Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: March 30, 2008

I was drafted to be a judge at a regional chili cook-off once, at Red River down in New Mexico... they made you cleanse your palate with crusty French bread and ice cold beer between each hot, meaty, well-spiced bowl.
And then they thanked me profusely for helping them out- as I staggered away...
I shoot you not ;)

posted by Neffi on April 5, 2008 4:48 PM

BuuuuuuuuuuuuuRRRPPPPPPPPP!!!

Yay! You got the minigun!!!

(Pssssst! That explains why he wants us all there, gang -- reloading / relinking ten thousand rounds of 7.62 is a team effort. BTW, I've got dibs on the Tracer Quality Control Inspector task)

posted by BillT on April 6, 2008 2:25 AM

Poor kid has 10 seconds of fame not attributed to his kill but the method of the killing. I wonder if he likes curry.

Judging a BBQ? How unusual. The best judges are your mates once they are so sloshed they can't tell your carbonated chop probably best used to fuel the fire, isn't quite Haute.

BBQS are a masculine icon here. A merging of the elements of fire, beer, metal, meat and the outdoors. It's one of the few times men eagerly cook. Perfectionism implicit in judging is a bit of a faux pas.

Still a steak done right is worth it's weight in gold and you never want to let my cousin cook the chicken. Noooo 1 minute isn't enough. My doctor said so.

Actually that old 'chuck a shrimp on the barbie' supposed aussie slang is so odd I wish i knew where it came from. We call shrimp prawns for one thing. Shrimp are those awful little American things you hide in a salad. I've only seen prawns on a BBQ once. My dear sweet ex sister in law insisted on prawns on the bbq for her engagement. It was clear quite rapidly why we never do it they stunk to high heaven, probably because they were unshelled.

posted by Trias on April 6, 2008 7:50 AM

I've heard of someone having a case of the beer $#its, but this is the first time I've heard of the deer $#its...

posted by SFC D on April 6, 2008 8:18 AM

Trias -- Southeast Asian fishermen cook prawns on a BBQ grill. And prawns *ain't shrimp -- I've seen some longer than my forearm, including hand.

BTW, cook 'em *with* shell and legs and de-vein 'em when you peel 'em.

posted by BillT on April 6, 2008 9:53 AM

Those are much larger than ours then. Ours tend to be more hand sized. Though smaller and larger can be found. With the head I assume? It's highly unlikely I'll ever cook another prawn that way. But thanks for letting me know why.

posted by Trias on April 6, 2008 6:41 PM

This is a response to Cricket's comment, on the 3rd. (What, we don't even get three days before you close 'em?)

That's the weird Glazer (Blazer?) brothers' grocery store, right? Their is no real farmers' market in DeKalb, as I recall. There's one (an official State of GA one) near the airport, I think.

posted by Justthisguy on April 6, 2008 11:37 PM

"There", dammit. Argghhh!

posted by Justthisguy on April 6, 2008 11:42 PM

Yeah, the comment locker goes ker-flooey sometimes, Jtg. Cricket may have access to a decent loin de chèvre at the Farmer's Market (or Glazer/Brazer Bros.), but the same item in Pakistan -- free-range, naturally -- required considerable marination to render its texture more like lamb and less like critter-flavored bubble gum.

And *yes* -- refrigeration is a *good* thing...

posted by BillT on April 7, 2008 1:09 AM

And the comments on the 3rd work just fine for me, JTG. Perhaps you've not paid your double-secret comment-posting fees?

Otherwise known as the Compost Fee?

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 7, 2008 6:44 AM

by Denizens on Apr 05, 2008 | General Commentary

H&I Fires* 4 April 2008

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...

Time to add a new caveat, because from email it's not clear to some folks (mind you, if you don't read this it won't matter...) Being an open post, people (collectively, the Denizens) other than I post in the H&I. They sign their work (most of the time) - keep that in mind when you want to flame someone in email please - if it doesn't say "The Armorer" or "John" then I didn't write it! And honestly - if you don't like something said or posted... leave a comment, and hash it out (within the context of The Rulez which are clearly posted on the comment form, I would add).

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

First up: Awwwwwwwwww! [FbL sez: via comments, Wolfwalker points us more on the owl.]

F-18 FOD - U.S. airmen aboard the aircraft carrier USS Truman discovered a screech owl in the left-main wheel well of an F/A 18 Hornet during a pre-flight inspection, March 17, 2008. Nicknamed 'Fod,' short for foreign object debris, the bird was nursed back to health by an airmen who is a licensed U.S. falconer, then transported to land and safely released. U.S. Navy photo by Seaman Matthew Bookwalter

Second up: Gimme summoradat!

A Paladin fires its 155mm Howitzer from Badoush Prison near Mosul to expose enemy movement, March 29, 2008. The Howitzer belongs to Howitzer Battery, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Hood, Texas. U.S. Army Spc. John Crosby

A Paladin fires its 155mm Howitzer from Badoush Prison near Mosul to expose enemy movement, March 29, 2008. The Howitzer belongs to Howitzer Battery, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Hood, Texas. U.S. Army Spc. John Crosby

-the Armorer

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

Heh. Heard about Randi Rhodes getting suspended for potty-mouthing Ms' Ferraro and Clinton?
You can catch that here, at Wake Up America, if you'd like (NSFW language warning). Along with some links to things she's said about Republicans that apparently aren't worthy of getting Ms. Rhodes, as Susan puts it, "Kicked to the curb." Indeed. -the Armorer

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

Heh. *Everybody* is sending me links to this story - about a PIAT that was seized in a bust of a criminal enterprise.

Even without a live round, deputies showed off the power of a WWII-era grenade launcher Thursday (weapon details). It was one of more than 20 weapons seized in an eight-month investigation into an organized crime ring dealing in drugs, guns and stolen property in places like Polk, Osceola and Orange counties.

Heh. What they showed off, perhaps, was the power of the recoil spring. Which is pretty powerful (but does not, as many people think, have anything to do with the *launching* of a projectile, except to initiate the cartridge and absorb the recoil). You have to be powerful to absorb the recoil of a 3 pound projo being launched 150 meters or so without breaking the operator's shoulder. Before anyone gets too excited - the PIAT was removed from the NFA list... because ammunition for them isn't available. They're legal to own Federally, without restriction. I just love this kind of breathless reportage.

Not.

The Sheriff says they were told it was test-fired into a lake. If it was in that configuration - I have no idea what they might have been launching - but I bet they were just letting the spring-loaded spigot go forward, which wouldn't have launched much very far. This is truly a "stupid criminal tricks" episode. I do like that dangerous "bandanna" (hey, that's what the Sheriff called it) on the end of that Yugo SKS. No doubt there's been a lot of drive-by bayonetings and rifle grenadings, a virtual epidemic. As for the "full-auto" weapons, I would note that private ownership of those is legal in Florida - and would really like to know if those were legally held... I'm betting they were not NFA-registered weapons. I am also, honestly, bemused and amused by law enforcement agencies who have their CLEO wear 4-star rank. It seems kinda, pretentious all things considered. I'm not slamming the Sheriff here - if that's the uniform, that's the uniform, he probably didn't have anything to do with it - it was some predecessor of his.

