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!

---

Thank Gawd for Godwins Law not that anyone but us old time techie's have heard of it anymore I think

I have mixed emotions on the whole Watada thing. Not that what he did was right, because it wasn't. But rather with how it's being handled. And the argument of Double Jeopardy not applying grates my teeth, to say the least, as I have always been instructed that the Double Jeopardy basis does not and has never applies to military service members.

Times change again I guess. I'm further annoyed because 3rd BDE 2ID was my last unit assignment before my discharge at Ft Lewis. (We were part of the whole upheaval when the Army transferred us from heavy weight to medium weight. Lost our Tanks and got LAV's. I was on Temporary Assignment pending discharge) He's betrayed my boys and I want to know why.

As an officer you lead from the front, no matter what, in my book. You deploy, you make your arguments while serving with your men You make your stand with your chain of command while serving with your men By staying behind while your troops that your responsible for deploy......well I won't go on any further...my PRU is getting cranked up and I don't want that on a lovely Saturday morning.

posted by BloodSpite on February 10, 2007 8:43 AM

---

WTG, Kat! An eloquent and succinct response.

I took at look at the commenters. A quick count told me that about 20% actually stuck to the topic. Interesting...

posted by FbL on February 10, 2007 1:45 PM

---

The Nuremburg Defense (which is no defense at all, as far as the lawyers are concerned) doesn't apply to LT Watada's case.

The legality of a deployment order (or any other type) does not hinge on the particular status of the destination, but on whether the issuing office actually has the authority to issue the order. For example, Headquarters, 3ID has the authority to order LT Watada anywhere on the globe; Finance and Accounting, Fort Lewis, does not.

An illegal (or unlawful) order is one which contravenes the UCMJ or which would be considered a violation of the Law of Land Warfare (the omnium-gatherum lumping the various Hague and Geneva Protocols together). For example, calling artillery on a church -- or a synagogue, or a mosque -- in order to kill or dislodge a platoon of enemy troops is not unlawful; doing it solely in order to cow the locals is.

LT Watada did not refuse to obey an illegal order, he disobeyed a lawful order.

Period.

posted by BillT on February 10, 2007 4:36 PM

---

Godwin's Law? You trying to shut off discourse or something? Are you some kinda Nazi?

posted by Justthisguy on February 11, 2007 3:52 AM

---

Bah :)

posted by BloodSpite on February 11, 2007 7:38 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Paris Gun

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on February 10, 2007 2:50 PM

---

"After confirming the Jawa's uniform allowed him to roam the Orc encampment unquestioned, Frodo proceded to secrete the Ring within one of Sauron's suppositories..."

Oh. *Not* a caption contest. Sorry 'bout that.

German 170mm railway gun.

posted by BillT on February 10, 2007 3:48 PM

---

Actually, I think not. Among other things, the barrel is both too thick and too short, and doesn't have the cantilever bracing.

The original caption for the picture describes it as a break in shooting the "langen Mar" (yes, Mar, not Max) while the cannoneers calibrate and "abrade" (abgerieben) the projectiles. In context I'm guessing they are cleaning the projectiles or, since these guns wore so fast the rotating bands were deliberately made large so they could be shaped according to barrel wear.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 10, 2007 3:55 PM

---

Snerk. It's not a whatzis, either. Yer both wrong, but now I won't id the gun. I'll let you all figure it out. Not that I didn't give it mostly away, I haven't googled it, either.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 10, 2007 3:58 PM

---

I still say it's a rail gun, and pert' darn close to 170mm.

Judging by how far the landser's coal scuttle droops (it's pushed back on his head and he's gazing down at the obturating band), that guy's no more than five-foot-two...

posted by BillT on February 10, 2007 5:13 PM

---

It's bits and pieces may be hauled by rail, but it's assembled into a circular pit.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 10, 2007 5:17 PM

---

170mm!!!? That's only a bit over 6 inches! Look at the width of that shell; it's damn near as wide as the shoulders of the guy polishing it.

It's a 380mm S.K. L/45 in Eisenbahn-Bettungs-Schießgerüst auf Bettung. Nicknamed Wotan. Didn't have to use google-fu, just turn around and grab my copy of Kosar's book on RR guns of the world.

posted by Jason Long on February 10, 2007 6:22 PM

---

Concerning the gun above; the one in my neighborhood isn't quite as big. "The Largest Museum Display Item Is A German 1917 Krupp 210mm Lange Morser (Howitzer). The only one in the world where everything moves as it did during World War One." It belongs to the 'Battery Corporal Willis S. Cole Military Museum' about a mile fom my house. The owner used to bring it to Ft Lewis for Armed Forces Day, but it has been sitting in his front yard for several years now. I'll have to get a picture of it.

posted by Martin Morehouse on February 10, 2007 10:06 PM

---

Are you sure that isn't Rick Moranis from the movie SPACE BALLS next to that shell?? "May da Schwartz be wid you!"

posted by LarryK on February 11, 2007 1:15 AM

---

Look at the width of that shell; it's damn near as wide as the shoulders of the guy polishing it.

He's a gunner with the Kaiser's Dverger Brigade.

*fiddling with split-screen magnifier*

Okay, it's a rail gun in a roundhouse. Without the roundhouse.

*fiddling with brain*

Okay, I didn't google that "Wotan" bit (I'm being a stubborn bassett), but John's circular pit hint and a closer squint at the cradle (which looks akin to the type we used on the "disappearing guns" at Sandy Hook) is nudging me into the Coastal Defense aisle.

I just realized that guy at center front is wearing an early attempt at a stealth uniform. He's got the hood back over his shoulders, though, so his helmet isn't concealed...

posted by BillT on February 11, 2007 7:43 AM

---

Looks like a german railroad gun. From the uniforms it appears to be WW I vintage. Me thinks a little photo-manipulation here. If the soldier standing next to the shell isn't a midget, say average height, the distance between his wrist and fingertips would be about six inches. That would mean the shell would be from 14 to 16 inches in diameter or up to 400mm. The point of the shell appears to be solid with no evidence of a fuse. AP? but what would the German's be doing firing AP rounds from a railroad gun. Could be a 14 or 16 inch shell for a battleship battery super imposed on the photo.

posted by Tbird on February 11, 2007 4:10 PM

---

Tbird - the pic is untouched, at least by me, I've seen it many other places, and never seen anything that doesn't have the shell. I personally don't have any problem with that shell for that gun.

The Germans had several guns in that caliber range, most of them naval guns mounted on rail carriages.

As for fuzing, rounds like this were routinely base-fuzed, especially if they were intended to penetrate before exploding.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 11, 2007 4:21 PM

---

As for fuzing, rounds like this were routinely base-fuzed, especially if they were intended to penetrate before exploding.

As in "punching a hole in a Dreadnaught class before going blooey."

posted by BillT on February 11, 2007 4:57 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

From Dictionary.com:

dis·ci·pline

1. training to act in accordance with rules; drill: military discipline.
2. activity, exercise, or a regimen that develops or improves a skill; training: A daily stint at the typewriter is excellent discipline for a writer.
3. punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.
4. the rigor or training effect of experience, adversity, etc.: the harsh discipline of poverty.
5. behavior in accord with rules of conduct; behavior and order maintained by training and control: good discipline in an army.
6. a set or system of rules and regulations.
7. Ecclesiastical. the system of government regulating the practice of a church as distinguished from its doctrine.
8. an instrument of punishment, esp. a whip or scourge, used in the practice of self-mortification or as an instrument of chastisement in certain religious communities.
9. a branch of instruction or learning: the disciplines of history and economics.

The italicized elements are the ones that are relevant. Too many people default the meaning to number 3, especially when they think of we soldiers. However, number 3 is but one tool for development of the others - and a last resort tool, at that. The way to get to element number 5 is via 6, implemented via 1 and 2, only going to 3 when the others fail.

Mr. Willingham observed:

As a civilian who never had the slightest inclination to become military, truly I'm puzzled by the subjugation of the ego necessary for the soldier to submit to the command structure, even as a recognize its necessity within that context.

Heh. I'm hardly a drone, the will beaten out of me. Nor do I want to be just a cog in a faceless crowd - I blog, eh? Not the act of someone who just wants to blindly subordinate themselves to the greater societal gestalt. I did do team sports - and captained them, but I also wrestled - and I liked that because it was just me and my opponent. I would win or lose, based solely on my performance on the mat - and if my team mates weren't as skilled or talented - I could still be a state champion, as I was, regardless of the performance of the overall team. Of course - it was still a team effort and we all worked to support each other.

I would observe that in any hierarchical organization, some form of subjugation of the ego is needed, else all is chaos, and working to a common goal is problematic, if everyone insists it be done their way.

It is only a question of how much and to what purpose that are truly in play here. If you take a look at any group of professionals whose work object includes as a primary focus life-threatening emergency situations, you will find some form of organizational structure and discipline designed to maximize, in context, the ability of that group to respond effectively and as safely as possible. In other words, it's a police thing, a firefighter thing, a Smoke Jumper thing, a working on an airport flight-line thing, a NASCAR pit crew thing. Heck, stripping away the danger aspect - it's even a McDonalds lunch rush thing. The forms and needful level of adherence differ, but the underlying premise does not. Of course, bad and weak leaders skew things - whether it's the weak McDonald's manager, or the petty tyrant Captain commanding a company in the assault.

Let's take a look at a quote from Book 20, Military Fundamentals, 1935 edition, published by the US Army Field Artillery School, Fort Sill - if only to show the pedigree of the concept, and that it's not new, nor had the Army been a slave (all sorts of bad examples notwithstanding) to a popular concept of a soul-crushing leviathan out to erase the individual. The guidance here was for young officers getting their acculturation to the nuances of pulling people along, vice pushing them. Yes, this bears on Lieutenant Watada - it is, in fact, the crux of the issue.

Para 196. Object.

The object of military discipline is to create in the mind of the soldier a confidence in himself and his comrades that they may be capable of organized and efficient effort. In military life it is especially important due to the absolute necessity for close coordination under adverse conditions and for interdependence in the confusion of battle. Discipline produces pride of the soldier in himself and confidence in his ability which allows him to surmount any difficulty or master any situation. Without proper discipline a group of men becomes simply a mob incapable of accomplishing an assigned mission. Winning battles requires organized and coordinated effort on the part of the entire force engaged and this coordinated effort can be attained only with disciplined troops. Each arm or service has its particular function to perform and in training its men to play their parts them must be so disciplined that the individual maintains a high standard of service under adverse conditions.

At some point in 2003, Lieutenant Watada both signed a form, and in a ceremony raised his right hand and recited this oath:

"I, Ehren Watada, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

The written form (slightly different) was DA Form 71, 1 August 1959.

This is what Lieutenant Watada agreed to - voluntarily. Without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Nowhere in the document is there a codicil that says "Except when I disagree with it."

And he undertook that obligation as an officer - which comes with greater responsibility, among them the requirement to lead and be an example.

Service members, as laid out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are required to obey all lawful orders. They are required to not comply with unlawful orders. Paradoxically - they could be charged under the same article - Article 92, Failure to Obey, because the the requirement is to obey lawful orders. That can make your head spin if you aren't careful.

Lieutenant Watada asserts that President Bush committed the United States to an unlawful war. This would be a war that the United States Congress, speaking as the voice of the States Assembled, authorized the President to conduct. That makes it seem pretty simple on the issue of legality.

But, of course, it isn't. The Constitution requires that citizens also obey all ratified treaties as if they were laws passed under Constitutional precepts. It is this provision that requires that military operations be conducted within the framework of the Laws of Armed Conflict and the 4th Geneva Convention - so, in fact, military personnel are required to act in accordance with those norms - and can face prosecution, and have - for failure to observe those niceties. Therein lies the kernel of Lieutenant Watada's assertion that his refusal to deploy is in fact lawful because the war is unlawful. I would note, by extension, that this in effect sets the corollary that *every other member of the Armed Forces who has deployed to Iraq, and the civilians who voted to authorize the President to attack,* are, in fact, war criminals - and thus should be subject to prosecution, if his view of the law were to prevail - yet, in a sense, that issue has already been answered for soldiers at his level.

Now, that in fact is a feeling strongly held by many in the anti-war community, though you don't see them screaming to have their favorite politicians of the left who voted for authorization to in fact face a tribunal... no, they'll settle for some symbolic, oh, and btw, generally Republican, heads as tokens to satisfy honor. But I'm in danger of digressing in what is too long a screed already. So I'll pull back from that precipice.

Back to Lieutenant Watada. I agree with Sanger that you can not like the war (I was not a fan of invading Iraq, that evidence is all around in this space), and you can be unhappy that it was authorized - but under most readings of international law, there was sufficient legal wiggle room in the UN sanctions authorizations. The invasion, while perhaps ill-advised, and badly executed in the long-term, and perhaps not even just under Just War theory - was legal, under international norms. The war is legal under applicable US law, no court having yet gainsaid that - giving Lieutenant Watada no cover there. Tossing out Nuremberg isn't useful here as I discussed above - that tribunal was set up to try the senior leaders who formulated the policy regarding Nazi prosecution of, and conduct in, the war. The military personnel below the very senior OKW flag officers who found themselves facing trial found themselves facing trial for very specific acts and policies that were violations of the LOAC and Geneva Conventions. They were not hauled into the dock for simply wearing the uniform and fighting - because there was a clear understanding that the run of the mill German serviceman was, in context, lawfully engaged in the conflict as an individual, that the Joint and Several aspects of guilt or innocence in that regard lay with those who gave and implemented the orders to engage in the conflict.

The Convening Powers had no intention of setting the precedent that each soldier should be subject at that level. Lieutenant Watada in a sense seeks to protect himself against charges that, should his view prevail, should properly only be laid against President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, the Service Secretaries and the Joint Chiefs. Conceivably, also Secretary Powell and the NSC. Since the issue of the legislature was moot in Nazi Germany, the culpability of the members of Congress voting for or against the war would be a new wrinkle.

All that just above here is mostly academic and me thinking out loud and losing focus.

All of this was explained to Lieutenant Watada - probably more clearly and concisely than I just did. He did not accept that answer. Therein lies the precipice from which he jumped, and which constitutes the bulk of my non-support for his action.

The issue is one of whether or not the officer corps gets to pick and choose what it wants to do, outside of the specific provisions of the Constitution, UCMJ, LOAC and Conventions. The law on the subject is really pretty clear, and soldiers get plenty of instruction in it.

We don't get to make those choices, except in the context of applicable law and regulations governing the military, and the admin regulations that govern release from service. We certainly don't get to pick and choose and keep our commissions, obligations which all officers freely accept. Even in a draft-fueled Army. (Well, one exception - we did draft doctors, who were commissioned.)

And frankly, even less so in wartime.

Add to that Lieutenant Watada has chosen to take the fight public, while still wearing the uniform. And saying he's got no problem with war in general, but he's going to pick and choose which campaigns he will allow himself to be assigned to. This is not how competent Armies are run.

It just doesn't, nor can it, work that way. When he chose to go the "cause celebre" route, he lost most of my sympathy, simply because those of us who control the implements of lethal force, in this society, subordinate ourselves to the civil authority. And surrender, knowingly, some of our civil liberties - to better protect the civil liberty of society in general.

It is not for serving officers to openly second-guess the President, the Secretaries, and the Congress. Lieutenant Watada apparently feels he's in the right, and he's going to do that anyway.

He's thrown the dice. There are some that see him as the little boy pointing out a naked Emperor. And there are those who fervently wish that to be an outcome of this, in a sense.

If that's how it plays out - beware sowing the wind, lest ye reap the whirlwind.

