Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: January 14, 2007

by Denizens on Jan 20, 2007 | General Commentary

This just in - President Bush's Health Insurance tax deduction from the SOTU.

SOTU Preview:
Standard Deduction For Health Insurance

"So in my State of the Union Address next Tuesday, I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private health insurance more affordable – whether you get it through your job or on your own."

– President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 1/20/07

Additional Information About The President's Proposed Standard Deduction For Health Insurance

· The President's primary goal is to make health insurance more affordable, allowing more Americans to purchase insurance.

· In his State of the Union Address, the President will propose a "standard deduction for health insurance" – just like the standard deduction for dependents.

· Under the President's proposal, families with health insurance will not pay income or payroll taxes on the first $15,000 in compensation and singles will not pay income or payroll taxes on the first $7,500.

· At the same time, health insurance would be considered taxable income. This is a change for those who now have health insurance through their jobs. The President's proposal will result in lower taxes for about 80 percent of them. The 20 percent of them with more generous policies will have the option to adjust their compensation to have lower premiums and higher wages to offset the tax change.

· The President's proposal levels the playing field for Americans who purchase health insurance individually rather than through their employers, providing a substantial tax benefit for all those who currently have health insurance purchased on the individual market.

· This proposal lowers taxes for all currently uninsured Americans who decide to purchase health insurance – making insurance more affordable and providing a significant incentive to all working Americans to purchase insurance coverage, thereby reducing the number of uninsured Americans.

· As we reform the Federal tax code, we will also support the innovative measures that States are taking to address the problem of the uninsured. Governors across the Nation have put forward plans to make basic private health insurance more accessible for their citizens.

· In his State of the Union Address, the President will announce a new effort – led by Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt – to help governors reduce the number of people in their states without private health insurance.

Any smart guys with informed opinions here?

I'm trying to see how it will affect we military types who use the military system, TRICARE.

The government *does* pay into it, but I don't think they do so in the same way that, say, General Motors or Sears does - those policies, procured from specific companies, will have price tags attached.

I do see the Pentagon seeing a way to set the cost at the high end (where it may, in fact, be) in order to force as many of us as possible into the "The 20 percent of them with more generous policies will have the option to adjust their compensation to have lower premiums and higher wages to offset the tax change." group so that those of us who can will jump to employer-provided coverage.

Heh. The devil will be in the details. On a first read, by unsophisticated me, it doesn't sound that bad - but... I sense a pay cut or benefit cut coming my way, at one end or the other, simply because I'm in a group that doesn't appear to be really covered here in the vision. We'll see. It's got to get past Congress, first.

I suspect this to be the camel's-foot-in-the- door of taxing the portion of the cost of health benefits paid by your employer as ordinary income. I suspect that when the real cost of this is seen, there will be a mass withdrawal from company sponsored plans by workers who will seek there own individual plans. Bush and his advisors OBVIOUSLY have no desire to see a repub elected to the Office again...

Of course the way the whole health insurance thing came about in the first place was the government during WWII putting wage controls in place. So the unions and companies came up with the idea of paying for health insurance as a way to "increase" take-home pay without increasing wages.

posted by emdfl on January 20, 2007 10:53 PM

The key is in the deduction vs. the taxable portion. It really will serve to move the savings and should reduce taxes. The key is to keep both parts in place. If the deduction goes away, everyone is screwed. A real key is the cost of insurance to the company. Most plans are group plans, and while expensive, they shouldn't come to as much as what is being offered, though it could be real close...

For example, I pay around 200/month for med ins for a family of 3. It's a pretty good deal. But I don't know how much my company pays for this program. And here's the rub, I think. Employees of smaller companies will get hit worse than large ones because the cost per member in small companies will likely be higher than the cost per member in larger companies.

So, if my org pays 12K for my plan as is, I get to deduct the cost of ins, which is a wash, there is no real benefit to me ('cause the company is not going to give me the difference in income or reduce my premiums); whereas if my org pays 18K for my plan, I lose 3K in currently tax free income.

Which leads me to ask: Why should I support this idea. I'd like all people to have medical care, but I don't want to pay more so they can get it (that's just another way to give away my earnings); and since it's a wash to me either way if I don't have to pay the taxes, again I have no reason to care.

All in all, this seems like a win for the Government and a who cares for me...

NB, I cold have read that wrong, and it is a flat deduction of 15K no matter what I pay, and the difference is either mine to keep or mine to pay. That would be a very different situation, and I'd go for that unless I had to pay.

BTW, a lot depends too on whether the FSA stil goes. Right now, I pull a fair bit out of my pay for medical expenses that I would never be able to take off my taxes using the normal way. If I could do that still, and the new plan, that could work out.

posted by SangerM on January 21, 2007 12:11 AM

Right now, via TRICARE Prime, I pay $460 a *year* and I dont' think the government pays a premium per se, essentially being self-insured. So I'm curious how all that will play out.

I frankly just assume I'll get screwed to the wall, one way or another, based on prior experience, and that fact that the Pentagon would like people like me to either go somewhere else or pay a whole lot more, regardless.

As emdfl noted, albeit indirectly, my healthcare plan is part and parcel of the pay package offered when I enlisted, if I stayed the course.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 7:12 AM

A better way to 'afford' health care would be to write off what we pay in premiums and in total medical care instead of that lousy 7.5% of adjusted gross income.

But this way...I will do my taxes the current way and then do them the proposed way and see if there is an appreciable difference.

On the brighter side, we finally get to retire that 100 year old luxury tax on telephones..to pay for the Spanish American War, doncha know.

posted by Cricket on January 21, 2007 2:15 PM

by John on Jan 20, 2007 | Politics

Hail Britannia, Britannia Rulez the Wavez!

New Royal Navy

Well, as a Coastal Defence Force and US Navy Auxiliary, if this keeps up.

If you liked that, a larger version is available here.

by John on Jan 20, 2007 | Observations on things Military
� CDR Salamander links with: The Royal Coast Guard

So, what is the Whatziss of a Different color?

In his late comment to the thread - Moose has the right of it.

That DUKW honks with a Portuguese accent. Confused? Click here.

It's a CAMANF, a CAMINHÃO ANFÍBIO, or in english, amphibious truck, used by the Corpo de Fuzileiros Navais, the Marines. The Brazilians had DUKWs, and used them well into the 70's, rebuilding and tweaking them. In 1975 they designed and started building their own, based on a Ford truck chassis using a Detroit Diesel engine vice the mogas engine of the original DUKW.

Brazilian CAMANF in 1990 at the Brazilian Marine base in Rio de Janeiro. Photo by César Ferreira

Brazilian CAMANF in 1990 at the Brazilian Marine base in Rio de Janeiro. Photo by César Ferreira

Well, *that* was fun! Drew some people down from the rafters, too, which is always good.

by John on Jan 20, 2007 | Tanks and AFVs

Hezbollah "an integral part of Iranian intelligence"?

So says former Hizbullah secretary-general Sheikh Subhi Al-Tufeili in an interview with the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, as reported by MEMRI. Reprinted here with permission. Original dispatch is available here.

Special Dispatch-Lebanon/Iran/Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project
January 19, 2007
No. 1431

Former Hizbullah Sec-Gen: Hizbullah is an Integral Part of Iranian Intelligence; The Abduction of the Israeli Soldiers Was an "Unsuccessful Adventure"

In an interview with the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, former Hizbullah secretary-general Sheikh Subhi Al-Tufeili said that Hizbullah was part of Iranian intelligence, and called the July 12, 2006 abduction of two Israeli soldiers, which sparked the July-August 2006 war with Israel, an "unsuccessful adventure."

The following are excerpts from the interview.(1)

Hizbullah is an Integral Part of the Iranian Intelligence Apparatus

Question: "You were formerly Hizbullah secretary-general. Is the [situation in Lebanon] within the strategic framework of Hizbullah? Does Hizbullah have an outlined and prepared plan that is being implemented today? Why do you think Hizbullah has become a source of anxiety for the Lebanese? "

Al-Tufeili: "It wasn't like this in the beginning. Hizbullah's activity was limited to resistance [operations]... But, unfortunately, the problem has developed today to the point where they have succeeded in changing Hizbullah from a resistance force into a tool to be used in [whatever] direction they want."

Question: "Does this mean that Hizbullah does not make its own decisions, and that its orders come from outside [Lebanon]?"

Al-Tufeili: "Yes, Hizbullah is a tool, and it is an integral part of the Iranian intelligence apparatus. Unfortunately, all the elements in the [Lebanese] arena have become tools, and take orders from outside [Lebanon]..."

Abducting the Soldiers Was "An Unsuccessful Adventure"

Question: "Can you see any justification for the July [2006] war after southern Lebanon was liberated in 2000?"

Al-Tufeili: "Following the abduction of the Israeli soldier [Gilad Shalit] in Gaza, and the enemy's response to that operation, [i.e.] the shelling, and the abduction of Palestinian ministers and MPs... I was amazed when Hizbullah announced that it had abducted two Israeli soldiers...

The rest is in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

"[Israel is] an enemy we know. It has plundered our land, murdered our people, and slaughtered our children. [Was it reasonable] for us to carry out an operation like this after we have seen the response to it in Gaza and in occupied Palestine? [Was it reasonable for us to carry out such an operation] when we know that Israel attacks us, murders our children, and destroys our country [even] without us giving it excuses to do so...? I think that any sensible person could have assessed the enemy's possible response to the abduction operation... On the one hand, they [Hizbullah] are saying, 'Had we known what the reaction would be, we would not have abducted the soldiers.' On the other hand, they are giving the Israeli enemy a pretext to launch aggression against us...
"When we look at the causes of the war, there is no choice but to [admit] this. If [the war] had gotten worse, it could have led to the loss of the [entire] country... Are we allowed to destroy our country [just] so we can say that we abducted two soldiers - when we all knew what the magnitude of the Israeli response [would be]? What happened was an unsuccessful adventure, and there is no escaping the fact that those who carried it out will bear the responsibility for it..."

Iran Must Stop Using Hizbullah for Its Own Aims in Its Struggle with the West

Al-Tufeili: "[Furthermore], why was... the South [Lebanese] front the only one left burning, and why was Lebanon the only arena of bloodshed? Why weren't all fronts opened?... Why has Hizbullah become a tool [serving] individual interests that have nothing to do with the resistance? In my opinion, the issue is broader than the local [context], and is connected to the regional struggle - but it is being carried out by a local tool [i.e. Hizbullah]...

"After all that has happened, I hope that Iran will change from an element seeking its political interests in the region [into an element acting for the] liberation of Jerusalem - if Iran indeed wants to liberate Jerusalem as it claims. [It must stop] using the resistance [i.e. Hizbullah] for its own aims in its struggle with the West..."

Hizbullah is Leading the Country to Civil War

Al-Tufeili continued: "Until not long ago, the March 8 Group [a term for the Lebanese opposition] was a partner in the government, and participated in parliamentary elections.

"The March 14 [Forces] did not mislead [the Lebanese opposition]... They are openly allied with of the U.S. and France; they say openly 'We do not agree to weapons in Lebanon, except for those of the military.' They are demanding that Hizbullah hand over its arms, but in the framework of [internal Lebanese] dialogue, not by force. [They are also saying] that they want an [international] court [for the Al-Hariri assassination]. All this they said prior to the elections as well as after the elections, before they became ministers and after they became ministers.

"So where is their treason? Whom have they betrayed? Their position is clear; this is their plan, and [Hizbullah] entered into [an alliance] with them [just] for the election campaign... Yesterday, [Hizbullah] had an alliance with them, and gave the March 14 Forces a majority in parliament and in the government, and had no dispute or problems with them. [Hizbullah considered this alliance] to be for the good of the homeland.

"Today, [Hizbullah] is leading the country to civil war, in order to obtain a third [of the government]... If this third is so important, then [Hizbullah] must be punished, because it itself was the one who gave it to the [March 14 Forces in the first place]. If it is not important, then Hizbullah is leading us to civil war, to destruction and to the ruin of the country, for no good reason..."

I Do Not Believe Those Who Say They Are Against Civil War Yet Behave in a Way that Will Lead to Civil War

"I find no [justification] for us having reached such a situation... This is how wars begin. What we are seeing today in Lebanon is the preparation of an emotional, popular, military, media, and security climate [leading] towards a war that might break out at any moment. I don't believe anyone who says he is not interested in [civil] war, [yet] behaves in this manner. This is the behavior of someone who wants war."

"Iran is the Main Nerve in the Activity Today in Lebanon"

Referring to Syria's role in the events in Lebanon, Al-Tufeili said: "Syria is undoubtedly Iran's ally. It has undoubtedly been harmed by the March 14 Forces, and by the establishment of the [international] court. Thus, it is part of this battle; but it is not the most influential factor...

"Iran is the main nerve in the activity today in Lebanon. All Hizbullah activity [is financed] by Iranian funds. Syria has an important role, but Iran is the main and primary support of [the Lebanese opposition]. On the other side, the U.S. is supporting the March 14 Forces."

Endnote:
(1) Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), December 14, 2006.

*********************
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.

MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
E-Mail: memri@memri.org
Search previous MEMRI publications at www.memri.org

� Secure this line!

by John on Jan 20, 2007 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

H&I* Fires, 19 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Hey - trackbacks work again!]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

******************************
Much has been made about 'Tribes' of late here. So I thought it a good time to haul back out Bill Whittle's classic on the subject.

Remember the question I asked here about Moqtada al-Sadr sending his men to ground? I think we have an answer.
{Update: Media head of the Mahdi Army has been removed from play.--ry }

NSA Wiretapping. The Volokh's have something to say about it.
--ry
******************************

Heh. One of the charities whose board I sit on deals with the issue of foster kids "aging out" of the system. While there is a logic to offering some assistance to this recently-released convicted murderer, I do wonder if raiding the foster system was the place to do it. -the Armorer

*******************************
The Pendleton 8 continue to speak out. It would appear that their original pleas of innocence are unfounded, and they are, in fact, guilty of kidnapping and ultimately murdering an innocent Iraqi man. I've written about this before, but the more I found out, the angrier I get at these guys. Although I still don't agree with the way the government handled their arrest and confinement.... it all could have been avoided with an admission of guilt. ~AFSister

[Armorer's note: The way this has been playing out is one reason you haven't seen me saying much about it - other than, "Give them their day in court." I didn't like how it smelled from the beginning.]

*********************************

Victor Hanson on the consequences of premature withdrawal, oh, call it what it is, losing, in Iraq, on the Democrats.

All that may, like Vietnam-era street theater, play well to the media. But eventually Iraq, also like Vietnam, will be over — while the protocols and culture of hysteria and derangement, like low-lying marsh gas, will linger and smell. A Henry Jackson or JFK would have had nothing to do with a Michael Moore, who now has entrée with the Democratic elite. If the Republicans were once embarrassed of the Buchanan Right, and the Democrats of the Cindy Sheehan Left, now the Democrats have apparently both of them in their antiwar camp. Good luck…

Then there's this. Powell anyone?

Vietnam and now Iraq will substantiate in greater detail what we tasted in Lebanon and Mogadishu — the impossibility of using large conventional forces in chaotic conflicts that will inevitably turn asymmetrical and terrorist. In that regard, an army on the shelf will fossilize, as we lose confidence that it can ever achieve anything worth its losses. Generals will promise victories in the sort of rare conventional wars they can easily win, and decline the more common messy ones they cannot.

More astounding - 3,000 dead, in a historical context, leads us to this? "...as we lose confidence that it can ever achieve anything worth its losses"

Read the rest here. -the Armorer

*********************************

Just in case you weren't paying attention to Ry's post (see PLAAF ASAT) yesterday - THIS IS IMPORTANT. *Especially* given the way the services are looking at network operations and providing digital services. And you have *no* idea of the total impacts of losing enough of the GPS constellation to cause gaps in ground coverage. -the Armorer
{Update: the boys and girls over at Defensetech.org bring up a problem that few seem to be talking about: the debris is a problem and a threat in and of itself. Who needs 'brilliant pebbles'?--ry}

**********************************
I know you all read Blackfive, but you have *GOT* to go read "Bagpipes Cryin", and then watch the first video. The second one is good too.. but the first one just gets me. Semper Fi. ~AFSis

*********************************

Disgraced former Republican Congressman Ney goes to jail. Good. So, where are we at on Representative Jefferson's day in court? -the Armorer

*********************************

I'm not afraid of the NSA guys; they *rock*! (and flap, and squeak, and spin.)

Sorry, autie joke. They can use my trampoline any time. Snork.

posted by Justthisguy on January 19, 2007 8:42 AM

Just a quick note. I think you have to give kudos to the guy who had the cajones to come forward on the Kidnapping thing. Just like being a police officer, these guys have intense feelings of letting down other officers if they "rat" them out. Not to mention all of the pain they get from fellow officers about being a "rat".

I imagine it's the same in the military. maybe worse since soldiers are life and death day and night.

On the context of the event, I'm not surprised that it happened or that it has or will happen again. It is the condition of the battle as well as an affect of leadership. Good leadership at the squad level generally prevents it, bad leadership will lead right to it. It is an effect of small group dynamics and human psyche. Once one or more people are "doing" something, the others feel protected or supported by them and are more willing to participate in illegal, dangerous and, as noted, sometimes murderous behavior.

Not that it excuses anyone. The guilty shall be punished.

On another note, Democracy and Freedom fell another notch in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez will rule by decree having disbanded the national assembly, consolidated all of the top industries under state run power and bought the military, he follows in the historical steps of many a latin american dicatator before him (or Hitler even).

And, he was meeting with the Mad Dog from Tehran along with Mini-me from Bolivia and John Kerry's favorite south American dicatator, Ortega.

Does anyone else find it really disturbing that a nuclear seeking maniac is meeting with the nastiest dictators in South America?

posted by kat-missouri on January 19, 2007 11:02 AM

Oh, when I do it it's just messing around. But when you do it 'THIS IS IMPORTANT'. Donovanssssssssssssssss! The Preciousssssssss!

That's why I was rather glad to hear this last night.

It isn't perfect but it sure does beat trying to replace multi-million dollar sats with really complicated launch procedures.

posted by ry on January 19, 2007 12:28 PM

hey, speaking of having his day in court...

any word on Stevie Jordan?

posted by MajMike on January 19, 2007 12:35 PM

Excuse me for being so soft today. I'm feeling very un-SOB today.
""...as we lose confidence that it can ever achieve anything worth its losses""
I've said before: Wars never are worth the men we send to them, and yet they are.

