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

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

www.sipr.org/default.aspx?action=PublicationDetails&id=362

JRobb's piece - he just described blogs, didn't he? We're a yellow node, TheNewGuy is a green node who just went blue, and you're a red node.

Not sure where Owen fits... 8^)

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 6:09 AM

How did I get to be red? Ain't I more blue?

I don't want to be Red. Can't I be Mr. Blonde?

posted by ry on March 1, 2007 7:10 AM

ry - I read the descriptions and I have to agree with John that you are definitely a red node. Accept your fate and be proud of your position.

posted by Oldloadr on March 1, 2007 7:24 AM

I've got a replacement for the broken TTLB GunBlogs community up and running at GunBloggers.com. It shows the top posts in the 'community' and display all the articles from member sites that were posted in the last 2 days.

Its a bit ugly at the moment, I need someone with better CSS skills than me to give it a new coat of paint, but the core code is working.

posted by LibertyNews on March 1, 2007 9:37 AM

This is from a couple of different sections in my thesis on Immigration (to be submitted/defended the week after next) [bracketed text added today]:

"Although the U.S. military is not a location, per se, it is in fact a destination for many of America's newly arrived immigrants and it has been since the beginning of the 19th Century. In the 1800s, military service was a way of earning a living that did not entail mining or other backbreaking labor, and for many immigrant men it was the only way to escape "slums, dangerous working conditions, industrial pollution, crime, and prejudice." [In the Civil War era, as much as 25% of the Union Army was thought to be foreign born.] In the 20th century, however, especially after WW II, the military service came to be not only a form of employment, but a 'fast-track' path to citizenship. Today, approximately 68,711 foreign born men and women serve on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, representing "approximately 5 percent of the total on active duty." [Mostly in the Navy] More important, of the foreign born, "almost 37,000 non-citizens are serving," the bulk of whom "come from Mexico, the Philippines, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and Haiti."

In addition to simply serving, foreign born members of the Army were also an (of-ten overlooked) influence on U.S. expansion and cultural diversification. In the Army, "the mixture of soldiers at small frontier posts created a unique 'melting pot' situation. Irish, German, English, Italian, Scots, Welsh, Norwegian, and French born soldiers found themselves to be bunk-mates of men that in Europe might have been bitter enemies. In order to maintain a peaceful existence between themselves and their American born comrades, each had to adjust, learn, and accept the traditions, customs, religion, and lifestyles of the others. Many of these...veterans re-enlisted and made a long career of military service with the Regular Army. At the end of their careers they sometimes settled near the last post at which they were stationed, helping to create a diversity of cultures on the frontier.

---
In addition to those who attain citizenship normally, quite a few immigrants take advantage of the expedited citizenship programs available to those who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, like the one authorized by President Bush in a July 2002 executive order. Since then, "more than 13,000 foreign-born members of the armed forces have applied for U.S. citizenship, and since September 11, 2001, 84 military personnel killed in the line of duty" have been granted citizenship posthumously [I guess at least 85, now]. Since 2004, the Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) has granted citizenship to approximately 2,500 foreign-born service members. Families of soldiers posthumously awarded citizenship are considered American citizenship-eligible.

---
It still amazes me what some people are willing to do for that which so many take for granted and think so little of.

This is just bittersweet beyond words....

---
Read these:

Dowd, Alan. 2006. "Melting Pot Military, American Enterprise Online, Sagamore Institute For Policy Research 17 Jul 06.

Barker, Laura and Batalova, Jeanne. Jan 2007. "The Foreign Born in the Armed Services," Migration Policy Institute, Migration Information Source (On-line)
www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=572

posted by SangerM on March 1, 2007 10:08 AM

It doesn't matter where you're from as long as you believe in the cause you're fighting for," he said. "[John] fought for what he believed in: freedom for people who can't afford it. When you fight for freedom, it doesn't care where you come from as long as you're a soldier in a fight for the right thing, and John was."

Amen

posted by kat-missouri on March 1, 2007 10:15 AM

One thing it is important to understand about the networking theory is that yellow nodes are NOT necessarily the people in charge (the people filling the slots titled HMSIC*). The yellow nodes are called leaders because they do leadership stuff, even if they are not officially designated yellows. I've never seen this taxonomy, but I've read a bit about networks, organization hierarchies, etc. And this tracks, but there are caveats regarding the ability of people to transition from one role to another quickly, and to the idea that there is almost always more than one power center in any organization, one formal and one informal. Sometimes there are more. It is possible therefore, to have an informal yellow who is actually working at cross or counter purposes to the primary yellow, who may not even be aware of the existence of the informal power center. This can very complex and is an extremely interesting subject, especially when you watch it at work in organizations. It's not a joke that you are better off aggravating the boss than his assistant, but it may be that his assistant is actually very loyal to the person running the training department (who may be the primary informal yellow) and defers in subtle but important ways, so you need to really not aggravate the Training Director.

The other thing that is important to remember is that networks with less rigidly defined roles are more robust and self-healing than those with clear, precise roles and lines of control. That is a major distinction between US and other militaries, especially our former Warsaw Pact foes (and a problem with Arab armies in general). The US military hierarchy, while very structured for command and authority purposes (the person with the title gets to be in charge, tell others what to do, and take the heat for goofs), it is actually a lot looser in important ways. Anyone can become a yellow by being next in line, by being willing to step up, or by being the person with the best plan at the moment.

Interestingly, the role of leader does not always match the command/authority chain in the U.S. Military, a perfect example of which is actually seen in two movies (I am not talking about the movie accuracy, etc, just the relationships portrayed), Blackhawk Down, where a number of people at different times were in leader roles based on situation and skill sets; the one that stands out is the minor confrontation between the Delta guy and the Ranger Captain over what to do next. Both are leaders at the same time in the same place, but the authority for each comes from a different source. Both were right--the Ranger Captain more so, by virtue of the constitutional source of his authority, but he dealt with it well, as a professional engaged in common cause... The other movie was Tears of the Sun (an excellent movie). The loose relationship between the SEAL Lt and his men was similar to that shown in Private Ryan between the Cpt and his men--the command authority leadership role was clear, but at various times, other people were in charge.

The truth is that people can be different colors in different networks at the same time. A yellow in network one, might be a red in an overlaid or adjacent network.

All of which comes down to: the color labels are cool and all, but it really is a 'powerpoint slide' explanation for a 3d CGI model construct. Hopefully, people will not now start looking for ways to 'operationalize' this taxonomy. I can see it: Got a 'yellow' on 3, but 2 blues in tandem moving through a group of greens; might want to interdict the recruitment effort... blah, blah, blah...

I don't know how these added features tune the terrorist networks, but this is one reason it is not always sufficient to take out the obvious main squeeze.

V/R

*MS=MotorScooter

posted by SangerM on March 1, 2007 10:47 AM

don't know how these added features tune the terrorist networks, but this is one reason it is not always sufficient to take out the obvious main squeeze.

And don't you think it's interesting that, as soon as one is identified as a "leader" in these networks, your term is often short lived. In fact, I do agree with some reports that we "build up" certain characters in order to destroy them. For instance, Zarqawi. he, of course, was trying to rise above his "yellow node" leadership role to what I call the big fat Orange Node ideological and military leadership, directly competing, as noted by sanger, with the other leadership or even trying to subordinate their cause and leadership to him and his ideas. He did actually succeed in turning the war and the regional tensions into a "Sunni/Shia" split. The question is whether his long term strategy wins out or actually does the final "catalyst" to regional struggle.

I suppose I would add that "Orange Node" because it is the big flashing "kill me" node. Not just from we the "static" enemy but the internal leadership struggles as well. Those who migrate to the "orange node" are made central actors and icons by three groups: us, them and the "orange node" actor (for whatever their individual reasons are).

I would argue that when you have diverse groups with migrating leadership and membership, that the only way you CAN kill it and continue attrit its recruitment powers is by making it a "losing" cause. Whether an "orange node" leader is really the leader is moot. While we may discuss things like migrant leadership and informal networks, those concepts do not enter the general lexicon of the average citizen of any country. They always think of groups as pyramid shaped with leadership, sub leadership and members. That is how they generally base their own lives, how government or tribal structures work. There is always the leader.

Thus, to counter the effects of an insurgency or guerilla activity, however decentralized, desiminated the leadership and membership, you have to be able to kill the "leader". In some respects, depending on the capability of said "orange node" leadership, killing them can have a more significant disruption on the entire network, but their real value is in the propaganda.

Killing "orange node" leadership (those attempting to consolidate organizations and grab power over the multiples) is "killing" the organization in the eyes of the citizens from which the green nodes and the blue nodes come. They are further away from the "leadership" and do not yet have a firm grasp of how it works.

It is double helpful when said yellow node leader decides to take advantage of the publicity and actually go "orange". As noted, then everyone is after them and it makes our job easier and ther resulting echo of their demise that much more satisfying since now every would be "yellow" that rises slightly above the rest will have to worry, not just about us, but about his back among the pack, keeping truly capable leaders able to coalesce the guerillas into Mao's version of the people's army (which he clearly indicates is the only way the guerillas will ever actually own and control anything suitable to taking over and managing a country or region - they have to become the government and centralized army sometime regardless of how effective they may be as decentralized guerillas. Otherwise, the government remains in place and they lose).

posted by kat-missouri on March 1, 2007 2:06 PM

I would say that recent examples of Mao's theory that eventually these disseminated "nodes" have to coalesce would be the Taliban and AQIZ in Fallujah, Mosul, Qaim and other towns where they have tried to constitute themselves as, not just a guerrilla army, but a de facto government, making them "killable".

posted by kat-missouri on March 1, 2007 2:28 PM

Sorry about that -- permalinks have been broken since we were required to switch to the "New Blogger." None of them work at all. It's just about made it impossible for anyone to link to me, but I doubt it will get fixed. Maybe it's time to finally switch to some other blogging service.

posted by Grim on March 1, 2007 3:04 PM

Sphincters and diamonds. LOL

Thank goodness The Wall was a long time ago, none of the girls have my current contact info, and I only heard about it from "friends". LOL

posted by fdcol63 on March 1, 2007 3:53 PM

LOL...now that is interesting.

Everybody always thinks it won't happen to them.

Of course, some have probably been squeezing diamonds for a year or so as she was investigated.

Most of the painful things for the super high have already been addressed I imainge, though I found that interesting that the attorney mentioned "bill clinton". LOL

posted by kat-missouri on March 1, 2007 4:10 PM

We are all gonna die. None of us will get out of this alive. That is why we dance in memorium.

What matters is how we live.

posted by jim b on March 1, 2007 9:25 PM

by Denizens on Mar 01, 2007 | General Commentary

I got my scalp for Walter Reed.

Remember that scalp I asked for?

I got it.

Pretty nice one, too.

Major General George Weightman, formerly Commanding General, Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Good.

No, I don't think that me griping about it affected things one iota, in case you're wondering about a burgeoning megalomania around here.

Read about it here, at Fox News.

There's probably a few others that need to dry in the sun with this one, however.

H/t, Leavenworth Centurion

There have not been enough GO scalps during this war. LTG Sanchez lost his chance at a 4th star, sure, but it's not the same. Col (formerly BG) Karpinski lost her star, but administratively. Colonel Pappas got spanked, but not hard enough, over his role in Abu Ghraib. But there's been enough functional incompetence (Reserve pay system, anyone?) that has seemingly gone unpunished that it's just aggravating.

And if scalps *have* been taken - then they should be done so publicly, not with a quiet "shoo!" to the exit. Leadership by example. Many of those examples should be... public.

Update: Heh. As Barb noted in her comment - Weightman's successor is his predecessor, LTG Kiley - on whose watch much of this was also extant. Perhaps this is his chance to atone. Certainly, he'll have the flaming wreckage of Weightman's career to light his path.

Jeez, first Karpinski and now this.

Was that his permanent rank, or will he retire as a BG?

posted by Chuck Simmins on March 1, 2007 1:46 PM

I just saw the item on MSNBC, and thought the same thing. I hope that no one thinks this action sweeps the rest under the rug, though. Not just in more heads as appropriate, but concrete and shared action plans for correcting the issues. No - we can't expect immediate redress for everything, things take time. But I want to know that there is a plan and people are going to be held accountable for managing the corrections.

posted by Barb on March 1, 2007 1:47 PM

Hey John - I just noticed that the temporary replacement (Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley) is mentioned in other articles (like this one) as having been informed about the problems when he was in charge of WR in 2003. So we've replaced the Current commander who failed the solders with the Previous command who failed the soldiers? That doesn't make very good sense.

posted by Barb on March 1, 2007 1:58 PM

True enough, Barb.

He does have the benefit of looking at the wreckage of his successor's career for motivation.

Perhaps this is his chance to atone.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 2:13 PM

Chuck - as far as I'm concerned, not enough Generals have gone home failures.

Weightman's grade upon retirement will be administratively determined, with several considerations applied, and it could go either way. His previous quality of service would, and should, certainly factor into the decision.

I won't be bothered if he retires in grade. I also won't be bothered if he's retired at a lesser grade, but I would be surprised. If that happens, things at WRAMC were possibly worse than we've come to believe, in terms of the leadership.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 2:21 PM

Nice call, John. And nice scalp, too ;-)

posted by MaryAnn on March 1, 2007 3:07 PM

Glad you saw this, John. I was going to put the link in H&R comments if you hadn't posted on it already. Like you, I'm glad to see the Army is taking some action in the officer ranks, but I'm still curious as to how Bldg 18 got in such bad shape without anyone but the residents and WaPo noticing.

posted by AFSister on March 1, 2007 3:45 PM

Crud...when I emailed that earlier re: "sacremento bee", I thought I scooped you. Being at work makes it a little difficult to keep refreshing and checking for info on this site. ;)

The sacremento Bee actually said:

Last week the Army took disciplinary action against several lower-level soldiers at Walter Reed, but officials have declined to publicly confirm any details of those actions.

Yeah, interesting Kiley is back in place. Though, last night as I sloughed through several hundred pages of Medical Retention Processing, etc, I noted that a working plan and presentation had been made to congress in 2003 and 2004 regarding an investigation and plans to fix the system (many problems of which are still complained about today). Possibly Kiley came up with a plan and then left before implementation or had implemented with success and then it fell apart.

But, I will bet you he has a fire under his jodhpurs right now.

posted by kat-missouri on March 1, 2007 3:58 PM

If the problems were spotlighted in 2003, then they were ongoing under the previous command.
Which means it kept getting broker and broker.
What I would like to know is if he 'had a pwan'
back then, what happened? Budget? Change of command? And did it get passed to his successor who is now history? And if it did get passed to Weightman, why didn't he do anything?

posted by Cricket on March 1, 2007 4:15 PM

Cricket...actually, it was spotlighted in 2001, 1996, 1992, 1988...that is why I had to "slough" through all these documents.

It seems that every time the last process didn't work, they tack on some more people, move some stuff around, call it a fix and then get all shocked when it still doesn't work.

If I did that at a company I worked for I'd be sh*tcanned faster than speedy gonzalez on frijole night.

Of course, part of the problem is trying to work around legislation and other crud that tries to keep the services separate, the reserve, guard and regular army separate, etc, etc, etc.

