February 3, 2007
H&I Fires* 3 Feb 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...
******************************
DoD News Release.
Meanwhile, a senior defense official announced today that Charles "Cully" Stimson, deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs, has resigned, effective today. Gates accepted Stimson's resignation yesterday, Bryan Whitman, deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, told reporters today.
Stimson offered his resignation in light of controversy over statements regarding lawyers who represent detainees, Whitman said. Stimson's statements were seen as urging law firms to stop representing Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Whitman said Stimson believed the controversy "hampered his ability to be effective" in his post and resigned because he put the Defense Department's interests above his own.
Whitman praised Stimson's "diligent" work regarding detainee affairs. He cited his efforts to increase transparency and strengthen relationships with other non-governmental organizations and other groups, particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross.
If only we could get elected officials to do the same thing...
Another interesting thing is - the resignation mostly seems to be of interest to lawyers, as far as blogs go.
I'm off to a militaria show.
Oh, and we had an inmate escape from the Federal Prison. Wheee! -the Armorer
**********************************
Here's some light Saturday reading... Non-binding Cartoon Surge. - FbL
**********************************
Speaking of "non-binding", a little analysis of how the Democrats AND Republicans are both trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... »
*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.
Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.
Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*
The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.
I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
It was the right thing for him to do. I wish more Bush Administration people would suck it up and leave when they are mucking things up. His statement, if reported correctly, was stupid.
posted by
Maggie on February 3, 2007 9:26 AM
Mullah Cimoc say ameriki now punished so much for killing muslims for beneift of the israeli and neocon.
History so obvious for invaders of babylon. babylon eat armies so many times. Even tamerlane descendants run away.
This war message from bible for ameriki people. Each slaughter and killing of iraki or destroying lives of innocent people ameriki just destroy themself. Each day more ameriki woman take the LBT (low back tatoo)kick man from house with protective order from lesbian judge and family destroy. now ameriki have no more children. ameriki society is infertile. This like field of wheat now dead forever.
All this for obey and be odedient slave (like dog) of masters in tel aviv.
posted by Mullah Cimoc on February 3, 2007 5:38 PM
Woot! We finally scored Mullah Cimoc! Wa-hoo!
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 3, 2007 5:44 PM
Zdravo, Mullah Cimoc, li’l’ buddy! Da li vas nešto boli? Ne bojte se, molim.
posted by
BillT on February 3, 2007 7:44 PM
Babylon is history. Like the field of wheat now dead forever.
That was all that was worth reading hmm?
posted by
Trias on February 4, 2007 12:02 AM
Ahoj, BillT, Co jazyk je to? Rozumim trochu, nebo nerozumim kazdy slovo. Co je "boli" y "bojte se" y "molim"? Myslim ze "molim" je 'I think' nebo nevzpomenu neco tak "bojte se" y "boli."
:-)
posted by
SangerM on February 4, 2007 1:57 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Fisk! Fisk!
Man, am I hammered. Whoever invented the Rusty Nail is (was?) a frickin' GENIUS. Been flyin' my a$$ off and trying to read the new contract before I bid for March (inside baseball airline comment--don't try to understand). Remodeling the house. Walking the dog in sub-zero temps. Flyin' but able to see my family every month. Heh. Life is good.
Then I read Bill Arkin...both his first piece and the follow up.
Oi.
So, I have a few cocktails and ponder.
This is the attack pilot way. It is not to be questioned. Well, you CAN question it, but I won't care and I won't answer. So there.
And thus, without further ado, is my rejoinder....
Bill: The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
Me: Oh, dear. It does not bode well for the writer when he or she begins the piece with an ad hominem attack on those who have criticized his work. “Methinks thou dost protest too much” comes to mind but, after thinking about it, it fits the pattern of a man who, at least at first blush, seems to know he’s done something wrong. Not morally wrong, mind you, but tactically dumb—coming out of defilade too early is a misstep he regrets, i.e., before spitting on veterans is in vogue at the nation’s airports and other ports of debarkation. Timing is everything and America just isn’t ready to give the troops (professional thugs, if you will) the treatment they actually deserve.
Bill: Well, one thing’s abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn’t the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans — who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.
Me: For those who did that to Mr. Arkin, foul—depart the range, you’ve violated the ROE—by that I mean you’ve lowered yourself to his level (or worse, to Markos Moulitsas’).
Bill: Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of e-mails I’ve received, I’ve never written that soldiers should “shut up,” quit whining, be spit upon, or that they have no right to an opinion.
Me: Well, lad, that’s a bit of a dodge, actually. There is literal and implied messaging in one’s product, especially when crafting an opinion piece. The impression many people got is that you sort of think the troops should, in one man’s words, “shut up and bleed.” Perhaps this is incorrect, but thousands came away with that impression. Moreover, in listening to your interview with John Gibson, you quite clearly implied (to me…not my fault, man, I was just sitting there listening) that the behavior at Abu Ghraib was not an anomaly but rather typical, because that’s what American soldiers do.
Bill: I said I was bothered by the notion that “the troops” were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.
Me: Please. First, the troops don’t need scare quotes. They exist. They are real. And they are hallowed beings to some extent in that they have voluntarily entered into the fray against barbarism. Second, many are post-9/11 enlistees and officer volunteers, conscious of what they were doing when they signed up and why. Third, they are willing to die for total strangers, in a faraway, alien place for a concept, not for a buck, not for health care, not for benefits but because they think it’s the right thing to do.
OK, I’ll give you that they’d probably prefer to live, but are willing to die if they must. Personally, I don’t think I’m fit to shine these guys’ boots…and I’m a retired senior officer (that would be a Colonel).
Bill: I was dead wrong in using the word "mercenary" to describe the American soldier today.
Me: Ah, the first step in rehab is admitting you have a problem…
Bill: These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.
Me: Goodness. I really think you misheard them. First of all, “hide” used in the same sentence as “American soldier” is a bit of an operational oxymoron. Second, these are people who are willing to sacrifice everything, in the most literal sense, for you to say they most repugnant things about them you can conjure.
That, my friend, is not hiding behind the Constitution. It is defending it to the utmost. Now, I will grant you there may be some impatience with the Democrat Party, “liberals” (who are often anything but, given their proclivity for suppressing counters to their arguments—scare quotes justly earned), journalists, dissenters and anti-freedom citizens because what these warriors see, in person, up close and personal, utterly annihilates the premises under which the above-mentioned groups labor. Third, I defy you to present me with a credible example of an active duty soldier, sailor, airman or Marine that shows “contempt” for the American people. Do they exist? Hey, there’s a FEW bad apples in every barrel but the percentage is statistically negligible. I’d bet my life on it and I’d be willing to bet his/her peers have no use for them…nada, zero, zip.
Bill: What I’ve heard ever since my article “The Troops Also Need to Support the American People“ was published on Tuesday are a lot of people telling ME to shut up and be grateful for the sacrifices others are making.
Me: OK, there are a lot of people telling you to shut up. Not good. However, there are a LOT of people out there who recognized the article for what it was, a snarky, condescending smackdown of men and women putting their lives on the line for a noble cause and making the best of a bad situation. Your piece was petty. It was dismissive. It was small. It was unoriginal.
Bill: I never said we shouldn’t support the troops. I just lamented that “we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?”
Me: Whoa, whoa, whoa! “We support them in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY?!?” C’mon, dude. Even the densest grunt and Jarhead KNOW that ain’t the case. “Support” refers to “giving aid and assistance to,” “providing encouragement to,” etc., and that isn’t a theme that jumps out in your piece. Your “lament” is crocodilian—tears that are shed for effect, not in sincerity. Then the paragraph descends into incoherence—“give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up” is sort of repudiated by the fact that you are doing so in one of the three most widely-read newspapers in the United States if not the world. “…[B]ecause they are above society” is called “projection”—assigning a shortcoming to an external entity that you in fact display in spades. (I know this is a waste of time, but I offer this as a way to support the troops: Support any and all efforts that lead to victory over Islamic fascism and contribute to establishing a viable democracy in the heart of the Middle East.)
Bill: Thousands have written telling me to “shut up and quit whining,” that the troops do support the American people - “with their lives.”
I can’t respond to everyone individually - keep the cards and letters coming though, I do read them - but I’ll try to tease out of the comments some themes that confirm in my mind the difficult state that this impossible war has put us.
Me: *Sigh* “Impossible war” you say?
Indeed.
Read up on the war in the Pacific between 1942 and ’45. Fraught with mistakes, thousands of casualties, knee-deep in blood, the Allies fought on.
In Europe, the casualty rate in one battle alone (The Bulge) was 26 times that suffered to date in Iraq.
I know this makes your head explode—no death is acceptable in fighting for freedom, at least when a Republican is the Commander-in-Chief, but perspective is everything.
Given the fact that we are engaged in a struggle with entities that would detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil given half a chance, the cost we have borne so far is miniscule by comparison.
Now, before you take this out of context, know that I consider the blood of an American soldier the most precious of things. If I could prevent a drop being spilled, I would do it. But I cannot. I believe that resistance is necessary, uncompromising, fierce, and unyielding. That means blood will be spilled. But, as long as we believe that victory is preferable over defeat, it will not be spilled in vain.
-Instapilot
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
(looks at the protplasmic goo left over after this beat down)
Uh, someone remind me not to get on Dusty's bad side. I don't think I'd even leave this much of a stain.
posted by ry on February 2, 2007 11:09 PM
Ry,
Scotch and Drambuie loosens the lips of the most taciturn.
Arrrr...
Instapilot
posted by
Instapilot on February 2, 2007 11:43 PM
Once again, I am awed... I wanna be you when I grow up (well, except maybe ex-Army)
Thank you for that.
posted by
SangerM on February 3, 2007 2:25 AM
Proving once again, "It's not *nice* to rouse Dusty's ire."
*cue levinbolt and thunderclap*
Warthogs have tusks, but their pilots have *fangs.* Cleared hot across The Line -- I got yer six!
posted by
BillT on February 3, 2007 7:12 AM
[sound of flushing digits]
I see my post on the subject would be a bit late...
No matter, this signed editorial reflects the editrorial position of the Triumvirate of Argghhh!
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 3, 2007 8:10 AM
Daaammnnnnn.
Fish, barrel, nuclear frickin' weapon.
posted by
Casey Tompkins on February 3, 2007 10:47 AM
Excellent.
posted by fdcol63 on February 3, 2007 11:05 AM
Heh. Wonder what he might have produced... sober!
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 3, 2007 1:31 PM
Ahh, Rusty Nails -- drink of the Gods! Mighty fine fisking too!
posted by
74 on February 3, 2007 4:13 PM
Not bad writing for somebody who's hammered.
I've linked to you here.
posted by
Consul-At-Arms on February 3, 2007 6:29 PM
Sometimes when trying to help the very dense, a direct approach is the only way to go.
Mr. Arkin, remember the first rule of holes,
please just shut up.
posted by Russ on February 3, 2007 10:42 PM
Drunk or not, Dusty - that was just plain fantastic. Well done!
posted by
Adjutant on February 5, 2007 8:53 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Here we go again...
Remember the uproar a few Silly Seasons back when Piglet was banned in Britain for fear of "offending Muslim sensibilities"...?
Guess what? The Muttaween -- the religious policemen, not to be confused with The Religious Policeman (hurry up and finish that book so you can get back to blogging!) -- finally caught on that a cartoon pig was supposedly an instrument of the Peacock Angel.
Camper from Qatar Living recounts the tale, beginning (as is appropriate) at the beginning:
In Qatar there is only one decent bookshop (that happens to be a Saudi chain) that has a few shelves of English books. Shopping there is hit or miss - you don't go there to look for a title. You go there in the hope of stumbling upon something interesting.
The kids selection is not bad though. The other night we saw Disney's "My Very First Encyclopedia with Winnie the Pooh and friends". We grabbed it and thought it was exactly what we needed for our daughter - not only does she love Winnie the Pooh but she's also started taking a keen interest in nature.
And upon opening said Encyclopedia, camper discovered that Piglet had been blacked out. On every page. You'll get a small, painless lesson in current Middle Eastern events during camper's dissertation on why he found the censorship more disturbing than that which was censored.
This whole incident reminded me of a discussion with a friend from South Africa a few years ago. He was explaining kindness and mercy in Islam. He said that a even a pig, a creature which is seen as "despised" by Muslims, is a creature of God and should thus be treated with kindness and mercy. So while we should not eat it, that doesn't meant that Muslims are interested in torturing or trying to exterminate them... even if only with a brand new 3-inch black marker. If a pig was injured, it would be a Muslims duty to assist it.
One commenter wondered why the presence of Piglet in the bookstore was deemed offensive, but the presence of Mein Kampf was *not*...
The whole post is here. Don't forget the comments, either. Every now and then, it's nice to be reminded that Sensibility trumps Sensibilities -- and there are folks closer to the source than we are who don't want Wahhabism shoved down *their* throats, either...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
O/T...
BillT, you've been tagged with the "Six Weird Things" meme!
"I'm tagging: Sgt. B, Cassandra, Grim, Lex, Barb, and BillT... all of whom are definitely "characters" of the highest order. Which is just a nice way of saying they're weird, so this should be good!"
posted by
FbL on February 3, 2007 10:41 AM
Well, at least I'm in good company.
They, sadly, are *not*.
[Cassie weird? Check Villainess Companie for lioness tail-tuft fuzz stuck to the trivet...]
posted by
BillT on February 3, 2007 7:53 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 2, 2007
H&I Fires* 2 Feb 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...
******************************
Punxsutawney Phil says spring is coming early. Me, I'm holding out for more snow.
Well, it's official. This just in - the sun and sea-floor spreading activity have nothing to do with it. It's all just us. The UN says it's all our fault and there's nothing we can do about it. Of course, that won't stop them from trying some of the most breath-taking power grabs in the history of mankind. Heh. Glad I like mountains, and was never all that fond of the ocean. I don't have any beachfront property to worry about - and this just means I can move north, to less populated areas, to keep indulging my taste for snow. Keep in mind - we were going to freeze to death in the 70's. The truth is somewhere in between. -the Armorer
*********************************
Email discussion last night:
"Hey! I can't get on your site, what's up?"
"Hosting Matters is possibly under a DOS attack." (they weren't, it was a fiber trunk cut in Atlanta, but I didn't know that at the time.)
"Well, you should put up a note telling people that!"
.
.
.
.
.
[crickets chirp]
.
.
.
.
.
"Um, here's your sign..." -the Armorer
*********************************
Congratulations are in order!
This from Badgers Forward
Stop over at Acute Politics and congratulate the Teflon Don on his promotion to Specialist. Well deserved and I was proud to velcro his new rank to his unifrom this AM.
Passed along by Princess Crabby
*******************
Sometimes listening to an opposing view can be healthy. Are we being petulant children about PRC with much more to be gained by cooperation?
Maybe.
But I know I still want the capability, if not the active design, to counter them if they go malignant. Cooperative but wary. That's what I think is prudent.
_______
Where's the outrage? Isn't this a war crime? Behead a man for not co-operating with you? Suspect him of being a spy for the other side and kill him without a trial? Oh, that's right, it's not MNF doing this so we don't get mad about it.
_________
There's some change coming down the pipe in Pakistan if this is right.
---------
Jaques Chirac says that if the US doesn't join the Kyoto Protocol we should be taxed.
ry.
*******************
Further to Massa John’s entry yesterday…
You Gringos may all know this day for its reverence to a certain obstreperous rodent. However, we Spiks all around this fair Earth, know it better as El Dia de la Candelaria The Feast of Candelmas. The one and only day that we all Pyros out there can rejoice with abandon.
Back in the day when I was a little tyke of say 8 to 14 years of age, all kids in the neighborhood, would enter in a fierce competition. Starting January 7th, we would scour our neighborhood for all Christmas Trees thrown onto the curbs (Back home X-Mass Trees are kept until after Epiphany - Jan 6th). We would then stash them on top our roofs (All roofs being perfectly flat). And have the dried-up trees, “age” some more under the hot tropical sun for a few more weeks. Finally, at dusk of Feb 2nd, all kids in the neighborhood would gather-up all of their respective stashes (Braggin’ rights for the one with the biggest stash), and drag them up to the nearby playground. All trees then go into a big pile… a little spark of a friendly match… and FIRE!!!! The dried-up oils and resins of hundreds of trees go up in a purifying flame that reaches for the sky.
Ahhh – La Virgen de la Candelaria, unofficial protrectress of all PYROS, is my favorite. Sorry Saints Brigida & Babs, The Virgin Rules. - BOQ
*******************
The sidebar isn't updating regularly(again). But this post by Kat---can I say I'm damn glad she's back again?---- really looks at something we all care about: media relations and informational warfare. Good read. Some real questions there.
ry
*******************
Homefront Six has picture that says a thousand words. - FbL
*******************
The Canadian Forces has just formally inked a deal with Boeing to purchase four C-17 Globemasters ASAP (formal announcement today at 1400 EST). Big thanks to the USAF for giving up slots in the production line for us. Given the political farting around on the regional pork aspect of the contract, I'm not sure we deserved the favour.
And in other CF-related news, our Navy and Air Force engineering shops have been working long hours for their Army brethren - putting threat-specific armour on our LAVIII armoured fighting vehicles in southern Afghanistan. If only CBC could get the story right... - Damian
*******************
Blackfive is a goldmine today: a potential MoH SEAL, the military version of "six degrees," and an update on Rambo the Afghan. - FbL
*******************
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... »
*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.
Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.
Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*
The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.
I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Since this kind of stuff is usually wrong. So I am preparing for an Ice Age or something like the Little Ice Age which happened almost overnight, in the grand scheme of things overnight, like 10-20 years. I think investing in good windows and insulation makes the most sense.
posted by JimC on February 2, 2007 8:55 AM
US Army Corps of Engineers Levees of Maintenance Conern, Feb 1, 2007:
Kansas City Ft Leavenworth, KS Ft Leavenworth KS Ft Leavenworth Airport.
Better go get some of those carrier qualified squids to run the tower and install arresting hooks.
Or not.
posted by
jim b on February 2, 2007 9:28 AM
The greater concern for Fort Leavenworth of a levee failure at Leavenworth International would be the water wells down there in the Weston Bend.
The city would not be happy, they're actually putting some money and effort into making Sherman Army Airfield into a decent light aviation field, but... I'd be more concerned about damage to the wells.
That area flooded in '93, too, so, I guess we've got some experience with it. As for the Castle, we're above all that. Literally. By about 100 feet.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 2, 2007 9:35 AM
Even though I'm sure "global warming" fetishists will be more than happy to pick it apart, I've always thought this site gives some pretty good info on the subject:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Personally, I think the whole purpose behind "global warming" hysteria by liberals is part of the strategy to socialize and "acclimate" people to accept the UN as a legitimate global government. After all, since climate and the environment affects us all, what better cause celebe could there be to rally world opinion?
posted by fdcol63 on February 2, 2007 9:51 AM
HEY!
I didn't ask for a notice about the site being down, I just wanted to let you know I couldn't get on and if you knew why. HARUMPH.
posted by AFSister on February 2, 2007 10:04 AM
Um, did *you* send me a note telling me, after having been told the site was down, that I should post a note to let people know?
If you did, you have developed another alias, ma'am. Are you having trouble keeping them all straight?
Heh. You aren't the *only* one who sends me emails, y'know.
There were, oh, conservatively, 15 emails on the subject last night.
Oddly enough, many of the opening lines were similar.
8^)
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 2, 2007 10:08 AM
Ah... ok.
Well, in that case, it wasn't me!
posted by AFSister on February 2, 2007 10:33 AM
HeHeHe! AFSis - You just outed yourself! Why did you do that? You couldn't have gotten me to admit that at the point of a gun!
you are going to have to be sharper than that when we are in DC. BTW, we have a mission for that weekend. SK came up with it and it involved JP of Milblogging.
posted by
Maggie on February 2, 2007 10:33 AM
AW JEEZ!
It wasn't me.... I SWEAR! I did ask, but I didn't ask for the notice. *sigh*
I heard about the project! I am looking forward to helping, as long as I'm at the conference!
posted by afsister on February 2, 2007 10:46 AM
Oh, gad, the wimmin are conspirizing in the comments.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 2, 2007 10:48 AM
I'm already thinking about how many stickers I need to order, LMAO
posted by AFSister on February 2, 2007 10:59 AM
Oddly, the only things that the environmentalists don't recommend for fixes to global warming are the ones that are the easiest (in some respects) to accomplished.
I was fortunate enough to have taken an environment economics class with a teacher, although liberal in view, was very open to listening to practical ideas. When myself and my suite mates, engineers the lot of us, proposed that nuclear power would fix the planet.
With most human made CO2 production coming from power generation, switching from fossil to nuclear would bring us well within the drop off required to either reverse or hold the global temperatures.
Hence why our teacher dislikes it when her "environmentalist" friends proclaim that they are anti-nuclear.
posted by Geo on February 2, 2007 2:44 PM
>I'm not sure we deserved the favour.
Damian,
I assure you, as one who has a clue: it wasn't a favor (or favour ;) Those four will lead to more, and to a whole swath of other things in their wake, like crew training, and sim quals, and maint tng, etc. and maint. contracts or facilities, all of which works out to $$$$ for the US -- for a lot of years to come. And Canada (CN) is one of a few countries that doesn't get a deep discount for stuff it buys from the US (well, not mostly)...
Moreover, even though they will go to CN, I expect we'll be able to rent them if we need them for a dire emergency... To say nothing of the fact that the operating costs for moving CN stuff will be shifted to CN accordingly....
Really. I expect we'd have set up a whole new plant if CN has wanted enough of them.... We did after all build an M1 Abams plant in Egypt, dint we?
And you should see the scramble for C130s... Amazing for a plane that's been upgraded so many times they're going to have to start using double letters to designate the models... Well, not quite, but that plane has been around awhile.
posted by
SangerM on February 2, 2007 7:28 PM
Political farting around or no,the build date is August THIS year,eh hah!....Under the @#$&%^#@ Liberals(specialy Cretin) it would have taken more years then the amount of months till August to get it ordered.
posted by big al on February 2, 2007 8:07 PM
SangerM, I'm pretty sure all the bells, whistles, simulators, training, spare parts, etc. was already included in the $3.4B (CDN) price tag. And I'm sure that just as you've suggested you'd be able to rent from us if you needed to, we've been renting from you all along. The issue is one of overall alliance capacity, as I understand it. I'm just glad we're going to be a little more self-reliant going forward...assuming the GD Liberals don't get back into power.
You see, their defence critic has already said they'd cancel the contract.
posted by
Damian on February 2, 2007 9:52 PM
Hey, John -- you won't have to move north to get more snow when sunspot inactivity reaches mid-point.
People around here are usually dumbfounded when I tell them Greenland's climate of a thousand years ago was pretty much like New Jersey's is today.
Except, of course, for all the Democrats wandering around.
BTW, those Greenies who are nattering that Nairobi's present collection of malarial mosquitoes is proof of rampant global warming need to read a bit of history -- Nairobi has had malarial epidemics since the 1930s, not because the temperature warmed up, but because of the huge influx of featherless bipeds at that time.
And speaking of toasty temperatures, how many Greenies realize that malarial skeeters like Anopheles maculipennis just love living in *Siberia*?
posted by
BillT on February 2, 2007 11:52 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
The SugarButtons Brigade in the Assault.