I don't think war can be analyzed quantitatively at this level. Only quantitatively. You can ask if what you attempted to purchase with these lives was good or worth lives, but not was it worth X lives.

But I still don't think it's ever worth it. It isn't worth getting slapped and sent flying across the room by your dad when you try to wake him up for dinner. It isn't worth Audy Murphy sleeping the rest of his life with a .45 under his pillow.

BUt somehow it always really is. It really is.

posted by ry on January 19, 2007 12:40 PM

Ry - there actually *is* a difference between yesterday and today.

Today, I'm no longer working on what I was working.

That line of work has been shut down to pay for the Surge.

Oh, I have a job, and will have new tasks. But now I can speak, to an extent, on things about which I was quiet before.

So there, whiner.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 19, 2007 12:59 PM

Oh, and your relief? Does not extend to my concern.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 19, 2007 1:00 PM

Oh, on the Telegraph article: Jerry Pournelle has been bitching, and complaining, and ranting about this kind of thing for 30 or 40 years. The doodahs don't seem to care what goes on above the atmosphere, even though it may involve what they get to watch on the TeeVee.

posted by Justthisguy on January 19, 2007 4:29 PM

It also affects 911 systems nationwide, as they use triangulation of GPS coordinates relayed from the cellular tower system, both tower and microwave not to mention the FAA, and probably 90% of all air traffic these days.

Toss in all the new "leisure" gizmo's such as On-Star, Tom Tom, Verizon's Navigator, and it will affect more than the DOD....not that the DOD should take losing a few TRWonderful's lightly. But the average layman can't blindly say "Oh gee it doesn't affect me....."

When you start talking communication systems, GPS, and telecom survey work, then your in my home turf :)

posted by BloodSpite on January 19, 2007 11:20 PM

.--. . .-. .... .- .--. .../.-- ./ ...
.... --- ..- .-.. -../.--. .-. .- -.-.

- .. -.-. - .. -.-. ./ - .... .. .../ --
--- .-../ .-.-.-

posted by Princess Crabby on January 20, 2007 12:29 AM

Well, .../..../../-, Princess C.!

posted by Justthisguy on January 21, 2007 12:33 PM

JTG - Nice mouth on you! LOL Hey, this might be the perfect way around the 'Net Nanny. I can say whatever I want.

posted by Maggie on January 21, 2007 7:02 PM

by Denizens on Jan 19, 2007 | General Commentary

A new Whatziss of a different color.

So, just what is this, exactly?

Give it your best shot.

by John on Jan 19, 2007 | Historical Stuff

Soldier's Angels Make A Difference

Marcia Conley, Regional Team Leader for Kansas and Missouri sent this message on January 15:

Hi Angels this was on the forum today and I know some of you contribute blankets of hope, phone cards, toiletries, clothing, etc for the transitional back packs so I thought I would send this out so you can see how much those back packs mean.
:-)
Marcia

Hi, I was recently wounded in combat in Iraq..It was a pretty good hit and when I was medevac'd obviously I didnt get to grab some important items:) I woke up the next day and had nothing to wear or any hygiene stuff..my uniform I had on was bloodsoaked and unwearable..This very sweet nurse (in the pic) brought me a backpack full of goodies from you folks and there was even pajamas:) the hospital robes didnt fit me and I just managed to squeeze your clothes on:) I felt alot better with a shower and some pants on...all with your gift. I ended up having to go to a few more hospitals by helocoptor to get some specialist work done as some of the wounds were deep.I took the bag with me everywhere it was all I had..It was the best thing that could have happened at that time..I just wanted to say thank you for all you nice people do...Here is a pic when I was released...my nurse, my friend on the left and thats me with the new "facejob"..thanks again,
Sgt. Cary K. 1461 combat het/gun truck

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Soldier's Angels make a difference in the lives of our men and women in uniform every day. Soldier's Angels is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that provides care packages, back packs (as noted above) to wounded soldiers, provides for direct "adoption" for letter writing and
support to our armed forces all over the world and these men and women appreciate it.

To find out more about how you can become a soldier's angel, go to http://soldiersangels.org/ and find out about the many ways you can support a soldier serving our country.

If you are in the Kansas City area, KC Soldier's Angels meet every month to discuss and organize donation drives for care packages and other needs of our serving men and women. Next meeting is January 27. To find out more about the meeting, please email kcsoldiersangelsks@gmail.com or kcsoldiersangelsmo@gmail.com and ask for the location and time. Our January Flyer can be downloaded by clicking here. Download file

KC Soldier's Angels will also be putting together a float for the North Kansas City Snake Saturday Parade (Saturday before St. Patrick's Day). They are looking for volunteers to help build the float and walk with it during the parade. We would like to increase the awareness of our organization in the Kansas City Area. Again, if you are interested, please email
kcsoldiersangelsks@gmail.com or kcsoldiersangelsmo@gmail.com.

KC Soldier's Angels has had two large successful drives in the Kansas City area. Most recently, KC Angels was spotlighted on KMBC Channel 9 in November for their Christmas Donation Drive.

In June 2006, KC Soldier's Angels collected over 50 boxes worth of snacks, hygiene items, clothes and magazines in support of the 10th Mtn in Afghanistan and Wounded Soldiers at Landstuhl like Sgt Cary above. In July, after receiving these 50 boxes, a captain from the 10th Mtn wrote back saying, "it was like Christmas in July". While at the Lenexa Hyvee for the
Summer Drive, a young marine recently returned from Iraq came up to our group and thanked us over and over again for taking care of his "buddies" who were still in Iraq.

You can read about our drive here.

I can guarantee that everything collected was sent directly to the troops. All cash donations were used to pay for shipping. It's completely volunteer driven. I know because I am a Soldier's Angel and I helped collect the items and pack the boxes.

Join our team http://soldiersangels.org. If you are local, email KC Soldier's Angels at kcsoldiersangelsks@gmail.com or kcsoldierangelsmo@gmail.com to find out how you can have a hands on experience supporting our troops.

May no soldier go unloved.

Kathleen Henry
KC Soldier's Angels

[Posted by The Armorer for Denizenne Kat, who's hardware-challenged at the moment, and wisely chooses to not post from work in violation of company policy.]

Thanks for the update, Kat! What a great letter!!
I wish we had a Soldier's Angels chapter here. *sigh*

posted by AFSister on January 19, 2007 7:50 AM

YOu know KAt, I still got that loaner machine here if you want it. No monitor(spare went to my Mom), but you'd at least have a box that runs(windows '95).

posted by ry on January 19, 2007 8:10 AM

We've got a monitor or two laying around that could work with that box.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 19, 2007 8:17 AM

AFSis... so, start one?

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 19, 2007 8:18 AM

yeah... i'll get on that John. just as soon as i figure out how to juggle a full-time job, being a single mom, a single homeowner, and the FRG rep for Keith's unit.
*sigh*

there just isn't enough hours in the day for me to start something like that, but i would participate in an existing group.

posted by AFSister on January 19, 2007 10:03 AM

I appreciate the offer. Now that I have a job and income, I am planning to buy a new computer. I actually had planned to buy it this weekend, but the car decided that it needed a new water pump. So, just two more weeks I think and I'll have a machine.

But, I really, really appreciate the offer.

And thanks John for posting this.

AFSis, he's right, you can start one in your area. Marcia just started us up last week. I think SA will even help you buy giving you the contact information for SA people in your area. Probably a bunch of people that, like you, don't even know that SA people are in their area either.

But, you know you can always go to the site and just donate directly.

posted by kat-missouri on January 19, 2007 10:07 AM

AFSis, I believe we did have an active group in your state at one time, but I don't know how close they are to you. You really gotta join the SA forum to see everything that is going on. That's where the real synergy is. You don't have to take a leadership position to get some informal gatherings going and encouraging one another in small troop support stuff or large. If you need directions, e-mail me, and I'll hook ya up.

posted by Laurie on January 19, 2007 11:27 AM

I'm in SA's, but I've never looked through the forum. I'll have to figure out how to do that.

posted by AFSister on January 19, 2007 12:04 PM

Does this mean a return of 'Middle Ground'? I lost my password to post stuff there when I had to reformat during the summer and haven't been able to inflict myself on your readership, Kat. I'd be right pleased if you did start that up again, even if at 1/8 the volume of the past.

posted by ry on January 19, 2007 12:11 PM

Yep. I shall return - to quote you know who.

I plan on getting a digital camera so I can take some photos of our SA activities and other interesting things.

Can't wait. I just have to make sure the excitement doesn't turn to over indulgence again.

posted by kat-missouri on January 19, 2007 12:26 PM

Dang, I bet that hurt! Time to send more money, I reckon, with a note suggesting to buy a wider range of t-shirt and pajama sizes. All I can do, really.

Well, no, there's also the Kitchen Table Gang.

posted by Justthisguy on January 19, 2007 3:39 PM

by John on Jan 19, 2007 | Something for the Soul

H&I* Fires, 18 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Hey - trackbacks work again!]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

******************************
Opposing views, wildly opposing views, to that of Argghhh! abound. Dan of tdaxp makes an argument that the war for Iraq is over (not a defeatist argument, mind you). Bill Arkin. I’ll just leave it at that.

Murdoc has info on something I’ve been waiting a long time for: Nautical Railguns. Can we mount one on the Sand Pebbles, huh, huh, huh?

Both Zenpundit and Grim of Grim’s Hall have updates on GWOT.

J over at ArmchairGeneralist has an update on biodefense attempts for the US. Not a rosy picture.

Does the PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force) have a working ASAT system?
---ry
(not like it matters at this time of the day, 23:30 11/18/07, but the Arkin link is now fixed.)
*******************************

All those who say the Democrats have no plan for Iraq are wrong. Here it is:

The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.

As I've said before, if they truly believe the best thing to do is get out now, they need to be doing everything in their power to make that happen, but issuing non-binding resolutions for fear of touching a "big issue" is playing politics of the worst kind with war. Tony Blankley calls it for what it is: "Vulture Politics." - FbL

*******************************

Four Royal Marines flew into a battle zone clinging to the outside of helicopter gunships in a bid to rescue a fallen comrade, the Ministry of Defence has revealed. L/Cpl Ford: Comrades did not know he had been killed. Unwilling to leave behind one of their number following a retreat, the commandos strapped themselves to the small stabiliser wings of two Apache helicopters and returned into the midst of a fierce gunfight with the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. Details of the unprecedented rescue attempt were revealed as the MoD pieced together the final hours of fallen hero L/Cpl Matthew Ford.

Read the rest here and here.
H/T Rogue Gunner..............Maggie

********************************

Yo, AFSis - you Air Force chicks are hawt. Don't read the regs, but hawt! -the Armorer

*******************************

Art Buchwald passes. He was great fun to read. -the Armorer

******************************

Yay! Comments work properly - they post, and the "remember me" button works, too. Though, the comment window still looks like it's not doing anything when it is - but at least moderation is working properly (i.e., we *ain't* moderating) and you don't have to add your data back in every time. Whee! -the Armorer

*****************************

Actually, Ry, Dan and I are far more in agreement than disagreement in some respects.

We share the opinion that killing off the bad guys (as distinct from killing everything that moves) is what changes the correlations.

Kill enough Nazis, the support for Nazism wanes.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 7:33 AM

Okay, so I was wrong. Do I still get to keep the stale Cheetos?

posted by ry on January 18, 2007 8:01 AM

We always keep a bag open for you and the hamster, Ry.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 8:25 AM

Thanks for the link! I posted a followup.

(The link for Bill Arkin needs to be fixed, btw :-) )

posted by Dan tdaxp on January 18, 2007 9:49 AM

John - actually the AF doesn't call them regs, anymore, they are "Instructions" which was introduced by Gen Tony McPeak in the 90s as part of that empowerment thing that was in vogue then. Guess it worked; she sure felt empowered... I'll tell ya, none of my TIs looked like that (whew!).
BTW, didn't the Army have a similar situation with the same publication back in the 80s?

posted by Oldloadr on January 18, 2007 10:00 AM

Oldloadr - Don't bother me with the past. I'm embracing Cliff's attitude - only the here and now matters!

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 10:03 AM

So I have to forget about the nay-kid gruntette I saw in PB back in my youth and only dwell on the nay-kid zoomie chick? It'll take a while for me to shift my paradigm; it's that damn conservative mind-set...

posted by Oldloadr on January 18, 2007 10:20 AM

AF chicks may be hawt... but *that* one was stoopid! ug.
Appearing in PB is one thing, but appearing in PB with part of your uniform, being promoted as a hawt military chick, is a whole 'nuther ballgame. (and judging by oldloadr's comments, I'm guessing another "ball"game will be taking place, compliments of SSG Manheart)

re: Royal Marines... GOOD LORD, WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAZIES. Dayum... that's insane. They strapped themselves to the OUTSIDE of Apache's and headed back into battle. Amazing. Simply amazing. I'm glad they at least recovered the body of their fallen comrade instead of leaving his body for the Taliban to abuse.

posted by AFSister on January 18, 2007 12:29 PM

AFSis, when I went to SERE back in the 70's they taught us how to open the ammo doors on a Cobra to ride out on it if necessary. There was also at least one downed pilot that rode out on one of the rocket pods. Any ride in a storm, and after a firefight the relative risk of riding outside the aircraft probably seems lower. :-)

I'm sure BillT has much more info on that kind of thing.

posted by Pogue on January 18, 2007 1:59 PM

Extraction from a hot LZ via Cobra ammo bay door is the preferred method -- you're closer to the lateral c.g. and you can wrap an arm around the support cable. If you're gonna ride a rocket pod, straddle it facing the rear and reach *a-l-l-l-l* the way back to use the trailing edge of the wing for a handhold.

As far as riding an Apache, straddle one of the main wheels (tell the pilot to set the brake, first -- heh) and clip on to one of the cockpit entry bars with a D-ring -- which most of us had laced onto our survival vests with parachute cord. Don't dangle your feet, though, or you'll get slammed with the chain gun.

You can ride an Apache's rocket pods, although it's a rougher trip than doing it on a Cobra, since Apache pods're articulated. But for a real thrill, hop prone on the wings facing forward (tie yourself off to a launcher shackle and you're now hands-free to provide suppression to the sides and rear) and hum something apropos from Wagner...

posted by BillT on January 18, 2007 2:57 PM

I don't care if they are "regs" or "instructions". I don't care if she is hot or not. I am with AFSis.......she is stupid. Those should be the grounds for her dismissal.

John - Your new progressive attitude gave me a chuckle.

posted by Maggie on January 18, 2007 7:19 PM

One little blogowner test...

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 9:42 PM

Bill-
I got my copy of "Loach" today, and have been flipping through the pages looking for my SugarButtons. *grin*

posted by AFSister on January 18, 2007 10:38 PM

Maggie - Only officers are dismissed; enlisted are discharged (I know, I'm being anal).
My guess is her leadership will decide to offer her article 15 punishment. Based on the statements she has uttered, she may turn it down and demand a court-martial. If that happens, she could get a bad-conduct discharge.
If she accepts the article 15 and loses a stripe, she may get a general discharge at the end of her current enlistment since she will then be beyond high year of tenure for an E-4.
Personally, I think she should be punished (but not to the extent of a BCD). Anyway, the AF may have an image problem if they try to discharge her after some of the officer misconduct that has taken place recently and the apparently light punishment that was meted out...

posted by Oldloadr on January 19, 2007 7:03 AM

We have a Pogue amongst us! Welcome.
As to the investigation..um...sure. copies of the issue all around while they ask her if she was photoshopped and did she have control of the final copy, etc.

*whistling off to feed the Moat Monster and fix breakfast*

posted by Cricket on January 19, 2007 7:49 AM

Oldloadr - give on the officer naughtiness!

Unless the fallout causes her to be unable to perform her duties, I'd lean to a Letter of Reprimand, Article 15. The only problem with the Art15 of course is if she were to call my bluff.

Hmmm. The recent Army issue with the 82nd Airborne guys is clouded by the gay issue, I guess I'll go see where those cases ended up.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 19, 2007 8:22 AM

I'm waiting for a "Big Beautiful Women" calendar with one or more photos of, er, "healthy" Navy chicks. Don't get me wrong, scrawny wimmin frighten me; they're not normal. Rubens had the right kinda taste in wimmin.

P.S. "Normal" wimmin frighten me too, but that's another issue. Sigh.

posted by Justthisguy on January 19, 2007 10:18 AM

P.P.S.: I mind the time I sat next to my cousin and her roomie (housie?) at the dinner after my Mom's funeral. I made one of my (characteristically socially clueless) comments about "fat Navy chicks" and got a rocket right back. "Sorry, I beg yr pardon, Ma'am, Mea Maxima Culpa" I said, or words to that effect. I then asked, what was yer rate in the Navy?

"O-5, that is Commander, same as Lt. Colonel", she said.

"Oh!", I said.

I later saw her wearing a Distinguished Service Medal ribbon, at another funeral.

I do still think she's kinda sexy in a weird dangerous way

posted by Justthisguy on January 19, 2007 10:47 AM

JTG, on this rather chitty day to be gollum I needed that. Dude, if I ever make it down to Florida the beer's on me.

posted by ry on January 19, 2007 12:13 PM

John - the officer indiscretions and subsequent punishments don't bother me too much but they have been all over AF Times and Stars & Stripes, with all kinds of opinion letters about "different rank - different spank." That's why I mentioned them and that's why I don't think she'll get a BCD. However, as you touched on, I would expect her to lose the MTI AFSC and be reverted to her original AFSC as I don't see the AF leaving her as the first face of the AF that 50 new recuits see...

posted by Oldloadr on January 19, 2007 2:56 PM

What torques me is the allegations of sexual harassment and then this. Sorry, that just feeds the fire and I personally think she ought to lose a stripe and have a bar to reenlistment. The military busts a gut to narrow the definition of porn, allows Playboy to be sold in the base exchanges, denies it in the workplace, punishes personnel who engage in inappropriate conduct and then some floozy tech does this? Every single woman who has wanted to be taken seriously on her ability and works hard to play by the rules and puts up with garbage in the workplace doesn't need this.

Your mileage may vary.

*stirring chicken noodle soup and checking on the rolls and fruit salad*

posted by Cricket on January 19, 2007 3:54 PM

Cricket - I have a daughter who is a SSgt in the AF (jet engine mechanic). I'm goinng to send her this link and ask her to respond with her opinion.

posted by Oldloadr on January 19, 2007 5:29 PM

Oldloadr - Um, I don't *read* the Air Force Times. Shocking, I know.