Another funny thing as I read, I kept seeing how often the generals were talking about saving the DoD money by insuring overpayment for things like "hazardous duty" were significantly reduced once a soldier was MedEvaced or redeployed back to the states.

I thought that was funny because the example give in 2003 were 87 soldiers in a med hold unit, of which 23 might have received overpayment, but the rest were underpaid or not paid at all.

And this was talked about as if the 23 were representative of a much bigger problem that far outweighed the other 64 who were not paid or were underpaid.

That was not "funny" (hahaha) but "funny" shocking. Again, any other employer would have a resignation shoved up their noses. Of course, no other employer can have you arrested and the rest of your life jacked for not showing up to work.

posted by kat-missouri on March 1, 2007 4:25 PM

Don't get me started on the pay system.

Don't.even.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 4:29 PM

One scalp down, but I can't help feeling like Weightman is just the fall guy. I think he took over command in August of 2006, and to be fair to him, I'd bet that it takes 3-6 months in an organization or position like that to really get your feet on the ground and figure out who's who and what's what. These problems at WRAMC have been going on a lot longer than that. Maybe some people can hit the ground running in a couple of weeks, but it's always taken me at least 1-2 months, and that's within my small area of purview. I can't imagine it takes less time for a position with more responsibility and a zillion things to delegate.

Ironically, this is probably more the responsibility of the previous commander. Irony of ironies, he's now been tasked to take over the job from Weightman. It strikes me as mighty convenient that all these problems were ongoing during the several YEARS of Kiley's command, and were apparently left as a present for the subsequent commander, who now takes the fall.

I've seen this happen more than once. MAJCOM "promotes" or PCS's somebody into a commander position over an unsat unit shortly before an ORI, only to have the unit fail (naturally), and the new commander take the fall.

A lot of this heat needs to be directed at Kiley as well... it's a pity he's apparently getting a free pass.

posted by TheNewGuy on March 1, 2007 4:37 PM

Here's another post article detailing how far back the neglect goes... note that Kiley is quoted prominently (and his quarters are right across the street from building 18).

Here's the money paragraph:

Kiley lives across the street from Building 18. From his quarters, he can see the scrappy building and busy traffic the soldiers must cross to get to the 113-acre post. At a news conference last week, Kiley, who declined several requests for interviews for this article, said that the problems of Building 18 "weren't serious and there weren't a lot of them." He also said they were not "emblematic of a process of Walter Reed that has abandoned soldiers and their families."

How hard would it have been to walk across the street and stroll around?

posted by TheNewGuy on March 1, 2007 4:50 PM

NewGuy - not around here he won't. But we've got to have something to work with - which Kat seems to have at least a partial handle on.

However, there's this whole having a job thing getting in my way, too, so I'm dependent on outside sources.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 4:51 PM

Dude, I've got stuff from the Navy, the Army, the Marines and the air force. Guess which service is swinging last on the management of benefits scale and processing folks from unit to unit, managing reserves, etc?

I have to look it up, but some top brass just gave an oversight last year to Congress re: this issue and said that their rating on this was 89%. First, I think he was full of ca-ca and that was overly generous. Second, in a 1 million or more force, 11% unsatisfactory is 110k unsatisfied, screwed up active, reserve and guard component.

Can you imagine having 110k employees with screwed up benefits and pay?

I realize, of course, the military is the largest employer ever, but seriously, how much money and resources do you need to make it work? And, I swear if I read another "we're going to add this form to fix this" kind of thing, my eyes would have popped out of my head and I would have been launching the laptop.

Primary recommendation: the next guard unit returning from Iraq or Afghanistan should be asked to testify in front of congress about pay, benefits, processing, wounded, etc.

At least the arm forces committee would have something useful to do with their time.

posted by kat-missouri on March 1, 2007 5:48 PM

He assumed command in August. He died for the sins of others. CSI can tell you how long it too for that building to deteriorate.

Gates....... I hope you work for someone like you.

A**H*t

posted by jim b on March 1, 2007 9:31 PM

Excuse my ingnernce here, but what is an ORI?
And I was sort of wondering about Wieghtman...
it didn't seem like he had been there all that long. I certainly hope he fights this, as he should.

posted by Cricket on March 2, 2007 8:00 AM

First - ORI, Operational Readiness Inspection.

Second - Weightman. Certainly he is a scapegoat. That said, his obvious cluelessness about the situation when it broke, and the handling of it, argues for the relief, regardless.

I am more disturbed about recycling LTG Kiley back into the position. Strikes me that he may be the guy I want to have the amended OER. Given that Kiley was Weightman's predecessor, and some of his asinine comments about Building 18, I have to wonder just what they are thinking over at the Puzzle Palace.

The clear answer to me would have been to bring in someone from, oh, Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston to take over, not bring back a commander under whose watch this stuff was also going on.

Feh.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2007 8:38 AM

Fair enough but even so..he was trying to fix some of the problems until the story broke...after a four month investigation into the problems. That was right about the time Kiley left and Weightman took command when this story was being investigated.

*grumps off to the castle kitchen to fix lunch*

posted by Cricket on March 2, 2007 8:51 AM

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Cricket.

I've got no per se problem with MG Weightman's relief.

I've got strong issues with LTG Kiley as his replacement, given this all happened on his watch, too.

But until I develop a source inside the E-ring, I'll just have to speculate.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2007 9:24 AM

John - Getting the "pinging too fast" error again when trying to trackback this article via haloscan.
my post is http://foreignobjectdamage.blogspot.com/2007/03/command-responsibility-at-walter-reed.html

posted by Fod on March 2, 2007 11:21 AM

Well...yes I agree with you on Kiley. And since I don't have the command perspective that you and Cass do, I concede the POV re: Weightman.

*feeds moat monster and set out scruple snacks*

posted by Cricket on March 2, 2007 2:34 PM

MSNBC? and personal accountability and responsibility? Doesn't match. The civilian media does not have a clue. The individual in command is responsible for everything that happens.
I had a CO in an A-7 Squadron at NAS Lemoore, CA relieved by Commander-in-Chief, United States Pacific Fleet. In early 1985, USS Enterprise returned home to NAS Alameda after a deployment to the IO/WESTPrks for the most part.AC. The ship ran aground in San Francisco Bay. He was relieved when Enterprise finally moored pierside.
The system wo

posted by Glenn M. Cassel, AMH1(AW), USN,RET on March 2, 2007 6:56 PM

by John on Mar 01, 2007 | Observations on things Military
� Foreign Object Damage links with: Command Responsibility at Walter Reed

Speaking of aviators...

Lex, this one's for you.

Naval Aviator
On a carrier, the Naval Aviator looks over at the Catapult Officer ("Shooter") who gives the run up engines signal by rotating his finger above his head. The pilot pushes the throttle forward, verifies all flight controls are operational, checks all gauges, and gives the Cat officer a brisk salute, continuing the Navy / Marine tradition of asking permission to leave the ship. The Cat officer drops to one knee while swooping his arm forward and pointing down deck, granting that permission. The pilot is immediately catapulted and becomes airborne.

Air Force Pilot

We've all seen Air Force pilots at the air force base look up just before taxiing for takeoff and the ground crew waits until the pilot's thumb is sticking straight up. The crew chief then confirms that he sees the thumb, salutes, and the Air Force pilot then takes off. This time-tested tradition is the last link in the Air Force safety net to confirm that the pilot does not have his thumb up his a$$.

Army Aviator

If you've ever seen an Army helicopter pilot preparing for takeoff, you will note that the pilot gives the ground guy a thumbs up before he is given hover and takeoff signals. There are two theories about the origin of this gesture. One is that it is to show that the pilot has identified which of his fingers is the thumb so that he will be able to properly operate his controls. The most compelling theory says that this is to show the ground crewman that the pilot indeed knows which direction is up.

It's not often I get to diss Dusty and Bill in the same post...

by John on Mar 01, 2007 | I think it's funny!

Speaking of aircraft carriers and the funny people who use them...

The carrier in the picture in this post, that I challenged you to identify was indeed HMAS Melbourne. Your clinching clue that she was Aussie was the Gannetts. Of all those nations who operated that class of carrier, only the Aussies used Gannetts. Yes, I actually planned the post that way...

Now here's another make-ya-look-twice picture.

Herc on the Forrestal

Yep, that's a C-130 sitting on the deck of the USS Forrestal. Yep, it's all for real. The whole story (with videos) is available here at The Aviation Zone. At Cassandra's old stomping grounds, I Love Jet Noise, Joatmoaf has more. Just, kewl. We military types will do *such* silly things if you ask us to.

Update: Steeljaw Scribe covered this subject, far more thoroughly, last month. Worth the visit!

by John on Mar 01, 2007 | Aircraft

H&I* Fires, 28 FEB 2007

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

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

************************
Beinart now says it is guilt too. It is that simple.
--
Of course going anywhere and going often makes it hard to be able to handle the next thing down the pipe. Such would still be true if we’d attacked DPRK or Iran instead of Iraq, and if we had the military sized as the Service Chiefs have asked for the last 20 years while we attacked them instead of Iraq. Just as going to Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans made it hard to meet NATO and other commitments.

That there can be one too many eggs to juggle (with the implication that Iraq is one too many eggs) isn’t the best question. Why so few eggs before we peter out, if we’re defacto Globocop as we have been since the inception of NATO, is a much better one.

Makes you wonder if people really knew what they were doing during budget and manpower arguments in years past. Also makes me wonder if some people are doing this now because someone without a D next to their name isn’t ‘King of America’ while others make light of it because someone with an R next their name is ‘King of America’ right now.
--
News from Afghanistan: The destruction of the poppy crops doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect, when it's being done at all.
--ry(made all neat and clean now. Oops.)
**********************************
Well, isn’t this special. Dr. Don’t Mention and Elephant says Bush wants to use tactical nuclear Tomahawk cm to attack Iranian nuclear facilities because Bush, amongst others, has said all options are on the table and the US has never signed a No-First-Use agreement. It is FUN to operate in a vacuum when you do these things. Everything is available and you’re unconstrained by actual goals and national policy. It’s such fun! It’s so easy!

Sometimes it’s best to actually study the subject before you go off screaming, ‘Bush is going to start a nuclear war!’ Just being smart doesn’t make you a polymath with a deep grasp of everything you know.

Do you have to destroy something to put it out of commission? Is mission kill sufficient? Is offline for 2 months to a year sufficient for national policy goals? What are the national goals wrt Iranian nuclear weapons research? None of these questions is asked. Just straight to ‘those batiches are going to employ nuclear weapons because we know he’s a Nazi!’

And why are these guys taken seriously? I can only guess ignorance.
--ry
********************************

Excellent little bit on office sycophants. -the Armorer

********************************
I got this from the Angel Forum. A soldier gave his life twice. Once in service to his country (actually serving in two branches, Navy and Army) and once when he donated his heart.

You can tell it was his way of doing things. His dad was quoted as telling him not to volunteer for anything, just do your time and come home. That sounds like a lot of parents. But, like all children, they have to make their own way and this soldier volunteered for duty on his "day off" that eventually led to his death. I truly believe, that these are the best of us. - Kat

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

L'eggo my Lego! Brab, BCR, get yer loons under control! -the Armorer

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

Glad I'm not the only one who wants to bang my head against a wall when I hear/see/read smart people go Looney Tunes over Dubya. ...guess I'm in good company.

...but then again, rather than simply being frustrated (as I increasingly am), you offer some instructive remarks. In that sense, you're in the company of folks like Mark Steyn, as I note HERE. ...of course, Mark does it with that unparalleled rapier-like wit of his--and you with the brute force of an artillery barrage of questions:

Do you have to destroy something to put it out of commission? Is mission kill sufficient? Is offline for 2 months to a year sufficient for national policy goals? What are the national goals wrt Iranian nuclear weapons research? None of these questions is asked. Just straight to ‘those batiches are going to employ nuclear weapons because we know he’s a Nazi!’

Well done...I'm glad I'm on your side! All the best. ~Willyshake

posted by WillyShake on February 28, 2007 9:33 AM

"Our words are backed by Nuclear Weapons!"

The call that has to be made regarding Iran's Nuclear stance is to call why Iran can't have them and others can. At the end of the day each nation feels it has a right to Nuclear Weapons if it wishes just as the US and many other nations that already have them do. The argument has to be strong and cover Pakistan which i feel will be the hardest thing to do. Bush obliquely made such an argument (no matter how well or badly) in his Axis of Evil speech but I feel the points and conclusions are not yet properly put forth at an official level. One of the reasons the world and citizens at home are not properly supportive is the ideas behind the actions are put together like a Code Pink support the troops rally. It's confusing and divisive.

Now if it's decided that Iran cannot have such weapons then all cards are on the table even the very nuclear weapons Iran so desires (though i suspect not delivered in such a method).

But a stoneager strike is overkill and everyone knows it so this guy is letting his fear and excitement about Bush overrule his brain.

However we could well restrict every supportive resource Iran has. Embargo it as completely as possible. Cut the roads, water electricity to the site bomb it kill all the scientists and engineers and skilled workers involved as much as this is distasteful to me. Bomb every component making factory mine and warehouse. if needed kill the economy and infrastructure.

The price of this is high very high in human terms so it's important to know why we are to do it. I'm hinting here at the price in human terms of not doing it. And there are perhaps other solutions. But if the argument is well made then do it and it'll be understood ignoring a superpower's demands right or wrong is folly of the highest order.

posted by Trias on February 28, 2007 10:56 AM

I did not know about the Sacred Legos controversy. I feel strongly on the issue of Legos, since when I was young we were too poor to afford them -- but my *sister*, on the other hand, arrived when the cash flow was better and SHE GOT THEM. I have guilted her into giving me Legos for presents ever since ;-)

As far as the local loons go, we have a severe infestation. Dart guns just aren't going to do the job. I'm thinking setting up a "protest reinactment" of SugarButton's Great Pot-plant Massacre, only substituting aerosol Thorazine for the defoliant. Bill, do you know where we can rent a suitable hellaflopper with spray boom? We'll let you fly it...

posted by bad cat robot on February 28, 2007 11:51 AM

Is the idea that if the US had signed a no-first-use agreement that that would someone prevent the US from actually doing it?

If so, one wonders what the mechanism of action he has in mind by which signing a slip of paper with no enforcement agent behind it somehow actually precludes launching a missile?

I've noticed it's a strange world some people live in, since they evidently think, by their own statements, complaints, and demands, that a symbolic gesture or words somehow prevents an action they dislike.

Like all agreements and treaties, such an "agreement" isn't worth the paper it's written on if it ever becomes more useful to renege than to obey it.

(One is inclined to try and remind them that a contract or a treaty is only powerful if there's an enforcement mechanism; the problem being that between world powers, and especially between the US and anyone else, there aren't any to speak of, apart from war or economic blockade, neither of which anyone will be using against the US.)

posted by Sigivald on February 28, 2007 1:16 PM

Hey John!

I just saw a promo for FutureWeapons on the Discovery Channel - apparently on Monday's episode they're going to play with the new M177 Howitzer.

You might want to check your schedule and catch that one.

posted by KCSteve on February 28, 2007 6:28 PM

Bill, do you know where we can rent a suitable hellaflopper with spray boom? We'll let you fly it...

