Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: February 25, 2007

I enjoyed Miss Coulter's remark because she didn't say what people think she said. Then I get to read the outraged howls from those on the wrong side of the aisle, and the vapoured moans from the sensible of wit. Being pusillanimous is not a virtue.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on March 3, 2007 12:07 PM

Good Lord - that just kept posting!! I'm sorry John!! - please delete :(

posted by beth on March 3, 2007 1:40 PM

"The coalition is far from disintegrating – British redeployment from the South reflects improved security, not lack of will, and the same day the British announced their move the Australians announced a force increase in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

It does Kilcullen's argument little credit to rehash this debunked Cheney talking point.

The British departure from Basra will be a defeat. All claims to the contrary are window-dressing. Britain's govt also claimed Maysan province was ready to hand over when their troops abandoned the base at Amara. But the soldiers acknowledged they had actually been mortared out. Within weeks, Amara had fallen to local Sadrist forces and both of the town's police stations were razed to the ground.

If a drawdown of British forces is a victory, why, in the same sentence, does he tout a (much smaller) increase in Australian forces? If troops leaving Iraq is a sign of progress, then these extra Australian (and American) troops must be a sign of backsliding.

Reducing forces is a sign of progress. Increasing forces is also a sign of progress. Kilcullen wants it both ways.

posted by OD on March 3, 2007 2:47 PM

great post--thanks...don't know if you've seen this video of Ann Coulter, but it's pretty classic:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/ann-coulter-gets-owned.html

posted by Minor Ripper on March 3, 2007 3:31 PM

Kudos for your most correct judgment on Ann Coulter.

You gave her too much credit. She's never said or written anything that Newt Gingrich didn't say first, and when you read it or hear it from Mr. Gingrich, you feel educated afterwards. When you read it or hear it from Ann Coulter, you need a shower with Fels Naptha afterwards.

Just my tuppence worth, sir.

posted by Rivrdog on March 3, 2007 9:01 PM

re. the kite banning... if you've read "The Kite Runner", you'll know exactly why people were hurt during this contest. But BULLETS? JEEZ.

posted by AFSister on March 3, 2007 10:30 PM

JMH, I read a lot about that Coulter thing from a lot of different perspectives, including what Miss Coulter said in context. She said it without saying it. But my real beef is: there's no room for Howard Stern in serious discussions. That's what I said about Marcotte as well.

You can make a case against something like homosexuality or against the Catholic Church without lowering yourself to base language and insults.

Coulter, and Marcotte, are great for poking fun at the other side in really rude manner, but have no place in real discussion about anything(which is why I was happy Marcotte and her friend at Shakespear's Sister got all the heat they did.). There's a table for adults and then there's the kids table. Coulter has decided to sit at the kids table. She doesn't have to be there. But she is and there she should stay. There's no room for Howard Stern or Beat Poetry in adult conversations.

OD, true on your point. But what of the rest of it? If that's the level of factualness we're getting from our 'watchdog press' can you say that the 'wp' is doing it straight and paying attention to what's really happening? That they're giving it to us straight, or as straight as humanly possible? That they aren't effectively doing the oppositions InfoOps for them? That's all I wanted to say.

posted by ry on March 4, 2007 3:06 AM

by Denizens on Mar 03, 2007 | General Commentary

Kansas Guardsman laid to rest today.

Today will be the funeral for Staff Sergeant Berry, a Kansas Redleg and holder of the Soldier's Medal, our highest peacetime award for bravery, who died in Iraq.

I got this in email last night from Denizenne AFSis, she's forwarding it from a list she's on. Thank you, Bridget for sending it out - and thank you, Dbie, for sending it to us:

Tissue alert...I just received this from the head of the Kansas Patriot Guard. He sent it as a thank you and reminder to all of us who attended a "homecoming escort" for a local soldier at the Airport last night. Mom and I went...I won't be able to go with the Guard to the funeral Saturday, so this was something we Could do. This is another great vid....

You can view the video by clicking here.

On another note... I remember Specialist Jimmy Baldwin, the only soldier to die on my watch as a commander.

And, as always... Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam.

by John on Mar 03, 2007 | Something for the Soul

Bravo Zulu, Big John

BOSTON (March 1, 2007) - More than 1,000 Sailors man the rails of USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) as she makes her transit to her final port call in Boston after 38 years of service. Kennedy and her crew have begun a five-day port visit to the home of her namesake prior to decommissioning March 23, 2007, in Mayport, Fla. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tommy Gilligan

BOSTON (March 1, 2007) - More than 1,000 Sailors man the rails of USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) as she makes her transit to her final port call in Boston after 38 years of service. Kennedy and her crew have begun a five-day port visit to the home of her namesake prior to decommissioning March 23, 2007, in Mayport, Fla. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tommy Gilligan

by John on Mar 03, 2007 | Historical Stuff

Thoughts on taking senior leader scalps.

A long time reader sent a note this morning.

John, When we write about heads rolling, the MedHold 1SGT and the hospital commander are on the short list for relief. That has happened, fine, deservedly so.
But the Secretary of the Army? He wasn't relieved, he quit, he took the easy way out, he RAN from the responsibility of fixing the problems.

The US Military is controlled by the civilian government of the United States. The Constitution is pretty clear on this. For the SecArmy to quit is to put into disarray all of our protections and controls. He cannot be replaced, immediately, by another Secretary.

Anyone of the undersecretaries will be called the "Acting" SecArmy. In the Army, when a commander is relieved, then the next guy there is the full-time commander. It might be a short time frame, but he IS the commander.

So Harvey quitting, no matter how Gates requested, hinted, asked, or ordered it, is to toss civilian control of the Army into a tailspin.

Harvey took the easy, even cowardly way out of a hot spot. He is refusing to fix the problems, to stand up, take the heat and soldier on.

My disgust is near debilitating.

I disagree. I understand not being happy with Harvey if he asked to quit, and is indeed running from his responsibilities. However, if that's the case, good riddance to someone who was just not up to the job, and better he leave.

I suspect, however, based on Gate's very specific statement, "I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation pertaining to outpatient care at Walter Reed," that Harvey was told to quit, rather than get publicly fired.

There is also a tradition of people in that position, it being clear that they screwed up beyond belief or political tolerance, of offering to resign to clear the air for a new start.