Ry's comment in the Legal Updates post actually summarizes my feelings on the subject pretty well, and with a lot fewer words.

Walker said:

Personally I'm inclined to honor him all the more for taking a more public and blatantly political option.

Walker - you really, really, really don't want the officer corps to start acting out like that. Down that road lies ruin. It is the place of the Congress to do that. The place of the people acting individually and in concert to do that - but it most emphatically is *not* the place of the people commanding the troops to do that.

One of the veiled references in the comments was ghosting me.

There are some around here who might just have similar experiences with other deployments.

I did not like the precedents set by the Kosovo conflict, and I most emphatically did not like the prosecution of it - and I had my role in it. But it was also my duty to obey the lawful, if distasteful, orders given me.

So I did.

As should have Lieutenant Watada. If he wanted me to honor him, he would have resigned before waiting to see if he was going to Afghanistan (of which he approves) vice Iraq. Or, he would have done his duty, deployed, done his best to take care of his soldiers (his greatest responsibility), come home, resigned, and stood tall against the war. Those are all honorable constructs. What is effectively open rebellion against the civilian leadership of the Republic is not, in this context, honorable. The arguments Watada makes against Iraq can apply to Kosovo. Would you have been as supportive of Watada had he refused to participate in the Kosovo campaign? If so, then you are at least consistent. If not, you let your politics trump your ethics (btw - that's a general comment, and not one aimed at Mr. Willingham.).

I give him credit for taking a stand, and in such a way that he'll potentially pay a price for having done so, and I have not really attacked him personally in this space. But I think it's a bad precedent to set. And I don't think it's heroic. I might have handled it differently, myself, but I wasn't the I Corps commander, so I didn't have all the information he had when the how to proceed decisions were made.

Sheesh. This thing must end somewhere. So it will end here. Good thing it's Saturday, it ain't gonna get read much.

Okay. I couldn't leave it alone. All my argument above is actually hinged on Watada's words and actions. Bill, in a comment to a different post, lays out what is likely to be the Army's case (and which I was alluding to when I suggested Watada should have taken a different approach to things).

The Nuremburg Defense (which is no defense at all, as far as the lawyers are concerned) doesn't apply to LT Watada's case.

The legality of a deployment order (or any other type) does not hinge on the particular status of the destination, but on whether the issuing office actually has the authority to issue the order. For example, Headquarters, 3ID has the authority to order LT Watada anywhere on the globe; Finance and Accounting, Fort Lewis, does not.

An illegal (or unlawful) order is one which contravenes the UCMJ or which would be considered a violation of the Law of Land Warfare (the omnium-gatherum lumping the various Hague and Geneva Protocols together). For example, calling artillery on a church -- or a synagogue, or a mosque -- in order to kill or dislodge a platoon of enemy troops is not unlawful; doing it solely in order to cow the locals is.

LT Watada did not refuse to obey an illegal order, he disobeyed a lawful order.

Period.

� Secure this line!

---

Heh. Stunned everybody to inchoate melancholia...

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 10, 2007 1:54 PM

---

Not stunned...was actually writing a similar post (thank you for pointing out some specifics) that was equally running to the long wind.

One of the essential points I made at Huffington in the comments (though, lord knows if it will be posted) was this:

What you [e.g. commenters at the Post] are asking the courts martial (military court) to do is to decide on the legality of war, any war for that matter. You and Lt. Watada are basically trying to put the military and its code of justice on par (equal to) our elected government.

Basically, in the heat of the moment, in your aversion to the Iraq war and this administration, you are willing to throw out the very basis of our government and the checks and balances instituted by the Constitution. You are betraying your liberal principals and demanding that the unelected bueacracy of the military become the fourth "check and balance" against our government.

The courts martial rightly, and being more aware of the legal and historical damage to our democracy, refused to hear Lt. Watada's defense on the legality of the war determining the legality of the order to deploy.

If they did allow it, whether they found Lt. Watada innocent OR guilty, they would be by default ruling on the legality of the war, thus giving the military the power of the state in determining what war they will or will not fight.

And that's BEFORE I read your post.

I did add one more point (hyperbolic a bit, but trying to get the point across):

All those who are out picketing and supporting Watada who, after that explanation of the dangers to our democracy, still insist that he should be allowed that defense, are not liberal, democracy minded citizens, but are in fact petty tyrants in disguise rooting for a version of the South American Military Junta.

posted by kat-missouri on February 10, 2007 3:35 PM

---

Some of us are sitting back and waiting in bemusement for the next chapter in the heart warming story. I am interested in how his lawyer will argue the case, based on the legal sources cited in support of the Lt's decision to refuse the order. The laws of war do not state what many people think they do.

The second point would be how he defends his willingness to serve in Afstan but not Iraq. Consciencious objection has generally been an all-or-nothing option, so I am interested in the justification and evidence argued to support his decision. Conscience can be a fickle thing, but if one has evidence supporting such a change, I'm ready to hear it. Especially for the amusement factor.

As for the "arguably ethical course of action" taken by the Lt, I would like to see the evidence. At the moment, I see a young officer who changed his mind concerning the obigation to serve he agreed to, which poses the question of whether he is equally flexible in fulfilling other commitments: how far can he be trusted. Or, he entered into his commitment to serve his country knowing that he would break that commitment at the first opportunity: can he be trusted at all.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on February 10, 2007 4:15 PM

---

Oh, we know me, John. I'm such a middle-of-the-roader squish kinda guy.

I'll cut the kid a rhetorical break because he's a kid. If it was you, or me, or Bill or Dusty in the dock - my take would be far sharper.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 10, 2007 4:19 PM

---

Similar to how I see Thomas's retraction as a legal manouver not hoping to get acquital, but hoping to get a lesser sentence, I imagine that Watada's attornies will put him on the stand and,over the objections of the prosecution and orders of the judge to the contrary, will try to get in a few licks about his concience, the legality of the war, etc.

Then the attornies can appeal any "guilty" decision by the jury, claiming inappropriate instructions, inability to provide Watada with the proper defense because it was not allowed, the prejudice of the jury (being warmongering soldiers), etc, etc, etc.

Until, as John pointed out, either the military gives in and gives him a lesser sentence (ie, not dishonorably discharged) or they have made it a giant mess in the media and forced the appeals all the way to the Supreme court who they hope is still liberal enough to try the legality of the war through a de facto ruling on appeal.

Either way, it is completely political in nature, thus I have little sympathy for Watada. In fact, I feel none at all. In fact, I am completely disgusted by him and his cohorts because they are willing to bet the future of our democracy on this one moment.

I suppose, like John, I am a little disgusted at the military commanders, too who did not summarily demand his resignation and let the little show boat go on his way. Except, I can understand to some degree that the same thing that drives them to NOT allow the legality of war to be brought within the courts martial regarding obeying an order, would also see them insisting that objecting to being sent to a particular front of the war (when not a concientious objector) is equally heinous and damaging to the order of the military. Thus allowing officers to pick and choose where they will be sent.

So, to ameliorate the potential for future pain from military governance and lack of order, we will just have to suck up all this stupidity, wait for Watada to be found guilty and make him the anti-war poster boy from the military (a la Sen. Kerry) in order to protect the future from our wants and desires of the immediate time.

Giant sigh.

posted by kat-missouri on February 10, 2007 4:36 PM

---

When I see the HuffPo and other places taking Watada's side I can't help but see red. How many hundreds of officers are there? And not many, if any others, side with Watada on the side of real illegality(vice just icky, and stupid, and shouldn't have been done by that crazy bastiche Bush)?
It's ad hoc-ism gone amok. I hate that. Anything that works to stop the war becomes fair game. Like the jackalopes in Berkeley who tried to close down a port in Oakland---that was doing logistics for the Afghan campaign---who complained when sand bag cartridges were fired at them when they wouldn't allow the police to escort them off and fought back(they violated our civil rights!). I hold little truck with such fanatacism.

ANd I used fewer words than you Big Guy? Now that's a vile slander. Brevity is for the weak. ;)

posted by ry on February 10, 2007 4:39 PM

---

I meant no implication of "squishiness", I would like the Lt stand up and explain, amongst other things, his ethical reasonings. He's passed the age of accountability, he's old enough to vote, he has taken a public stand: let's hear what it is, give him the opportunity to defend himself. Perhaps he has developed an authoritative explication of "just war"; we need to hear it, especially the distinction of Afghanistan vs Iraq. And if this was a set-up from the start, let's hear about that. Give him the rope ...

No comments on his MOS, this time.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on February 10, 2007 8:25 PM

---

John, "Why am I not supportive of making Lieutenant Watada a hero?...Because you don't want to encourage the military, in general, to openly and defiantly question the civil authority."

According to that logic, no one should ever question civil authority.

How do you square that with the entirety of American principles, values and the constitution?

posted by cliff on February 11, 2007 12:51 PM

---

C'mon Cliff. If you can't see the difference between serving soldiers and the citizenry in general, well, I simply can't believe you actually read what I said - because your comment really doesn't make sense, especially for someone coming from a progressive viewpoint.

Did you miss the part where I said the appropriate fora are... the halls of Congress, Federal Judiciary, and Public Opinion (wherein lie the Press)? That's where the discussion should take place.

*Not* in company day rooms.

I even talked about Watada getting out and standing tall against the war. How does that square with your comment?

I don't see the logical or rhetorical connection that leads you from ..."don't want to encourage the military, in general, to openly and defiantly question the civil authority." to this: "According to that logic, no one should ever question civil authority."

As for "How do you square that with the entirety of American principles, values and the constitution?"

I would answer that that document, and the Congressionally-passed laws and the Executively directed regulations deriving from them covering the military, have by long tradition and with court sanction been accepted as legitimate restrictions placed on the civil rights of the soldiery. And extra restrictions are placed on the officer corps from which the "Men on Horseback" generally have appeared in the history of the world. So that we wouldn't have men on horseback.

As I said in the first post on this subject - it's not a long stretch from deciding which orders we will follow to deciding from whom we will take orders. They are flip sides of the same coin.

Really, Cliff - I can't believe you meant what you said. Do please explain?

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 11, 2007 1:15 PM

---

The UCMJ statute on “Former Jeopardy”

“844. ART. 44. FORMER JEOPARDY
(a) No person may, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same offense.
(b) No proceeding in which the accused has been found guilty by court- martial upon any charge or specification is a trial in the sense of this article until the finding of guilty has become final after review of the case has been fully completed.
(c) A proceeding which, after the introduction of evidence but before a finding, is dismissed or terminated by the convening authority or motion of the prosecution for failure of available evidence or witnesses without any fault of the accused is a trial in the sense of this article.”

After reading this, I am not sure there will be another trial. It will be interesting to see the defenses motion.

posted by Hawk on February 11, 2007 1:54 PM

---

The rights in the constitution are designed under the assumption that the civil gov't (pres & congress) will use the instrument of law and gov't ESPECIALLY the military wrongly through fraud and secrecy.

It would be nice if all such threats were thwarted in the halls of congress, but the founding fathers knew this wasn't good enough.

Perhaps you're reading of the constitution is through a lens of trust in the system. That certainly wasn't the lends through which it was written.

But lets get real, the administration lied repeatedly about Iraq and continues to lie. And there IS discussion of impeachment, but the real power in THIS country lies with the people and that is why you must support Watada. He is a true patriot.

But more importantly, you should suppor the thousands of officers and vets who ARE speaking out in ways I assume you prefer.

But back to my question. Using this very situation - lies = Iraq = illegal war with compliance of congress - I ask you John, under what circumstance SHOULD a solider ever question civil authority. (if not now)

posted by Cliff on February 11, 2007 3:24 PM

---

Of course, Cliff. I should, nay, must, in your view support the thousands of officers and vets who hold a minority opinion, and ignore the millions of those who disagree with them.

By this logic, whoever loses an election should get the office.

Watada may indeed be a patriot. Regardless, that doesn't make him right.

I don't trust any specific single bit. I do trust the gestalt of the whole. While I was not happy the Dems swept to power, because I believe they are inept and hold many ideas inimical to my personal beliefs, the Republicans had obviously been too long in power. The people, in their clumsy way, issued a corrective.

I don't accept your premise, therefore I don't have to argue it.

But if, for argumentation's sake, I did accept the argument - this isn't a crisis of sufficient severity that the military should start making it's own judgements, except as individuals within the contexts of their contracts. And if that is not sufficient for them, they can take their chances as Watada has.

It doesn't make him right. It doesn't make it a good idea.

Good grief, Cliff - do you really think the Joint Chiefs should just refuse to send any more soldiers anywhere?

Oh, I can see, how in your political worldview you would in fact like that - but then when you or those you approve of occupy the White House and Congress, do we soldiers get to say "Nope, ain't gonna do it." then?

You're missing the point. Just because thus far you haven't won your case does not mean that the military should rebel. Just because you don't like the administration and it's policies, and the Congress that has thus far vetted them, does not mean that the military should rebel.

Or is that what you want, Cliff? Rebellion? Open defiance of the government? That's the path you set yourself on - and asking the people who have the guns and tanks and know how to use them to openly defy the seated government is just, well, dumb.

You may not like how things are going, nor like how fast they are going, but your path in this narrow instance, is the path of ruin.

Nothing you have said moves me in the least. At this time and place, even accepting only for argument's sake your proposition, the situation in no way calls for the military to refuse its orders.

Therefore, I will not support Lieutenant Watada in his quest.

I don't call him traitor, I can see a logic that would call him patriot. But just as I didn't support Specialist New in his crusade against the Blue Beret, I don't support Lieutenant Watada in his assertion that he gets to pick and choose which orders he will obey in this situation.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 11, 2007 4:15 PM

---

John,

Valiant effort. But as with any wrong position (and yours is so very wrong), your argument requires hypocrisy.

Here's the hypocracy:

"I do trust the gestalt of the whole. While I was not happy the Dems swept to power, because I believe they are inept and hold many ideas inimical to my personal beliefs,"

The gestalt of the whole would include majority sentiment of the nation.

The question I'm guessing you've never asked yourself, is would you rather live in a democracy under majority rule despite your disagreement with it? or do you prefer some other form of gov't in which your personal views are reflected?

John, this is a very important question. The former requires far more patience, tolerance, and embraces diversity of opinion.

The latter requires an exercise of power by a minority.

But your first paragraph makes no sense. In all my years of study of the American political system, I have never come across any suggestion that the will of soldiers is relevant to anything. (THAT is in fact the basis of your thesis) Even if you could prove the surveys on troop sentiment wrong AND ignored the plethora of serving and retired officers, any outcome does not translate into the logic "whoever loses an election should get the office."

So either you misunderstood my point, or you are suggesting that the opinion of our volunteer military is somehow relevant to elections.

Lastly, this was a nice bit of equivocation which I think is beneath you.

but then when you or those you approve of occupy the White House and Congress, do we soldiers get to say "Nope, ain't gonna do it." then?

This war is not wrong because I do not like Bush et al. This war is wrong because it is wrong, illegal, and the people who got us into it have committed grave offenses against the American people and a sovereign country.

Do you think for a second I wasn't against the democrats war in Viet Nam?

PS: Yes, I do believe the joint chiefs should speak out and resign. DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND, THEY HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THAT OPTION!

posted by cliff on February 11, 2007 4:51 PM

---

HOist. Own. Petard.
So, if the gestalt(the general feeling) of the military brass is that it isn't illegal, after much thought, and Watada get's told his reasoning wrong by those in better position to know such consensus no longer applies?
The rest of the officer corps is just a bunch of warcriminals then? Since they went along with the 'illegal orders'. Yeah, they're all stupid and unable to think for themselves, particularly those with IQs that are at least 2sigma outside the norm.