Spray booms, plural. Gotta keep the lateral c.g. within pretty strict tolerances or you can faw down, go *kerblooey*, ya know. We did the local manufacture thing with ours.

Pretty much any helicolopiter is suitable for ag-work such as application of demagogicides. You find the aircraft and I'll design the applicator. Although you might derive more satisfaction from direct fire with an M5 Disperser (scroll down to the thing that looks like a stand-alone flamethrower -- because it can do *that*, too...)

By the way, do each of those teachers live in the same *style* house as their fellows? The same *size* house as their peers? In the same *neighborhood*? Have they petitioned the city to make suitable lofts available for their commune? Do the teachers' union reps walk on their hind legs and proclaim that all teachers are equal but some teachers are more equal than others?

Okay, so I'm pulling your L'Eggs...

posted by BillT on February 28, 2007 8:21 PM

'The destruction of the poppy crops doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect...'

Gee, nobody saw that coming.

posted by OD on February 28, 2007 11:48 PM

So, what's the sol'n then Owen? We talked about this about a month ago and you weren't around then. So what's the sol'n?

Drug trade empowers the terrorists as they act as 'stand over men'. Taking the opium fields out empowers the terrorists too. Where's your 'win' sol'n bro?

I think I'm with Chief Bill. Ambush the farkers when they come to pull their standover schtick. It isn't nice. It'll piss off the farmers in the short term. BUt the long term it instills stability and shows that the security forces can actualy secure Joe and Jane Afghani to the local farmer(in his region, of course). What to do with the actual opium though? I haven't the foggiest.

posted by ry on March 1, 2007 12:18 AM

Ry, I'd say the only solution that makes sense from a military point of view is to buy the poppy crop yourselves. Let the Dogmatic Enforcement Agency in and the NATO presence is doomed.

posted by OD on March 1, 2007 12:50 AM

Well, since you weren't around when we did this, yeah, we talked about that(many of us saying we should buy this years crop). But you can't keep buying it, and have national policy on different issues synch up which they should.(This is where John says I told you so about the Drug War.)

Need a longer term sol'n. How do you co-opt the farmers without dismantling drug enforcement against opium/illicit drugs(not that that can't be discussed, but it isn't something likely to happen, Democrats or Republicans in the drivers seat.)?

And if you followed the link, only about 10% of the fields have been destroyed. The guys in the field just aren't doing it because of resistance by the farmers.

posted by ry on March 1, 2007 2:11 AM

I'm with Owen on this one. Buy the stuff, sell it to the pharma companies. That will buy you time to try to figure out a crop that will be economically useful.

Heh. You of all people, Ry, with your emphasis on Realpolitik, should be able to wiggle behind this one.

Letting the Drug Warriors in (especially our drug warriors, don't they have enough to do around here or down south?) without having an alternative to offer is not going to help the situation.

Interesting how the drug issue splits the conservative side - these same discussions occur regularly at NRO.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 6:00 AM

An Afghan farm is a pretty hardscrabble operation. The soil, with the exception of those areas where snowmelt runoff settles and deposits nutrients leached from higher ground, is lousy for growing most crops. Poppies will grow on hillsides, they aren't labor-intensive to cultivate, and they produce something in a single season worth cash that allows the farmers to buy the things they can't grow.

Substituting legumes would probably work, but you'd have to establish the market for them. I doubt Lima beans would be a big hit in the region...

posted by BillT on March 1, 2007 6:03 AM

BillT - Chick peas. The whole ME is crazy about humus (made from chick peas) and it's high in protein... goes great with some olive oil and flat bread.

posted by Oldloadr on March 1, 2007 7:05 AM

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Buy it, sell it to pharma. Sounds good. But have you had to deal with the paper work for purity?(and the nonsense about not buying sweatshop, environmentally friendly and sustainable, blah, blah, blah...) Sounds easy. Sounds good. Not sure that it ultimately is. Tight regulations of the industry, while necessary, don't allow for improvisation.

But we can't continue to buy for a long period of time(going on five years now). Or in excess of pharmaceutical need. 1. It's expensive stuff. Paying below black market won't work. cigarettes have a black market and they're cheap by comparison. So you're back to blackmarkets which helps the terrs more than it helps us or the Afghanis. 2. It keeps them from doing something helpful for the national economy. Real little prosperity generation in such a short term deal. It's a short term fix for the farmer. Real short sided.

And I'm not saying we should have DEA in there...yet. Yet another damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Ideological purity is such a non-starter in geopolitics.

posted by ry on March 1, 2007 7:07 AM

Ry, gottit. We won't be able to make money at it. We may end up having to dispose of it some other way.

Let me put it a little more clearly for you.

We buy the current crop. And no, I don't give a flying finagle about the purity and other carp - that's all noise.

We get them to plant something else (be it chickpeas or whatever).

We then pay the difference between the poppy crop and whatever the cash crop is - and we experiment with finding an economic balance and model that will work.

No different from what we do here. SWWBO and I have been looking at buying an acreage so we can move the horses to where we are, and I can step off the back deck and shoot without scaring or endangering my neighbors.

Much of the available land is agricultural. And the sales pitches include how using leasing and gov't "don't grow anything" subsidies will essentially pay the cost of the buy. We can debate that policy, too - but regardless, it's a model.

You're being uncharacteristically negative on this subject.

Okay, we didn't lay out the 5 Year Plan. I'm not farking competent to do so.

I did lay out an alternative approach, however.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 7:18 AM

I agree with the buy it policy. It's very much short term. Ry is right in painkiller manufacturing consumption, not about purity which he should well know, but about the regulations and their lack of flexibility.

At one level you have to ask the question do you want to win the war on drugs or the war on terrorism? That's simplistic but it does bear thinking about.

Buy it can't last. We have farmers terrorists and a high priced easy to grow crop. That's a really difficult situation.

posted by Trias on March 1, 2007 8:42 AM

Well I'm no agronomist but I suspect coffee might grow in many of these places. And I think it's a commodity whose demand will rise, because the global middle class gets bigger every year. So I would pay market price plus 20% right now - which isn't all that high at this pre-refined stage - for the poppies. I would also specify feasible alternative crops I was willing to buy and would offer double the poppy price per acre's worth of them.

I'd also offer free seeds and other technical help to those planting the alternative crop, such as centrally-kept tractors that can be loaned out. This also engages the farmers in a cooperative project. Those who stuck with poppies would have to fend for themselves.

The alternative crop must have some real market value so the bottom doesnt fall out completely when the program winds down in future years. It would be necessary to build a distribution-collection-export network or the heroin smugglers will take that job over.

As a counterinsurgency plan this has huge advantages. Even as a counter-drug plan it has some. Because it only rewards the poppy growers, while cutting everyone at later stages of the heroin production and delivery process out of the loop. The only people who couldn't be brought in are highly organised farming collectives who do their own early refining. But I suspect those people are already hardened insurgents anyway.

The cost might seem high, but it's actually very low compared to the military expenses. The money being spent on warfighting in Iraq - not counting soldiers' pay, equipment repair etc - is enough to give every man, woman and child in Afghanistan a $300 monthly stipend.

The beauty of it is that you effectively compel the farmers to switch, but do it without using threats or force. That puts the Taliban in the awkward position of having to use force to make them switch back, because it's offering a less lucrative option than you are.

There would be almost no point trying to recoup losses. Pharma already has all the opiates it needs.

I would add that if such a plan weren't adopted, the second-best option would be to just let them get on with it. Eradication is bananas.

Spraying will alienate people both inside and outside Afghanistan. It will raise comparisons with Agent Orange. It might have unforeseen health effects. It will have one highly foreseeable health effect - farmers' kids will go hungry. It will bring NATO and the populace into contact in very negative situations. It will also infuriate European voters, who will say their soldiers are being endangered to please America's obsessive drug crusaders. It could lead to pullouts.

I know for a fact that the British Army is dead against eradication of any sort, and I'm sure the French, Germans etc agree 100%.

Having said all that, I think it's all a bit hypothetical given current trends. The occupation of Afghanistan is going nowhere. There's no reconstruction worth a damn, no reform of warlord rule, hearts and minds are being lost faster than they can be won. NATO is simply treading water in an environment that will get more hostile each year.

Simply fighting the Taliban is a loser's policy. Both sides will kill civilians, but the foreigners will always get most of the locals' blame.

Unless huge changes are made in the occupation, changes which no longer seem feasible, at least while the Iraq war consumes all resources, NATO is ultimately heading for the exit.

Eradication would speed that process enormously, but that doesn't mean non-eradication will reverse it.

posted by OD on March 1, 2007 12:06 PM

Unlike Ry, I'm being characteristically negative.

posted by OD on March 1, 2007 12:20 PM

Indeed. You are.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 12:50 PM

Owen - what about this report, from the Senlis Council? I admit to knowing next to nothing about them, and a lack of time to look into it.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 12:54 PM

Well that's the first I've heard about a legal opium shortage. Certainly I've never heard of western hospitals being short of fentanyl and other such anaesthetics. Third world hospitals are of course typically short of all medicines. I know that CAMH in Toronto, and they're reputable. But much depends on your estimate of need. If some pain-sufferers' pressure group advocates more use of stronger drugs, then naturally it's likely to cite a demand higher than what many doctors are prepared to give out.

Still, it's intriguing, and I admit I was basically assuming Pharma had all it needed based on the fact that I've never heard anything about a shortage.

But like you, I don't think the ability to recoup costs should be a major factor in the decision one way or the other.

posted by OD on March 1, 2007 1:49 PM

Okay, only read the execsum and their "about us" tells me squat, but....

When someone comes out blasting pharma as money grubbing bastiches right out of the gate like that it's a magnesium flare.

Why have we moved away from opioids? They're addictive. Highly. That which makes them effective, the collection of functional groups, makes them highly addictive. When they broke my face, surgicaly, from the eyes down when I was 16 I got 4, count 1-2-3-4, morphine shots total. The rest was non-opioid and oral. Think about that. destruction of 80 percent of the bones in my face and I only got 4 massive shots of morphine in the two days immediately after surgery, with 6 weeks of pain, and starving, left to go. It's nasty but effective stuff.

YOu don't want to be giving people opioids for long periods of time, so I'm throwingh the BS flag on chronic pain. If you do you wind up having junkies you have to put on methedone. Not good. It isn't greed but good science and 'Do No Harm' that pushes that. So that's a flat out indicator of a pharma hater right there. (But I'm a synthetic organics guy by training so you might want to factor that in as well.)

I am on board with them in producing industry in Afghanistan. If soil is a problem build them a Haber plant. Coffee, as I understand it, is rather hard on soil. They'll need it.

OD is rather where I want to go: subsidize for a while with a cash crop in the short term, start some industrialization, smash everyone who doesn't come along for the ride. But where I differ is on keeping opium production going. It is not a good thing. And not just because I'm a tea-totaler. Opioids are great molecules but dangerous. There is no shortage of pain meds. It's just that non-opioid synthetics aren't cheap in the short run. So few can afford lots of them. Expensive synthetics or Rush Limbaugh junkies(or actual physical junkies you put on methedone)? Tough call. Mix of two proll'y best, but that's gotta be watched closely. We don't want to be creating junkies as we treat pain.

Buy and burn this year. Shift over time to subsidized crop. Start industry to support the newer crop(two prong; moves people off of farms to easier to defend cities and is a boost to national economy since more of the money spent on machinery stays in country). BUt first we need a real NATO group effort to pacify some section 24/7 to allow that. Suckage.

posted by ry on March 2, 2007 3:46 AM

by Denizens on Feb 28, 2007 | General Commentary

8:13PM Castle Time...

...and we've got 6 tornadoes in the region.

Busy night for weather people and first responders.

Bad night for tv.

It's all south of us - but hopefully they're little twisters and not touching down often.

No F5s, please.

Heh. I just hit "post" and the NWS calls a flash flood warning for Leavenworth. No worries for the Castle, it will take a biblical flood to reach the demesne. That said - we may find out how well the flood control projects in the county work - projects initiated because of the last floods.

Welcome to the midwest, baby! I'll take it over the hurricane areas any day.

Update. It's now 7:21AM 1 March, Castle Time. And it's snowing.

by John on Feb 28, 2007 | Shameless Self-Promotion

Damage control at Walter Reed.

Things are moving forward at Walter Reed, but it would appear there's an element of "two steps forward, one back" in evidence, as well.

The Army Times is reporting this two steps forward:

The soldiers said they were also told their first sergeant has been relieved of duty, and that all of their platoon sergeants have been moved to other positions at Walter Reed. And 120 permanent-duty soldiers are expected to arrive by mid-March to take control of the Medical Hold Unit, the soldiers said.

Then there's this - which I actually put mostly into a step forward.

Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m.,

Many of the troops undoubtedly think of this an punishment for those who spoke to the press. There may, indeed, be an element of that in there, in that the command is trying to regain control of the message (hold on, more to follow on that thought). However - I suspect this is also the jump-start of a return to a firmer discipline than that seemingly lax form of discipline that led to the environment at Walter Reed.

One of the things the service learned (and apparently forgot) between how it handled casualties in WWI vice WWII, especially psychiatric casualties - is that the maintenance of military discipline - not fanatical ala Gunnery Sergeant Hartman of Full Metal Jacket but simply firm discipline designed to enforce basic standards of cleanliness, appearance, demeanor - and to keep people usefully occupied with relevant tasks. The key to all that is, of course, good leadership, a quality abundantly absent at WRAMC. Getting those troops back into a routine will be good for them, and for the installation. Of course, the follow-on is that the command must also find a way to break through the logjam of paperwork and find ways to usefully employ those soldiers. And if they can't - it may actually make sense to break them out to less full facilities where they can be given useful duties for those times when they aren't busy trying to fight their way through the paperwork.

Now for one step back. Heck, possibly more, if at least in a different direction. That is the clamp-down on media contact - both by the soldiers themselves, and in more official ways.

The Army Times is reporting that the Pentagon has also shut down media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities. This includes suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel. The Army Times quotes a PAO email where the Army's official position is “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place.” This apparently in reference to the panel being convened by DoD to investigate issues at Walter Reed.

I completely disagree. A buddy of mine sums it up nicely:

When will the Army learn that transparency in non-OPSEC issues is a disarming approach? Cover-ups do not work and do not speak well of our REMFs – and I do mean REMFs. This burns my ass…… ML

Gezackly. Better to throw open the doors, than simply ensure that the press will now push harder, and the disaffected soldiery will slip around the corners to talk to them - and you will have completely lost control of the message. And it will be the Army's own damn fault.

Lastly, accountability.

- The 1st Sergeant was relieved.
- The Platoon Sergeants were reassigned.

It may just be an oversight in the reporting by Army Times - but... where is my officer scalp? I *always* want an officer scalp, publicly taken, when things like this happen. Not scapegoat scalps, I want the people who forgot their most basic responsibility to pay the price.

Was the med hold company commander relieved? If not, it must only be because he or she just assumed command and was essentially blameless - in which case there ought to be an amended OER making the rounds for the commander's predecessor. Followed with a show cause for retention letter. And the OER of the rating official who let that company commander get his command to this state should be in receipt of, or pending receipt of, an OER that will guarantee they never command beyond their current level.

