H&I* Fires 12 JUN 2007

June 12, 2007 | | Comments (17)

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...

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

Today is a really busy day. Really.

But Cassandra has two sheepdogs you should meet - and hope they fly on your next flight. -the Armorer

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

I'm with Mr. Coard - let's acknowledge the past, good and bad. Washington represents in a unique way the compromises required to get this place established and running. Hiding it serves no purpose. But we don't have to make it a monumentally PC and self-absorbed acknowledgement, either... -the Armorer

***********************************
Oho! The media-darling "Voice of Muslims in America"... CAIR is more of a Potemkin front group. -the Armorer

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

Marines, Sempering their Fidelis. H/t, Jim C. -the Armorer

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

Vile Scum:

The American Red Cross is warning military spouses about a new identity-theft scam that involves a person telephoning a military spouse, identifying herself as a representative of the Red Cross, and telling the spouse that her husband was hurt in Iraq, was medically evacuated to Germany, and that they need the spouse to verify her husband's Social Security number and date of birth to start the paperwork. Military family members are urged not to give out any personal information over the phone if contacted by unknown individuals, including confirmation that their spouse is deployed. Any military family member who receives such a call is urged to report it to the local family readiness group or military personnel flight.

There is no place in Hell sufficient for these vermin. -the Armorer

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

My reaction to reading the continuing story of fallen Marine Major Doug Zembiec at Blackfive yesterday was ... humility and a desire to deserve the sacrifice of such men.
Then I read Living with our Scars today, and found that I could be humbled even further by the friendship of a warfighter turned policeman. Please go read both posts, while I go clear the blurriness from my eyes. ~ Barb

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

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".

Share This Article:

Categories:

17 Comments

By jim b on June 12, 2007 8:57 AM
Gates and congress could screw up an anvil. The Army has been "super sized" to 547,000. The Marines gain 27,000 ... new end strength 202,000. So then how can congress screw that up? They get rid of the Marine ... and fail to select a Soldier can put a Sailor in charge to set funding priorities. Every time dammit.
 
By Oldloadr on June 12, 2007 10:25 AM
On the post about Washington, I’m going to be really politically incorrect: 1. Slavery is an economic system that has existed throughout recorded history even to the present (anybody heard of Sudan?). 2. Peonage is an economic system that has existed almost as long, and usually follows either the abolition of true slavery (sharecroppers) or conquests (Ireland, 14th to the 20th centuries). 3. Serfdom is an economic system where the land owns the worker rather than the landowner and was practiced in Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire (traditional slavery) until the renaissance. 4. Capitalism is an economic system where those with means who are willing to take risks usually end up controlling those with little means and risk aversion. However, the “proletariat” are allowed to call themselves free since, if they are willing to take the risk, they can change employers. Of course, the employers are free to lay off the workers and don’t have to care if they eat or not. Bottom line: there will always be somebody on the bottom of the food chain and whether they are called slaves, serfs, peons or hourly workers, they all have just about the same amount of control over their own destiny. So, those who can’t get over what happened in Philly 200+ years ago need to do just that: get over it.
 
By NevadaDailySteve on June 12, 2007 11:22 AM
And Jefferson, perhaps seeking to assuage his own guilty conscience, tried to blame the introduction of slavery in America on the King of England in the Declaration. It was voted down by southerners who knew better than anyone that slavery was America’s sin and blame could not be foisted on any other person or country.
I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand history very well. At the time of the first slaves being introduced by (either Dutch or Spanish, I can't recall offhand) traders wasn't America just a colony of England and not a separate country? I guess we're to blame for something that happened nearly 200 years before our nation existed. Would Mr. Moran say that the Russian serfs were free people who could do as they pleased? The knout must have fallen easily on their backs and upward mobility assured by the benevolent government of the time if that were so. Just how did the black African slaves get to the shores where the Europeans purchased them? Who first enslaved these people? As far as I can tell it wasn't Americans. I'm sorry, slavery is a contemptible institution, rightly reviled by civilized humans all over the globe. It is, however, nowhere near to being a uniquely American one. I agree with Mr. Moran on the need to tell more than one story about Washington and slavery. I just think there are more than two stories to tell.
 
By Maggie on June 12, 2007 12:20 PM
My God! I love General Mattis!
 