Watada is NOT in trouble for questioning. He's in trouble for making political decisions when he got answers he didn't like on matters he is not empowered to make those types of decisions on--for good reasons, none of which have anything to do with the individual soldier being empowered to question authority.

Be careful throwing that hypocrisy charge around here. It tends to boomerang. Must've been BCR and one of her experiments that she forgot to turn off.

posted by ry on February 11, 2007 5:49 PM

---

Cliff, I surrender. I'm just too stupid and ignorant to follow your logic. Bill Arkin was right.

Lieutenant Watada should be immediately appointed to the Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs. The board of IAVA can have the remaining seats.

I'm lost. You win. I quit. I'm simply not worthy for this discussion, so, therefore you are correct and I'm wrong.

And the Chiefs of Service will vote on every deployment order, hell, any order, they get from now on.

That's apparently how a republican democracy is supposed to run.

Cliff - all snark aside - there is so little common ground on this issue that we are at a Mars and Venus moment. You've made your point, I've made mine.

Your world and mine just don't have very many congruencies. So, let's just let it drop until the next thing comes along. I'm tired of jumping sharks.

One last thing: PS: Yes, I do believe the joint chiefs should speak out and resign. DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND, THEY HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THAT OPTION!

Sigh. I've at least met three of these guys. I'm extremely sceptical - and just because you *want* it to be so, you're going to have to do better than simple assertion.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 11, 2007 9:52 PM

---

I told you Cliff was not worth arguing with. But nooooooo, you had to try to reason with him....

He uses big words, specious logic, and he squirms like a greased pig in a wrestling match when pinned on some of his more questionable claims. It is just not possible to find common ground with a person who has no moral compass and no interest in learning. Just making claim after claim, tossing out those that don't hold water (lots of cast-offs on his floor) and forgetting he ever said half of what went by the wayside. And clearly, consistency, accuracy, validity, common sense, and just plain decency are irrelevant.

And see, even though I think it was him masquerading as William (a lot of the same non-logic), he apparently didn't [want to] see my write up about what constitutes illegal, which the war in Iraq most certainly is not. He pretends at being an intellectual, but he's a charlatan, and if you need any further proof, look no further than this inane tripe:

"The rights in the constitution are designed under the assumption that the civil gov't (pres & congress) will use the instrument of law and gov't ESPECIALLY the military wrongly through fraud and secrecy."

Gawd, what utter stupid nonsense. This is wrong on so many levels that it pains me to read it. You know, Cliff's musings are the sort of thing that justify Europeans' bad opinions of America: every self-taught outhouse lawyer in the country not only has the right to an opinion, but feels the moral obligation to air it, and has the insufferable arrogance to expect others to accept what he says as gospel--and then gets offended or defensive when called on it.

You know, I think I'm going to start saving off Cliff's arguments to use later as examples of how truly little so many supposedly educated Americans know about their own government, the Constitution, or the institutions that make up their country.

At the very least, I am going to share some of his stuff with my professors so they can laugh too.

posted by SangerM on February 12, 2007 1:37 AM

---

Um, Sanger, you sure you don't want to rethink this bit about gov't abuses a smidgeon?

Sure, the underlying concept has been warped all out of recognition and had CONSPIRACY! tacked onto it but wasn't one of the reasons checks and balances was employed was to prevent gov't over reach and abuse--and the rise of an Oliver Cromwell? So wouldn't it be more accurate to say 98% crap the way it was used but 2% right(since it is a warping of a basic and true concept)?

Or I could just stfu and hide in the corner. That's working pretty good right now too.

posted by ry on February 12, 2007 1:45 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

The year, make, and model of your old dog would be appreciated. A good number of mechanics have a brand of preference when it comes to what they're working on.

Of course, I don't usually take my cars to a repair place for anything short of advanced troubleshooting and analysis, or warranty work in the case of my new car. I have several freinds who are extremely knowledgeable in mechanics, and I have a good number of skills myself.

posted by Curtis on February 10, 2007 8:14 AM

---

Ry,
I CC'd you on an E-mail to a friend of mine who works at Purdue. He might have a lead for ya.
Got my fingers crossed.

Meanwhile if I can help drop me a line. I'm pretty good with a wrench myself!

posted by BloodSpite on February 10, 2007 9:21 AM

---

Two come to mind, one in Lafayette, the other in Frankfort. Lafayette: Billy Neal's on Kossuth &16th st. Frankfort: Affordable Automotive on SR 28 on the west side of town. Get back to me if you want/need more info.

Dave

posted by Dave on February 10, 2007 10:49 AM

---

Car: 97. VW, JettaIII.
~200K miles. Repetitive oil leak that has become critical. Put a quart in and in twenty minutes she's empty again. Sprays oil all over engine compartment. Most directly at the radiator fan. Nasty rattle that only arrived when the oil problem went critical.
If someone is willing to do an engine rebuild or swap fairly cheap on the beast I'd really be up for that rather than spend lots of time and money hunting for the fault. With this many miles on the engine it's likely all kinds of other things are going to start going wrong too.

Thanks BlSp. Much appreciated. seeing as The Wolf tends to be mechanically inclined(he did some reporting on NASA didn't he?) I'll take his recomendation gladly. I don't think I could get her down to your neck of the woods easily. I'd have to tow, and while I'm comfortable doing that I'd rather not. Never hurts to learn from thru doing, right?

Dave, thanks! That's almost around the corner from me(Brady and Concord). The closer to Tippacanoe Mall the better for me. I must be the only grad student who doesn't live west of the Wabash or on it.
Really, thanks guys.

posted by ry on February 10, 2007 4:20 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

*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!

---

My first thought is........"Who are they polling on this sex vs. clothes thing?" My second is........"Oh well, more for me."

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2007 8:22 AM

---

The Armorer and I have a close friend, Viet Nam vet and past battalion commander (and loyal reader of Argghhh!!)who is very closely tracking casualty rates for OIF. The reason you don't see this stuff in the media is because after 4 years we still have not lost as many soldiers as we lost in an average WEEK during WWII. Every loss is tragic, and every soldier who is lost is a hero. However, we have lost the grasp on what the cost of freedom really is.

posted by Mike Lehnherr on February 9, 2007 9:32 AM

---

Mike (and John), could you guys give him a nudge toward Jimbo?

posted by FbL on February 9, 2007 9:43 AM

---

I just had to brag...

I got linked by Townhall (!!) on a developing news/spin story!

posted by FbL on February 9, 2007 4:14 PM

---

Hellooooooooooo............why is there nothing in this blog today about Gaudalcanal????????

*Slighted history geek slinks off into a corner, kicking fiddly bits out of the way*

And where is JimB? I have to get my own G-D drink! This is not right.

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2007 5:50 PM

---

Oh, I dunno. We might have covered it in the past...

And nothing stopped the history geek from putting up something... or of sending a request to the blogowner.

Whiner.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 9, 2007 6:05 PM

---

Stop calling me names! I'll tell Beth, then you'll be sorry.

I would have posted something, but yours are better. You're older than me.

*crossing arms and pouting*

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2007 6:16 PM

---

You're older than me.

Snerk. Not by much...

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 9, 2007 6:22 PM

---

Princess Crabby strikes again, eh John? LMAO....

FbL= ROCKSTAR!
Just think ya'll.. we knew her when!

posted by AFSister on February 9, 2007 9:49 PM

---

Snerk. Not by much...

But enough.

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2007 10:06 PM

---

Jeez, why are you acting like such a mom,Maggs? (flees in terror of the M&M machine gun BCR said you have hidden in your purse)

posted by ry on February 10, 2007 3:16 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

*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!

---

ya'll sure are quiet today.... *chirp chirp*

posted by afsister on February 8, 2007 2:16 PM

---

AFSis - Been busy trying to stay warm in 7F and 30mph winds.

I knew Debbie Harrison when she was in the Jersey Guard back in the late '80s / early '90s. I *guarantee* she wasn't the mastermind...

posted by BillT on February 8, 2007 7:06 PM

---

If you count contemporary media reportage as proof then there can be no question. It happened.

While I was decompressing with a cold beer in the bar at San Fran International in November '70, one dillweed sauntered over and hawked into it (my best guess is that he did so to impress his equally dingbat girlfriend).

When the medics got there, the bartender (a First Cav vet I'd been chatting with) swore that said dillweed tripped and slammed his face into the edge of the bar before he ever got near me. Girlfriend didn't say a word -- just sorta sat there being a deer in the high-beams...

posted by BillT on February 8, 2007 7:25 PM

---

I didn't write earlier because I was having other discussions, but one of the things my recently deceased uncle said to me about his post-war experience was that, when he got off the plane at that infamous airport, he had to get off on the tarmac. The tarmac was surrounded by a fence. Behind this fence and in plain view were protesters with signs that talked about murder and baby killers. They were screaming it at him as well as spitting through the chain link fence.

I'm sure, had they been able to reach him with the spit, he would have been wearing it. Then, as he walked through the airport, as people walked by and saw him in his uniform, the "hippies" as he called them, were walking by and saying similar things.

Of course, he's dead now so he can't defend himself or this story, but I have no reason to lie. It is this personal experience shared with me, not stories of unknown strangers, that prompted me to insure that our men and women are taken care of during and after war.

The garbage from such characters as Lembecke are simply attempts to ameliorate the worst aspects of the alleged "pacifist" movement who are desperately trying to not appear like hypocrits.

posted by kat-missouri on February 8, 2007 10:12 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Two things:

1) "Secretary Rumsfeld's short-sighted obsession for doing things on the cheap to win his little spat with the senior army leadership over the future role and size of the Army." Although there's plenty of blame to go around, I say any failure in Iraq will fall SQUARELY on Rumsfeld's shoulders, and he should be called to account for that too. It may be too soon to start looping nooses, but I'd say there ought to be one for him at the head of the line. I'm just glad he resigned so that the Dems at least lost that aiming point.

2) This bears repeating a hundred times a day!

"It's a short leap from choosing which orders we will follow to us choosing which leaders we will serve under." This is the key to it all, as I know you know, but which I just can't seem to get some of my school acquaintances to understand. And some of them are the same people who over time have aired negative opinions about the lack of professionalism of most so-called national armies, or who've bemoaned the actions of the Dutch in Kosovo or the French in Rwanda, or who don't understand why coups are so common in so many places.

I think the clearest example of how wrong things can be is Turkey, in which the Military--by design--controls who can and cannot be President, and whether or not one party or another can be in charge (or even exist). Certainly, this arrangement is good for the West because "secular" works for us; however, I can imagine a time when the backlash will create another Iran, especially if the EU rejects Turkey as it looks likely to do... dumb.

As you say, the military works for the civilians. Not always the best or most able or most honorable civilians, but that's just how it is. Of all the issues you covered above, I get the most incensed about Watada. I know this is not an Officer/NCO divide issue, but it is my NCO core that is most pissed off at his gross betrayal of the soldiers it was his MORAL OBLIGATION to lead. I spit on his false morality and haughty self-righteous narcissistic arrogance. I hope he rots in Leavenworth.

posted by SangerM on February 8, 2007 10:56 AM

---

SangerM is right. When officers make spectacles of themselves, it makes the NCOs’ already challenging job that much harder.

posted by Oldloadr on February 8, 2007 11:32 AM

---

I came here specifically to see what you might have to say about the Watada case, because I know you're a thoughtful person generally on the other side of the fence from me. Though I'm pretty much a pacifist, I've got to acknowledge the necessity for nations to have militaries for defense. If you have a military, then I understand the necessity that those who enlist subjugate their opinions to the command structure, otherwise it just wouldn't work. But still there's gotta be a line somewhere. Suppose we attacked Canada over some trivial matter - not that I think that would happen - but at some point a soldier's reason must trump the order he's been given, and if that soldier is showing a willingness to serve jail time over his conscientious objection, then he commands some respect from me, even if I don't agree with his opinion.

Where you and I will disagree is about the legality of THIS war, and I don't have the time or background for that argument. Maybe Watada is showboating, but that doesn't mean he's not got genuine convictions behind what he is doing.

In your opinion what is the line at which a soldier should follow his conscience if it is obvious to him that a military mission is illegal and/or immoral? Think ANY country's military - not just the US - if that helps you grant the possibility that such a case might come to pass.

posted by Walker Willingham on February 8, 2007 1:14 PM

---

Watada got a mistrial because of a paperwork glitch. Don't ya just luv juris prudence.

posted by JimC on February 8, 2007 1:31 PM

---

Mr Willingham,

I don't think you can argue by hypothesis about something like this - there are too many "what-ifs." The fact is the we did NOT attack Canada, which is a peacable ally and democracy. If Watada had been asked to do so, this would be very different. But he was not asked to do so. He was asked to deploy to Iraq, which was led by a ruthless dictator who we beleived possessed, or shortly would possess WMD. Congress voted in support of the military action against Iraq, no matter how they backpeddle now, and the president used his legally granted powers to order tropps into that country. We performed this action with allies.

You might argue that this action was illegal because it was not sanctioned by the U.N., but the simple fact is that no treaties signed by this country have every given away our right to use unilateral military action against another country. We are a sovereign nation, and military action when and where we please (even if hurtful and ill-advised) is one of the perks of such recognition. They do not need to have attacked us first. By this standard, the war isn't illegal, at least not by any standard that we have set by law or treaty, and no one with any authority (congress, the judiciary, etc.) has declared it such, or even attempted to prosecute anyone (in almost 4 years running) for having done so. Congress is thinking about thinking about debating the war, and it's run by anti-war dems, if that says anything.

Enter Watada. Though it is clearly not illegal, I respect the man for thinking this is a stupid war. In some ways, I suppose it is. But disobeying something stupid your superiors tell you to do is not a privilege held by any officer in any branch of the military. That is why he is on trial.

This is not a matter of conscience, or "what-if" we go too far and invade the land of maple-syrup. This is about a soldier, in a situation we all are familiar with, with no ambiguities, disobeying orders because he didn't agree with the policies behind them. That is darned dangerous water to swim, and I'm really glad he's getting punished for it.

posted by J-P on February 8, 2007 2:01 PM

---

"But still there's gotta be a line somewhere."

And there is.
by and large, though many in the Services think going to Iraq was a bad move, they do not find it to be an illegal war. Even the legal eagle types in the legal branches. either they are all wrong or the consensus--minus Watada and Pablo Parades--- is right. If the court holds, and it looks like it does, that the war was legal where does that leave Watada and that 'gotta be line'?

The line's there. Watada finds himself staring at time in a Federal Pen.

In your hypothetical, which leaves a lot to be desired(come on, stealing the plot from Canadian Bacon? Couldn't you at least do Animal Crackers or better still DeNiro's Wag the Dog?), the option of disobeying the blatantly illegal order is there. The JCS can simply quit and inform Congress to impeach----treason and high crimes, that's what involving your nation in an illegal war is.

THere's also coscientuous objector.

You don't get a veto. The individual soldier gets to vote just like the rest of us. Once the decision is made, justly, they have to live with it just like the rest of us.
(and before we start downt he 'WMD being the reason for war' thing again you might want to look at the House Joint Resolution for the authorization of the use of force.)

posted by ry on February 8, 2007 2:25 PM

---

Walker,

I suspect I know how some will answer, but for my part, I don't care what Watada's convictions are. He signed up. He is a leader who has life & death control over other men & women. His subordinates (and BTW, people subordinate their opinions, not subjugate--that was the wrong word in this context)--his subordinates have no choice but to obey his lawful, legal orders. Is it for them to decide which of his orders are legal? Not even often, but sometimes, and only in certain obvious cases, but the soldier had better be right or have a damn compelling reason for making that decision. And I lived under those rules so I understand them. If you haven't, then likely you may not. It's really not that hard, though: Do what you are told unless it is something you know to be illegal. OR request clarification, express your concerns to your superior, then unless you are willing to accept the consequences of being wrong, just do it. In this case, I wouldn't have half a problem with Watada if he would have just said "I refuse, here's why, send me to jail. I accept that as the proper consequence of my decision." But he didn't. He is trying to avoid the consequences by claiming the war is illegal and therefore he has no obligation to go.