There is no way that you relieve a 1SG and reassign all the platoon sergeants and the primary blame doesn't lay squarely on the shoulders of the officer commanding.

Appropriate action may have been taken - and if it was, well, someone ought to report it. I don't have to have the name - I just want to know that officer careers imploded as thoroughly (actually moreso) as the NCO careers did. From where I sit, as a commissioned officer of the United States Army, currently without assignment, there is a disturbing lack of commissioned scalps hanging from the pike at the gate.

And if that is in fact true - it is a failure of leadership at the higher levels at WRAMC. REMFs, indeed.

Sad that an organization that in the balance is full of hard-working, dedicated people who just want to do right by the wounded is being let down by it's commissioned leadership - and if that's not the case, then the PAO needs a new job.

Regardless, more officer scalps please.

I read the same article and said the same thing over at my place. Good thing I came over here to take a look before I went to H&I fires with it.

the continuing saga

I thought the most itneresting part was nearly overlooked. Even though it is part of the "don't talk to the media" aspect of the story, it is interesting that the administration is getting booted from their newly renovated offices and moving the wounded there.

posted by kat-missouri on February 28, 2007 9:55 AM

John,

My observations and experience of many years, for what its worth:

This is a systemic leadership problem within the Medical Department. It has improved somewhat in recent years with an increasingly professional, in the Army sense, Medical Corps, but still suffers from a laissez faire attitude.

Doctors want to be doctors, not leaders, so even though they are the commissioned officers, they provide little leadership, discipline, etc. There are exceptions to be sure, but they stand out by so being. The Medical Service Corps officers and the Non-Commissioned officers take their lead from the Medical Corps officers - the standard is set and its very low.

I had a neighbor in Germany years ago whose wife had a terrible disease that required long term in-patient care at Walter Reed. He was, therefore, attached to the hospital for duty. The hospital commander had a discipline problem and figured that a hard charging infantry Captain could help him fix it. He was right. Standards were set, discipline was enforced, leaders were held responsible and accountable, soldiers were taken care of. I suspect that things reverted to normal after he left, and see by these accounts that the systemic problem is still present.

posted by Leavenworth Centurion on February 28, 2007 9:56 AM

Thank you for the post. Very reasonable, but there is the issue of the poor bastards living in twilight from the opiates and the matter of a guy with three working fingers sitting at desk all day and if his wife didn’t sit with him no one would have checked on him. What useful work can such as they do? Make work is never a solution. And, is there anything useful for them to do? Discipline is one thing, but some of this borders on cruelty and neglect. You are right to point out that this situation cries out for leadership. As one of my old buds said to me a couple of weeks ago they need to put a hard charging combat arms guy in there. It was his experience that if you wanted to fix what was broken quickly and permanently give it to an Armor, Infantry or canon Artillery officer. (MLRS was not really available during his service so I don’t know how he feels about those officers.)

I do suspect your suggestions, if acted on, would alleviate the situation. Sadly, I am not holding my breath until your solution is accepted and in place.

posted by JimC on February 28, 2007 9:59 AM

Heh. You and Jim Cope are reading from the same sheet of music.

For what it's worth - I volunteered for recall to assume command of that company.

No call-back yet.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 28, 2007 10:00 AM

You know, it is always easier to quickly relieve an NCO in place and shuffle him off to some other desk duty than it is to simply mess with an officer, particularly if you are planning to do something nasty like an article 15, etc.

You'd want all the ducks in a row. I did take it from Gen. Kiley's comments in another article that it is likely some others will be hitting ye old career ending bump in the road, but you know he is not going to announce that any more than I'd run out today an announce I was going to fix my problems by effectively firing a supervisor.

That is not done until you have done all the things you need to do.

I expect John to get his scalps, but a little later and probably with a little less bruhaha since the story may have died a bit by the time the process is done.

posted by kat-missouri on February 28, 2007 10:06 AM

I don't know enough about existing manpower at the facility to understand how a whole company of soldiers is going to be part of the solution. That almost sounds like the new troops assigned will become, what, babysitters or jailers? Weird - and obviously my perception has nothing to do with military experience ;-)

It will be interesting to see how long we wait to see/hear that career bumps have been generated for officer(s) involved. I agree that we need to be certain that such happens, because it is obvious that this is a failure of leadership. In fact, I want some very high heads to be affected. Because if the top officers in the command didn't know something was wrong, then they seem incompetent to me. And if they did know, and did not have plans in place to address the needs (and trumpet those plans as soon as the news broke), they are stupid. My 2cents worth.

posted by Adjutant on February 28, 2007 10:17 AM

Kat, while you may be correct, it's not needed. A relief-for-cause is not a hard thing to do.

And you can still do an Article 15 or such as appropriate. But I don't see this as requiring a judicial proceeding.

This is simply administrative. Been there, done that. You just need the 2 Star to agree with you that the performance of the Captain in question rises to the level of relief.

It's a little more complicated for higher ranks, but reliefs can be done in a day, and would not prejudice any further actions.

I want my scalps. Now. Not that they have any obligation to give them to me, but I want 'em.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 28, 2007 10:18 AM

huzzah!

perhaps the light duty tasks they could accomplish could include running a DA level board to review nominations for combat awards and badges and give recommendations... i.e. review for completeness of the packet, and give a sensing of whether the nominated actions rise to an appropriate level of worthiness. (this could potentially eliminate the farcical and capricious manner in which CABs are administered)..

posted by MajMike on February 28, 2007 10:37 AM

leadership problems are not solved by 0600 formations and gagging the troops. They are solved by... well, leadership.

posted by leavenworth centurion on February 28, 2007 10:47 AM

I spent quite a bit of time last night reading the MHO/MPU/MEB etc, etc, etc processes. There are quite a number of presentations from the DOD and the specific branches about handling the processing of soldiers out of or back to active duty.

In reviewing that, I figure that the 120 that are being sent will either be IR already active and serving in multiple MPUs (Medical Processing Units) or an MPU and Mobile MEB/PDES (exam boards) that already exists that are receiving emergent orders.

Otherwise, as a commenter over at my place said, what good will it do? Let's hope no other idiot in the command chain thinks throwing warm bodies at a very public situation is going to solve the problem. Hope they looked around for a successful unit and pulled them to help.

One other thing, I was reading all this interesting stuff last night and the presentations I had indicated the MHOs or Medical Hold Overs (units) were for reserve component soldiers. Ostensibly because they are IRR and cannot return to their active duty unit due to medical reasons and cannot be processed back to the reserve unit or REFRAD (released from active duty) until treatment is completed, disability determined and fitness for duty is established.

Before I go on to write this in a piece, does anybody know any different? Is an MHO reserve soldiers only? Or, are there other similar units that hold active duty soldiers?

posted by kat-missouri on February 28, 2007 11:05 AM

As far as I know, med hold units hold soldiers active duty or not, who are not currently fit to serve with their units.

Where possible, active duty troops are sent back to their units on limited duty while they go through board processing. Reservists are going to comprise the bulk of the current med hold population because many don't have units or facilities that can handle them locally.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 28, 2007 11:12 AM

Won't have time to search for it until this evening, but I could swear I read something about a CO being relieved over WR.

posted by FbL on February 28, 2007 1:19 PM

Thank you, for your post, it was appreciated very much. I could really go off on a rant on this one. This situation did not happen in a vacuum. It also did not happen overnight. In many places such as this, there is some fat in the operation of that particular facility. But there is a certain point, where you can not just cut. It is no longer fat, not even just muscle, but life essential muscle, i.e. heart, lungs, liver, etc. We have been cutting here for a long time. We have cut the infrastructure of the force, BRAC. This is actually where the problem with Walter Reed lives. The military can not keep doing this! We as a nation need to look at the direction of our path. We must pay for this war on terror up front, we can not cut every thing to pay for it. We all must pay for it in one way or another. If this war is so important, bloggers, what is it costing you? I know many of you have served and many are now serving this GREAT nation. Many of you are active duty, reserves, national guard or veterans. Last, but not least, we get to the real unsung heroes, the military familiies, Thank You! Many of you have talked about the volunteers, they are great, but this is NOT a voluntary responsibility. We need to grow an Army and Marine Corps. here in US. Thank you, for your kind attention. As we grow our military, a quote from the past, "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation." - George Washington

posted by Grumpy on February 28, 2007 3:26 PM

Telling the troops to "use their chain of command" and not to talk to the media is standard procedure... but it makes it look like Walter Reed's leadership has something to hide. Besides, using the chain of command worked out oh-so-well in getting all the problems fixed...

Sorry, the commanders blew it on this one, and they need to take their lumps. I agree with the site host; somebody besides NCOs has to go down.

Incidently, the "lack of leadership" point is exactly ass-backwards. Physicians don't need leadership... they need support. Here's my take as an ex-military (now civilian) Doc: Want to help me take care of patients? Keep the micro-managing, metrics-driven, admin-heavy medical leadership off my back, and give what I need to take care of people. Don't put me in a position where I bear ultimate responsibility for lives and outcomes, while simultaneously stripping me of any power or ability to control my budget, staffing, or practice environment.

I don't think you gentlemen understand how bad it is in the medical corps.

Try this link on for size and look around... you'll get a view from the inside. There's a reason why the services are starting to have trouble filling their HPSP scholarships, and it's because military medicine has gone rapidly down hill in the last 10-15 years.

The retention rate for docs past their initial ADSC is in single-digits, and money is NOT the reason.

posted by TheNewGuy on February 28, 2007 6:41 PM

Welcome to the discussion, NewGuy! Oh, and for the record, I was assuming they were going to be MSC scalps, not physician scalps.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 28, 2007 8:26 PM

Hi NewGuy - Welcome. I agree with John - when I said failure of command, I wasn't talking about technical staff, but the administrative command.

posted by Barb on February 28, 2007 11:41 PM

John,

Thanks for the welcome.

Some of the scalps you're after may actually be physician scalps. Medical center commanders are often physicians (though they can be nurses... topic for another day). Now, admittedly they should be delegating things like facility maintenance, but somebody wasn't minding the store.

Frankly, I wasn't surprised by much of anything I read in that article. The military medical system is in deep, deep trouble, and if you think it's bad now, it's going to get even worse in the next 2-3 years. Here's an article about the decline.

From my perspective as an ex-military doc (with plenty of friends still on AD), physician retention is horrible, incoming accessions are dropping off, and there's a war on. The title of the article I linked above is partially incorrect; this phenomenon predates our war in Iraq, and represents a general decline in the desireability of military medicine as a career option. Even before the current shortfall in scholarships being claimed, the percentage of DOs to MDs had been rising, and total applications dropping.

It used to be that HPSP recruiters could get students to take the scholarship, based soley on the spectre of big debt coming out of school. As word is getting out about the current state of military medicine (and plenty of docs are getting out), the students are figuring it out, and not signing up.

here's one more document from an ex-Navy admiral, adddressing the same problem.

posted by TheNewGuy on March 1, 2007 12:01 AM

Hello guys! My boss compels me to post theese links on your site:

[deleted by the Armorer]

Riley8630

[Dude - just say no to bandwidth theft!]

posted by Riley8630 <- Corporate Shill on March 1, 2007 12:46 AM

Tired of Dunnigan's discussion boards NewGuy? Long time no see.

posted by ry on March 1, 2007 2:15 AM

I'm afraid you've the better of me, Ry. I don't remember us ever having interacted before.

I have weighed in at this site on rare occasion, but mostly I lurk.

Who is Dunnigan?

posted by TheNewGuy on March 1, 2007 2:35 AM

YOu didn't post over at the StrategyPage discussion boards before? The handle is real familiar and so is the style.

posted by ry on March 1, 2007 4:29 AM

I was really busy during this whole thing, but recall the spouse telling me he read the commanding general admitting he had never even been inside Bldg. 18 once during his entire time there.

That just appalled me. John is right. If he hadn't been inside, one of his immediate subordinates should have - regularly. That is why this happened. My Dad said the exact same thing, and he is Navy, so you have two officers from two other branches saying essentially the same thing: if you don't bother to check on things, they go to hell in a handbasket.

I also believe that a general inattention to military medicine contributed to the problem - the really important stuff always gets taken care of but once the emergency's over God help you. You're at the mercy of the system, which has always been pretty messed up.

posted by Cassandra on March 1, 2007 4:58 AM

Ry,

Maybe my memory is failing as I age (like everything else), but I don't think I've ever posted over at Strategypage before. It's not one of the blogs I read. Can you give me a link to a specific discussion, or recall what it was about? I wouldn't think my usual contributions to be that memorable.

Cassandra,

The MBWA (Management By Walking Around) concept has been around since the 1980's, but it still holds value. Bottom line: stop answering email, get out of your office, and see what's going on in your organization. A good start would be simply listening to the docs... they'll tell you what they need.

Or better yet, get sick and become a patient... without all the general officer, RHIP perks (because everyone falls all over themselves whenever "colonel/general so-and-so" shows up, few 0-6s or general officers have any idea what kind of medical care Airman Jones gets). Forcing a few generals to navigate the Tricare maze, or call for hours to even get through, or wait weeks for an appointment, or bird-dog their own paperwork (as it gets lost again and again)... that might open some eyes.

posted by TheNewGuy on March 1, 2007 12:27 PM

As of 2:20 EST, it looks like at least one officer scalp can be added to your wall, John.

posted by TheNewGuy on March 1, 2007 1:25 PM

Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love

by John on Feb 28, 2007 | Observations on things Military

Milbloggie winners announced, Castle Argghhh! obliquely noted...

...in the person of a Denizenne! We bask in the reflected glow of her victory!

Let's get the most important up there first. Denizenne Fuzzy!

U.S. Military (Supporter)

Fuzzilicious Thinking

Okay, now for the rest.

U.S. Army

Acute Politics

U.S. Air Force

Afghanistan Without a Clue

U.S. Navy

Doc in the Box

U.S. Marine Corps

SandGram

U.S. Military (Veteran)

U.S. Civilian

Soldiers' Angels Germany

U.S. Military (Spouse)

Andi

U.S. Military (Parent)

Some Soldier's Mom

Congratulations to all! Well, except Matt, who has no room on his sidebar for any more stuff like this... of course, that's just sour graping from a bitter old sore loser, never having even been a blip on the radar in this contest!

The full details are here, at Milblogging.com.

by John on Feb 28, 2007 | Shameless Pandering to Big Bloggers

H&I Fires 27 FEB 2007

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

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

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

Major Bell has another funny story. Here's a taste:

Day two: The alarm went off at 0500, "Oh Lord, I can't move!" It took every ounce of will power to get dressed. I admit it; I whined like a baby to these hard chargers at the bunker and demanded that we dumb this down a bit. "Sir" the Sgt replied, "You are a Marine, we are all Marines...you are expected to maintain that level that separates us from the other services ...Suck it up...Sir."

- FbL

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

How about a little History to get your day started. Something like, oh, 5000 years of Imperial History in the Middle East ... In 90 seconds.
H/T to Christian at Pro Deo Et Patria. - Barb

************************
Lots and lots getting said about the use of a particular type of anti-tank mine. NYT has a piece on it . But Noah Schactman, formerly of DefenseTech but now at WIRED, probably has the best round up of the criticism, scroll down as there’s several posts on it, of the Army’s case.

