previous post next post  

H&I Fires 13 OCT 2007

By Denizens on October 13, 2007 | | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

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...

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

There's a reason why the headlines trumpet GEN Sanchez' criticism of management of the war in Iraq, and it's probably not what you think: the rest of what Sanchez said had an entirely different--and very uncomfortable--target. UPDATE: My thoughts. - FbL

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

Iran is having it's own problems with warfighting... -the Armorer

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

Speaking of "It's Nice To Be Read" -- well, John's speaking about it -- or *will* be speaking about it, depending on whether you start from the top and work your way down or vice versa:

We're still in the Top 40!

And Lex -- ummmm -- is covering our six.

Meanwhile, NinjaFluff sends this for those of you who haven't had breakfast yet and are curious about why being hypoglycemic affects your mental state: "The 10 impossible things Liberals believe before breakfast." Heh -- dude, you visit some interesting places... --Bill

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Happy Birthday to the United States Navy! The CNO's birthday message to the Fleet (& me) is here, the MCPON's birthday message to the Fleet (& me) is here...........Maggie
****************************************************

*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:

Share |

Categories:

0 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.fcgi/7868

18 Comments

By AFSister on October 13, 2007 8:25 AM
When you consider anything Sanchez says, you have to remember to take it with a grain of salt- this is the man in charge during Abu Ghraib, who lost a star and any chance of furthering- or even continuing- his military career as a result of the Abu Ghriab fallout. Bitter is the word that comes to mind.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 13, 2007 8:38 AM
Technically he didn't *lose* that star. He just never got it. And Karpinski, who did lose her star, didn't officially lose it for Abu Ghraib, but for failing to mention her shoplifting arrest on her GO vetting paperwork. (That story is pretty complex, and there's no doubt that Abu Ghraib is what caused someone to examine her paperwork closely), but she *should* have lost her star for Abu Ghraib. And Sanchez should have been retired on the spot, not allowed to take V Corps back to Germany and hang around like he did. But I'm mean that way.
 
By Barb on October 13, 2007 10:04 AM
I would tend to agree with both of you on Sanchez in general. But the point of the Powerline post, and indeed the thrust of Sanchez' words, is that the press jumps to conclusions and does poor reporting and fact-checking. Forget who is speaking and just read the words - he is right. And how ironic that they prove his very point by titling the piece as if he thrashed the administration rather than them! It is to laugh.
 
By Barb on October 13, 2007 10:07 AM
And I meant to limit my agreement to his thrashing of the press, as I did not yet read the second half of the speech.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 13, 2007 10:21 AM
Barb makes the mistake of assuming because I commented, I read the link! This is a blog, I'm a blogger! I don't have to do that! Actually, I'm saving my thoughts on Sanchez for tomorrow - FuzzyB just beat me to the linkage. I was just making clear Sanchez didn't lose a star, he didn't get the star everyone expected him to. But I'm guessing no one at DoD or the White House wanted the circus the Senate Confirmation of a 4th star for Sanchez would have been.
 
By Marine6 on October 13, 2007 10:33 AM
It seems to me that Sanchez is awfully late in coming to his conclusions about this war. I have no respect for any flag officer who claims, only well after the fact, that he disagreed with the policies he was charged with implementing. The problem, of course, is that most flag officers just love the power and the prestige and aren't willing to jeopardize their position until well after their retirement is locked in and the book is being written. If you want to see what happens to a fine officer who had the balls to very publicly disagree with his Commander in Chief look up the biography of Major General John K. Singlaub. If you want someone to admire, or better yet, to emulate, then Jack Singlaub is a shining example of an officer who did his duty as he saw it regardless of the consequences.
 
By ry on October 13, 2007 10:57 AM
I'm going to don my Triple C cap here, and cut GEN Sanchez some slack. Most of us weren't party to the meetings where the Iraq War Plan was hashed out. We don't know if he raised objections back then and was then a good soldier in not going to the press or Congress the way MacArthur did. Not everyone involved in Op Overlord and its aftermath liked it or agreed in how it was implemented----it's just that those arguments have largely been forgotten and ignored--- nor have those on the ground always agreed with the political leadership's decisions(from WW1 to the Gulf War). . So I'm going to cut Sanchez some slack. Unless someone can come forward with the minutes of those planning sessions to show Sanchez sat on his hands I'd say lay off a bit. I really don't like the ad hominem like charges that he shouldn't be believed because Abu Ghraib was under his set of responsibilities. He deserves better than that.
 
By BillT on October 13, 2007 11:58 AM
...he shouldn't be believed because Abu Ghraib was under his set of responsibilities. He deserves better than that. If you're in command, you get the credit for what goes right and the blame for what goes wrong, regardless of your contribution (or involvement) in either situation. That's why he got that big Flag-grade dust before he hung up the star suit and why he gets the big retirement check now, ry. KtLW blames me for everything that's gone wrong in the immediate galactic neighborhood since Adam gave Eve the apple -- or the quince, depending on your knowledge of Mesopotamian flora -- and I don't even get the consolation of calling a press conference...
 