I guess I'll hafta google up S&S.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 19, 2007 5:47 PM

Oldloadr - I had something to say........but.....

"different rank - different spank."

knocked it right out of my mind!

posted by Maggie on January 19, 2007 7:46 PM

It wasn't all that long ago, I think, that you weren't allowed to enlist in the Air Force, as a woman, without producing a photograph to show that you were good-lookin. I betcha Sgt Mom will back me up on this. She is, of course, good-lookin, as is (I presume) her daughter, Corporal Blondie, USMC.

posted by Justthisguy on January 19, 2007 9:06 PM

oldloadr,
Thanks. I guess I shouldn't have gotten angry, as I am generally not a supporter of women in the military. But the ones who have broken the taboos, worked hard and earned the respect of their male peers, colleagues, supervisors, commanders, etc. certainly don't need this.

And the ones in the war zone ESPECIALLY don't need this type of propaganda BS especially if they get caught. Remember, the enemy is watching, and one thing that I do remember from my college days is that every single male Muslim student did two things: Drink and buy porn.
Saddam's sons, may they roast with their father
were notorious for having this double standard which is totally against Islam and feeds into their derogatory ideas about women in general and western women in particular.

It is all about example, and I would say the same if it were an officer. I will be anxious to hear what your daughter has to say.

posted by Cricket on January 19, 2007 9:43 PM

Cricket – I am angry, too about what this person did. However, with my experience in the AF and the sandbox, I am willing to say she should be punished but not discharged because:

1. By all accounts she has had a stellar career up to this point and
2. As I have mentioned (documented in the AF Times) the AF has had its share of sexual scandal (amongst the higher ups) and none of them lost their pension.
3. If she is willing to put her nose to the grindstone and do her job from here on out, she should be allowed to continue to serve, albeit with proper documentation in her record. And some form of punishment behind her
- BTW My daughter is staioned in Germany, so it may be a day or two before she sees my e-mail and responds.

posted by Oldloadr on January 19, 2007 11:26 PM

I can respect that...but wasn't there a woman pilot who had an affair with an enlisted man?
And didn't they both get bounced? I know that sometimes the different rank thing should not be a part of it; wrongdoing is wrongdoing.

But I have also seen instances where a higher up had nothing more than a grudge and abused the system to get rid of someone they had a personal gripe about.

In this instance, she is using the 'I stood up for my rights' to do what she wanted. There are women in harm's way who don't need this additional
evidence of a stereotype. We are at war. Were this peacetime, yeah a slap on the wrist would be about right. But she has potentially jeopardized other women with this and don't think for one minute that the Islamist radicals in this country won't get that magazine and get it to their mujahadeen.

And other women who pose nude do American women no favors. That is one of my 'issues.' It may
be a guy thing to look at it, or buy it, but
ultimately it serves no purpose other that to belittle and denigrate women.

Okay, I have said enough and I am not trying to impose my morals here. Thanks for letting me
have my say. I am going to retire from this thread.

posted by Cricket on January 20, 2007 9:00 AM

Cricket brings up an excellent point about comment threads.

Sometimes, they should just die. When they get circular, positions staked, and no further movement.

Around here, we're pretty good at that.

Some places, however. Or - during our semi-legendary meltdown around here during L'Affaire Schiavo.

The real point I'm going to make is: Retirement doesn't mean concession, as it is so often taken for and crowed about. It just means... I'm done, take it or leave it.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 20, 2007 9:31 AM

by Denizens on Jan 18, 2007 | General Commentary
� tdaxp links with: Give Them Guns

A Cav trooper speaks out on the Surge.

This missive is written by a young specialist in the Army, a cav soldier. I checked the name on AKO, he's real. Heh. What a difference perspective makes.

Following the article I sent about Bush's national address and troop increase, I thought it was a good idea to let you all know what the perspective is over here. I'm tired of hearing the media's skewed version, the politicians squabbling over what they read in a report, and the average ill-informed American ranting about things he knows NOTHING about.

I've been over here a couple of months now, and I've learned more about this country than a year's worth of watching CNN. I've sat in mission briefs with Colonels, talked with village elders, had tea with Sheiks, played with the kids. And I agree with the President. We need more troops and we need to take greater action.

There are 3 major factions here. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The Shiites are in the majority, but Saddam was a Sunni, so he kept the Shiites in check. Everyone hates the Kurds, who are Christian and in the vast minority. The Kurds received the brunt of Saddam's murderous tyranny. Now that Saddam is gone, the Shiites have taken control of Baghdad. The largely peaceful Sunnis are now the victims of radical Shiite terrorism. So the young Sunni men, who can no longer go to work and support their families, do what all young men would do. They join the Sunni militia and battle the Shiites. And thus the country sits on the brink of civil war.

But this war is between them. They largely do not concern themselves with the U.S. troops. The insurgents who battle the Coalition Forces are from outside the country. And the biggest problem down here isn't the insurgents. Its the politicians. The local politicians. Even though the country is controlled by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, downtown Baghdad is controlled by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Shiites follow al-Sadr and thus the Prime Minister does what al-Sadr says. Think of it as if a warlord controlled New York and blackmailed the President into diplomatic immunity.

When 1st Cav (mainly 2/5 Cav) came here in 2004, they took downtown Baghdad (known as Sadr City) by force. It cost many lives, but after a year, we held an iron grip on the largest insurgent breeding ground in Iraq. The insurgents were afraid of the Horse People, and rightfully so.

But when 1st Cav left, al-Sadr influenced the Prime Minister to kick out the Coalition forces from that area of Baghdad. He said the Iraqi military forces could hold the city. But all that happened was al-Sadr regained control of his city, and it is now a heavily guarded fortress.

A place where insurgents and terrorists can train and stockpile arms.

And we cannot go back in because the Prime Minister won't let us. Our hands are tied.

So where does al-Sadr get his backing? From Iran and Syria. Iran supplies him with money and Syria supplies the terrorists. The insurgents that battle the Coalition Forces are from Syria, Somalia and dozens of other places outside of Iraq. Iraq is literally a terrorist breeding ground. They have terrorist and sniper schools here. Why not?

They train by teaching them to attack the military forces here. And they have an endless supply of these training tools. They have factories in Sadr City to build bombs. Both Iran and Syria have openly proclaimed their number one goal in life is to destroy the great Western Devil and the little Western Devil (America and Britain). Iran wants to control Iraq to further this purpose. Al-Sadr will get to "run" the country and live like a king, but in reality Iran will pull the puppet strings. Iran will have access to thousands of radical Shiites who will do whatever al-Sadr tells them to. And Iraq will be used as a breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorism that will be targeted directly at America and Britain. The Iraq Study Group advised we should let Iran and Syria help with rebuilding? Bravo to President Bush for striking that idea down and vowing to keep those two countries out of Iraq.

So how do the Iraqi people feel about everything? Of course they don't want the Americans here. But they would far rather have us here than the Iranians. My platoon visited an average Sunni village on a patrol a few days ago. Their only source of income was to farm, as they could not go to the city to work for fear of violence. Many of the young men had already run off to join the militia for no other reason than to feed their families. They had no school or hospital near them and the community was dying. The village elder's granddaughter was very sick and I was able to treat her. Afterwards he invited me and my Platoon Leader to sit in his house and have tea with him, and we talked about the situation.

The people want peace. The Shiites kill the Sunnis because al-Sadr tells them to do so. The Sunnis fight back because they have no choice. They are glad Saddam is dead (Sunni or not), but do not want to replace him with another dictator in a politician's clothes (which is what al-Sadr will become). And they especially don't want Iran in charge. Many innocent Iraqis will die if this happens. These are the words that came out of the elder's mouth:

"We do not want America here, and America does not want to be here. But you cannot leave because the militias control the country. America must use the might of its giant army and sweep through, root out and destroy the militias. Then Iraq can be free and you can leave."

What appears to have happened within our diplomatic community, is that Prime Minister finally realizes that his days are numbered. If al-Sadr remains, he will be kicked to the curb. So hopefully he is about to allow us to reenter Sadr City, root out and destroy the enemy. A dramatic troop increase will allow us to do this. And the Horse People are back and ready to finish what they started over 2 years ago.

If leave now, it will be a failure for democracy. Iran will control Iraq and the end result will be more terrorist attacks on America. The American people don't want soldiers dying over here, but its better than American civilians dying over there. Do NOT forget 9/11. They will do it again. The moment we loosen our grip on the noose, they will do it again. And the only way to root out the evil here is to stop beating around the bush, increase troops and destroy the insurgents once and for all. The Iraqi government cannot do this on their own. The Iraqi security forces are inadequate for this task. We are the only ones who can stop al-Sadr.

Feel free to share this with whomever wants a real soldier's opinion about the war.

SPC "Doc" Shurley
2/5 Cav, 1st CB

Whoa!! Not your typical Specialist - what a breath of fresh air. Our "Polits" and many of our analysts should read and heed. Good on ya', young Specialist. Charlie Mike!! ML

posted by Mike Lehnherr on January 18, 2007 11:19 AM

If this was an example of our losers who are in the military, could we get some more, please!! This guy is really something and I hope he starts to blog and keeps on with the comments. Also hope he decides to run for office in DC. We need more people who can analyze a situation and make decisions on what they really find there, what the reality is.

I don't know where we are coming up with these young people but I will be so glad when the Boomers are gone and these young people take over. That should be a golden age for the US. Hope I am still around to see it.

posted by dick on January 18, 2007 11:53 AM

"they fear the Horse People..."

..and rightly so.

posted by MajMike on January 18, 2007 12:48 PM

Okay, it's interesting, but I do have one nitpick: The Kurds are not "Christian". They do have some of the largest Christian enclaves in Kurdistan because that is where they are protected. That includes Kurds, Arabs and Turkomen Christians. The Kurds are a mix of Sunni and Shia, thought largely Sunni with a few odd "religions" thrown in, like Zoarastians. (Most folks should recall the Sunni Islamic Army that was largely Kurdish Sunni Islamist who aligned themselves with Zarqawi pre-invasion. This same group actually sent fighters to Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 at the behest of Al qaeda recruiters).

The differences, really, between the Kurds and the rest of Iraq is that:

a) they see themselves as "Kurds" first (for the most part) and are interested in protecting "Kurdistan" and their autonomy rather than controlling Iraq as a whole.

b) Kurdistan has it's own natural resources to insure their own wealth and economy (although, this is part of the contention over Kirkuk and Mosul where other oil, natural gas and natural resources lie and that were once predominantly "Kurdish")

c) The Kurds still long for independence which means that they don't see ruling Iraq as a long term goal.

Secondly, not a nitpick so much as an addition, on what Iran wants: In the short run, having access to "thousands of radical Shia" is not so much about having "terrorists" to attack US interests or citizens directly, but to give them political influence in Iraq. They want this influence for a number of reasons:

a) Because they are looking to add to the Iran/Syria block to oppose Saudi and Gulf Arab domination of regional politics (which is invariably tempered by their relationship with the United States) as well as Saudi domination of OPEC, leading to...

b) A voting block in OPEC consisting of Iran, Iraq and Venezuela. Hoping that Iraq is politically and economically tied to Iran and makes them more amenable to the Iranian position on decreases in oil production and other measures that would increase the price of oil and thus revenues to support the Iranian government (which exists on an economy that is between 50% to 70% of their revenues depending on the "expert").

c) iranian influence in Iraq means Iraq might be less amenable to their country, resources and borders being used to send money, guns and political antagonist into Iran that may destabilize their regime and cause an internal "revolution". Or, just as bad, crash their economy with black market influx of American or other country goods along with cutting their oil revenues by a third thru certain activities artificially inflating oil prices and then dumping the futures just enough to cut of over 13 billion in estimated profit/revenue for 2007 (that just happened). That's with Iran carrying a huge deficit and 11% unemployment with almost 30% of it's population employed by government agencies or nationalized businesses (like oil).

d) Insure that Iraq is not amenable to the US using it's soil for a direct military attack on Iran.

so, I suppose in short, it is not necessarily American military forces or direct combat/terrorist attacks on American interestes Iran is interested in in the long run so much as staving off what they see as a major military, political and economic security risk with the potential outcome (should they succeed in forcing us out) that Iran has military, political and economic hegemony in the region.

posted by kat-missouri on January 18, 2007 1:48 PM

well, there's that...

but the good news is that they fear the Horse People.

so we got that going for us.

which is nice.

posted by MajMike on January 18, 2007 3:42 PM

Well..there is that. Sadr's Shia followers are really superstitious so maybe they see the "horse people" as part of the apocolyptic four horsemen that bring the final judgement? i believe that Islam has this in common with the other two abramic religions: a belief in the resurrection and the apocolypse for the rest of us sinners.

Do I hear 'Die Vulkyrie' in the background?

posted by kat-missouri on January 18, 2007 3:54 PM

test test poke poke

posted by phin on January 18, 2007 9:15 PM

by John on Jan 18, 2007 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

A Kansas casualty in Iraq. Sergeant Ian Anderson, Prairie Village.

DoD Identifies Army Casualties
The Department of Defense announced today the death of four soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They died Jan 15 in Mosul , Iraq , of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations. The soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Bliss , Texas .

Killed were:

2nd Lt. Mark J. Daily, 23, of Irvine , Calif.
Sgt. Ian C. Anderson, 22, of Prairie Village , Kan.
Sgt. John E. Cooper, 29, of Ewing , Ky.
Spc. Matthew T. Grimm, 21, of Wisconsin Rapids , Wis.

From the KC Star today:

Prairie Village soldier dies His wife, who also is serving in Iraq, is heading home to be with their 3-year-old girl. By LEE HILL KAVANAGH The Kansas City Star

Courtesy of the family
Ian and Suzanne Anderson, both serving in the same Army unit.

The day before her husband died was one of the best days that Suzanne Anderson had with her young Army husband, despite that they were living in Mosul, Iraq.

It was their last day together.

Sgt. Ian C. Anderson, 22, from Prairie Village, was killed Monday morning, along with three other soldiers. A bomb blew up near their Humvee.

His wife, Suzanne Anderson, 21, who is also in the Army, has left Iraq. She’s traveling home to Kansas, but bad weather is making her journey home even longer.

Both Andersons served in the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, out of Fort Bliss, Texas.

You should read the whole thing.

Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam.

by John on Jan 18, 2007 | Observations on things Military

On the subject of Contractors, the use of, current and historical, with a peculiar emphasis on Iraq.

Cliff sez:

You appear to be an historian. Can you point to anytime in history that we have contracted privately for security in theatre?

You do keep moving the bar around a bit, Cliff, having gone from contracting services in general to now being more specific regarding security.

Precedent for contracting services in general.

1. Revolution
2. War of 1812
3. War with Mexico
4. Civil War
5. Indian Wars
6. War with Spain
7. Philippine Insurrection
8. All Naval overseas supply operations, and most local, until the advent of at-sea replenishment and significant overseas basing.

The logistics establishment of the services was actually pretty small. WWI was the first time we really expanded logistics and put soldiers to the task, mostly because we found ourselves in a situation where the other combatants were fully occupied themselves, and shipping space to move a huge US military structure overseas was limited, and we were fighting a "total effort" war - overseas. A first for us.

WWII - same same.

Korea... I honestly don't know.

Vietnam - we had a draft army (something that happens to be coincidentally true of, hmmmmmm, WWI, WWII, and Korea) but we still started contracting out some services then.

Then, along comes July 1, 1973, and we're back to an all volunteer Army. Well, we are when the last intake of draftees end their terms without re-enlisting. The ones that stay, well, they obviously convert to... volunteers.

Since then we've been trying to balance teeth to tail, and what functions go where in the force structure.

And we *reverted* to our previous modus vivendi, contracting.

As for security in general - you have to consider the nature of the war, as Ry alluded to in his comment.

As a slightly snarky observation, in the Indian Wars we contracted out reconnaissance.... [Update: And, as Spade pointed out in the comments - Letters of Marque and Reprisal]

In the wars we fought up to Vietnam last century, we were fighting with large, draft-fed armies, and significant, well-organized allies who were fighting for their national lives. We were generally liberating occupied territory, and fighting an enemy who fought conventionally. This is especially true of WWI and II. The local political situation and the military reality of the crushing combat which had flowed both ways over the occupied nations, plus the issue of liberation, combined with huge armed forces made large-scale behind the lines security largely un-neccessary, Skorzeny notwithstanding.

Korea was largely similar - though in that war there was guerrilla activity by the UN behind NK/Chinese lines in the north (my father was involved in that) and a commando threat behind UN lines. But again, the population was generally friendly or at least neutral, and we had that largish, draft-fed Army, along with the South Korean army, which provided the requisite security.

Vietnam - the nature of that war was different, but the South Vietnamese government and armed forces, bad as bits and pieces of both were, were more fully functional than is true with the situation in Iraq.

And there was not the decay of infrastructure to deal with - the rebuilding requirement, not just of war damage, but correcting the decade of neglect caused by the sanctions, where Saddam et cie built palaces and let power plants decline.

And we still had that draft-fed Army.

Comes Iraq, volume I. We do start contracting out baseops functions and we did contract out some security. But as Ry noted in his comment - we were kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, putting us in a situation more similar to WWI, and we were doing it with the Cold War army of 780,000 troops.

Now comes Iraq, volume II. Having already conceded I think the March Upcountry was a brilliant campaign as an economy of force operation, but it should have been rather a different event in a more perfect world. Of course, we don't live in the perfect world.

So, now Cliff gripes about the 100,000 security contractors. He sort of conflates things, mixing all forms of security contractors into one lump, but let's run with that.

Again, we are now in the non-draft-fed Army era. There are only so many troops available for the job. There is a huge infrastructure rebuilding requirement, which is not going to be met by military engineering assets.

And the local government is shaky at best (save perhaps the Kurdish areas), with a significant internal security threat to be dealt with - not least because we were as humane as we could be in this last war and didn't just stomp everything flat, as we did with Germany and Japan.

There are large numbers of Iraqis who never saw an American during the major combat operations phase, who found themselves bewildered by what happened. You'd have been hard-pressed to find a German or Japanese in 1945 who wasn't fully cognizant that they had had their butt handed to them, nicely filleted and medallioned.

So, the security situation is completely different. And we don't have the troops to conduct ops *and* provide all the needed security. Neither do the Iraqis. And some of their better trained individuals are on the side of those causing the problems.

