do so, giddy up!
5. Set the Example
-Setting the example goes along with #3, but as a leader, you are expected to go above and beyond the standard. Therefore, if you want to implement a proposal, be the first to embrace it. If you direct your unit to achieve a specific goal, achieve it first, and extend your help to those you direct that may need help meeting your intent.
6. PT!
-Yep, PT. This goes with knowing yourself and setting the example. Staying in shape keeps you healthy, and staying in shape keeps you more able to lead. So stop being lazy, and get out and run!
7. Read Books
-Yep, read. Continuing your education, and informing yourself of the world and the events and history that influence it is essential to your personal growth and development. Read, learn, and stay tuned. You’ll be better connected to the world around you, and in a better position to influence it.
8. Realize you don’t know everything
-This one is important. Just because you graduated from college, or commissioned in the military, doesn’t mean you’ve been granted some sort of magical key to the knowledge base of the universe. (you get that when you start a blog). Seek knowledge from everyone around you, and learn as much as possible. It will give you credibility if you present yourself as open to new ideas, and not closed off, thinking you’ve figured out the world at 22.
9. Make mistakes & drive on
-Another important one. You’re going to mess up, eventually. Be honest and forthcoming about your mistakes, as well as your successes. Everyone knows LTs and young leaders have a learning curve. Be smart about it, suck it up, and drive on, learning as much from your mistakes as you can. It’s why they put erasers on pencils.
10. Listen to your platoon sergeant!
-Lastly, and most importantly, listen to your NCO. I can’t stress the importance of this. You’ll understand eventually, trust me.