Nice example of the PIAT, though. Late model, and they have the sub-caliber training round tray in it. 'Bout $1-1.5K worth of PIAT. And not illegal, however much I'm sure they want it to be.

Yes, the Castle owns a PIAT. We've even got inert rounds. Heck, we've got something else the bad guys didn't have - a (expended) launching cartridge. All the loaded guns - that's a story. The breathless concern about the PIAT? Misplaced. Bozos didn't even have the butt pad for it - if they'd ever *really* fired it, they'd have been *really* unhappy. H/t, Too Numerous to Mention! -the Armorer

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

by Denizens on Apr 04, 2008 | General Commentary

Burning Down the House

[Kat]

Normally, I wouldn't link to any inflammatory stories of Qu'ran abuse that was not something I had to refute (such as the infamous Qu'ran in the Guantanamo toilet: impossible to do). I have never linked to and would not link to any real, purposeful and malicious acts of desecration against anyone's holy book. Except this link: Burning the Qu'ran.

A young Iranian Muslim has decided to burn the Qu'ran as a sign of protest against the Iranian regime:

I have decided to set Quran on fire as long as Islamic dictatorship of Iran:

(continued in flash traffic0

1. doesn't commit to Universal Declaration of Human Rights rules; 2. doesn't stop executions; 3. doesn't free students and opposition from prison; 4. doesn't bring justice in Judiciary system and society.
I believe religious disobedience is the key to save Iranian people from ruling mullahs. They preach that Islam is religion of peace and freedom which is a hypocrisy in reality.

He urges others to do the same and leave the books throughout the Iranian cities as a sign. This reminded me of a post I read yesterday: Muslims leaving Islam in Droves

I don't know how true it is or not, but apropos my review of Zawahiri's townhall, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the entire Wahabi/fundamentalist situation isn't exactly "spreading" like they would like you to believe. Neither is a similar fundamentalist "twelver Shia" politico-religio idea. The fact is, they were losing ground and they feared the encroaching "westernization" of Arab Muslims. Televisions, cars, blue tooth phones, MTV, Pepsi, jeans, Britney Spears, educated women, women in the work place, women driving cars: everything that we take for granted was coming to pass in the Persian and Arab Muslim lands.

They, the wahabi/fundamentalist were dying long before they attacked us on 9/11 and, in many ways, this war is their last "hurrah". They either become relevant again or they go the way of the do-do bird.

The Iranian Mullah led regime are in the same boat. It is why the IRGC has been able to grab so much power from the Mullahs. People no longer believe, as one girl said, "the religion men". The IRGC knows they have to preserve "the Islamic revolution" in order for them to continue to have a reason to exist. They are able because they do have economic and military power. They have slowly filtered into politics and now have that as well.

The Iranians are in a proxy war with us in Ira[q], not just to "expand" their influence, which is far to positive a way of looking at their real situation and purpose. They do fear that the United States will attack them next and they should. They do not want to change their over all practices of using proxies and terrorists as a tool of achieving their state interests. They do want to protect themselves from possible future attack due to their continuing support and use of terrorists. Iraq they need as a buffer, both in land mass and politically, to stave off the possibility.

In the mean time, inside their nation, the seeds of their distruction exist.

by Denizens on Apr 04, 2008 | ~~GWOT~~ Whatever it is...

Princess Crabby Demands it.

Really. She did. In the comments of yesterday's H&I Fires.

Therefore, we must comply, right?

Well, in her multiverse, anyway.

A new whatziss.

Not a component. Complete. Not a demurely applied pasty or blur in sight (except for jpg artifacts, tough noogies). Okay - it *isn't* in its storage box, but hey, *that* has a pretty revealing label which would take away the fun. Well, my fun, anyway.

C'mon, somone knows what this gizmo is!

Just a Whatzis for your Friday-no-doubt-sequing-into-the-weekend pleasure.

Go for it. A~~muse~~maze me!

Oh, if you think it will help - larger pic available here.

by John on Apr 04, 2008 | Gun Pr0n - A Naughty Expose' of the fiddly bits

Things You Used To See In The MSM

Such as this one:

February 8, 2007 • In Iraq, improvised explosive devices pose a constant threat to security forces. The makeshift bombs are stashed on the sides of roads, buried in trash or hidden just about anywhere. The U.S. military has sought to train Iraqi security forces to handle them on their own.
But things don't always go as planned.

U.S. Army Sgt. Ryan Lord hadn't driven his Humvee more than 50 yards out of Forward Operating Base Warrior when he came upon Iraqi police standing in the middle of the road. An IED had been spotted up ahead, they told the Americans.

In most cases, that means a U.S. explosives ordnance team comes in to defuse the bomb. But in this case, an Iraqi explosives team is on the case.

The Iraqi police start shooting at the potential bomb, hoping to set it off. But to no avail. The convoy continues to sit and wait. An hour passes. As Sgt. Lord watches, the Iraqi police move closer to the suspected bomb.

The first IED turns out to be a fake. To the surprise of the American soldiers, this emboldens the Iraqi police, who are now focusing on the second suspected bomb.

"Oh, he kicked it," says an American soldier watching.

"The second one must have been safe," Lord says, "because they went over to it, kicked it over, and then threw it across the road."

An hour and a half after first stopping, the convoy moves on.

That was newsworthy-by-MSM-definition because it showcases the US *failure* to

a. instill a healthy respect for IEDs in the local Iraqi cops *and*

b. teach them the proper method of IED neutralization.

However, take note of the glossed-over facts that

a. Iraqi police have taken on the task that *used* to be reserved for US EOD folks *and*

b. shooting an IED (from a distance, naturally) is an accepted field-expedient method of dealing with one of the beasts.

And now, I'll bet a two-liter plastic bottle of generic agua caliente that you won't see this one:

Kirkuk, Mar 12, [2008] (VOI) - Police forces on Wednesday defused a roadside bomb placed near a bridge in central Kirkuk, north Iraq, a security source said.
Kirkuk police forces on Wednesday evening discovered a rocket tied to wires near the directorate of Accounting at a bridge in central Kirkuk,” a security source, who requested anonymity, told Aswat al-Iraq - Voices of Iraq - (VOI)

The source added “the explosives expert defused the rocket.”

Kirkuk lies 250 km north-east of Baghdad.

Heh. Same area, same local cops. But *not* newsworthy, because it shows they've learned the *professional* way to deal with IEDs. They're not still in the learning stage -- now they *know* and they're applying that knowledge.

"B-b-b-but Bill, they're still planting IEDs -- that means The Surge Isn't Working!"

That's like saying NYC's Rodent Control program isn't working because there are still rats in the sewers. I've got cop buddies who remember when they *used* to promenade down Broadway, following the trash trucks...

The MSM's motto:

If the story doesn't meet the spin, don't put it in.