More funny stuff, not always work-safe, here at FreakingNews.Com
H/t, the Auld Pharts in Korea, via Jim C.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Hey, how did they get a hold of my picture?
posted by Pogue on February 2, 2007 11:18 AM
Bill?!?!?!
IS IT REALLY YOU?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Btw, I'm gonna be in Bill's neck of the woods for 2 weeks for MOS training. I'll try to login from one of the post computers to drop a line.
posted by
Jon The Mechanic on February 2, 2007 4:25 PM
I'm debating showing this to my mom - it looks exactly like her dad, who is now 80. He was a corporal in Patton's Europe campaign. I don't know if the tears would be of lauhgter or of another nature.
posted by
J-P on February 2, 2007 9:13 PM
If he was a Corporal in Patton's Third Army - shake his hand for me.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 2, 2007 9:37 PM
Bill?!?!?!
IS IT REALLY YOU?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Nope. That kid doesn't have anywhere *near* enough wrinkles.
But show up on my doorstep without a set of TMLs and you'll see the same baleful blue-eyed glare...
Heh!
posted by
BillT on February 2, 2007 11:09 PM
Will do. My grandpa's real humble about stuff like that and would really appreciate it - wouldn't remember it five minute's later, but would appreciate it all the same.
posted by
J-P on February 4, 2007 11:27 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
The nicely obscure whatzis...
As I expected, you guys collectively pretty much nailed it, if missing some of the fiddly details. It is in fact an airbrushed photo for an advertising brochure.
J. Walter Christie was a pretty talented designer of tanks. But, as happens to many people with talent, he got a little messianic now and again. That photo represented one of those ideas which just couldn't get out of his head.
He was fixated on developing a light tank that could be carried under a plane. You'd spin the tracks up to high speed, then the plane would skim along the ground, the tank would touch, the pilot (or tanker) would release, and voila! Aerial deployment of tanks.
Oddly enough, the Army never showed much interest in the concept, much less actually designing an aircraft capable of it. I'll let the pilots among us discuss all the technical reasons why even if technically feasible (an arguable question for the tech at the time) it's such a bad idea from so many perspectives. Not the least of which is flying some lumbering transport aircraft just feet above ground that is anything flatter than a runway.
That's a drawing of a M1940 Christie tank (which was never built) grafted on to a picture of a YB-17 as already determined by the Smart Guys in the comments.
Well done.
And now for something complete different.
So, whatziss?

You guys are always whining about scale, etc - so here's some context.