The reality is, when Harvey relieved MG Weightman, who'd been in command for months, and replaced him with his predecessor, the guy who'd been in command there for years, under whose watch *all* of these problems existed and were not addressed, he set himself up for getting canned, if only for colossal cluelessness.

I don't see how this damages the concept of civilian control. One of the Deputies will fill the role as a temp, a new Secretary will be nominated, and the Republic and the Service will tottle on down the road as it has. On a purely practical note, when the position of Secretary of Defense was created, with the Service secretaries subordinate to that position, the impact and scope of the service secretaries was reduced to supervising the production of their service budget requests and the execution of the current budget anyway.

But the essential underlying premise of democratic government is that there are no indispensable people. Good thing it's true, too - seeing as how Arlington Cemetery is full of otherwise indispensable people and the Republic still stands, the opinion of the far left and right notwithstanding.

Now if the Generals had come out in public and demanded the removal/resignation of Dr. Harvey - we would be in complete agreement, no questions, that the concept of civilian control was in jeopardy.

But when the Secretary of Defense calls the Secretary of the Army in and says "Dude, you've lost my confidence, what *were* you thinking? It's time for you to move on, and I'd like your resignation on my desk before you leave my office, please" that is the quintessential expression of civilian control, and exactly how things should go, as I see it.

Your concern of "Army leadership in a tailspin" is perhaps more aptly raised in the context of how long does it take to nominate and confirm his successor? Certainly if the position is left vacant for a long period of time during the budget build, and decisions deferred until the new Secretary takes office, there will be short-term damage to some aspects of Army operations, now and in the budget being POM'd.

From another angle - sometimes firing the coach is the best way to fix the team, even when the coach isn't a bad person, or even a bad coach in most aspects. But if he can't lead the team and get it done - then it's time to bring in someone new.

All in all, I'm thinking the Army can use the shake-up in the senior ranks. Even in wartime. Perhaps especially in wartime, where we should perhaps be a little more results-oriented than we seem to have been thus far. I'm still waiting for something similar to happen over the still-fargled pay system. And other things.

John,

As I look at this situation, I see many things. I spent time in a "Med-Hold". First, this situation took longer than 8 months to develop. Accountability goes up and down the "Chain of Command". The man who replaces MG Weightman was in charge prior to his coming. There has been a rumor of another man coming in, I don't know of its accuracy. Stop and think about something, Gates has only been in place for about a month and he's trying to clean up after 6 years of nonsense. The biggest thing is we need to raise the amount of new money, yes, higher taxes! This new money must go into the DOD/VA System for these people. There is an old saying, with a great deal of truth, "Money talks, BS walks." A challenge- Milbloggers, you talk of supporting troops and this war, this is the real definition of support the troops. There are man active duty, reserves, National Guard, their families and even grumpy old vets, THANK YOU. Now to the rest of you, what is your personal sacrifice?

Respectfully,
Grumpy

posted by Grumpy on March 3, 2007 10:52 AM

John you wrote "...the Army can use the shake-up in the senior ranks. Even in wartime. Perhaps especially in wartime, where we should perhaps be a little more results-oriented than we seem to have been thus far. "

You are on target there. One of the comments that even my active duty friends say (when not deployed/in theater) is how normal things seem. Stateside it doesn't *feel* like we're at war - the urgency and focus is not there. I experienced the same thing when I briefly hired on with an Army outfit, IMA, a couple years ago. (I soon left in disgust, but that's another story.) Anyway - the point is that our civilian leadership has failed to create the focus and urgency necessary to move the nation to the war footing that victory over this enemy demands. The scandal at Walter Reed exemplifies this. If Gates is ready to shake it up and move out... I'm all for it. As Ledeen used to say... faster please!

posted by Fod on March 3, 2007 11:41 AM

Echo that, John. It was definately a "DUDE! WHAT were you THINKING!?!?" move when he put the predecessor back in charge. He lost his chance to set things right, oh, about 6 months ago when Weightman took over for him. I think it's a damn shame that Weightman's career is shot due to someone else's screwup and oversight. Yes, he bears some responsibility, but he had only been on the job for 6 months and was probably still getting a feel for things around WR that needed attention.

posted by AFSister on March 3, 2007 12:18 PM

AFSis - when in charge, take charge, be in charge. If I took six months to get a handle on my command... then I don't know how to command.

I expect mistakes, mis-steps, etc. But I also expect progress.

Especially on a topic as sensitive as the wounded.

Yes, MG Weightman is being swept away with the tornado... but he's still going to have a more comfortable retirement than you or I. He just may want to skip reading the papers, and certain milblogs, for a while.

Yes, it's sad that an otherwise exemplary career ends on this note... but there are two truisms at play.

1. The higher up the flagpole you go, the more butt you have exposed.

2. To whom much is given, from whom much is expected. MG Weightman was given the opportunity to excel. In the end, he didn't defensibly live up to the expectation.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2007 3:16 PM

John, ditto to the end. 100% No loss of civilian control, and absolutely 1) a hard and required bit of preemptive damage control and 2) a real big, Yo! Helloooo? tap, tap, tap, on forehead Anybodyyyy hoooome?

posted by SangerM on March 3, 2007 11:18 PM

by John on Mar 03, 2007 | Observations on things Military

H&I* Fires, 02 MAR 2007

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

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

************************
Forget the slant of doom and gloom, of Iraq is as much a meat grinder as The Somme, and such omni-present in this article (They’re more vulnerable! That danged Bush promised us a new direction!). There are still things of value to be gleaned from this. Pay close attention to the line by the sergeant at the end.
--
The Times (UK) Online has a piece asking what the excuses from the ‘Global Community’ will be in 2009.
--
Because I’m not stupid enough to cap on Vin Diesel, I don’t want any part of WereKitten’s lycanthropy, I’ll make fun of Matt Damon instead. “CIA Expert Says Damon is too Fat for Spy Film.”
--
Someone is being Rumsfeldian without even realizing it. Unfortunately, where you start on a given topic colours where you go with it. The boys and girls at TAPPED might want to read a little wider before attacking what Max Boot is trying to say in that column.

I still stand by the lessons which TR Fehrenbach took from Korea, and Boyd. Boots in the mud make and enforce policy. You send men to war, not machines.
--ry

The full text of Secretary Gate's announcement is here.

by Denizens on Mar 02, 2007 | General Commentary

An unexpected scalp.

Former Secretary of the Army Harvey.