At times, when I'm more positive, I have hopes that the influence of new media and history will prove just how much bias we've had pushed down our throats by the MSM.

And then I remember what a stranglehold liberals still maintain within journalism, broadcast media, academia, and Hollyweird.

Until that changes, they will continue to spin the historical narrative according to their liberal bias to advance their own agendas.

All while gullible Obamaniacs accept it as the complete truth.

TGIF. LOL

posted by fdcol63 on April 4, 2008 7:03 AM

If it doesn't bleed, vomit, spew, or otherwise meet a certain level of negativity they are not "informing" us.

posted by kat-missouri on April 4, 2008 8:09 AM

but what about the mutiny of shiite troops who were supposed to attack positions of the Sadr Army? Do I read about it here? If not, was there a good reason for that? I like to know, because I try to read info from both camps and make up my mind myself.

posted by eric on April 4, 2008 12:06 PM

eric: mutiny and desertion are practiced as a fine art in Iraqi military culture (see Desert Storm and OIF battle reports for quantification). "going over to the other side" has varying degrees of "gone" to it, and i wouldn't put overly much stock in any report that breathless exclaims that "all" the members of a unit "mutinied".

my brief assessment of the sparse reports i had seen would be thus: "guys who never could have passed a decent background check" may have walked off their current job in order to report back in to whomever their real allegiance was due. such is life.

posted by MajMike on April 4, 2008 12:48 PM

Eric...there are multiple reports that say different things. According to Kaboomjournal.blogspot.com (I can't link right this second), there were reports that police and others "defected" and handed over their weapons, but LT G said he made the rounds of the check points in his sector and they were all covered.

He notes that, if any did, they did not effect his over all area and may have been very limited.

The alleged mutiny as reported by "police and army officials in Basra"

I say alleged because many of the "officials" in Basra are also Sadr mahdi army or have sympathies to that cause. Noting that an alleged battalion refused to fight is pretty big not to be also validated by the American military. I would look there first before I accept that it was an entire battalion of the army. The police, on the otherhand, I would believe.

In 2005, Steven Vincent, author of In the Red Zone, was murdered in Basra and his interpreter critically wounded because his daily dispatches noted the "criminals", the corruption, and, most importantly, the police being infiltrated by Mahdi militia who posted signs of Sadr and were going around at night kidnapping and killing people for their "un-Islamic" behavior, dress, etc.

Does the possibility of the Basra police "mutinying" against attacking Sadr bother me or portend something that we didn't know already? Nope.

however, I would look to Centcom to see if they have any confirmation of the number, size and organizatoin within the Iraqi army that did or did not "mutiny" before I would accept Basra/Mahdi propaganda that is basically trying to portray even the Iraqi Army under Sadr's control.

Best article I've seen today about the Basra affair is right here: Planning Gaps for Assault on Basra

posted by kat-missouri on April 4, 2008 12:52 PM

Maj Mike...guess we had the same thoughts on that subject. "reports of large scale mutiny are highly questionable".

posted by kat-missouri on April 4, 2008 12:57 PM

And..a little more explanation and comparison of what allegedly happened in Basra to the alleged "mutiny"

A British military official said that Mr. Maliki had brought 6,600 reinforcements to Basra to join the 30,000 security personnel already stationed there, and a senior American military official said that he understood that 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqi forces had deserted or underperformed. That would represent a little over 4 percent of the total.

Context. and even then there is the qualifier of "he understood" which means he is getting his information from a secondary source as well.

posted by kat-missouri on April 4, 2008 1:57 PM

thank you all and long live the internet!

posted by eric on April 4, 2008 3:01 PM

thx for the numbers kat...

now to apply the "Iraqi fudge factor" calculation to it.. "about 4% loss" = "bodaciously fantastic attendance today" = "slightly less than a recruiting drive" all in all i would say that was a great show of force.

posted by MajMike on April 4, 2008 3:41 PM

by CW4BillT on Apr 04, 2008 | ~~GWOT~~ Whatever it is... | Bill's Excellent Adventure | Bill's Excellent Adventure | Postcards from the Edgy

Zawahiri's Town Hall

[Kat]

I'd really like to spend some time reviewing this, but I want to get it up ASAP. Several months ago, Zawahiri put out a call for people to ask questions of him about al Qaida and their operations. He answered back recently with an audio that the Jawa Report has translated. I'll post a few highlights, but, if you have the time, you should read it.

It's starts out with Zawahiri trying to justify the attacks on Muslims:
(continued in flash traffic)

My reply to Mudarris Jughrafiya is that we haven’t killed the innocents, not in Baghdad, nor in Morocco, nor in Algeria, nor anywhere else. And if there is any innocent who was killed in the Mujahideen’s operations, then it was either an unintentional error, or out of necessity as in cases of al-Tatarrus [taking of human shields by the enemy]. I explained in detail the ruling concerning al-Tatarrus in the book The Healing of the Believers’ Chests and in the eighth chapter of the book The Exoneration, and the brother Abu Yahya al-Libi has a book called Al-Tatarrus in Contemporary Jihad.
I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets,

Right about now, you should be choking because that is exactly what these alleged "defenders of the innocent" have done over the last five years. But he justifies this by saying that:

...but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah and targeting them, and it may be the case that during this, an innocent might fall unintentionally or unavoidably, and the Mujahideen have warned repeatedly the Muslims in general that they are in a war with the senior criminals – the Americans and Jews and their allies and agents – and that they must keep away from the places where these enemies gather.

As a reminder, no American or Jew or any other "crusader", man, woman or child is an "innocent" because we all take part in this horrendous thing called "democracy". Surprisingly, al Qaida gets that our government acts on behalf of our nation which is a representative government, so we are all responsible for the alleged war against the Muslims. As opposed to those who want to claim that the presence or lack of certain political parties in the white house or voting means they are not responsible;

AQ doesn't buy that and no amount of appeals to that idea will save you from attack. Refreshing your memory: 9/11, 3/11 Spain, 7/7 London and various other attacks. They also believe that we are not "innocent" because we choose to live in a democracy where man made laws are held above and separate from the laws of God (actually, Allah and Sharia, but why get technical). So all those atheist, anti-war folks that thinks some more "separation of church and state" will somehow end our status as "crusaders" should think again. Or, keep hiding their heads in the sand,

Finally, if you haven't been around or listened to any AQ propaganda such as Zawahiri or Bin Laden (or any other extremists), our children are equally not "innocent", regardless of their age or religion because, as noted above, they aren't the right religion, they live under man made laws and, finally, the same excuse that is given to killing Jewish children with Iranian made rockets launched from Gaza, our children will one day grow up to be, well, American "crusaders and Jews". Thus, our children are just little murderers who have to be killed before they can grow up and murder some poor, innocent Wahabi, terrorist.

People, that is not polemics. That is directly paraphrasing the great Zawahiri: justifier of everything atrocious and horrendous in humanity.