Here's a larger view, as if that's going to help.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
A nice little model of an M102 next to a magnetic stress ball covered in ball bearings?
posted by Pogue on February 2, 2007 8:42 AM
Tiffany egg from the company's 'minimalist' period...
posted by Neffi on February 2, 2007 9:26 AM
a Tempest hardened pomegranate?
posted by MajMike on February 2, 2007 10:14 AM
Heh. How many people remember what "Tempest Hardened" means...
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 2, 2007 10:17 AM
Hints please:
Whole object, or component of something bigger?
Weapon, weapon component, mechanical thingy?
Oh, and you need a digital camera with a better macro mode. :-)
posted by wolfwalker on February 2, 2007 10:17 AM
In reverse order... my Canon EOS Rebel camera is just fine. It's the operator who sucks.
Component.
Modern.
European.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 2, 2007 10:20 AM
Pincushion?
Beryllium sphere for a shuttlecraft?
posted by
Eric Wilner on February 2, 2007 10:27 AM
Warhead submunition for a Roland antiaircraft missle?
posted by Bruce Quam on February 2, 2007 11:00 AM
Some sort of scouring shot for cleaning out a really foul rifle barrel?
posted by Will the Sea Scout on February 2, 2007 11:00 AM
WEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
The camera operator SUCKS!
gotta love an operator who sucks.
posted by WereKitten on February 2, 2007 11:03 AM
Geez, Eric, everybody knows a Beryllium sphere is used in the main engines, not the shuttlecraft!
Some people... ;)
Now I normally stay away from the more abstruse "whatzit" posts, but assuming the ball bearings aren't a red herring, I'd hazard it's part of a beehive round or anti-personnel grenade, in the manner of the old Shrapnel rounds.
posted by
Casey Tompkins on February 2, 2007 12:06 PM
BB Cheeseball.
posted by Rod Thorsen on February 2, 2007 12:51 PM
(ahem)
With regards to yesterday's Whazzit?, while he seems to have covered how they were supposed to get the tank off the plane (thus allowing them both to land), how did he intend for them to take off?
Also, a modern LAPES drop is pretty much what you described. Way back when they were developing it I happened to work at USAYPG (Yuma Proving Ground) and got to see one. Cargo plane comes into view flying low with tail doors open. Plane dives at the ground and somehow manages to level off looking like it's lower than it would be with gear down. Little bitty drag chute appears at tail of plane followed immediately by full chute and something very tanklike. Plane bounces up to a more reasonable altitude (tanklike vehicle also bounces, but not as high). Plane goes into steep climb and exits area. Basically the unload the cargo plane without bothering to (quite) land - or slow down.
Now, as to today's item:
Looks to be a lump covered in shot. Since it's egg-shaped and appears to be covered all over I'm guessing it's intended to distribute said shot over the entire area in a grandly egalitarian manner. Bursting charge out of the Euro version of a Bouncing Betty?
posted by KCSteve on February 2, 2007 12:54 PM
1. Tempest 1 or 2?
2. Radar cross-section/signature test target.
Cheers
posted by J.M. Heinrichs on February 2, 2007 2:02 PM
"It's all ball bearings these days! Maybe you need a refresher course."
posted by Toluca Nole on February 2, 2007 3:13 PM
But, Casey, it's too small to be the sphere for the main engines! Gotta be for something smaller, like a shuttlecraft or maybe a space bike.
Hmmm... unless that's a full-size howitzer, and those planks are a lot bigger than I'd assumed.
It does have a bit of the "explosive covered with ball bearings" look to it, but isn't the ratio of explosive to ball bearings rather high?
posted by
Eric Wilner on February 2, 2007 6:59 PM
I dunno how small ball bearings can get, but those look kinda small for ball bearings to me. Maybe it's some kinda lightweight scattergun round, loaded with birdshot? No idea why they'd do something like that, but sometimes the military runs the durndest experiments...
posted by wolfwalker on February 2, 2007 7:30 PM
>Heh. How many people remember what "Tempest Hardened" means...
I lived in that world for a bit... How about a AT PC (80286) computer in a heavy green box that had about 50 screws in the top cover, and all sorts of steel parts and some stuff that looked like steel wool on the inside... INSIDE a SCIF. What nitwits... talk about 400 toilet seat..
On the other hand, the Army bought a toy in the early 80s called TEAMPACK (AN/MSQ-103), a tactical MI track/shelter mtd radar direction finding system. Supposedly, it was discovered that if you got close enough (within a couple hundred meters, I guess), you could recieve information about the targets it was DFing--emitted from inside the shelter (tempest NOT being installed properly apparently). Our unit had to stop using them for a bit....
Go figure...
posted by
SangerM on February 2, 2007 7:42 PM
well they are fixed in place so the bearings aren't actually used to minimise friction. So i leap to assume this is some kind of bomb which explodes the bearings out to rip people to shreds, much like those nice terrorists in Israel do.
posted by
Trias on February 2, 2007 8:36 PM
One of KtLW's famed armored meatballs.
Don't ask...
posted by
BillT on February 2, 2007 11:03 PM
Hey, BilltT, that sounds like my Grandmother's knedlick (Passover chicken soup dumplings)...
Straight to the bottom of the stomach....
posted by
SangerM on February 3, 2007 2:27 AM
Waitaminnit...
Could those ball bearings actually be meant to function as ball bearings?
Is this the spherical bearing for some sort of tilty-swivelly joint? Little hardened steel balls surrounding a big hardened steel ball, magnetized for ease of assembly?
(But then I contemplate how the outside of the thing would be constructed, and I don't see how you'd keep some subset of the little balls from flying off in the event of impact.)
posted by
Eric Wilner on February 3, 2007 8:53 AM
Eric, I stand corrected. Yes, it could be for a space bike. :)
wolfwalker raised a point I hadn't thought of, but should. Those spheres are small for anti-personnel.
Hmmm. Is that a 1/35 scale model next to the whatzit, or is it a 1/6 GI Joe howitzer?
posted by
Casey Tompkins on February 3, 2007 10:55 AM
1/35th, Casey.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 3, 2007 1:32 PM
I think the Soviet Russkis actually did test the freewheeling tracks air-dropped from five feet up tank.
Once.
Ren and Stimpy did an episode in which they joined up with the Armored Parachute Tank Corps, or something like that.
posted by
Justthisguy on February 3, 2007 8:19 PM
Y'all do realize, of course, that JoA may just be funnin' us?
I mean, that may not be any kind of weapon at all, maybe just an objet d'art his Gramma gave him, which has had some of its shiny thingys fall off, during the passage of the years?
posted by
Justthisguy on February 3, 2007 8:25 PM
Ya know JTG might be on to something. You remember those objects d'art that were real popular back in the 70's? You'd press your hand or face into it and a 3-d image would remain. So armouror, how 'bout you slam this into your face and than tell what you see? :^)
posted by Rod Thorsen on February 3, 2007 8:38 PM
Just kidding of course.
posted by Rod Thorsen on February 3, 2007 9:04 PM
Possibly the guts of a grenade of some sort but IIRC most light grenades are wrapped in layers of prefragmented (partially) wire not ball bearings.
posted by ibm on February 3, 2007 10:14 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Hope Rides Alone.
Sergeant Eddie Jeffers, via The New Media Journal.
And to think, I volunteered for this...
And I am ignorant to the rest of the world...or so I thought.
But even thousands of miles away, in Ramadi, Iraq, the cries and screams and complaints of the ungrateful reach me. In a year, I will be thrust back into society from a life and mentality that doesn't fit your average man. And then, I will be alone. And then, I will walk down the streets of America, and see the yellow ribbon stickers on the cars of the same people who compare our President to Hitler.
I will watch the television and watch the Cindy Sheehans, and the Al Frankens, and the rest of the ignorant sheep of America spout off their mouths about a subject they know nothing about. It is their right, however, and it is a right that is defended by hundreds of thousands of boys and girls scattered across the world, far from home. I use the word boys and girls, because that's what they are. In the Army, the average age of the infantryman is nineteen years old. The average rank of soldiers killed in action is Private First Class.
You can read the rest here. H/t, Jim C.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
This made me feel very sad and powerless. We write what we write, we say what we say. Some of us take more tangible action. I make bawdy jokes about my support of the troops. But in the end, I don't see us stemming the the flow of anti-war sentiment. Of protecting the military from the slings and arrows of the MSM and the moonbats. We will never change the minds of idiots who will use their precious freedom of speech to bash the very people that are willing to die to preserve it.
I am angry when I listen to Sen. Dodd, Sen. Collins, Sen. Hagel, etc. But reading this just makes me sad.
Still, it was well written and worth reading.
posted by
Maggie on February 2, 2007 8:12 AM
I respectfully disagree with the author regarding calling the young men and women in the military "boys and girls." These people, while young, are taking on very adult responsibilities. I contrast military people with those college students the same age who are still depending on their parents to pay all the bills or the 30 year old loser still living in his parents' house. I've known some 18 year olds in the military who grew up fast, ending up far more mature than a lot of 30+ year olds who never took responsibility for anything.
posted by Larry J on February 2, 2007 8:20 AM
Excellent letter from SGT Jeffers. Unfortunately, it will fall on too many deaf ears.
Bill Arkin's article illustrated how almost one half of America truly feels about this war and about the US military:
The Arkins, Sheehans, Moores, et al first claim that only those serving in combat or who have lost loved ones in this "senseless" and "illegal" war have any right to voice an opinion on the subject. Anyone else who does is nothing more than a "chickenhawk", "Chairborne Ranger", or member of the "1st Keyboard Division".
But as soon as active-duty military members serving in Iraq voice their opinion, and merely ask for the American public's support and understanding, the Arkins / Sheehans / Moores / Kerrys / academics condemn them as murderers and rapists, living opulent lifestyles with obscene amenities in the war zone. And HOW DARE THEY contradict our view of how this war is being conducted!!! Besides, 9/11 was not that big a deal, and did not justify all this war-mongering and oppression of innocent Muslims! America is a hateful, bullying, international pariah!
posted by fdcol63 on February 2, 2007 8:29 AM
This is the by-product of "Support the troops, but not the war" rhetoric.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 2, 2007 8:36 AM
Maggie – The sad truth is Liberalism is a belief system, the same as choosing to be Christian or Jewish, or whatever. However, unlike Christianity, which places it’s faith in the undisputed truth of the Empty Tomb; liberals place their blind faith in “truths” that have been disproved over and over; the most world-shaking disproof and disavowing of those “truths” was when we all saw Germans taking their sledge hammers to the hated wall (but liberalism won’t stay defeated unless good men and women ride out every day to rid the kingdom of the dragons). Since it is a belief system, everything they see is filtered through the lens of those beliefs, just as everything I see is filtered through the lens of Evangelical Christianity (with a lot of military experience thrown in). One of the basic tenets of modern liberalism (also referred to as Secular Progressives [SPs]) is the Marxist concept of: we are all either Bourgeoisie or Proletariat and all proletariats are victims and pawns of the Bourgeoisie. Therefore, if a person who is well-educated and rich decides to server the United States of American, that person is an unenlightened bourgeois brute. If a person decides to serve who is from the farms and small towns (fly-over people) and his/her family has a middle to working class income, then they are duped victims of the ruling class. If a person decides to serve, who is from the inner city and not white, then they are poor ignorant escapees from the ghetto. How can you use logic to argue with that kind of belief system? Especially when in the SP belief system, to suggest that any of the three aforementioned individuals were serving because they love their country, is considered heresy.
posted by Oldloadr on February 2, 2007 8:45 AM
At least Arkin hasn't -- yet -- blamed the war on the troops and Kerry, who *has* stated that they are "terrorizing" the Iraqi people (in a fashion reminiscent of Genghiz Khan?), hasn't -- yet -- blathered that they're out smoking dope and making mincemeat of the Geneva Convention on a daily basis.
However, based on past experience, I won't be one whit surprised when the pompous twits do those very things.
Arkin is the type who will walk down an alley in the 'hood at 3am just to exercise his Constitutional Right to do so. He then, after recovering consciousness, will scream for a cop -- whom he will promptly berate for not having prevented his being mugged. He then will bombard the precinct captain, the police chief, the mayor and the governor with letters denouncing the municipal police force as a pack of donut-munching graft-grabbers...
posted by
BillT on February 2, 2007 10:40 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 1, 2007
H&I Fires* 1 Feb 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...
******************************
As Ry predicted, William Arkin has ignited a blogstorm. For a good, old-fashioned beat-down, check out Uncle Jimbo. The more sedate may prefer Cassandra's calm and logical evisceration.
But I haven't seen a better summary than at Powerline:
The Peril of Newspaper Blogs... is that a reporter might say what he actually thinks before an editor catches up with him and makes him stop.
Blue Crab Boulevard has the
definitive round-up.
Today's Day by Day gets in on the act, too. - FbL
******************************
Video of Joshua Sparling confronting anti-war protestors last weekend (minus the spitting) - FbL
And to counter the seriousness of the other links so far... President Bush finds a new way to deal with the press: bury 'em.
******************************
Unfortunately, Wild Bill Arkin isn't the only numbskull saying idiotic things. I wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper because I've had it up to my eyeballs with the "Poor, duped soldiers, oil and Iraq = Vietnam". Apparently, they are brilliant, well paid specimens of humanity in Afghanistan, but dumb as rocks as soon as they cross that Iraq border. (I was confused this weekend...when the marcher's were marching for peace, was that just Iraq or was that Afghanistan too?)
Anyhow, the letter was short (to hopefully get printed) and everything else I wish they'd give me the room for is on the blog.
While we're at it, here's some previews of the coming inter-regional Sunni/Shia war as soon as we abandon Iraq.
Finally, what if a democracy dies and nobody comes to the funeral?
Then Chirac opens his mouth and swallows his foot whole: Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would not be "very dangerous" and that if used on Israel, Tehran would be immediately "razed."
It's that end part "Tehran would be razed". Kind of like that time it was announced "France has nukes and knows how to defend herself." Slip of the tongue? Or, the French version of Cowboy Bush?
-Kat (I had access to a computer, see how dangerous that is?)
********************************************************************
OK, maybe I jumped the gun on calling Arizona State Rep Warde Nichols a dillweed. Chalk it up to one of two things- either me misreading his statement, or the media taking it out of context, leading me to misread it. In any case, I apologize, Mr. Warde. FOXNew's new article on this subject casts a different light on his feelings toward the current ROE for National Guard members patroling our southern border.
Now, instead of just quoting him saying "What are they here for if they are going to retreat from people with automatic weapons", FOXNews has clarified his position by saying "Nichols said until the rules of engagement are changed, the troops are little more than "window dressing ... to say we are doing something about border security."
"We want to untie their hands," he added. "We want to put them in a primary role." "
Now THAT'S more like it! Untie their hands and put the Guard in a primary role guarding our border. After all, isn't that what the National Guard was created for? Protecting our homeland?
~AFSis
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... »
*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.
Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.
Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*
The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.
I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Uncle Jimbo made me cry, I laughed so hard. In re Arkin: "I realize you spent a little time in uniform back in the 70's as an intel weasel and I can only assume that the Soviets flipped you, removed your spine and balls and gave you a dumbass transplant, 'cuz your kind of sorry BS doesn't come naturally."
And lot's more. I sure needed that....
posted by
SangerM on February 1, 2007 12:35 PM
Jimbo certainly has a way with words, eh? LMAO
posted by AFSister on February 1, 2007 12:59 PM
Chirac's comments reminded me of a set of opinions I posted to a discussion board a few weeks ago. Have at me...
Iran.
I've said before, I think the U.S. and Iran will be good friends in 15-25 years (maybe less) if we can just keep from prodding one another into war. As for what that would take, I don't know. I think it would help if the U.S. would step back and take a real looooong look at what might be the best geopolitical arrangement in the middle east. I think it might be to our benefit if Iran were to be nurtured into becoming a regional power, with heavy influence over its neighbors. Yes, I KNOW about the nutcase dangerous radical religious issues, but I'd rather deal with their overt animosity than Saudi Arabia's covert version of it (and YES, I know I am oversimplifying here, but this is not a thesis...)
Basically, I think turning Iraq into a democracy with the same borders it had under Hussein is simply unsustainable in the long run. It was a kludge country anyway, and I believe the Kurds will eventually push off and go for a nation of their own. They are not stupid, and they must realize it would be best for them to do that sooner rather than later, given Turkey wants into the EU and any harsh repression of the Kurds by Turkey would not only make EU accession very difficult, but would also see less than zero support from the U.S. Of course, the EU has pretty much given away its power over Turkey by making it pretty clear Turkey is not really wanted, so perhaps the Turks wouldn't really care what the Euros want (I wouldn't if I were turkey). Anyway, I think Iraq should be reduced to its components, and the parts that want to be part of Iran could be given to Iran, and the parts that want to be annexed to SA should, etc... Again, I don't care who ends up in charge, as long as in the long term there is stability and some decency and growth for the people.
As for Iran having nukes, what could they possibly do with them if they get them, except 1) sell them to someone who would use them, in which case they'd be liable, or 2) use them themselves, in which case, they'd be liable. In either case, no matter what evil might be done with nukes built by Iran, the U.S. and others have enough nuclear weapons on hand to reduce every single city, town, and hovel in Iran to glass. I must assume that even Ahmadinejad is smart enough to know that, and that he cannot possibly cause enough harm with what he can produce to prevent this from happening. I am not a fan of MAD, but it still stands, and I think it would be a legitimate deterrent against Iran, which no more wants to see the utter destruction of its own country than did the U.S. or Russia.
More to the point, Iran may have a nut in charge now, but he won't always be, and the Iranian people are not stupid either. At some point there will be a sea change in Iran for the best (less antagonistic toward the U.S.) if both countries can avoid tossing out that old double-dog-dare...
/end/
I was asked a question about "What if Iraq had had nukes?" This was my reply:
Well, we all know Hussein was if nothing else fairly crafty, though he certainly miscalculated in the end, eh? Thus, it's hard to say what he would have done, but I suspect he would have been no less leery of tossing one off at the U.S. or any of its allies including Israel than anyone else.
1) Israel surely has the means to respond. The US would no doubt have done the same. Too late to be sure, but in the end, Hussein had _nothing_ to gain from such an attack. More likely, he'd have whacked Iran ('cause who would have cared, the US??).
2) Unless the guys in charge of Iran really are looking to martyr everyone in Tehran and surroundings, I'd say they are doing their best to find some way to deter us from attacking them. You know the deal, diplomacy is saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock. I may very well be wrong, but I really think this is more about national security for them than it is about looking for ways to kill all the Jews. They may want to do that, no doubt, but what would it get them to nuke Israel or the US or Britain? Nuked, plain and simple. If not by us, then by Israel or Britain or maybe even France and Russia. And don't scoff at that. Russia would love to have access to Iran wouldn't it? And China too for the oil. Imagine a multinational force comprising P5 armies. And would the Saudis complain, or Afghanistan?
See, Iran is really not in a good spot, and frankly if I were in charge, I'd be doing my damnedest to get nukes of my own too.
Yes, I know I could be very wrong... But there should be some way for the US and the others to accommodate a nuclear Iran (which I actually trust more than I do Pakistan, and I'm sure India does too) while making it painfully clear what the responsibilities are that go with being one of the big dogs...
Just thinkin out loud... sorta...
/end/
posted by
SangerM on February 1, 2007 2:33 PM
Sanger I think you're missing the 'Axis of Evil' thing. The US executive branch is not going to follow that line whatsoever regardless of how dumb or smart it is.
The next crowd maybe.
posted by
Trias on February 2, 2007 11:52 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Good Golly Miss Molly Saint Brigid!
I'm married to the daughter of a brewer, we're both of Irish descent, and I just score a commitment for beer from Skippy-san and Lex... and I missed this?
Today is the Feast Day of Saint Brigid!
Blessed woman of this quote:
"I would like the angels of Heaven to be among us. I would like an abundance of peace. I would like full vessels of charity. I would like rich treasures of mercy. I would like cheerfulness to preside over all. I would like Jesus to be present. I would like the three Marys of illustrious renown to be with us. I would like the friends of Heaven to be gathered around us from all
parts. I would like myself to be a rent payer to the Lord; that I should suffer distress, that he would bestow a good blessing upon me. I would like a great lake of beer for the King of Kings. I would like to be watching Heaven's family drinking it through all eternity."
-Saint Brigid of Ireland.
Heh. What she said.
Of course, Syrup-Swilling Hoser Alan who has a beer blog for heaven's sake, missed it too.
H/t, Good Catholic Beer Drinker Jim C.
Update: Jim adds:
Back to the Saint -- one her miracles:
None was more miraculous than this: when a group of clergy paid a visit, she realized she had nothing worthy to serve them; Brigid's tub of bathwater, so it is said, turned into the finest beer, and a cheerful feast was enjoyed by all. Also note: Brigid is the saint of students. Coincidence?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
you better pick up some Harp at the Class IV on the way home so we can toast the good Saint Brigid!!
posted by
beth on February 1, 2007 5:05 PM
My number one saint? Dymphna!
Number two, why that would be Thomas (sorry, I gotta see the holes).
Third, Barbara, because. Just because.
Fourth, that would be Francis, for the kitties.
And last but not least, Jude, of hopeless causes.
posted by
Justthisguy on February 2, 2007 2:14 AM
Of course, it goes without saying, that I am partaking of Saint Brigid's speciality at this very moment.
posted by
Justthisguy on February 2, 2007 2:19 AM
So as to render pious cult to Sanctissima Brigida, I shall crack open a Molson tonight. (Besides, it should also make Alan proud)
posted by Boquisucio on February 2, 2007 7:57 AM
So as to render pious cult to Sanctissima Brigida, I shall crack open a Molson tonight. (Besides, it should also make Alan proud)
posted by Boquisucio on February 2, 2007 8:00 AM
..and then i attempted the reverse miracle of transforming beer into salty water. came close, still working on the technique.
posted by MajMike on February 2, 2007 8:05 AM
Justthisguy,
you were drinking bathwater?
posted by KCSteve on February 2, 2007 1:04 PM
In a sense. It was Bud Light.
posted by
Justthisguy on February 2, 2007 10:45 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Where to begin? Where to end?
Lex has a nice, thoughtful post up over at his place. Okay, d-uh. Let's try again - Lex has a post up at his place that is a response to Skippy-san. Skippy-san is a serving (retired?) sailor and war sceptic.
Since Lex mentioned me, and someone pointed out the post to me, well, I thought I ought to go read what calumny that double-whammy (sailor *and* aviator) was spreading about yours truly.
So should you. Click here.
Prolly oughta read the comments, too.
I decided to weigh in, since I kinda occupy the middle ground between Skippy and Lex (heh, too hot, too cold, just right... yep. That's me, squishily in the muddle [sic]).
Lex said: …as a serving military officer my loyalties and responsibilities are clear.
So, I said...
My commission remains in effect, if in abeyance, so to speak.
Indeed - as a good staff officer I have offered my opinions when sought. And, sometimes when they weren't, too.
I have volunteered for recall to serve. However, apparently, rotund bearded redleg-historian-simgeeks are not needful to bring the foe to heel.
But if charged to do so, I will implement the decisions made, even those that I don't like, to the utmost of my ability. 'Tis duty, obligation.
This is one thing many in the anti-war left have trouble getting their brains around. They think we should object to participating in wars they don't like, and actively move to undermine them. Of course, they also think we should be jailed if we don't follow orders to participate in wars they think are acceptable. They really don't understand that outside of issues covered under the Conventions and indeed the UCMJ, they *really* don't want us picking and choosing whose orders we'll follow. Down this path lies the time when the decision is made by those who wield the instruments of the state's right to legitimate violence that *they* will make the decisions. And we join the list of Banana Republics.
Skippy understands all that. It’s not like he’s JadeGold, for heaven’s sake.
He still has to buy the first round, however. (this is the whole purpose of responding to them - I've got commitment now from Skippy to buy beer.)
And while I may not have been all that keen on invading Iraq - nor was I all that keen on invading Kosovo.
In fact, oddly enough, considering some of the invective tossed my way about things, I’m not keen on invading anything, generally. I'm much fonder of invading people who have done me clear harm. Unlike many of my fan base, who are all for invading some things. I'm not as averse as you think, I just have some idea of *how much* I don't know about many of the things you really should know before you decide to draw those lines on maps marked "Line of departure." It makes me cautious. I'm not a great fan of pre-emptive war... *but*. We don't live in clearly delimned times.
The *but* is that when the threat to you is one easily observed and tracked, such as a building Wehrmacht in central europe, that's an easier position to take.
When the threat is one that, as the Israelis perceived the Arabs in 1967, one that if they start and you aren't already in place ready to go, will roll you over or cause unacceptable loss - then yes, I can see the case for pre-emptive war.
But, as Iraq pointed out - you have to be careful, because the Unintended Consequences are going to reach out and touch you, and may just kick your butt.
But I do believe in finishing what you start, and making a true honest effort. And not just quitting because it took longer and cost more than you expected. Of course, every project I start at home follows that pattern, so perhaps I’m inured and just responding to a templated expectation.
And I will listen respectfully to people who think that staying there one more day is no different than the Generals sending one more wave into the Tractor Factory at Stalingrad.
The hard question is - and only answerable in the fullness of time - in that wise is: are we the Germans, or the Russians? For the Russians - it was the thing to do. For the Germans...
Armistead, or Meade? Thomas, or Longstreet? Would Reno have turned the tide at Little Big Horn - or did he in fact, do the right thing, rather than just add to the kill total for Crazy Horse and his crew?
That’s why historians can get so annoying. It’s all so clear, after they’ve sifted everything. Hundreds of them. For decades.
Too bad the decision maker is the Man in the Arena, as Teddy put it, and not the Bobblehead on TV, or, dare I say it, blogger.
Just ask Neville Chamberlain what it's like. Or Edouard Daladier.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
very nice...
posted by
SangerM on February 1, 2007 8:09 AM
i commented over at Lex's place.
squid that he is, i gotta say i'm with him on this one.
posted by MajMike on February 1, 2007 8:36 AM
I'm not concerned on the reasons of Iraq so much as the current situation. There never was any question, in my mind at least, that we could usurp Saddam. The question was always a matter of when.
That being said the premises that we went about I feel are shaky as well as a quandary. Had we just said "We're taking him out because we're sick and tired of him etc etc and 17 UN Violations" I would have been a much happier Spite.
Was it a dangerous ideal we undertook? Absolutely, and something that hasn't been done in over a century, the complete removal of a ruling party and placement of a leader from "the people" to take up the banner. I won't list the hundreds of issue's, chief among them in my view the complete lack of a rebel leader for the people to rally to because of the years of oppression. The rebels were dead.
But in the end the bottom line, in my mind, is we have taken the field. Once our soldiers set foot on the field we are honor bound to support them to victory.
The American citizens have not heard this call, we have entered no rationing, no drive to help build, nothing like the days of old...say 1943.
The citizenship as a whole have become a people of microwave tastes and 30 second attention span. The war should have been done, complete and the whole mess fixed in time for the next commercial featuring Bob and his goofy smile.
And that concerns me. Greatly. Ironically Osama, I think was correct when saying we do not have the stomach for war anymore. The once military expansionist empire built upon soldiers, patriots, and adventure's that won the West and the lands that now make up America are gone, and replaced with coach potatoes, Black Hawk Down video games and rhetoric of "Whats in it for me?"
It seems my comment has turned in to a rant, and that was not my intention. But it weighs heavy on mind, and I can't help , sardonically mind you not realistically, if our great "empire" like so many before it is coming to a close in the archives of history? Are we doomed to tear our selves apart because of the differences placed upon our ideals?
Or are we merely...dare I say it...lazy?
I'm with you John. I wasn't crazy about the idea of invasion. The historical precedents are rife with failure and success on such a hit or miss scale you almost have to roll dice to pick your odds. That said Saddam was evil, and evil no matter the name should be removed in my black and white world.
I'll end my rant by saying it's not a black & white world no matter how hard I wish it, but merely shades of grey, and in the last year, it's becoming darker.
posted by
BloodSpite on February 1, 2007 9:29 AM
And MajMike... well, you, you, you can just be wrong.
But hey, you started life as a 'tard, er, tanker, so we'll just employ the tyranny of soft expectations regards your opinion...
Sanger, by contrast, is just brilliant. And 'Spite, too.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 1, 2007 9:34 AM
"Unlike many of my fan base, who are all for invading some things."
I may resemble that remark.
There's reasons for that. Some of them even shared by all the writers so far in this discussion, and some not. But that's a story for a different day.
My problem with Skippy-san on this is the 'results' line. This will sound unfair, but it sounds overly fair-weather-fan to me. If we're winning it's okay, but if we're 'losing'/treading water it wasn't worth it? If it had been done spectacularly would Skippy-san be more in favor of it than he is now that it hasn't gone perfectly?
I also have a problem with the 'direct democracy' element to Skippy's argument. So should we have let the public decide whether to keep going after showing them a film of Tarawa? The public is fickle. Even the 'direct democracy' of Athens knew enough to make a decision and have unity of command afterwards: Pericles. Look at the results of abandoning Pericles' plan had on Athens? The fickleness is a problem. Most people don't have time to get into the depths of the issue. The time for the democratic decision making was before the war. The full year of talking about it when the fickle public had a chance to research it to death before telling their congress critter how they wanted that critter to vote. Not now.
The Greeks did vote during the Anabasis. But they didn't vote in the midst of a battle though. We're in the midst of a battle.
Like others, I too am sick of the death and destruction Iraq has wrought. I personally feel responsible for it since I've often written in favor of the invasion. My decisions have resulted in fatherless kids, men who will live forever with the ramifications. I've helped create another generation of people who will sleep little because in some of their nightmares the bullets don't miss. That's the cost of any and all wars. Not just this one. IF that's the complaint, then there's no reason to fight any wars. Failure to accomplish goals is a poor reason to argue against it, post hoc. Maybe pre-invasion but not post. It speaks little to the reasons for going, the morality of going.
But the reasoning was sound even if the execution was not. I take pride in that. The reasons, and there were many, made sense. They still make sense. You don't end a cancer by ignoring it. Iraq was the lowest lying fruit. Hard power there(the cutting of tumors, and Iraq was a tumor) and reap the benefits of the soft power it then generates(the chemo and rad treatments---long term change inducers) to influence the rest of the region. BArnett calls this the Big Bang.
The soft power that acts as the chemo against the totalitarianism and terrorism generating regimes is in the US interest. If indirect.
The reasoning still makes sense. John's objections made sense then and they make sense now(nobody is willing to put the effort in long enough to do the job right. Nobody wants to play the game for all sixty minutes--not in Iraq, and not against the rising threats in the Pacific either. They want a blow out and a mercy rule victory. What they believe was the case of the Balkans campaign.).
posted by ry on February 1, 2007 10:03 AM
John, a small point of correction. While Lex is still currently serving; Skippy -- not so much any more.
posted by
74 on February 1, 2007 10:18 AM
Just be careful where Skippy takes you for that beer. Bad for the heart and CINCHOUSE relations...
posted by
CDR Salamander on February 1, 2007 10:51 AM
This arguement/discussion is one I have really lost patience with.
I never thought we were invading Iraq because Sadaam *had* WMD, we were doing it because we believed he was trying to *acquire* WMD. We knew he was violating the UN sanctions and waiting out the rest of the Free World so he could do what he had been doing before when he *had* WMD. He was sponsoring terrorists, we know that. He was defing weapons inspectors, we know that. He wanted to hurt us and we know that. So the question isn't *did* he have WMD at that moment. The question is did he intend to acquire and use WMD. The answer is yes and I defy anyone to prove me wrong.
So now ask yourself how close do you let him get? I like the "gunman in the house" theory. Imagine a man is in his house. He has in the past owned guns. Receipts prove he has in the past bought both guns and ammunition. He has been convicted on solid evidence of crimes involving said guns. At some point all his weapons have been confiscated. He makes statements to many people about reacquiring weapons and committing crimes with them. He refuses to let the police into his house to search even though they have warrants. He tells the police he will never be taken alive. How long do the police wait to storm the house? When they do and they break his door & knock over & break furniture getting to him they find he had no weapons. Are you blaming the police? I'm not.
The best evidence available at the time showed Saddam was trying to *acquire* WMD. "W" acted on that evidence. Many mistakes have been made in the execution of this war.
Now we come to today. We're there. It is what it is. "W" is still the Decider. He has a man, he has a plan (stole that from BadgersForward). It's criminal to wish them anything but success. Who thinks things would be better in Baghdad if today we pulled back to the borders? Who thinks things would be better in Baghdad if we loaded up and brought everyone back to CONUS? Yeah, that's what I thought.
So, while discussion is good and difeerent POVs are good. Skippy wears on me.
posted by
Maggie on February 1, 2007 11:02 AM
Uh-oh, Skippy. You're losing your base.
Maggie actually likes, no, make that lusts, sailors!
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 1, 2007 11:27 AM
Well, I outlined my points on the blog and linked to it.
Yep, I'm a war supporter. I thought Saddam should have been gone a long time ago. For many reasons listed above by many folks. And, frankly, I'm worried about where the WMD went to.
On top of that, something I said before, besides Iraq being the "low lying fruit" taking pot shots at us from our flanks, if you're going to kill the beast of Islamist Fruitballs, you stab it in the heart. No, they didn't come from Baghdad, but Baghdad is historically the capital of most of the Caliphates these folks think they're going to set up. Nothing like putting a democracy (a Shia dominated, American friendly democracy) right in the heart of ye Olde Caliphate.
Of course, I can't tell a lie. While I did expect some AQ folks to show up for the party, I did not expect this insanity.
Still, I disagree on abandoning Iraq for many reasons, not the least of which is "finish the job". Abandoning Iraq could lead to the great inter-regional war everyone was pronouncing would begin when we went in, inlcuding the AQ cracks. I don't think that is in our best interests or the worlds for that matter.
Even if it doesn't go to direct conflict, war posturing inter-regional states make the area unstable and thus makes oil prices soar, thus making the economy stink for us and the rest of the oil guzzling world.
Then there is the whole "abandon Iraq to Iranian hegemony". So they can threaten the Saudis and we're back to putting troops on the ground for long term, thus ticking off the general populace? Or, so they can have a nice voting block in OPEC, decreasing oil production and increasing the price so Iran can get really wealthy and really build up its military and nuclear capabilities?
ANd, finally, I really, really don't want to leave the Iraqis to the tender mercies of the nutballs. Not to mention, the number of refugees that would flood out of that country. Or the possibility that it will turn into the local proxy war for all the crazies and the states that sponsor them. Again, creating instability in the region and possibly, as many times said, a nice long term training ground for terrorists who branchout to the local region and beyond.
It's just too crazy to contemplate.
But, John mentioned "Stalingrad". I've thought about that analogy a lot in the past two years. Largely because we used the same tactics in Fallujah...withdraw to the outskirts, suck the enemy in and then surrounded the city before going in and killing the enemy. It's a harsh tactic. We did it in Mosul, too.
It almost sounds like we are about to "Stalingrad" Baghdad.
Yes, I'm waiting impatiently for the right moves to bring this to an end, but I am not going to get sucked in to the "all is lost" crowd when it's clear that Iraq is no where near lost on the ground, just in the "hearts and minds" of the American people.
posted by kat-missouri on February 1, 2007 11:38 AM
Strategic ambush is one thing, but Stalingrad is something else. Leveling just about everything, every wrecked building becoming a hard point, fighting to the very last man. That's Stalingrad. I hope we aren't doing that.
Being smart and bringing them into nice killzones to be crushed in a decisive battle? Si. Stalingrad? No. From a hearts and minds perspective it's way too costly, in my useless opinion.
True, Skippy-san is retired. But he's like John. He's got a finger in the pie. Just not wearing dress whites while he does it. I disagree on Skip on his argument. The guy's cool with me in other respects(he's the True Otaku King).
posted by ry on February 1, 2007 12:26 PM
As long as we understand *my* use of Stalingrad was in the manner of reinforcing failure... not as a prescription for Baghdad.
Many times, when things are at an equilibrium tactically, it is the *perception* of reinforcing failure that is the killer.
Getting 'psyched out' and withdrawing, not because you are actually on the cusp of failing, but because you think you are.
Therein lies a great danger with us.
Unfortunately, you only know the true answer ex post facto.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 1, 2007 12:50 PM
I've tired of rehashing the merits and evils of Iraq War 2, so I'll just say a few general words:
Historical events build upon themselves like interlocking pieces of a puzzle, and we expect American leaders to determine policy in reaction to, and hopefully in anticipation of, the actions of other nations. However, Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences will always rule: what can go wrong often does, and some of the best intended plans have negative repercussions downstream that no one can foresee. Failure to act is often just as costly, or more so, as precipitous action in the long-term.
We have every right to expect our leaders to learn from history and to make the best, most informed policy decisions they can at any given time. However, it's naive and unrealistic of us to expect leaders to be perfect, error-free, or clairvoyant. Just who among us is?
It would be great if we could all just "get along" with no need for war. But we don't live in that Utopia, and human conflict is ever-present. If effective diplomacy were all that was required for peaceful conflict resolution, then our oh-so-"sophisticated", "nuanced", and "intellectually superior" multilateral French, German, Russian, Chinese and European cousins - with their combined centuries of diplomatic experience - would never have needed our assistance in their colonial and world wars, nor would they maintain their own militaries today.
All wars are elective. We either choose to do nothing and allow our adversaries to kill or enslave us, or we choose to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and control our own destiny.
posted by fdcol63 on February 1, 2007 1:33 PM
> Sanger, by contrast, is just brilliant. And 'Spite, too.
"now I wonder what he meant by that....?"
In order of "coolness" (based on the number of boxtops you get for trading in a branch insignia badge):
SOF
Cavalry
Armor
Aviation
Infantry (Mech!)
Air Assault
ADA (not the program language)
Engineer (Combat)
MEDDAC
MI (only the EW/ECM folks)
Ordnance
Artillery
Trans
.
.
.
.
Anything Air Force (except that Special ops folks)
.
I forget any? :-)
posted by
SangerM on February 1, 2007 2:01 PM
Well, as long as you understand, when I say "Stalingrad", I mean the basic tactics of withdrawing from an area, drawing in the forces and then, yes, encircling and isolating them within areas of Baghdad and taking them, either by force or by stealth.
No, I don't think we're about to bomb Baghdad to the ground. Not quite "Fallujah" because, yes, I hope we learned how to take apart a city without, you know, "taking it apart".
One thing about the tactic of announcing the action is the effect of "dispersal" of the enemy. Which sometimes gives you the ability to round them up under less egregious circumstances but also creates a cycling down effect. Many would end up staying in Baghdad and being taken and there would be a continuing limited force (though re-enforced from, hopefully, a cycling down outside recruitment).
Of course, the announcement also serves as the "out" for these forces. I believe it was Sun Tzu that said if you corner an enemy, he may feel the need to fight even more ferociously since he has no way to exit the battlefield and has no onus to negotiate.
posted by kat-missouri on February 1, 2007 2:15 PM
Suddenly now I'm hoping that there's a hidden brilliant strategy to the slow and well-announced buildup in Bagdhad.
Ever since the announcment most of the 'problem' people have been pre-emptively leaving so as to assure 'victory' for the surge, having reasonable expectations that such would be followed by at least a sizable withdrawal so they can swoop back in. Other elements are doing their best to make any surge 'too costly' so the 'easy victory' part is up in the air.
However, I suddenly can't help but wonder if various assets have been assigned to keeping track as best they can of where in 'the South' these undesirables are concentrating themselves. One reason we haven't been able to root them out of the great city of Bagdhad is that it is a great city - far too big and 'fragile' (in terms of collateral damage) for the task. Small villages far out in the desert, however...
Probably just wishful thinking on my part, but I have to hope that if I'm smart enough to think of it then the much smarter folks actually out at the sharp end of the stick are too.
Oh - and I can't go read the item at Lex's - according to our firewall it's a "Games" site.
posted by KCSteve on February 1, 2007 2:26 PM
pull out now and it will be another Julian at the Gates of Ctesiphon situation.
snatching that defeat right out of the jaws of victory.
posted by MajMike on February 1, 2007 2:51 PM
You know guys, I always seem to be too busy with work to participate anymore in these discussions. But I guess I just wanted to say how much I am enjoying 'listening in' on this one. Sometimes by the end of the work day I am just brain dead and have nothing left.
Anyway, thanks :)
posted by
Cassandra, the little fly on the wall on February 1, 2007 4:09 PM
Sanger - LOL at your coolness scale.
This is number one!
posted by
Maggie on February 1, 2007 4:30 PM
> Getting 'psyched out' and withdrawing, not because you are actually on the cusp of failing, but because you think you are.
Tet '68 ring a bell here?
Personally, I just don't think we've killed enough of the bad guys yet, and we ought to make up for that by shooting one person from Guantanamo every time Arkin pens another article or Kerry or Carter open their mouths.
Then we can all blame them since it'll be their actions that cause all the death. Certainly that seems to be the kind of logic they understand.
I'm just disgusted with the lot of them... And I'm not real thrilled with the other side either, but that's like the difference between stepping in mud and stepping in dog crap. The Republicans can be messy, but they don't smell bad, and all it takes to clean things up is a little time. Dems... Well, that's like living in a Saint Bernard Yard, except a St. Bernard is actually useful.
,,,
posted by
SangerM on February 1, 2007 4:43 PM
>Sanger - LOL at your coolness scale.
Gulp... I just realized I should have DESCENDING order of "coolness."
And did you notice I, ahem, didn't have any Navy stuff on there?
musta slipped my mnd :-)
posted by
SangerM on February 1, 2007 4:54 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
This is a nicely obscure whatzis...
Yadda yadda if you get the aircraft. That's easy.
Anybody got the skinny on the whole thing? What're we looking at here?