Of course, when I hear some of the way people react to uncertainty in intelligence, I have to wonder if they really think intelligence work is typified by the certainty of ‘AF is running low on water.’ It isn’t. And we, the general public, need to learn how to live with that.
---ry

*******************
Rather than write something that wasn't going to add anything to what Chap said on the subject - I'll send you over to Chap and his discussion on having more than one party that understands warfare - vice one that kinda sorta does, and another which in it's most public face, deliberately misunderstands it, sometimes seemingly solely to score domestic political points. Oh, and pick your point on the historical timeline any time since the truce that ended Korea... and that statement pretty much holds true (with shades of nuance) regardless of which party is in power. And it's been getting worse.

Greyhawk on 60 Minutes and the Appeal for Redress - and the active duty sailor behind it.

Smash picks on little old ladies... again.

CDR Salamander points to the small victories (which can help prevent the more costly variety) in the Long War that most people just don't notice - because they are... small.

And for some more comic relief - Jules on Walking While Blonde.

Then there's this, from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, concerning Al "Use less!" Gore:

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

Snerk! I love it when the leaders practice what they preach. Just remember boys and girls - when it comes to the elites (righty or lefty) it's almost always "Do what we say - and pay no attention to what we do." How will you know Congress is serious, truly serious, about oh, employment law and Universal Health Care? When the laws apply to them, and you see them in your local clinic, filling out the paperwork themselves. Just sayin'

Update: Mr. Gore responds. As near as I can tell, it boils down to... "I'm rich, so I can afford pricey solutions you don't, and then pay what amount to fines that are insignificant to me (purchasing "offsets") so neener neener neener." Perhaps I'm being uncharitable. -the Armorer

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

The VEEP may not have qualified for a combat patch - but he's at least *heard* the elephant, live, not Memorex. I can imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the lost opportunity that will be going on over at DU. I'm not going to go look, I don't need to. -the Armorer

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

Major John over at Miserable Donuts has some thoughts (and direct experience) regarding where the bombing occured at Bagram today - the one that exploded while the VEEP was visiting.

Moving on to Lebanon, Ry linked yesterday to a bit about Sy Hersh's reportage. Today, let's link to Tony Badran, who blogs from Beirut at Across the Bay, as he does what Hersh's editors do not - a little fact-checking. -the Armorer

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

by Denizens on Feb 27, 2007 | General Commentary

Let's have a photo post...

First off, a little moment of Gunner Zen - this would look good sitting in the Inner Bailey of Argghhh! It would take a crane to get it there, but it would look good.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Now I'm going to go all Naval. Here's one to make a Cold Warrior's trigger finger all itchy.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Sailors - is this just good driving, or an oops-about-to-happen? What's up with this? Somebody didn't want to rig the breeches buoy, and preferred to step deck-to-deck?

Hosting provided by FotoTime

SWWBO would let me have a room like this in the basement. She likes all that brass 'n bronze!

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Lastly - let's see who's got their ship recognition down...

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Update: Okay, we've got the class of the ship. The aircraft are Fairy Gannetts (in front) and Sea Venoms in the rear. See if that helps figure out which ship she is. It should narrow it down to only one user, in fact.

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/melbourne2.html

Let's see here ...

Photo #3 is probably a destroyer trying to fuel from an aircraft carrier at sea, and somebody isn't doing a great job of steering.

#4 is either the forward or the aft torpedo room of a WW2 fleet-type submarine. I'm going to guess the forward room, because way down at the bottom I think I see the chopped-off tops of a third pair of tubes.

#5 is obviously somebody's idea of an aircraft carrier. Definitely postwar, but the overall impression isn't American. Some type of Royal Navy carrier, maybe HMS Ark Royal? Have you got a higher-res version, something sharp enough to ID the aircraft on deck?

posted by wolfwalker on February 27, 2007 8:13 AM

The carrier could be French, those look like F-8s in the front based on the intake. So that makes it the FOCH or Clemenceau.

posted by Brad on February 27, 2007 8:25 AM

Photo #5:

The carrier is one of the Majestic class, built by Britain during WWII but never used by the Royal Navy. It's difficult to tell which carrier is in the photo, but these six ships ended up serving in the navies of India, Australia, Canada, and Argentina.

Photo #3:

This is an accident waiting to happen, and two captains looking at the end of their careers. Definitely well within the normal seperation distance. Emergency Breakaway!!!

posted by SMASH on February 27, 2007 9:49 AM

The last one is a Majestic-class aircraft carrier and although British-built, none went into RN service... They were all used by British dominions (Australia, Canada, India etc).

I am going to guess that the one in the photo is HMCS Bonaventure since she tended to have her pennant number on the aft deck (which is conveniently covered with Banshees).

posted by Chris Taylor on February 27, 2007 9:49 AM

HMAS Melborne, as Sydney evidently missed out on the angled deck. Not Bonaventure as the RCN didn't have Gannets/Venoms, neither did the Indian Navy.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on February 27, 2007 11:37 AM

In picture 3 you can see where the small boy got up under the aft elevator and lifted it up perpendicular to the flight deck.

Somebody is going home.

posted by monkeyboy on February 27, 2007 12:52 PM

Mi-8! Sniffle. BTW, those things are STILL all over AFG.

As for the CVL, I want to say HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22) but the aircraft are all wrong (the Canadians liked US aircraft). That would leave the HMAS Melbourne or Syndey early in her career...methinks.

As for the collision - well - some career openings happened that day. Don't know which one it is though.

posted by CDR Salamander on February 27, 2007 2:30 PM

ship recognition?

YES, as a matter of fact, i DO recognize them.

they ARE ships!

posted by MajMike on February 27, 2007 4:03 PM

Sadly, MajMike's response parallels the response of tankers all over when it comes to target recognition. Targets? Why yes, my sight is full of targets!

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 27, 2007 4:59 PM

HMAS Melbourne was originally one of six Majestic Class light fleet aircraft carriers ordered for the Royal Navy (RN) during World War II.

posted by the_right_reverend on February 27, 2007 6:44 PM

#3: That's the tail end an AD-5W; VAW-11. USS Hornet,(CVA-12) 1958?

At least, unless google is lying to me... :/

As to what the destroyer's doing there? Um, no so sure! Probably wondering what the hell he's doing there? Either that or they're "tradin' paint" in a flat-out dash to port.

posted by andy on February 27, 2007 7:32 PM

OK, as a fellow tanker, I'll step up:

#1: can't move, short tube...use HEAT. Unless it's ours. Then just mock with extreme prejudice.

#2: SABOT, SABOT, SABOT!!! Although we now have cannister...

#3: Like Big E said, rubbin is racin.

#4: That would look good in the garage.

#5: A friggin boat. Who cares? (backs down to turret defilade...)

posted by Blackhawk on February 27, 2007 9:23 PM

Can't move, certainly. Short tube? Sure you got your scale square there, Blackhawk?

Lessee, yer fave, the M256 cannon, is 120mm x 17.32 feet plus a smidge.

Dicke Bertha there is 420mm x 11 feet, he said, mixing and matching his units of measure. Girls always said shorter but thicker beats out longer but thinner...

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 27, 2007 9:53 PM

But....I can traverse, lots of flavors of ammo...luv you long time!

Besides, 'Dicke Bertha' is stuck in the mud. I'm M-O-B-I-L-E. As long as I don't throw track (sad face follows).

posted by Blackhawk on February 27, 2007 9:59 PM

Besides, I win rate of fire...

posted by Blackhawk on February 27, 2007 10:18 PM

The artillery is a German M-Gerät 42cm L/12 Howitzer from WWI. Its main use as I understand it was to attack Belgiums forts around Liege.
http://landships.freeservers.com/42cm_bigbertha.htm

posted by ibm on February 28, 2007 11:24 PM

by John on Feb 27, 2007 | Gun Pr0n - A Naughty Expose' of the fiddly bits

This One's For Husbands Everywhere...

...One-point-Zero and higher. In light of John's post yesterday...

Esther and Charlie went to the state fair every year, and every year Charlie would say, "Esther, I'd sure ‘nuff like to ride in that helicopter."
Esther always replied, "Charlie, that helicopter ride is fifty dollars -- and fifty dollars is fifty dollars."

One year Esther and Charlie went to the fair and Charlie said, “Esther, I'm 85 years old. If I don't ride that helicopter this year, I might not ever get another chance."

Esther replied, "Charlie that helicopter ride is fifty dollars -- and fifty dollars is fifty dollars."

The pilot overheard the couple and said, "Folks I'll make you a deal. I'll take the both of you for a ride. If you can stay quiet for the entire flight and not say a word, I won't charge you! But if you do say something, it’s fifty dollars."

Charlie and Esther agreed, climbed into the helicopter and up they went.

The pilot flew all kinds of fancy maneuvers, but not a single word came from his passengers. He did his daredevil tricks over and over again, but still not a word.

After they landed, the pilot turned to Charlie and said, "By golly, I did everything I could to get you to yell out, but you didn't. I'm impressed!"

Charlie replied, "Well, to tell you the truth, I almost said something when Esther fell out, but you know -- fifty dollars is fifty dollars...”

(And a tip of the dinged steel pot to V29...)

by CW4BillT on Feb 27, 2007 | I think it's funny!

Camera Obscura

If you’re a new visitor and have a few minutes to spare, you can read the background posts here, here, here, here, and here. If you don’t, well, just lean back and enjoy the ride…

The Time: 0640 the morning of Colonel Trinh Vo Thanh’s meeting.

The Place: Dempsey Compound Gate, Can Tho Army Airfield, Phong Dinh Province, RVN.

Sergeant Van Lanh Thu waited while the gate guards performed their normal pat-down search of his trousers and the threadbare American fishing vest he always wore when he reported for work on the American base. Searching the vest always resulted in the guards finding and examining his cigarettes, his battered Zippo lighter and his lunch. The aroma from this last item dissuaded the guards from a further search of his person, which today might have revealed the 8mm film casette for the Minox camera he would shortly retrieve from its hiding place inside a rat-box.

Sergeant Van’s “day job” was stocking every narrow, meter-long, yellow box on the base with rat poison and removing the carcasses of the victims. It was, he thought, the perfect job for intelligence-gathering; everyone saw him and no one took notice of him. He could go anywhere because the yellow boxes with the red “Nguy Hiem” warning were everywhere…

Van knew where the tree-killing unit lived and began walking along the row of helicopters toward the ones with the blue and white insignia on the nose. They killed more than trees last night, he thought, glancing at the expended brass casings littering the revetments. Watch yourself, old uncle, or they’ll get you, too. Van knew that if he patrolled the area, eventually he would see one of the pilots with the metal insignia that many of them wore, and he would be very happy if the first pilot he saw was one of them. The Minox was metal, the sun was climbing, and if he was careless with the way he removed it from its pocket inside his vest, sunglint would betray him. Van squatted on his heels by a rat-box and pretended to examine it while he scanned the line of helicopters in their revetments.

Movement by the far revetment. Brown-green uniform, carrying torso armor with one hand and a helmet bag in the other.

Pilot, carrying weapon, water and little else. He fights light, as is proper, he thought with professional approval. Van saw a flash of metal on the right shirt pocket. Excellent. He’s from the tree-killer unit. He withdrew the Minox, using the rat-box to mask his movements. He’d wait until the pilot’s eyes were averted…

? I know that one!

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

As I walked toward my Huey-du-jour (I didn’t rate my own personal ship yet because we we didn’t have that many to go around anymore), I saw Rat-Catcher Six fiddling with one of the Nguy Hiem boxes and wondered (again) what garbage dump he’d scrounged his fishing vest from. I gave him a grin and a nod of recognition and went back to scanning tail numbers to find mine…

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

Van smiled politely in return and took the pilot’s picture as he turned his head and looked past him.

Van shrugged and baited the rat-box, then washed the poison from his hands in the pond behind the revetments. Later, he watched as the helicopter hovered past, crossed the runway and landed by the barrels of the tree-killing chemical. The pilot he’d recognized was at the controls.

At noon, he sought the shade of the north wall of the building where his cousin worked as the personal secretary of one of the American staff officers. He squatted on his heels, removed the plantain-leaf wrapper that contained his lunch with his left hand and leaned back until his shoulders touched the wall. He picked up the small wad of paper at his feet with his right hand.

He read the note from his cousin. “Sister Phoenix has sung and the fire casts a wider light.” Sister Phoenix was the Political Officer from the North who had been taken prisoner a fortnight previously when the Americans had surprised the Tay Do sub-unit commanders at their briefing. She had been reading the unit rosters provided by the commanders when the American helicopters appeared and, they had all hoped, she’d had the good sense to shove the rosters into the mud before she had been taken. The fire casts a wider light, he thought. It’s time to leave before the fire gets closer and fries my butt. The name of Van Lanh Thu was on one of those rosters, along with the name which appeared on his civilian-hire identity card.

Thirty minutes later, Van was walking briskly along QL4 towards the grove where Tay Do battalion’s sole remaining radio was concealed. In one of his inside vest pockets was a Minox film casette with a single exposure…

To be concluded...

by CW4BillT on Feb 27, 2007 | This is no Sh*t!

H&I* Fires, 26 FEB 2006

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...

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

Bill Roggio highlights Al Qaeda violence against Sunnis in al Anbar. But, wait! Al Qaeda is Sunni, the problem in Iraq is sectarian violence (aka civil war). I'm confused...

Lt. Pantano begins his new career [h/t Raven].

Surfing around, I just discovered this great report of last week's regular Walter Reed vigil. Talk about dedication! And that dedication was rewarded...

Democrats are very unhappy with Murtha. But as usual, it's about politics and power, not policy.

On the much lighter side: Punctuation gone bad.