Also, apparently, we hang out at the Baghdad pet market at least three times a year along with the Baghdad book market among the various places that are allegedly full of the "enemy", making the attacks legitimate and the deaths of these Muslims "martyrs for Allah". They may indeed be "martyrs", but Al Qaida is hardly the defenders of innocents or the protectors of the Ummah.

The Crusader-Jewish propaganda claims that the Mujahideen kill the innocent, but the Muslim Ummah knows who its enemy is and who defends it.

Which is why support for Al Qaida is down across the ME and the Sunnis in al Anbar want to kill them if they see them. Check out what JD at Outside the Wire was told by the local Iraqis.

While reading Zawhiri's rationalizations I was reminded of what I heard over and over again while filming Iraqi Tribesmen who joined the Anbar Awakening .
All al Qaida offers is death and violence.

JD also noted that Zawahiri has to claim that the Americans are there and taking the Muslims hostage because he has no other defense.

“It is not hidden from you that the enemy intentionally takes up positions in the midst of the Muslims, for them to be human shields for him. And here I emphasize to my brothers the Mujahideen to beware of expanding the issue of al-Tatarrus, and to make sure that their operations targeting the enemies are regulated by the regulations of the Shari’ah and as far as possible from the Muslims.

Two really interesting concepts. Apparently, because we pursue these nasty, murderous S.O.B.s into the population that they hide in, when they decide to attack us from behind these civilians, we are taking the civilians as "human shields". Of course, I do not see Zawahiri condemning any mujihadeen for grabbing up children and old ladies, holding them in front of them or holding them hostage in the houses they are in, hoping to avoid attack. Who is the cowardly criminal in Allah's eyes?

Then Zawahiri vaguely recognizes the possibility that, yes, indeed, the "mujihadeen" might have expanded the definition of "human shields" (al Tattarus) too far. Say, like, every civilian within a 10,000 mile radius of "the Americans and Jews"? He admonishes them to attack us as far away from the Muslims as possible (is this a hidden message for future operations?).

His other justification is that any Muslims living peacefully within or cooperating with the "occupation" are no longer Muslims, but traitors and worthy of death (among the other apparent 900 million Muslims that don't agree with them).

There is a lot more of that at the Jawa Report.

I recall a recent discussion that Al Qaida's movement isn't just about its fight with the US nor even simply with the "apostate rulers" of Muslim nations, but a real argument between the multiple schools of Islamic thought. There are four in Sunni Islam and twelve in Shia Islam. Largely, al Qaida's fight is with the Sunni school's of thought because they already consider Shias heretics and apostates.

Al Qaida wants their sect or rules to be the single, over arching interpretation of Shariah, including the laws under which all Islamic states and people are ruled. They figure that they have a good chance of doing this if they separate the West (the far enemy) from the Middle East and Islamic nations and leaders (the near enemy).

Al Qaida itself continues to suffer an internal struggle over multiple aspects of their own war including whether they should fight the "far enemy" or the "near enemy" first. Zawahiri is in favor of the "far enemy" in so far as he perceives the Egyptian government only standing because of our continued support. Yet, wherever al Qaida goes and attempts to set up shop, integrating the local problems and complaints of the people into their over all mission to take over the Islamic world, they are exorbitantly drawn into the fight with the "near enemy" as in Pakistan, the struggle in Lebanon, attacks in Saudi Arabia.

Another argument that they have between themselves is what the strategic targets should be and in what order. Zawahiri, being from Egypt and a member of the Al Qaida co-opted "Islamic Jihad in Egypt", has continuously advocated for the take down of the Egyptian government and setting up the first "Islamic State" in Egypt. He stated that in his "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner", "Bitter Harvest", multiple other tracks and speeches and does so even in this statement at the end:

First: yes, I undertook reviews which I mentioned in the first printing of Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as well as in the second printing, which I ask Allah to help me to release soon, but my reviews were not in the context of the investigation department’s reviews, but were in the context of developing and activating the Jihadi work in Egypt and all over the Muslim Ummah.
Second: yes, I continue to hold to my stance towards the Brothers, although I went back on some of the terms I used about them in the second printing of The Bitter Harvest. And the strongest force opposing the regime in Egypt is the Islamic movement in general and the Jihad movement in particular upon which the regime imposes the severest types of constriction and repression, while it allows others expansive freedoms because they don’t represent the biggest threat to it, and moreover, it uses them to give vent to popular Islamic pressure.

The "brothers" that he is referring to is the Muslim Brotherhood which he believes turned traitors to the cause by accepting a truce with the Egyptian government and joining in the political process. He did relent somewhat, but that is largely tactical because the Brotherhood is the biggest Islamic movement in Egypt and they have connections everywhere. They would know if Al Qaida came and started setting up shop. If Zawahiri continued to be harsh on them, they would consider him and al Qaida a threat, probably moving to interdict them and turn them into the Egyptian government. Which brings us to his attempt to mollify the brothers and those that follow them that likely asked the question:

Third: the issue of bequeathal in Egypt is under way by American decree, and the alternative is the setting up of the Islamic state. What is important isn’t to ask about stopping the bequeathal or not stopping it, but rather, is to liberate the countries from the America

Well, now it doesn't matter who or why, only that Egypt is "liberated". At least, until Al Qaida can claim responsibility, set up shop and take over the effort. See the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq and AQ's take over of that movement before subsequently being ejected.

There is much more, that's just a taste.

I might have to start agreeing with the Jawa that Adnan Gadahn is dead. Lately, all of the video releases have been extremely poor and rarely translated with subtitles while this is not even a video, but an audio recording. Zawahiri says that his security detail refuses anything else and kept him from responding more quickly. Probably because he was running around Pakistan trying to get away from the intel and tracking equipment that has helped take down so many of their leaders with pinpoint precision over the last year.

The only other complaint I have about this is how it will be reported. Frankly, Zawahiri gets a good deal from the media because he can simply release statements and never have to answer questions about them directly. Rumsfield would never have been afforded the same protections. Neither is Petraeus. Does make you go, "hmmmm."

Stop The ACLU has a new look - drop in and give them your opinion.

by Kat on Apr 04, 2008 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

H&I Fires* 3 April 2008

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...

Time to add a new caveat, because from email it's not clear to some folks (mind you, if you don't read this it won't matter...) Being an open post, people (collectively, the Denizens) other than I post in the H&I. They sign their work (most of the time) - keep that in mind when you want to flame someone in email please - if it doesn't say "The Armorer" or "John" then I didn't write it! And honestly - if you don't like something said or posted... leave a comment, and hash it out (within the context of The Rulez which are clearly posted on the comment form, I would add).