Well, I am not the lawyer, but I know two things for SURE:

1) The US invasion of Iraq was NOT illegal, no matter how people try to reframe the conversation or limit the scope (more about that below), and

2) No military judge is going to rule on the legality of the war in deciding Watada's case, BECAUSE the war is not illegal (by any standard of valid interpretation), and because it is not the role of the military to decide what it will do, as long as what it is ordered to do is legal. In other words, the legality of the war is only an issue in Watada's case insofar as it is legal and that will be the conclusion; no matter how he might try to reframe the issue. The real issue is that he violated legal orders and now he's trying to avoid paying the consequences. Maybe he should talk to Mohammed Ali to see how a real man stands for what he believes in...

And as for the legality of the war, here's the real deal. Clearly some people (and Watada is among these) do not really, truly, fully understand the meaning of the word legal, either in a national or an international sense. First of all, legal is not synonymous with just or with appropriate or fair. Legal has a very specific meaning both within states and among them (international states, in this case), and I can assure you that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was indeed legal in both contexts. International LAW did not prohibit the invasion (several chapters of the UN charter can actually be applied here), nor did American LAW, especially considering that Congress voted for it, and no subsequent ruling by any competent justice has declared it otherwise!

Certainly there are some who disagree, but they are conflating legal with just or appropriate or fair, as Watada seems to have mistakenly done. In fact, if you really want to get read-on about this, take a look (a hard objective look) at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (and at all of the Resolutions it references).

While R.1441 may not, itself, explicitly authorize the use of military force, I see nothing in it (or in any other R.) that rescinds the authorization to use force granted in the prior resolutions. In fact, I find several items in the 1441 preamble that lead me to conclude 1441 not only tacitly approves the use of force, but that it also suggests force may be forthcoming and appropriate--or at the very least, not disapproved. Specifically:

1) The Security Council (SC) explicitly "recalls" all of "its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President." This re-establishes the validity of those prior resolutions and establishes intent of the SC to link 1441 to them.

2) The SC further distinctly and explicitly singles out resolution 678, by "recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area." To me, this clearly reaffirms the validity and currency of R. 678, given that at no point elsewhere in 1441 is there any mention of a rescission or abeyance of 678.

3) The SC also explicitly restates that "its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area." This is yet another indication (to me at least) that the authorization to use force is still valid.

4) And then it reminds the world that "in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein." By naming the conditions for cease fire in this way, it seems clear to me that the SC feels Iraq has not met its obligations. This proves to be the case in item 1 of the R., wherein the SC "Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)."

5) And finally, in what clearly authorizes the U.S. and others to attack Iraq once again, the SC reminds the world that the UN is still "determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance."

And just in case all of the above wasn't plain enough (which I guess it wasn't), in item 13 of the R., the Security Council reminds the world "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

-------

To complete this post, the relevant articles of R. 678:

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

-------

I know that a lot of smart people disagree with my interpretation (or maybe I disagree with theirs), but to me R.1441 goes a lot further toward signaling an intent to use force than it does an intent to talk a whole lot more.

And yes, I realize R.1441 called for at least one more meeting to "consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security," but that just feels like is a political sop for the fearful, tossed in there to give a face-saver to those who agreed (but wanted to be able to claim later that they didn't). Basically, I think R.1441 said all that needed to be said, and the only thing left was for Iraq to comply or be attacked again.

And so you see, while it is true that the international community interprets the intent of R. 1441 differently, there was never a question about the legality of the U.S. finishing the job it started in the first Gulf War. Which means the current war in Iraq, while unpleasant and unwanted is not even remotely illegal, either in the U.S or among the nations of the world.

I just wish I were working for the prosecution in this case.

posted by SangerM on February 8, 2007 2:42 PM

---

J-P

This is not accurate: "no treaties signed by this country have ever given away our right to use unilateral military action against another country."

In fact, our accession to the UN was our agreement--legal, binding, agreement--not to use unilateral military force against another UN member except in very specific circumstances. And one thing it definately rules out is an attack by any country against another without clear justification. And yes they do need to have attacked us first, or an attack has to be imminent.

To be fully legal that is... In fact, G.W. Bush's preventive war doctrine is considered by many to be illegal, whereas preemptive war is not, though that depends on imminence. Now the WMD issue has clouded things somewhat, but in fact, the reason our attack on Iraq in Gulf War I was legal by international standards was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, because of which the U.S. did indeed have UN aithorization to lead a coaltion of the willing on behalf of the international community. Now I know that's all a lot of semantics, but it is precisely upon that foundation that the current war is indeed made legal, because otherwise, it would most likely not be, and the international community could indeed take all sorts of punitive actions againt the U.S. for this.

Now here too, I understand how it really is... Just like the 400lb Gorilla who gets to sit wherever he wants, the U.S. gets to do what it wants because it can--but only for a while. Which is why we push hard for other countries to abide by their legal obligations, and it is the framework within which we stay so that we can get other nations to support us by way of sanctions etc.

In other words, we are legally in Iraq today, but not because we're sovereign, but because that legality is encoded in the rules of the UN and the resolutions authorizing it. As I wrote above, it may not be a just war (I'm not convinced this is the war we should be fighting right now, but I also don't have the big picture, so I defer to those who have to take the blame if it turns out screwed), but it is certainly legal. But that is true only because the U.S. did indeed give away its right use unjusitifed unilateral military action against another country. Subtle but important difference.

V/R
SangerM

posted by SangerM on February 8, 2007 3:08 PM

---

Oh and Walker,

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the U.S. attacking Canada. I'd love for Banf and Calgary and Neefoundland to belong to the U.S. And it'd mean I could come home on from the war on the weekends...

Of course, you all could keep Quebec.

:-)

posted by SangerM on February 8, 2007 4:02 PM

---

Looks like Sanger's playin' hooky from thesis writing. Shame, shame, shame.

posted by ry on February 8, 2007 5:10 PM

---

I thought that was a thesis (LOL)

posted by Oldloadr on February 8, 2007 5:31 PM

---

Mr. Walker,

There is a lot being said about the "line" should a soldier or officer disagree with the acts of a superior officer or the orders he is given. There is a chain of command, there is a chain of complaint, there is at least two processes by which Lt. Watada could have acted without going through this public trial should his acts strictly been the acts of a concientious person that objected to the war.

As noted, his first opportunity came when he was given the chance to quit as a concientious objector. Doing so would not tarnish his record, but would put him completely out of the military. If he had any scholarships or other funds paid by the government for him to attend school, he would have had to pay that back.

However, Lt Watada did not want to leave the military as a concientious objector. He did not object to war. He objected to the front/theater he was being sent to. He asked to be sent to Afghanistan if I am not mistaken. This certainly implies that he did not object to war over all, thus he probably could not be discharged as an objector. Whichever, his unit was not being sent to Afghanistan, they were going to Iraq. At the point he no longer objects to war, he has no right to choose which battle he will fight.

The second "line" is that Lt Watada could have resigned his commission. Straight up, if he really did not believe in the Iraq war and did not wish to serve there, he could resign. no jail, no punishment, just a discharge as "other than honorable" and again he might owe the government for any funds or scholarships used to educate him.

He would have to pay that back because the resignation of his commission would mean he broke his contract. The one that said the US Gov would pay for his education in return for four years service.

Lt. Watada did not choose that line either. he may feel that he has a reasonable excuse. He may feel that he is being made to choose between his conciense and his desire to serve and that is exactly what happened. He had to choose and he chose very wrong.

Lt Watada should have resigned his commission. since he didn't and now is trying to make the "legality" of war a matter for the JAG to decide, I can only presume that this is a political act.

On a final note, I wonder if people know how many Nazi German soldiers and lower ranking officers were charged with war crimes at nuremburg?

anybody see a Sergeant on the stands?

Lower ranking officers, ncos and regular soldiers who did not commit specific war crimes, but did take part in the over all war were not prosecuted or punished. the reason they were not prosecuted or punished was because the Geneva conventions actually protect the actions of two armed forces within certain bounds. These Germans were in uniform. They were attacking uniformed opposition. Both sides may have shot at each other and killed each other, but, as long as the soldiers did not commit certain acts (such as hanging, shooting or beheading a bound enemy soldier or deliberately targeting and killing civilians, etc) they did not commit a "war crime", even if the German war had been declared to be "illegal war of agression".

that is because these soldiers acted in good faith, followed legal orders to attack the enemy and applied the law of land war.

Lt Watada's problem here is that he, like many others who think they know about Nuremberg, the claims of "just following orders" and the guilty sentences, totally misconstrue what orders and what actions were being tried. They have, frankly, over extended the meanings and findings of that court and the UCMJ to imagine that officers or soldiers have the right to disobey any order to act or perform a soldiers duty if the entire war can be found illegal. That is very wrong. Nice try for publicity, but completely false.

Even if you could find some august body to declare the war illegal, Lt Watada's actions would still be, also, illegal, because he was not ordered to do anything contrary to the Geneva convention or the law of land warfare. He was ordered to deploy. he was not ordered to shoot unarmed men, women and children. He was not ordered to take their food. He was not ordered to torture or otherwise injure an enemy combatant who was "hors de combat" (ie, prisoner or surrendering enemy).

If a soldier was in barracks during a war that he considered "illegal" and refused to stand guard duty at the gate of the base, he would still have broken the law by not obeying a legal order (yes, even during "illegal war", guarding the barracks is a legal order). If a soldier disagreed with a war then he should act on his concience and resign which he can do as a volunteer. He would still stand duty at the barracks following a legal order, but he could also put in process the paperwork to resign. The proper process to follow when it gets down to the "line". There may be financial penalties including no retirement or other benefits, but we are talking about breaking a contract.

You might be confused but this is a volunteer army, not a conscript. He could leave whenever he wanted following proper procedure. he didn't because he thinks he is a political activist in uniform and, as John said and even the good Senators and other Congress people who told Gen. Petraeus to essentially "shut up", military officers in uniform may not take part in a political action or make political speeches since it is the first necessary step towards military coupes and juntas.

posted by kat-missouri on February 8, 2007 5:32 PM

---

I've not the time at the moment (but I'll get to it, I promise) to answer Mr. Willingham (though I'll probably not be a whole lot different than other opinions here expressed - but a small correction for Kat - Lt. Watada has offered, on several occasions, to resign, the most recent I'm aware of in August of last year.

But I'll try to address some of that, too.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 8, 2007 5:43 PM

---

I should add, now that I brought up German soldiers and Nuremburg, that Lower ranking officers, NCOs and soldiers were given courts martial during and post WWII by allied forces. Some were even summarily shot. But, again, these were for specific acts that could be deemed "illegal", such as the deliberate murder, injury or torture of civilians (not "incidental" or "collateral" as appropos to war, but ordered and deliberate with malice afore thought) or POWs and other specific acts that are against the Geneva convention and the law of land warfare.

But, out of the millions of german soldiers that served, I expect that the number that were actually prosecuted and punished were small in comparison and, again, it was for specific illegal acts.

Had Lt Watada been ordered specifically to do one of these acts, acts that are even considered illegal under the US UCMJ, he may have had a fighting chance. He wasn't ordered to do any such thing. Thus, in legal terms, he doesn't have a leg to stand on, regardless of how much he tries to wiggle his acts into trying the legality of war to cover his own illegal actions.

Lt Watada should have resigned. Then he could say and do whatever he pleased regarding the war without being prosecuted.

That is the "line".

posted by kat-missouri on February 8, 2007 5:47 PM

---

Good stuff Kat!

And waaaaa, I hates thesises, hates 'em I do...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

posted by SangerM on February 8, 2007 6:10 PM

---

Innocent until proven guilty - but if found guilty - this panel member would start from the premise that they get the maximum sentence possible, and their defense team can try to convince me why I should vote for a smidgen less.

Judgement has, in one circle, been previously rendered. Debbie Harrison donated her uniform to the Militia Museum when she originally returned from the sandbox (she collected a PH for a split lip when an IED busted her Hummer's windshield) and it graced one of the Full-Scale Action Figures on the floor for a year. The morning after the charges were announced, *somebody* put a pair of shackles on the FSAF.

The uniform has since been replaced with that of one of the very few current GOs I would willingly follow into combat...

posted by BillT on February 8, 2007 7:51 PM

---

Sanger - absolutely right about the treaties; caught me with my pants down.

posted by J-P on February 8, 2007 9:18 PM

---

I'm heard that the defense is arguing that jeopardy has attached to Watada on this, and there will not be a new trial. That will pi$$ me off, and I hope it doesn't happen.

Anyone remember the timeline? Didn't Watada join after the invasion of Iraq?

posted by Adjutant on February 9, 2007 12:15 AM

---

Commenters,

I've been reading with interest what you've said here. John of Argghhh, I'll be interest to see your response in particular. If you can, drop me an email or a comment on my blog so I'll know to return. Generally I'm impressed with the civility of the discussion here - LGF, it's not. John you keep rigorous standards for truthfulness which I appreciate, in spite of the likelihood that we will often disagree. You imply that at least one of the options that kat suggests Watada had was denied him. Personally I'm inclined to honor him all the more for taking a more public and blatantly political option, given my predilection for exposing what I feel were egregiously abhorrent decisions around when to attack Iraq and how this war has been prosecuted.

Do not mistake me for someone who sees the Islamists as "freedom fighters" or has anything but the utmost abhorrence for the tyranny of Saddam. Ironically his tyranny held the radicals in check, while the UN inspectors (inadequate as they may have been) in conjunction with our no-fly zone, held the worst of Saddam's abuses in check. I have longed for many years for a way to depose tyrants without creating dangerous power vacuums. It seems to me one of the most important things the world community ought to be interested in solving. Sometimes I'm inclined to think that some Swiss bankers have an awful lot to answer for. But I do digress.

In February/March of 2003 "Shock and Awe" struck me as an abhorrent choice. Basically I agreed with Barack Obama's speech of October 2002. Yes I carried signs in my community and was dismayed at my Senators for not crying foul. As a civilian who never had the slightest inclination to become military, truly I'm puzzled by the subjugation of the ego necessary for the soldier to submit to the command structure, even as a recognize its necessity within that context. Bush's choice to invade Iraq when he did and how he did, must certainly have caused personal consternation to many in the military including high ranking folk. That Lt. Watada is the FIRST commissioned officer to take the stand he has in the way that he has, speaks to the power of the military oath which I find quite remarkable.

John, I think you understand the line I was talking about in my original comment which was different than the line some of the other commenters here have taken it to be. Canada was intentionally a ridiculous example, but others could be construed between that and the current war in Iraq. The point of choosing Canada was to separate Watada's choice to refuse deployment to a theatre, from the choice of disobeying a more specific illegal order, which IS clearly defined in the the US UMCJ.

Again thanks for indulging this liberal American with pacifist leanings, who well understands that it's a darn good thing that not everyone is just like me.

posted by Walker Willingham on February 9, 2007 1:16 AM

---

Well, I guess I used too many words... Either that or Kat, Ry, J-P, I were taking different lines than he intended.