And finally, a peek into The Armorer's Bedroom (scroll down to the second pic). - FbL

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

Great things going on in Kansas City with Soldiers' Angels. We have several events coming up. We're moving ahead with our Snake Saturday Float Planning and Preparation. We are also working with the American Legion Riders Post 370 on a Poker Run June 3. Finally, we have our first KC Soldiers' Angels Video up and planning more as we meet and go to events. It's a shout out to the troops so feel free to share it with all the men and women in uniform.
[thanks for the space] - Kat

************************
Sy Hersh is at it again. Many are all over this already so expect to be lambasted with it on the talking heads shows.
This is also why guys like me get tired of conflicts. Sigh. I love the bait and switch he pulls within the first three paragraphs. Also, by the metric Hersh apparently uses in relation to funding disparate groups the tactic of cooptation is impossible since, guess what, some of them aren’t totally our side. Good luck trying to win irregular conflicts that way.
--
I wonder if they blame Glenn Reynolds or Michael Ledeen for this. This is why a good definition of terrorism is necessary. Not just one that has whoever helps us is good and whoever is against is bad. Guerilla war and rebellion are legal forms of conflict. There’s a lot to cover on this, but there are tactics that are kosher and some that aren’t. This article didn’t go into that so I’d caution them before they start hurling around the term ‘terrorist’.
--ry
********************
Today at 1430 - Medal of Honor Ceremony: Commander in Chief George W. Bush presents the Congressional Medal of Honor to LTC Bruce P. Crandall (Ret.) for his heroic actions in the Battle of Ia Drang, while serving with A Company, 1, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) in the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Channel will be carrying the ceremony live with an encore presentation at 1900 hrs....Maggie

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

Meet Private Stephen Sanford - someone you should know. My only question is... only the Distiguished Service Cross? What, in this war, and this Pentagon, you have to die to rate the Medal? -the Armorer

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

The following is where I took the link ry provided on the Iranian insurgency and went on a tangent. I actually agree with ry’s comments in the context of the world we live in. I think this rant of mine is a subject worth visiting, even if nothing will ever change in the “real” world.
“Terrorist” and “Freedom Fighter” are both propaganda terms. It is usually not decided until the last battle is fought as to which a particular group is. Remember the Taliban were freedom fighters when they were killing Ruskies. The South lost the US Civil War and so that will forever be remembered as a rebellion. The Colonies won the US war of Independence and so, that will forever be remembered as a revolution. That is just the way things are and we will never be able to change that.
The problem we have in the West is we want War to resemble a really intense rugby match rather than the truly terrible thing it was meant to be. We have allowed some people who consider themselves enlightened to create so many rules that you almost need a law degree to be an infantry rifleman. What really compounds this problem is that the cultures of the East laugh at our “silly” ROE. They only read the Geneva Conventions so they will know what we call the rules they are about to break. Of course, here’s where somebody (maybe ry) will say 2 wrongs don’t make a right. My answer to that is, who originally decided anything was “wrong” in the first place and when was it decided? Generals Sherman and LeMay, fighting 3 generations apart, had no qualms about total war for the victory. Of course you will never see a statue of Sherman in Atlanta, or LeMay in Tokyo, but they weren’t out to win popularity contests either. My personal belief is the more terrible war is, the fewer rules there are, the least likely that war will occur and when it does occur, both sides will fight all out and it will end soon. We have never made the war so horrible for the insurgents or the Shiah militias, or al Qaeda that they can no longer stand it. It fact, they are being allowed to slowly bleed us dry while our politician talk about “hearts and minds.” Every time we show mercy, it is perceived as weakness by the eastern mind.

posted by Oldloadr on February 26, 2007 1:43 PM

Every time we show mercy, it is perceived as weakness by the eastern mind.

Worse than that, it's perceived as our tacit acknowledgement of their superiority.

Our gun platoon, the Copperheads, had "Die, B@st@rds, Die" as an addendum to their patch. A REMF Major from 1st Aviation Brigade came down as part of the annual IG inspection and went ballistic. Screamed that we were supposed to be winning the hearts and minds of the indigenous population by our noble yadda-yadda-yadda.

The Copperheads promised him they'd change their motto.

That night, they painted over "Die, B@st@rds, Die" on their platoon door with "Let Me Win Your Heart And Your Mind Or I'll Blow Your %$#@ing Hootch Away!"

Next morning, REMF Major saw it, blanched, and said, "Go back to 'Die, B@st@rds, Die'..."

From personal observation, the most effective tool for convincing the little AK-toters to come on over to our side was seeing what flechettes had done to their buddies...

posted by BillT on February 26, 2007 6:28 PM

This news from Britain might interest some of you, since I know how anxious many here are that the soldiers aren’t getting proper recognition for their efforts and sacrifices. A leading British artist, Steve McQueen, was commissioned by the Imperial War Museum to paint the official portrait of the Iraq War.

He came up with the idea of a montage of the faces of the British fallen (115 in number). But the MoD was horrified, and asked him to do a landscape instead. They also refused to help him contact the soldiers’ families for permission. He went ahead anyway, and only four of the 115 families refused.

He also proposed that the soldiers’ faces be commemorated on stamps, as has happened with previous official war portraits. Again the families agreed. But the Post Office, which is run by the government, refused. The MoD tried to obstruct the project at every turn.

I thought it provides an interesting complement to the Walter Reed fuss. I think it’s becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that our military bureaucracies really give a damn about the troops. But DoD is a nurturing mother hen to the troops compared to the cynical, craven liars who populate Britain’s MoD. They are actually trying to obstruct the commemoration of their soldiers who have died in combat.

The MoD represents no principles, it has no moral map. Its only instinct is bureaucratic self-preservation. If they thought they could get away with it, they would probably pretend there is no war.

posted by OD on February 26, 2007 7:22 PM

Owen - who in Britain champions the troops?

Here, Bill and I are literally working with Patti Patton-Bader of Soldier's Angels to provide a private solution to the Walter Reed Bldg 18 issue, in addition to all the caterwauling that is going on politically and from the left.

No one on the left (as far as I have seen) is both working on a solution *and* pressuring the bureaucracy. What I see from the left (to include IAVA) is little more than scoring political points and demanding that someone *do* something.

We're doing... both. And focusing on ourselves getting something done.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2007 9:26 PM

Thank you for the link!!

posted by Raven on February 26, 2007 9:43 PM

Dude, so what's the 411 on the SA-WRAMC thing? I've been real bad about keeping on top of that. I did contact Aho to get in on this before RBP dropped a line over here. Can I play or this above my childlike mind to comprehend? ;)

posted by ry on February 26, 2007 10:12 PM

Well, the British Legion is the main organistation, though I'd say it's as much a legal-costs insurance scheme as anything else. Theyre usually representing about 30-40,000 war disablment pension cases. But it never makes any political comment, or any media comment at all, even about pensions etc, and takes no positions, never has. It's patronised by the Queen, dontcha know?

A lot of the time the Iraq veterans who are injured or have PTSD are represented by the original Gulf War Syndrome group, the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association. I spoken often to the guys running it, especially Shaun Rusling.

There's very little protest about the politics of the war from the veterans in Britain, to be honest. The Generals, yes, but the enlisted no. They seem more interested in suing the government than criticising it.

In my experience there are few British veterans who've served in the past few years who are are happy, or even pro-Army. But for all I know, many were thrilled about toppling Saddam. It rarely comes up, because they generally prefer to talk about how they've been betrayed in some way by the odious MoD.

Did you know the MoD tested sarin nerve gas on British servicemen in the 1950s? They then fought paying compensation for 50 years.

posted by OD on February 28, 2007 10:43 PM

Of course the nature of my job is much more likely to bring me into contact with unhappy soldiers than happy ones, so my sample is probably highly biased. Few of the American veterans I talk with are very fond of DoD, for that matter.

posted by OD on February 28, 2007 10:56 PM

by Denizens on Feb 26, 2007 | General Commentary

I don't know 'bout you guys, but I need a joke. Even a variation on an old one.

I understand BCR Labs is working on some additional apps...

As I discovered, being on Wife 3.x myself, "dot zero, much less One-dot-Zero releases can be very tricky programs. Of course, I only recommend switching OS's as a last resort. The upfront and downstream costs can be immense, and any interim OS's will have their own bugs.

INSTALLING HUSBAND 1.0
Dear Tech Support,

Last year I upgraded from Boyfriend 5.0 to Husband 1.0 and noticed a distinct slow down in overall system performance -- particularly in the flower and jewelry applications, which operated flawlessly under Boyfriend 5.0.

In addition, Husband 1.0 uninstalled many other valuable programs, such as Romance 9.5 and Personal Attention 6.5 and then installed undesirable programs such as NFL 5.0 , NBA 3.0, and Golf Clubs 4.1.

Conversation 8.0 no longer runs, and Housecleaning 2.6 simply crashes the system. I've tried running Nagging 5.3 to fix these problems, but to no avail.

What can I do?

Signed, Desperate

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

Dear Desperate:

First keep in mind, Boyfriend 5.0 is an Entertainment Package, while Husband 1.0 is an Operating System. Please enter the command: "http: I Thought You Loved Me.html " and try to download Tears 6.2 and

don't forget to install the Guilt 3.0 update. If that application works as designed, Husband 1.0 should then automatically run the applications Jewelry 2.0 and Flowers 3.5.

But remember, overuse of the above application can cause Husband

1.0 to default to Grumpy Silence 2.5, Happy Hour 7.0 or Beer 6.1. Beer 6.1 is a very bad program that will download the Snoring Loudly Beta.

Whatever you do, DO NOT install Mother-in-law 1.0 (it runs a virus in the background that will eventually seize control of all your system resources). Also, do not attempt to reinstall the Boyfriend 5.0 program. These are unsupported applications and will crash Husband 1.0.

In summary, Husband 1.0 is a great program, but it does have limited memory and cannot learn new applications quickly. You might consider buying additional software to improve memory and performance.

We recommend Food 3.0 and Hot Lingerie 7.7.

Good Luck, Tech Support

H/t, Tommy V.

by John on Feb 26, 2007 | I think it's funny!

K-Lo, Your Slip is Showing...

Personally, I think Kathryn should have elaborated on this just a tad more than she did.

At first glance, one might assume she meant he's too valuable to risk in a war zone. I doubt that's what she meant...or at least I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that that's NOT what she meant.

Rather, I'm assuming she's concerned that Harry's presence may increase the risk to his mates because he's a very high value target and thus more enemy attention, effort and assets would be directed against the areas and specific unit/units with which the heir to the throne may be associated. That would of course increase EVERYONE'S risk, not just Prince Harry's.

Fair enough and point well taken. If, however, she meant what she wrote in a literal sense, i.e., it would be unwise to put a member of the royal family in harm's way because he/she's worth too much, well, stand back while we open up a fairly large can of verbal whupa$$.

Just sayin'...

Update: This isn't my email she's quoting, but mine was along these lines. I think she got the message, Dusty. -the Armorer

Update: I just read that, too. I'm not so sure she did, other than to acknowledge that the original post brought several responses in the negative. No mention of, "What I meant to say..." -Instapilot

Sgt. B asks for advice...

by Dusty on Feb 26, 2007 | General Commentary

Military in a Civilian World

So there I am, on the counter of a major construction rental company, the first bright and shiny face a customer sees, ready to meet his needs, solve his problems with efficiency and proffessionalism…

But it seems that my vocabulary is laced with some interesting turns of phrase:

“Roger that.” instead of “Okay.”

“I lost my bearing.” instead of “I lost my cool.”

“Squared away and stowed.” instead of “Cleaned up and put away.”

So my manager, who spent four years in the Marine Corps’ aviation side about twenty years ago, brings me into his office.

“B., we need to talk,” he says, “There have been some complaints.”

I lean forward in my chair, my mind racing - I’m new to the counter, have I missed something? Have I failed to provide the expected support that is demanded of my position? Have I somehow not interacted with a coworker with respect and courtesy?

“Ummm,” he says, “you need to tone down the military attitude.”

Huh?

I make a quick recap of the way I’ve presented myself to my coworkers, to the customers. I’ve tried not to present myself as some over-bearing Drill Instructor. I haven’t brought out the gory war stories. I haven’t peppered my speech with the invectives found in the lexicon of a soldier. I’ve kept a low profile, opening that mental green footlocker only when asked (or so I thought.)

“You need to be a little more relaxed…” he continues, “Joke around a bit on the counter, like the other guys…”

Hmmm…

“Because if you don’t, I’ll take you off my counter…” he finishes.

I can hardly believe my ears. (I didn’t even broach the fact that, while he was in the Marine Corps, the whole idea behind that whole “Marine thingy” might differ betwixt his experience, as a Marine air wing Lance Corporal, and a longtime Marine Infantry Sergeant as far as cementing certain ideals and attitudes are concerned…)

“Look,” says I, “You put your military experience behind you a long time ago. So did the only other guy who was actually in (Air Force), but I still need to retain hold of certain traits, seeings how I’m still ‘on call’, so to speak, and staring at a possible combat deployment in a few years…”

“I understand that. I’ve got friends who have kids in the military, who are in the Army, deployed to Iraq. I’m behind you on that,” he counters, “But I still want you to tone it down… - ” he gives me a smile, “You remember what it was like to be a civilian?”

I shrug, “No, actually I don’t. My family had somebody in the service continuously since before World War Two…”

I didn’t add: With the exception of that span of time between the Corps and the Guard, where I worked in an engineering environment overwatched by nuclear engineers trained by Rickover, or my second civilian job, where most of our customers were retired or Veteran Marines…

“Well, try, okay?”

“All right,” I answer, “I’ll do my best.” I assure him.

But a certain part of me wants to ask, “Ummm, do you understand that I might be the one leading your friend’s kid into places where the bad guys want to kill us…”

The whole flavor of the conversation was bitter to me. I understand the need to tone down my enthusiasm for the military, and suppress that ol’ Jarheadedness so that it doesn’t unnerve the general public, and I had thought I was doing it. I mean, even the Mad Irishman had called me on it, and I took his observations to heart.

I also figured that a customer might feel a bit more secure in knowing that somebody with a passing familiarity with the concept of accomplishing the mission was watching over him, ready to assist him in meeting his own goals, I mean, we kinda are in that business, right?

I know of fellows who are still paying for their time in uniform. I also know of fellows who have successfully hung their sabers over the mantel and moved on…

…But these are guys who know that they can put their service away, let the soldierly ways fade, without the worry of having to wake them back up and hone that fine edge on their war-fighting skills again…

I’ve gotta wonder what he’s going to think, should the aforementioned deployment happen, and I return to this civilian position carrying the baggage that a soldier enevitably accquires during war… Or am I to see myself as a civilian who has been swept up in the maelstrom of the military - I mean, I am just a “weekend warrior”…

I suppose that this throw into stark contrast another indication of the chasm between the military and the civilian world. And I get to balance on that razor’s edge, not going too far in either direction, neither allowing any edge I have left to dull, or allowing my martial spirit to invade my civilian workspace…

Have I allowed my sense of self to become too enmeshed with the trappings of my military past? Is this a bad thing? Should I, can I, am I able to just “let it loose”?

This is the very first time I’ve ever looked at my military breeding in the negative, and I don’t know whether it is me who has erred… I feel is if my entire core of being has been called into question… I suppose it had to happen sooner or later…

These questions are profoundly disturbing to me, and I sure could use some words of counsel from those who have made that terrifying transition…

[reposted by FbL]

� Secure this line!

B: I left the Army in 1987 as a very hard-nosed SSG. It took me several years to get to where people thought I was ok to be let out in public with plain ol' civilian folks. Fortuantely, I transitioned into that world by way of 6 years of defense cotnractors, staffed mostly by former mil folks who were able to school me. It still took 3 yrs working for the Indiana Dept of Ed and about 1.5 yrs running a small business to realize I would never be completely shet of what you are describing. That was a big reason I took a big pay cut and went to work for the Gov't.

I had never had a civilian job before I joined the Army at 17. I left the Army after 14 years. I was pretty good at it, which made me not so good at being among people who get their feelings hurt too easily by people like me who don't shellac their commentaries enough (Ry is an example). My Philly upbringing didn't help, the Army just 'enhanced' that some.

Anyway, it isn't you. And there is nothing for it. Really. You either change your ways or you pretend. If that's the real you, it will eventually turn against you inside. Working with school teachers (especially high school teachers, some of whom are the most immature people on the planet earth) was the lowlight of my life. I once offered to let a whiner little snot of a drama teacher use my handkerchief--I was reprimanded for my tone of voice (which was snippy, but not what I would have called uncivil)...