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

The Castle is getting very close to going live with our redesign, which is intended to upgrade the back-office, which should improve things for posters and commenters, and clean things out that have accumulated over time - and to give us a cleaner look that will hopefully make things easier on people with slower connections. Additionally, we're adding all those buttons for the post-sharing services. Take a look here - it currently functions best in Firefox, but the other implementations are being worked, too. Let us know what you think. -the Armorer

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

CJ, writing over at A Soldier's Perspective, reminds us that Staff Sergeant Maupin is not the only missing soldier from the war:

As you hail and celebrate the recovery of Matthew Maupin, please remember those who are still missing:
Sgt. Ahmed Altaie, also an Army Reserve soldier, was forcibly taken by masked gunmen in a Baghdad neighborhood Oct. 23, 2006, while visiting family. The Army said Altaie had gone on his own outside the fortified Green Zone to see his Iraqi wife, whom he had married before deploying to Iraq, when he disappeared. Altaie, 41, is an Iraqi-born resident of Ann Arbor, Mich.

Spc. Alex Jimenez, 25, and Pvt. Byron Fouty, 19, disappeared after a May 12, 2007, ambush south of Baghdad that also took the lives of seven fellow soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter.

Six of the soldiers were killed at the scene, and the body of a seventh soldier who had been missing since the attack was found May 23 in the Euphrates River.

Jimenez and Fouty are assigned to 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment at Fort Drum, N.Y.

Until they *all* come home. -the Armorer

**********************************
The Department of Defense blogs... the America Supports You blog debuts. My fave of the current front page is "Last Wish." As this effort on the part of DoD develops, those of you who have been fighting the Good Info Fight - here and in your own blogs, or just as readers... this new site on the part of DoD exists because we all, in a sense, *willed* it into existence. You can take some pride in that. And here's hoping DoD can make a success of it... 'cuz remember, there are billions and billions of blogs in the blogiverse... and most are dead spaces. It's not easy getting noticed and staying that way in this biz! -the Armorer

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

While I'm pretty sure she's only going to let us own machineguns over her dead veto, the Governor of Kansas did sign this one today:

Sebelius signs bill banning funeral picketing
To ensure the privacy of Kansas families as they mourn the loss of their loved ones, Governor Kathleen Sebelius has signed a bill banning funeral picketing.

“I appreciate the legislature moving swiftly on this issue so we can protect the privacy of families in their time of mourning,” Sebelius said. “As we honor the memories of those Kansans who we’ve lost, we wish to shield their families from the despicable and disgraceful displays of those seeking publicity.”

SB 226 prohibits protests from being within 150 feet of a funeral for one hour before, during and two hours after the service. It will also be unlawful to block a public street or sidewalk. Violators will be subject to fines and six months in jail.

Similar legislation was passed and signed last year, but was struck down by the Kansas Supreme Court. The aspect of the legislation identified by the Court in its rejection has been removed from this version of bill.

This bill goes into effect upon its publication in the Kansas Register. Governor Sebelius has signed 37 bills and vetoed one during the 2008 Legislative Session.

Take that, Phelps' Ugly Whelps! Hey! P-UW! -the Armorer

**********************************
Don't forget, Gen. Petraeus is in town next week

a little something, something on the proxy war with Iran (I am continuously amused by people who scream about the potential of "escalating the war" by attacking Iran which is either extremely naive to imagine we aren't in a proxy war with Iran or a rather backhanded and slimy way of saying that it's okay if the Iranians kill our men and women in a slow drip drip in Iraq if it means we don't have to cross the borders to put boots and crosshairs on the ground.)

For those who have spoke here about illegal aliens and the necessity of the wall down south, some info from NRO: 40% of "illegal aliens" arrived here first through either temporary worker, educational or tourist visas. Where do we build a wall to stop that? -Kat
*************

Canada to stay in Afghanistan, France is sending a battalion to the "eastern" provinces (ie, Helmand) and the US marines have landed. -Kat

Soldiers can't access blogspot on many DoD websites. What's their plan? How are we supposed to be telling the troops they have more support than they are told about?

posted by kat-missouri on April 3, 2008 1:39 PM

Heh. But we still do something about a significant fraction of that remaining 60% though, huh?

And how's that internal policing element that someone around here is *so* keen about doing if we're still facing 40% from visa overstays, hmmm? Careful, I may have to bust out my never ending pencil, Kat. That won't be pretty(I look so terrible with bruises after you return fire).

posted by ry on April 3, 2008 1:43 PM

Actually, here at Fort Leavenworth, anyway, the Blogspot interdict has been lifted.

I got emails from guys on post yesterday that all of a sudden people could get to blogspot.

Might be related, might not. Dunno.

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 3, 2008 1:49 PM

Ooo! Ooo! Ry and Kat, fighting, er, comment-blogging! Wheeeee!

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 3, 2008 1:50 PM

Social security
Aging population
Labor pool
Change in emphasis from manual skills to technology and service fields

We don't need to stop people. We need to get people in, just do a better and faster job of evaluating, security checks, etc. Build/improve paths to naturalization.

Let the INS or ICE or whatever they are these days focus on criminal and terrorist related problems.

posted by kat-missouri on April 3, 2008 5:00 PM

Damn you Armorer! I am supposed to be at the gym, not sitting in front of my computer crying!
Get back to Whatiz!

posted by Maggie on April 3, 2008 8:59 PM

John ~ so what? Today you're the "Amorer"??? Isn't "amore" Latin for "love"? Are you going soft on us???

posted by HomefrontSix on April 4, 2008 5:13 AM

Kat,
Pelosi doesn't want us to forget the General's upcoming appearance!
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/04/nancy-pelosi-prepares-battlespace.html

posted by Mike on April 4, 2008 9:20 PM

by Denizens on Apr 03, 2008 | General Commentary

Hussan's Story

Net connectivity has been a bit hinky the past week, but I've been able to pop in often enough to read what's been going on -- although my comments usually earn a "Gee, IE can't display that page, and it's really, really sorry about that. Try again next month" message.

So, I have a bit of time after work to yak with the Junior Birdmen. The following came out in a one-on-one that took place a couple of days ago, and I think it ties in nicely with what Kat's been saying, particularly in her Global Jihad All Star Team and FuzzyBee's
Disturbing. BTW, I *had* comments, but I see the Regulars did their usual sterling job of covering for me...

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Hussan (not his real name, for a very good reason) had just finished a couple of bumpy trips around the traffic pattern (okay, they call it a “circuit” -- ‘nother Brit legacy) and I was quizzing him about what the winds were doing at 2,000 feet. After about five minutes, the topic shifted to flying in general, then to combat flying in particular. Then it took a turn I hadn’t expected.

“There is a mosque in [town name redacted], the mosque is Wahabi. One day, there is a sniper in the minaret with a Dragunov -- you know this rifle?”

“Yeah -- Russian sniper rifle. The VC had Sov advisors and they used it on us in Vietnam.”

“Yes, the Russian rifle. The sniper in the minaret, he is a good shot, a very good shot with the Dragunov. He begins shooting at people in the street, not hitting, just shooting. A police car drives up in front of the mosque and the two policemen get out. The sniper shoots the driver *bip* in the head, and the driver falls down. The other policeman goes to his friend to pull him behind the car and the sniper shoots him *bip* in the head also. So two policemen are dead in the street.