So, we contract out some security efforts, rather than diverting expensive and highly trained combat troops to those jobs.

And all the people coming in to do work, not able to get US troops or local troops/police to provide security, do what? Contract for private security.

So that, Cliff, is how I see Contracting.

1. It's not unprecedented. It's actually a reversion to a model we used previously, especially for logistics. Contractors hauled most of the supplies, even if they were issued by the Quartermaster. Troops cooked meals in squad groups, not centrally. Units built their own shelters, but war and campaigning were different then. Not to mention the washer-women, and the undertakers who followed the Armies. Then there's the Sutler - that is a function we've turned upside down - we've made that a quasi-governmental function - via AAFES (which is commanded by a Major General, currently of the Air Force).

2. Providing all our own security is dependent on several factors. And those conditions present, especially that draft-fed Army and War for Survival thing that allowed an armed force of 16 million men for WWII, 5 million during Vietnam, allow you some luxuries that the Economy of Force operation we are conducting now lacks.

3. Contracting, especially supervision thereof, has not been handled well. Plenty of room for criticism there and improvement. Among them may be the consensus to take on more of those functions in-house. Which will take more troops and/or government employees, most of whom will not be needed when it's over. Which will cost more over the long haul. One advantage of contracting, said the currently-idle contractor waiting his next task, is that you don't have a long-term commitment to me - to include medical or retirement. The company has that burden, or not, depending on how things are operating.

Does that answer your question, Cliff? Oh, and yeah, I'm something of a historian. At least, the Army paid me to be a military history instructor. But, as a long-term reader of my blog will quickly discern, my interest and specialty is more on the hardware.

But John, come on! You know the real reason Cliff is so troubled by the "contracting" issue.

It's HALLLIBURTON! And Cheney! And evil, rich neo-cons getting even richer off Dumbya's illegal war and American tax-payer funded no-bid "contracts"!

Oh .... and they're stealing all the OOIILLL!

posted by fdcol63 on January 18, 2007 7:51 AM

John,

Excellent outline. For those who might think that the problems with civilian contractors (greedy, slipshod methods, lousy production, etc) is of recent device, I would urge them to peruse the massive files on corruption and malfeasance regarding Civil War period contractors, some of whom actually DID take the money and run.

The army commissary department had to actually go to accepting only coffee beans in the green , unground, in order to stop suppliers from adding various "fillers" such as sawdust, sand, charcoal, bark, and other nasty things to increase their profit margin. troops were forced to roast their own beans and then grind them as best they could in many cases.

The government also had to contract with various railroads and express companies in order to transport goods from the various acceptance points to the distribution centers, and sometimes even to advanced depots and railheads. The South, in particular, NEVER had a military railroad system such as the North established during the war, and as a consequence, had to depend upon contracts with private railroads for all of it's troops and logistical transport, with all the attendant concerns.

Interesting part of our military history, that.

Respects,

posted by Gwedd on January 18, 2007 8:09 AM

Yo we have contracted out the PX for most of our military history -- at least the Army has. Sutlers certainly made a killing on those poor soldiers.

posted by JimC on January 18, 2007 8:34 AM

..and maybe we could contract out the Secret Service function to Pinkertons.

(oh? nevermind)

posted by MajMike on January 18, 2007 8:46 AM

MajMike - good catch!

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 8:50 AM

Can you say, Carpet-bagger?" :) ML

posted by Mike Lehnherr on January 18, 2007 9:09 AM

And, um..I might be a little confused on the story line, but I had the impression that some of Benedict Arnold's problems post Saratoga and pre-West Point was in regards to delivery of product, quality of goods or pricing. I may be a little shaky on the exact details, but it was one of those things that "impugned his honor", thus adding to his feelings of being "slighted" by the Continentals and leading to his eventual traitorous activities.

And, i hate to point out "Dances with Wolves", but one part that wasnt' too far off was the private contractor delivering large amount of food, material and weapons to far flung forts. In general, such contractors provided their own security to and from, often made their own private treaties with the tribes or used bribery to insure the safety of their products.

In even more modern times, having done some considerable research on Halliburton and KBR, both companies, as separate entities and as a merged conglomberate, have had contracts with the United States government since before WWII. In fact, Root and Brown (predecessor to KBR), built the Corpus Christi, Texas Naval Air Station along with several other projects during WWII.

They also received a major contract with NASA in 1968. In 1991, Haliburton is selected by the DOD to put out the oil well fires (320) after Desert Storm. This is a "no bid" contract because literally no other company could muster the resources needed to put out the fires. I didn't here anyone complaining about the contracting, lack of bids, etc during that time. For that matter, was Cliff old enough to know what a contractor was much less worry abou it.

Just so everyone get's this is not a Republican contracting issue, in 1992, KBR wins bid for logistical support (ie, building bases, supplying food, etc) to troops in Somalia, Bosnia, Croatia and Hungary.

1995, KBR gets big contract to dismantle ICBM silos in Kazahkstan (hey, isn't that a Democrat president?).

In 1997, the most interesting thing occured. President Clinton ordered the Pentagon to dismiss the winning contract bid from Dyna corp for LOGCAP and give it to Halliburton.

One of my most favorite recent bruhahas over the contracting was in 2003. Sen. Waxman of California insisted on investigations into the subcontracting process for Halliburton. Ostensibly, this appeared to be Democrat concerned with the abuse of money and power by an alleged "Republican" owned company (of course, Halliburton is publically traded). However, it turned out that Waxman was actually fronting for the Bechtel company which was upset that it did not receive specific contracts.

The Bechtel company is, not surprisingly, a California based company in Waxman's area. The contract would have increased revenue and, of course, jobs for area residents, thus increased state revenue from taxes and Waxman's chances of re-election.

but, reverting back to an historical review of contracting, maybe Cliff doesn't know that some of the range wars, like Johnson county, were about the right to supply goods, beef, etc to the US army and US managed indian reservations? Does Cliff know why Billy the Kid was with Mr. Tunstall as a gun fighter?

If I can be blunt, most of the current day whipping over contracting is a bunch of bunk. Particularly the partisan kind. Of course we should all be looking out for corruption, but I highly doubt it is attributable to a specific administration or political party. The system is full of holes. the GAO audits everything they can but to get so good potential errors or corruption is eliminated, you'd have to have one of the biggest departments in the government. Probably right after the military.

More information on LOGCAP if anyone is really interested in how the program works and recent history.

posted by kat-missouri on January 18, 2007 12:59 PM

Just what was that Johnson County Range War about anyway?

Give ya some hints: Murphy, Tunstall, contracts to supply beef.

And here you thought Billy the Kid was just another Gun Slinger from the violent west.

posted by kat-missouri on January 18, 2007 1:57 PM

Didn't artillerymen start out as private contractors? I think armies started having their own guys do it because the gunners refused to do some things they thought might get them killed, or something. "Hey, I'm a technician. I don't do *combat*, that's just icky!"

posted by Justthisguy on January 18, 2007 2:31 PM

The easy historical example would be the "letters of marque" which Congress is still authorized to issue.

posted by Spade on January 18, 2007 2:57 PM

Spade - good point. And done for the same reason... not enough hulls and people to sail them.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 3:06 PM

..and let us not forget Robert Clive taking that 160K Pound bribe from Mir Jaffar (the nawab of Bengal) back in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey.

i blame it all on the East India Company.

it's all about the spices..

(btw, where did Cliff go? wasn't he supposed to come back?)

posted by MajMike on January 18, 2007 3:50 PM

MajMike - To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, "Maybe Cliff couln't handle the truth."

posted by Oldloadr on January 18, 2007 4:35 PM

And won't you all be surprised when he comes back and drops a comment the size of the Federal Register in here?

Hopefully easier to read, tho.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 5:30 PM

John, Korea? Fehrenbach. Yes, when the UN Forces went in they did wind up hiring locals for 'tote and carry' jobs. An observation made was that when these contractors disappeared after demanding to be paid early someone should've known the Imun-Gun was a comin'.

posted by ry on January 18, 2007 10:25 PM

Change 2 to Post: On the subject of Contractors, the use of, current and historical, with a peculiar emphasis on Iraq.

Change from: Korea... I honestly don't know.

Change to: Korea... I honestly don't remember.

By the Direction of the Armorer.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 19, 2007 6:43 AM

John, Thanks for the response,

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was talking about private contractors for security in theatre. I believe that exactly what I said.

Let me be more clear.

We've contracted with companies like Blackwell whose guys are running around Iraq killing Iraqis without any oversight or coordination with US military. No accountability.

There seems to be an endless stream of video of these guys taking pot shots at cars and people in addition to more purpose-driven combat.

I was hoping to get your professional perspective on that concept from an historical, and policy stand point.

Thanks
Cliff

posted by Cliff on January 19, 2007 1:11 PM

Ah. Well, actually, I *did* answer that. I do have some friends currently working for Blackwater, so in that aspect I have some insight.

I don't think you'll find that it's too many Blackwater guys doing that cowboy stuff... but there's *always* cowboys in an environment like this, whether in uniform or no. On both sides. The chaos of a war zone attracts them like flies, from all cultures.

But where I answered your question was where I discussed the differences between having huge, draft-fed armies with lots of bodies, operating in largely liberated, vice occupied terrain, and when we did occupy, it was a people who thoroughly knew they were beaten.

That's not the case in Iraq. We don't have that huge, draft-fed army fighting a war that both sides agree settled the question.

We're fighting a people (as in all Iraqis) most of whom were not initially affected by the fighting, and the ones that were, the Sunni supporters of Hussein, eventually realized that we weren't going to treat them like they are used to being treated when conquered... and then, when we needed to, we didn't have enough troops to do it - not to mention the political will and, face it, support of the the media and international opinion which would have allowed us to act more forcefully earlier on - which might well have reduced the violence later. A concept many people with little to no true experience with violence on this scale understand.

And so the private contracting security stepped in to fill the void that soldiers filled in previous, draft-fed, much-larger-Army wars.

And we didn't handle it well, much less control it. And that's a lick on us.

But, as I mentioned on a different blog, that of a person who managed to find three videos of three incidents where testosterone-soaked, under-supervised twenty-somethings in a war zone did stupid (but not lethal or even really physically injurious) things, they inferred from that sample that that must stand in for the literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers and millions of interactions. Because that fit their paradigm for the war, and the template they wanted to apply to it.

Same thing applies in some respects to the contracting. I've seen some of some of those videos you are probably referencing - and again, while it certainly looks, and quite possibly is, very bad, it doesn't necessarily extrapolate to all security contractors all the time. And the problem with some of that video is you don't have before and after context. You just have the powerful imagery. I've been in those situations - what led up to it, and what followed are as important as what you see. And that can be a context of weeks and days.

That context certainly may not be exculpatory, but if you haven't danced in the meadow where it Iron Crosses grow, it's sometimes hard to understand what you are seeing. I can watch brain surgery - but I don't necessarily understand what I'm seeing, if you get my point.

We didn't do the military governance thing as well this time as we did in WWII. Part of it is we lost the expertise, and another part of it is we didn't have the people, and yet another part of it is that the civilians branches of the Federal Gov't didn't stand up and take the roles they should have. Both because Rumsfeld wouldn't let some of them (because he, in some case with just cause) didn't trust them, in others, because they wouldn't do it unless they were in charge - yet they didn't have any concept of how to handle the security situation, either. That falls squarely at the feet of the President and his Cabinet.

I did answer your question, just not explicitly enough.

We're doing this as an economy of force operation, and we didn't do it well, because literally, aside from some Banana Wars sorts of things, we'd never done it in these conditions.

And sorry for the delay in answering this comment - while the 'moderation' issue is fixed, I'm still not getting email notifications of the comments, and I just overlooked your response in the queue.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 19, 2007 9:58 PM

And times also change. Contractors and embeds are now held to UCMJ standards.

posted by ry on January 20, 2007 5:38 AM

ACtually, isn't there some half-crazed former SEAL who's sitting in an Afghan prison for 'going off the reservation'? Best check with Uncle Jimbo on that one since he's been fighting with people over it for a while.

posted by ry on January 20, 2007 5:46 AM

by John on Jan 18, 2007 | Global War on Terror (GWOT) | Historical Stuff

H&I* Fires, 17 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Hey - trackbacks work again!]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

******************************
I see many pathways to trouble with the Saudis wanting to send troops to Iraq. This may be a time when Mass might need to take a backseat to politics.
--------------------------------
Iran claims to have shot down a recon drone according to Xinhua.
-----------------------------
Anne Applebaum has a bit in Slate about what to do about Afghani opium. Not sure if I agree. Might be best to buy-and-burn and give incentives to do other crops than to legalize IMO.

The fields themselves are problematic. Can’t remember where, but I do remember reading that aQ/terrorists use the ‘night letter’ method. They kind of push the farmer into doing it----Coalition forces can’t be everywhere at once---- and once the farmer is doing something illegal they feel safer dealing with the terrs than with the Afghani gov’t. It’s not a problem that can be ignored much longer to be sure.

So maybe you do one year of buying the entire output to be put to the torch and then incentive-ize the heck out of growing other crops? Don’t know.

My worry is this: what’s to stop aQ from threatening the farmer to a certain amount of opium just for them? It’s all legalized now so you can’t get into trouble for having it, and photo-recon isn’t going to tell you squat, but the threat of being slaughtered still is. Farmer’s got no real choice. Do it the other way, you might (might I said), have an idea of where aQ’s been/is and who they’re leaning on. Just a (random and proll’y stupid) thought.
------------------------
A conversation that showed up in my email box last night:
Attack of the Smart Guys.

Commenter A: (Early 1990s) Use land mines? You've got to be kidding, right? There'll never be another conflict where they could be useful and should be outlawed forthwith. (Flash forward to 2005 and read the link) Sigh. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Wise@55 B: We simply aren't allowed to conduct economy-of-force operations, is all. We all need to have huge armies too, so we can violate Clausewitz's dicta of He Who Would Defend Everything, Defends Nothing.
_________________
ry
******************************
(Pokes hornets nest)
Ehren Watada lost some legal battles and his court martial continues.
--ry
***************************
Christopher Hitchens on how Bush is blowing the war, and Michelle Malkin on how she thinks the war is going...

Hitch:

I got the feeling that I have sometimes had before: the slightly ridiculous but unshakeable sensation that there is some kind of jinx at work. One strives, in other words, to think of a blunder that could have been made and was not.

La Malkin:

I came to Iraq a darkening pessimist about the war, due in large part to my doubts about the compatibility of Islam and Western-style democracy, but also as a result of the steady, sensational diet of "grim milestone" and "daily IED count" media coverage that aids the insurgency.

I left Iraq with unexpected hope and resolve.

Click their names to read their bits. The two views dovetail nicely with mine, after a fashion. Hitchens, who represents the media-driven view of the war, and Malkin, who represents the view of the war I get from my buddies in the box. Both are probably accurate as far as it goes.

Can anyone imagine what *this Congress* would have done after Kasserine, and the misery that was Guadalcanal? Or the retreat from Chosin? -the Armorer

Update: Greyhawk goes into more detail on how the Surge plays out in the press.

*********************************
This ought to be interesting: Tuesday marked the first flight of a FedEx plane equipped with Northrop Grumman's Guardian anti-missle system. Although no planes outside of a war zone have ever been shot down by missles, it has been attempted (they missed the plane). Should be interesting to see how the added anti-missle system affects cost, payload and maintenance of the aircraft. Use on commercial passenger fligths is probably 20 years away, so they have plenty of time to work out the bugs. ~AFSis

So Lt. Watada wants to serve in Afghanistan? What is the difference, pray tell? Isn't one battlefield very much like another? Didn't Armorer mention something about Iraq being an extension of Afghanistan? If I am mistaken, please correct me and provide the context.

posted by Cricket on January 17, 2007 6:54 AM

Cricket - You know that, and I know that but the "L-T" is following the same rhetoric and mis-guided logic that the Dems in congress have followed, i.e. Afghanistan is part of the GWOT, but Iraq is "W's" personal war for oil, or family vendetta or whatever their imaginary motive of the week is.

posted by Oldloadr on January 17, 2007 8:24 AM

My guess is that Watada feels the war in AFG was justified, because it had to do with getting rid of Al Qaeda... but the war in Iraq wasn't justified because it had to do with getting rid of Saddam.

posted by AFSister on January 17, 2007 8:35 AM

Watada feels that Afghanistan is a "just" war. He either completely misses how our government functions or, as some have said, this was planned all along. His father was a peace activist who joined the Peace Corps rather than be drafted.
"Bob Watada, former executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission and his son's former Little League baseball coach, chose not to fight in the Vietnam War after his brother died during the Korean War more than four decades ago. Instead, he went to Peru and served in the Peace Corps."

There are those who feel the young Watada joining the military was a plot to cause this very story in the media. Seems a long way to go to protest the war, but hey, some people are crazy.

posted by Maggie on January 17, 2007 8:36 AM

Adding to the confusion about all this is the fact that we have allowed Afghanistan and Iraq to be treated as two separate wars, rather than campaigns in a single, unified war.

And that's the fault of the leadership, Presidential, and Congressional.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 17, 2007 9:02 AM

Maggie is right about the probabilty that Watada planned the whole thing before he raised his right hand and lied. Considering the family history, I would certainly never expect a true warrior to issue from Bob Watada's loins.

posted by Oldloadr on January 17, 2007 9:16 AM

Ry, I had the same questions as you about the poppy fields (see the comments). Hopefully we're not both dumb, but if we are, it's nice to have company. ;)

Legalization also opens up another can of worms for the Afghan gov't: if they legalize it, they'll likely warehouse the raw product, process it, and warehouse the processed product. All of which would have to be secured, otherwise the Taliban simply knocks over the gov't site and takes what they want. That approach even saves the bad guys the trouble of doing all the work themselves and it hurts the Afghan gov't even more than the current situation because if legal product is stolen, the gov't has actually invested in the product and suffers a financial loss. Double whammy.

I don't think legalization is a bad solution, but I do think it's a far more complicated one than many proponents would have us believe.

posted by Damian on January 17, 2007 9:36 AM

Regarding the opium issue: I've seen claims in several places that many places actually have a shortage of legitimate opiates such as morphine. Suppose we were to buy up the poppy crop, process it, and sell it on the legitimate market?

Now, as to the snippet that really caught my eye: Can anyone imagine what *this Congress* would have done after Kasserine, and the misery that was Guadalcanal?