Oh well, if nothing else at least we got that illegal war nonsense off the table, but now we're subjugating egos instead of opinions.

Which leads me to ask why it is that almost every person I've ever encountered who's never been in the military (and never gave it a thought) has felt the need to equate Service to slavery. It's almost as if there is a subconscious need for Americans to justify not serving, and that justification comes out as "I would become a mindless drone killing machine, forced to slavishly and blindly obey every trivial and murderous, liberty quashing order issued by people who clearly have no concept of freedom, our the values of a democratic society. And I could never do that...."

I guess too much time watching movies like The DI or Full Metal Jacket without the understanding that experience brings. Or too much faith in the words of people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda.

And see, what'd I say about Obama. All the right liberal pull-toy boxes checked. Now he's being quoted all out proportion to his standing, his experience, his power, etc. Great.

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2007 9:08 AM

---

Oh, and J-P, don't sweat it.

That particular topic was the focus of a week of my life very recently as part of an 11-week discussion about international organizations, the UN, the nature of legal vs. illegal in an international context, etc. That's why I had that info about R. 1441 to hand, etc. Until a month or so ago, I was pretty sure the U.S. would never have done that either. But of course, as you know, the trick is the justification... And that's why Bush kept going back to the UN, I suspect. To push until something was produced that could reasonably be interpreted by the U.S. to mean "Well, if you insist, but we'd rather talk some more, but if you don't want to, well, we guess, ok, ahead...but be nice, ok" or words to that effect :-)

For my part, I am not convinced the word legal applies to a framework of rules all the members of a club agree to, given the members can opt out of the club, and especially considering there is no supra-national sovereign entity that can enforce such laws, but that's how it works for now. And that's why the International Court of Justice concerns me so much. Given too much power, it could start to act as a global supreme court (there've already been "opinions rendered" by some Justices of the ICJ) passing judgment on the actions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Not a good thing for the U.S. IMO.

V/R
SangerM

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2007 9:25 AM

---

Yes, one option Watada had was denied. They didn't let him just quit---resign his comission. That's where it gets murky. He lodged his protest, and like a prayer, found it unanswered to his satisfaction. There are some around here who might just have similar experiences with other deployments.

Watada was told, simply, his reasoning was wrong by those in whom the hands of the decision ultimately lay---and I'm not talking about the civilian gov't. The war was legal. He had a contract. He broke it. Civil disobedience, dating back to Thuraue(I can't spell, so shoot me), means taking a moral stand AND taking the consequences for it. Thuraue went to jail for not paying taxes.

Maybe you see Watada as the Soros character from 'The Thin Red Line'. But again, Soros paid for his stand. Maybe you don't want people who take stands to have a price exacted from them, to be 'professionally martyred'. Particularly when they take stands you agree with(I wish that in my little world of academia.). But there's a difference between saying that what one wants is how it should be and proving it should be the moral standard/way it should be.

And that's what really steams many of us about Watada. He said, 'War's illegal.' People in better position to know explained that it wasn't---and that's where the story should've ended. Uncomforted by that he decided to stage 'civil disobedience' to make his case more forcefully. He lost that game of chicken. Unlike Pablo Parades he showed that he wanted to put the war on trial, Paredes simply took a quiter in house affair and quietly left the Navy. But Watada made statements, inflammatory statements, that have pushed it this far. In the face of everything he's been shown by those above him, who, if Watada's arguments are correct are war criminals who need to be shipped off to The Hague simply for going along with it in the first place(hence, they would've thought long and hard about the legality of it before going--particularly the flag grade officers since responsibility ends with them), claims he knows better. He decided to play to the media. He didn't do what Jackie Robinson did. He went political and took it out of house. As we saw with Robinson and Paredes---you don't get serious prison time for personal conscience stands so long as you keep it in house. Watada gambled. Watada appears to have lost.

I feel for the guy, when I decouple him from everything else, since he's ruined his life over this. He's likely to end up a felon. All because he believed he knew better than professionals with 20+ years of experience with such matters telling him he was wrong. I too have been that stupid(more than once) but have never paid that high a price for it. Sucks to be Watada, but, ultimately, he did it to himself.

posted by ry on February 9, 2007 3:29 PM

---

Lt Col Debra Harrison is my sister. I am disappointed that a fellow soldier would do that to my sister's uniform, and I ask that she be given her day, month, year in court - however long it takes to clear her name.

I fint it interesting that the day after the CPA gets grilled for waste that indictments are brought against these individuals accused. What a coincidence. I only know two of the people indicted. Lt Col Debra Harrison, and her husband William Driver.

She is a decorated officer. She earned her Purple Heart. She was ambushed twice. The second time after her tour in Iraq ended and she extended.

I do know that my sister did not know that anything was wrong at CPA-SC. She was only there less that three at the end as the CPA shut down. She made the mistake of extending her service to help with that process.

Debra broke inside after her second ambush. She was with strangers. She couldn't sleep. She took every pill, and drank every drop of alcohol she could get. She worked to numb herself. She wanted to die, but not in Iraq.

I do know that she was abandoned by the United States when she was told to find her own way home. She received an email telling her there was no room for her on the cargo plane for her return. There was room for every CPA person scheduled to leave from Bagdad, but not my sister and four other soldiers. Yet, part of the indictment against her says she used a plane ticket purchased with CPA money. She did not purchase that ticket, but she did use it. It was her only way out, and she was instructed to use that ticket.

It was so dangerous at that time that the Department of Justice Auditors were too afraid to come to Hillah to go through the papers. They told my sister to bring it all to them in the safety of the Green Zone. No one reported to my sister, and she had no one to report to. The Colonel in charge, Michael Whitehead, was gone, the Comptroller, Robert Stein, was gone. How in the world was she to get that huge amount of information to Baghdad from Hillah by herself. She couldn't do it.

She suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and receives treatment for that disorder through the VA.

Hold off on any criticism of any soldier accused of anything. I know for a fact that the accusations against my sister are false. No matter what the Department of Justice asserts. Keep in mind, they are the same prople who vetted Robert J Stein to be in carge of the CPA-SC operation. My sister certainly didn't know that the man who told her what to do was a convicted felon.

These guys in their double breasted suits and shiny black shoes need to get a reality check.
What hypocracy!

posted by Jan on February 9, 2007 6:21 PM

---

Posted by Jan at February 9, 2007 6:21 PM

Jan! I could hardly express MORE STRONGLY that you do NOT EVER AGAIN post anything like that about your sister anywhere in public, unless you are trying to help put her in jail! In fact, you should NOT be speaking about your sister's case or your sister AT ALL (assuming you are real and not a shill for her) in any public forum. Everything you write can and may likely be used against her in court. You must NOT do this again. I understand your concern, but you simply must keep out of the fight, and for God's sake, don't say anything else as stupid as "She couldn't sleep. She took every pill, and drank every drop of alcohol she could get."

Again, you could get called in to be a witness for the prosecution (and may well now), and all you'll be able to do is talk about what you've been told, and they'll already know, partly because of stuff like this!!!

Think First! Then don't talk anyway!

And make sure you tell your sister, 'cause you will not want this to surprise her lawyers.

(sheesh, sometimes, I love the internet, other times... well, there you have it.

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2007 7:06 PM

---

Jan - First - What Sanger said.

Next, just to point out - nothing you say addresses the theft allegations *except* the airplane ticket home. The PTSD, the two ambushes, the Purple Heart - none of those are relevant on the issue of guilt or innocence, they would only play in mitigation and extenuation. As Sanger notes, those revelations hurt more than help if she's truly innocent.

I only want justice - if your sister is innocent, I wish her a damn good lawyer and a good day in court.

If she's not - well, I've already had my say on that. I hold officers to a high standard, and higher officers to a higher standard.

I'm sorry your family finds itself in this situation, there is nothing good in it, even if your sister is exonerated, I know that. Like Reagan's Labor Secretary Ray Donovan asked a congressional committee that had been complicit in a completely false smear of the Secretary, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

That said - you really should let your sister's lawyer know you posted this.

If I were holding comments in moderation, I would not have published it - but since it's out there in public now, it's discoverable.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 9, 2007 7:30 PM

---

Thank you for your suggestions. I wish I read them before I sent this stuff everywhere I could find.

I didn't divulge anything new. All of the attorneys know so much more about this than I ever will.

I just had to get something out that let people know a tiny part of what happened to my sister. I know this is not a good time for an emptional response, but I responded as best as I could with the limited information I can discuss.

It is all just so very wrong....

Thank you
Jan

posted by Jan on February 9, 2007 9:59 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Except it appears (note front sight) the weapon is being rendered in an upside down manner. Maybe a 5. Naw, -0-. Incapable of offensive or defensive fire.

posted by Slick Rick on February 8, 2007 11:20 AM

---

I wonder if that "Crack Company" was "lively and gay"?

posted by AFSister on February 8, 2007 11:38 AM

---

SR - Perhaps I wasn't clear - that was a "minus 10" for weapons handling.

If she only had 3 points going into it, she walked out of it with negative seven.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 8, 2007 12:42 PM

---

I stand corrected. I now note the (-).

posted by Slick Rick on February 8, 2007 11:14 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Comrade Sanger,

Well, just off the top of my head I'd say it's Russian and it from an Aircraft, perhaps a helo. I base that on the color of the equipment casings and the A/C interior, though i may well be wildly off-base here :)

respects,

posted by Gwedd on February 8, 2007 7:13 AM

---

Holly crud, a RATT rig!

posted by eric on February 8, 2007 7:16 AM

---

Too easy. It's the Castle's WHATZIS Central Command Figurer-Outer panel with the WAG Generator Station(to the right). Note computer screen for cropping and distorting the pictures. And y'all thought this was something he did for fun. Ha.

posted by Slick Rick on February 8, 2007 11:27 AM

---

AW1 Tim: Ha! Not russian, but the same Zinc Chromate interior color that every US shelter, M-113 APC, and all EW equipment racks got painted.

An aircraft, yes, however.

Eric: not a RATT rig, though in the BIG brother (Corps level) version of this system, there was a connection to the world via CTTs (Commanders Tactical Terminals).

In fact, for the befuddled or bemused, this is indeed one system (by nomenclature) but it is actually two other complete systems combined in one platform. Complementary but completely different battlefield functions.

Frankly, folks, this was one cool piece of hardware.

posted by SangerM on February 8, 2007 11:32 AM

---

Hmmm, U.S., Army, Helicopter, Sikorsky product, H-60 airframe, possibly "A", don't think its "L", so how about an EH-60A Blackhawk.

posted by William on February 8, 2007 12:31 PM

---

Yeah, i think it's the inside of a EH-60 Quick Fix2. But that's just a WAG.

posted by XBradTC on February 8, 2007 1:42 PM

---

Not an L. But yes, an EH-60A Blackhawk, or as XBradTC wrote an EH-60 QuickFix 2. Excellent!

That wasn't as hard as I'd hoped it would be, so can you fellows tell me what the two different subsystems are and what they do?

Port POS is ? and is related to what other systems;

Starboard POS is ? and is related to what other system

posted by SangerM on February 8, 2007 4:18 PM

---

Nope, I just fixed the ACFT. I didn't fittle with the nobby things (or jam radio signals or listen to Ivan, or translate)

posted by William on February 8, 2007 6:11 PM

---

Looks more like my first computer at the academy. Zenith. 8086 processor. But you're missing the twin floppy drives.

posted by Blackhawk on February 8, 2007 8:33 PM

---

hmm. Going just on human factors engineering analysis, the leftmost gizmo has a position display. Given the keyboard plus what looks like a numeric keypad on the front pullout component, I'm guessing both coordinate input and programmatic signal selection and manipulation (that is then displayed on the position screen). There is a bit of a dark corner that might be a secondary display for the keyboard input--can't tell. There is also a cable dangling (and possibly plugged in) that might be coming from the rightmost gizmo. Given the small display and lack of keyboard, I'm guessing this is just signal acquisition. Looks like a mondo oscilliscope or lock-in amplifier. SWAG: either a snoop-device for locating specific signals or an early real-time telemetry and imaging system for something like a missile.

posted by bad cat robot on February 8, 2007 9:31 PM

---

Ok... Not bad BCR, but not quite close...

Dangling cables are for headphones (aviation helmets--we were aviation crewmembers, I got my CM wings on an earlier version). Big black square on left side is a 10" orange plasma display for showing results of operator actions. Lots of the rest of the stuff on that side is intercom and coms links for air to ground and crew talking, also separate freqs for the network... Most of the stuff just above the keyboard is for fine tuning and searching...

Right side is a distinct system, completely different mission, albeit with similar working aids and in the same environment.

The two sides do not share data, nor connect, though the operators do. Again, complementary, but different missions. The right one is more technical (operator has a lot more tools for the work at hand). And it is not a passive system like the left hand one. In the first version, the right hand system was the primary one, the left side was not nearly as capable.

And now for the really big clue... There was both a ground version (in several iterations) and a fixed wing version (sort of) of the left side, and a ground version of the right side. On the ground, these two systems never deployed together...

And William, did you actually work on these? If so, where, might I ask?

And PS, Blackhawk... This stuff in some ways predated the PC. This version was from '88 or '89 (I was a contractor working for Vint Hill Farms by this time), but I worked on the earlier version of this in the early 80s, and helped with the OT-III in 79! In fact, VINSON stuff was so new then that there were only 6 or 8 KY-37s available to us for the OT (that's all there were for our use on Ft. Huachuca) and our 33S crypto mech toasted two of them because the audio and power connectors used the same exact cannon plugs... oops.) That was before the color coding.

I won't drag this out too long, but I'd like to see if anyone can piece it all together. The clues are all here...

V/R

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2007 12:10 AM

---

Man, oh man. I was almost selected for QuickFix, until they decided I was too tall for flight status.

I ended up with the Turkey-32 and the TACJAM. Good times....

posted by Russ on February 9, 2007 3:06 AM

---

I freely admit I'm outta my element here... but I can google.

The gizmo is the AN/ALQ-151 (V)2, QUICKFIX, Special Purpose Countermeasures System. One part finds the emitter and/or does the intercepting - that would be the passive part - and the other side jams 'em when we want 'em jammed.

At least that what it says here.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 9, 2007 6:01 AM

---

Sanger: you were at Vint Hills? i betcha you knew my oldest brother.

posted by MajMike on February 9, 2007 9:55 AM

---

I hate google when it's used against me...

Actually, I was expecting that, which is why I tried for the extended question of related systems...

Left side is for Direction Finding (DF), at the time of that system, if you talked for around 8 seconds on any radio within the freq. range, an operator could place your location within reasonable certainty to within a klik or two of your actual location on the ground. If you talked longer, the error probability diminished. Because the aircraft could take multiple lines of bearing (LOBs) in a few meters and hundreds in a few dozen meters, it was basically doing triangulation by itself. Very fast, and fairly accurate. Not good enough at the time to call for small area fires, but after a few minutes, certainly enough to put rounds close enough to make them stop talking... The results of the DF shot would be displayed on the plasma as an oval, with a center point, LOBs to the target area, and 8 digit milgrid adjusted for declination etc....

Added to that was a networking capability, first with other A/C, and (later) with the ground based system that used the same basic components. In the A/C network, up to 3 could be linked so that any DF request on any bird would cause each one to shot LOBs and report those back to the requesting system. These would be integrated and displayed for the operator. As you would expect, the accuracy increased a LOT when this was used.