Sorry for the bad news, but there is nothing for it. If you are military in thought, bearing, attitude, and focus you will have to change to fit in or find a job where those things are more common or acceptable. Think sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs...

Don't let it get you down. It's not YOU with the problem. It's just you who stands out. Other people feel less... well, just "less," around former and current mil folks.

You might try slouching, mumbling, avoiding eye contact, and being less 'ept.' That'll probably make the other counter folks feel more secure.

BTW, it might just be your boss too. He might have feelings of repressed frustration that he doesn't recognize... After all, he had to change a lot more than I ever did if he was a Marine...

--
V/R
SangerM

posted by SangerM on February 26, 2007 7:00 AM

Working with school teachers (especially high school teachers, some of whom are the most immature people on the planet earth) was the lowlight of my life. I once offered to let a whiner little snot of a drama teacher use my handkerchief--I was reprimanded for my tone of voice (which was snippy, but not what I would have called uncivil)...

Heh. That brings back some awful memories; for all my soft civilian ways, I think I have more in common with you military folks than I thought, haha! I have so little patience for immature adults, particularly my educational colleagues. I got in trouble for not being smiley and kiss-up to everyone. Being an over-worked and under-supplied music teacher, my emotional energy went elsewhere. Took me awhile to learn the "softer arts" of soothing those sensitive and needy spirits of my co-workers.

posted by FbL on February 26, 2007 7:29 AM

B, maybe the above shows that while it's not your nature, what you need to succeed CAN be learned. It's not so much suppressing your instincts as it is developing a tool to pull out of your arsenal when you walk through that door each morning, then put away when you clock out. :)

posted by FbL on February 26, 2007 7:31 AM

Hello B, welcome to the panty waisted, politically correct, public relations, and self serving civilian world.

I still have the same problem you just defined. I finish telephone calls with "Out". When giving a briefing to my technicians I tend to do it in a forceful, and direct fashion. I don't "Put on a (Insert Company Here) Face" when addressing my technicians. I tell them what I know, I tell them the truth as I know it, and ask them to their best.

The end result is I'm a very successful Project Manager, with no full time job. Because I'm too military.

And it's not anyone's fault. I mean I only did it for almost 10 years. Why should I expect people to take responsibility for their actions, why shouldn't there be accountability?

That being said it *is* a different world out here, and folks like a *cough* kinder gentler touch. When it suits their needs.

You be who you are comfortable being. Thats the road I would take, no matter what others thing. Make an effort to relax somewhat, the skills will not go away entirely. Otherwise, be who you want, but be prepared: out here, folks will look at you as if your from another planet.

Dunno if that helps, but best I can come up with on short notice

posted by BloodSpite on February 26, 2007 7:53 AM

Before i forget:

Marines throughout history have shown great resolve in the face of adversity to see a job through. Perhaps this is why retired Marine Colonel, Jim Hodges, states that many civilians have a “break out in case of emergency” mentality when employing Marines (Interview, July 11, 2003). When something really needs to get done, it seems intuitive to the business world to get a Marine on the task, explains Colonel Hodges. But after the crisis passes, the Marine in the civilian world is often inexplicably shelved until the next emergency comes along. Thought of as a square peg in a round hole, many civilians hold the belief that the leadership skills learned by the Marine while on active duty, somehow do not translate well to the civilian sector.

Thats from interview conducted by a fellow named Gannon Beck probably one of the best resources I've found regarding transitioning. Read it, it may help, you may like it.

posted by BloodSpite on February 26, 2007 7:57 AM

I can completely relate! I think a big part of it is that the military gives you significantly more responsibility and influence at a much younger age. When I was a young Ammo PL, I did a rotation at NTC, 'managing' 21 people and approx. 90 tons of high explosive. My civilian job (I'm ARNG) was admin assistant. I was even counseled on toning down my military bearing because it made the civilians uncomfortable. Probably because none of them had ever served in any capacity. Aside from me, their only military interface was a father or grandfather who served in WWII or Korea or Viet Nam. I never mastered the change and am now full-time with the ARNG (thus delaying my transition for another decade or so). Good luck to you!

posted by Mike Greene on February 26, 2007 8:35 AM

SGT B: i know exactly where your head is at, and you are to be commended for correctly analyzing your current situation... i also know exactly what your boss is talking about, and i have been myself on both sides of that exact same conversation.

here's one piece of practical advice, and it is going to be a personal endorsement by me of a program that you will initially feel silly taking part in, but it will pay dividends for you in your civilian encounters. go take the Dale Carnegie course.

it will cost you a couple nickels, but it will give you a very in-depth look into how you yourself present yourself in both business and social situations. some of it won't surprise you, some of it will, but it WILL make a difference in how you determine your appropriate Course of Action for any meeting engagement.

it's an investment in your future (and if your boss agrees, see if he'll pay for it as an investment in HIS workforce (a smart manager will see it as an investment that will pay dividends)).

if nickels are tight right now, go down to the local Rotary (i'll leave it to John to expound on that, since i haven't myself gone that path), and/or find the local chapter of Toastmasters. either way, learning to talk "civvie" is a necessary skill you must acquire.

think of it as mission prep, and you'll see the value of the investment of your time.

posted by MajMike on February 26, 2007 8:42 AM

It's possible some of the complaints have been caused by the eww-icky-military factor. Not much you can do about that. There might, however, be a thread of truth that isn't being expressed clearly. Fact is, you are operating in the civilian world and military body language/tone/behavior DOES exist here -- when we are angry, or confrontational, or annoyed ;-) And if you pair it with the correct customer relations words ("Happy to do it!") it confuses the natives. Me, I don't mind since I usually figure it out and have skin like a rhinoceros so someone who behaves like that doesn't bother me.

How to fix it? I think the Toastmasters etc. suggestions are good. I would add something like SCA or live-action roleplaying, if such exists in the benighted snow-covered environs of Rockford ;-). If not that, try reading plays aloud. Anything to get you thinking in terms of a different persona. Note this is NOT supposed to create a fake you. You are simply selecting from all of your aspects and deciding which ones you will allow to be visible at a given time. I hope that makes sense...

posted by bad cat robot on February 26, 2007 9:37 AM

I'm a life-long civilian so I realize I'm treading dangerous waters here but I think I can offer a viewpoint that might help. I don't think it's about you, it's about your bosses customers. Think about the old saw "You catch more flys with honey than with vinegar." Part of your job is to make the customers comfortable doing business with the firm. People who are more comfortable are more likely to spend more. The more they spend the greater your job security. From your post one of the problems seems to be your use of jargon. Jargon helps communicate well when every body is from the same environment and knows all the ins and outs, but when they aren't it just adds to confusion. Confused customers don't spend money, they go where they aren't confused.
Another problem might be a difference in perception. You think: "that a customer might feel a bit more secure in knowing that somebody with a passing familiarity with the concept of accomplishing the mission was watching over him, ready to assist."
The customer might have other ideas, he might think you're being arrogant. Again, it isn't you, it is the customers perception of you.
MajMike gave some excellent advice, take it if you can. Here's some more: videotape your interaction with your customers if you can. Look at how you are presenting yourself to the customers and see their reaction to you. Viewing something from the outside might bring something into focus for you.
I hope this helps and is taken in the spirit it's given. I'm just trying to give you something to think about, I'm not saying my take on your situation is right or even comes close. I'd give the same advice to a friend that came to me with this problem. Take care and good luck.

posted by NevadaDailySteve on February 26, 2007 10:37 AM

NevadaDailySteve - your advice is right on - and your lack of a militant background simply makes it moreso.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2007 10:44 AM

I am wondering if the complaints were from customers. I can't picture myself being annoyed enough to complain about someone who waits on me for using military lingo, or for being squared away in their dealings with me. Good business like service is better than mediocre service with lots of friendly chit chat. Some places seem to go overboard on the friendly and personal hoping that will compensate for the shoddiness of the rest of their service.

posted by Laurie on February 26, 2007 10:49 AM

Sgt B - SangerM has a good idea: Think sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs...
My recourse (after 24 years in the USAF) has been to either work as a contractor for the military or in adult education (at the local base Education center). However, upon my return from Iraq, I've been working in continuing education downtown and I've had to deal with the things you have brought up. Since the Technical College I work for is in a base town, their are several of us retirees working here so we do have a support system.

I admire you jumping with both feet into a customer service job while still "on the hook."

posted by Oldloadr on February 26, 2007 2:22 PM

John wrote: > NevadaDailySteve - your advice is right on - and your lack of a militant background simply makes it moreso.

I agree completely!!! Customer comfort is especially an issue, and most non-mil folks don't care for sales people who are too firm in their advice (except car and gun sales, which I have been told is a different ball of wax).

And by the way, B, MajMike's ideas are good too. I enrolled in Toastmaster's and did a few sessions, but the crew I was with were too young, and too unpracticed. It was hard. I also went to school to learn to teach the "What Matters Most" seminar for Franklin-Covey, and I bought and practiced with the Anthony Robbins "Success" tapes, and I've read Zig Ziglar's books, and so on, all related to "making the sale" and being different.

Unfortunately, the best piece of advice I was ever given was that which I found the most distasteful. After the bit with the drama teacher (who was all distraught about a glitch in a program we were doing that featured Fred Haise on stage), my retired school district superintendent boss explained to me that some of my problems were (and I am NOT making this up):

1) I was too honest, too often. Not nasty or even harsh, just honest, which most people are apparently not overly used to (I still find that to be true, actually, especially where I work now). And Army-honest is definitely a no-go. Keep that to yourself, unless lives are on the line.

2) I didn't use enough "weasel words" when discussing issues with people. His terms, and he meant it. He proceeded to give me examples of weasel words--overall a very informative and useful and beneficial exercise. Really, truly. Except I felt like I needed to wash my brain out with soap when I was done.... I am actually pretty good at that stuff now, but I still feel like I've spent the day with a lump of lard in my mouth.

3) That I wasn't any good at staying in my lane (or more precisely, what other people felt my lane was, regardless of what my lane was supposed to be--and I sucked at determining what they thought my lane was and then adjusting myself to their expectations). This was the worst. I had a job description, I worked to satisfy the requirements. He said that was just guidance, but that the 'customers' really controlled what my job was, based on their expectations and goals. My customers included school teachers, school district staff, superintendents, college professors, parochial school staff, a private military academy, hospital administrators, museum staffs, and on and on... I was supposed to mold myself to each of them. No kidding!

4) Perception is reality. Period. The truth was simply not relevant, especially around high school teachers.

In fact, This all just torqued my butt pretty seriously, especially since I had been hired using grant money to be the "pro from Dover" so to speak, but because I really wanted to do well, I listened and learned. I hated it after a while, but I even had people complement later me on how much more comfortable they felt with me, since I'd learned to relax... And this from people I'D LET SCREW THINGS UP... You know, the hardest thing for me to do as a former NCO was not care about other people's failure. I had to learn that other people have the right to be wrong, they have the right to screw up, and they have the right to tell me they don't want my help, even if I am 1000% sure I can solve their problem, fix the broken thing, do in 2 minutes what will take them 2 hours, etc.

B, I am not exaggerating. I wish I were. Basically, I offer, I wait, and if people choose to ignore me, I just walk off and let them have it--very, very hard, but they're happier and therefore so am I.

(By the way, my favorite people to work with were elementary school teachers. Brutally honest, bossy & didn't care if you liked it, not bothered by other people's competence, zero tolerance for time-wasting idiocy, and not afraid of bodily fluids.... I am really serious. I LIKE elementary teachers, especially the good ones, and most of the ones I met were. They were worlds apart from HS teachers, and it was them who made that job worthwhile--well, them and their charges.)

V/R

posted by SangerM on February 26, 2007 3:14 PM

Oldloadr, are you by any chance near 'hulburt' or egg-lin?

posted by SangerM on February 26, 2007 3:27 PM

The military bearing can be hard to just shrug off... to some degree it becomes a part of you. For my own part, I have never been able to completely shed the military jargon... still use it to this day. Fortunately, since I'm the "captain of the ship" in my civilian job, I don't get much flack beyond the occasional eye-rolling from my secretaries.

Also, that confrontational tendency to jack people up when they're badly out of line can turn into a real handicap. I remember barking "stand fast!" at one of my nurses as he started to walk away while I was arguing something with him (Heh... and it didn't work... he shot me a quizzical look and kept walking). Beware... that kind of thing can get you into trouble as a civilian.

Bottom line: all the world's a stage, and it pays to be a player

posted by TheNewGuy on February 26, 2007 8:44 PM

Personally speaking (and from a completely civilian standpoint) I would feel MORE comfortable dealing with someone such as yourself who functions in a military mindset than someone who functions in a civilian mindset. The confidence, lack of BS, and efficiency that most military members (current, former, doesn't matter) operate with is comforting and reassuring. But maybe that's just another one of my idiosyncracies.

And yes, high school teachers are some of the most immature people I've ever met in my life. Being one, I can definitely agree! It takes a special breed to work with teenagers.

posted by HomefrontSix on February 27, 2007 1:36 AM

by Denizens on Feb 26, 2007 | Observations on things Military
� Techography links with: Military in a Civilian World

Clio Meets Carborundum

Neffi, inspired by the Serial Thriller, has been visited by Clio, Muse of Limericks -- to wit:

A Frog driver has killed all our pot-
I demand Cap'n Bill Tuttle be shot!
You'll have piasters galore,
Or bikes; we have more-
He's torqued me off, I kid you not.

Not to be outdone, Carborundum, Guardian Angel (j.g.) and Muse of Nomex™, has inspired me to reply:

At Krak Argghhh! I ain't really high caste --
I compose all my posts in great haste.
But no one can refute
That the gurls think I'm cute
(There's just *no* accounting for taste...)

*snugging 27-inch zipper against 40-knot gusts*

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled posts.

by CW4BillT on Feb 25, 2007 | I think it's funny!

An interesting take on why people may be weary of Iraq

...among other things, because it isn't neat and easy. Jim Dunnigan writing at Strategy Page today, and it's apropos of the discussion from yesterday.

Sgt. Benjamin Webb, an infantryman with Company B, 2nd Battalion, 325th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, plays dominos with an Iraqi girl during a break on a patrol in the Adhamiyah district of Baghdad. The Hampton, Va. native split four games with the girl. The 325th PIR has been getting out into the neighborhood surrounding Combat Outpost Callahan to foster good relationships with the residents they are here to help protect. Photo by Sgt. Michael Garrett

The Other Iraq by James Dunnigan February 25, 2007 Discussion Board on this DLS topic What's going on in Iraq isn't unique. There's another place where democracy struggles to establish itself amidst corruption, religious strife, ethnic hatred and rampant terrorism. That other place is Africa, and it's generally ignored. Iraq gets the world's attention because over 100,000 foreign (mostly American) troops are trying to help out, and the battlefield sits atop over a trillion dollars worth of oil reserves.
There are over a dozen wars going on in Africa, and the daily death count far exceeds that of Iraq. Occasionally, the African violence gets into the news. Somalia gets mentioned, but only because of a failed UN intervention in the early 1990s. There are occasional references to the Congo, where millions have perished in recent years. Sudan gets mentioned from time to time because millions have been driven from their homes, and several hundred thousand killed by a few years of tribal and ethnic violence. But what of the wars in Chad (civil war), the Central African Republic (civil war), Ivory Coast (civil war), Guinea (rebellion against corrupt government), Senegal (civil war), Ethiopia (civil war), Eritrea (border dispute), Kenya (tribal wars), Nigeria (rebellion against corrupt government), Burundi (civil war), Rwanda (ethnic revenge), Uganda (civil war), Burkina Faso (border dispute), and Niger (border dispute)? And then there's the Islamic terrorism of northern Africa. Algeria is still dealing with the diehard remnants of a ten year rebellion by Islamic radicals. Lesser forms of that violence are showing up in all the other North African nations, and spreading to those to the south. Nigeria has had several deadly flare ups of Islamic violence. One rebel group even fancied them selves "African Taliban," had were put down with much bloodshed.