I'm something of an amateur historian on the Second Big One. The news cycle from front line to Washington was days or weeks; the cycle from front line to civilian news agencies was often even longer. There was plenty of opportunity to apply censorship. And numerous first-hand witnesses have agreed that the censorship was necessary. One theme that crops up repeatedly in the memoirs of people who were there is "if the American people had known how incompetently the war was being run, the home front would've collapsed." During Guadalcanal, New Zealand and Australian work unions refused to work in bad weather, or work unpaid overtime. As a result, while American Marines were dying for want of ammo and supplies, huge stacks of those same supplies were lying around in rear-area ports.

So nevermind what this Congress would have done back then. What would that Congress have done, if they'd had the same next-day or even same-day news cycle from battlefield that we have today?

posted by wolfwalker on January 17, 2007 10:44 AM

The only 'solution' for the poppy problem is some sort of poppy blight. As long as there's money to be made from opium there will be people who want that money and farmers who will grow the poppies (whether they really want to or not). If there are no poppies to grow - or at least no opium resulting from those poppies, then there will be no poppy farming.

Totally unrelated note: The United States Knife & Tool Association has gotten up and running, albeit with a name change to the simpler and more focuse KnifeRights.org

posted by KCSteve on January 17, 2007 11:39 AM

I only see one way to solve the poppy problem. As long as there's money to be made from opium there will be people who want that money and farmers who will grow the poppies (whether they really want to or not). Some sort of poppy blight is the only way to stop it. Doesn't have to kill the flowers, just the opium. Not a great solution, but it would work.

On a totally unrelated note, the United States Knife & Tool Association has come on line. Name was changed to the friendlier and more focused KnifeRights.org Click on over and check it out.

posted by KCSteve on January 17, 2007 11:43 AM

Well, as some have written, "Reality is for those who can't handle drugs!" Back in my salad days, I betcha I coulda managed the BZ weirdness, and still prolly shot *most* of my ammo at the enemy!

Snork.

posted by Justthisguy on January 17, 2007 12:38 PM

"Adding to the confusion about all this is the fact that we have allowed Afghanistan and Iraq to be treated as two separate wars, rather than campaigns in a single, unified war."

I agree 100% with what you said. Our leaders messed up big time by seperating the two.

posted by Wild Thing on January 17, 2007 12:47 PM

Let's see if I can get through this time.

I only see one solution to the poppy problem and it's not a good one.

As long as there are poppies producing opium there will be people who want that opium and farmers who will grow the poppies (whether they really want to or not). Therefore the only solution is to make it so there are no opium poppies. I don't care if the 'poppy blight' kills 'em or just horks up the opium production but from what I can see it'll take either bio-war or lots of daisy cutters to 'solve' the problem and the daisy cutters are even worse than the bio-war.

On a totally unrelated note, the United States Knife & Tool Association has come on line. Name was changed to the friendlier and more focused KnifeRights.org Click on over and check it out.

posted by KCSteve on January 17, 2007 2:18 PM

Oh sure - now they all show up!

posted by KCSteve on January 17, 2007 4:07 PM

Oldloadr said
"Maggie is right..."
MMMMM, those are some my favorite words! Thanks, baby!

posted by Maggie on January 17, 2007 5:14 PM

c'mon John,

I spent a lot of time building the case against your response to the accusation that the Bush administration squashes dissent (including Military)

As a man of honor, I know you will take a second look at my work and the evidence, and give us your final verdict. Is the Bush administration guilty of the greatest effort to squish dissent in modern history or not?

Unless of course you are OK with censorship inside the civilian government, retired military as well as free speech?

I need some direction here.

posted by cliff on January 17, 2007 6:11 PM

Steve,
John added comment moderation... it's taking for-evah for comments to show up. *raises hairy eyebrow at The Armorer*

posted by afsister on January 17, 2007 6:40 PM

AFSis - The antimissile system's a derivative of the old Stingray program. Major-league hush-hush until 1993 or so, when the usual leaks from the usual place sparked the usual uproar:

"It uses a laser to blind the seeker?"
"Yes, sir."
"That's against the Geneva Convention. You can't field weapons that cause blindness."
"Uhhh, sir? That section in the Protocols refers to weapons designed to blind *people*..."
"You're quibbling. Tube it and spend the money on Consideration of Others programmed texts and give them to the troops."

And civil airliners may indeed have been downed by MANPADs (okay, okay -- MAN Portable Air Defense) -- over Africa. Even given the lousy aircraft maintenance, spotty ATC radio commo, nonexistent radar coverage and tenth-rate weather forecasting, airliners transiting western African airspace in the '80s were vanishing at about twice the expected loss rate. If Angola ever burns down, I'll bet they'll find a lot of aluminum scrap in the central plateau...

posted by BillT on January 17, 2007 6:43 PM

Cliff,

Didn't your post sort of refute your own argument, or did I miss something?

Instapilot

posted by Instapilot on January 17, 2007 6:51 PM

Maggie - got to give credit where due.

John - is Cliff a veteran/retiree? He seems to think he knows a lot about the inner workings of the puzzle palace through-out the years. Seems to me that it was during the Clinton administration was the only time in my 32 year association with the armed forces that anybody in uniform was publicly punished for dissent/disagreement/disparaging… Aditionally, I remember an AF chief of staff and AF Secretary who resigned rather than punish the wrong person for the Kohbar tower bombing as they were pressured to do by Slick Willy’s SecDef.

posted by Oldloadr on January 17, 2007 6:54 PM

Why is it taking so long for comments to post?

posted by Oldloadr on January 17, 2007 7:34 PM

Cliff said:
"As a man of honor, I know you will take a second look at my work and the evidence, and give us your final verdict"

Does he have to speak so condescendingly?
***************************
Meanwhile on the poppy thing....I didn't know we were buying it from Turkey and India. I think that's a great solution. Whether we buy it and use it or buy it and burn it, just buy it. Then we can take the time to change things.

posted by Maggie on January 17, 2007 7:44 PM

Why is it taking so long for comments to post?

Because the original blog mechanic screwed up the installation, and when they tried to fix it, they *really* broke it.

The new blog mechanic is trying to fix it, but it's tedious, and for some reason, he seems to think his real job and life take precedence... a sentiment with which I am sympathetic.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

In fact, however, I have farking moderation turned off... but the software does not seem to really *care* what I want.

Meaning there is some thread somewhere that is not quite knit.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 17, 2007 8:13 PM

What to do with opium poppies? Simple.

We buy 'em, dry 'em, and bring them to schools in NJ on Veterans' Day. The administrators, properly horrified, will demand we leave -- whereupon we tell them that these are gen-u-wine opium poppies, not DAV paper ones.

The administrators, properly mollified, will purchase the whole shebang and retire to the teachers' lounge to smoke them, thereby removing themselves from the scene so we can re-introduce the Three Rs and mebbe raise the graduation rate.

We use the proceeds to leverage next year's crop so
1. the farmers can purchase surplus Canadian land mines
2. to protect their fields from vermin and
3. frustrate the narQaeda types;
4. we've taken the crop and put it to good use (hey, it ain't like the NJEA's *not* smoking dope already);
5. and the kids are learning something that will enable them to enter institutions of higher learning with something other than a fifth-grade education under their belts.

That's a win-win-win-win-win situation...

posted by BillT on January 17, 2007 11:48 PM

ok, ok... I can't help myself. And I HATE it...
********************************************

Cliff, for a direction, try the 2nd star to the left, and straight on 'till forever...

As for your question, the answer is .... No.

Moreover, your evidence is irrelevant and the debate is meaningless.

But if you want to discuss Presidents, lets try the one I voted for twice who perjured himself, and then lied outright to me (and everyone else) about his adultery (it'd be hard to find pronography that abrasive anywhere else in the Congressional Record!)...

Or perhaps we could discuss one or two other Democratic Presidents, like FDR, whose administration was _ruthless_ in regards to censorship (but _that_ was a _real_ war, huh?) and who a lot of people believe (with some good reason) had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Or maybe we could talk about LBJ, whom it has been suggested (often by people who use the same sort of twisted specious reasoning you use) had some foreknowledge of JFK's demise. And we really don't need to discuss how LBJ ran things, do we? Wanna talk about censorship and repression of free speech with the FBI violating just about civil liberty with the Administration knowledge and approval? Oh, yeah, and here I almost forgot: we could discuss that little Vietnam thing a Democrat got us into, and the next one made worse.. .

Or maybe if that's too coarse, we could talk about Massa Jimmy, the worst President EVER, by any standard used to measure presidential performance. The only good thing about Jimmy Carter was that Reagan followed him. Well, ok, so he helps build houses for poor people when he isn’t engaged in international diplomacy WITHOUT U.S. approval, or comparing Israel to South Africa. Speaking of which, considering the state he's from, one would expect he would know better than to cast stones, dontcha' think?

Actually, I expect you would want to engage on all of those, but to be honest, I was just kidding. Really. It's not worth it to me, and I really don't have time to explain why, though if you get back to me around the end of March, I'm sure I'll have time then. And truth be told, after reading your reductionist tribal-mind piece, all I could think of in response was this rather inarticulate tribal response: Blah, blah, blah, blah....Bull$hit. (that's poor-Jewish-kid-from-Philly-tribe talk).

Fact is, Cliff, you may be a genuinely nice, intelligent guy seeking sincere and honest debate, but you come off as an overeducated, condescending windbag who is far more impressed with his command of the language and logic than he should be. Unless you actually intended to be insulting, in which case I do apologize for thinking you were a clueless meretricious twit.

V/R
SangerM

BTW, just out of curiosity, did you wear white shirts and black nametags and ride a bicycle everywhere during your 3 years overseas?

posted by SangerM on January 18, 2007 12:33 AM

All UncaBill's joshing aside(even if he's only 2/3 kidding) I still have a problem with buying the opium.
Like I said, what's to stop Taliban and aQ jackalopes from coming over in the night and saying to the farmer 'Hey, give us 20% or we rape your horses and ride off on your wymens'? Even legalized it still leaves the insurgent integrated to the civilian(the night time visit demanding 20%).

I thought the point of COIN was to pare them off from the populace. Tough call. Neither pathway, on its own, seems to do that. Chief, you've actually been over this ground before. Any ideas you care to share with dumb@55 me?

posted by ry on January 18, 2007 3:24 AM

Sanger was doin' fine 'till that last gratuitous swipe at Mormon on mission...

Please rephrase your insults in the form of a comment...

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 6:12 AM

Ry - We read Mao and separated the fish from the water by moving the water into strategic hamlets -- fortified villages surrounded by vallum fossaque with claymores on the vallum and punjis in the fossa. Patrol the daylights out of the surrounding fields out to max mortar range and set up roving ambushes.

It worked fine, as long as it was surrounded by arable land...which is the precipitate in the solution as far as Afghanistan is concerned.

posted by BillT on January 18, 2007 7:03 AM

Chief - I love it! You are good at that whole "killing two birds with one stone" thing aren't you.

Ry - We buy it, we don't buy it....are we ever really going to stop it's propagation?

Sanger - Is your keyboard bruised now? Great comment!

FbL and I discussed Cliff last night and the way he comes off. I think Sanger is too generous with his benefit of the doubt, but it's a reflection of his own good nature (I don't have one of those). I'm just surprised he's from Utah. I didn't realize there were any of his type west of Harvard Square.

posted by Maggie on January 18, 2007 9:45 AM

OK... Being called on the white shirt comment, I feel the need to do something I rarely ever do: Explain and apologize to anyone who may have been offended--even Cliff. I was indeed being snide, but my barb went astray. Simple truth, you can believe or not.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have asked the way I did, but at the time, I was really just thinking in terms of my very long familiarity and comfort with Mormons and I did not consider that it might be seen otherwise. I had read Cliff's bio, and I assumed (yes, that too) Cliff was glazing over his "language" studies, using that as a euphemism for missionary work, and that was my way of getting at that...

I won't bore with details--or protesteth overmuch--but I will say I am quite familiar with Mormons, the tenets of their faith, and their day-to-day practices. While I have no desire to become Mormon (or any other religion for that matter), I have a great deal of respect for sincere practicing Mormons and for the way they live their lives and care for one another. I really meant no offense.

Well, at least not in that direction....

Sincerely,
SangerM

posted by SangerM on January 18, 2007 2:17 PM

See what a difference the emoticon makes?

8^)

posted by Big Boot of Dissent Crushing on January 18, 2007 3:10 PM

Yeah...

]:-p

posted by SangerM on January 18, 2007 5:21 PM

"Ry - We buy it, we don't buy it....are we ever really going to stop it's propagation?"

Well, round up(or its carcinogenic big brother Agent Orange) comes to mind. Defoiliants---we've done wonders in the 30 years since the Fall of Saigon in the realm of defoiliants.

The real point is to move the people to something better than just poppies. Poppies only buy the food. To make the country a more on-the-level affair that isn't so easy for the geurillas to 'move amoung the fish'.

Legalizing it might just crash the market. So they move to something else that's illegal(and more profitable) and keep the cycle going.

Yeah, we can alter the propogation. Check the Cannuckers burning down the pot forests in Afghanistan. It works.

The reason it is being done is that it is really profitable in a really poor country. Make doing something else profitable, and safer, you might see a change.

posted by ry on January 19, 2007 2:03 AM

by Denizens on Jan 17, 2007 | General Commentary
� Media Lies links with: Michelle Malkin is back from Iraq....
� My Weekly Thoughts links with: 01/17 Morning Report
� Theodore's World links with: Veterans Day Faces Expulsion By Schools

How depressing it must have been...

...to be a German soldier in late 1944/early 1945, with broad experience in the West and East to find yourself on the Eastern Front facing these.

Soviet Scouts in US White Scout cars, Austria, 1945.

Soviet Scouts in US White Scout cars, Austria, 1945

US-built White M3 Scout Cars (Armorer want!), with a US-made M2 .50 cal machine gun and a M1919A1 Browning .30 cal machine gun... and realize that your enemy on the Western Front has *so* much materiel and industrial capacity that he's giving huge numbers of vehicles and small arms to the guys on the Eastern Front. Then you duck because you're getting strafed by P47s and P39s and P40s with the Avirex (Red Star) on them...

That musta been a real morale crusher - if you had time during it all to think about it.

by John on Jan 17, 2007 | Historical Stuff | Tanks and AFVs

A Fun with photos post.

And without any photoshopping!

First, let me get my dukws lined up...

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Um, Neffi - objects in the mirror are closer than they appear...

Contrary to the emailer's suggestion... this is *not* an Amorer-SWWBO wedding picture. The guy is waaaay too skinny and the chick, while nice, isn't pretty enough. Not that I would have *minded* a wedding pic like this. #82 and all that, doncha know.

Any ideas as to why Moqtada al-Sadr would tell his toughs to play nice during the coming Baghdad troop plus up?

by John on Jan 17, 2007 | I think it's funny!

H&I Fires* 16 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Hey - trackbacks work again!]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

******************************
Blackfive will be on the Laura Ingraham radio show this morning at 1115 EST. Station guide here. - FbL

******************************
Well, I wish Pakistan would step up actions like this. It may not be aQ bigwigs going to meet their maker, but it is something.

Mark Grimsley, a.k.a. WarHistorian, has an interesting post about the ‘Warrior Code’, whether it exists, and what violating it can possibly lead to.

The Flea, he of the Stompy-Stomp-Stomp boots, has an interesting set of quotes for your perusal.

Chris Hill is bluntly frank about negotiating with DPRK, so reports the ArmsControlWonk(ers—it’s now a group blog).
--ry

*******************************
Carnival of the Recipes is up for those who like that puppy.

CAPT H sends us to the Hamilton Spectator, where we Troy Hurtubise, a home workshop inventor, turning his skills to getting his Heinleinian Mobile Infantry Armor into the field before the US developers get theirs built. --the Armorer

********************************

Yet another glass ceiling is shattered. The British Army names its first female Yeoman Warder. Way to go Sgt. Cameron. - BOQ

*******************************

Hmmmm. An appreciative post about me on a progressive blog. That still manages to swat me a bit. Feel free to join the conversation - but I told them everybody here behaved well - so carry the Rulez with you. -the Armorer

******************************

Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq

it's Oscar!

now i gotta start saving up my Skyway Soap wrappers and sending in jingles for the big contest so i can win one!!!

posted by MajMike on January 16, 2007 8:51 AM

Ooo! +10 for an obscure Heinlein reference!

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 16, 2007 9:02 AM

"Yeoman Warder of Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress the Tower of London, and Members of the Sovereign's Body Guard of the Yeoman Guard Extraordinary."

Now is that just not one of the coolest things you can imagine having stuck up on your "I love me" wall?!?!? I am impressed, the requirements just to be eligible are beyond imagining, and as I understand it, include a perfectly blemish-free military record. Shoot, I'd of lost out on that in year one. And she joined when she was 16! Amazing!

posted by SangerM on January 16, 2007 10:34 AM

BOQ
Minor correction , but it should be WO2 Cameron, she's the equivalent of an E-8.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on January 16, 2007 10:44 AM

And the winnah is: "As clean as the sky itself!" - from "Have Space Suit, Will Travel"

posted by Don Brouhaha on January 16, 2007 11:12 AM

Ooh, ooh, Mobile Infantry! But where are the over-the-shoulder launched nuclear tipped missiles?

posted by 74 on January 16, 2007 11:48 AM

Hello All,

We've had the great pleasure of engaging John over on OneUtah. I see he's invited you all as well.

Among our contributing authors, we have some vets but also some very anti-war activists like myself.

I think we all agree regardless, it would be unfair to leave the Iraqi to fix what we broke.

How do you feel about the idea of pulling out US troops, and forcing the war-profiteers to use their easy-made profits to buy back IEDs and weapons from the insurgents, then hire the re-deployed troops back as mercenaries and pay them contractor salaries to protect the most vulnerable ethnic groups and rebuilding projects?

Just kidding, it would never happen. Its the American way, we can't force our private gov't contractors to sacrifice profit, but its hardly fair that our troops and families have to pay the price for Bush's terrible mistake.

I mean, who else is paying the price here? Certainly not me. Why should I give a s***? I got no kids, no family serving, no chance of me or anyone I know being drafted (but I sure am making a ton on some contractor stocks).

What the hell do I care? I guess I could support the surge. It might work, right? Right?

I'm conflicted. Am I supporting the troops by supporting the surge or redeployment?

Someone help me here.

ps: Is Denizens John?