By Justthisguy on June 12, 2007 1:38 PM
I get *so* annoyed at how exercised some people get about Anglo-Americans keepin slaves for a while. Hello?! It was a very common vice among everyone for most of human existence! We were the first ones to give it up, tried to get everyone else to quit, too, and are blamed for it by some people who are still doing it? (You guys know who you are, circumambulating that Kaaba thing.)
 
By Oldloadr on June 12, 2007 2:18 PM
Anyone interested in a hypocritical walk down memory lane, think about this: The British outlawed slavery in 1833, which was 12 years before the Irish potato famine and 87 years before Ireland won its independence (26 counties, anyway) and ended peonage. Yet, even as Irish peasants were starving to death: 1. Their absentee British landlords never let up on the rent and Ireland exported meat and grain to England. 2. These same British had the gall to castigate the US for not abolishing slavery even as their own Irish peons suffered under an arguably heavier yoke (there were never any reports of Southern slave owners allowing their slaves to slowly starve to death).
 
By Justthisguy on June 12, 2007 2:48 PM
Oldloadr: As I tell my kitty every night when he insists that I let him out, "Be careful out there! Humans are bad, M'kay?" (and, there is an endless supply of bad humans) P.s. A woman named Cecil Woodham-Smith wrote an excellent book which discussed the potato famine, though it was mostly about the charge of the Light Brigade. I think it had two titles; one was something like "The Reason Why" and the other was something else which I don't remember. Different editions, different countries. It had some funny parts in it, for example a letter that Lord Cardigan wrote to the Times of London answering someone else's letter, and asserting that no, the pants of the men in his regiment were not too tigh
 
By ry on June 12, 2007 4:52 PM
Whoa. I'm loving there being an Admiral at the head of the JCS. Particularly this one. Mullen is a smart dude, who is playing this not simply as war disconnected from everything as has been done by many, many others in the past. This is a great choice. This is the same Mullen who lambasted his predecessor for agreeing to each an every Fleet reduction that was asked for. This is the Mullen who wants to talk to the PLAN, but also have the means to kill every mother's son in the PLAN if it comes to that. Everyone has budget woes, and if Mullen plays true to previous form(his time as CNO)he's going to fight for everyone to get what they need. I don't get what the problem is. Mullen will likely do many of the same things as the previous CJCS. I don't see the problem. I see a solution to several problems with this move, but then, hey, I liked Rumsfeld.
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 12, 2007 5:00 PM
Rumsfeld, p'tooi. For his inflexibility. Mullen - I don't care there's a sailor in charge. People who are bitching about that don't understand the purpose of the JCS. The last thing they are is warfighters. Not their job. They leave the war to the guys fighting it. The JCS is supposed to look over the horizon - to the next war, or, in the case of the long war - the next phase.
 
By jim b on June 12, 2007 5:59 PM
MY concern centers on the good Admiral presiding doesn't so much apply to the man. It centers on basically congress forcing out Gen Pace. Score one point for congress. They won't be satisfied with that. They feel they can demand. "The new fiscal year 2007 (FY07) suplement requests $5 billion, and the FY08 Presidential budget requests over $12 billion to support this ramp up in both services and estimates $112.3 billion to source and equip these troops out to FY12" Marine Corps Gazette June 2007, Vol. 91 No.6 "The Corps Expansion" bu LtCol F. G. Hoffman USMCR (ret) Now that congress forced a chance in JCS, I am sure that Nancy Peolosi and Dingy Harry will bend over backwards to honor the committment to provide those funds. NOT. We shall see.
 
By Maggie on June 12, 2007 6:36 PM
Of course the people who object to Mullen are wrong! LOL But, not for nothing, Mullen is the current "Old Salt" of the SWO world and earned his OOD letter on the USS Collett off the coast of Vietnam in 1970. He has had command of several ships. His last command at sea was as Commander, U.S. Second Fleet/Commander, NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic. They didn't promote some pogue. I do agree with JimB in that I too am angry that Congress (in the person of Senator Levin) is interfering with the process. However, I don't fault the White House. It wasn't a fight worth going to the mat for. Why put Pace through that? In my opinion, it was one to walk away from. Isn't living well the best revenge? Pace gets to retire without being brutalized before a Senate committee for the sins of Rmsfeld and Mullen will do an excellent job.
 