WASHINGTON - Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey abruptly stepped down Friday as the Bush administration struggled to cope with the fallout from a scandal over substandard conditions for wounded Iraq soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
The surprise move came one day after Harvey fired the two-star general in charge of the medical center in response to disclosures of problems at the hospital compound.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Harvey had resigned. But senior defense officials speaking on condition of anonymity said Gates had asked Harvey to leave. Gates was displeased that Harvey, after firing Maj. Gen. George Weightman as the head of Walter Reed, chose to name as Weightman's temporary replacement another general whose role in the controversy was still in question.

"I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation pertaining to outpatient care at Walter Reed," Gates said in the Pentagon briefing room. He took no questions from reporters.

Good. I've also learned elsewhere that a Captain has been reassigned.

The scalps mount. Even surprising ones like this. It's good to see that Secretary Gates, probably among other things, said, "WTF?" over the appointment of LTG Kiley to take temporary command at WRAMC. Based on what's come out regarding his tenure at WRAMC, I'm thinking the good LTG is a candidate for retirement as a Major General - he is my "amended OER" candidate.

I'm still thinking the troops are owed a field grade head in there somewhere.

Let's get this done, so all the people at WRAMC who are doing their best to do what's right for the soldiers can get some leadership that will let them do just that - and not have to look over their shoulder wondering if Dana Priest is lurking nearby, or some grumpy old retired guy is bitching about their place of work on his blog.

Don't get me wrong - the people who are doing the right thing by the soldier have nothing but my admiration and support. But they need leadership that facilitates that, not that worrys about image or managing the budget. That's what *managers* do. Commanders - LEAD.

"I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation pertaining to outpatient care at Walter Reed," Gates said

Woof! Nice slapdown.

I'm beginning to like this guy.

Surprising about GEN Harvey nonetheless. Do you think Gates was "disappointed" with some other stuff about him and this was just a good opportunity to clean house?

posted by MaryAnn on March 2, 2007 4:07 PM

it would appear that we were not the only ones displeased, or at the very least intrigued, by the "new-old" head of WR.

interesting days, eh?

Hey 1SG Keith- looks like some officer positions are opening up. How do you like DC?
hehe.... (he'd NEVER join the officer ranks. I'm just waiting for the smack-down)

posted by afsister on March 2, 2007 4:09 PM

Uh, meant SEC Harvey of course.

posted by MaryAnn on March 2, 2007 4:14 PM

Damn, AFKitty, an officer??? Haven't I taught you anything? Guess some more lessons are in store..........

posted by 1sg keith on March 2, 2007 4:33 PM

Guess some more lessons are in store..........

Cue Monty Python Grail Beacon scene...

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2007 5:05 PM

My .02,

The CG probably had to go as he was responsible for all that happened under his command. However I doubt he got up every morning saying,"What can I do make my patients miserable today?" He had a budget and he had to make choices. His budget had probably been cut significantly in the past few years because the Army was using the funds elsewhere. Its clear he made the wrong choices.

What I am getting at is that I believe this problem is more systemic-it won't really improve until DOD as a whole gets over this idea that proper healthcare is a "financial burden" that takes money away from the DOD "enterprise". People have to believe it is a sacred obligation and it has to be funded accordingly. To fix THAT-someone a lot higher up needs to go. Like Dr David Chu, who has shown ZERO compassion for veterans throughout his time in the Pentagon.

posted by Skippy-san on March 2, 2007 5:51 PM

What Skippy said, generally, with a comment:

He said "...systemic..." and "...people have to believe..."

Even if the system were perfect, and people just gamed it and didn't believe in it, things would prolly turn out badly.

That's the problem we have with the Constitution. It ain't perfect, but I think it's pretty good. The gamesmen have been seeking ways around it, almost since it was written. (-and later; Roscoe Conkling interpretaion of the 14th Amendment)

I think some of the Founders wrote something like, that the Constitution would work OK if we were reasonably virtuous, not so much if we weren't.

posted by Justthisguy on March 2, 2007 8:29 PM

You know....many many years ago...before World War...there was this other German guy who attempted to use what later became the famous Nuremburg excuse at his court martial.

Except his court martial was about 50 years before anyone had even heard of Hitler. His name? Henry Wirz. The Military service? CSA. His duty station? A place in Andersonville, Georgia sometimes referred to as Ft Sumter. And in his prison the mortality rate was over 100 people a day.

The point that I make is pretty simple, whether they are hanging an officer, or his career, in the end the soldiers (and in Wirz's case, prisoners) under his or her command are ultimately his or her responsibility.

I'm certain that they didn't intentionally get up and say "Yeah I wanna ruin my troops day today" (this is questionable in Wirz's case for those more historically oriented I concede :) ) however they still have a responsibility, and to say "I was only following orders" or "I am a victim of my chain of command" only holds oh so much water.

The same holds true for NCO's for the record just so no one accuses me of officer bashing, but like John I am seeing a lot more enlisted scalps than officers in the last 5 years, and it's a trend that bothers me greatly.

NCO's break down, they mess up. Soldiers break down, they do wrong things. But in the end they follow the example of their leadership

My personal belief is as we add more and more paperwork, put more and more political spin on how the military operates, with more and more officers who are Accountants and Business Managers versus Military History, and Tactical Strategy, we have slowly taken away the responsibility factor. The ever expanding bureaucracy's is expanding to meet the needs of the ever expanding bureaucracy so to speak.

You take away leaders, and put manager's in their place, and situations like Gharib and Walter Reed are what your going to get.

Thats my opinion anyway.

We need leaders, not managers, and for those who've seen the elephant and heard the owl, the difference is obvious.

posted by BloodSpite on March 2, 2007 9:30 PM

Fast correction because I'm tired. Wirz was Swiss. Not German. He just spoke fluent German, Dutch and some other language that I can't remember.

My apologies.

posted by BloodSpite on March 2, 2007 9:36 PM

Skippy's point is better taken when aimed at the commission, now two commissions, that are to take a look at WRAMC and now the whole VA/DoD health system.

The fact that there are many involved in how it got to this place is indisputable.

At least, unlike Abu Ghraib, there are some serious career consequences at high levels. The two cases are not parallel, but they are nonetheless instructive.

I frankly hope LTG Kiley takes it, too.

But - the real point - is will it go beyond the commissions, or will the report splash the news and then recede.

The Dems want to show some spine, and the President some leadership... you'd think (though I doubt it will go that way) they have at least one area in which they could score some bi-partisan points.