[***added to avoid the net nannies]

posted by Cliff on January 16, 2007 3:58 PM

"but I told them everybody here behaved well"

What would possess you to make such a statement?

posted by Maggie on January 16, 2007 4:19 PM

Before you go asking the Pakistanis to do more you should check this out
PBS Frontline - Return of The Taliban

I would guess the article was planted to appease the Bush admin. Notice how they play it down? No high values, no clear report?

posted by Cliff on January 16, 2007 4:59 PM

Cliff: i felt it would be unseemly for me to post this over there and spoil the party, but...

it could work, and i think it's the right thing to do.

and i'm not brainwashed, and not yet retired either (but eligible and could drop my papers whenever i felt like it)...

and i could well be mobilized to make the surge happen.

but if it doesn't happen this time, my son (now 17) would be on the hook for cleaning it up. and i won't be willingly leaving my generation's work for him and his.

posted by MajMike on January 16, 2007 5:04 PM

Why should I give a s***? I got no kids, no family serving, no chance of me or anyone I know being drafted (but I sure am making a ton on some contractor stocks).

Maybe basic human dignity would impel you "give a s***." See also BCR's post.

posted by FbL on January 16, 2007 5:05 PM

To answer your Denizens question: "Denizens" is a login under which a large number of regulars to this website (at least a dozen or so) can put a post on this blog. Usually, it's just the H&I Fires post, but sometimes "regular" posts are also put up (see Jan 14 for an example). Not all the Denizens have their own blogs, but those that do are listed in the sidebar under the blogroll "Blogs of the Denizens of Castle Argghhh!"

posted by FbL on January 16, 2007 5:12 PM

Actually, Maggie, I *did* specifically mention you and Werekitty as being, um, randy at times.

But only in a PG17 way...

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 16, 2007 5:18 PM

Hmmmm. A question, Cliff - is profit bad?

If it isn't, how much *is* bad?

Mind you, not arguing there aren't some bad companies and bad individuals out there in the contracting business.

But, full disclosure - I'm one of those contractors, I've got a bid coming up, and I was wondering what sort of profit you were going to allow on my work?

Granted, it's going to be here in the US, but it is, don't doubt it, war work.

I've got a son and two nephews of draftable age. No of whom has any intention of joining up for anything. Of course, they had no intention of joining up for anything before there was a war, either.

But I do have friends over in the box, and my personal losses for the war thus far, including 9/11 at the Pentagon, is 18. As a retiree with WMD response experience I have tried to get recalled, but apparently the need for disabled Cold Warriors is... low.

Forcing the war-profiteers to use their profits to buy-back... etc. One wonders, why not force Iran to do so, as they seem to be a major supplier?

BTW - and you can respond in email rather than here - what do you do for a living?

And I post as "John" Cliff. If Dusty posts, it's "Dusty" when Bill posts it's "CW4BillT". Like Fuzzy said, "Denizens" can be one of several people. They're supposed to sign their work... but sometimes they get carried away and don't.

Oh, and when I'm posting in the H&I Fires post, I post I sign my bits as "The Armorer". If you click the "Imperial Arsenal of Doom" link on the left sidebar, you'll see why that is one of my avatars.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 16, 2007 5:50 PM

re: Profit.

Profit is good. No bid contracts are bad. Conflict of interest is very bad (Haliburton/Cheney).

How do you feel about Bush trying to fire the inspector general in Iraq?

re: Do for a living

I left the for profit world in 2002 (with a nice payout) to dedicate my life to non-profit work.

I sit on 4 non-profit boards including rolusa.org and theasen.com (we do a lot of work in KS) which I co-founded, hrecutah.org, Afterschool Utah and powerinyou.org. They all help children.

I donate a ton of money to liberal/progressive causes including HRC. Last year I served as SLC mayor Rocky Anderson's interim communications director as a volunteer. I've run several political campaigns, (google me) and I donate tons of time designing, maintaining, and hosting websites for 8 non-profits.

I recently accepted a job with dufoundation.org / manyone.net which is the coolest thing on the planet. it will be the PBS of the web. The new browser technology will be free, clickless and adapted for the handicapped.

You mentioned James Lee Witt. Coincidentally, he is one of our top advisors.

posted by Cliff on January 16, 2007 11:25 PM

Privatization of the military (support services) is really bad.

posted by Cliff on January 16, 2007 11:31 PM

Sigh. The condescension continues.

I'm Denizen ry(short for Ryan) aka gollum(at times). If you really want to 'whip it out' and start comparing notes on terrorist organizations and the like I'm down with it. I've got a pretty large database. I can also call on friends who work at DIA, NSA, and one analyst who lives in ALaska who started teaching me this game(one L. Sidney Trevethan who has written for FAS from time to time and things like A Brief History of MAD and Prognosis for CHina)---but John is smart enough to tell me absolutely nothing.

Do you really want to go into the nuts and bolts of the problems of Pakistan qua Pakistan or just in relation to terrorism, shaky support of Pervez(he and I are on a first name basis/joke), and the problems of the populace of Pakistan irt GWOT? I can do that too. I prefer to talk about China and the Far East, seeing as that what I was originally taught by Sid, but can do more.

Don't just assume, because that's what you're doing(don't assume because it makes an @55 out of u and me), that I don't know much. You'd be surprised what quite a few of us actually do know.

Like, that North Waziristan peace deal may(is often assumed to be with no real, in open source materials anyways, proof to back up the assertion) allowing safe haven for the remnant,and now resurgent, aQ. Or, maybe the peace deal bought off the local warlords in NW and now aQ only has SW as a safe haven. You seen anything open source that definitively says one way or another? And a tv newsmagazine is not typically considerd a good source(unless their provided primary sources are stellar), as I've been told quite loudly over the phone more than once.

You might want to check your parallax filter, homes. For later in the day numbers did come out(30---on NPR even). Or this could simply be an event untied to American domestic politics, maybe? Naw. All politics is local. Even in remote Southern Waziristan.

Also, keep in mind. I'm naturally verbose. Extrememly. John's been trying real hard to break me of that habit. If I had my druthers there'd have been ten paragraphs, at least, of background with that blurb(with all of them actually). But that isn't what the H&I is for, and that's one of my sucesses(I kept it short and sweet and left the article to largely say everything for itself).

Welcome to the Club. Don't be surprised after a while if the only seat at the Castle Bar is next to me(OD, journalist OWen Dwyer, is also one such personage, also of rather a blue hue for these parts). It happens.
(dang, and now I'm late on doing my H&I building. No stale cheetos from John for me today).

posted by ry on January 17, 2007 2:35 AM

Ry - you *are* getting better.

Cliff - military support services get contracted out because mostly of end-strength issues, and trying to push "tail" into contracted positions, so that "teeth" can be maintained.

If it were up to us soldiers, we really would have kept most of that stuff in house. But the choice we were offered, especially when the Army went from 750K to 480K was to give up cooks and bakers and candlestick makers and convert those slots to infantry, military police, etc.

A Cold War "Big War" military structure isn't affordable under the volunteer army cost paradigm.

A draftee Army is nowhere near as capable a force as a longer service professional army with competetive pay.

Balancing balancing balancing. And we usually get the whole mix wrong for whatever particular mess we find ourselves in - and that is regardless of who sits in the White House or wields the gavels in the Capitol.

Hence, contracting, which is aimed at cost containment.

Now - I agree that the going-in contracting and after was badly handled. And a Democrat gov't wouldn't have handled that any better - and in fact the Clinton administration set the stage for it... not intentionally of course, but indirectly.

Who was the major baseops supplier-of-services for Bosnia and Kosovo? KBR... i.e., Halliburton.

Which, by the quals they would have submitted, probably would have put them in the catbird seat anyway (Cheney or no Cheney).

But I simply don't buy the argument that Cheney essentially directed the money go to his buddies. The building really doesn't work that way, there are a lot more checks and balances in that arena than most people realize.

That said - there is no doubt that contract administration was *awful* and that contractor elements in Iraq, including Halliburton, were doing Bad Things.

But your issue there isn't really, truly with the concept - it's with the execution. And that falls squarely on the services and the government.

The malfeasance on the part of contractors is properly handled through tort and criminal proceedings and contract enforcement.

Do I really need the guy handing out towels at the post gym to be a soldier? Nope. The guy ladling out chow in the mess hall - does he have to be a soldier? Nope.

I admit, when we lost our unit cooks I as a commander lost an excellent morale tool, but did it really affect my unit's ability to fight? Nope.

Do 'third shop' maintenance people need to be soldiers? Not really. They're mechanics who better spend their time fixing stuff than having to go through all the nit-noid training soldiers are tagged with.

But they would all be soldiers if we could afford it. But the day of the 16 million man military ended in 1945.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 17, 2007 6:43 AM

I like the body armor. It looks kewl. Now if it could be digitized color like the CDUs, it would be all right. One other question; how does it compare in weight to what they are wearing now, and is it more efficient? I like the nod to 'Dune' in the water supply but he has yet to learn to recycle sweat.

I am still waiting for my comments to pop up over at OneUtah.

posted by Cricket on January 17, 2007 7:09 AM

Cricket - I saw your comments over there. At least I saw some comments by you - I don't know how many you made. They don't moderate comments so I don't know what the delay might be/have been.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 17, 2007 7:17 AM

John - I really must commend you on the thoughtful and polite way you are conducting your discourse with Cliff, while at the same time saying the things that need to be said, e.g. KBR being in Kosovo long before Cheney was VP. I must admit that my tolerance for the left actually went down during my time in Iraq so I know I would not have been so self-controlled.

posted by Oldloadr on January 17, 2007 8:06 AM

John - You've given an excellent answer to Cliff's criticism of Halliburton. But my question to those who paint a big Halliburton/Cheney conspiracy is.....what other company could have handled this job? My understanding is that there really aren't any.

posted by Maggie on January 17, 2007 9:28 AM

Maggie - I deliberately didn't go into that, mainly because my memory is fuzzy on the subject.

But, IIRC, there are two - French, and Russian, neither of which were wanting to play in that sandbox.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 17, 2007 9:38 AM

John: correct.

..and the same companies had also bid on a LOGCAP contract for my own peculiar logistics needs a couple years before, and Halliburton (KBR) was the only bid that met all the particulars.

posted by MajMike on January 17, 2007 10:39 AM

John,

Reviewing your thoughts on contracting, it sounds like you appropriately critical.

But you just can't leave it alone without the tribal hat tip:

Now - I agree that the going-in contracting and after was badly handled. And a Democrat gov't wouldn't have handled that any better

Well John, thats just so completely disingenuous it doesn't really justify a response.

But I'll you and your readers the benefit of the doubt that you haven't been paying attention or that you think Clinton would have fired professional career procurement officers and replaced them with political appointments.

For starters, google Halliburton+Greenhouse+FBI
(I would have provided a link but your system refused google 'dot' com)

Just a small snippet:

On the eve of the 2004 presidential election, allegations about the corrupt relationship between the Bush administration and Halliburton Corp., the company formerly run by Vice President Richard Cheney, have taken center stage once again. Press reports Friday said that the FBI has expanded an ongoing investigation into contracts obtained by Halliburton’s subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), in Iraq and Kuwait.

There are several American companies far BETTER qualified for oil field work like Schlumbeger, but they are competitors to the VP's company.

This is not the first time that top Pentagon officials appointed by George W. Bush have overruled career civil service professionals to award contracts to Vice President Cheney’s old firm. In the fall of 2002, an Army lawyer objected to the initial Iraq-related contract for KBR, $1.9 million to draw up a plan for operating the country’s oil infrastructure after a war. While tiny in relation to the huge oil field recovery and military supply contracts doled out later, this award was critical because it gave KBR an edge over any potential competitor. The Government Accountability Office later determined that the Army lawyer had been right.

So John, when you say "Democrat gov't wouldn't have handled that any better", I think you are just making a hat tip.

And this super-apology takes the cake -

"and in fact the Clinton administration set the stage for it... not intentionally of course, but indirectly."

Thanks for listening. I do love you all.

btw: Balkans doesn't count, that was NATO

posted by cliff on January 17, 2007 2:36 PM

cliff: the KBR contract for LOGCAP that i refer to above was bid and let in 1997.

and it wasn't for oil field services.

but it was a contingency, triggerable on short notice, for a specific set of logistic requirements, for a certain specific part of the globe, and KBR was the only one of the three proposals that met the particulars in all respects (Schlum didn't even bid on it).

and when a heavily modified version of that contract was eventually executed many moons later (spring of 2003), KBR fulfilled it entirely, and i myself and my soldiers were damn well grateful for their faithful execution of the mission (under significantly greater challenges than the original contract had anticipated).

bottom line: KBR earned every single nickel of what they were paid on that one, and they still lost money on the deal.

posted by MajMike on January 17, 2007 4:24 PM

Heh.

btw: Balkans doesn't count, that was NATO.

Oh, really, Cliff. You can do better than that.

Disingenous? Cliff, please. Allow me to give you a tribal hat tip back to you.

Google(dot)com produces scads of spam. We hateses them. Even as we uses them.

Um, Cliff - perhaps you didn't follow the point - but the Clinton Administration spent 8 years implementing the drawdown started under Bush the Elder.

They committed us to the Balkans.

Ergo, they set the stage, like it or not, for the paradigm used in contracting out services.

Or do only Republican administrations get to take the blame for that sort of thing, as the Democrats are seemingly without sin in regards to waste and mismanagement?

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 17, 2007 4:24 PM

John,

We patriotic Americans criticize all politicians regardless of party as often as possible. We don't just show up when we're at war. We are the grease that keeps things turning. The pols in power must be watched over most closely. Today that is Bush.

Excuse me if I am uninterested in Clinton. We progressives by definition move forward.

This talking points about Clinton "draw down", "dissemination" etc of the military has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Lets move on.

Why did you and your friends not address the private security contractors?

You appear to be an historian. Can you point to anytime in history that we have contracted privately for security in theatre?

Love

posted by Cliff on January 17, 2007 5:56 PM

To reinforce your point, John. On all of my Southern Watch deployments (1994 - 1998), the Air Force had already outsourced a lot of logistic support. There were just enough active-duty cooks to supervise the contract cooks. In fact, when we deployed to Bahrain in the fall of 1997, we had one MSgt and one SSgt to supervise meal preparation in 3 chow halls for almost 6,000 troops. BTW, those 2 individuals were also responsible for billeting, laundry and MWR. Needless to say, we eventually plussed them up to 20. In case you were wondering, the pre-positioned MREs had been destroyed by the intense heat in the warehouse so we only had a 3 day supply on hand, so we were stuck with contract cooks.

BTW, I still thank you are being very polite when I don't think I could.

posted by Oldloadr on January 17, 2007 6:16 PM

We can talk about everybody's personal experiences all day long. When can we talk about the elephant in the room?

The survey finding, which includes Americans, Iraqis and third-party nationals hired by companies operating under U.S. government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country.
It is also 10 times the estimated number of contractors that deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers.

If the big story here is not of no interest here, thats fine. But I can tell you it's not going away. The hearings are just beginning.

For those of you truly interested in this subject.

Unfortunately, there is likely no one person on this blog or any other whose personal experiences of private contractors is relevant to the reality of the policy issue, unless one can be everywhere all the time.

Once again, we are thus required to inform ourselves...if we care.

posted by Cliff on January 17, 2007 7:27 PM

So, let's look at this.
1991 punting of IA out of Kuwait.
How many divisions were deployed by that MNF?
How many US divisions were in existence? What was the ratio of trigger pullers to support arm personel?(Heh, I've been looking for the pre-2000 FM on Doctrine myself for a while. Hard to come by. But, it is quite obvious that the two were different. 14 divisions vs. 10 and the 14 had not gone thru 'Transformation' yet. A bit hueristic, but still provable and true.)
2003-present invasion of Iraq. How many total divisions? Make up of forces relating support arm to combat arm?

Are the two the same?

1991 Kuwait punting: Kuwaiti social/political/economic infrastructure in place and ready to re-take over. Tiny country the size of Rhode Island. Small and defined instances of needed help(like putting out oil field fires) that exceeded indigenous ability to handle.

2003-current invasion of Iraq: what was in place to take over(we assumed there was. CHalabi and such were to take over quickly and get the country running again. Didn't work out that way. Not. At. All.). Were there small and well defined instances of capabilities that exceeded the grasp of indigenous forces(what indigenous forces, I ask. There was nothing left but a vacuum.).

Are these two similar on this level?

If you're going to do comparisons at least look for things that make sense to compare. Don't employ false parrallels.

And, let's look at the leap of logic you're expected to do here.
"Cliff - military support services get contracted out because mostly of end-strength issues, and trying to push "tail" into contracted positions, so that "teeth" can be maintained." What does this mean? How many MP batts were stricken or moved to Reserve component to keep combat arms units of similar size in the Active Component? Same for other non-combat arms slots. They were pared off to keep the cambat arms.

Now,
"reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers."
Is there a pattern to be gleaned here? What is it? Does it jive with both claims and fit all evidence?
Why yes there is one and it fits all the anecdotals supplied here and the evidence, not the opinions but the actual evidence (the two aren't the same---general philosophy and rhetoric classes my good man). Downsizing the military, shrinking its budget, and deploying it often(1991 GW, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti. Four major deployments in less than 10 years) while paying for the deployments out of the procurement funds eventually had a cost. Occams razor leads you to the conlusion that: by going cheap in peace time we had fewer bodies for doing all kinds of functions in war time, like cooks, police, engineering, and intelligence(everyone hates intel weenies anyways from the way you all talk about them. Haters.).
THat's the next logical step you're being proded to at least consider. For some reason we're all expected to, having considered the possibility of conspiracy and rejected it upon reflection and contrary evidence and employing logic, return to it and cherish it as truth?

If you care to look you can also see this argued in the USNI's Proceedings magazine over the dental field in the Navy(some time last year or 2005. Can't remember and I'm not going to dig thru the mags at 5am. Sorry, but I'm not gonna.). No conspiracy. Just the realities of budgeting. No money to keep professional dentists on the roster in the USN---so they farm it out to whoever can do it cheapest. No conspiracy(unless KBR is in the dentist business).

Parrallax strikes again, me thinks. What you know effects how you interpret what is presented to you. (The point of the Proceedings articles is that this is a rather widespread and re-occuring problem. When you are aware and understand the widespread nature of the problem Iraq does not jump out as a singularity anymore. It's just one more symptom of the same disease.).

posted by ry on January 18, 2007 4:51 AM

"This talking points about Clinton "draw down", "dissemination" etc of the military has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Lets move on."