By ry on June 12, 2007 8:33 PM
I do agree with JimB in that I too am angry that Congress (in the person of Senator Levin) is interfering with the process.
Well, this is that bit of 'advise and consent' that is problematic, ain't it? They're allowed to be obstructionist and bastards about it. Doesn't mean we have to like it, but those checks and balances type things are there for a reason. Usually it works to the better, but we'll have to see in this instance. Dingy Harry and such, well, that's where we come in ain't it? We go to bat, work hard in the weeds making sure they don't screw the Services again. Not easy work, but I think we're up to the task. Which reminds me, anyone got good leads on what the projections for what we needed for defending Europe vice what we were given? Journal entries would be nice. There's something gnawing at the back of my head but I don't want to open me yap on this one until I can back it up(no need to be called an impudent knave again). It is a dodge of rehashing the whole Iraq war debate. It is also a fair thing to not put the Gen through the ringer for Bush admin. Let them take the heat for it, and don't drag Pace thru the mud.
 
By Maggie on June 12, 2007 9:00 PM
Pace-Mullen-Gates has zip point 5hit to do with "Advise and & Consent". The Senator did not say he had a problem with Pace. He said he was going to use him to beat the White House with. The powers that congress is given vis-a-vis "Advise and Consent" are meant to give Congress the ability to review a candidates credentials and decide if he or she is fit to serve. Levin said point blank that he was not questioning Pace's credentials. He was using Pace as a backdoor to go after the ghost of Rumsfeld. If this is ok then I guess the next time there is a Supreme Court nominee it's alright to gut the proposed justice about lectures given by a favorite law professor back in school. Maybe they should grill Mullen about the actions taken by the SACEUR while he was COMSTRIKFLTLANT Levin had no bone to pick about Pace's actions. There is no skeleton in Pace's closet. There is no one in DC of any worth who would say that Pace is anything other than an honorable man who has served his country well.
 
By Cassandra on June 13, 2007 6:33 AM
re: the LA Times Semper Fi piece, Tony Perry is good people. Very worth reading any time you can catch his work. Cheers.
 
By ry on June 13, 2007 8:16 AM
"The powers that congress is given vis-a-vis "Advise and Consent" are meant to give Congress the ability to review a candidates credentials and decide if he or she is fit to serve. " Which means, in practice, that it can be used as a bully pulpit. See SCOTUS hearings. See Cabinet hearings. See a bloody lot of what actually goes on. It's what gamers call rules lawyering. Using the letter of the rules to break the spirit of them whenever it is convenient. Which is why I said this bit:
Well, this is that bit of 'advise and consent' that is problematic, ain't it? They're allowed to be obstructionist and bastards about it. Doesn't mean we have to like it, but those checks and balances type things are there for a reason. Usually it works to the better, but we'll have to see in this instance
. It has a bloody lot to do with Advise and Consent. Has a lot to do with people being bastiches too. IN this instance the two are not mutually exclusive. Rules lawyering sucks to be sure, but that doesn't make it evil. It's more like Billy Martin waiting for George Brett to do something important to invoke the pin tar rule. Gamesmanship that rides that line of being dirty. NOt saying you have to like it. Just saying you should accept it because we call on our side to do it too.
 
By Maggie on June 13, 2007 9:34 AM
My point: it is not one of the *uses* of "Advise & Consent" it is one of the *abuses* of "Advise & Consent". Just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you should. Also could you please cite one example of Republicans taking a Democratic White House nominee and using him/her to bash the Executive branch? Or rejecting one because they were too far from our own views? I honestly can't think of one and as mentioned earlier in the comments.......Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I know in Washington everyone breaks/bends rules and both sides have knowheads and thieves. But on this issue I think it's very black and white. On this issue, we play by the rules. We respect the spirit of "Advise and Consent".
 
By ry on June 13, 2007 4:44 PM
Off the top of my head I can name two: Joclyn Elders and Dona Shalala(SP?). Everything in Elders' CV showed she was a top notch doctor. SHe just had this thing about teaching 'self stim' to kindergarteners that had us collectively cringing. Shalala was hammered to get at Clinton for sure, if memory serves she was hammered for hiring an illegal alien during the last time illegal immigration came up abuot ten years ago. Let's face it, there's only two reasons we have these huge hearings on nominees. So Congresscritters can get 'good conduct' points with their 'base' and to have ideological purity tests. Each and everyone that both sides send up now are immenently qualified or they wouldn't even be considered(except maybe Meyers, that was just silly). This is what advise and consent means nowdays. Back when it mattered, buefore the proliferation of certification, it meant something else. Now it's just code for 'ideological purity test'. Period.