Yes, I do.
Mind you - I just stumbled across this, it ain't something that was stuck in the brain housing group as actual knowledge or anything.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Oh, cool. I can get this, because I stumbled across it the other day on another one of your Whazzis's, John. LOL
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/LightTanks.html
According to this site (scroll down to section called "More Christie Fantasys"), it's a Christie M1940 light tank, which "never came off the drawing board". As this site further states:
"Shown from left to right are the M1940, M1941, M1942, and the M1942A. Most Christie pictures are heavily airbrushed and should be viewed with suspicion. Some were never even made as in the M1940. The M1940 never even came off the drawing board. final submissions by J. Walter Christie. The M1942A picture is by Col. Robert Icks, a famous developer of United States armor. Since the picture comes from him, it appears that this tank was actually built. Note that it does not have the multiple machine guns as in the M1942 touched up picture. To further confuse everyone, the Christie "M" series date is not always acurate. Christie determined that his designs were so futuristic that he would "guess" at a future date when he thought that the rest of the industry would catch up with him."
Better pic here:
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieM1940.jpg
posted by fdcol63 on February 1, 2007 7:41 AM
This is a nicely obscure whatzis...
Well, maybe, and maybe not. :-)
The airplane looks to me like an early model B-17, probably a B-17A. The thing(s) underneath looks very much like a set of tracked landing gear for use on snow.
posted by wolfwalker on February 1, 2007 7:47 AM
My pic is just fine, thank you very much!
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 1, 2007 7:52 AM
I'd say that is a J. Walter Christie M1935/b or M-1936 being carried underneath a Y1b17. Dropping a tank from a plane sounds like a great Idea! Just as long as your not in the tank.
posted by Curtis on February 1, 2007 7:57 AM
Ummm .... I just meant "larger". LOL
posted by fdcol63 on February 1, 2007 8:01 AM
Sorry about the double post, now I need to expand upon my guess. It has to be an extremely early model B-17 because you can clearly see the waist position blisters. On the early production model B-17s these were deleted in favor of elliptical and later square shaped windows. The early models also featured hoop antennae forward of the large spur support for the Vertical flight surface. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the spar support was deleted quite early as well. You can make out the extremely high angle on the old shark fin shaped vert stabilizer too. Also note that the early production model B-17s incorporated a small blister on top of the plexiglass nose for a forward facing machine gun. So this plane is most definitely one of the earliest B-17s period, a Yb-17.
As far as the tank guess goes, those treads look alot like a Christie suspension of some kind, and I can clearly make out what appears to be a gun barrel of some sort. The whole apparatus is too big, too bulky, and too long to be any kind of landing gear for the aircraft. As for snow landings, B-17s typically used skis for arctic landings, not treads.
posted by Curtis on February 1, 2007 8:08 AM
If the photo shows a real airplane-with-tank in flight, then I admit to some surprise. 1930s-period light tanks weighed in the 5-6 ton range. I wouldn't have believed the Y1B-17 had enough power to carry a load that big.
posted by wolfwalker on February 1, 2007 8:09 AM
Hmmm... if that tank-like thingie is mounted center-line (and it would *have* to be), I really don't see how the Fort's landing gear would have enuff clearance to touch ground. Could this be an awkward bit of propaganda, along the line "Lookie here, we got air-droppable/air-liftable armor so watch out!" ?
posted by Neffi on February 1, 2007 9:37 AM
I don't think this thing ever really flew. As the quote I provided above says:
"... Most Christie pictures are heavily airbrushed and should be viewed with suspicion. Some were never even made as in the M1940. The M1940 never even came off the drawing board. ..."
posted by fdcol63 on February 1, 2007 10:00 AM
It's a Russian pre WWII bomber rigged for landing in snow, and taxing around.
posted by
jim b on February 1, 2007 11:22 AM
Ok. Some nomenclature first. :)
There was no XB-17. There were twelve Y1B-17, later redesignated B-17. There was one Y1B-17A (Y1 also later dropped). This was the first turbocharged Fortress with the hardware was on top the nacelles.
Only Model 299, the twelve YB-17s, -17A, and -17B models had the bulged blisters. The C and later models used flat panels.
Thanks to fdcol63 for that link! It includes a somewhat more-detailed copy of that photo.
I see no observation blister above the cockpit, and the nose seems to carry the early model cutout bombadier sighting panel. As best I can tell (pity the photo doesn't include the whole tail) that's a Y1B-17 tail, not a B model.
This leaves fourteen planes. Model 299 only flew for approximately two months before crashing, and the plane was in competition with the Martin B-10 and the Douglas B-17, so I'm purt darn sure the US Army Air Corps had neither the time nor money to modify the craft in that manner.
I've never heard of the single B-17A ever having tested tracked gear, nor do I see any evidence of the turbocharger housings on top of the nacelles. Again, it's hard to tell with this photo.
Finally, there were only twelve Y1B-17s, and they were used to test and implement long-range bomber doctrine. In fact, the Air Corps was lucky to even have the bloody things, considering their cost. I doubt they'd muck around with tracked landing gear tests, but -hey- I could be wrong.
Note that I've been referring to tracked landing gear only. The A model grossed around 32,000 pounds, and the B model about 34,000 pounds. Both had a maximum bomb load of 4,800 pounds, which dramatically shortened combat range.
In other words, the early Fortress could carry about 2.5 tons at best. I'm purt darn sure weren't any 2.5 ton tanks, even in the 1930s.
The Fortress, BTW, first flew in 1935.
At that angle, the tracks would be pretty much be under where the landing gear are, in the inboard nacelles.
Alas, the Fortress design was always low to the ground, especially compared to British bombers like the Lancaster. The main tire is only about 5' high, and the contraption in the photo looks taller than that.
I know the P-38 Lightning tested skis (replacing the wheels), and kits for field modification were built, but I havent' seen photos of Fortresses with that mod.
The B-36 did test tracked gear, but that was much later.
Unless someone can convince me the Air Corps used one of the Y1B-17s as a test bed (after taking delivery of the combat models), I have to say this photo is bogus.
posted by
Casey Tompkins on February 1, 2007 12:59 PM
I agree with fdcol63.
The picture appears to be a collage intended for an advertising brochure. The T22 "Locust" was the only tank I know of which was carried under an aircraft, but only after its turret had been removed.
Cheers
posted by J.M. Heinrichs on February 1, 2007 1:40 PM
well, i guess any tank looked at from this angle actually DOES have "suspended" track...
posted by MajMike on February 1, 2007 2:55 PM
FSU, baby!
posted by Toluca Nole on February 1, 2007 4:17 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Going Viking.
Larry K, the Castle's Junction City/Coast Guard correspondent, sent us this for our delectation this morning.
I have no idea what is going on here but I thought you might like it is you haven’t seen it already.
Sort of reminds me of what it would be like if the Muppets Danish Chef were in the Army.
Flerdy flerdy flerdy fluefer flerdy fluefer flue BAMBAMBAMBAM flerdy fluefer flerdy compound BAMBAMBAMBAM fluefer flue BOOOOOOOOM flerdy yah!
Click here - and watch the Dutch Danish (hey, it was early, dammit. I do too know the difference) Army in action in a way it hasn't been since, oh, May, 1940?
Ahoy Talibani! Get some, Gentlemen and Ladies.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
One of the odd things about Czech (at least when I was learning it) is their use of Ahoj, pronounced ahoy, as a standard greeting. Kind of like howdy...
But the Czech's own a land locked-country doncha know....
posted by
SangerM on February 1, 2007 8:22 AM
The Dutch are from the Netherlands (Holland), the Danish are from Denmark. It's not the same country.
posted by
Trias on February 1, 2007 8:38 AM
Und-der Inky-Dinky-Doo... BORK BORK BORK
Und ear weez have un cheekin. Ear, chicky, chicky chicky....
WOOT!
You go guys... get sum Taliban booty!
posted by AFSister on February 1, 2007 8:55 AM
i guess those years of watching the Muppet Show finally paid off.
i actually understood a bit of what they were saying. they use "6" as a radio call sign to designate the command element, something happened on the "left flank", all the men were OK, and somebody got ordered to hold their position.
oh yeah, and i think the driver of the vehicle at 2:58 of that clip is female.
posted by MajMike on February 1, 2007 9:05 AM
May I gently remind all present that Danes are not Dutch. These fine soldiers are from Denmark, not Holland.
But thanks for posting this - I didn't know the Danes were seeing action (although I did know that the Dutch were in the south with you Yanks, the Limeys, and of course, us Canucks).
posted by
Damian on February 1, 2007 9:18 AM
I can read better than speak anything, so if I get the "what happened", they were mortared or, possibly, they were calling in mortars on the position.
Except, that big bang at the end looked more like a 500lb jdam.
posted by kat-missouri on February 1, 2007 11:47 AM
The driver does look like a woman, and later on towards night she gets some trigger time on the side mounted MG-42.
Very nice
posted by monkeyboy on February 2, 2007 7:55 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 31, 2007
H&I* Fires, 31 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...
******************************
Michael Totten sure does get around. First he writes his own blog. Then he’s over at Dean’s World. Now I notice he’s at Winds of Change debunking Hezbollah infowar pablum---while writing from Lebanon no less. Stay safe, Mike, you 9/12 democrat you.
____
Gertz and Reuters provide two stories on US ABMD recent tests and the context of these tests.
And yes, I did notice the claim in the first para of the Reuters piece.
Within a year, the U.S. missile defense system should be able to guard against enemy attacks, while testing new technologies, the deputy director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Monday.
I soooo wish.
___
Bill Arkin painted a big ol’ bull’s-eye on his chest with his column. I wouldn’t want to be Bill for the next few days after writing this:
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Bonapartism is something to worry about, but, hey, if the media/pop-culture has made it such a big deal to care about those who â€have something on the line’ in this why shouldn’t the American public get the Grunt’s view and opinion? It’s their butts on the line. Or can’t we Normals take criticism we collectively earned?
ry
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Stock Tip of the Day: Invest in whoever markets this, the first truly bi-partisan bumper sticker --
RUN, HILLARY, RUN!!
Dems can affix it to their rear bumpers, Republicans to their front bumpers...
H/t to Doc E, who's been cleaning out the attic. -- BillT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here's a good snerk - in a comment to Bill's tank post, Sanger said: True... But I could put a 105mm on a dunebuggy and it still wouldn't be a tank.
Well, it would appear that WWII put the French Army in a somewhat parlous state, post-war. So the Army that gave us a truly revolutionary piece of artillery, the "French 75" found themselves trying again to revolutionize warfare. Apparently very fond of the 75mm caliber, while they were unable to produce a new gun on their own, they gave us a new mounting and deployment option for a 75mm gun.
Scooters up !
-the Armorer
*********************************
Longtime Denizens may remember that Arkin (linked in Ry's post above) is the guy who accused the milbloggers of being "bought" by the Army and linked little ol' me (rather than some of the bloggers who truly had an ideological impact in the online world) as an example. That was a fun little bit... Not! Yeah, I couldn't resist a fisking of Arkin's column, though I'm not exactly in my best form these days. - FbL.
*********************************
Bummer - Phred Felps and his Whelps lose one in Federal Court - the Feds refuse to prevent Missouri from enforcing their law banning protests at funerals. Glib Fortuna at Stop the ACLU has the story. Crocodile tears flow. -the Armorer
********************************
Hey! I see the Adjutant showed up... yet there is no notice of... Neffi's Natal Day! Andre', where are you? All good Denizen/nes will go find Neffi presents! -the Armorer
********************************
With two Hosers on the Denizen/nes roll, John et al now officially have a more open border policy than the U.S. government.
So to celebrate my shiny-new posting privileges, I plan to write something with enough extraneous vowels to properly show how honourable, colourful, and neighbourly we Canadians can really be...
But first, I'd like to draw your attention to Canada's rough analogue of Bob Hope, a Newfoundlander (never call them Newfies...to their faces at least) who is so consistently supportive of the Canadian Forces, he was recently named Honourary Colonel of a helicopter squadron that flies spin-tops older than he is.
In fact, Rick Mercer spent this past Christmas in Afghanistan. Not at Kandahar Air Field, mind you, but out in Sperwan Ghar at a quaint and cozy little FOB called Strong Point West, huddled around a Coleman stove "watching a pot of Tetley tea bags threaten to boil." Needless to say, he's not out there for a career boost.
He showed his true colours once again (for those who are counting, that's two superfluous vowels already) in delivering a well-deserved public shaming to a...wait for it...Women's Studies prof who complained in print about how her holidays were ruined by incessant reporting of Canadian troops in Kandahar, and went on to write off double amputee and hero Cpl Paul Franklin as some "poor sod." Mercer's rebuttal starts here, and just gets better:
I know I should just ignore the good professor and write her off as another bitter baby boom academic pining for what she fondly calls "the protest songs of yesteryear," but I can't help myself. A response is exactly what she wants; and so I include it here. After all, Newfoundlanders have seen this before: Noreen Golfman, sadly, is Margaret Wente without the wit.
Between that and his final salvo of "the gates of Auschwitz were not opened with peace talks," there's a bunch of fun reading.
And yes, for those who managed to keep reading this entry to the bitter end, I'll try to be less wordy next time. I promise.
But the extra vowels will stay. - Damian, aka Babbling Brooks
********************************
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... »
*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.
Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.
Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*
The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.
I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I tired of Bill Arkin long ago ... about the same time I got sick of Chris Mathews, IIRC. LOL
posted by fdcol63 on January 31, 2007 8:10 AM
Not directly relevant to any of these items, but I had a thought this morning about an item posted a couple of days ago: that raid in Iraq where unknown Bad Guys infiltrated a base and snatched five American soldiers, later killing them. The reports I've seen have all emphasized the high level of preparation the raid must have required: the attacker were driving US-type vehicles, dressed in US-soldier-type clothes, carried standard issue US weapons, spoke excellent English, and obviously spent a lot of time training for the raid. All of this is being interpreted as pointing to Iranian commandos.
This morning, out of nowhere, I had a different thought. The raiders were dressed and equipped like Americans, acted like Americans, knew the security procedures, etc. Is anyone seriously considering the possibility that they were Americans -- ex-Army or maybe even deserters, who turned coat and are now working as mercenaries for the enemy?
posted by wolfwalker on January 31, 2007 8:47 AM
Wolfwalker - I hadn't thought of it, but now that you've brought it up, I don't find it very compelling without a smoking gun.
I find it much more compelling that we have five Iranian operatives hostage, and 5 dead Americans - who may, before the Iraqi police got suspicious of the convoy, been intended as hostages for the Iranians.
That is a *very* IRGC kind of thing to do. As was killing them.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 31, 2007 8:56 AM
I love the scooter. Of course it just begs comments I can't begin to touch.....
I also happen to have a picture I took in '74-ish of a Army dunebuggy with a longbarrel TOW mounted between the seats. It was part of an experimental scout unit in the 1CAV (which was still TRI-CAP at the time), and included motorcycles (oooo, imagine), and all sorts of extra stuff.
I was on driver duty for the test folks at West Fort, and got to see all sorts of neat stuff, but this was actually on display for the div org. day. Gen Shoemaker was the CG at the time, I think... A little while before Gen Becton took over (who was the first General I ever saw, in fact, when I was at Basic on Ft. Dix.)...
Ah, the joys of age and reverie...
posted by
SangerM on January 31, 2007 9:08 AM
Charging into war on a War-Vespa may not be that glamorous, but it's sure some pimpin' ride.
posted by Boquisucio on January 31, 2007 9:19 AM
This is the note I sent to Arkin:
----
This is one of the saddest pieces of tripe I've encountered in a while. Soldiers ARE American people, and they certainly have every right to criticize their peers and the people they are fighting to protect. By your standard, however, it would seem they are nothing more than mercenaries and ought to just shut up and do what they are told...
You just can't imagine how wrong and pathetic that all actually sounded... You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. And certainly I would stop calling myself a journalist if I were you --or are you bucking for a spot at the NY Times?
----
Not my best work, but I was in a hurry...
What a putz schmuck he is.
posted by
SangerM on January 31, 2007 9:36 AM
My thought, when reading it, was that I was being told, "Keep to your place, ni**er." With all the baggage therein implied. Mind you - that's how I see the speaker's attitude, and I'm not trying to make a link between the two on the receivers side. The receivers in this instance did, in fact, volunteer to enter a form of servitude, and did so proudly, which the historical receiver of the epithet did not.
It's the attitude and underlying assumptions I'm after. Not a perfect analogy, no - but hey, victimology is all about feelings, right?
I'm sure my visceral response would shock and inflame Mr. Arkin to stuttering apoplexy, or worse, smarmy condescension (oh, wait, he's already been there) - but is it not, effectively, what he said?
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 31, 2007 9:52 AM
but is it not, effectively, what he said?
Sounds like it to me...
posted by
FbL on January 31, 2007 9:57 AM
Arkin writes:
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
WTF?
posted by
Maggie on January 31, 2007 9:57 AM
Yeah, Maggie. Don't you just love his choice of verb?: "indulged."
posted by
FbL on January 31, 2007 10:03 AM
And it sounds as if he's trying to make some sort of "moral equivalence" between the atrocities of Abu Ghraib/Haditha/et al and the right of ALL Americans to exercise one's freedom of speech and opinion.
Arkin is demonstrating typical liberal traits like: 1) disdain for the American military; 2) paternalism; and 3) intellectual pretentiousness.
posted by fdcol63 on January 31, 2007 10:29 AM
For Neffi-san, who doesn't look a day over 80!
A silk scarf and goggles (he keeps losing them in flight)and a dashing Sopwith Triplane to go with. (Said triplane being capable of hands-off flight permitting adjusting of scarf and goggles without Sudden Changes in Trajectory).
posted by
bad cat robot on January 31, 2007 10:37 AM
Happy Birthday, Neffi!
Here's your present. [Maybe it'll help him keep his hands off my tail tuft... *grin*]
posted by
FbL on January 31, 2007 11:20 AM
First, if you wear the uniform, you're too stupid to make the decision to serve. You are simply a duped moron. Then, you're a duped moron that is supposed to be smart enough to know that the war is "illegal" and you should "disobey" illegal commands.
Then, because you don't, you're back to being a slobbering, murderous, rapists, feasting on the brains of women and children.
Criticize the President's plans in public, you're a brilliant leader. That criticism includes any mention of increasing troops and the new meme is "increase in troops is escalation", you're back to being an idiot.
posted by kat-missouri on January 31, 2007 12:01 PM
For neffi I present: good flying weather(at least as a wallpaper). Happy natal, do something I wouldn't do(which isn't hard and is often very, very legal).
posted by ry on January 31, 2007 12:21 PM
BB...that was great tongue in cheek stuff. I believe that is what you call a "dressing down". The only thing missing at the end was a "what, what?"
posted by kat-missouri on January 31, 2007 12:41 PM
BCR
A better offer would be "Black Maria" as flown by Flight SLt Collishaw who scored 60 while flitting about the skies.
Cheers
posted by J.M. Heinrichs on January 31, 2007 1:59 PM
Hmm. Maybe I should have mentioned that Mercer is a comedian and political satirist with a weekly fake news show. So (and this is a rough comparison) imagine Jon Stewart heading over to Afghanistan once a year to headline a comedy event and then go out into the weeds with the troops. And imagine him doing a segment once every couple of months on some military base somewhere where he makes fun of how he looks jumping out of an airplane with the military's top general, or how scared he is rappelling down a training wall, or skewers the politicians for cheaping out on an equipment purchase or some such. Then imagine him looking somewhat goofier than Stewart, and talking with a Newfoundlander's distinctive lilt. That's kind of like Mercer.
Or, you could skip all this, and just see him for yourself here.
posted by
Damian on January 31, 2007 2:06 PM
ry,
Within a year, the U.S. missile defense system should be able to guard against enemy attacks, while testing new technologies, the deputy director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Monday.
"should" is the operative word in that quote. I'm guessing they trimmed it a bit thinking that "but it's highly unlikely" sounded a bit pessmistic.
posted by KCSteve on January 31, 2007 2:10 PM
Ry, for quite some time, the problem has not been so much "hitting" the incoming as sorting out the incoming from the debris of other incoming, and from knowing what to shoot and what not to shoot. A clear example of technology being too good and having to figure out a way to give it sense...
According to a couple of relatives who served on Navy stuff (and IAW what I know from a past life), the Aegis can actually be too aggressive, just like the Phalanx, which used to shoot stuff into pieces, then shoot the pieces, then shoot the smaller pieces... I understand it doesn't anymore. But a decade ago, if the Aegis had been given it's head, everything in range of a Naval battle group not ID'd as friend was an enemy, and would have been destroyed.
As for the missile stuff, an awful lot of successful stuff was done under the aegis of the "star wars" program that surely has evolved. And my point is that I doubt it's highly unlikely. But note that he said guard against, not prevent. See, there's the kicker. No one has yet said they could prevent an attack, so he might have actually been talking about the parts that do detection and ID, etc. Hard to say.
Moreover, given the great game, it might be that it's already a done deal, and they were just letting the Chinese know they don't have a lot of time andmaybe should just stop now... Again, hard to say, but I suspect there's a lot more to that comment than just an off-the-cuff announcement for the peoples' ear...
V/R
posted by
SangerM on January 31, 2007 3:47 PM
Happy Birthday Neffi!
We will all sit down and celebrate with a great dinner. Cricket will tell us what's being served. Then we will raise a glass.
posted by
Maggie on January 31, 2007 4:57 PM
To Neffi I present a 5-gallon jug of propwash, a thousand-foot reel of flightline and a 150-watt ultralight bulb...
posted by
BillT on January 31, 2007 7:41 PM
Thanks for bringing Mr. Arkin's article to my attention. I've linked to you here.
posted by
Consul-At-Arms on January 31, 2007 8:08 PM
Ho, Neff survivink nudder birtday?! Next will be comink plague of spiders or sumzink, no doubt...! Here for you, Neff'- you unnerstandink dis ol frend!
posted by Andre the Pole on January 31, 2007 8:47 PM
Thangya, thangya verra much... BCR, you couldn't know the 'Tripehound' is one of my favorite machines from the Great war era- nice job!
Fuzzy dear, at 52" the lionness is very nearly 'life-size', hehehehe
Ry- muches grassies for the flying weather, we've had 66" snow since last Dec. 20th- I'll take anything I can get.
Take my arm, Maggie dahlink- dinner looks marvellous!
Chief- you've been hanging around the wrong end of that horsie, methinks! Besides, my prop doesn't need washing...
Andre, you pig! Just pay up- and gimme my FS back before you hurt yourself...
Sigh. Best to all from gelid Colorado!
posted by Neffi on January 31, 2007 9:00 PM
I'm surprised I haven't seen a mention of the new show starting on the Military Channel called Tank Overhaul They a rebuilding a Comet, Panther, Sherman, and Hellcat...Here's the episode guide:
http://military.discovery.com/tvlistings/series.jsp?series=115495&gid=0&channel=MIL
posted by MKL on January 31, 2007 9:21 PM
Happy Birthday, Neffi! Here's a triplane that's more your speed.
posted by
Justthisguy on January 31, 2007 10:21 PM
Hey Neff - Knowing how much you like both Sharpies and Furry Friends, why not put them both to good use. Just strap one of your old K-Bars hanging from your walls, put on a daub of Duct-Tape, and just watch the fur fly. HAPPY B-DAY NEFF!!!
posted by Boquisucio on February 1, 2007 7:40 AM
Sanger, I've been raised in the school of thought that says even a 20% chance of hitting any one 'vampire' is enough to screw the other guys plan to hell and gone.
The shrouding and decoys and such are a problem, but not as much of one that the press makes it out to be---particularly with the look down shoot down during boost phase option. At least not from what I've read and the people I've talked to. Sure, there's the academic physicists who claim it's impossible, but, hey, Standard already has some, tested, ballistic missile capability.
It's more the other issues. Like missile not leaving the silo for some software glitch. Where to put the X-band radar to do the job(and does Xband actually do the job). Fuel stability for the booster(and how long it stays good). It's the little stuff. The seeker head of the HTK vehicle's tested. It can find stuff----that's one of the things detractors always go after, that the seeker's been tested in simple scenarios. And the Israeli ARROW system seems to be progressing nicely.
But ready to be a real and useful system? I'm not holding my breath. I remember, or more accurately people I know worked on, the HAWK SAM system. 'Fix in the Fleet'. That seems to be the way of this.
I'm a believer in ABMD. I think if you want nucweaps to go away you have to make them ineffective(like the mounted knight, the crossbow, etc). The best way of making them useless is making sure they never reach their targets. Not some silly piece of paper for a deal nobody will honor.
I just don't want to be sold a bunch of crap about the system. I *WANT* the system and I want it to work. There is no such thing as a perfect defense, particularly in this area, but it isn't the 'sheild' aspect that'll be the real deterent. It's that he can't be sure how well his plan will work or how much he'll have to spend to ensure it'll work(via overkill). I want this system. I think it should be an imperative in appropriations(before DD(x), LCS, F-22, and a laundry list of other, necessary, things). But I'm not buying the industry hype just yet.
posted by ry on February 1, 2007 8:57 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
Denizens
on
Jan 31, 2007
|
General Commentary
»
Cadillac Tight links with:
Look
Potential Quds/Iranian invlovement in the Karbala Attack
When I see stuff like this report about potential Quds force involvement in the Karbala kidnap and execution â€measure twice but cut once’ goes thru my head.
We all need to be real careful with this one. The consequences of the final findings are too important to ruin, false or positive for Iranian influence, by doing the enemy’s infowar work for him by talking it to death and forming solid opinions before all the facts are known.
This is potentially an act of war. Be real careful with this. It isn’t *just* news. â€Measure twice but cut once.’
Oh Lord, please let this initial report be wrong. Please? Give the Grunts a break would you? Please?
ry
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
You gotta love this:
"What I think many of us are concerned about is that we stumble into active hostilities with Iran without having aggressively pursued diplomatic approaches," Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said.
A mostly unknown from nowhere who made a good speach is now all-hyped because he's black, the son of an african immigrant, and photogenic is now a pretender to the throne....
AND
the voice of choice used to represent the views of the Congress in the CNN article (strategically placed just after a paragraph in which Bush is named)... Hmmm, let's see who do you think CNN wants to be in the '08?
I just hate CNN.
posted by
SangerM on January 31, 2007 11:14 AM
I would like to see the Council of Mullahs and the entire Revolutionary Guard aggressively pursued by a pack of starving -- but diplomatic -- Norway rats.
posted by
BillT on January 31, 2007 7:49 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
After Action Report- 100 Flags: Funeral service of Sergeant Ian Anderson Friday, January 26
[Armorer's note: This post is from Denizenne Kat, who attended the funeral.]
It was extremely cold Friday morning. It would have been warmer except the wind kept the wind chill to about 20 degrees. The Patriot Guard Riders met as planned at Home Depot to prepare for the mission. Soldier's Angels provided coffee and doughnuts to the frozen riders.
Some observations, besides the weather:
Not everyone in the Patriot Guard are veterans, though, on a quick scan, I would say they make up half or more of the "riders". Secondly, not everyone rides a bike, though that was the predominant mode of transportation. Many people showed up in "cages" (cars). I drove the car down. Third, if you have never ridden a motorcycle in any temperature below fifty degrees, you may not appreciate the kind of dedication that it takes to ride in the middle of January.
Over 70 motorcycles made the ride Friday. Wednesday night, the Patriot Riders had escorted Sergeant Anderson from KCI airport to the funeral home (video)