But I suspect soldiers in wheelchairs will just be photo-ops.

Bonus Army, anyone?

And it doesn't matter which party holds the reins.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2007 10:09 PM

Mullah Cimoc say israeli spy in pentagon and white house not caring for aermiki soldier. this man kill for the israeli. but israeli not care to help.

ameriki society so sick now. just want sex pill and new refrigerator. geo. wshington so sicken when see how ameriki act this day.

posted by Mullah Cimoc on March 2, 2007 10:15 PM

Well, I expressed concern over the replacement named, so this is a reasonable turn of events. I understand about hard choices, etc. Just need better ones.

posted by Barb on March 3, 2007 12:51 AM

Didn't think I'd find myself agreeing with Skippy-San (what temperature is it in hell, anyway?), but he makes a valid point; this is a system problem. A simple change in leadership isn't going to be enough.

The military has over-administrated and under-funded medical care. Too many forms, too much attention to "metrics" instead of patients, too few providers, and too little retention of qualified people. This isn't new... it's been a decade or more in the making, but here we are.

To be fair, fixing this will cost money... that's just a fact. Good medical care is expensive, and doubly so when you're maintaining a fully duplicate system in a country as gifted with medical infrastructure as the United States. The military can maintain those separate facilities, but they can't half-ass it. If they can't provide care as well as the civilian hospitals (for the amount of money they're willing to spend), then they should close those redundant facilities and shift the care to the civilian side (at least in CONUS). They can get their providers, ancillary staff, tech, etc credentialed at the appropriate civilian hospitals, assist the civilian facilities in augmenting their bed capacity to handle the load, and share resources in whatever way provides the best care to the Active force.

Regardless of whether your docs work in an MTF or candy-stripe in a joint military-civilian hospital, you need to maintain sufficient numbers of docs, either AD or Reserve, to serve the force in the field. Upping bonus pays and indexing for inflation would help decrease the pay disparity that lures some docs away from the service. For example, I don't think the basic 15K ASP "doc bonus" has been adjusted since 1990.

Most all dependent care should be done by civilian docs. Right now, a lot of civilian docs aren't thrilled with Tricare rates, the slow payment, or the paperwork burden. If the DoD upped the reimbursement and eliminated the delay in payment that's unfortunately so typical of Tricare, you'd have civilian docs clamoring to see those patients. They'd agree to be providers, and military patients wouldn't get charged up-front.

Retention of existing military docs would also help. The military medical system is a unique and often frustrating environment, and it probably takes the average doc at least a year or so to learn the ins and outs, the paperwork, the players, etc. CMRT, deployments, and other military-specific duties only add to it, and right about the time you're getting facile with the system, you separate, and a fresh/green captain steps in, and you start all over. It would cost money and require a culture/attitude change to keep docs (for the love of God, get rid of the crazymakers!), but it's arguably better to keep experienced docs than to go with an endless churn of neophytes. The latter is cheaper, but saves money at the cost of institutional memory and experience. That's not a good trade.

posted by TheNewGuy on March 3, 2007 1:07 AM

Heh. Castle Argghhh!, your rather surprising stop for discussion of military health care...

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2007 1:39 AM

Heh. Castle Argghhh!, your rather surprising stop for discussion of military health care...

Heh... you know how it is, John... I'm a giver.

All kidding aside, I normally don't have much to add to the insightful commentary this site generates (and your "Whatzis?" posts are incredible... I thought I knew something about guns... you guys are monsters).

In this case, healthcare is what I do... it's one of those rare discussions where I actually have something to add. When it comes to combat experience, leading men in the field, flying stuff, ordnance, etc, I can't hold a candle to most of your posters, so I'll probably go back to being a reader/lurker once the current medical maelstrom has passed.

posted by TheNewGuy on March 3, 2007 3:27 AM

The New York Times
Friday 2 March 2007

General Is Fired Over
Conditions at Walter Reed

by David S. Cloud

[excerpt:]

A Pentagon official said that, in addition to General Weightman, a captain, two noncommissioned officers, and an enlisted soldier involved in outpatient treatment were being reassigned. He said he could not provide further information because of Defense Department confidentiality rules.

posted by VleeptronDude on March 3, 2007 3:53 AM

The New Guy,

I hear the devil is liking the snowballs he is throwing.............

Your point about dependent care is really excellent. If DOD and Tricare would actually pay the bills on time and at competitive rates, just about all of it could be out sourced. (Except for the "practice" breast implant surgery that is sometimes given away for free to make sure military doctors keep their skills up. :-) )

I'd take it one step further. Outsource active duty care in CONUS too. Pay TRICARE rates. The military will never agree to that of course, since civilian doctors would actually respect patient confidentiality. The military seems not to respect that fundamental right.

Because what you are talking about is reducing workload and that in turn improves care, if I am reading you right. That is a great point.

posted by Skippy-san on March 3, 2007 7:21 AM

by John on Mar 02, 2007 | Observations on things Military

Giving a helping hand.

Laurie of Soldier's Angels New York has a post up about the recent tornadic devastation in the Fort Rucker, Alabama area. If you'd like to help, you can go to Laurie's site and donate to Soldier's Angels (who are in the area and working with the locals).

If you aren't comfortable with going that route - there's this:

Update & address to send gift cards or hotel vouchers:
On March 1, 2007 a band of severe thunderstorms swept across the South. The storms were accompanied by tornadoes which left a swath of destruction in their wake. The agricultural town of Enterprise, Alabama was hit especially hard. The town newspaper, The Enterprise Ledger, reports, " The tornado struck downtown Enterprise around 1 p.m. Thursday, destroying homes, flipping vehicles and collapsing the ceiling and walls in parts of Enterprise High School. Reports
concerning the number of dead and injured vary wildly, with state officials reporting as many as 5 possible deaths in the city." Its high school sustained a direct hit and many students were injured when a wall collapsed. Several of the injured students are from families stationed at nearby Fort Rucker. There are reports of deaths among the students, but the school system has yet to provide confirmation of this tragic news. Fort Rucker is the home of the United States Army Aviation Warfighting Center and many of its families live in Enterprise and their children attend its schools. The governor of Alabama has declared a state of emergency, but in a situation like this, with so many people in need, the government is cannot immediately help everyone. Soldiers' Angels is determined to make sure that none of our military personnel or their families are overlooked.