We've got a problem here. Is this simply a talking point? Let us look.
From the vaunted PBS Frontline series:

Despite interventions in three different theaters, the first Clinton administration continues its plan for military downsizing and reduces Reagan's military build-up by about 30 percent, from roughly 2,140,000 troops in 1988 to 1,470,000 by 1996.

From Foreign Affairs:

This assessment, however, is wrong. The Clinton administration's use of force (or lack thereof) may be controversial, but the Clinton Pentagon oversaw the most successful defense drawdown in U.S. history -- cutting military personnel by 15 percent more than the previous administration had planned while retaining a high state of readiness and a strong global deterrence posture. It enacted a prescient modernization program.

(This being when it was fashionable to say that it was the Clinton military, the Shock and Awe nimble high tech force, that won Iraq---in the 6 months it looked like things were going well and people actually wanted to take credit for the neo-Anabasis that was the Iraq War(as opposed to the Iraq rebuilding and occupation---different phases of a military operation). Before the calls of 'Send more troops!' with the shouted reply of 'What troops!' really started in earnest.(I'll leave John to handle the concept of Op-tempo since he is a clearer writer than I, and on that issue clarity is needed.)
Bill's own speech at Normandy:

It has already been said, but I want to say again how hard it has been for the members of our armed services to continue to do these incredible things in the face of the dramatic reductions in military spending and manpower that we have sustained

Yes, yes, yes. All fictional. Vern Clark didn't get rid of a single hull to meet the Clinton defense budger when he was asked. Ever. Downsizing has zero costs at all. It should all be enough because we want it to, and what are we getting with all this defense spending anyways!

Bollucks.

Bill Clinton even admitted to cutting military personel close a fifth. That doesn't tell the whole story of course. But to dismiss it as a talking point? When there are books like those of Gertz(amoung others)out there and info a plenty that, yes, it actually was done?

Someone is doing exactly what they claim others are doing: inconvenient facts.

"When you can change the facts you can change a vote. When you can change a vote you can change the world." --Martin Gore.

posted by ry on January 18, 2007 6:01 AM

Cliff, I answered your contracting question with a post of it's own.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 7:18 AM

- “We progressives by definition move forward.” Whereas we conservatives believe the old adage, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Anyway, Cliff, that was a smoke screen on your part, or as we say in the AF, “Chaff, flare, chaff, flare!” Maybe I’m cynical, but I find it curious that you don’t think previous decisions, made well before Cheney was VP are of value in the discussion of KBR. If the basic contract was awarded in 1997, how does that prove unethical influence by the VP’s office in 2003?
- Another thing: Although KBR is the biggest contractor in theater, they are not the only contractor. Although, I’m sure they exist, I never met a single security contractor who worked for KBR (and I met and knew a lot of security contractor personnel in my 2 years/8 months in country).
- Lastly, I see you dismiss personal experiences… I also find that curious. Our personal experiences are objective, observable facts with which the only argument you can make is to call us all liars. Is the problem for you, Cliff, that our objective observations don’t fit your paradigm?

posted by Oldloadr on January 18, 2007 7:34 AM

Oldloadr - Very good, and see, you did handle it calmly!

posted by Maggie on January 18, 2007 9:57 AM

by Denizens on Jan 16, 2007 | General Commentary
� Villainous Company links with: Liberal Values In Action

Strange sightings in Kansas.

Sharp-eyed camera-toting reader Larry K, also our source for most things Coast Guard, snapped this photo in Junction City yesterday or the day before.

I know what it is - but I'll let you have fun demonstrating your vehicle ID skillz - and does anybody have any earthly idea why one of these is transiting the country? It might be destined for Fort Riley - but neither Larry nor I know.

Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey Armor!

More pics here, here, and here.

An Israeli M48 variant? I say this because of the cupola on top of the turret, and the turret looks too skinny to be an M60 variant.

posted by Brad on January 16, 2007 11:48 AM

French AMX-30?

The photo caption of "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey Armor!" might have been a clue that it was French. LOL

posted by fdcol63 on January 16, 2007 1:34 PM

The tag on the picture is something of a clue...

posted by Pogue on January 16, 2007 1:57 PM

...yeah, but it's just GOT to be an export model. if it was the real deal Frenchie model then the gun tube would be permanently in travel lock over the back deck (and drooping). and it would be flying a white flag instead of a Holiday Inn pennant.

posted by MajMike on January 16, 2007 3:54 PM

Opfor target practice, Ft. Hood??

OR

Maybe some 3rd party (new Nato country?) is thinking hard about M1s vs. AMX-30s and there is to be a 'shoot off' and an OT demo. The Poles just bought a pile of F16s and their pilots are training even now (that's an interesting tale); maybe they want new tanks too? Or maybe Yemen or the like...

OR

Maybe this is a NATO interoperability test vehicle, heading to that old Buffalo Soldier Army base no one can pronounce the name of - Ft. Hoochie-Koochie ...

:-)

posted by SangerM on January 16, 2007 4:11 PM

Definitely an AMX-30, but that looks like an awfully light duty trailer to be hauling a 36T tank.

Makes me wonder if it might be gutted.

posted by Heartless Libertarian on January 16, 2007 9:08 PM

Now Heartless raises a possibility of a decoy or even movie prop...

But, at least with a quick-check at this website and me not being an engineer, that trailer looks like it could handle the load.

Of course, as a convoy or serial commander, I'd be checkin' data plates.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 16, 2007 9:31 PM

I dunno....but I think it looks Russian T-90ish.
(road wheels, main gun)
Maybe a Republican Guard capture on its way to some Legion post or NG Armory.....
But I might be wrong.....
Yeah...I might be wrong....

posted by haji 0 matic on January 17, 2007 12:57 AM

The ID is easy - it's a French-built AMX-30. To me it's very distinctive - there's simply nothing else that looks quite like it.
What it's doing in Kansas, well, I have no clue. Just note that the French marketed the thing aggressively and there were a butt-load of them sold around the world, especially in Africa and the Middle East.

posted by Fred Simons on January 17, 2007 1:02 AM

*dusting off Threat ID goggles*

AMX-40, the export variant of the -30. Iraq bought a bunch in the 1980s when it was rebuilding the army during the post I-I war years. My guess is that it's destined for some unit's "Look what I got, ma!" portion of the front lawn.

Not technically a beutepanzer (unless some non-armor types went rampaging in it...)

posted by BillT on January 17, 2007 6:30 AM

Hey, Iraq-vets... anybody seen green-painted armor in Iraqi hands? Before, during, or after the March Upcountry?

Bill - I don't concur on the AMX-40 id. This tank has the rounded turret profile, the AMX-40 is more angular. It also has the rear fender-mounted mufflers, which are covered over and louvered on the AMX-40, which actually has a much more M1-like side profile on the hull (disregarding the running gear).

See here and here.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 17, 2007 6:59 AM

..as for the worthiness of the trailer, the key is to look at the nice structural members (look around for the "Turner" logo down there). that one there will handle it.

my eyeball is guessing at a center of balance for that load being just a hair behind the #2 roadwheel, (rough line of where the #2 support roller lies).

it's an interesting job of blocking/bracing/tie down, but sufficient for a full weight armor vehicle, so i'm doubtful that any significant pieces are missing in order to lighten the load.

posted by MajMike on January 17, 2007 8:44 AM

AMX-30, which was in rpoduction c.1966-79. It was followed by the AMX-30B2 which mounted an improved main gun (APFSDS) and a Fire Control Computer. This one has the original cross-turret optical rangefinder and the mounting for the large IR searchlight to the right of the gun. On the gun's left was a coax 20mm cannon which elevated to 45deg, with which to greet helicopters. The tank was exported widely, inluding Spain which had a co-production agreement.

Aside from the coax 20mm, the original AMX-30 had a single main gun round, the Obus-G. Intended as a multi-purpose round, it was a shape-charge warhead 'suspended' on axial bearings in a rotating shell body.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on January 17, 2007 12:32 PM

Headed for one of the mil museums here? If it were aircraft I'd guess the Air Museum in Topeka at the old Forbes AFB (shameless plug, I know *G*). There's a bit of armor at the ANG museum here, too, but it's all US issue as far as I know.

Hutch has all space stuff, to the best of my knowledge.... Of course there are all the static displays at Fort Riley.

posted by Karla (threadbndr) on January 17, 2007 12:59 PM

To answer your question, Joh: There is a huge Iraqi military equipment grave yard in Taji. I've been around it several times and never saw anything that wasn't desert tan...

posted by Oldloadr on January 17, 2007 1:19 PM

to paraphrase someone famous whose name happens to escape me: "the only green Iraqi tanks i ever saw were dead ones."

heh.

..and yes, they were green-ish, somewhat scorched, but positively green-ish.

posted by MajMike on January 17, 2007 4:31 PM

Aaaaaaand the -40's got six road wheels.

Which my flash card *doesn't* depict.

Durned lowest-bidder graphics...

posted by BillT on January 17, 2007 6:58 PM

by John on Jan 16, 2007 | Tanks and AFVs

Snerk - a new popularity contest that we're getting spanked in!

...that, as usual, we didn't know anything about. Mind you, it's mostly a marketing ploy by the contest holder.

Whoever nominated us didn't even tell us. We have all of... seven votes, so it seems a bit late to shill for support.

That said - we throw our endorsement to Matt of Blackfive, who has pledged the $3000 prize to Project Valour-IT. Not that we don't like the current leader, A Soldier's Perspective, but he's pledged his winnings to something else, so fooey on him.

Don't waste a vote on us, go vote for Matt.

And people, please don't nominate us for things like this anymore. It just grieves me to watch my standing drop as a milblogger and our influence so obviously waning when I see no changes in my blogging style that's gonna change anything anytime soon. I prefer to keep my head in the sand. /whine. And I'll quit whining, too, if you quit nominating us. 8^)

by John on Jan 16, 2007 | Project Valour-IT

H&I* Fires, 15 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Hey - trackbacks work again!]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

******************************
Apparently the libertarians on the other side of The Pond don’t like what’s going on in Somalia so much, and blame the US for it.

The National Defense University’s professional reading list web page. So many good books and too little money (looks at lint pulled out of pocket).

Sic ‘em Chief! At a time when some are prattling on about feeling military families pain why is NJ doing its level best to shove vets out of sight and out of mind? Give ‘em an extra atomic wedgie for me, Chief.

If anyone dies from nautical mines or sub attack as a result of not being able to train off the California coast using their sonar I will hold Sen. Barbra Boxer and Sierra Club personally responsible and make sure they know own up to their culpability. (Sarcasm off.).
It is a real problem, and one I really shouldn’t make light of. What good are these systems if you can’t test and train under realistic conditions to find out what they can really do? How do you know who can actually get the job done under pressure? Not doing either will likely cost someone their life if it ever comes to cases.

Heads should roll over this. Mein Gott. What a screw up of airport security and a general disregard for proceedure all around. Heads. Spikes. Lots of them.
ry

******************************

Never cared for Ed Begley Jr. as an actor, but I'm really glad I'm not married to him!

Ace is perhaps a bit more heavy-handed than I would be, but the anti-Iraq War politicians' empty rhetoric and symbolic votes have always bothered me for the reasons he articulates. To be philosophically anti-war can be a very moral position. To claim to be anti-war and do nothing of substance to end that war is deeply immoral. UPDATE: Cassandra has her usual excellent thoughts on this.

Blue Crab Boulevard's son's deployment has been extended. He has a request of all of us. - FbL

******************************

John Bolton, writing in the Washington Post, has an analysis of new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. - FbL

******************************

Maybe if one of Sen Boxer's kids were re-located to one of the ships they would be able to train??

Just a thought....

posted by haji 0 matic on January 15, 2007 3:55 AM

Ed Begley at least practices what he preaches.
How many celebrities pay lip service and huge amounts of money to 'worthy' causes but still have their huge houses and waste resources because they are arrogant enough to insist on it for the peasants but won't live that way themselves? He and the late Dennis Weaver, for all their moonbat politics at least put their money where their mouths were and lived as they believed.

posted by Cricket on January 15, 2007 10:36 AM

FbL - Ed Begley Jr.'s a chip off the old block. Ed Senior was five yards left of Lenin and bragged about it.

Ry - The Joisey Legislature (mostly Liberal Dems, whatta surprise...) tried to slip the bill through quietly, buried beneath a bunch of legislation authorizing local schools to observe --now get this -- *Muslim* holidays, if they so desire and the number of registered students (any number in excess of zero) so warrants. The various 'Murrican Legion, VFW and Marine Corps League chapters are steamed. My Viet Vet group has collected a whole bunch of IOUs from various civic groups over the years and we may decide it's time to collect...

posted by BillT on January 15, 2007 10:46 AM

Cricket and BillT, I am very impressed that Begley practices what he preaches. I was just thinking about his attitude toward his wife, the way he treats her.

posted by FbL on January 15, 2007 11:11 AM

It sounds like the Navy is quite willing to work on this issue.

"After consulting with biologists from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Navy agreed to implement 29 procedures it considers appropriate for protecting marine mammals during sonar maneuvers."

And as this is clearly an international economic (marine fisheries), I wonder if the jump to Barbra Boxer being personally responsible if someone dies because of a sub attack is well, unnecessarily inflammatory.

I mean, without trying to be inflammatory myself, A Navy sailor is far more likely to die in a car accident on base than a sub attack.

Meanwhile, do you have any idea how devastated our Marine Fisheries have become for entirely solvable problems? Not just American fishing families, but whole American towns are suffering.

Perhaps we can find a fisherman/Navy vet to weigh in on this issue. Very many independent fisherman served in the Navy.

posted by Cliff on January 15, 2007 11:24 AM

Just a poser to ponder:

When Eddie Junior (who's rich enough to indulge his ecopassion) does his thing, he's held as a shining example of a caring (albeit eccentric) environmentalist.

When Eddie-Bob Jay-Are (who re-uses everything because he can't afford to buy anything new) does his thing, he's ridiculed as the perfect example of a redneck.

Heh. Little-Brother-the-Fed was down visiting and we passed the local get-your-car-parts-here guy's house. Quothe LBtF: "What's he doing -- practicing to be an Alaskan?"

posted by BillT on January 15, 2007 12:02 PM

Well...she can always leave the lout. Or smack him one with her curling iron. If she really was oppressed, she can go on Oprah and have a public handholding session with other American women who have bullies like him for husbands. If she didn't like it or the money she wouldn't put up with it.

My husband bugs me about stuff all the time. I claim to not be an expert, but marriage is what you both agree to make it and adjustments are common when both parties work at it. I don't see him calling her names, slapping her around, belittling her achievements or anything abusive.
He times her shower? He grouses about the curling iron? They cook on a solar stove? Oh the humanity. There is the admission in the article that they play up the nitpicking.

posted by Cricket on January 15, 2007 12:51 PM

I have to agree with that one Bill...except this:
If someone who recycles cause they don't have a dime is neat and clean, no big deal. But when they live in a trailer park in a doublewide cobbled together of two different trailer models, years and heights, it is scary. Not to mention the tar paper 'Florida rooms' tacked on to the back. A coat of paint does wonders for such things.

No, I don't like watermelon environmentalists, but at least Begley is practicing what he is preaching.

I prefer to have a choice. The government which cries crocodile tears over the environment refuses to let people build what they want to be off the grid. When income of business interests is threatened by those of us who would prefer rugged individualism, it gets ugly. We have septic and were nearly denied being grandfathered
because of business interests. We want a constructed wetland.

Very few people can actually get the approval needed for 'green' homes or off the grid infrastructure.

In this instance Begley Jr. could very well put his considerable clout to effect changes in laws and zoning to let people have a choice. Obviously he did for his house. And maybe this will do it.

I am not an environmentalist; I just prefer to be off the grid.

Selfish selfish me.

posted by Cricket on January 15, 2007 1:10 PM

"I wonder if the jump to Barbra Boxer being personally responsible if someone dies because of a sub attack is well, unnecessarily inflammatory."
Uh, did you miss the sarcasm warning? Rather blatantly pointed out with '(sarcasm off)'? I'm totally lampooning her. That's not inflammatory. That's being Alfred E. Newman---who I happen to resemble at times, ask the Chief.

Let's be reasonable here. Is there ecological damage to marine life occuring, from whatever causes? Sure. No doubt. Is it reacing a point where Japan may have to rethink being dedicated culinarily to seafood? Absolutely.
But we don't eat dolphins and whales---which the CCC et al have repeatedly said is the major sufferer.
Aside: I'm from California originally, near Long BEach and Seal Beach, Seal Beach NWS was in my backyard. This saga is actually nearly a decade old. And is old news to me. That there actually was a legal conclusion to this was news to me. I may even KNOW some of these vet fishermen. I proll'y drove some of them home from the same dives my flesh and blood older brother frequented.

14 exercises over a span of two years is unlikely, really unlikely, to cause a major disruption of the economic life of fisherman, unlike commercial fishing and int'l trade(with all of the pollution trade creates), given the primacy the CCC has placed on whales.

Let's weigh the effect of over fishing on this too, shall we? What effect has over fishing had on hurting the LB fishing community? Proll'y a whole lot more than a frigate traling its "tail" during an exercise. Populism only gets you so far. It is not a trump card. You may have a different rhubric, but yours doesn't simply supercede mine becuase it has a different element of populism in it. We can argue whose rhubric should take the lead, but don't assume yours is The One.

True, Naval personel are more likely to die in car wrecks on any given day. But that isn't 'cases' is it? That's not facing nautical mines and submarines, their job when it comes down to cases, now is it? The skill sets for conducting warfare, particularly ASW seeing how hard it is to do, are something you need at time zero and not six months into the conflict. Well, not if you want to keep casualties low that is---which is one of my major goals, dontcha know.

The Navy needs to practice this skill set IF it is ever to be used before the Navy is deployed. Otherwise you're sending, knowingly, people to their death. That's a rather uncontestable fact(care to peruse the area/entry to battlespace doctrine of some nations with me? I know of two that are of high importance right about now---thanks Chief, I never did thank you properly for the advice.). This is a necessary skill set that cannot simply be gotten in simulators. Simulators can limit the amount of time the ASW school and the Navy at large needs to send people to sea to test the gear but does not eliminate it. Zero impact is impossible. Give me a plan that is not zero impact and I'll listen--but nobody, and I've been following this for almost its entire length, has proposed a non-zero impact plan. Which is why I call the opponents zealots. That's how they act.

posted by ry on January 15, 2007 10:07 PM

Fuzzy, faith in Gaius' kid, and those like him, I have a plenty. Some of my countrymen I have little faith in when it comes to Iraq and the Long War.

posted by ry on January 15, 2007 10:24 PM

Cricket - One of the largest townships in NJ is making a serious effort to go eco-friendly.