I read the jackets as we passed out coffee. Patriot Guard Riders came from as far away as Medicine Lodge and Liberal, Kansas. As I handed out the coffee, the pin on one jacket caught my attention. The gentleman wearing it was about 30 or so. Young compared to most of the "vets" there. I glanced at it again and realized it was a "CIB" or combat infantry badge. The back of his jacket read "Iraqi Freedom Vet" and other patches from the Big Red One, 4th Infantry and 1stArmored among six total that decorated his jacket (thank you John and all the military guys at the Castle for the education that allowed me to name them).
Later, I saw several other young men with "vet" patches and hats. The next generation of vets are already standing up.
The Ride Captain pulled out the bullhorn and circled up the troops. He said a prayer asking that the "other drivers" have their "eyes open" as we performed the task. Then he reminded everyone why they were there and the expectations of the PGR:
1) No interaction with protesters
2) No comments to them
3) No rude gestures
4) No physical contact
Our job was to simply be there and act as a barrier while providing support to the family.
We started out right at 9 AM and drove the short distance to the Church where the final service was being held. With no police escort or flashing lights indicating "funeral procession", it was a challenge to get 70 bikes and some 20 to 30 cars together at the Church.
The rude folks from Topeka did show up, but they were pretty far from the church all things considered. One of the PGR members told me that it was mostly "kids" (teenagers) that showed up at the protests with one or two adults. That was exactly what showed here. In reality, they were a non-factor really. Most of the people came in from the back and couldn't
see them anyway. Over 100 flags encircled the church and channel 9 covered the event again. Then it was time to escort Sergeant Anderson to his final resting place.

Again, over 70 motorcycles roared to life. With the additional cars, limos, hearse and two police escorts, the procession was at least five city blocks (appx. 1 mile). Flags were streaming as the procession passed. It was an awesome sight.
I have to give a big kudos to the people we passed. Everywhere you looked the cars were stopped. Some pulled to the side of the road and many just stopped where they were. I'm talking about everywhere, not just when the escort blocked an intersection. They stayed stopped until our procession when completely by. Even though that's proper "road etiquette" when approaching a funeral, that doesn't usually happen accept at intersections.
Whatever the reason for the courtesy, I can safely say that hundreds (if not thousands) of motorists were made aware that a soldier had come home Friday.

Second to the escort to the cemetery, the most impressive sight were the 100 flags that surrounded the funeral tent and lined the short drive. I believe the people and flags probably blocked 80% of the wind and 100% of the view from passers-by. The cemetery was pretty open and close to the road. Cars were slowing as they passed. The wind whipping the flags around was so loud you couldn't hear the chaplain.

Two buglers echoed taps. There's nothing more beautiful than taps echoing. The VFW buglers performed fantastically. Veterans saluted and civilians covered their hearts. The honor guard let loose with three volleys. Then the flag ceremony. Three flags were presented to the family. The troops acquitted themselves well considering the cold and wind.
Finally, when the ceremony was over, the family and friends began to leave. The PGR, through no command or previous direction, stayed in position until Sgt Anderson's wife and immediate family had been escorted back to the limos.
Really, these pictures and dispassionate recital cannot begin to express how much pride I felt watching the reaction of the people around us or my pride in being part of this activity to support the family and show them that we honored their soldier's service.
Additional Mission Photos can be found here and here (this set has photos that really show the length of the procession and the rest of the ceremonies)
100 Flags
I was standing in a cemetery
One hundred flags flying o'er me
Taps echoed in the wind
As the buglers played a final hymn
Men saluted as his widow cried
A captain knelt down by her side
Drew close and whispered in her ear
As the young wife dried her tears
On behalf of a grateful nation
Please accept this flag and citation
Thank you for your sacrifice
Freedom called and he paid the price
I listened to the words he had to say
I was proud to be a part
Of this ordinary day
(excerpt from poem by k.e.henry)
Welcome home, soldier.
Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Excellent, kat -- as always!
posted by
BillT on January 31, 2007 6:33 AM
Thanks Kat.
posted by
Maggie on January 31, 2007 9:29 AM
Thanks to the PGRs for their services that Kat so well reported. Shame on the news media that fail to report the news of how much the service and sacrifices of our troops are appreciated by our fellow countrymen. Too busy updating their latest adoring coverage of execrable scum like Hanoi Jane Fonda, I guess.
posted by
John S. on January 31, 2007 2:13 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Well, you *do* go to college to *learn*, right...?
Jake of Freedom Folks has a chuckle to liven your morning a bit. Seems some of the intellectual toddlers attending the U of I at Chicago decided to emulate the gliteratti and protest The War by targeting -- hang on, now -- a couple of Marine recruiters.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Fantastic! I saw something similar a while back at my campus, and, since I'm not a hot young co-ed, I just quietly went up and shook our guy's hands to thank them for putting up with this garbage too. One of the guys there, a Sergeant I think, laughed when I did this. He said "Man, thank you so much, but I hope that guy isn't getting too upset. More people have been shaking our hands than taking his brocures." I laughed all the way home.
posted by
J-P on January 30, 2007 11:36 PM
*snort*
Gawd... I luv it... And it wasn't the Marines that did the pwning - it was a gutsy young lady. Don't recruit her, get her in office!!!
posted by
Sgt. B. on January 31, 2007 12:04 AM
Last one of those I went past some guy handed me a pamphlet I said "great thanks very much".
Blew my nose on it and handed it back to him. "Just what I needed, thanks."
He looked kind of hurt. Just not as hurt as I would have liked to have seen him.
You would have thought the kit bag with my Name, rank and unit would have been his clue but sad old commies are not known for their ability to learn.
Of course now we elect them to parliament.
You want to know what the States would look like under Hillary just take sqiz down this way and multiply it a thousand times.
You have been warned.
P.S. Either invade or get me a green card people.
posted by
Murray on January 31, 2007 3:14 AM
I loved that video. Thanks for posting it Bill. Murray, you are a bad boy.
posted by
Maggie on January 31, 2007 9:45 AM
As a college student studying engineering (of the aerospace variety), I often wonder where some of the other students find time for such activities? Between homework, labs, and classes you won't see me at anything like that.
My suitemate developed an effective tactic. Whenever the commies on the corner start trying to pass out fliers to us, he merely starts goose stepping as we vacate the scene.
posted by Geo on January 31, 2007 12:57 PM
Geo - SNERK!
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 31, 2007 1:27 PM
I often wonder where some of the other students find time for such activities? Between homework, labs, and classes you won't see me at anything like that.
Why, that's easy for me to answer for you Geo.
What do you think all the people in your freshman English class do when there isn't an exam? Now you know where half the class is on non-test days.
posted by ry on January 31, 2007 3:02 PM
Sheeoot. Not in MY Freshman comp class. We were there every day or else.
Of course it was taught by the commies, so...
posted by
J-P on January 31, 2007 4:17 PM
Heh. That's why I tested out of froshlish into sophonorscomp. Or "Writing for Sophonts" as we called it.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 31, 2007 4:44 PM
Whenever we had commies on campus, we knew they were visitors. Our libs were the old-fashioned kind -- they'd agree that something is a problem but disagree on the proper method of solving the problem and close ranks with you when you were assaulted by twits. Just as we helped man their parapets when the barbarians brought up the siege engines.
Most of them are now conservatives and swear they've *always* been so...
posted by
BillT on January 31, 2007 7:57 PM
John, I'm not sure I understand the phrase "Snerk." Any chance of explaining it to this poor young pup?
I do wonder what happened to those kids back during freshman year. I don't notice it as much after that taking engineering courses. You miss one, you might as well drop the class.
posted by Geo on January 31, 2007 8:16 PM
Geo - snide laughter from a geek.
Not aimed at you, I assure you, but in appreciation of the irony of your buddy's response.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 31, 2007 8:54 PM
Then I think you will approve of our plan to hike the .75 miles to a local Communist book shop (yes, it is a communist book shop, giant red star, sickle and hammer in its windows) and ask for:
My goose-stepping friend: A copy of "Mein Kampf".
My other suitemate who looks like a hippie but is decidedly not: A copy of "On War" as he lacks one of his own.
And for myself, a copy of "Wealth of Nations."
We try to prove that there is some intellegent life left on campus. Gotta be an engineer thing.
posted by Geo on January 31, 2007 9:29 PM
In my uni it was arts students. Arts dominated the uni maybe 50% or so mostly housed in a ginormous 70s building so hideous it's a landmark. There were housed everything vaguely arts related, psychology, languages, politics, womens studies, actual arts and so on etc.
So with such numbers and so many traditionally political fields loaded with huge amounts of free time it was the natural birthplace for people-who-annoy-you.
Graffiti in Engineering toilets was to 'take your arts degree here' pointing to the toilet paper roll.
posted by
Trias on January 31, 2007 10:17 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Midnight In The Museum, Part 3.0
If you have no idea what Part 3 in the title is referring to, you need to check out MitM Part 1 and MitM Part 2. Go ahead -- I'll wait.
Hey, if John can spend three days milking a muffler for a sub-gun, I can spend three days milking a fiberglass horse. Uhhhhhh -- perhaps that was a poor choice of words. 'Specially since the horse is anatomically correct...
Getting back to the subject at hand topic of making a red plastic horse look quasi-lifelike, the next step in the process is to start building the color layers to get some illusory depth to the horse's "hair." Time to break out the acrylic paints.

An overall coat of watered-down burnt sienna (forequarters) then an overall watered coat of sienna mixed with Mars black (hindquarters) then a dab of black mixed with gesso for the finer hairs on the head (uhh -- head). And, since the area around the eyes, the nose and the lips are pretty much hairless, some burnt sienna right from the tube, feathered in.

And after all that dries, the final coat. Oil paint. It dries semi-glossy straight from the tube and gives a pretty good approximation of how a well-brushed horse reflects highlights.
Ain't perfect, but it's close enough for gummint work.
Now, remember that this thing is supposed to look like it's got a bit in it's mouth. This bit

to be precise. Those of you who have been paying attention probably noticed that there's no "mouth" to the horse. So, to affix a solid to a solid to give the illusion that one solid is going through the other solid -- you've gotta *cut* one solid so it's no longer solid. Are you still with me? Solid...
So, do I take an eighty-or-ninety-year-old piece of hardware and whack a chunk out of it or do I whack the chunk out of something in which I've invested twelve hours of sweat equity? Noooo contest.

Fifteen minutes with a hacksaw is all it takes (as long as you've got three Sea Scouts holding it steady). Then clean up the cut, pop the bit in, wire it so it doesn't drop out, stuff some fiberglass mesh under it, and epoxy the excised chunk back in place. Smooth the epoxy, wait 'til it dries, remove the wires, cammy the cut with paint and then hook up the harness.
Ta-daaaaah!
For the ultra-curious, it's s'posed to be Bucephalus, Patton's horse.
Since High Desert Wanderer was a bit curious about the end result, I figured I might as well toss this pic on the table. too.

Soon as we get the McClellan saddle fit to be seen in public, I'll show you what it looks like with the dressmaker's dummy installed. Oh, yeah -- he's now got a saber, too. Not a *Patton* saber, but it'll cut butter...
Update: For the purists who shudder at the idea of poking through a squid mart for a cavalry weapon, Captain JMH offers this alternative. Wonder if George P had a Subadar as a polo partner back in the early days...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
We've got about 40 of these bloody things loafing about Upper Hutt, feel free to take them.
We'll PAY you to take them.
posted by
Murray on January 31, 2007 3:16 AM
Murray - Patton sabers or fiberglass horses?
posted by
BillT on January 31, 2007 5:02 AM
I knew you couldn't resist cutting into it. Doesn't look too bad actually. Certainly better than McDonald seat red.
posted by
Trias on January 31, 2007 5:02 AM
Certainly better than McDonald seat red.
Shhhh -- don't tell Ray Kroc that horses are edible...
posted by
BillT on January 31, 2007 6:39 AM
I was waiting for the McClellan. I figure one of those had to turn up eventually.
posted by
High Desert Wanderer on January 31, 2007 8:04 AM
Noce job Bill, really nice job. Wow. I do modeling and figure painting on a small scale, you just made me feel like I've just been playing w/ toys... Damn that looks good!
posted by
SangerM on January 31, 2007 9:15 AM
he looks magnificent. quite a handsome mount.
..and i concur in your choice of pokey sticks.
posted by MajMike on January 31, 2007 9:20 AM
Amazing difference - Awesome work, Bill!
I've had the pleasure of riding with a McClellan saddle, and I liked it a lot. Especially when it came time to strap on or put away ... *grin*
posted by
Barb on January 31, 2007 10:16 AM
Strap on...put away...won't. go. there.
Great job, Bill. And a great job at story telling. Who else but wild Bill could get 3 days out of painting a horse? LOL
posted by kat-missouri on January 31, 2007 10:19 AM
WOW.
That looks truly wonderful, SugarButtons!!!!
posted by AFSister on January 31, 2007 3:15 PM
*sweeping bow with flourish to all*
*eternally grateful that no sweeping of fiberglass road apples will be necessary...*
posted by
BillT on January 31, 2007 8:01 PM
Chief Bill,
Lieutenant Patton designed the last sabre issued by the US Cavalry in 1910. It was the M1913 Sword. I got my from Atlanta Cutlery. They call it the Patton Sword. About $175 with shipping. Made by Windlass Steel in India.
http://www.atlantacutlery.com/webstore/eCat/military_items/other_military/military_reproductions/patton_sword.aspx
Good Job.
Trajan
CW3(R)
posted by Trajan Aurelius on February 1, 2007 1:51 PM
Whoa! We woke up dead Emperors with this thread!
The Power of Argghhh!
8^)
posted by
John of Argghhh! on February 1, 2007 1:59 PM
Whoa! We woke up dead Emperors with this thread!
Wellll, a blog *is* a column of sorts, and "Doric" sounds a lot like what I've been called on occasion...
posted by
BillT on February 1, 2007 6:11 PM
You've probably figured this out by now, but, you have the bridle and bit on backwards and the curb chain goes under the chin not over the nose. Some friendly advice: find yourself a cavalry reenactor to help you fit the saddle and tack.
posted by Kerry on February 6, 2007 10:15 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 30, 2007
H&I* Fires, 30 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...
******************************
The Armchair Generalist provides follow-up on the nuclear sting operation mentioned here. Nunn-Lugar seems to be working oh-so-well, doesn't it?
Oh, and does anyone have a good recipe for Buffalo wings?
ry
*******************************
Even the Taliban can't escape bad press about their recruiting woes
Like the anti-Soviet rebels of the 1980s and the pre-9/11 Taliban, the recruiters of today have turned to this cluster of about 25 ethnic Pashtun villages in search of volunteers.
The father of one dead enlistee says he feels honored, but with many of Shabqadar's young men dead or feared missing on the battlefield, mujaheddin recruiters are no longer welcome here.
A shopkeeper says 100 or more young men have gone missing, including his cousin, a 10th grade student, who mysteriously left home during the summer vacation and is believed to have gone to fight
They probably don't have any picket lines in front of the recruiting office or thousands of people marching in the street demonstrating against the war. It would be nice if they did, but, unlike in the United States, the "recruiters" of the Taliban/al Qaeda are more likely to shoot the protestors (why all the interviewees choose to remain anonymous) or send them a "midnight letter".
-kat
****************************************************************
Something else to make the French dislike us:
U.S. to become world's biggest wine market
It could be due to the changing demographics (ie, higher concentration of non-wine drinking immigrants) or it could be the ban on smoking.
"We do a lot of work with spices. Cigarettes affect the taste buds -- people wouldn't get as much out of the chef's work" if people were smoking, said owner Eddy Reignoux.
But he admits the mild climate in Marseille -- as in Italy where a ban on smoking in restaurants has been an overall success -- is a help: smokers can comfortably nip outside with a glass of wine for an open-air cigarette.
I imagine that, in places where it's colder, folks aren't nipping outside to have a cigarette with their wine. Which means, they aren't lingering around the table after dinner drinking that second or third bottle as they enjoy a smoke (the owner of this blog is a non-smoker; the denizen writing this is simply pointing out how one vice can financially impact another).
-Kat
***********************************
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... »
*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.
Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.
Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*
The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.
I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
And...Joshua Sparling got engaged this morning on Fox and Friends :)
posted by Carrie on January 30, 2007 12:51 PM
Another example of France surrendering to the US.
posted by Cricket on January 30, 2007 2:10 PM
Speaking of France and surrender; go to Google, type in French Military Victories and hit the "I'll Feel Lucky" button and then read carefully what comes up and follow the link. It's humorous and interesting...
posted by Oldloadr on January 30, 2007 2:43 PM
Ket, that's a great piece you found there. Shows how one sided the conversation is. Losses hurt both sides ardor for the conflict. It becomes, unfortunately for those on the line, a battle of wills of the politicians in charge. Of course, this line of reasoning won't show up on Hardball, Blitzer's 'The Situation Room', Olberman's 'Countdown'(to express hate for O'Reilly), or Meet the Press.
Damn.
Glad you're back Kat.
posted by ry on January 30, 2007 3:12 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Support the Troops?
This won't be news to anyone who knows more than a handful of soldiers, but might be helpful in explaining things to those who don't...
Support the Troops?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I can't get anywhere with this link.
posted by
Maggie on January 30, 2007 6:47 PM
Maggie - when you click the link, it should open to a new window with a video link inside that window. Then click the video window.
Is that not happening for you?
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2007 7:02 PM
It is not happening for me, lol. I am clicking the link and I am not achieving Nirvana.
posted by
Maggie on January 30, 2007 7:11 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Gun, Grease, SA M3A1, w/acc, 1 ea.
That is the Whatziss. Well, that's not true. The Whatziss is a *component* of this.
Now, it's not a grease gun like this.

No, not that at all. Though you can see where the GI naming inspiration came from. That, and perhaps the fact that it often was a mechanic's weapon, especially recovery vehicle crews. And tank crews. And, well, anyone who was authorized a subgun vice a rifle or carbine.

Nor is it to be confused with a sub-machinegun, .45 caliber, M3A1, either, like that one up there. Because, since the one in the Arsenal Holdings is shootable, well, that would be *BAD* if it were a Sub-machinegun, .45 caliber, M3A1, since the state of Kansas declines to allow it's citizens to own functional fully-automatic weaponry, though the state to the right (when facing north) that is about 1.5 miles away, does. What's really funny about that is that the state to the right of us is where the event occurred (the Union Station Massacre) that caused the State of Kansas to get it's panties in a twist about private ownership of fully automatic weapons... even though the people who were using the fully automatic weapons in the state to the right were criminals and not likely to give a hoot about the law that Kansas passed. But that's a post of a different color.