By Cassandra on October 13, 2007 12:06 PM
It seems to me that Sanchez is awfully late in coming to his conclusions about this war. I have no respect for any flag officer who claims, only well after the fact, that he disagreed with the policies he was charged with implementing. Exactly. Where was all this courageous truth-to-powering when it might have made a difference? *crickets chirping* No, he saves the carping for when it will hurt someone else who is trying to do the same job he was.
 
By ry on October 13, 2007 1:26 PM
Your response seems a bit like a non-sequitur to me, Chief. He takes all the blame(and all the credit) but can't be believed because something bad happened under him? For all time anything he says is inherently suspect? I'm not talking about blame or accolades, but whether or not he should be believed simply because Abu Ghraib occurred. That seems very ad-hominem to me. It is saying democrats can't be trusted, HRC is a democrat, ergo she cannot be trusted kind of thing. He gets all the accolades and all the blame, what does that have to do with the veracity of what he says now? So Patton was unbelievable because he slapped a couple of soldiers? Really, that's the tack you seem to be taking here. Something bad happened under him so he's totally un-credible. So because KtLW says it's your fault I shouldn't believe you when you tell me how to cut down trees then? That, in essence, is what you're saying, Unka Bill. It's not like he's David Brock, an admitted liar trying to pass himself off now as a truth teller. And had he spoken out publicly in the past? Come on, you know he'd have been crucified by us for thinking he was MacArthur, the American Ceaser who could change American policy by being 'God's Gift to the Army'--which necessitated his firing to save the Republic. Can't have your cake and eat it too is what I'm saying. You can't have civilian control of the military, banning officers from speaking publicly since that amounts to them telling the civies what to do(forbidden! Run Will Robinson! Danger! DAnger!), and then blast a guy for not speaking out publicly while he was in uniform. That's an unfair position. That's like saying, "Sit here and let me lock up your arms so I can beat you with a stick no matter what you do." (Please note: I don't agree with Sanchez.) The knock that it's taken him a bit long since he went on the 'fade away' is not what I'm arguing against, but that he spoke out at all. UNless there's minutes of the meetings I think you all need to cut the guy some slack. Kill his arguments instead of hurling the trivet at his head. (Ow! Who knew Cassie was that accurate from out on the Eastern Seaboard? That's gonna leave a mark. At least she didn't tweak my ears.)
 
By ry on October 13, 2007 1:50 PM
And Sgt. B seems to be doing recon work by being ahead.
 
By BillT on October 13, 2007 2:50 PM
Your response seems a bit like a non-sequitur to me, Chief. He takes all the blame(and all the credit) but can't be believed because something bad happened under him? Heh. Read the first paragraph again. Then read the second one again. There are people who won't believe him just because AG happened on his watch, there are people who won't believe him because he was in Bush's Army and there are people who won't believe him because he doesn't have an Irish surname. Democrats won't believe him because poor Iraqi terr suspects being held in an Iraqi prison in the middle of Iraq were denied their red-white-and-blue Civil Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and Republicans won't believe him because they figure the idea of putting somebody's Froot o' the Looms on a detainee's head had to have come from higher than E-5 level. All of which means, "It doesn't matter whether you believe him or not, because the crux of the matter is that he's made a bit of political hay and waited until he was essentially untouchable before he did it." And don't forget -- *I* gave you the pros, cons, technical and tactical details, environmental impact statement, suggestions on how to hide the resulting evidence *before* you did the deed -- in *writing* -- and I didn't peach on ya to GreenPeas after the assassination, so *I* haz cred...
 
By AFSister on October 13, 2007 2:51 PM
True. He didn't technically lose a star.. but I'm willing to bet that if he hadn't been caught up in Abu Ghraib he would have 4 now instead of 3.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 13, 2007 4:41 PM
*Shakes head* AFSis... iddn't dat whut I sayd?
 
By Maggie on October 13, 2007 7:41 PM
OK, if you are too lazy (like me) to read Sanchez....you can listen on CSpan. Sanchez starts speaking 8 minutes in. For 10 solid minutes he rips the press. Then he turns to the management of the conflict in Iraq for 12 minutes. Then he took questions for 25 minutes. Then they gave him a little present "The Day of Battle" by Rick Atkinson book about WWII.
 
By AFSister on October 13, 2007 8:39 PM
Yes, John, I know you did. I was just making the point that I also knew that, just didn't lay it all out in my first comment. Mama may have raised a fool... but I'm no idjit.
 
By ry on October 14, 2007 12:33 AM
And don't forget -- *I* gave you the pros, cons, technical and tactical details, environmental impact statement, suggestions on how to hide the resulting evidence *before* you did the deed -- in *writing* -- and I didn't peach on ya to GreenPeas after the assassination, so *I* haz cred...
Tiz true, Unka Bill did do this. Somehow while out teaching people how to fly heloflopters at night he had time to instruct on how to do yard work. Though I still wound up with a half dozen nicks and cuts, learning the trade with a real empty tool shed dontchaknow. The three ______ _____ were a pain in the butt to get rid of, particularly since Mom passed on the copper nail trick. Digging out root balls is not fun.
 
By Justthisguy on October 14, 2007 11:31 PM
Chief, yer a living national treasure, as they say in Japan, and ought to be subsidised. Yup, I vote for 1% of my pay in my next job to be sent right to you, and have my social security "contribution" have that deducted from it.
 

Leave a comment