The county has major heartburn with its planned solar grid, the state won't let it build a wind farm and the NJDEP is in an uproar because one of the local farmers is "encroaching on a wetland" by putting up a photography blind next to a large pond that *he dug* to give feathered migrants a place to chill on their trip South.

There's a local outfit that makes solar roofing tiles -- but they're only allowed to sell 'em overseas.

And I've got my back yard registered as a semi-natural wildlife sanctuary (semi-natural means I feed everybody in the winter) to protect it from seizure under Eminent Domain. Just in case...

posted by BillT on January 15, 2007 10:36 PM

Gezackly. We has to protect our stuff. I just detest the idea that I am not 'allowed' to have a choice. Your agency in some areas is what others determine to enforce. With all the caterwauling about the environment, one would think, but according to Big Brother, the locals tell us we can't...I am so confused. Plus you can get a write off on taxes 'cause it is a semi wetland...

Ya big softy.

posted by Cricket on January 16, 2007 1:54 PM

by Denizens on Jan 15, 2007 | General Commentary

It was a six hour meeting.

So, I'm a little giddy.

Cassandra, this post's for you.

Cassandra's marmoset, as yet unstuffed.

Just so you know, people *do* poke into the corners over at your place.

Pretty kewl. 'Round here, this is all we have to offer in the way of stuffed critters.

We return this blog to more serious, if mundane, stuff.

by John on Jan 15, 2007 | I'm an idiot...

The Whatziss of a different color, answered.

Czech Legion artillery firing during the battle of Zborov.

If the title of this post makes no sense - start here.

You guys did pretty well. Chief Shaffer correctly id'd the Whatziss as a Colt M1895 "Potato-Digger" machine gun. He provided this link, too.

Sanger came in and offered up the Czech Legion, again correct. While he offered up a pay train - he was close, if obliquely. This was one of the trains that held some of the Russian gold reserves the Czechs found themselves in possession of... Good work, fellas.

The Czech Legion is an interesting story that I didn't know that much about. Rather than regurgitate it all here, I'll just give you this link to the Wikipedia entry and this link to The Czech Legion Project, which has a lot of photos.

Another thing I found interesting about the picture was the fact that all of the Maxim guns are Russian M1905's with the smooth waterjacket, vice the M1910's which had a corrugated jacket (and is the type of Maxim in the Castle Armory). But where I can tell, they are all on the later, type II style Sokolov wheeled mounts with shields, which were made without the extra legs seen in the photo below.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

The M1905 is the gun in the rear. The legs of the Sokolov mount are extended. The M1910 is in front, with the legs folded for movement.

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/RealBenefitsBarrelFluting.asp

oh, cool - we have a Sokolov mount. For Maxim!

posted by Beth on January 15, 2007 1:47 PM

very cool post.

a forgotten moment of warfare, captured in time and revealed by your post. thanks for that!

posted by MajMike on January 15, 2007 2:11 PM

Wow! ^^^^^^^^^^^ buttons ^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Czechs really do have a pround history, w/ a lot to brag about, including one of the oldest universities in Europe, the oldest Jewish Cemetary in Europe, a bridge built with egg-yolks for cement (Karlovy Most, Charles' Bridge), and etc. The country was free from 1918 until Hitler was given it, and had an interesting time. The first President was Tomas Masaryk, who declared Czechoslovakia's independance from the steps of Independence Hall. The Czech flag is Red, White and Blue because our's is. Czechoslovakia was one of the few Warsaw pact countries that had a citizenship treaty with the US (Czechs who became Aericans were no longer deemed Czechs and could travel there without fear of being conscripted.) Lot of other stuff. I was not aware of all the Czech Legion stuff until I started looking for the photos, but I'd heard about them--about the same time I learned about the extent of American involvement (a land Army!!) in Siberia at the end of WWI... Now THAT is an interesting read!

V/R

posted by SangerM on January 15, 2007 4:55 PM

The arty pieces look like WWI Russian (75?), similar to
these, but I can't make out much detail... The Officer behind the far left gun (in the saucer cap) looks Russian. The second gun from the left looks broken (in full battery). Siberia?

posted by SangerM on January 15, 2007 7:41 PM

Battle of Zborov.

1917, Ukraine.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 15, 2007 8:12 PM

So, the ribbing on the waterjacket was to increase surface area for convection then?

posted by ry on January 15, 2007 10:26 PM

Battle of Zborov.

Note sure if that's the answer to the arty picture or more Czech stuff, but it made me think some more about the Czechs.

1) Frank Zappa was a national idol, credited with being a primary inspiration behind the Velvet Revolution ... No kidding, I knew many Czechs who knew the lyrics to lots of Zappa's songs, and were always surprised to find we Americans didn't all love him too. This is an article about "The Plastic People of the Universe."..

"In January of 1990, just as the new democracy had begun, Frank Zappa flew to Prague at the invitation of Havel, one of his greatest fans. 5000 rock fans were waiting at the airport to witness the historic arrival of the famous American. A Prague film crew captured Zappa's arrival at the airport just as Shirley Temple Black, the former "good ship lollipop" girl, then the acting ambassador to Czech , was leaving. Mrs. Black was asked about her views on the distinguished Frank Zappa's visit. Czech citizens did not understand her horrified reaction to this question. Zappa met Havel at Prague Castle and presented the new president with several ideas on how to help Czechoslovakia move into the democratic age, such as cellular phones and tourism. Zappa was emotionally overcome upon meeting older fans of his who had endured beatings by the Secret Police for the sake of his music."
Link I knew people who felt that way about him. It was very odd...

2) The term ROBOT was coined by a Czech writer named Karel C'apek (Chapek) in a 1920 play titled R.U.R. (Rossums Universal Robots). He also wrote War with the Newts a classic of Science Fiction.

3) Saint Wenceslas is the patron saint of the Czechs. Yes, that Good King Wenceslas, of "Feast of Steven" fame. Duke of Bohemia (907-935).

There's lots more, but that's what I remember.

Oh, and every time I asked a Czech why they didn't fight back in 1968, the answer was always, "we survived." I guess they did.

posted by SangerM on January 15, 2007 10:34 PM

Ry, the most common reason given for the fluting is strength. The water boiled, regardless, and the steam was taken off by the hose to the water can, where it condensed, the end of the hose being submerged in water in the can. The jacket was refilled from the can. Interestingly, the Germans never fluted their Maxims, the Brits started with fluting, and went to smooth (and a heavier jacket to make up for the strength loss, which was really popular with the troops... not) to save time and complexity in manufacture.

The Russians started out smooth, and went to fluted. During WWII they developed the "snow cap" which was a much larger hole in the top of the jacket so the troops could pack the jacket with snow.

Sanger - the Battle of Zborov in the Ukraine is a Czech Legion battle, and those guns are Legion guns - according to the picture source.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 16, 2007 5:42 AM

"Ry, the most common reason given for the fluting is strength."
I would've thought that the simple smooth jacket had more strength. Bending metal does things to the metal. And odd surface shapes, may, cause odd force vectors. I'm surprised that it's the other way. Is there a short answer for why the flutting was stronger?

posted by ry on January 17, 2007 2:39 AM

Ry,
Take a look at the following - it focuses on barrel fluting which doesn't really apply because the jackets are closer to corrugated metal than a mostly-solid barrel, but see the "Ridged Roof Analogy" subsection which discusses how thin metal is bent to add strength.

The takeaway I had from the article (bear in mind I'm not a structural engineer and I would definitely check my comprehension) is basically that the metal strength is a quality of its thickness and the ridges turn the load-bearing aspect from the thickness of the material to the thickness/depth of the ridges - the same function as an I-beam where the strength is more related to the web between the top and bottom of the "I" and not the thickness of the steel making up the top and bottom.

posted by XCavTrooper on January 17, 2007 8:35 PM

Thanks XCav.

posted by ry on January 18, 2007 7:12 AM

The same reason aircraft like the Ford Tri-Motor and Junkers 52 used corrugated skin, stronger, yet lighter overall.

One of the reasons you'll see holes in structural members is actually to provide points of stress relief, which makes them stronger without the weight.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 18, 2007 7:18 AM

by John on Jan 15, 2007 | Historical Stuff | Machine Guns

H&I* Fires, 14 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Hey - trackbacks work again!]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

******************************

"Madam Secretary, please," Boxer said. "I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

You might want to be careful with that rhetorical blade there, Senator. It cuts both ways, seeing that 'keeping Saddam Hussein contained' had an annual toll of 50k and going to places like the Sudan is likely to cost lives resulting in heartache and pain in the families of the military community, like Ginsu knives of old. Who does pay for your decisions, Senator? (I can do that as I'm still, technically, based on my permanent mailing address being in Southern California, a constituent of hers.)

Wretchard over at Belmont has something interesting about the IEDs being supplied by Iran. Well, TROPHY is the answer to that too, innit' Keith Olberman?

Just a reminder of what problems come with the three state break up of Iraq ideas pushed by some. Turkey doesn't like how the Kurds turn a blind eye to the PKK. Just something to think about. .

The Guardian(UK) on how the insurgency has morphed over time. Now there's room to talk to some who've become tired of the violence and overcome their reflexive US hatred. The rest, the bloody minded rest, well, there's a solution to them too---a damned expensive one.
ry

******************************

Jules Crittenden as a great round-up of Iraq news and posts (scroll down).

And the NY Times is again delving into government secrets that are being used to track down terrorists. I don't know enough to make a judgment yet, but it sounds a lot like the terrorist surveillance story. Crittenden has some pointed comments on the subject.

And finally, Lex points us to a new milblogger worthy of a bookmark--Acute Politics:

Before now poetry has taken notice
Of wars, and what are wars but politics
Transformed from chronic to acute and bloody?
from "Build Soil," Robert Frost

He's been blogging since September but doesn't have a ton of posts, so go ahead and start at the beginning. - FbL

******************************

We've upgraded the back office, and made some tweaks and improvements in the reception area, too. So - as you poke and prod and find things that don't work quite right (for example, at the moment, it doesn't remember my name data in the comment box) leave a comment or drop us an email and I'll have the gnome work on it. Thanks! -the Armorer

[Update: I know there are some Firefox issues. Comments *are* working, they are going into moderation, and have to be approved. How fast they show up depends on how often I'm checking my email.]

******************************

Based on the standards of AP and al-Reuters journalism, I have fixed the picture from yesterday's post to ~~better tell~~ tell a better story. Funnier, anyway. That isn't wrong. If it was wrong, they wouldn't do it.

You must *also* learn how to deal with the air/ground interface and it's immediate environs

-the Armorer

********************************

Re: upgrade

When I enter a comment it takes the usual long time to process, but when the box finally "redraws" itself, the comment is not visible (even with a refresh). However, a number of minutes later it shows up.

posted by FbL on January 14, 2007 8:21 AM

Actually, the comment is going into moderation.

It showed up as fast as it did because I happened to be puttering around in the back and approved the comment.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 14, 2007 8:36 AM

Hey FbL, your link to acute politics has an html=scrambling extra "l" after the dot.com domain, thus ".coml"

Thought you'd like to know. Go Bolts.

posted by lex on January 14, 2007 4:57 PM

Fixed.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 14, 2007 5:47 PM

I see the family of blogs to which you belong (I found you on ASP) have been, true to character, making hay over Barbara Boxer's comment.

I saw the actual exchange the first time and again another time (C-Span is great reality TV), and I must say, Boxer's did not suggest Rice is not "qualified" but rather compared Boxer's own small price with Rice's.

It was the right wing media which distorted the comment which in actuality, stressed the fact that only Military families are paying the price. I would think that an honest person would see her comments as sympathetic to the troops.

For your convenience, here's what Boxer actually said:

“The issue is who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”

Nice blog by the way.

posted by Cliff on January 14, 2007 6:46 PM

It looks like kites are the gateway drug to light aircraft for trees. Never mind Jonah's preoccupation with the volcano menace--trees are everywhere!

posted by bad cat robot on January 14, 2007 7:05 PM

Thank God for heros like Boxer and Pelosi. Is anyone watching the chimpus bafoon on 60 minutes right now? Boxer and Pelosi = reasoned oversight of a president going mad in mind.

posted by Nephi on January 14, 2007 8:06 PM

C'mon, Nephi, surely you can muster something more substantive than that?

If you're going to be rude and break my rules (no gratuitous insults) at least endeavor to spell them correctly.

That would be "buffoon". I'm not sure what the equivalent of "chimpus" is, so we'll let that stand untouched.

I think the President no more mad than Boxer and Pelosi.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 14, 2007 8:15 PM

Gee, thanks Cliff! But not to worry, my mom paid the cable bill and I have CSpan here in the basement. Regardless of what you feel about the war, how are Senator Boxer's statements relevent? Do you imagine for one moment she would say the same to SecDef Gates? Her statements were out of line, period. It was all for show. Personal lives are just that....personal lives. But, whatever, that hearing was a joke anyway with Hagel shouting over Dr. Rice.

posted by Maggie on January 14, 2007 9:54 PM

In my defence, I took that from the SF Gate, and, though and there's a link to that story---click on the words.

BUt my larger point seems lost on you, Cliff. Deciding not to go costs lives. Deciding to go costs lives. LEaving Vietnam cost between half and 2 million civilians their lives---lives which would've been lost even if we didn't go in the first place(look at the purgues of Hue). Not invading DPRK has cost that nation an unknowable number. Going to Bosnia cost people their lives, and going late cost lives too. Who pays for your decisions? For someone who is so into the suffering of others this FACT seems rather lost on Sen. Boxer, and you.

So who pays for your decisions, Cliff? It likely isn't you. Of course, if you got off the angry pills youd've seen that where I wrote this: "seeing that 'keeping Saddam Hussein contained' had an annual toll of 50k and going to places like the Sudan is likely to cost lives resulting in heartache and pain in the families of the military community". But apparently, defending grandstanders who love to use someone else's pain for their dometic politics trumps, desu neh?

posted by ry on January 15, 2007 12:31 AM

And the 'right wing media'? Um, dude, the SF Gate can hardly be called 'right wing' can it?

Simply put, Boxer should be careful what rhetoric she uses. She's placed herself, by herself, in a bad spot by trading off the suffering of others for personal gain. That may come back to haunt her. Say, a massive Free Tibet counter-protest at her next political rally. Or, say, someone from Darfur showing up on 60 Minutes demanding to know why Sen Boxer thinks one American life is worth more than 10K Sudanese?

You don't play with people's suffering like this. It leaves you in a bad spot. It's cheap, cruel, and inherently the politics of melodrama and personal destruction. Dirty pool.

posted by ry on January 15, 2007 12:35 AM

by Denizens on Jan 14, 2007 | General Commentary

Sandy "Pants" Berger

Powerline has a post from Friday that just can't be missed. Here's a sample to whet your appetite:

Mark Steyn found it too much fun not to join in Bill Bennett's inspired "Sandy Berger Lies" contest that has contributed so much to my anger management therapy this week. Seth Leibsohn has kindly forwarded Mark's three submissions. Mark's first submission comes complete with directions for recording:
THE SANDY PANTS
(from the film Slick Willie Wonka And The Shop-Lift Factory)

Hey, everybody! Gather round, the Sandy Pants is here! What kind of archival material do you want? Classified documents? Confidential minutes? Intelligence briefings? Cables? You’ve come to the right place, because I’m the Sandy Pants!

(Ooooooo!)

Who can take the memo
Stuff it in his sock
Take it out the building
And then walk it up the block
The Sandy Pants (The Sandy Pants)
Oh, the Sandy Pants can (The Sandy Pants can)
The Sandy Pants can ‘cause he fixes it for Bill
And makes his boss look good (Makes his boss look good)

Who can take the secrets
Out the door at night
Slide them under trailers
On a dark construction site
The Sandy Pants (The Sandy Pants)
Oh, the Sandy Pants can (The Sandy Pants can)
The Sandy Pants can ‘cause he fixes it for Bill
And makes his boss look good (Makes his boss look good)

The rest of The Sandy Pants and Steyn's other submissions here.

Update: The WSJ digs into the serious side of the story.

by Denizens on Jan 14, 2007 | I think it's funny! | Politicians Hit Bottom, Dig...

When Are You Coming Home?

Like the one above, this post is musical, too... but in an enitrely different direction. So, in case you missed it when Hook posted it...

Heather recorded the song, written by her mother, as a Christmas gift to her brother, Shaun Martin, a 22-year-old who is among 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq this holiday season. The oldest of Cindy and Bob Martin's four sons joined the Army in 2004 after a year at Cameron University.

When Heather, a precocious, blond first-grader, learned that her "biggest" brother wouldn't be home for Christmas, she gasped, then burst into tears, Mrs. Martin said.

That spurred Mrs. Martin to finish lyrics to a song she had been toying with and add the music.

Warning! The following may cause excessive sweating of the eyeballs:

by Denizens on Jan 14, 2007 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

Ya gotta love the Irish.

What other folk takes their stereotypes, flips them slightly askew and then shakes them out for all the world to laugh at?

Would *you* try to fill the dead air between your karaoke sets with:

"Two Norwegians are sitting on a bench in Oslo and one says to the other, 'Har du h�rt om den nye svenske musefellen?' "

Or --

"A Luxembourger, a Fleming and an Andorran are strolling in Monte Carlo..."

Naaaah.

Now try--

Into a Belfast pub comes Paddy Murphy, looking like he'd just been run over by a train. His arm is in a sling, his nose is broken, his face is cut and bruised and he's walking with a limp.

"What happened to you?" asks Sean, the bartender.

"Jamie O'Connor an' me had a fight," says Paddy.

"That little runt, O'Connor?" says Sean. "He couldn't do all that to you, man, he must have had something in his hand."

"That he did," says Paddy, "A shovel is what he had, and a terrible lickin' he gave me with it."

"Well, now," says Sean. "You should have defended yourself. Didn't you have something in *your* hand?"

"That I did," says Paddy. "Mrs. O'Connor's breast, and a thing of beauty it was, but useless in a fight."

Heh. An' a tip o' the tam to V29.