No, that's a Valkyrie Arms SA M3A1 (SA not for Springfield Arsenal but rather Semi-Automatic) and is officially classified as a rifle. With short (dummy) display barrel, long barrel, and fake suppressor barrel that apes the OSS Silenced Grease Gun. The fake suppressed barrel was the Whatziss. To be a rifle, it has to meet certain barrel-length requirements, hence the long barrel. To meet the requirements of the Ugly Rifles That Scare Me Assault Weapons Ban the stock also had to be fixed. Though, with the lapsing of that law, apparently I can now send the weapon back to Valkyrie and they could retro-fit a collapsible stock. At least they offer the service, and I assume they don't want to go to jail. They actually make a pistol version now, which allows the short, original barrel, and has no stock, but, frankly, especially with a full magazine, I can't imagine that wouldn't be rather awkward. I assume that the barrels for the pistol have a different threading for the barrel - or idiots out there will buy pistol barrels for their carbines and create illegal weapons.
The Armorer will not, as he does not wish to move to 1300 Metropolitan Avenue from his current address, which serves his modest needs just fine.
The original grease gun came into being because of WWII. Colonel Thompson's fine M1928 series subgun was the only weapon of it's type in mass production when the war opened, but, while a sturdy and reliable piece it was heavy, very complicated to manufacture (requiring lots of skilled machinist time perhaps better spent on other things) and, as a result, expensive. It was also machined from solid billet steel, which was, well, somewhat wasteful of a strategic material, considering how much had to be machined away. Photos of a finished receiver available here, at Philadelphia Ordnance.

In it's ultimate form, the M1A1, the Thompson was greatly simplified - but still just too dang expensive to produce in terms of cost, time, and skilled workmen. There was a war on. Something Had To Be Done.
After a brief flirtation with the Marlin-Hyde M2 sub-machine gun which took too long to produce good prototypes, along came the M3 Grease Gun. A metal tube, some stampings, some welding, and the only serious machining being the barrel and bolt. Sanger thoughtfully provide a nice picture of the M3A1 while we were discussing, among other things... the Whatziss.

Firing from an open bolt (most subguns do, so that heat won't cook-off a round in the chamber) it was cocked with a lever on the side, which, in service, tended to catch on things, bend, and otherwise annoy the user. The safety was the ejection port cover, which had a flange that projected down into a hole in the receiver. Cocked, with the port cover open, the thing was dangerous... something that probably is weighing heavily on the minds of these German POWs in Brittany.

Some product improvements were made, resulting in the M3A1. The cocking lever was dispensed with, and the user just opened the ejector port cover, and stuck his finger in a hole in the bolt and pulled it back to cock it. The stock was modified so that it could be used as a wrench for removing the barrel (required for cleaning). One end of the wire stock had a socket for a cleaning brush, the other had a slot for cleaning patches. There was a metal doohickey (official term) that served as a magazine loader. The weak point of the M3 guns were the magazines. Instead of being double-column, double-feed, they were double-column single feed - which made them a bitch to load and caused some jamming problems. The gun had an oil reservoir and oil brush in the pistol grip. All in all a handy weapon, cheap to produce, and simple to use and maintain.
And it lasted a long time - the last combat hurrah of the M3A1 was Desert Storm. The Armorer also carried one when he was a battery commander, trading his M1911A1 (a nice 1943 Remington Rand) with the VTR driver for his Guide Lamp (a division of GM that made grease guns) M3A1.
It's fun to shoot, with a slow, steady beat that will allow a good shooter to shoot single shots as needed/desired. The longer barrel makes the .45 ACP go farther a little faster, and what it hits stays... hit, and is usually distracted by same. Hence my desire to carry one while I was a Battery Commander. If I needed to defend myself, I probably had even bigger problems in the battery area and wanted a weapon that would really influence my surroundings.
The semi-auto in the Holdings of the Arsenal of Argghhh! languished in lay-away for a long time, and is as-yet unfired. But, come better weather, the M3 will make a trip to the range - along with a really rare bird a buddy of the Armorer owns - a Pedersen device. Yes, boys and girls - the Armorer is going to shoot a weapon very very very few people have shot. A semi-auto M1903 rifle...
I did find this cool video of a silenced grease gun being fired in the Phillipines, and this video of an M3A1 being fired in a range - note the use of the finger to cock and the slow rate of fire.
For you Airsoft aficionados - here's the Hudson Airsoft Grease Gun being fired with "blue gas" and with "green gas".
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Where did you find a Pedersen device??!! Pictures, pictures!.....
and, uh, where did you the find ammo?
posted by Pogue on January 30, 2007 8:39 AM
My buddy Beau has had the ammo since the 60's... *hundreds* of rounds.
As for pictures - I hope to go one better.
Video!
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2007 8:41 AM
Nice rundown on an especially sneaky whatziss, Armorer.
Though you can see where the GI naming inspiration came from.
You know, my dark nasty suspicious mind actually wonders about this every now and then. Every single book I've ever read on WW2 small arms, whether comprehensive or superficial, mentions the M3 and says specifically that it was called the Grease Gun "because of its resemblance to that mechanic's implement." The story absolutely does not change, no matter the source. It's almost word for word, every time, stilted phrasing and all, no matter who the writer is or was. I've never seen another suggested origin for the name; I've never heard another nickname for the M3. It makes me wonder where the "Origin of the Name tale" originally came from, and who originally wrote it.
As for the M3 itself, I find it rather amusing that the M3 had a standard accessory kit that converted it to 9mm caliber. Do you have one of those for your imitation M3?
posted by wolfwalker on January 30, 2007 8:42 AM
Nope. I meant to mention that, too. The barrel, bolt, and magazine adaptor.
As for grease gun as a moniker - it really resembles what most of us recognize as a caulking gun these days.
That said - the name came from somewhere, and it might simply have come from the fact that it was a mechanic's weapon, and it started getting referred to as a grease gun in that way.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2007 9:13 AM
I should note, too - the Pedersen device is *not* mine, it belongs to Beau.
I *am* trying to get him to adopt me, however.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2007 9:15 AM
I just loved the grease gun. I ran a grease gun qualification range once -- what a hoot. And, there was plenty of ammo to blow off for the OIC after everyone had qualified. In those days the paperwork was onerous for the turnin of live rounds so you shot everything and turned in the brass -- a much easier process. Ahhhh the old days.
posted by JimC on January 30, 2007 9:59 AM
I had a Grease Gun for my personal weapon for some time in '68 while stationed in Saigon. I got it from a White Mouse for a certain consideration after the MPs confiscated my M1 carbine. The powers that be didn't want people in non-combat units running around town with weapons, because Saigon was officially "safe." Of course, the MPs never confiscated weapons from "ossifers."
posted by
74 on January 30, 2007 10:25 AM
The only time I actually pointed a weapon at another person with intent to shoot was at a grease gun range. I had been waiting all day for the end of day free-for all like JimC described. I'd never fired a grease gun and was doing range duty for the company--all day. Just as I was getting ready to take mine to the line, my a$$hat platoon sergeant ordered me to go help clean up the range. He knew I'd been waiting, and had got permission, and etc. he told me I should have asked him, not the 1SG (who was actually running the range), and TS for me, ha ha. Now get to work!
This was the straw that broke the back of a long suffering camel, and without a single conscious thought, I pulled my 45 from the holster, grabbed a magazine off the ammo table and slapped it into the gun, chambered a round and put it within one inch of the bridge of my PSG's nose. I calmly told him I'd had enough of him and his BS. I know I was within seconds of pulling that trigger.... Fortunately, the scout PSG walked over quickly and calmly stuck his hand up between the pistol and the guy's face and said, in a very calm voice "why don't you just give me the pistol and we'll talk about this..." I was so intent on the point of that gun that I still remember how surprised I was when the Scout guy seemingly materialized there. Interestingly, I just sort of shrugged, and handed him the pistol. I really wasn't all there to be honest... I really don't even remember much in the way of details, so maybe he didn't walk over so calmly. I dont know...
Anyway, after my PSG caught his breath there was a lot of yelling, and the 1SG got involved, and so on... but apparently my suffering at the hands of that sadistic SOB hadn't gone unnoticed, so I was punished (without recourse to Art 15 or anything else), and moved out of the platoon for a while (became the NBC NCO and lots of other stuff too), till that guy found himself another place to work.
I owe the scout PSG my life, really, and I had the chance to tell him that a bunch of years later when he was the 1SG of CSC 1/37 in Katterbach, which is when he asked me if I wanted to be the Scout PSG there. Best compliment ever from one of the finest NCOs I'd ever known. Unfortunately, I was a bonus recipient linguist at the time, so I couldn't do it, which really hurt. I have always thought armored scout was the best army job ever...
And BTW, I have never yet fired an M3...
posted by
SangerM on January 30, 2007 10:40 AM
Sanger's commenting style comes into sudden focus, eh?
Well, I can't help you with an actual M3, Sanger, but if you ever find yourself up this way, we'll go out to the range and you can repeatedly pull the trigger really fast.
Pretty much the same thing as shooting a real one.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2007 11:00 AM
I've heard that when under duress people have been known to shake the M3 in an attempt to get it to fire faster.... :-)
posted by Pogue on January 30, 2007 1:05 PM
> Sanger's commenting style comes into sudden focus, eh?
Oh come on... I've never actually shot anyone in anger, and anytime I hit someone I was provoked (really). But all of that was years ago anyway--last time I had hit anyone with my fist was Christmas Night 1979. Last time I was drunk. Same date. Gun incident was a year before that. And that PSG of mine: one of McNamara's 100,000, as fine a jewel of an ignorant, uneducated, lazy, sneaking southern sharecropper's son as ever found heaven in the Army. Used to black-market mass quantities of Jim Bean ('extorting' rations from some of his subordinates), always spent the cold nights in the gasthaus while we stood in snow doing radar stuff, never went to the field when we did (always had some lame reason for showing up a day or two later), was a liar of astonishing skill, and a brown-noser of the first water. He was having a fine career 'till he met my 1SG, the field commissioned in Vietnam, then rif'd E-8 who was without qualification the best NCO I ever knew, ever. Unfortunately, the guy who followed him was same stock (but worse), but I didn't have to deal with that guy. He was sent away quickly before I went back to the section to run it.
I think I'm actually kind of a nice guy now. At least that's what people who know me tell me--and that I used to REALLY be hard on people.
hmphf.
posted by
SangerM on January 30, 2007 1:59 PM
Snerk. *That* hit home, eh?
I had a gunnery sergeant who was one of MacNamara's Hundred Thousand. He was a fine man, but his troops ran rings around him, limiting his effectiveness as an NCO.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2007 2:14 PM
Baby-san had a medevac run one night (he'd already refueled and I was still in the POL point) out of Moc Hoa. Seems two Green Beanies got snockered in the Club bunker and were playing "M-3 quick draw."
*Why* they were doing it with bolts cocked and mags inserted defies even my attempts at explanation. Working Moc Hoa at night was a lot of things, but it wasn't boring by a long shot...
posted by
BillT on January 30, 2007 6:29 PM
yeah, maybe... just a little...
nope.
well maybe...
Nah!
posted by
SangerM on January 30, 2007 7:35 PM
Hmmmm... That POW picture has a couple things of interest. The caption said it's from the 6th US-Panzerdivision bei Plouay, north of Lorient (in Sep '44, I think).
1) The safety is on on the grease gun, unless the port cover is missing... (the pow might not know that)
2) There's a funny looking thing on the end of the rifle barrel??? sitting stuffed behind the driver's seat... Looks almost like an old-timey blank adaptor.
3) That's an odd looking wire catcher on the front of the jeep. Homemade, it looks like a straight piece of angle iron... Bigger than the orginals.
4) I never saw a jeep with a trunk before, which doesn't mean anything, I've not seen lots of things shown this week. But that looks like a special adaptaion... Could be a medic vehicle?
5) Did Army folks wear the net helmet covers in ETO? I thought that was a Marine thing in the war, and the Army never wore those..
6) The antenna mount looks odd, and of course it's mounted in the wrong place (they were always on the back), but that may be because of the trunk...
All in all, I can't help but wonder at that... Where and who.
But that's just me...
posted by
SangerM on January 30, 2007 8:59 PM
Those are helmet nets, not covers (as in what the Marine in the top picture is wearing). Yes, troops in the ETO wore helmet nets.
The weapon behind the seat is a carbine. That funny looking muzzle could be a rubber muzzle cover, or, possibly, the add-on muzzle break, though I personally lean toward the muzzle cover.
Lots of units field-fabricated wire-cutters/guards. If it's an ambulance jeep, it's missing the stretcher clamps.
It could be a wire-layer.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2007 9:17 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Midnight in the Museum, Part Deux
Continuing the saga of the red plastic horse, the first item on the agenda was to figure out which method (of several) for getting a tad more realism out of the critter would be most appropriate. Since the display would be where people could get up close and personal, airbrushing wouldn't give the effect of a real, live, thousand pound mammal supporting a real, live, dressmaker's dummy clad in John's castoffs.
'Nother words, it needed hair -- or the illusion of it, anyway. Besides, Big Red hadn't travelled well in the pickup truck...

Airbrushing wouldn't do a thing until the gouges got filled. And the amount of modelling putty (aka, "green goop") required to fill the cracks, holes, scrapes and scratches would run the repair budget (aka, "maybe five dollars") deeply into the red.
Ever hear of acrylic gesso?
Work the brush properly when it's still wet and you get a reasonable facsimile of hair.

Slather two coats over the dings and the dings disappear. It dries to a nice matte finish and adheres to pretty much anything, even waxed plastic.

Somebody call the E-Wing! Is this transformational, or what?
And, it helps to remember that horses don't have a whole bunch of hair surrounding their eyes and they *definitely* don't have hairy lips. So no undercoat in those areas.

That's definitely a horse of a different color. But not the *final* color. Not even close...
To be continued...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Now i'm waiting for you to whip out a paint stripper or angle grinder.
posted by
Trias on January 30, 2007 6:11 AM
WOW, Bill! That looks more real already!
posted by fdcol63 on January 30, 2007 7:11 AM
Nicely done. I'm looking forward to seeing th final product.
posted by
High Desert Wanderer on January 30, 2007 7:12 AM
sweeeeeeet! Now that's a horse of a different color
posted by AFSister on January 30, 2007 7:40 AM
For a Jersey guy you tell a pretty good Horse story Chief :)
posted by
BloodSpite on January 30, 2007 8:16 AM
snerk. looks like he's wearing some lipstick and mascara.
posted by MajMike on January 30, 2007 9:01 AM
I gotta agree with the major...that horse looks like it is ready for a night out on the town.
posted by kat-missouri on January 30, 2007 12:34 PM
I'm so plastic it's fantastic?
posted by
Trias on January 30, 2007 3:20 PM
...that horse looks like it is ready for a night out on the town.
Well, Trias *did* mention something about a stripper.
However, I've never been one to look a gift horse in the mouth. Or *kiss* one, either...
posted by
BillT on January 30, 2007 5:39 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 29, 2007
H&I* Fires, 29 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 was gonna bring up John Kerry at Davos, but I see that Brit Hume did it better than I would have anyway:
Ouch [John Podhoretz]
In response to Bill Kristol saying John Kerry shouldn't have left home to criticize American foreign policy abroad, Brit Hume yesterday quipped: "Is it really fair to John Kerry to argue, Bill, that when he's in Switzerland, he's away from home?" Chris Wallace responded by calling it a "cheap shot," which it was, and a great one.
H/t, JPod at NRO.
Heh. While I was compositing that bit - Fuzzybear Lioness sends this link to Powerline's post on the subject of Senator Kerry in Davos.
Interesting bit of blogging trivia. When this place gets a link from blogfather Jonah Goldberg, it's worth about 4500 visits. When Jonah's dog Cosmo links here to a picture of a sniper kitty, it's worth... 10K visits. It's clear - people prefer dog's opinions to pundit's opinions. I'll have to set Houdini up with access.
Right Wing Comfort Food as Right Wing Nation hosts the Carnival of the Recipes.
Gary Sinise and his support for the Disabled Veterans Memorial. Way to go, Lt. Dan. -the Armorer
*********************************
I don't typically pimp myself out on H&I Fires... but I just had to this time. Head over to my place for a little lesson in citizenship... compliments of my son's Webelo Pack. Trust me- you'll want to know what today's young boys are learning about American history. ~AFSis
*********************************
In Australia, at La Trobe University, toilets have been set aside for the exclusive use of Muslim students, who can access them via a cypher-lock door.
Heh.
I must say, I'm with Andrew Bolt on this one. -the Armorer
**********************************
Over the weekend Uncle Jimbo's post on Iran and the latest kidnapping has inspired fascinating discussion in comments--ranging from history to diplomacy to tactical discussions and speculation about the future. Check it out... thought-provoking and fascinating. - FbL
**********************************
"What are they here for if they are going to retreat from people with automatic weapons?" asked Arizona House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Warde Nichols. How about this, dillweed... back them up, unlike Texas did, and maybe next time they'll return fire. ~AFSis
********************************
The Armorer feels that AFSis is being a bit hard on Arizona State Representative Nichols, who, it would appear is actually asking the question in a way to suggest the answer she is hoping for - and of the people who can make that policy change.
*******************************
Yes, that is true, John... but I'm also guessing that the charges against the two Border Patrol agents is weighing heavily on the minds of all who patrol our borders these days.
Our government officials seem to have gotten into a habit of wanting law and order but they're not willing to take the steps necessary to protect those who promote law and order, no matter if they altercation occurs here in the US or in a war zone. -AFSis
**********************************
Steve Schippert of Threatswatch has a very detailed analysis of the Karbala abductions. - FbL
**********************************
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... »
*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.
Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.
Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*
The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.
I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Lt. Dan ROCKS THE HOUSE. Too bad we don't have more Hollywood types like him.
posted by AFSister on January 29, 2007 8:04 AM
I watched FoxNews Sunday and I missed Wallace calling it a cheap shot. I must have been laughing to loud at Brit's comment. Seriously though, I think Brit was trying to calm Bill down. Bill was really upset about it. That round table is my favorite political thing every week.
posted by
Maggie on January 29, 2007 9:44 AM
Actually, Kerry is simply holding to form. I can say he's consistent, I just don't know why people don't call him on this "consistency".
He went to Paris and met with the North Vietnamese. He went to Nicaraugua and negotiated with Ortega as a Senator. In fact, he came back with a "peace deal" to be signed. Let's see what he comes back with this time.
All of these folks contact him because he's an elected subversive. He can only get away with it because we haven't officially "declared war" on any of these groups, so he's not technically committing treason.
However, I find it so interesting how many people have been concerned about the over reaching powers of the Bush administration yet were ready to elect John Kerry. Personally, I find his actions much more scary. Kerry is only a Senator and yet he has publically violated the spirit of an original constitutional law that states only the President can negotiate with foreign powers. The only reason he gets away with it is because he hasn't actually signed any treaties on behalf of the United States. He walks a fine line to insure he doesn't violate the literal context of the law.
Could you imagine a Kerry administration and your individual rights? Frankly, he wouldn't have been any better than Bush and maybe a lot worse.
And, finally, if you really want to know why I think Kerry announced he wouldn't run in '08, it wasn't just that he didn't think he could win, but I think that he was already setting himself up to be the "ambassador" in a Democratic White House. On top of which, maybe he'd already been approached to meet with the Iranians. he had to know that would be a big negative bat to beat him with in the elections
posted by kat-missouri on January 29, 2007 11:44 AM
Yes, that is true, John... but I'm also guessing that the charges against the two Border Patrol agents is weighing heavily on the minds of all who patrol our borders these days.
Our government officials seem to have gotten into a habit of wanting law and order but they're not willing to take the steps necessary to protect those who promote law and order, no matter if they altercation occurs here in the US or in a war zone.
posted by AFSister on January 29, 2007 1:39 PM
AFSis, the whole concept of troops on the border is a very touchy one in Az. There's lot's of military types involved in drug interdiction as well as border security. The governor does not want to start a war with Mexico, particularly when there are people around who don't think a second "Punitive Expedition" is all that bad an idea. Personally I get annoyed over people acting like the OP ran away from a fight as opposed to treating the situation as they were instructed to do. (For the record I don't know what their specific instructions were, I'm not in that unit, but I know it's really frowned upon to shoot at foreign nationals in anything other than self defense.)
posted by Pogue on January 29, 2007 3:11 PM
Re the Muslim toilets: I wonder if they remembered to put the toilet paper holder on the left side in all those stalls? It's not Halal to wipe with the right hand.
posted by
Rivrdog on January 29, 2007 7:33 PM
Pogue,
You would think that any mission involving protecting our borders would include authorization to detain, question, and even fire upon violators. According to the Fox article I linked, the current rules of force signed by the Department of Defense and border state governors, do not permit SOLDIERS to stop, arrest, or shoot armed illegal immigrants. They are "simply" there to report their findings to the Border Patrol.
If the Soldiers protecting the border aren't allowed to provide protection force duties... why are they there? If they report their findings (in this case, armed drug runners) to the Border Patrol, and they are treated in the same manner the Texas agents were treated, they'll end up in jail instead of the armed drug runners.
Seems to me if Rep. Nichols really wants to secure his state's border against attacks from Mexico, he'd make sure that anyone protecting our borders have the proper authority to do so. By crying foul, he's brought the problem to the public's attention.. but the question now is what will he do with that attention? He's raising the question- and he has the power to clarify/alter their ROE.... so why won't he do it?
Maybe that's oversimplifying things- because I'm sure there's at least a little bit of thought about ROE's- but that's how I see it. If the government (state AND fed) won't support the mission by giving our Soldiers the proper authority to complete the mission... we're setting ourselves up for failure.
posted by AFSister on January 29, 2007 8:58 PM
He's raising the question- and he has the power to clarify/alter their ROE.... so why won't he do it?
Simple. If the troops are on Title 10 (active Federal service), the Big Army (in the form of the Theater Commander) sets the ROE. If the troops are on State Active Duty, the state Adjutant General (with direction by the Governor and with the recommendations of the state ARNG Inspector General's office) usually sets the ROE.
Bear in mind that the Adjutant General is usually a member of the governor's cabinet. Getting your boss in political hot water is usually followed by the boss appointing your replacement.
posted by
BillT on January 30, 2007 6:38 AM
Ya know, sometimes I *hate* democracy.
posted by AFSister on January 30, 2007 7:51 AM
As you should, as you should...
A tyranny of the majority, with no rhyme or reason to its thinking, caught up as it is in the ebb and flow of the 'thing' du jour...
But what else is there....?
[and BTW, exactly why there is an electoral college, and why Senators were originally selected by states' legislatures. We'd probably still have Teddy, but wouldn't bet on Kerry or Hilary... Frankly, this country would run a LOT better if the People didn't get to talk to Senators and Congressman quite as much as they do now, or rather if those folks could do their job without having to explain every thing they do every day of the year... Politics is messy, and the fed-level folks ought to be able to get as messy as they need to, to get things done. I believe in transparency and oversight, but not at the microscopic level. I realize it works both ways, but I can't help but think we wouldn't have so much divisivness if the elected could ignore their consitutents a little more... CSPAN and the like are NOT IMO good for America.]
posted by
SangerM on January 30, 2007 1:46 PM
ANd where does Posse Commitatus come in with the border enforcement issue? Isn't that simply a criminal/civil affair that's forbiden them to do anyways? State of war, or preparation for one, would be one thing, but I'm not sure that this quite escapes the PossComm umbrella. that's a possible reason for why they aren't allowed, even if they're federalized as The Cheif advises, to detain and what not.
Damn rules. Always get in the way don't they?(BUt I'm sure glad that they're there 95% of the time)
posted by ry on January 30, 2007 8:31 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
The Whatziss... Day 3.
Mebbe this will help.