The link to the ground system was called interoperability mode. That was to the Trailblazer (TB) EW system, which by the time this version of QF was fielded, consisted of 5 track mounted shelters, each containing 2 operator positions that looked a lot like the one in the pic. TB was a networked division level DF system. When any operator DF'd a target, all the systems on line would shoot a LOB to the emitter and report the data back to the requesting system and all of this would e displayed on the screen. The 5 subsystems were usually placed about 10-15 klicks apart about 5-10 klicks behind the FEBA. In interop-mode with QF, up to nine systems could be networked (albeit not always easily) so that any operator at any DF POS could request LOBs from the network. And bear in mind, at this point there would be up to 13 operators along a Div front tracking and reporting about scores of targets at a time. Even so, the system was fast and fairly accurate.

All DF operators had a variety of electronic search and few management tools, though a lot of it was still analog or early-version digital. By today's standards, this stuff is truly primitive, and I am not exaggerating. Ultimately the reporting link (which was done via encrypted HF using RATT type protocols) was networked with the ASAS. so that target info data could be transmitted as a package of reports and data and dumped directly into the early version of a 'fused' intel system.

The right side was actually the meat of the early QF. It was the TLQ-17. A very powerful, very versatile comms jammer that in QF at least, could put out up to 500W of radiated comms killing power! The system could scan the entire freq spectrum in seconds, and could be programmed to lock on specific freqs and jam those whenever they were found to be active. It could emit a variety of signals, from basic noise to deceptive morse and it was extremely effective. On one exercise in '85 I think it was, the 1AD was faced against a Bde of the 3rd AD. Supposedly, our 3 A/C platoon disrupted the comms of that Bde. enough for the CO of that Bde to insist we be taken out of the game--we weren't. We did that to them for 3 days. Of course, the constraints of the game made it easier, but then no one was shooting at them so maybe not. They were deployed along the Czech border as the red forces and the 1AD was in pseudo GDP positions. They also were using call words instead of normal US stuff, so it made it easy for us to ID them, and there wasn't much crypto in use at the time, (though we ID American crypto and with judicious and careful application, we could and did force people into the red, where they often forgot they were ...) To me, this side of the mission was the most fun, but we didn't get to indulge as often.

Both sides of the A/C had very good search and ID capabilities, and when tied in with the other EW systems in the DIV (Russ's Turkey-32 [TRQ-32] and TACJAM], all sorts of target data was being collected and passed around... BTW, the TLQ-17 was also jeep mounted, but not quite as powerful there, Whereas it's big brother, TACJAM was a kickbutt jamming system able to "do" three freqs at the same time with a lot of power.

Of course, this stuff broke a lot, and the interconnectivity was often not, but when it worked it was a wonder to be part of.... And that was at the dawn of the integrated electronic warfare age. You can imagine (if you don't know) what it must be like now.

I'll try to post some pics of the various iterations of the systems next week some time.

Also, more about the fixed-wing Big Brother version of these called Guardrail.

AND finally, ALL of that was unclassified and can be found in a variety of open sources. Jane's used to be the best.

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2007 10:09 AM

---

MajMike,

I worked for a contractor by that point (1988-1989). We were in Warrenton, but were in direct support of the QF PM at VHF. I really didn't know may people there, and those I met were all customers, so I didn't get to know any of them nearly well enough to remember. I was the TB/QF interoperability guru, and spent time doing training dev and "pro from Dover" stuff in support of fielding efforts. Mostly traveled a lot...

V/R

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2007 10:19 AM

---

Sanger,

My first exposure to the MI types was actually on that systems granddad. I crewed the slick (UH-IH) for the 522MI Quick Fix PLT for Reforger “78” when they were flying the JH-1. After Reforger we returned to Ft. Hood and the JH-1’s went to be upgraded to the EH-1H. Didn’t work on them again until I transitioned to Blackhawk’s in “84” with the 101st and then 7th Army, 5th Corp, 11th Group, 1st INF, 11th BDE, 12th BDE, and finally back to the 101st. Though I would bend wrenches on anything, for anybody, I tried to stay away from MI, C&C, MEDIVAC, and VOLCANO systems. They didn’t have any room for guns, or ropes, and other such things, which amused the morally sick and terminally wicked. If you want to find out how many old guy's are out there throw up a picture of an old SOTAS Huey.

posted by William on February 9, 2007 12:40 PM

---

Sanger - re: William's comment...

SNERK!

William - inside joke between Sanger and I, and not making fun of you.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 9, 2007 1:18 PM

---

> They didn’t have any room for guns, or ropes, and other such things, which amused the morally sick and terminally wicked.

And your point is? You say that like it's a bad thing...

And John, I assume you are referring to the old-guy comment? ha ha. Hmmph.

William: I was assigned to one of the SOTAS units, and I sent John a picture of one, thinking it would be a curiosity.... It wasn't and took him oh, zero .5 seconds to ID it. That's why I went with the QF interior for the Whatzis.

But I have to ask.. When you say JH-1, are you talking about SOTAS? If so, those were not upgraded to QF, they were a completly different system. I was the NCOIC of a QF Platoon that was task attached to the VII Corps SOTAS company. Talk about an odd setup.

And BTW, I was in the 1AD for REFORGER 78, but in a tank unit. We kicked 1Cav butt!! In fact, I literally ran over with my jeep and trailer the PSG from one 1CAV mech inf. platoon. They had surrounded us and I wasn't up for being captured, so I floored it. He didn't move fast enough. Oops. TINS!! It's a lot longer story, and there were mitigating circumstances, and NO I most likely wouldn't have done it on purpose, and he only got a little hurt, and everybody (And I mean EVERYBODY, including the MP Desk Sgt at Illisheim, asked me "Why didn't you back p over him!?)

Man, THAT was a great reforger!

V/R

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2007 3:38 PM

---

No, I wasn't snarking your advancing years.

I was referring to the SOTAS and our discussion about how fast it would get id'd - a contention supported by William's comment.

Geez yer sensitive today! 8^)

Must be... wait [sniff, sniff] There it is! I smell theses!

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 9, 2007 4:09 PM

---

Sanger,

Our two mission aircraft were designated JH-1H, only difference between them and the EH-1 or QF were the consoles and components. Your SOTAS, if I'm thinking of the correct aircraft, were easy to spot with their high cross tubes and big box under the belly (same shape as under a Mohawk?). The only time I have ever seen a SOTAS was on that Reforger exercise; I think at Hanou.

posted by William on February 9, 2007 4:10 PM

---

> No, I wasn't snarking your advancing years. I was referring to the SOTAS and our discussion about ....

I knew that. I was just referring to the sentence the SOTAS comment was in, and I out-clevered myself 'cause that was the point of the sentence that followed: "thinking it would be a curiosity.... It wasn't and took him oh, zero.5 seconds to ID it."

Anyway, not overly sensitive, just frappin' tired. I have been at this keyboard for weeks, and miles to go before I sleep, miles to go before I sleep (and not more than 3-5 hours of that a night for a couple of weeks). You'd think I get too tired to do this stuff here, but it's really a nice break for my brain.

And as for theses, yeah, I sure stepped in this pile 'o sheets (xls, of course :-)

Sunday it's a midterm on the UN and all of it's gooey goodness. oh boy

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2007 7:16 PM

---

William: Cool. The SOTAS was designated the JUH-1, I never heard of the JH-1, but that's not a surprise. And yes SOTAS was the one with the skids that raised, and the SLAR boom beneath it. The boom rotated and the junk in the back fed ground target data via datalink to a ground station. SOTAS was the sytem that grew up to be JSTARS. The one at Hanou was the V Corps unit, IIRC.

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2007 7:22 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

*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!

---

Logistics may seem boring, but, without it, your army eats shoe leather and slings rocks.

And just try plugging your TacLAN 'puters into a boulder...

posted by BillT on February 7, 2007 5:51 AM

---

Related to the issue of American air power:

Seems as though there's been a very alarming increase in downed helicopters in Iraq. If this is indeed due to improved Iranian-supplied weapons or tactics, what should the US do about it, specifically with regard to Iran itself?

Anyone else wonder what's going to happen on Feb. 11?

posted by fdcol63 on February 7, 2007 7:45 AM

---

They are giving away Laser surgery!?

At Ft Lewis in my last unit they discharged my 1st Lt who had it done for destruction of government property! He had it done in Canada to avoid being charged with anything else

Now they are giving it away!?

Madness

posted by BloodSpite on February 7, 2007 8:15 AM

---

Speaking of 'retooling' the military...the Army hasn't had any major 'retooling' besides the Strykers and that digital C2 stuff in a generation now, just tinkering with the accessory packages of stuff that entered service in the 70s and 80s (or, in the case of the M16, the 60s).

When all those tanks and Brads start reaching the end of their service lives, it's gonna be expensive.

posted by Heartless Libertarian on February 7, 2007 9:49 AM

---

"As soon as we turned it on, it would jam the radio frequencies back in the convoy.” If he weren't so modest, and somewhat constrained by FOUO requirements, the Armorer cold comment at length on this statement. Jamming, like any obstacle, can work both ways. The Iraqis learned that lesson as they fled Kuwait City on the road to Basrah. I had the privilege, grisly though it was, of observing that phenomenon up close and personal. Truth is - much of what we do in our transforming Army is trial and error - and a lot of it is on the "error" side. Just sayin'. ML

posted by Mike Lehnherr on February 7, 2007 10:41 AM

---

At Ft Lewis in my last unit they discharged my 1st Lt who had it done for destruction of government property!

Dude, I think they must not have liked your 1LT because my brother had it done four years ago on his own dime, in Arizona, while a member of the national guard and a 1lt.

No charges, no discharge. In fact, it was recommended because he was planning to try to switch to pilot from his ground job.

posted by kat-missouri on February 7, 2007 11:26 AM

---

"Anyone else wonder what's going to happen on Feb. 11?"
Nothing. We've seen buildups like this the last three years--wether it be Combined Task forces or simply USN--- and nothing has come of it. There will be no airstrike against Iran just yet. Even if Bush were to try and use the 60 days loophole to do it he'd be impeached for it, and the Pres isn't stupid enough to know how bad an impeachment will be for the country and GWOT.

No will. No war.
"I see Ry is hard at work." Not likely.

It's fun, sometimes, to be a giant juvenile delinquent.

posted by ry on February 7, 2007 1:21 PM

---

Kat

Was back in 2000. At that point in time it was considered a "unapproved" surgery and after the Lieu got nailed the rest of us were warned to not bother with it. (I had considered it to attempt to go to Warrant school myself)

That was all during the time of a certain General who John is familiar with as the Post Commander ;)

posted by BloodSpite on February 7, 2007 2:10 PM

---

Comrades,

Well, seeing's how I am now on the target list, I'll just go ahead and mouth off.... :)

Regarding the Laser Surgery, I would argue that lens replacement surgery would be a much better alternative. I underwent cataract surgery last year. It was simple, absolutely painless (although I had a very mild headache for about a half a day or so) and recovery was swift. Basically, they make a 1-2mm incision on the edge of the cornea, then use a type of ultra-sound machine to mash the organic lens into a soupy mass and evacuate it with a vacuum. They they insert a corrective lens (read contact lens) which is folded up like an umbrella, and pops into place and seats itself.

After rinsing the area, it's bandaged for 24 hours. Then, the wraps are removed, and you simply use a combination of 3 different eye drops for about 30 days. It heals without any sutures, and you have instant vision clarity 24 hours after surgery.

I was dumbfounded. I wore glasses for some 40 years, and was invalidated for pilot training in the Navy because of my astigmatism, even though I was working towards my private pilot's licence.

The surgery is not without risks, but so is the lasik. I suffered detached retinas in both eyes, but fortunately both were able to be reattached with minimal vision-field loss.

For the first time in my life, I only have to use eye glasses to read close up stuff. Everything I do day to day, including shooting, is done sans glasses. It's truly amazing. I would think that having this sort of work done rather than lasik would be a better choice.

Others mileage may, of course, vary.

Respects,

posted by Gwedd on February 7, 2007 7:31 PM

---

Arkin: "the military will continue to be a minor part of society and increasingly attract the conservative and the desperate, making it even more distant from the mainstream."

Gawd, wouldn't you just love to strap him to the splashboard of a 113, like Ahab to the whale, and then drive through falujah...

On the upside, I predict the Wapo and its mainstream tribbles will increasingly become a minor part of society and continue to attract the loser and the desperately liberal lickspittle, making them even more irrelevant than they are today.

posted by SangerM on February 7, 2007 10:38 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

It could all be the same basic gun and mechanism - and the distinction comes in mounting points.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2007 9:21 PM

---

Nothing like a mis-spelled word on an engraved brass plate!! ML

posted by Mike Lehnherr on February 7, 2007 9:58 PM

---

That's not misspelled, that's Southern.... Same word's used for the antenna on autimobeels... :-)

As for the M10, I wonder if someone didn't look up 75mm somewhere and come up with the M10 Tank Destroyer, and figger'd that must be the gun...?

I did try a LOT to find M10 linked to 75mm anywhere, and that's what I couldn't ever find.

posted by SangerM on February 7, 2007 10:20 PM

---

I found this on the cannon M10, but it's not much.

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-no.html

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 7, 2007 10:43 PM

---

Did some more snooping at the above linked site and found this in the middle of a much longer page.

Bell had become enthusiast about the 37mm cannon, and it proposed such armament for its new single-seat fighter, the P-39 Airacobra. This small fighter was also intended as a high-altitude bomber interceptor. As initially designed it had a turbosupercharged V-1710 engine, similar to those of the FM-1, but the gun was installed fixed, in the nose. The engine was put behind the pilot to make room for the gun, and drove a tractor propeller by a long extension shaft. Deletion of the underdeveloped turbosupercharger installation turned the P-39 into a mediocre medium-altitude fighter, and in combat the M4 revealed its weaknesses of low firing rate and modest ballistic performance. The weapon, in its improved M10 version, was also retained by the later P-63 Kingcobra, with exception of one P-63D that had the far more powerful M9. The USAAF had no use for these fighters, and both the P-39 and P-63 were mainly produced for Lend-Lease to the USSR, where they were surprisingly successful. The M4 continued to feature in fighter designs, such as the McDonnell P-67, proposed with six such weapons in the wing roots! But the only other fighters to enter service with the M4 were the first Lockheed P-38 Lightings, and in this aircraft it soon gave way to the 20mm Hispano. This was a much more useful weapon for a fighter.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 7, 2007 10:59 PM

---

"But at the end of 1942 the air force ordered two prototypes of the Beech A-38 Grizzly. The aircraft carried a 75 mm M10 (experimental designation T15E1) cannon in the nose, fully automatic and provided with 20 rounds."

I found that passage at this page, the only page I could find connecting the m10 and xa-38.

posted by Moose on February 7, 2007 11:42 PM

---

Wow!!! I am impressed Moose! That's like the Rosetta stone for this thing... And I did look. Cool! Two Cecil and Beanie Caps for you!!

Thanks.

And Rod, I think that was all about tht 37mm, which I did find, but that big mutha on the stand was definitely a 75mm.

V/R

posted by SangerM on February 8, 2007 3:00 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

You're forgiven when you post a great picture like that!!!

posted by Flag Gazer on February 7, 2007 1:33 PM

---

Oh, it's just one of them hairy-palmed Harrier pilots going aboard. Not like they're moving very fast. And at least they're still earning their flight pay. *Grumble, mumble, kicks a rock*

posted by lex on February 7, 2007 3:09 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Congratulations! Looks like fun.

posted by Maggie on February 7, 2007 8:15 AM

---

Of course we just have to wonder if you (or anyone else) is going to live-blog the event.

posted by KCSteve on February 7, 2007 12:00 PM

---

Hmmm...may have to crash the party with a video camera. LOL

posted by kat-missouri on February 7, 2007 12:29 PM

---

Ties make excellent garrots so it's not like you'll be going unarmed. (Just trying to make you feel better about it.)

posted by ry on February 7, 2007 1:14 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

[rim shot]

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 6, 2007 7:58 PM

---

Arkin just got beeyitch-slapped again.
Excellent.

posted by fdcol63 on February 6, 2007 8:23 PM

---

There is no question that Vietnam is still an open wound for them, and that they therefore only recognize the worth of fellow veterans, of those who have been through exactly the same experience.