Soldiers' Angels has several members who are in the area and they have rallied to provide aid and comfort to the military families who are suffering. Additionally, in an effort to help these families, Soldiers' Angels has established the Fort Rucker Military Family Relief Fund. This fund is dedicated specifically to helping the members of the Fort Rucker who have lost family and their homes as a result of this terrible event. Soldiers' Angels will use the fund to provide emergency relief to the families. Items such as clothes, food, personal items and even shelter will be provided. Please help the families and our soldiers at Fort Rucker. Donations can be made through Paypal (click here) or send

GIFT CARDS: WALMART, AMEX
CREDITS OR VOUCHERS: HOLIDAY INN, DAYS INN, COMFORT INN

to

ARMY COMMUNITY SERVICE, ATTN: Sue
BUILDING 5700
NOVOSEL, ROOM 390
FT. RUCKER AL 36362

If you feel uncomfortable donating for a military-focused reason when there are others beside the local military involved in the disaster, there's always the Red Cross

If you've the means, you could always do... both. The Chief Denizen of Argghhh! has hit both places.

by John on Mar 02, 2007 | Something for the Soul

The Ugly Gun Ban.

Predictably, is back. Leave aside the fact that when the ban sunset, there was no uptick in drive-by bayonetings, rifle grenadings, nor were bad guys able to use the pistol grip to noticeably improve their marksmanship.

And most times, when bad or deluded people did do bad things... they were able to do so until some armed citizen, be it a policeman or just a citizen, did something about it.

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007
110th U.S. Congress (2007-2008)
H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes
HR 1022 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1022
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 13, 2007

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative
State: New York, District 4
Party: Democrat
Birthday: Jan 5, 1944 / 63 years old
Religion: Catholic

To contact Carolyn McCarthy, visit her official website, or phone her office at (202) 225-5516

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The details of the bill are below the fold, in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

A BILL
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Reinstatement of Provisions Partially Repealed- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;'; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:

`(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

`(K) A conversion kit.

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.

`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

`(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.

`(39) Fixed Magazine- The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.

`(40) Folding or Telescoping Stock- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.

`(41) Forward Grip- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.

`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

`(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'.

SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.

Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and

(2) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.

Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--

`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;

`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(C) is an antique firearm.'.

SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--

`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or

`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

`(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit the record to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.'.

SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:

`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) Certification Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.

SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.

Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'; and

(2) in paragraph (2)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) In General- Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)' and inserting `(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)';

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `(2) Paragraph (1)' and inserting `(B) Subparagraph (A)'; and

(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:

`(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

� Secure this line!

I think the whole thing's a crock, but two things kind of stood out this time: a) how does this: "a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." make any sense at all; and 2) I didn't see any exception for military members; if this b*llsh*t passes, will we be arrested as we get off the plane from Iraq?

posted by Ernie on March 2, 2007 12:34 PM

Ernie - unless I missed something, this simply reasserts the previous ban and it's conditions.

Government employees in the pursuit of their duties were always exempt from the provisions of the ban.

The ban also only prohibits the importation or sale of offending weapons after the ban goes back into effect - meaning all those weapons legally produced and acquired since the sunset of the ban will still be legal in those places where they are legal otherwise.

It's silly law, done more for "feeling" and a sense of having "done something" than advancing an actual, measureable effect. Other than asserting the power of the gun grabbers and "boiling the frog" on the issue of ultimate outlawing private firearms ownership.

Without any concomitant increase in government's responsibility (a concept open to argument anyway) to respond in a timely and useful fashion.

This silly thing is that laws already on the books address the criminal use of the weapons. And the targets of the law have already demonstrated they won't follow the law.

But it's much easier to pass carp like this than to actually address the issues of why people do what they do - because then we might have to take a look at unintended consequences of other feel-good policies, or, dare we say it, societal groups and associated pathologies.

It's just easier to say "See! We banned ugly guns! We've Done Something!" and, by extension, we now don't have to do anything hard.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2007 1:11 PM

I suppose I'll do a Ry here and sit in the unpopular hate me seat.

I firmly believe the left and right pay far too much attention to these laws. Gun bans have very little material effect on crime. If a more full blown ban (this thing looks like an even bigger waste of time because it is gimpy) passes into law I'm saying you will not see the right's vision of the defenceless apocalypse and so forth nor the left's of a wonderful feel good drop in crime.

The criminal problems and solutions in the US and elsewhere have pretty much nothing to do with guns. They have other causes. Focusing on gun bans is just a pissweak way of not dealing with the core causes.

Australia has gun bans and a gun hostile society. It's gone on for many long years. The Aussie equivalent of Hillary or Bush have not marched police/military to turn us into submissive slaves. Giving in to such fears is paranoid lunacy.

BTW I think the meaning of a) is to prevent people claiming use for sport for a gun that isn't really for sport but could be claimed to be.

posted by Trias on March 2, 2007 4:23 PM

Trias - your last comment is true.

You previous comments are also true.

So they should just piss off on meaningless bans and work on the harder issues.

Oh, wait - never mind. That's a self-answering question.

I don't worry about a rampaging government running roughshod over me (any more than they are bound to now) I just object to stupid laws that only impact the law abiding to negative affect while producing little to no positive effect except to... well, I already said that.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2007 5:08 PM

Blimey John it's impossible to start an argument with you. How else are we gunna get i'm-right-and-you're-wrong post parties in here?

Yes dump the silly legislation and work on something more meaningful. On the other hand if those idiots get to play with things that actually matter it could be disastrous so maybe we *are* better off with them playing with paper planes.

As it stands I'm mildly pro gun mainly because it covers general freedom to choose and because criminals bear guns regardless of laws. Just imagine a criminal having the impudence to break the law when they are already breaking the law. :-|

posted by Trias on March 2, 2007 5:47 PM

There's a concept that's been running loose for sometime now known as "Anarco-Tyranny". This describes the condition wherein the bad guys are left alone (the anarchy part) and the good guys are subject to increasing laws and regulations (the tyranny part). This is just more if it.

posted by Rod Thorsen on March 2, 2007 9:50 PM

I don't think that this bill has much chance of passage at this time. Nevertheless the AWB will be back one day worse than before. So now is the time to get what you want. Don't forget extra hi cap mags and plenty of ammo.

posted by hh1034 on March 3, 2007 4:40 AM

The proposed ban reaches much further than the 1994 AWB, as it includes the M1 Carbine, SKS, Mini-14, and others by name which were specifically exempt before, but also any firearm designed for military use. It also provides penalties which are comparable (10 years at Club Fed) to possession of an unregistered automatic weapon. So what incentive is there not to convert them to something even more "dangerous" in the eyes of the GFWs? I don't think this has any realistic chance of passing. I'm not surprised that Carolyn McCarthy proposed this nonsense. I am surprised at the speed that this was proposed given the lessons that the Democrats learned over the last 10 years. Is their memory that short? Did they think that it would just slip through the cracks without anyone noticing?