Confused by what all this means - you've missed this post, then.
Okay, y'all are there.

More on it tomorrow. Larger format pic here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Well that kind of looks like an M3 sub gun barrel to me...
posted by Pogue on January 29, 2007 8:57 AM
Looks like a rod... a rod I could use about right now.
posted by WereKitten on January 29, 2007 9:09 AM
So, was the other one a suppressor version of this one, or a sleeve? And that black plastic thing was a hand grip?
This one looks like the barrel of an M3A1 carbine version...
The other, then must be.... the OSS version (which means I'M not the one who'll be kicking myself but wolfwalker)?
[Heh - who sent me a picture of a Grease Gun yesterday, boyo?]
Geeze, something else I didn't know about. A long barrel m3... (though something in my mind tells me I've seen one before somewhere?)
posted by
SangerM on January 29, 2007 9:33 AM
The pipe from a pot belly stove?
posted by kat-missouri on January 29, 2007 11:02 AM
Wasn't there talk some time ago about getting a semiauto M-3 for the castle? Wouldn't that come with the long barrel?
posted by Rod Thorsen on January 29, 2007 11:10 AM
oh. Yeah, I did, din't I? Wait...
Yeah, that one wasn't one of the guns with a suppressor, AND it was the short barrel version... AND it wasn't that big hog pipe barrel either, though I mostly get that right in the meander. Funny thing is, I couldn't hink of a single gun that attached a barrel like that, and I couldn't see threads in the first pic. Though I can now that I'm looking.... Duh.
oh well.... let me get my rube goldberg buttkickingboot contraption put on...
Pull the string ... ow!
Pull the string ...
posted by
SangerM on January 29, 2007 11:10 AM
Now that you're mostly there... google OSS M3.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 29, 2007 11:34 AM
Geez, that took forever. You'd think nobody'd ever seen one before.
posted by
BillT on January 29, 2007 4:21 PM
Well, la-de-da. I never have... :-)
And the only reason I got where I did is that I googled "long barrel m3," which took me to this site www.valkyriearms.com/oss.htm.
I should've stuck with my first instinct. Phoeey.
posted by
SangerM on January 29, 2007 4:28 PM
Well, at least it wasn't another tank...
posted by
BillT on January 29, 2007 7:56 PM
i still say it looks like a rod.
sterling, perhaps.
posted by WereKitten on January 29, 2007 9:00 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
The official story on the attack at Karbala last week.
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2007 - Insurgents who attacked the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, Iraq, were dressed in U.S. Army-styled combat uniforms and carried U.S.-type weapons, convincing Iraqi checkpoints to allow them passage, military officials released today.
During the Jan. 20 attack, the enemy fighters captured and killed four U.S. soldiers. Another soldier was also killed and three others wounded in the attack on the center, located about 30 miles south of Baghdad.
Local officials and Iraqi and coalition security forces meet at the center to address security needs.
"The precision of the attack, the equipment used and the possible use of explosives to destroy the military vehicles in the compound suggests that the attack was well rehearsed prior to execution," said Army Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, spokesman for Multinational Division Baghdad. "The attackers went straight to where Americans were located in the provincial government facility, bypassing the Iraqi police in the compound."
At about 5 p.m. that day, a convoy consisting of at least five sport utility vehicles entered the Karbala compound and about 12 armed militants attacked the American troops with rifle fire and hand grenades, officials said.
One soldier was killed and three others wounded by a hand grenade thrown into the center's main office. Other explosions within the compound destroyed three Humvees.
The attackers withdrew with four captured U.S. soldiers and drove out of the Karbala province into the neighboring Babil province. Iraqi police began trailing the assailants after they drew suspicion at a checkpoint.
Three soldiers were found dead and one fatally wounded, along with five abandoned vehicles, near the town of Mahawil. Two were found handcuffed together in the back of one of the vehicles. The other two were found nearby on the ground. One soldier was found alive but died en route to a nearby hospital. All suffered from gunshot wounds.
Also recovered at the site were U.S. Army-type combat uniforms, boots, radios and a non-U.S. made rifle, officials said.
Officials are investigating the breach in security at the center. "We are looking at all the evidence to determine who or what was responsible for the breakdown in security at the compound and the perpetration of the assault," Bleichwehl said. "Our hearts go out to the families of the fallen warriors from Karbala. They were true heroes who fought to the last."
The names of four of the soldiers have been released. The fifth name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.
Killed were:
-- Army 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Neb.;
-- Army Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, La.;
-- Army Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, N.Y.; and
-- Army Pvt. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Ala.
The soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, Alaska.
(From Multinational Corps Iraq and DoD news releases.)
BTW. It's a war crime. A capital offense. If we catch these guys we can, under international law (the great shibboleth of the MSM) stand 'em in front of a wall and shoot 'em.
Anybody heard the MSM griping about *this* war crime? C'mon, they're fair and balanced and they know the law inside and out, where's the analysis?
[crickets chirp]
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I'm missing something here and if it's been covered in a previous post, I apologize. Why take them just to kill them down the road? An operation like this took some doing, what was the goal? Just to show us they could do it? No ransom. No forcing them to make political statements on video.
posted by
Maggie on January 29, 2007 7:42 AM
Thanks, John. You know how closely I've been following this story, but being a nobody makes it hard to get national attention drawn to the story.
Maggie,
To me, there are many messages here.
1. Our enemy knows way too much about us if they were able to impersonate our vehicles and soldiers that closely. The wanted us to know that, which is why they rubbed it in our faces by abandoning the vehicles and some of the gear with the dead soldiers.
2. The insurgents took our guys just to prove it could be done, and to make fools out of the Iraqi forces guarding the checkpoints.
3. By using vehicles that look like ours, impersonating our soldiers, and using weapons that mimic ours, they've opened up a whole new chapter in "asshat, chicken$hit ways to defeat your enemy". I'm impressed by their ability to infiltrate so successfully... UNFORTUNATELY.
4. We came, we saw, we kicked your American hiney's.
The point was that security is lax enough, and the insurgents know us well enough, that they were able to carry out such an attack right under our noses.
Scares the crud outta me.
posted by AFSister on January 29, 2007 7:53 AM
If you read the report, the bad guys were being chased by the Iraq police/security forces. They killed these guys, not just because they could, but because they needed to get rid of them and make an escape.
While I'm sure they would have enjoyed the huge propaganda value of having US soldiers on camera, pleading for their lives or doing the Iraqi version of the Vietnam War Criminal Confessions right before they cut off their heads or shot them like Matt Maupin, at that point, it was more important to get away and they still had a huge propaganda uptick in just having infiltrated that far and taken them in the first place.
I thought about what AFSIS said, regarding leaving the clothes as a "sign", but, in light of the info that the Iraq security forces were trailing these guys, I doubt it was that well thought out. They abandoned everything, including the uniforms because they were too high profile.
posted by kat-missouri on January 29, 2007 10:57 AM
I agree with Kat's here. But I'll add one more thing: I don't know Iraqi geography very well, but as I understand it they were on a straight trajectory for the border with Iran. I also don't think that abandoning everything shows it wasn't well thought-out. Rather, it could mean that something went wrong before they could get to their "safe house" and dispose of things properly and then continue on their journey.
posted by
FbL on January 29, 2007 11:08 AM
The conversation at Blackfive regarding this attack is very interesting. FbL linked it in H&I Fires. Bottom line is... Uncle Jimbo has pegged this attack on Iranians.
Very interesting revelation.
posted by AFSister on January 29, 2007 12:23 PM
When I said "not that well thought out", I was talking about abandoning the guys and the uniforms as some sort of "plan". I don't think that was part of the "plan". It's obvious that the rest of it was well planned and rehearsed. took some big cajones and a lot of luck to pull it off.
posted by kat-missouri on January 29, 2007 12:53 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Was 9/11 really that bad?

Protecting His Comrades
Photo by Sgt. Martin K. Newton January 26, 2007
Pfc. Pedro Rangel, 1st Cavalry Division, provides security with his M240B machine gun from a rooftop while fellow Soldiers build a new combat outpost in Ghazaliya, Iraq, Jan. 14.
That's the title of an OpEd in the LA Times by a Professor David Bell.
IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.
It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?
Probably. The problem is agreeing on what that insight is. As Professor Bell and I look at the same event, but reach different conclusions based on the biases (oddly enough, both historical) we bring to the table.
As ever - you should read the whole thing, not just my snippets.
But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.
Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.
I've made that point before, too - if not for this purpose. It's the point of we're practicing an immense amount of restraint, vice the manner in which other wars - existential wars - have been conducted. And now Professor Bell almost gripes at us about it, in the sense that he uses it to hone his rhetorical scalpel.
So why has there been such an overreaction? Unfortunately, the commentators who detect one have generally explained it in a tired, predictably ideological way: calling the United States a uniquely paranoid aggressor that always overreacts to provocation.
In a recent book, for instance, political scientist John Mueller evaluated the threat that terrorists pose to the United States and convincingly concluded that it has been, to quote his title, "Overblown." But he undercut his own argument by adding that the United States has overreacted to every threat in its recent history, including even Pearl Harbor (rather than trying to defeat Japan, he argued, we should have tried containment!).
Give the man credit, he's not being screedy!
He then moves on to how our prosecution of this war is in fact... a unintended consequence of a huge flaw in Western Civilization - The Enlightenment. Bear with me - there is actually some fire with this smoke, especially when you look at the political paradigm adopted by the Republicans and Democrats.
The Enlightenment, however, popularized the notion that war was a barbaric relic of mankind's infancy, an anachronism that should soon vanish from the Earth. Human societies, wrote the influential thinkers of the time, followed a common path of historical evolution from savage beginnings toward ever-greater levels of peaceful civilization, politeness and commercial exchange.
Which leads to this....
The unexpected consequence of this change was that those who considered themselves "enlightened," but who still thought they needed to go to war, found it hard to justify war as anything other than an apocalyptic struggle for survival against an irredeemably evil enemy. In such struggles, of course, there could be no reason to practice restraint or to treat the enemy as an honorable opponent.
Ever since, the enlightened dream of perpetual peace and the nightmare of modern total war have been bound closely to each other in the West. Precisely when the Enlightenment hopes glowed most brightly, wars often took on an especially hideous character.
The Enlightenment was followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, which touched every European state, sparked vicious guerrilla conflicts across the Continent and killed millions (including, probably, a higher proportion of young Frenchmen than died from 1914 to 1918).
Now for the kicker:
Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.
Okay, let's recap. Professor Bell says we're over-reacting, citing the rhetorical requirements of going to war in a democracy birthed from the Enlightenment. Okay. Then he cites the horrors of wars, as practiced by the West as a result of the world-view acquired as a result of the Enlightenment. He then goes to assert, with that slightly condescending tone used by much of the residents of the Ivory Tower when speaking to the unwashed, (yet Enlightened) that this isn't really much of a war, after all. And it almost sounds like that annoys him.
Snerk.
Well, it strikes me, that if he's annoyed about the Unintended Consequences of the Enlightenment, and how that has shaped the Western Way of War, he's missed an essential conclusion. In this war, we have fused the rhetorical requirements of Enlightenment thought with the rather more pragmatic restraint of pre-Enlightenment forms of conflict resolution. In other words - he should actually be pleased we are conducting this war with such restraint - though I don't really think that's what he's after. In other words - President Bush et cie have managed to break the link, and are perhaps avoiding the Great War paradigm, even as they couch their actions in the rhetoric of the Enlightenment. Enlightened Conflict, perhaps?
Flip side - a question I've asked before. Granting that Islamofascists don't necessarily have the capacity (an arguable point on the issue of economic impacts of a successful nuke/chem/bio attack on Wall Street for example, but I'll accept the point for argument's sake) to constitute an existential threat to the United States, neither did Adolf Hitler when he sent his Army in to re-occupy the Rhineland. If Daladier had acted as he was authorized to under international law - and kicked the German army out of the Rhineland, and Hitler had fallen from power - what would the verdict of history be? Don't assume it would be a sigh of relief. Because WWII would not have happened as it did (though there still would have been a war in the Pacific at least, and who knows what the Soviet Union might have done in the late 40's and 50's had WWII in Europe not occurred as it did) would not Daladier most likely be reviled for stepping on the legitimate aspirations of the Germans? Vice the man who saved Europe from a 7 year Urban Removal Project?
One of the great problems with history - what looks so neat and tidy after the historians have parsed it all out was never *nearly* that clear to the participants who had to make their decisions based on the incomplete information that they had at the moment. It is one of the conceits of historians that gripes me the most - the smug "but of course they should have done this" aspect that derives from perfect knowledge.
As I said - you should read the good Professor's whole piece, alone, without my interjections. I just find it interesting that he and I look at roughly the same data set - but interpret it differently.