Let us not forget that Africa, even at peace, is not a peaceful place. The murder rate in South Africa is higher than in Iraq. The difference is the dead bodies are all over South Africa, while in Iraq they are concentrated in the central part of the country, and closely watched by hundreds of foreign journalists. The Iraqi dead amount to about twelve times the murder rate in the United States, and about two thirds the death rate in the United States during a year (1944) in World War II. The fighting is largely Iraqis versus Iraqis, with some 95 percent of the dead being Iraqi. A big deal is made about the deaths in Iraq, but what do you hear of the greater carnage in Africa? Mostly silence.

Non-Africans don't care about Africa, just as they don't care about foreigners in general. The world believes that the United States should not be in Iraq for that reason. So what if Islamic terrorists killed a few thousand Americans? You promptly went and took down the Islamic-supporting Taliban, so good for you. But Iraq had not been prominent in supporting Islamic terrorists. Oh, sure, Iraq gave refuge and some support to Islamic radicals and had weapons of mass destruction. But so do most Middle Eastern nations. Throughout the Cold War, Russia ran training programs for terrorists, and the U.S. didn't invade the Soviet Union over the matter. Same with Iran, even though Iran- supported suicide bombers killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon in 1983, and has large stocks of chemical weapons and a nuclear weapons program.

While most of the world supports democracy in general, they are not willing to die to help others achieve it. And the world's attitude towards African attempts at democracy are the unspoken reason why. Developing a functioning democracy takes time, and often gets ugly. In the 1990s, after half a century of socialism, communism and dictatorship, African countries concluded that the rule of law and democracy was the way to go. But the way was mined and covered with snipers and bandits. Making democracy works means overcoming a lot of people who are willing to kill you for your beliefs. Most of the world, and a lot of Americans, don't believe it's worth getting too involved in this process. It takes courage and self-sacrifice to aid others in building democracy. But courage and self-sacrifice are seen by most as spectator sports. The world sees Americans in Iraq as arrogant fools, for trying to practice what they preach. The U.S. is divided on this point. Do we fight for what is right, or be practical? No matter who rules Iraq, they will want to sell their oil. Terrorists will always be around, and will potentially have access to more powerful weapons. So what? Let the police take care of that. Building democracy and fighting the forces that oppose it is something you talk about, not something you send your soldiers to get mixed up in. That's what everyone does with Africa. Seems to work, for everyone but the Africans. For that reason, the world is hoping that the American effort in Iraq fails. Because if America succeeds in Iraq, ignoring Africa gets a lot harder.

Don't these things look like a gypsy caravan?

But what of the wars in Chad (civil war), the Central African Republic (civil war), Ivory Coast (civil war), Guinea (rebellion against corrupt government), Senegal (civil war), Ethiopia (civil war), Eritrea (border dispute), Kenya (tribal wars), Nigeria (rebellion against corrupt government), Burundi (civil war), Rwanda (ethnic revenge), Uganda (civil war), Burkina Faso (border dispute), and Niger (border dispute)?

And, with an 85% unemployment rate and inflation topping 1,000%, I figure Zimbabwe will be joining the pack sometime in the near future...

posted by BillT on February 25, 2007 11:07 AM

If you interfere and succeed, you may be tempted to interfere and succeed in many places. If you succeed in placing a liberal, capitalist democracy there then why not over there? Will we be tempted to hundreds of years of war? Will many capitulate and do so internally?

And when you do and you change the face of the world, when you change the status quo, who will lose out? There are many that will. Many even that are democracies and many that still believe that their way is the right way.

posted by kat-missouri on February 25, 2007 2:12 PM

Nice pic of the band-aid (medic) vehicle as Gypsy caravan. (Notice the lack of armament-medic vehicles are the only unarmed Stryker variant.)

posted by Heartless Libertarian on February 25, 2007 3:48 PM

I think this is far too out of alignment with reality. The idea that people want Iraq to fail because they are afraid of facing Africa? How can you not care about Africa at the same time as pay so much attention to it?

Maybe this is a cause of war weariness in the US military I can't say that for sure, but it's not generally among 'normals'.

And Africa is hardly the only place left.

posted by Trias on February 25, 2007 6:01 PM

Interventionism. Many of us don't like it. For various reasons. Some because they interpret rules to mean 'keeping your nose out'. Others because they don't think the necessary sustained support is ever going to be there. It's as varied as the people who hold to it.

I changed somewhat in my mid-20s. I went back to Catholicism. I went from hating things like the Kosovar campaign saw it as something that needs to be done. Inteventionism is a necessity if we take the many moral codes we all claim to follow seriously. 'How you treated the least...' and all that. 'Never again.' If we mean it we have to.

BUt I still don't see this as smacking me down, puting me in my place, or showing my argument to be flawed John. Again, I wasn't lamenting. I was pissed. Yeah, I get tired of this war. I get tired of seeing things like the Kansas Guardsmen who died for no immediately tangible gain. I feel sick about it sometimes since I supported the decision to send them. But, unlike Rich Lowry, I haven't changed my mind. I accept the blame and the ulitmate fate such a decision costs(both now and in the here after).

All this shows is that there's a ton of things to feel guilty for. For neglecting. For not caring. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. So we choose to start somewhere.

I know you don't want to argue Catholic theology so let's not, okay? There's issues with Iraq over which I have moral qualms---even though I've been someone who has seemed to support it blindly in the past. Over-reductionism of a problem is no salve to me. Proll'y because I'm not a do-er---which is what seperates Normals from Veterans(which was one of the points of what I wrote). But hey, it's okay to slap around the morale killer, right?;)

posted by ry on February 25, 2007 8:07 PM

Africa and its problems were the focus of intense study and debate in my world from Sep through the middle of Dec. James Dunnigan covers in a very short space an awful lot of what was discussed, but as always, there is a great deal more.

And that 'more' has nothing to do with resistance to democracy, per se, and everything to do with the legacy of colonialism that still plagues much of Africa and even Iraq and Afghanistan. It also has to do with the forced imposition or overlay of feudalistic / bureaucratic forms of governance on societies that still, today, have heavy tribal influences. This is again also one of the problems in Iraq, albeit clans and religion are a bigger issue than in Africa.

And finally, the real deal is that democracy (the label, the myth, the chimera of liberty and freedom) isn't all it's cracked up to be, at least in the experience of many of those who've suffered thereby. And why is that? Because to a lot of people, democracy means "free and fair elections" or it means a "constitutionally elected government" or it means "rights" of all kinds, as in speech, religion, etc. The fact is, those are just surface manifestations of liberal democracy, and by themselves cause more problems than they cure.... Consider:

- Just Thursday (the 22nd) in Egypt an internet 'blogger' was sentenced to 4 years in prison for insulting Islam and President Mubarak, whom he called a dictator. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6385849.stm) Egypt is a Democracy, right?

- Hugo Chavez is now the "freely elected" dictator of Venezuela, who can rule by decree for 18 months. Anyone wanna' take bets on his ever giving that up of his own accord? Venezuela is a Democracy. With military designs on it's neighbors. Wanna take bets on which country he'll attack first with his shiny new U-boats?

- Iran (a place with free and fair elections, right?) in Aug 2004, hanged a 16-year-old girl named Ateqeh Sahaleh in the town of Neka....The judge, Haji Rezaii, personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. "After her execution Rezaii said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her 'sharp tongue.'" www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80

- Mauritania had all the trappings of Democracy, except that the President kept using his power to increase his hold on power until he had to be deposed in a bloodless coup in 2005. So much for the value of free and fair elections. The coup plotters were the good guys in this case. The people are better off by a long shot and they are happier (I have this directly from people there).

- In Germany and other Democracies in Europe it's illegal to deny the Holocaust. Can you imagine? It's ok to believe the holocaust never happened, but not to say so. That's a bit much even for me.

- And it's not just small countries: The US fought Gulf War I 1991, ostensibly to free the people of Kuwait from Hussein. Except Kuwait was and is not a democracy. Ummm, maybe that was about oil?

- And everyone remembers that Hitler was elected, right? And so was Robert Mugabe. And on and on and on.... the list of this stuff just never ends.

You now, it seems to me that Democracy has become the 21st century brass ring, the goal for its own sake. Freedom has become the byword for new-age revolutionaries, but how free are any of us? And how free do we really want to be? Anarchy is true freedom...I'd say we all really mean something a little less than totally free when we get to thinking about it. Or at least, we want limits on _other_ people's freedom so that those people can't bother us...

In fact, I believe the universal need of all the people on Earth is not democracy, not representative government, and not "free and fair" elections held in accordance with some half-baked constitutional rules, or any of the other trappings of democracy. People do not _need_ Democracy at all, in fact.

What people NEED is justice and fairness and equal treatment under the law, and they need the assurance that what they earn they can keep, and that they can advance on merit, and travel as needed. And that what they buy is not subject to indiscriminate, and unfair taking by a government or by other people or other governments. And they need to know that that their government cares more for them than it does about itself, and that it is reliable, and that it can be turned to for help when needed. And that schools will be available, and that medical care can be gotten. And if all of that can be satisfied by a dictator or something not called Democracy, then who needs Democracy?

It's just a word that means nothing without the underpinnings. Yet we go around promoting democracy as the ultimate end, not the means to make a beginning.

James Dunnigan said it: "Developing a functioning democracy takes time, and often gets ugly." And it is THAT which people do not understand, not even our own stupid congress or a lot of people in this country.

You know, there are Americans who think the U.S. sprang into existence in 1776, just whole and complete, that all of the underlying thought and principles and philosophy of freedom and "democracy' all just sort of coalesced into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights after a few years of generally friendly debate, starting in, oh, I don't know, 1765, at the earliest. Most people never consider that the U.S. is not 230 years old, but almost 400 years old, and that philosophically, it's actually thousand's of years older than that. The U.S. was the culmination of millennia of western thought about the rights and responsibilities of individuals and of governments, etc.

And yet, we look at places like Nigeria, which was a tribal culture until the British "colonized" it., and which has only even been exposed to Western thought for a few hundred years at best, and we compare it to Europe. Or Mauritania, a country of Berber, Arab, and sub-Saharan African roots, which still had legalized slavery until only a few _decades_ ago, and is still working to eradicate that culturally embedded practice. In a 2005 coup the people replaced the former (elected) despot, and just last year had elections and rewrote their constitution to prevent future occurrences of the same problems). Given the history of the country, I'd say the people are doing astonishingly well...

And another facet of this story is development, which everyone touts as the holy grail of democracy. Sure, development can lead to democracy, democracy can lead to development, but to be honest, China seems to be doing pretty well without being a democracy or a participatory government, and certainly there is not the freedom one expects of such success. On the other hand, Mexico is a democracy. So what? 20+ million people in Mexico City metro area, a good many of whom are impoverished. How is democracy helping them or the millions of mostly indigenous Mexicans who've migrated to the US because they cannot earn as much as the European ruling-caste that actually runs Mexico.

With all of that in mind, what Kat wrote may be true "If you interfere and succeed, you may be tempted to interfere and succeed in many places." But in fact, we are not going to succeed in "placing a liberal, capitalist democracy" anywhere, ever. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in eastern Europe (anyone here keeping up on developments in Kosovo, which is still run by the UN? www.unmikonline.org), not anywhere!

At best, we can plant the seeds. We can help remove obstacles. We can show people what we call a democracy (which is different in form and fact from what Canada, Indonesia, and India have), and we can offer assistance. But we are not going to create a democracy anywhere unless we are willing to stay there for several decades and pour trillions of dollars into the effort. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know squat or just doesn't want to hear the unpleasant truth.

Which is not to say it's not worth the effort. Only that we really don't have to worry overmuch about a domino effect of democracy building (by the way, a LOT of African countries don’t want Western help, they remember the "help" the Colonial governments gave them the way we remember Britain.

On a final small note to close this, just consider women: Women had more rights under the worst excesses of communism, even in China, than they have today in the best of the Arab Muslim countries, or in many African countries. Democracy is not going to change that. Despotism can change it, as it did in Iran, until the current government of Iran took over (which by the way is an elected government). So much for the trappings of democracy, eh?

N.B. I wrote some of the stuff above for a class, just this past week. Very topical.

V/R
SangerM

posted by SangerM on February 25, 2007 8:45 PM

Mullah Cimoc say too much jack bauer tv show make ameriki so stupid for hate the muslim, loving the torture, bow down for masters in tel aviv.

this all rupert murdoch tv show man mind control this way.
This evil doing for usa media , now control so few company. Benjamin Frankling not like this not free press now in usa amerika.

for please now google: mighty wurlitzer +cia

then aemriki people know not free press in usa now. just keep the ameriki so stupid for serve the master in tel aviv.

posted by Mullah Cimoc on February 25, 2007 10:56 PM

Ah, an attack o' da 'tards....

de-du-dee

posted by SangerM on February 25, 2007 11:22 PM

Sanger, turn on your irony meter and check the spelling of the good Mullah's name.

Ry: or showing my argument to be flawed John.

Huh?

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2007 6:36 AM

>Sanger, turn on your irony meter and check the spelling of the good Mullah's name.

Ummm... I think a bla khol has formed in my hed, 'cause I am apparently very, very dense...

If it makes a difference, I can't easily see the hidden images in the magic eye pictures either...
http://www.vision3d.com/sghidden.html

posted by SangerM on February 26, 2007 3:24 PM

If it makes you feel any better - SWWBO can't see 'em either, and assures me that they aren't real, just a plot by meanies like me to make her feel stupid... ;^)

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2007 3:31 PM

Hey, Mullah! Dobar jutro! Vidi Mostar, too!

Sanger - No wonder you and SWWBO can't see the 3-D pix -- the perspective is off. The shark's dorsal fin is 'way too orca-lookin' and the hadrosaur looks more like a wallaby begging for a carrot.

posted by BillT on February 26, 2007 6:56 PM

by John on Feb 25, 2007 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

Cool video and a Gloat

This is either a good example of taking off at an extremely high density altitude, a good way to build up energy for the climb in a MANPAD environment, or a crude attempt to discourage onlookers at the perimeter...probably a little bit of all three.

It's cold, wet and dark here...and the power's out. That happens a lot here in central Indiana farm country. So it pays to have an auto-switching 60Kw generator run by a small-block V6 chugging along on propane (luv ya Hank Hill) fed from two 1000-gallon tanks. Heh.