Eagle 1

posted by Eagle 1 on March 3, 2007 3:06 PM

by John on Mar 02, 2007 | Gun Rights

Let's do some community photo analysis.

I find the following picture very interesting, for the amount of information that it conveys.

Destroyed artillery piece with dead crewman.

What do you see? What story do you think it tells?

To a trained analyst (which I don't claim to be in this regard, we'll leave that to CAPT H and perhaps some of our lurkers) there is some interesting intel to be gleaned from the picture. Not huge amounts, indicators, mostly - but when you add them to others, a composite builds.

Just as interesting will be what different people see, based on the experiences they bring to the picture.

Is that an SVT-40 on the ground by the blanket? Also, it doesn't look like the unfortunate crewman is wearing boots. I'm sure there's more but its a start.

posted by Brad on March 2, 2007 10:50 AM

The question, Brad - is what might the significance of your observations be?

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2007 10:55 AM

OK, I'll play. Let's see what this amateur military historian can see...

Cityscape in winter.
Wrecked towed-light-artillery piece. Wrecked truck beyond it. Dead soldier next to it, wearing what appears to be makeshift winter clothing.

Assuming Brad's right, the SVT-40 is a Russian battle rifle, WW2 vintage.

It's known history that the Germans didn't supply winter clothes to their troops before Operation Barbarossa.

So I'm gonna guess that this is a German soldier, killed in an air raid or perhaps an artillery barrage, somewhere on the Eastern Front during the winter of 1941-42.

posted by wolfwalker on March 2, 2007 11:12 AM

1. Battle's passed on. Was recent engagement, maybe within 1 day or less, but no smoke, no soldiers, this was a fair bit after the action, but before the body clean-up crews or the civilians go for the clothes (his coat would be gone, those folks standing in the archway off to the right rear).

2. Gun is inop. (Is that an American gun, I don't have time to look it up). Must have taken a big hit, possibly from a airplane, or maybe a direct hit from another smaller gun: The shield is torn apart, one of the handwheels is busted, there are holes all over the thing.. It also looks like the breach-end was removed or was blown off. I don't think this was a cook-off, but I can't see the other side. From the damage, it could have been. Note the tires are not blown, which leaves me to think this was the result of an aerial attack or less likely a cook-off because the tires didn't explode from shrapnel.

3. Not sure about the gun on the ground, but even money it's inop too, 1) because it's there & 2) the rest of the crew took the time to remove the guys boots, they would not have left a gun. Not sure what's on the ground in that wooden frame next to the canvas. Extra rounds for another gun? Hard to see.

4. The truck is all shot to crap too and looks like it was cleaned out too (door left open, not human nature on something we're planning to return to). It looks like a 'between-the-wars' vintage vehicle, that does not match the gun, but I'd have to look to see if they go together.

5. The dead guy is a Slav, possibly Russian or Russian affiliate. They don't wear socks, even today (though that is changing). They wear wraps inside canvas boots. Those look like wraps on his feet. The Germans wore socks.

6. Not sure where, but that building in the back with the people in the archway, looks a thousand different buildings I've got pictures of from Germany. That looks like old German architecture, possible east German.

I could do more, but that's the surface scan.

posted by SangerM on March 2, 2007 11:14 AM

note #1, it looks like the shieldy-thing was damaged at some point rather badly but they didn't repair it. Basing this on the tires being not visibly damaged so the Bad Event happened earlier than this encounter.

note #2, I really doubt gunner-dude took up his position without shoes, so somebody took them when it was clear he no longer needed them -- but left the rifle. Crappy rifle? No more ammo?

note #3, the rectangular box with slots and remaining gizmos in them. Probably not lunch or off-duty reading, more likely associated with firing the weapon, yet also not taken with. Much retreating without taking cumbersome, not-immediately-useful supplies? (Good boots *always* useful).

SWAG: Stalingrad?

posted by bad cat robot on March 2, 2007 11:19 AM

76-mm divisional gun model 1939 (F-22 USV or USV) which ceased production in 1941, replaced by the ZIS-3. Evidently many were captured in 1941 and re-employed as AT guns.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on March 2, 2007 11:31 AM

Comrades,

Soviet position w/lend-lease gun. Probably 1944 or so. Gun and vehicle disabled by an artillery round, you can see the blast burn underneath the gun and to it's front. Shield blown back and broken by overpressure, tube and recoil meachanism and controls damaged by splinters.

Casualty is definetly a Soviet, as indicated by the cloth wrap in lieu of socks.

This was part of a hasty defensive position. That's indicated by the open wooden ammo box, with some ammo bundles missing, the blanket and rifle on the ground, etc. probably over-run by the Germans after the barrage. Stuff left because of the Germans not using that calibre, need to press on, etc.

City is still occupied by the civilians, as there are several in the background.

Anyway, that's my 2-cent's worth.

Respects,

posted by Gwedd on March 2, 2007 11:45 AM

1) the truck is not damaged or is not apparently damaged. the windows are intact. The tires are not blown. It does not appear to have anything beyond dings and dents of normal use.

2) That is a shadow under the front and the middle of the gun, not a blast mark. However, the breach mechanism is gone and the front shield is damaged. There does appear to be a large amount of shadowing black stuff on the first third of the stabilizers. Could be general use. The blast shield is pushed out and forward. However, I do not see any of the pieces, particularly the larger piece that is missing from the left. I also do not see any damage to the ground or pieces of the breach.

3) person on the ground is "laid out" and his boots are missing. His weapon is also "laid out" along with some sort of ammo box for small arms, a small bag and something that looks like a mess kit in the bottom right hand corner. This person does not appear to be severely damaged, although, I can't see his face clearly. He is not missing arms or full of jagged holes which I would have expected from a direct hit from tank, air or other artillery as well as the damage that should have existed if the breach blew.