Afoot with the Artillery Photo by Staff Sgt. Bennie Corbett January 26, 2007
A curious Iraqi child observes Sgt. Ilhoo Lhondohomoilhoo of the 2nd Battalion, 15th Field Artillery, 10th Mountain Division.
I admit - the good Sergeant's name tickles me.
For a view of Dr. Bell's Op-Ed (and the right-wing reaction to it) from the Left - go see The Mahablog. Read all the way through - there are points worth pondering there.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... »
Afoot with the Artillery Photo by Staff Sgt. Bennie Corbett January 26, 2007
A curious Iraqi child observes Sgt. Ilhoo Lhondohomoilhoo of the 2nd Battalion, 15th Field Artillery, 10th Mountain Division.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Professor Bell also misses the larger cultural issue here:
Just how are we to resolve conflict with pre-Enlightenment, medieval, radical Islam?
In his condescension, he's left out the other half of the problem here.
posted by fdcol63 on January 29, 2007 7:29 AM
John,
I fight a similar battle on a regular basis with many revisionist as well as "normal" historians. I do a lot of work for the NPS CW battlefields, and the one thing that always peeves me is how Dan Sickles was treated by post-war historians for his actions at Gettysburg.
It fascinating to read all these armchair generals say how he "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" this, or "SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT" and of course, hindsight is always 20/20.
My solution was to take copies of his and Meade's correspondence, copies of notes and reccolections by officers and men present, some topo maps, and go down and walk the ground. Read the orders Sickles was given, keep in mind the actions he had seen at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, and then actually walk the ground where he was initially deployed. It'll open your eyes quite quickly and you'll understand completely why he did what he did. Any competant officer would have done the same.
Anyway, good article. I agree with you, btw, and draw similar conclusions.
Respects,
posted by Gwedd on January 29, 2007 8:18 AM
fdcol brings up a great point-the enemy we are fighting is pre-Enlightenment, at least in their worldview. Add to it the fact that they really are a death cult, not just criminals (though they are that, too), who view death in battle against us (or even death just blowing up a few of our women and kids) as the highest possible good.
And the good Professor omits one other thing: we made the mistake once of not taking a megalomaniac, Hitler, at his word-you alluded to it when you spoke of the Rhineland. Tens of millions died, and tens of millions more conquered before we cleared up the problem. Anyone who read Mein Kampf and took it serious could have predicted what Hitler was going to do in time to stop him, but nobody did.
Now we have a madmen who want to kill us, and establish the most repressive theocratic regime ever seen on this planet. We know they've been doing everything they can to get terrible weapons to do it with (though I think they gravely misjudge the consequences of using such weapons).
Can we afford not to take them at their word?
posted by
Heartless Libertarian on January 29, 2007 8:29 AM
Wow... You know that is a fine piece of writing by that fellow. Really, no kidding. Given where he went he did a nice even handed job. Good for having a real, honest debate about the things he covered... And I agree with some of what he said (a very small some, but some), in fact, by about 1300 on 9/11 I was in a serious argument with one of mycoworkers about exactly that. My point was that the bad guys hadn't really hurt us as much as everyone was screaming about--not really. not hurt the same way as Bell points out anyone else inany other war... However (and that's a big however), he did miss the point, as you said. And so had my friend...
The size of the war doesn't matter, the size of the battle doesn't matter... Pearl Harbor did less real damage to than US than 9/11 in human terms (fewer people, almost all military), and THAT wasn't even the United States.
What made 9/11 something to nuke another country over (and I would have been all for that on that day, regardless of how anyone else feels) was two things:
1) It was my damn country and those people were MY national family, and I don't give a rat's a$$ if that many people died a week on our highways, no person or country on this planet gets to take that many American lives intentionally, and get away with it. Ever. If other nations or peoples want to kill one another, or have wars among themselves, that's fine. They can have at it--kill each other all they want--but my ancestors came to this country to get away from all the sorry, murderous, evil people on this planet (and YES, a lot of them WERE european--don't even get me started on that), and those people damn well need to stay where they are and not bring their evil here, 'cause our ancestors may have 'run' away individually, but once they got here, they became part of a family that stands together against the world. Ronald Reagan said it best:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
AND
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness."
And 2) Primal though it may be, war is not going to end anytime soon, at least not in our lifetimes, which means our nation--a free nation--has one choice, and only one choice: to be ready for war and to make war as often and as violently as necessary to keep the wolves at bay, to show the evil people of the world that they can challenge us, but they ought to expect to die for doing so. I personally have no problem with some primal urges. And as far as I'm concerned the reason we're having problems in Iraq is that we have been far too PC, far too concerned about hurting people's feelings. We should have taken care of Sadr a year ago or more, for example. We are always too nice to start, and it always costs us in the end. That's what the liberal dirtball whitehouse-burning Democrats just don't seem to get! Again, to Reagan.
"Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act."
As is absolutely right! Bell's piece is good for the debate, but not something anyone should give more than coffee house consideration to....
'Nuff said.
[you know, I sure do miss hearing Reagan--a lot. And I sure wish he were running things now. It's almost like you just know he could make it all right]
posted by
SangerM on January 29, 2007 8:54 AM
Basically, he's saying because they didn't succeed in their over all aims, we should have been more forebearing. I say "didn't succeed" and "over all aims" because no one can look at the intended targets and imagine that the original attack did not aim to actually do exactly what all other conventional wars intend to do: destroy the government and defeat the country.
I am still amazed that so few folks get the whole picture or understand exactly how damaging the attacks would have been had Flight 93 made it to DC or the plane attacking the Pentagon been able to penetrate further. Each target was designed to do exactly what all warfare intends to do: destroy the economic, military and governance capability of a state.
Total success of any one of these three objectives would have brought this country to a stand still or total collapse for years to come.
In retrospect, the Japanese attack was even less devestating, having only intended to destroy naval capabilities in the Pacific. This attack succeeded, but not completely as the carriers and several other ships were not damaged. It simply changed how we fought naval battles. It did not have the ability to change or destroy our government, though it could have resulted in deterioration of our economy. Yet, I don't hear anyone saying we should not have retaliated against the Japanese.
But, in the long run, this is simply anti-war rhetoric wrapped up in some intellectual schlock. As for whether the enemy has the "capability" as it is understood to destroy this country (ie, no conventional army, no tanks, air force, navy and, to date, no inter-continental ballistic missiles) completely missed the entire point of the attacks. The use of our own air planes against soft targets was meant to show that they did not need those "capabilities" to defeat us.
Not only is Bell's argument "intellectual schlock", it's also disengenuous to a degreee that it's almost criminal.
posted by kat-missouri on January 29, 2007 10:07 AM
More absurd is the "logical" conclusion from Bell's vehicle accident scenario - that we should be able to tolerate 40,000 deaths per year from terrorist attacks before we can avoid "overreacting" and take adequate countermeasures.
posted by fdcol63 on January 29, 2007 10:52 AM
Actually, Kat, they exceeded their goals. They had no reason to suppose the WTC would collapse, nor could they have expected the DC crashes to do much more than they did (though we don't know if the other was aimed at the White house or the Capitol--I'd bet on the latter--and doesn't that ever set me up for a conflict, eh? well not really, but you know....)
Anyway, it's not that 9/11 did not achieve its aims, but that it achieved them too well. While it is reasonable to suppose Bin Laden was an idiot, I don't think that's true. He may be nuts, but he could not possibly have expected the US to react as it did or he would have been hiding a lot better when it happened... No, I think he meant to do us harm, build up some more cache by counting some more coup, and that we would be pissed, but not enough to invade Afghanistan. Of course, I think he underestimated our ability and willingness to start killing lots of people in return, but even so, I really don't think his intent was to provoke the U.S. into war. If it was, then he miscalculated about how much we could do and how fast, and how much support he was going to get from the rest of the craven of the world... he should have known...
And yes, I could be wrong. He may have been hoping for Armageddon. If so, then he got that wrong too.
And as for destroying the economic, military and governance capability of the US, he couldn't even begin to come close to doing it. Which is the point I was making to my friend that afternoon. If he'd nuked Washington, the US would move on and recover and fairly quickly... Americans are more than capable of reorganizing themselves for action as qickly as need be, and I have no doubt that even if every top level official in washington has been killed and every General, there still would have been someone in a chain of command to step up take charge. And people would have followed and cooperated. At least until the dust settled some... We are not two buildings, or 3, or 4, nor so small a number of people as 3,ooo. This country has 300 million people, and ... well, you know what I mean. Yes, we could have been hurt much worse than we were, but it would take a castastrophe of enormous magnitude--more than just one or two nukes, even--to stop this country dead in its tracks for more than a day or two. Remember, military people and government people spent almost 50 years thinking about how to survive an all out nuclear war. Not that it would have been worth it, but the thinking and the planning was there, and that didn't go away with the end of the cold war, as you know.
And finally, re: intellectual schlock, I agree that his conclusions are wrong--really I do, but I appreciate it when someone just lays on the table a number of ideas and presents them, not as gospel but as thoughts and ideas. I didn't get that he was being a horse's ass, just not really thinking it all through properly...
And as for that, look, I was able to spend more than 6 years in Germany and even come to like the poeple somewhat, in spite of the fact that some of them surely must have helped murder all of my old world relations 30+ years earlier. If I (and lots of other Jews) could work that out, it should be no surprise that reasonable people sometimes answer hard questions in ways that to us normal folks seem just $hithouse dumb.
Z'at make sense?
posted by
SangerM on January 29, 2007 11:42 AM
Professor Bell can't tell the difference between random scrapes and scratches and a bullet to the head.
He also fails to consider nightmare scenarios that are easily within the reach of Al Qaeda. If they got hold of some of Saddam's old stock of weaponized anthrax for example, they could kill hundreds of thousand of people armed with little more than a light plane, a knowledge of prevailing winds and an aerosol dispersal device.
He compares the 3000 lost on 9/11 to the 50 million killed in WW2. The correct comparison is with the 420,000 Americans killed in WW2.
posted by
pat on January 29, 2007 1:23 PM
Yes and no...
Look, I supported the war from the get go, do not have a PhD and I guarantee that I could have used the same philosophical context to justify the war and show why, in all reality, this is not an "over reaction", but a mild, limited action. Which, in several areas he almost makes the same point.
That is why I called it "intellectual schlock" because his theory actually points out the opposite of "over reaction", yet he let his pre-disposition dictate the conclusion, no matter how many times he totters on the line of agreeing with the action.
And, I disagree with the theory that bin Laden simply wanted to provoke us into this "over reaction". That's simply a convenient theory because the attack did not succeed to the extent that he may have expected.
You know, one of the biggest issues I have with this theory is based on a video of bin Laden saying that he had not expected the towers to fall. I think that is BS because 1) they tried to blow it up by attacking the base of the building in 1993 with a giant truck bomb; 2) having learned his lesson, he attacked the towers with two giant planes.
Maybe he didn't expect them to fall down, but he certainly expected them to be severely damaged, possibly burned to such an extent that it disrupted or destroyed the economic functions of those buildings.
What I don't think he had thought out was the changes in technology since his original attempt as well since the plan was first implemented 5 years before. I mean by that to be the redundancy of the servers for these businesses as well as moving the servers offsite, which had just been accomplished/completed about a year before hand.
Had that not occured, he didn't need to bring down the buildings to destroy the economic force of those two buildings. he only needed to damage or destroy the information. And I disagree that this would not have caused a serious and immediate impact. Had information on stocks and shares been irretrievable, it would have shut down trading on wall street indefinitely.
Certainly, this could not "end" the industrial economic capabilities of the US, nor manufacturing, shipping, etc but it would have very likely caused an immediate and long term recession if not a depression. That was his purpose. He stated it quite clearly several years before that the "war machine" of the US was driven by our financial power houses.
In regards to damaging the Pentagon, I don't think that these gentlemen knew how successful or not it would be. No, I don't think he could have totally destroyed our command structure. Yes, we have redundancy built in. That doesn't mean that his aim wasn't meant to directly disrupt the flow of command or weaken it and our ability to respond to any actions. Just because it would not destroy does not mean we should assign some non-specific strategic aim like "provoke us to war" without assigning the actual target a specific purpose.
The Japanese had to know that their strategic act of attacking Pearl Harbor and destroying the Pacific Fleet would provoke us into attack. They simply hoped to have effectively disabled enough of our military power structure to allow them to accomplish their other strategic goals in the region before we regrouped.
that is exactly how I see bin Laden and the 19 hi-jackers. Like you, I understand redundancy would have eventually allowed us to replace even congressional leaders. Unlike you, I don't imagine that the purpose was simply to provoke us into war, but that each target had a strategic value and that value, while obvious it would provoke us into war, was meant to destroy or delay as much capabilities, decision making and monetary flow as possible in order to achieve his goals.
do I think they hoped to take out our government or attacked us because they want to "kill us" or take over the country tomorrow? No. Their first aim was to strike deep at home, disrupt and delay in order to put in effect the second phase of their "war" which I don't believe was an invasion of this country.
However, I do believe the second phase was meant to take over Saudi Arabia and cut off direct oil flow.
You know, these are all classic tactics of war. I don't see why people don't see that or can't believe that this fellow, having hands on study of tactics and strategy as a Mujihadeen in the Afghan/Russo war, would not select his targets with more in mind than "provoke us into war".
yes, I am simultaneous saying that it was very good strategic concept executed in the face of a serious failure in intelligence as well as false assumptions. he literally said, on many occassions, he believed the US would not respond without going months to a build up. He has literally said that America was soft and could not or would not re-act if we had to worry about attacks at home. He has literally said that Vietnam shows we have no resolve (I'd love to see somebody replay that interview a few times to buck up the waffling public).
I believe he did not know that the newest technology and actions to protect information would prevent the towers attack from succeeding (to the extent he expected it). I don't think he completely understood the nature of redundant government or military command (since many a mujihadeen band disbanded or were absorbed when the main charismatic leader was killed as well as the top heavy arabic militaries, as he would be familiar with, does not allow for redundancy).
However, again, I don't think he had to "destroy", to the last brick or person, the entire set of targets to achieve the expected outcomes, which, I respectfully disagree was some simplistic "provoke us to war". I think that does not give the enemy enough credit, actually.
*didn't clausewitz say to neither underestimate or overestimate your enemy; doing so may lead to immediate disaster - he's so profound, as if you couldn't figure that out without him. On the other hand, maybe that was Sun Tzu?
posted by kat-missouri on January 29, 2007 1:53 PM
I think kat is onto something here. As we all know, the 9/11 attacks had been in the planning stages for years, well before the 2000 election.
I think, based on his observations of previous administrations ... especially Clinton's .... and our anemic reactions to previous terrorist attacks, he had every reason to believe that we would not respond so aggressively to this one.
I have no doubt that Leftists will claim that Gore would have responded just as strongly as Bush did after 9/11.
However, I personally doubt that Gore would have responded as did Bush. I personally really doubt that a Gore administration ... or ANY Democrat administration .... would have responded to 9/11 by pursuing an offensive, forward-deployed, aggressive military posture combined with a "multi-faceted" campaign involving all other elements at our disposal.
At most, President Gore would have responded with just what we saw after WTC 1, the Khobar Towers, the African embassy bombings, and the attack on the USS Cole: a "criminal investigation" headed by the Justice Dept and the FBI, and perhaps a few worthless cruise missile attacks on suspected training camps and al Qaeda leadership positions.
We would never have seen a military invasion by ground troops in Afghanistan. If you doubt this, go back and re-read Victor Davis Hanson's articles on NRO during the run-up to our actions in Afghanistan, and refresh your memory of the leading Democrats' and other anti-war advocates opposition to any military action in Afghanistan. We were warned ad nauseum about the "brutal Afghan winter", the failure of the British and Soviet adventures there, and the nightmare of the impending humanitarian crises ... all of which never occurred.
Bin Laden miscalculated. But he erred most in believing that Bush 43 would respond as he expected all US presidents to respond, based on his observations of previous American presidential administrations, including Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton.
His goal may have just been to gain TIME by crippling and delaying our response just long enough to accomplish his next step .... perhaps other actions in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to disrupt oil flow, or perhaps other actions in the Middle East to further inflame the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
However, Bush's aggressive and offensive posture led to a wider war against al Qaeda and the removal of his safe-haven in Afghanistan that he did not foresee.
I for one thank God everyday that the US Senate failed to convict and remove Clinton from office. This would have probably ensured that an incumbent Gore would have prevailed in 2000, without any need for RECOUNT, RECOUNT, RECOUNT or any US Supreme Court decisions.
posted by fdcol63 on January 29, 2007 2:44 PM
People die in war. Millions have but why single out war.
6 million Jews died in the holocaust not in battle but by genocide.
Millions died in Stalin's purges.
Millions of Ukraninans starved when the soviets started the collectives.
Millions died in China during the cultural revolution.
Millions of Cambodians died in Pol Pot's "re-education" camps.
How many Irish starved in the potato famine?
Million's of Armenian were starved by the Turks
Sure, millions have died in the clash of arms but millions have also died by the stupid or ruthless exersize of political power.
posted by Tbird on January 29, 2007 2:56 PM
An article about 9/11 failing to mentioning Islamic fanaticism is just as empty as talking about 9/11 without ever mentioning America.
posted by Dave on January 29, 2007 4:06 PM
Kat,
First, we do not disagree on substance, just debate points, ok...
Second, Bin Laden's attacks on those towers was like a little boy walking up and kicking a grown man in the shin, maybe like flicking his ear real hard. I was not talking about redundancy (though I am certain he had a clue, or if not him then one of his very smart advisors did), I was talking about the simple fact that he could have killed all 50K people in that building, and destroyed everything in it 10 or 15 YEARS ago, and it still would not have been the kind of calamity that would bring the US to its knees. He could have leveled the Pentagon and it would not have brought the US to its knees, he could have put a nuke on the Washington monument and just the same. I was not arguing about the extent of the damage, or the strageties of war, I was talking about something a bit more vital and important...
Consider: The Russians never figured they could do us in or they would have.... They never figured they could take over western Europe or they woud have tried. China's jsut the same... They tried to take over Korea but they ended up getting the snot kicked out of them then (once we got down to buisness) and if you think they would wait one day to take Taiwan if they thought they could do it, you don't understand the situation.
The fact is that the US is not the reigning superpower because it says it is. It just is. The stats are incredible, there is NOT another country that can match us anywhere, nor any combination of countries that might want to, including those in western Europe.... And I am not just talking about arms. For example did you know that compared to other countries, the US still imports a great deal less than it uses. We are not nearly as dependant on the rest of the world as they are on each other or on us. You wouldn't think so, but it's true.
See you are talking about bin laden as if he were a real army, with all the resources of someone like France or the UK or... well, there aren't many more. Certainly not any other Euro countries or Asian countries that can do force projection (though India is looking to move that way in teh future, I think), etc... Yes, Bin Laden could do great harm with anthrax or nukes or small pox, but the sheer size of this country, and the power of it, is truly beyond his ability to harm in any real serious way. It was true in 2001, and it's doubly true now.
And then there's this sad but true fact: Americans may have forgotten how to deal with thousands of dead at one time, but we can do it. It's been done here before lots of times (these are US killed or missing, not wounded):
Battle of Antietam 1862, +/- 4,808, 1 day
Battle of Gettysburg 1863, +/- 7000, 3 days
Battle of Chickamauga 1863, +/- 3,970 2 days
In fact, in the Civil War alone about 620,000 Military (both sides) and 50,000 Civilians died because of the war. Which comes out to about 170,000 killed a year for 4 years. The number of wounded was orders of magnitude more. AND the country was about half the size, and the total population of the country in 1860 was only about 31,443,321, which means that the percentatge of the population killed in 4 years was right around 2%. In todays terms 2% of the population would be around 6,020,000! Can you imagine!?
And later,
WWI, Meuse-Argonne (26 Sep-11 Nov 1918): 26,277
WWII, Pearl Harbor, 1941: 2,403
WWII, Normandy (6 June-19 Aug. 1944): 9,386
WWII, Okinawa (1 Apr-21 Jun 1945): 12,520
WWII, Tarawa (21-24 Nov. 1943): 1,000 [note: of the 5,000 Japanese, all but 17 were killed]
(jeez, the magnitude of this is really hard to take when you think about it...)
And not in war? Among many others:
1900 Galveston Hurricane: 8,000-12,000
1901 Heat Wave: 9,508
1906 SF Fire & Earthquake: >3,000
1980 Heat Wave: 10,000-15,000
1988 Drought/Heat Wave: 5,000-10,000
So what's my point? Not at all that we overreacted to 9/11--we didn't, but that was kind of the point of my first msg, which was that there were other reasons for acting the way we did, and should ahve done, but even so, it wasn't the worst thing that's ever happened to the US, and in fact, ranks kind of low on the real damage scale...
As for the rest, well, I too don't think Bin Laden was trying to provoke us into over reacting, but discussions about real, measurable effects of things are always interesting to me...
Anyway, that's just my 4 cents for today... I realize it meandered some, but I'm kind of scatterbrained today.
posted by
SangerM on January 29, 2007 5:47 PM
You're right John, there were points to ponder at the Mahablog. First and most important point: can this country protect itself while lumbered by the Fifth Column it exemplifies?
posted by SDN on January 29, 2007 5:56 PM
I was banned at Maha's for being a "troll" if you can believe it.
I think I may have hit a nerve.
posted by kat-missouri on January 29, 2007 9:55 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jan 29, 2007
|
Global War on Terror (GWOT)
»
Techography links with:
Monday Round Up
»
Blue Crab Boulevard links with:
A Severe Case
»
Dean's World links with:
Have we over-reacted to 9/11?
»
The Queen of All Evil links with:
Overreacting Americans
»
The Jawa Report links with:
9/11? No. Big. Deal.
»
Electric Venom links with:
Things That Make Me Go Argghhh!
Midnight in the Museum
Here's the situation: You're the honcho of a museum full of militaria and, since the neighborhood is full of retirees who started their careers in a horse-drawn artillery outfit, one of your displays just happens to be --

-- an officer's horsie togs from the thirties.
With horsie accoutrements, naturally.

Now, out of the blue, a museum visitor says, "You know what you need? A horse. Want one?"
After determining that the visitor is referring to an equine mannequin (reitpferdequin?) and not a genuine oat-burner, you say, "You betcha!"
Two days later, you're the proud owner of a fiberglass horse.

A *red* fiberglass horse. So, you stick your fake rider on your fake horse and it looks like

a dressmaker's dummy sitting on a red plastic horse. Changing your viewing position doesn't change your viewpoint -- it looks like a dressmaker's dummy sitting on a red plastic horse no matter where you're standing...

Okay, it's time to unpack the artsy-stuff and get some trompe l'oiel-ishness goin' here...
To be continued.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
John, how about getting out the old airbrush and making the red horse brown, and maybe add a little skin color to the gray faced mannequin?
posted by
Ledger on January 29, 2007 3:36 AM
AH,
I am not nearly as bothered by the colors as I am the lack of a saddle.
"50 Miles in The Saddle" by MAJ. Asburns.
"Ducking and Covering"
posted by Old Dog on January 29, 2007 4:17 AM
I'm wondering why it isn't falling off or over. Must be the starch.
I'm also somewhat disturbed by one of the hooves.
posted by
Trias on January 29, 2007 5:20 AM
Ledger - Airbrush-schmairbrush. I do things the old-fashioned way. 'Cuz I'm *old*...
OD -- We've got a McClellan saddle. We're cleaning it up because the roof over our vault caved in. Love them plastic lock-bins we store the paper stuff in.
Is it just my lousy connection, or are there only three pix in the post?
posted by
BillT on January 29, 2007 5:52 AM
*fix-fix-fix-type-type-type*
Oh, yeah. Much better now...
No fiberglass horses were injured during the creation of this three-parter.
posted by
BillT on January 29, 2007 6:03 AM
Heh. That rider looks like he's wearing *my* cap.
Everybody but me who tries to wear *my* saucer cap pretty much looks like that.
Without the jodphurs.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 29, 2007 6:22 AM
Trias - Those extensions to the side of the hooves are mounting brackets. It used to be on the second floor of a tack shop.
Heh -- *tell* me "tack shop" is an Ozzie euphemism for a house of ill repute...
posted by
BillT on January 29, 2007 6:45 AM
nice boots...
..and the horse should be jet black, with just a white diamond patch.. and call him "Rienzi".
posted by MajMike on January 29, 2007 8:37 AM
This Rienzi?
UP from the South at break of day, / Bringing to Winchester fresh dismay, / The affrighted air with a shudder bore, / Like a herald in haste, to the chieftain's door, / The terrible grumble, and rumble, and roar, / Telling the battle was on once more, / And Sheridan twenty miles away.
...
/ The first that the general saw were the groups / Of stragglers, and then the retreating troops; / What was done? what to do? a glance told him both, / Then, striking his spurs, with a terrible oath, / He dashed down the line 'mid a storm of huzzas, / And the wave of retreat checked its course there, because / The sight of the master compelled it to pause. / With foam and with dust the black charger was gray; / By the flash of his eye, and the red nostril's play, / He seemed to the whole great army to say, / "I have brought you Sheridan all the way / From Winchester, down to save the day!"
--From Sheridan's Ride
And this one?
"In one of the closing scenes of the war -Five Forks- General Phil Sheridan was personally directing a movement against the Confederates who were protected by temporary entrenchments about two feet high. The Federal forces, both cavalry and infantry, were suffering from a sharp fire, which caused them to hesitate. "Where is my battle-flag!?" cried Sheridan. Seizing it by the staff, he dashed ahead, followed by his command. The gallant steed leaped the low works and landed the federal general fairly amid the astonished Southerners. Close behind him came Merritt's cavalrymen in a resistless charge which swept the Confederates backward in confusion."
V/R
posted by
SangerM on January 29, 2007 9:09 AM
..the same.
..and what's got himself his own statue down at the horse museum for Morgans down in Kentucky.
..a lovely little beastie if i do say so meself.
posted by MajMike on January 29, 2007 12:48 PM
Don't forget the old stuffed equine, neighbors to the Virginia Military Institute, along with his owner. Great man, great leader, wonderful horse. Find a picture of R.E. Lee in the saddle and match that pose!
posted by
John S. on January 29, 2007 3:59 PM
I'd say this fellow looks like he's been drinking (not unusual for cavalry) and has jumped on board one of those grocery store ponies to the amusument of all of his dressmaker dummy friends.
posted by kat-missouri on January 29, 2007 5:10 PM
kat - If you'd seen the getup the dummy -- errrr -- mannequin was wearing before we inherited it, you wouldn't blame it a bit for getting snockered...
posted by
BillT on January 29, 2007 8:01 PM
[quote]No fiberglass horses were injured during the creation of this three-parter.[/quote]
Bucephalus may beg to differ.
posted by Will the Sea Scout on January 29, 2007 9:34 PM
That is just so gay. And I mean that in a bad way. In all possible bad ways.
Stupid dummy!
posted by
Justthisguy on January 29, 2007 10:55 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 28, 2007
The Whatziss from yesterday...
...is proving to be a bit of a poser.
Catch up by clicking here.
Here's a hint.

This, plus answers from yesterday actually provide all the elements you need to pull it together. You just have to be the out-of-the-box analyst...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Geez. I've scared you guys away...
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 28, 2007 12:46 PM
Great, albeit long, video called "Finding the Lewis Gun". A college film project apparently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgBm5HBXx3I
posted by
Dan Brock on January 28, 2007 2:56 PM
Boo-ya!~
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 28, 2007 3:57 PM
All right I'll give it a shot. Shock absorber for the drivers seat of the rare USAF Strykette Armoured Assault Vehicle. It's pretensioned so that the driver is notified of driving habits that passengers would not approve of by driving the center spring loaded plunger into a very sensitive area.
posted by Rod Thorsen on January 28, 2007 5:34 PM
That's the spirit, Rod! If you can't be right, be inventive and entertaining!
Heck, that's half of why I do this...
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 28, 2007 5:59 PM
I initially thought of some type of roll pin, sorta what's in the M1's breech block. After this photo...part of a GAFD (Goofy A$$ed Firing Device)? If French, add NFDO (Never Fired, Dropped Once).
posted by Blackhawk on January 28, 2007 6:12 PM
Seems I posted my guess in the archives. Doh,, Anyway here it is again. A telescopic sight for a Tank gun. Looks very similar to this.
A number 43 Mk3 Firefly scope with the headrest/viewfinder attached.
posted by Steve P on January 28, 2007 6:37 PM
I'll try that link again.
posted by Steve P on January 28, 2007 6:44 PM
Some of you are going to kick youselves (especially one of you) when All Is Revealed...
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 28, 2007 7:52 PM
Oh yeah, that's nice. How about a hint that isn't worse than the pictures... It's probably me...
posted by
SangerM on January 28, 2007 8:49 PM
Ahh, the actual picture or the mental picture. Pardon me while I shutter.
posted by Rod Thorsen on January 28, 2007 9:25 PM
I'd like to be limber enough to kick myself in the rear again.
I haven't had NEAR enough time on the Pole lately. I'm getting out of practice and out of shape, you know.
posted by WereKitten on January 28, 2007 10:33 PM
Ah! I have a scope like that, just the 'standard Sherman' variety, vice for the Firefly.
Which, of course, the Whatzis isn't.
Either of.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on January 29, 2007 6:37 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Here's a thought...
Mark Steyn might agree.
Building on Fuzzybear Lioness' link in the comments:
"It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy," said Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, a White House hopeful in 2008. "It's the failed policy of this president — going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."
So, going to war was still a Good Thing, then Senator? We only opened the campaign "prematurely"? If so - how about the Democrats proposing a plan to *win* it then? Of course, it's easy to carp. Talking heads (myself included) have that bit easy, don't we?
No doubt the campaign (it's *not* a war, it's a component of an overall war) has not gone as envisioned, and that the vision, while broad and expansive, was not undergirt well.
But, since you apparently approve of going to war, just not how - how do you propose to retrieve the situation? We already know about the effective abandonment plans. Are there others, that might lead to a more satisfying solution that is in the national interest?
Or, if full withdrawal is the only option left - and that's all you've got - then say so.
Don't be the mealy-mouthed teller of lies and half-truths you accuse the President of being.
C'mon. Stand and deliver. You keep saying that's what we want. When are we going to see affirmative, and accountable, actions to match the rhetoric?
As I said of Prime Minister Maliki - Actions, sir. Actions.
Let's get some proposals on the table that aren't just rhetorical gambits and let's vote on 'em.
Y'all got the brass ring. Do something with it besides... pose.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I love it almost as much as the "have a nice hot cup of..."
Considering all of the weekend's activities, this is a tonic.
posted by Carrie on January 28, 2007 9:55 AM
What Carrie said. :) Nice!
posted by
FbL on January 28, 2007 10:08 AM
Oh, and here's some more great thinking from that side of the Aisle. Biden says it's not undermining military strategy and using the troops as political pawns/props that emboldens the enemy; it's "failed strategy" that does that. Good to know that the yet-to-be-implemented strategy has already failed. Maybe he's just making sure we don't attempt anything new because if it doesn't work right our enemies might be emboldened--'cause you know if we do nothing then they just relax and start being nice to us. I'm just so glad he's on our side... *barf*
posted by
FbL on January 28, 2007 10:45 AM
Yeah, that probably wasn't the most coherent comment I've ever made here, but like I said in comments on another post: my lack of posting on my blog recently is a public service, haha!
posted by
FbL on January 28, 2007 10:47 AM
Biden's problem...which also afflicts Hillary, Obama, and McCain...is that they're trying to look Presidential while still being Senators.
Personally, I think the two objectives cause enough of a conflict of interest that it should be forbidden.
New Amendment: "No person, while holding any elective office, nor any office of public trust under the United States, shall be allowed to run for the office of President of the United States."
You want to be President? Fine and dandy. But you'll have to give up your cushy government job to do it.
posted by
Heartless Libertarian on January 28, 2007 11:30 AM
I'm looking forward to Biden's next spate of made up family history... I'm amazed that he seems to think everyone's forgotten he was lying about his past to try to get elected. Well, maybe they have, he keeps getting elected, don't he....
Screw him too. I figure it's gonna be Hilary and Obama (he's got to be going for the face time or the VP slot, both work for a young guy), but to be honest, I don't think that combo will work. I don't think Hilary has the chance a lot of people think she does 'cause she's not willing to dump her philandering perjured hubby, and lots of folks like me would vote for almost anyone before they'd see him back in the Whitehouse, no matter who the servants work for.
I'd like to see Newt Gingrich and Rice run together, they just need to call it first if they are going to because that would just kill the demo chance of playing that race card... And man wouldn't Gingrich and Rice be one tough pair to deal with... I think that would make for some interesting politics...
posted by
SangerM on January 29, 2007 3:05 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!