Hmmpf. Arkin's projecting -- he must'a been reading Achilles In Vietnam before beddie-byes again. Only reason Vietnam's still an open wound is because Arkin's ideological predecessors inflicted it and they keep sprinkling salt into it.

Us Hot-Wet Vets've got a pretty good handle on that worth-recognition thang, and Arkin's worth about three sheets of wet TP -- annoyance value, and precious little else...

posted by BillT on February 7, 2007 12:10 AM

---

Your a better man than me, Dusty. 30 seconds in to his latest manure pile I would have been screaming for him to smell what he was shoveling

Linked!

posted by BloodSpite on February 7, 2007 8:28 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

*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!

---

Due to a 1st AD / Nurnberg PAC error (where they issued me a port call but failed - somehow - to, you know, actually reserve a seat on a flight for me, I got to sit for 2 days in the Rhein-Main terminal on duty standby. Finally got lucky on the 2nd day's last flight out - got to sit in a flight attendant's jump seat across ye olde Atlantic.

Anyway, I was supposed to DEROS and separate at Ft. Jackson, but this flight was headed to Philadelphia - so they sent me to Ft. Dix instead, where I swapped PFC status.

Glad to hear Dix is bustling again. Nice place!

posted by fdcol63 on February 6, 2007 7:34 AM

---

Conflicted about what month it is? I vote for February.

posted by V29 on February 6, 2007 8:16 AM

---

My sincere condolences about being at Ft Dix. In the late '80's my Guard unit drilled there, firing frequently from AFP13, now FOB Tiger. When we mobed there we came to the conclusion that the only purpose of the place was to make you ready to cheerfully go anywhere to get the H*ll out of NJ.... :-)

posted by Pogue on February 6, 2007 8:48 AM

---

Don't know whatcha talking about, V29. Looks right to me. Heh.

posted by Barb on February 6, 2007 8:57 AM

---

I took basic at Ft. Dix. Sep-Nov 73! Sand, cold, more sand, big 3 floor green barracks buildings with 40 man bays (that we ahd to empty out when we finished.. I think I was in B-2-3..

Ft. Dix is NOT my favorte place... When I left, they sent me some place no one knew how to pronounce, and that the JTR directions read: SM is to report to Tucson Airport, where he will be met by a transport. 75 miles later, I was in the foothills of the Huachuca Mtns, looking out over miles of... what? SAND! and cactus and MORE SAND!!!
And THEN I got sent to Ft. Hood...

Is it any wonder I put in a 4187 to go to Korea 5 months after I got there.... Even though I KNEW I'd be on the DMZ?

So where'd the Army send me instead?

Hawaii with its red clay, tall hils, lava rock, and LEG infantry (to a unit whose crest had a feakin' CACTUS on it..!)

And Yes, it DOES get cold in Hawaii, VERY cold, and they don't give you all the stuff they give you at Ft. Dix to keep warm. Truth is, I'd rather have been in Philadelphia....

:-)

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 11:39 AM

---

Hey, Sanger -- guess what? Jon the Mech is in your old battalion area!

And stop griping about the green cinder blocks -- B-6-2 had the old "temporary" wooden buildings left over from 1940...

posted by Yup, it's The NFL Again on February 6, 2007 5:31 PM

---

BittT, I feel for yon Jon... I have nothing but5 unpleasant memories of those buildings and those months. Basic was an awful experience, and I have nver liked even the memories of that place. BTW, if it's any indication of timing, Gen Julius Becton was, I think, the CO of basic training or the post Cdr. I never knew which, but he gave us a welcome speech at one of the theaters. I never forgot that or him, and was disappointed when he got in trouble for saying what a lot of us believed about pregnant women in USAEUR...

Oh well...

posted by SangerM on February 7, 2007 8:51 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

I thought the worst part is when they wanted "justice" for the death. We aren't talkinga about civilians playing with guns and accidently shooting somebody or a trigger happy police officer or an outright felonious murderer wacking some innocent who stopped to gas at the local convenience store and ended up in the middle of a robbery.

We're talking about combat. Though I understand the need to hold officers accountable for neglect or failure of command, I don't understand how this is "justice" for a death that basically occured in combat.

posted by kat-missouri on February 6, 2007 1:27 PM

---

Maybe no CAS with coalition forces is the answer.

I think that particular solution is the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many coalition partners of the U.S. haven't got CAS assets that can integrate with you guys. If you're going to have coalitions at all, everybody needs to support each other. Pull the CAS, and you're crippling your military coalition.

Btw, here's a link to the transcript.

posted by Damian on February 6, 2007 2:38 PM

---

This sounds remarkably like a political shakedown - i.e., some Euro leftists in Britain upset about the war are going after our guys in this fashion because they know we can't possibly prevent every battlefield accident. Portraying Americans as out of control cowboys is a standard tactic of that crowd, as is generating fresh outrage about old combat realities.

posted by J-P on February 6, 2007 2:53 PM

---

Comrades,

I think that a better solution is to return the Air Force to the US Army. There is no valid reason for the United States to maintain an Air Force as a seperate branch.

The Navy can handle the ICBM's, Space Command, etc. The Army can have all of the CAS it wants. They can have the Strategic Bombers forces as well. Sounds to me like a win/win all around.

Respects,

posted by Gwedd on February 6, 2007 6:12 PM

---

Heh. AW1 Tim just made the target list.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 6, 2007 7:19 PM

---

Instapilot. The video and transcript can clear up many of your questions.

posted by Trias on February 6, 2007 8:48 PM

---

Trias - go ahead and fill in the blanks.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 6, 2007 9:12 PM

---

Trias,

Problem is, there are bits where you don't know who's talking to whom. The tape records everything you say into the mask. It does not distinguish between outgoing and intercom only and it does not distinguish between VHF-FM/AM transmissions and UHF. The radio you use is dependant upon which way you press the mic button and there are a couple of places where it may be that one party did not hear the other party's question/comment. I'll have to take a look at it tomorrow to try to clarify what I'm trying to say.

Not making excuses for 'em and Popov 36's attacks are made without final clearance, but I could be wrong...OR...the particular CAS type didn't require a final "Cleared hot." call (in some situations close control is not a requisite to employing weapons)...as I said, need to read it a little more closely.

posted by Instapilot on February 6, 2007 9:34 PM

---

"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!

They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!

Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.

The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.

Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.

For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.

The attempted withholding of the cockpit tapes, and the continued refusal of the american authorities to co-operate with the inquest just confirms our impression of cowardice and ultimate disrespect of the US military/political body.

posted by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:42 PM

---

"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!

They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!

Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.

The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.

Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.

For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.

The attempted withholding of the cockpit tapes, and the continued refusal of the american authorities to co-operate with the inquest just confirms our impression of cowardice and ultimate disrespect of the US military/political body.

posted by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:42 PM

---

"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!

They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!

Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.

The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.

Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.

For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.

The attempted withholding of the cockpit tapes, and the continued refusal of the american authorities to co-operate with the inquest just confirms our impression of cowardice and ultimate disrespect of the US military/political body.

posted by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:43 PM

---

"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!

They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!

Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.

The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.

Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.

For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.

The attempted withholding of the cockpit tapes, and the continued refusal of the american authorities to co-operate with the inquest just confirms our impression of cowardice and ultimate disrespect of the US military/political body.

posted by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:45 PM

---

"This sounds remarkably like a political shakedown - i.e., some Euro leftists in Britain upset about the war are going after our guys in this fashion because they know we can't possibly prevent every battlefield accident. Portraying Americans as out of control cowboys is a standard tactic of that crowd, as is generating fresh outrage about old combat realities."

The old bollocks!

The fact is we in Britain are pissed off being involved in a war whose prime concern is US oil supplies, and the lining of Bush/Runsfeld/Cheney's pockets!

posted by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:49 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

I think that makes it worse... A Martin B-26 with a Mitchell B-25 tail grafted on it? But I'm guessing that might be a T9E1 75mm cannon (with automatic feed mechanism...)

posted by Pogue on February 6, 2007 11:29 AM

---

nope, nope, & nope....

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 11:40 AM

---

Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 6, 2007 12:11 PM

---

T15E1 75 mm cannon

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 6, 2007 12:12 PM

---

Great, I look dead at the bridge, even said to myself,"hmmm, looks a lot like a bridge deck," and moved on. Great.
Remember, first rule of the battlefield: Shoot the weird stuff first. Which is why I'd never consider being an AVLB, ACE, CEV, or AEM operator. Not only are you in some obviously weird stuff, you are usually way out in front of everyone else.

posted by Hunter on February 6, 2007 12:21 PM

---

Great, I look dead at the bridge, even said to myself,"hmmm, looks a lot like a bridge deck," and moved on. Great.
Remember, first rule of the battlefield: Shoot the weird stuff first. Which is why I'd never consider being an AVLB, ACE, CEV, or AEM operator. Not only are you in some obviously weird stuff, you are usually way out in front of everyone else.

posted by Hunter on February 6, 2007 12:23 PM

---

I extend my apologies to all for the double post. I thought my machine was just being recalcitrant.
Hunter

posted by Hunter on February 6, 2007 12:25 PM

---

How about a T13E1 75mm cannon? Aren't variants fun?

posted by Brad on February 6, 2007 12:28 PM

---

That's the right plane, but not the gun (at least not as described on the display stand where I took the picture).

And it's not labeled a T-anything, but an M-something, though I am beginning to suspect it's possible the display stand is not accurate.

I'll post a pic of that later/tomorrow... and you all can decide. In the meantime, for what it's worth, there is a discrepancey between what I have and what wikipedia and AF museum call it.

V/R

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 2:01 PM

---

That's the right plane, but not the gun (at least not as described on the display stand where I took the picture).

And it's not labeled a T-anything, but an M-something, though I am beginning to suspect it's possible the display stand is not accurate.

I'll post a pic of that later/tomorrow... and you all can decide. In the meantime, for what it's worth, there is a discrepancey between what I have and what wikipedia and AF museum call it.

V/R

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 3:02 PM

---

Ok, well there's the M4,M9 and M10 37MM cannon, but the barrel looks too small for that compared to the ones I've seen. Then there's the Molins 57mm but that was a British gun, can't tell if it was ever mounted on a US plane.

posted by Brad on February 6, 2007 3:17 PM

---

Sorry. When I said not the right gun, I meant nomenclature, only. It is indeed a 75mm, and it looks a lot like the T-numbered guns John found days ago and that you've all listed above (but not exactly), but the display stand plate calls it something else.

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 4:21 PM

---

When I saw that plane, I thought to myself, "Hmmm, that looks like an Electra, or Twin Beech."

Looks like I came close. ;)

Congratulations, Sanger, it's not often I encounter a US warbird I've never heard of before!

posted by Casey Tompkins on February 6, 2007 4:47 PM

---

Nice instant bridge. I never would have guess that one. Can it be folded from both sides?

posted by Trias on February 6, 2007 8:19 PM

---

yes it can

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 6, 2007 9:42 PM

---

Sorry for the brevity, the bridge is mirror imaged. The laying vehicle can lay the bridge, cross over, and retrieve the bridge on the other side.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 6, 2007 9:48 PM

---

Rod is right. Also, it can be launched without having to exit the vehicle, and in a pinch could probably be collected the same way, but that would be very difficult (alignment, etc). Also, I can't recall specifically, but I seem to remember that the hydraulic lines had to be hand connected.

Another trivia bit is that before lowering the bridge onto its cradle, the operators would bang the two halves several times to make all the dirt drop off. If you were under that otherwise, you would get clobbered with clods, some fairly sizeable. Look at the one in the animated gif.

And finally, the inside hull was actually fairly spacious (no turret or bullets, etc), but it was full of hydraulic lines. One time, one of our bridge tank's (every armor unit had two) tracks actually froze to the ground (look at the ground in front of the mopo door, mud and big gravel rocks), and we got called out on alert, so the driver was trying to break it free by wiggling the tank side to side. After about 10 minutes of that we heard this big thump and then a squish, and seconds later, the driver jumped yelling out of the hatch soaked with "cherry juice" (hydraulic fluid), which was also gushing out of the bottom of the tank through the escape hatch or whatever--just poured out all over the ground. We had to clean that up, but fortunately the ground was frozen and it hadn't gone too deep.

And it wasn't even my stuff! Stupid tanks...

BTW, if you look at the ground on the opposite side of the stream, you'll see it's all torn up. One crew actually buried their tank to the sponson boxes on one side. That's why the Germans had come out to look. The field belonged to one of those guys...

I'll post a pic of that too.

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 10:54 PM

---

Casey,

I'd never seen one until I encountered the gun on display at the Air Armament Museum at Eglin. supposedly only two prototypes were built because the war ended too soon, and because the engines were used for bombers...

"75mm Cannon M10" ring a bell for anyone? That's what the data plate says, but that doesn't google anywhere, nor all the web, (which is actually _better_ for finding odd pics www.alltheweb.com)

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 11:06 PM

---

Don't trust the web for everything, stuff that turns up off it is real good.

You also reminded me of my last reforger. Our Armour Co. was attached to an Inf. Bn. We'd just pasted a town, I could hear our new Capt. tell his new batt Cmdr that we can't pull off the road for attack, the map shows we're in the middle of a bog (all around us was very nice looking corn fields). Well the bird said we will get off the road and continue the attack.

We spend the next week in place with 15 of 17 tanks stuck. My own track was up to the sponsions . Fortunately the local landowner saw the bucks coming his way and treated us to Pizza Romona, Beer, etc, while the powers that be worked through getting us out. the 88's didn't do it. Cranes (as in the helo type) didn't work. Our company, plus engineers, with shovels solved it by building ramps. Hey, not a big deal.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 6, 2007 11:31 PM

---

I might be completely wrong on this, but, I was looking around and found this(just searched for m10 on the page), which then led me to google some more and I found this.

Is the T9E1 75mm Cannon the same as the 75mm Cannon M10?

posted by Moose on February 6, 2007 11:38 PM

---

Maybe, the important thing is to not lead to any credence for how any organization labels anything. There's also another T15E1 gun (90mm) that the singular "Super Pershing" was armed with.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 6, 2007 11:57 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

You know, I though something looked wrong with that...Luger

And... just yuch! Not an image I wanted...

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 11:21 AM

---

Gad, I thought this would generate more comment.

At least some drooling!

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 6, 2007 7:20 PM

---

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!! I must hate you! I've wanted to play with one of these for years. The closest I've come is to find a magazine pouch in the local Army surplus store nearly twenty years ago. I remember that I was going to donate it to the State Military Museum, but don't remember if I did. Have to check once I'm demobbed........

posted by Dennis on February 7, 2007 7:25 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

*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!