“The people run to the policemen and the sniper shoots *bip*--*bip* and the people run to the doorways. He does not shoot the people, just shoots so more policemen come so he can shoot them when they get there. Soon some more cars with policemen come and the sniper shoots one *bip* and the other policemen shoot back and take cover, they do not run away like they do in the time of Saddam. The sniper hides and the policemen stop shooting. The sniper looks up over the balcony and all the policemen shoot. They stop shooting when the sniper hides, then all shoot when he looks up over the balcony, then they stop when he hides again. All at once, all the policemen come out from cover and shoot. They move into the street and keep shooting up at where the sniper is, they keep him from looking up.

“Suddenly, there are some American soldiers running around the corner toward the mosque. They run to the door with a shotgun, they shoot the hinges and kick the door in, then they run inside, then some of the policemen stop shooting and run inside with them. The other policemen stop shooting at where the sniper hides in the minaret, but they keep aiming up there. Then one gets a call on his cell phone, and he tells the others to stop aiming, and some go over to the dead policemen and some go into the mosque.

“I saw this, it was in my town. My little brother -- not *smaller-than-I-am* little, *younger-than-I-am* little -- he was with me and saw this, too. I am already in the Army, on leave from Army cadet school. My little brother now joins the police.

“When the soldiers and the police go into the mosque, there is a fight. When it is over, they search the mosque and find IEDs, mortars, RPGs. The Wahabis are two Afghans, one Syrian, three Saudis. No Iraqis.

“So, why do the CNN reporters say this is *Iraqi* insurgency?”

Interesting and a good point. Prolly a good point about discipline too to be made in there.

posted by Trias on April 3, 2008 5:29 AM

Chris Muir has the answer...just review his last couple of strips.

Heh.

posted by Instapilot on April 3, 2008 6:00 AM

Additional food for thought: Hussan's family is Shi'a and (what's left of them) still lives in eastern Diyala.

That's like being Second Amendment advocates at the Democrats' National Convention...

posted by BillT on April 3, 2008 6:18 AM

Right to the point, as always, UnkaBill.

posted by Boquisucio on April 3, 2008 7:22 AM

Sign me up with Trias - there are two stories here... the one you emphasize with the closer, and the one you notice, if you're of the bent to - about the performance of the Iraqi police - a good performance.

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 3, 2008 7:29 AM

I was just thinking that about the police action. Really interesting to see them acting in unison and not getting crazy.

On the "global all star team" that the media seems to miss routinely, I can't fully answer that but don't miss the link to bad voodoo's story. another instance of what the media don't get.

posted by kat-missouri on April 3, 2008 7:56 AM

I wondered how long it would take somebody to twig to the cops. Two items struck me when Hussan was talking about them:

1. These weren't National Police, they were locals -- in "the time of Saddam" they'd have been Ba'athist flunkies gathering an easy paycheck and augmenting it by shaking down the locals. Note the local folks ran to help the first cops who went down? That's a *huge* change.

2. The cops moved into the open and oriented their weapons on the sniper as the US troops moved up, which said to them "We're friendlies and we've got yer six."

posted by BillT on April 3, 2008 8:18 AM

Linked! Thanks, guys - excellent post.

posted by Cassandra on April 3, 2008 8:20 AM

“So, why do the CNN reporters say this is *Iraqi* insurgency?”

Good fraggin' question!!!

With time passing by quickly, I'm trying to gather up as much information on our destination as possible. Our home base over there is by no means a fighting hole half filled with water in the middle of Hades, which comforts these old bones... But all of the pertinant questions are more along the lines of what's going on outside of the wire...

And, ya know, it's not as scary as I had first thought it to be. There are more and more stories about the Iraqis coming together. Signs that the infrastructure is jelling, that old ideas are taking a step aside in favor of new ones.

We'll have to stay frosty, of course, but it doesn't look like we'll be facing anything even close to the combat seen in the past.

Makes me feel a whole lot better, even if the prospect of earning that CIB starts diminishing.

I'm hoping that this will be one long and boring year... I'm counting on increasing a majority of my skills set, and doing a lot of self improvement. I'm taking it as a good sign that my mind is thinking beyond this deployment (that hadn't always been the case)...

In an absolutely positive spin, I might be able to link up with the Chief, and I'm sure that the Denizennes will keep me on my toes...

posted by Sgt. B. on April 3, 2008 9:53 AM

You'll *love* the MRAPs, Sarge. Stay tuned...

posted by BillT on April 3, 2008 9:58 AM

Bill, you are a good man.

You are certainly pulling your weight. There are not too many of you out there.

Keep up the good work.

Carry on.

posted by Ledger on April 3, 2008 10:21 AM

Nice to see you, Oh Trivety One. Tell Hussan we are axing the same question too...and we are proud of you both!

Gots me an Afghan cookbook and have been skewering Many Things. The back deck is off the house, making that first step out the back door a doozy...

thinking of y'all...

posted by Cricket on April 3, 2008 11:07 AM

Excellent reporting Bill!

If Saddam’s family still has power – let them be rooted out.

If the MSM has slanted reporting – let them be rooted out.

Keep the information flowing.

Btw, it will be argued in the military if you could have destroyed Saddam with proper ammo in the first strike (incendiary bombs, or cluster bombs, mines or small nukes).

Certainly, it would have been best to destroy Saddam and his daughters in the first strike – but it’s unsure whether it could have been done.

Bush hit them with only 4 penetrator bombs, and rest of the air package was cruise missiles – it only damaged Saddam’s arm.

As I recall, Clinton hit that target with over 70 tons of explosive and Saddam got away. I don’t know if Bush's Air Force could have done better than Clinton.

Q: Would it have been best to destroy Dora’s Ranch with any/all ammo?

A: Unknown to the average citizen.

Keep up the great reporting.

posted by Ledger on April 3, 2008 11:10 AM

Sgt B. Get "Outside the Wire" ASAP and take a look at Bad Voodoo's PBS Frontline Special. So far, those are the two best videos I've seen showing multiple aspects of the different objectives (ie, three block war, convoy duty).

As you are a marine, Outside the Wire is probably the best considering the area you are likely going to.

See my post below for ordering information.

I don't know when you are going, but I hear that Michael Yon's "Moment of Truth" is an excellent book as well. It's not out for another week or so but you can pre-order it.

posted by kat-missouri on April 3, 2008 11:19 AM

Good story, Bill. Tell Hussan he's one of the good guys, and we're proud of him!
I noticed the good work of the cops as well, very good to see how professional they have become.

And I'm not sure Iraq will survive having Unka Bill and Godzilla ranging together - but the Denizennes will surely love it !!!

posted by Barb on April 3, 2008 2:18 PM

Sarge B -- Your future home just upgraded the hospital from semi-temporary (aka "Big Tent Over Aluminum Framework") to semi-permanent (aka "Aluminum Skin Over Aluminum Framework") -- not to handle a huge increase in casualties, but as a base for the increased number of MEDCAPs going on the road to organize civilian clinics.

Cricket -- Keep the Engineer and the CLUs happy; marinate goat for at least 36 hours.

kat -- Sarge B's wearing a *different* set of cammies these days, but OTW's a good suggestion. BTW, I'll be his forward LP/speedbump if al-Q-I goes all blitzkrieg 'n' stuff.