My analysis:
Post engagement
Person on the ground most likely killed by weather or small arms fire.
He is laid out with his arms crossed and his boots removed. This was not natural due to blast or even death by small arms. Someone took the time to pull him into position and lay out his supplies in order to be photographed with the captured artillery.
The breach on the gun was removed to make it inoperable.
The blast shield damage came from a different engagement.
The mess kit in the bottom right hand corner looks interesting. either this man was surprised in the middle of his dinner or the photographer or passing troops had rifled through it looking at items the same as they did for the ammo, gun, etc.

this is a captured position and an "arranged" trophy photo.
****************

If I could tell how damaged the breach was, I would say this is a photo for the Red Army Artillery School: What happens when you don't clean your weapon.

posted by kat-missouri on March 2, 2007 1:10 PM

Wish we had a slightly better focus on the civilians in the background. The second one from the left is shorter, slighter than the others and appears to be wearing a skirt and heavy jacket. From the hem length - below the knee, almost midcalf and narrow cut to conserve fabric - WWII certainly. Confirmed by the vehicle at left, which isn't quite right for any of the 1920-30's trucks I'm familiar with - points to European mfg (or modification/canabalization of another vehicle, etc).

Agree as to no socks = probably Russia or Slovok.

There are still trees that have not been cut down for firewood and the KIA has not been stripped (except for the boots), so probably not one of the sieges. I think this would be fairly soon post battle. The earflap hat and greatcoat and possible blanket in the pack would all be very valuable resources for salvage.

posted by Karla (threadbndr) on March 2, 2007 1:29 PM

Depression just in front of the cannon. Impact crater?
Truck shot up? Windshield and door window intact and tires not punctured.
If the crewman was standing there when the cannon was hit, the body is in remarkably good condtion.
No evidence of flash burns, traumatic injuries, or blood and clothing still intact.
All the building in the background are boarded up. Either to protect the glass or possibly it's already been blown out thought the structures show no sign of damage.
People in the doorway of building on right appear to be civilians. Curious but keeping their distance from the photographer for whatever reason.
In the lower right hand corner of picture what appears to be part of a mess kit.
Just observations.
Mock me mercilessly!

posted by Tbird on March 2, 2007 2:27 PM

kat-missouri--I may not have it right, but I'd bet better than even money you don't.

Not a shadow. All wrong for that--really--not in the front, blow up the picture to see it and it very definitely could be a blast mark. Also, there are holes in the stabilizers, etc. This gun is inop, either from aerial direct fire (not likely) or indirect fire (likely). Though I am curous about the tires--did those guys have solid tires? that would explain other than pure dumb shrapnel luck.

Also, there is no missing piece on the port shield, it's folder over toward the back... (flip up the back piece and you'll see the fit with the front piece.

Person on the ground is not laid out, but his boots are missing. His weapon is dumped where it was because it was damaged. His arms are not crossed (his left is out to the left, hidden behind the rise. There are also pieces of something on the ground in the foreground.

What's interesting about the body is that if you cover the legs, it looks like it's lying face down because of the 'hump' where his chest is. This could actually mean his right arm is up under him. Either way, his comrads took whatever was useful and split, leaving him for the carrion eaters.

posted by SangerM on March 2, 2007 2:55 PM

I'm with kat on the trophy photo thing... the SVT40 was not typically issued to artillery troops; they had Moisin Nagant carbines of the M1938 variety. If the Tokarev belonged to this guy he probably wasn't crewing the arty piece when he was killed, more likely he was dragged over for the photo op by Deutscher soldaten. The SVT was a weapon prized by both sides; if this one is functional (and it *looks* OK) I'll bet it left the scene on a German shoulder... my own example was captured by the Finns and re-issued to their own forces.

posted by Neffi on March 2, 2007 3:41 PM

Looks kinda photo op to me. It's all so clean and placed out.

posted by Trias on March 2, 2007 8:11 PM

Not much to add. Post-Engagement photo, my assessment is a soviet infantryman killed sometime after the gun was knocked out. Damage to the wheel corresponds to a flat trajectory, its hard to determine by where the truck is to know if it would have blocked a shot like that. I'd like to see what is under the right front tire.

The barrel is elevated for a long fight (but I'm no redleg) Perhaps they were firing on rear areas when surprised by a panzer or AT gun. Maybe the dead man was part of the team that took out the tank. If the wooden box is extra clips or grenades, it looks like a defensive fight. He was clearly expecting to be there for a while.

Soviet picture, maybe Kiev, probably not Stalingrad, Leningrad or Moscow.

posted by monkeyboy on March 2, 2007 8:29 PM

Comrades,

Well, that';s definately a blast mark undrneath the gun. Bits of detritus underneath the truck as well.

Having said that, either the truck is DOA, or it belongs to the fellows crewing the photographer's back up. If it was still running, it would have been used when the Russkies bugged out. Otherwise, it belongs to the group doing the image-making.

The poor dead sot was, in fact, probably dragged into the frame for the pic. gardner, as well as Brady did the same during the civil war. Their images of CS dead at Gettysburg and Fort Sedgewick bear marks of being staged.

Soviets had solid rubber tyres. they also used sand-filled, though the solid tyres were more common.

Respects,

posted by Gwedd on March 2, 2007 9:14 PM

I don't see the arms crossed, looks more like gloves laid on his chest. Other than that it looks like someone had a real bad day.

posted by Rod Thorsen on March 2, 2007 9:55 PM

Poor Dead Dude seems to be lying right next to the curb, that's why we can't see his left arm? Also, his face is decently pointed away from us. Looks posed. Looks like the folks in the doorway didn't fully obey orders to stay out of the frame.

Eww! I think what I wrote above means that P.D.D. had been D. long enough for the rigor to have passed, and he got limp again, and so could be artistically arranged. Eww! Gross!

posted by Justthisguy on March 3, 2007 12:10 AM

Oh, on the obviously inflated tires on the gun carriage; I wouldn't put it past the Russkis back then to change wheels on a busted-up piece so they could tow it in quickly and pose the pic. They were *famous* for crude foto-forgeries.

They were not alone, though. Thomas Sowell tells a story about his days as a photographer in the USMC. He was right proud of the images he captured, showing Marines earnestly exerting and, yes, sweating, while accomplishing great kewl&manly Marine tasks.

He was right surprised to be called on the carpet a bit later and told that his photos were no good, because they showed Marines (horrors!) actually sweating.