---

Is there a list anywhere with the Milblog Conf attendees names on it??

posted by AFSister on February 5, 2007 12:41 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

*SNERK*

posted by AFSister on February 5, 2007 7:20 AM

---

Tommy just tromped in here demanding a retraction to the foul canard posted above. Olive oil does *not* make him break out in hives, but Olive Oyl *does*...

posted by BillT on February 5, 2007 7:18 PM

---

Stop that! We already *told* you we'd registered *snerk* as one of our trademarks!

posted by The NFL on February 5, 2007 7:21 PM

---

oh yeah!?!?!! well.. well... SOUP SANDWICH!
Or should I say FUBAR FOOTBALL BAT!

pfthththththt

posted by AFSister on February 5, 2007 8:53 PM

---

Ooops -- we forgot Basketball Mitt. We registered *that*, too...

posted by Yup, it's The NFL Again on February 6, 2007 6:23 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

#1 Leavenworth Cell block.
#2 No idea.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 4, 2007 9:26 PM

---

#1? hmm it's filthy it's metal it's riveted. Some abandoned industrial dodad.

#2 a jackhammer?

posted by Trias on February 5, 2007 12:10 AM

---

1) Prison cell sounded good
2) Drive shaft and shifter gimbals of a manual automotive transmission

posted by chris on February 5, 2007 12:22 AM

---

#2 Model of one of the navel guns intended for the defense of the Atlantic Wall. Never went past the paper stage, but the plan was for two of these to hide in a (semi)mobile barn-like building driven by 3 tiger chassis.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 5, 2007 3:55 AM

---

This is Sanger's Whatzis - so all your usual habits regarding my stuff... are wrong.

#1 Sanger was surprised I didn't get immediately (and still haven't gotten).

#2 I know *what* it is, but I ain't figgered out *which* it is. Yet.

Just goes to show, you seem brilliant when you control the message (think self-important college profs here) but when you gotta play by the rulez everybody else does... well, dem feets made of clay.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 5, 2007 5:13 AM

---

Hah! I just figgered out *which* one it is, too. I sent that in a note to Sanger. Y'all keep looking.

It *is* on the web.

I'm still clueless on #1. But I'll get there.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 5, 2007 6:35 AM

---

And I just twigged to #1! Context *is* everything!

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 5, 2007 6:37 AM

---

Greetings All:

Umm... The Armorer got #1 right, #2 wrong. :-)

Close, but not...

posted by SangerM on February 5, 2007 8:11 AM

---

#1 - Early prototype of the TARDIS? :-)

posted by Harvey on February 5, 2007 8:11 AM

---

The Who?

posted by SangerM on February 5, 2007 8:24 AM

---

That's "Doctor" to you.

posted by Time Lord on February 5, 2007 11:16 AM

---

Heh. Dang conference. I can't waste my employers time googling away.

Fardle.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 5, 2007 12:55 PM

---

#2
20mm (Oerlikon?) cannon in gun pod mounting (Mk 11 gun pod?)

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on February 5, 2007 2:12 PM

---

#1 AVLB ramp section stuck in the open position.

#2 the hydraulics what caused situation #1 to happen.

posted by MajMike on February 5, 2007 2:36 PM

---

#1 MajMike got the ramp, not "open" as much as just UP, though that's just semantics at this point. And not stuck, just parked that way for maintenance, etc. Made it easier to climb around on top of. (I'll post another shortly, hopefully with an animated GIF --I need to make it)

Now can you tell which launcher version? (I couldn't from that pic, but hey who knows with you'se guys?)

#2. MM Nope, and JMH nope (think bigger x 3.75)

posted by SangerM on February 5, 2007 6:47 PM

---

Up for maintenance? Few choices, (taking into account museum stuff) if US. M-48, M-60, or Panther (I think thats the name of the M-1 based bridge layer). Of course, I also thought this was a jail cell.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 5, 2007 7:08 PM

---

#1. Tank transporter.

#2. What's left of the tank after the transporter stalled out on Admiral Wilson Boulevard in Camden.

posted by BillT on February 5, 2007 7:28 PM

---

Then it's the 75mm mounting for the B-25?

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on February 5, 2007 11:42 PM

---

BillT... Ha. I grew up in Philly. Camden. Ha.

JMH, nope. Close, but not the B25 or B26...

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 12:28 AM

---

#1 not a clue

#2 Main gun for an AC130?

posted by Old Fat Sailor on February 6, 2007 4:37 AM

---

OFS, Nope. The big gun on an AC130 is a 105mm. Of course, I imagine twin 40s, and a couple of 30s feel like big guns too, when you're looking back at em...

posted by SangerM on February 6, 2007 9:34 AM

---

T15E1 75 mm cannon for the Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 6, 2007 12:14 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Indeed you surprise me that you don't watch the History channel and such, but I understand the lack of time thing.
You also forgot to add your aversion to hugging - which some would consider weird. I mean, it's not like you're a hermit and anti-social or sumthin. Yer quite fun to socialize with :-)

posted by Adjutant on February 4, 2007 10:24 AM

---

Well, I'd have to consider that weird... I think all y'all huggers are weird...

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 4, 2007 2:53 PM

---

ME TOO!!!! I HATE HUGS! What's wrong with a handshake... Or better yet just a quick grope and a push off... I HATE hugs... hate, hate, hate...

And I hate football too... Happy supebowl day (I just found out) but I don't even know who's playing (cross my heart) and don't want to, haven't watched a football game in goin' on 8-10 years. Just stopped being interesting after Tom Landry went away. And Notre Dame killed my interest in College Football. Game's more important to that school than ANYTHING else. But I guess it's all about the money, 'cause ND has one GINORMOUS endowment and a gorgeous campus (about a mile from where I used to live--fortunately outside the football-day road system).... Go Boilermakers! Just to be contrary.

And I HATE theses... hate, hate, HATE!! BUT, on the bright side only 5 more weeks and I am DONE!

eggghhhhh...erk

posted by SangerM on February 4, 2007 4:47 PM

---

I hate hugs from acquaintances and near-strangers, but I love hugs from friends... and friendly boys, too! *happy sigh*

posted by FbL on February 4, 2007 6:45 PM

---

Or better yet just a quick grope and a push off

Man, I feel for your wife!

posted by Maggie on February 4, 2007 10:51 PM

---

I feel for her too.... :-O

posted by SangerM on February 4, 2007 10:58 PM

---

I ended up dipping the end of the lace for the leggings in super glue and then quickly wiping it off with a rag. It left a nice stiff point to thread through those real small eyelets. 'course I still could'nt see them.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 4, 2007 11:53 PM

---

Superbowl?

Izzat some kind of a soup-holder that's allergic to kryptonite?

posted by BillT on February 5, 2007 12:12 AM

---

heheheheh...
It would appear that I've managed to hug not one, but two Castle Denizens (John and Sanger) who "hate" hugs. But I don't remember too many complaints!!!!

posted by AFSister on February 5, 2007 8:19 AM

---

Weeeellll, that's cause it was YOU. I mean, c'mon... really.... Did I look stupid?

Besides, I learned long ago to control my automatic reaction which was to back away as quickly as I could...

I even insulted a senior officer once who just went to put his hand on my shoulder and a twisted down and out from under without thinking about ... He was mighty offended. Oh well. I hate being touched by people, male of female, without my consent. Just an oddity...

posted by SangerM on February 5, 2007 9:02 AM

---

*snerk*
I'm a huggy person.... LOVE hugs. Which is kinda funny because I didn't when I was a kid- I used to shy away from anyone I didn't love who tried to hug me.

and no, you did not look stupid. rather brilliant, actually.

posted by AFSister on February 5, 2007 9:47 AM

---

"Go Boilermakers!"
Oh, gawd.

You should see the traffic on football days here. Purdue may not be the Irish in terms of success but in terms of fanatacism? Yup. A big yup. Saturdays suck in the fall. ANd basketball is even worse.

That said, I've never seen this place crazier than last night. Waaay to many people called in 'sick' today. Some people don't know when to say when.

I hear you on the thesis, Sanger. More nose meets more grindstone. It ain't fun, but it does get over.

posted by ry on February 5, 2007 9:48 PM

---

For about 18 months, I worked for the seated fellow in this pic (actually, I ran a small business for him and 3 other partners). His family were all fanatical Purdue fans, and every now and then they would take a chartered jet as a family to see the Boilermakers play... The whole family!

And I did learn to tell people "not yet" when asked if I was a ND fan, because that was better than "I don't like football...." which got me stared at like I was from mars. If pressed, I'd tell them I was an Arizona fan (and let them pick the college), which was ok--I was human, just misguided, and potentially redeemable. Not! When ND remodeled the stadium in the mid '90s, teh sold excess bricks for $100.00 each. And couldn't get enough. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

But as I said, they do have a beautiful campus, with its own zipcode and post office--it is actually its own separate political entity. The only shortcoming was the ethanol plant on the west side of town whose fumes would waft across the whole city (TINS), making everything smell like rotten eggs! Even on game days, which told me God wasn't really all the interested in Catholic football...

:-)

As for the thesis... well, for good or bad, it'll all be over in 4 weeks. I do defense in mid- March, take the verbal part of my Spanish language test (took the written in the summer), take a couple of finals, graduate, and then we're goin' to DC for a week...

When I get home, I am going to toss every one of 48-inches of reprints in the recyle bin... and go back to thinking about simple things, like washing the truck or mowing the lawn....

ahhhhhhh

posted by SangerM on February 5, 2007 11:21 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

This new one is all but a mystery. My best guess is some calibration thing.

posted by Trias on February 4, 2007 9:55 AM

---

That's too easy- looks just like the one I have! I won't spoil the fun by giving it away. After all, it's supposed to be a SECRET!

posted by John S. on February 4, 2007 11:44 AM

---

Maybe a half screwed out barrel of the bottom side of a partially disassembled somethinorother! Gun. Or not.

posted by Slick Rick on February 4, 2007 2:21 PM

---

Wow. I actually got one! I'm shocked. :)

This one... fuggedaboutit.

posted by Casey Tompkins on February 4, 2007 10:28 PM

---

I haven't a clue what that's from.. Clearly a barrel and chamber for some kind of bullet launcher, but this is too generic for me....

posted by SangerM on February 5, 2007 8:18 AM

---

Hints- Pistol, trench warfare, WW One, too late to see combat........ NOT designed by John M. Browning......

posted by John S. on February 5, 2007 2:26 PM

---

Pederson Device.

posted by Rod Thorsen on February 5, 2007 2:39 PM

---

Answer: pistol, dropped on training range after it failed to reach WW I on time, the inherent "falling-apartedness" of it was then discovered, and the weapon fell off the procurement list.

posted by MajMike on February 5, 2007 2:39 PM

---

Bottom side of the top part of a lugar?

posted by SangerM on February 5, 2007 9:52 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

I'm not weird, I'm the control group.

Everyone else is a freak.

posted by Murray on February 4, 2007 1:26 AM

---

I lost a half-inch off the tip of my left thumb -- it regenerated, thumbprint 'n' all.

The same thumbprint? Are you sure your family name isn't really Logan?

As for being weird: considering what passes for normal these days, I'd rather be weird.

posted by wolfwalker on February 4, 2007 6:41 AM

---

Murray - Good one--work up some more, 'cuz Barb hasn't tagged anybody yet. Never hurts to be prepared for the onslaught...

wolfwalker - Dunno if the print's an exact match for the piece that went AWOL, but I'd guess it's remained remarkably consistent since it reappeared, 'cuz the FBI hasn't shown up with stainless steel bracelets...

posted by BillT on February 4, 2007 6:54 AM

---

You didn't say they had to be *bloggers*, kidlet.

You sure about that, Sugarbuttons?

posted by FbL on February 4, 2007 8:32 AM

---

What Fuzzy said - in fact, in the opening para.

However, Fuzzy - Bill's a barracks lawyer of some accomplishment. I'm pretty sure I know exactly how he'll wriggle out of that one.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 4, 2007 8:49 AM

---

That's quite the list of taggees, Chief. You've certainly got Gaul...
sorry.

posted by Neffi on February 4, 2007 9:05 AM

---

You sure about that, Sugarbuttons?

Yup.

1. AFSis' "gotcha" to Fuzzybee: Post 6 weird things about yourself and tag 6 more bloggers.

2. Fuzzybee's "gotcha" to *moi*: BillT, you've been tagged with the "Six Weird Things" meme!

Let's take those examples as OPORDs:

Numbah 1 would say, "Conduct landing operations in the Dardanelles and move inland against the enemy."

Numbah 2 just says, "Land on the beaches at Gallipoli."

Which is purty much how John figured I'd wriggle out of it, 'cuz that's purty much how *he'd* do it...

posted by BillT on February 4, 2007 9:36 AM

---

At last, the mystery of SugarButton's allegedly shot-off derriere' has been solved! It grew back! Hmm. Does that mean if we took the Vorpal Bayonet and split Our Bill down the middle we could get two of him? Enquiring Mad Scientists want to know.

posted by bad cat robot on February 4, 2007 10:20 AM

---

LMFAO! GOOD one, BCR.

posted by AFSister on February 4, 2007 11:56 AM

---

Thanks for the suggestion, Bill ... Murray - yer tagged!!

BCR - very interesting suggestion. Shouldn't we be able to simply cut off an arm and have it regenerate a whole new Bill? And what will poor Carborundum do with two Bills to keep tabs on??

posted by Barb on February 4, 2007 12:15 PM

---

Does that mean if we took the Vorpal Bayonet and split Our Bill down the middle we could get two of him?

I foresee problems. Suppose, after you yank my genes in two, I don't grow back bilaterally symmetrical but *I* do. I won't have any use for a 27" zipper any more, and just where am *I* gonna find a 54" zipper?

And what will poor Carborundum do with two Bills to keep tabs on??

Same thing he does now -- foists me off on Frumious.

posted by BillT on February 4, 2007 12:50 PM

---

I'm what now?

posted by Murray on February 4, 2007 1:48 PM

---

Yer tagged, that's what. Click the link in the previous comment to see the post :-)

posted by Barb on February 4, 2007 4:34 PM

---

I feel vaguely violated. I'm not comfortable with that.

When I'm violated I want to be SURE about it.

posted by Murray on February 4, 2007 5:18 PM

---

Oh, good lord. A *tanker* for heaven's sake that's gone all sensitive on us.

Geez, Murray - be a man, wouldja?

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 4, 2007 5:24 PM

---

Yeah yeah... ADD 400!!!

posted by Murray on February 4, 2007 6:34 PM

---

Heh. I win. I made Murray lose his cool.

[sips martini]

T'was ever thus.

Heinrichs, on the other hand... has the ability to get my goat.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 4, 2007 8:03 PM

---

Heinrichs, on the other hand... has the ability to get my goat.

Cats, dogs and horses I already knew about. When did the goat arrive?

Ummmm--other than around 2003. I'm referring to the *other* goat...

posted by BillT on February 4, 2007 10:25 PM

---

When I'm violated I want to be SURE about it.

Just don't let 'em yank your genes down around your ankles...

posted by BillT on February 4, 2007 10:27 PM

---

What slapping were you watching dropshort?

posted by Murray on February 4, 2007 10:43 PM

---

What slapping were you watching dropshort?

Don't say "Drop shorts" too loudly around here. Maggie has a direct line to WereKitty's chandelier...

posted by BillT on February 5, 2007 12:18 AM

---

WHOOO HOOOO!
droppin' trou!
droppin' trou!
droppin' trou!

my FAVORITE passtime, you know... ranks up there with pole dancing, chandelier swinging and jumping out of cakes.

posted by WereKitten on February 5, 2007 8:24 AM

---

You might be interested to know that Michael Ney is alleged to be buried near Statesville, NC under the name 'Peter Stuart Ney'. Ney showed up in the Carolinas in late 1815, and became an itinerant teacher of French and fencing. He died in 1846, and was buried in the cemetery of the Third Creek Baptist Church. His physical description matched Marshal Ney's, including scars. His second career what a bit less spectacular than his first, but at least he got a second chance!

posted by Martin Morehouse on February 5, 2007 7:06 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!