Bill, you are a good man. -- Dagnabbit, Ledger, I've got a *curmudgeon* rep to maintain!

Brab! You survived the puppy onslaught!

posted by BillT on April 4, 2008 2:57 AM

Seriously? Why marinate goat for 36 hours? Won't it spoil? I have refrigeration to do it, but 36 hours?

I can ask the halal meat department at the DeKalb Farmer's Market about it...they get goat, lamb, Rocky Mountain Oysters..

posted by Cricket on April 4, 2008 11:35 AM

by CW4BillT on Apr 03, 2008 | Bill's Excellent Adventure | Global War on Terror (GWOT) | Postcards from the Edgy

Outside the Wire 2007: First Hand Look at the New War

[Kat]

While at the VFF event on March 26, I noticed a man with a camera, filming and then later interviewing Hegseth and Bellavia. I thought he was with VFF. Later, as I was speaking to someone else, Hegseth interrupted and said, "this man has been to Doura". The man slid a DVD across the table and said it was a film about his time there. I had to go on, so I thanked him, put the DVD in my folder and left to meet with some others. Later, as I looked at the DVD, I realized that I had just missed personally speaking with JD Johannes. The DVD he had given me was his latest "Outside the Wire" documentary.

I watched it last weekend. I think it is better than his first documentary. In fact, it was much better than some documentary type programs I had seen on The Military Channel, The History Channel, HBO and Showtime. The narration was well done, the interviews, interspersed with actual events, were excellent and highly educational. This would also be appropriate to show in any class room, at least high school and college. Frankly, they should be watching this instead of reading the papers or watching news because they are not getting the whole story nor the right story. Read Toby Nunn from Bad Voodoo. The WAPO took unverified, insurgent propaganda and turned it into a story about US forces attacking a bus. Bad Voodoo was there. You can see a good documentary about another side of the war with Bad Voodoo's convoy War.

This is one reason why JD's Outside the Wire is so important. This "Bad Voodoo" experience is the news that people get. This is the story that is being fed to the American people. This is what is being used to create Hollywood movies like "redacted" or "stop loss". This is why I am telling you that you should get this movie, "Outside the Wire", watch it and spread it around or recommend it to others.

The documentary is in three parts. Each could stand on its own as a thirty to forty minute segment. Together, they help pull together the disparate aspects of a "three block war" and really give a great understanding of the battle for Iraq today.

This is what you'll find in this documentary:
(continued in flash traffic)

The first segment, Danger Close showed a combat out post (COP) under attack. This segment was the heart stopping "battle" against suicide bombers and multiple elements of Al Qaida trying to over run the COP and take out a small patrol outside of the base.

JD asks one soldier there, "What do you tell your wife about being over here?" The response was interesting. I couldn't tell if he believed she didn't know, based on the media coverage, or, if he just did not want to think about what she might know because his life there was separate. In another section, as they were under attack, some soldiers are trading quips, alternately relishing the fight and deriding the fact that they are there when they could be at home with their wives. It's the real dichotomy of war. You are left somewhat wondering which they favor most at that moment: being in the fight or being at home?

What was really interesting was the difference in how the battle was reported by the media and what JD recorded while he was there and then documented from information and interviews. The press played the event as a near defeat for the Americans. An attempt to over run the base a la Khe Sahn. The advantage was to the insurgents. In the film and the later information, you realize that there was an element, a moment when the follow on second suicide bomber could have taken out most of the base. Except, he couldn't because the defenders took him out immediately as he sped up. After that and a few more tense moments of fire fighting, the "bad guys" faded away. The day went to the Americans. The media gave it to the insurgents and painted the men as "sitting ducks" when they were bristling with arms and defenses though taking an aggressive, offensive approach to patrolling and controlling the area.

The second and third segments of this film are just as good, if not better, though focused on the Anbar Awakening and the Baghdad Surge.

The Awakening was great because it gave you a first hand account of what exactly caused Al Anbar to turn from the Iraqis who were there, who formed the CLC (concerned local citizens) and who had an extremely malovent view of Al Qaida. In context, a local shiehk had basically been trying to stay outside of the conflict. He did not support the American occupation, but he did not want the "insurgents" to bring attention to his town. He had also heard that Al Qaida had been taking over towns, destroying property and killing people. So he had decided to keep them out. Al Qaida was not happy about that and sent an envoy to speak with the Shiehk. When the shiehk still refused, Al Qaida sent back a message saying they were going to destroy the entire village, behead the local police, kill their families, kill the shiehk and his family, too.

That is when the shiehk came to the Americans. They might have feared our military and political power, but they never feared us as a people.

Again, this is a first hand account from the shiehk who was speaking through an interpreter. Other Iraqis in the area also told their part of the story that confirmed the events and other events surrounding that which turned the local population. Al Qaida had made a new enemy.

The Baghdad Surge is a first hand look at "counter-insurgency" on the ground, in the soldiers' boots. It shows how a US commanding officer spends his day trying to tamp down the flames of sectarianism, get services to a local area, get the locals to work together, stomp out insurgents, protect the population, teach basic governance and basic "rule of law" and, in general, make Iraq work. JD followed this commander around to the different situations that occured. This final segment was the best for me. It really made the concept of "counter-insurgency" (COIN) come alive for me. As military history and the various theories at work here are a serious interest, this segment pulled it all together.

At one point, the commander is hearing a complaint from the head of a sunni neighborhood in West Rashid (bad side of town in Baghdad). Iraqi police had shot up the houses of the people. When the commander catches up with the IP, they are trying to clean up the blood from the bed of their vehicles because someone in that neighborhood threw a grenade into the truck, killing or wounding several police officers. That attack came because the Jaish al Mahdi had mortared the Sunni neighborhood the day before. The people think that the police are complicit (some might be).

The US commander tries to reason with the IP who are very angry about the attack, telling them that he was sorry for their loss, but trying to remind them that not everyone in that neighborhood is "Al Qaida" just like not everyone in the IP is Jaish al Mahdi (JAM). Later, a man in the neighborhood is found shot to death by a 9mm. The US commander said they were going to use forensics to track down the weapons' system it belonged to and go from there.

This is, as JD says several times, a blood vendetta and it is very strong in Iraq.

That is just one event. During another, the commander uses the Iraqi's fear of American satellites to convince some men that he already knows something that he doesn't in order to get them to cooperate. He calls a meeting and expresses his concerns that the city councils from the north and south cannot make an accomodation for moving food and other goods. Then he says he knows that some people have been interfering and possibly hi-jacking the goods. Suddenly, it is all about cooperation.

This entire segment is much longer and shows a very wide array of situations confronting commanders in Iraq as they attempt to put together a nation. I highly recommend this documentary to civilians who want to know what our soldiers are doing and what the war is all about, military theoriticians who want to see COIN in action and any officer, NCO or soldier who might be getting ready for his/her first deployment to Iraq or under the new "surge/COIN" doctrine.