Apparently it was "No Sweat, and That's an Order!" back then and ther

posted by Justthisguy on March 3, 2007 12:38 AM

"Fake, but accurate."

posted by Justthisguy on March 3, 2007 12:50 AM

by John on Mar 02, 2007 | Historical Stuff | Observations on things Military

Senator Brownback's Blog...

Senator Brownback, presidential hopeful, has a blog.

It's pretty new... it's Google PageRank is still Zero. By contrast, the Castle's is 6, National Review Online is 7.

The most amazing thing is that the Castle is one of the biggest blogs in Kansas (which says a lot about how few bloggers there are in Kansas) but we aren't on the good Senator's blogroll.

Tsk. My ego is bruised.

I would also note that the Senator has *never* linked to us. *Ever*.

More tsk.

I would also note that thus far, the Senator's blog doesn't have a voice, really. It's more a series of news releases, and puff, making the classic mistake that pols seem to make when they start up a blog.

Note for the Senator's bloggers - blogging is actually pretty tough to do at all well. You have to figure out ways to catch and hold people's interest, give them a reason to come back. If what you want to be is mostly a news aggregator for the candidate, study Drudge. If you want to be a serious blog... study the successful poli-blogs.

I suspect the Senator's handlers will cringe at the thought of opening up that kind of give and take. Good luck, sir. Though I will not forgive you if your run for President ends up getting us a Senator Sebelius. Just sayin'.

We at the Castle are available to consult. Listen to our advice, then do the opposite.

by John on Mar 02, 2007 | Politics

FUNERAL SERVICES SET FOR WICHITA GUARDSMAN

From the Adjutant General's Office:

Funeral services are scheduled for Saturday, March 3, for Staff Sgt. David Russell Berry, a member of Battery B (-), 1st Battalion, 161st Field Artillery, Kansas National Guard, Pratt, who was killed in action in Iraq on Thursday, Feb. 22. Services will begin at 2 p.m. at West Baptist Freewill Church , 3310 W. MacArthur, Wichita . Graveside services will be at Eden Cemetery in Milton , Kan.
Staff Sgt. Berry’s posthumous promotion to Sergeant First Class is pending. A memorial fund is being set up in honor of Staff Sgt. Berry and more information regarding the fund will be published as soon as the fund is established.

Staff Sgt. Berry joined the Kansas Army National Guard in April 1986, enlisting with Detachment 1, Battery C, 1st Battalion, 161st Field Artillery, at Kingman , Kan. , as an ammunition team chief. He graduated in 1987 from Advanced Individual Training as a Heavy Anti-armor Weapons Infantryman at Fort Benning , Ga. In 1997, he completed the Primary Leadership Development Course at Camp Ashland , Neb. In 2001, Staff Sgt. Berry completed his Basic Non-Commissioned Officer course for Field Artillery. In 2003, he completed the Multiple Launch Rocket System Crewmember course.

Staff Sgt. Berry had a total of more than 16 years of military service. In February 2005, he was awarded the Soldier’s Medal, which is the highest peacetime honor that a soldier can receive. Staff Sgt. Berry was serving on active duty at Fort Leavenworth during Operation Enduring Freedom. While at home on leave he came upon a single vehicle accident in Kingman County . The driver had lost control of the vehicle and crashed off the highway and the vehicle was on fire. At great personal risk, Staff Sgt. Berry pulled the driver from the burning vehicle, saving his life. Maj. Gen. Bunting presented Staff Sgt. Berry with this medal while at his pre-mobilization station at Camp Shelby , Miss. , prior to his deployment to Iraq .

Staff Sgt. Berry’s other awards include the Army Achievement Medal, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Global War on Terrorism Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Kansas National Guard Meritorious Service Ribbon, Kansas National Guard Commendation Ribbon, Kansas National Guard Emergency Duty Service Ribbon and the Kansas National Guard Service Medal.

Staff Sgt. Berry is survived by his wife, Kathleen, and one stepdaughter and one stepson.

If any of our readers are planning to attend, do please report out.

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

by John on Mar 02, 2007 | Something for the Soul

H&I* Fires, 01 MAR 2007

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

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

************************
Stuff that makes other stuff go kablooey. Sure, it’s a wonder weapon that relies on data links with jammers becoming insanely cheap, but it’s still pretty cool. I like this as an intermediate step toward ‘persistent orbiting munitions’ that leave no hidey hole for guerillas/4th Gen Warriors.

Plus, it blows stuff up. What chemist worth his salt(s) doesn’t like explosions?
--
Well, Hugo is nationalizing stuff because it doesn’t run perfect so we should too.

Only in the PNW would they insinuate this while trying to teach kids that private property is evil with Lego and wanting to lynch a Catholic school principle for making kids clean as punishment for fighting.
And The Wife wonders why I don’t want to move there when she finishes her Ph.D. (while mine dies an ugly and stillborn death)? Oi.
--
Grim provides an old school example that seems to support JRobb’s Global Guerillas theory. Scary. [Armorer's interjection - Grim's permalink URL isn't behaving as expected. The post Ry is referring to is "The Old Model Army" which is the top post for 27 Feb at Grim's Hall.]
--
Life, and death, continues; war or no war. I’m so sorry Dan.
---ry
*****************************************

Born in my country, buried in yours: Sgt John D. Rode. - Damian

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

Damian is too stingy with words.

Decorated U.S. Army Sergeant John D. Rode was buried at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honours yesterday.
The Trenton, Ont.-born 24-year-old was laid to rest in the Washington, D.C., military burial ground as an American after being awarded citizenship posthumously last week. He was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq on Valentine's Day. Officials found citizenship application papers among his belongings.

Racing to the aid of fellow soldiers on Feb. 14, Sgt. Rode and two other soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device detonated near their armoured vehicle. It was the third time Sgt. Rode had been hit.
"It gets down to the point of never leaving a man behind and that was John. He would never leave anyone behind and he didn't care what he had to go through to do it. I mean, it's obvious, being blown up three times by an IED since he went back to Iraq, except the third time he wasn't as lucky," Mr. Davis said.

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

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

Snerk! There are some sphincters in the DC area currently producing diamonds... -the Armorer

*********************************
Woot! Denizenne Bad Cat Robot is famous Down Under and her artistry and verbosity are made mention at Tim Blair's place! We bask in more reflected glory...! We're gonna have a tan if this keeps up! -the Armorer

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