Over all, I thought Outside the Wire was one of the best films I've seen about Iraq to date. It puts you there and goes well past the "black and white" of "sectarian violence" or "suicide bombings" or the daily attacks.

You can buy the DVD on line at Outside the Wire: buy the movie

As a side note, if for no other reason, you should buy this video to make sure that it beats the sales of the rest of the extremely poor, angst ridden and insulting films about Iraq and that JD makes exactly what he wants from it: the cost, so he can return to tell the stories of our men and women in uniform.

by Kat on Apr 03, 2008 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

Regarding some of today's young officers.

The Courtney Massengale types, vice the Sam Damons.

An auld soldier offered up his opinion in email:

I almost posted a comment on your blog regarding all the whining coming from the troops in Iraq. They are the best paid, best supported (including by the public at large), least uncomfortable; and at least statistically for combat arms folks, at the lowest risk of death of any wartime army in US history. Not that I am unappreciative of what they are doing, but danger & discomfort are relative & it would help if they had a better sense of what troops endured at places like Gettysburg, Meuse-Argonne, The Ardennes & Okinawa, the first six months in Korea, Ia Drang Valley & War Zone D in the 60's.

This Auld Soldier is a veteran of both the mostly un-noticed war of the last century and of the most contentious war of the last century - who has more stitches for one of his seven Purple Hearts than a Certain Politician required for all three of his, along with a Silver Star and just under three years of combat exposure...

You should read the whole thing, over at Small Wars Journal.

by John on Apr 02, 2008 | Observations on things Military

Small Wars Journal - Today's Junior Army Officers.

Over at Small Wars Journal, a good, toothsome bit gets tossed up by Captain Hsia.

When I read it, I thought to myself, Captain Donovan could have written this. Major Donovan would not.

Today’s Junior Army Officers
By Captain Tim Hsia, U.S. Army

Debating retention of junior officers is a perilous matter but there are just too many vital issues currently concerning the future of the officer corps that it is necessary to inject some realism within the debate. Junior officers are leaving the army at an alarming rate and not simply because of continuous deployments and the state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lieutenants and Captains, although focused at the tactical level, still ponder what exactly senior officers and politicians have in mind in regards to the plan and endstate for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and how it will affect the Army as an institution. These important questions are debated by junior officers on a daily basis. Nonetheless, these questions at a personal level are subordinate to an even more vital question which junior officers contemplate, and that is whether to leave the military for the corporate sector.

So, I pushed it around to some serving officers I know. The best response I got is posted below.

John,

Prepare for rant. 5...4...3...2...1....

Given the constraints of printed word, I will give CPT Hsia the benefit of the doubt and say that I think his perspective, experience and subsequent analysis are too narrow in focus. Part of what is driving the high promotion rates, and accentuating the issue of captain attrition, is both an overall increase in Army requirements and an overall increase in authorizations. Since the no-money early 90s, promotion rates have gone up for MAJ and LTC. This trend started before 9/11 and even before transformation. Why? We weren't authorizing retention of enough officers. Result: many functional areas (FAO being my direct, transitory experience) were drastically short handed. Transformation only made the problem worse by not only adding units, but adding more authorizations to BCT and DIV staffs. I don't know how the current retention rates measure up against the 90s. But here are a few challenges we faced back then that are gone now.

The rest is in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry. Whatcha all think?

YG89 had a selection rate to CPT of less than 90%. This was with selection happening just before the four year mark, pin on close to five. This was also after DA allowed early voluntary separations and took the last month of YG89 and deferred their board to YG90 (my YG). The selection process was so difficult, that even having a still authorized B&W photo was considered a discriminator (advice from branch managers). Next year, the selection rate was just over 90%...still traumatic. Promotion rates to MAJ were around 60-65%, LTC around 50%. Selection rate to CGSC was around 50%. Worse, because the primary zone for LTC was at the 16 year mark, getting passed over twice meant that you were out of the Army at 18 years. Period. No retirement.

So, what happened was that many who stayed in faced a very early, and obvious, defining moment as captains: company command. If your OERs didn't have you walking on water by the time you finished command, you were 'defined', in a bad way. You were at risk for promotion to MAJ and probably were not getting CGSC. This meant you were, if promoted, starting your MAJ window in the bottom half of your YG. Looking ahead to the LTC board, what were your odds? Many captains figured that out. My class, according to our class registrar, shows that there were two distinct waves of exodus: immediately after Desert Storm, and in the middle of the captain's window (i.e., right after command). There were exceptions, but not many.

So, if you were a young captain, and didn't walk on water for your last command OER, what were your options? Seek refuge in a functional area? Their promotion rates were no better (if not worse) than DA averages. And all of us were in one central selection board (minus medical, JAG, Chaplains and maybe some other specialty that escapes me at the moment). The point is, you had poor job security. Why risk getting booted as a passed over captain or major?

What drove the rates so low was simply a lack of personnel dollars to fill all the authorizations. When I dabbled in FAO, I quickly discovered that the promotion rates were actually slightly lower than my basic branch, but the shortages in MAJ and LTC were huge. There simply was no money to retain the required end strength.

That all started to change in the mid to late 90s. Promotion rates went up. Selection board for MAJ moved up to the ten year mark. Pin on time for 1LT to CPT cut down to the 4 year mark. DA made the decision to remove CGSC as a discriminator by mandating 100% attendance (still working on that one...). Does that mean the Army was retaining mediocrity?

How do you define mediocrity? OERs were so inflated that they were almost worthless. The new OER only achieved one thing: senior rater accountability. Not everyone could be a top-block anymore. However, CPTs currently don't get a senior rater block check. So their verbiage is what matters. No quality control equals generally the same problem: the OER is still a poor tool for measuring quality control (unless you get the 'velvet hammer' OER...damnation by faint praise).

This is where the young captain conflates promotion rates with quality. Quality is more a function of how the OERs are written, if the senior rater and rater took the time to craft their OERs and were being honest. Promotion rates are high because the requirements have gone up AND we have the money to retain end strength (the latter being more important). I don't know how the captain's attrition rate of today compares to the late 90s, when things were looking up. The real issue of identifying and retaining quality in the officer corps has little to do with promotion rates. The requirements are driving rates up, and since we're still stuck with a promotion system tied to time in service, promotion rates really don't serve as an indicator of quality.

Also, being passed over twice is no longer a career ending affair. Does that mean that an officer passed over twice is automatically a dud? Not necessarily. They may still have all the patriotism and desire to serve, but it just didn't work out. However, there are still nearly automatic things that will get you drummed out. That's what the SELCON board is for. This is a big deal if you are a MAJ. Now you can at least stay in until 20 if you've already served 16+ years and were passed over. I think that's a significant improvement for retention.

I interpret CPT Hsia's real issue with quality control in the officer corps to be an issue of a lack of rewards for above average or excellent performance. I doubt CPT Hsia has been able to read his peers' OERs and compare them to his (one way a rater/senior rater rewards top performers). So what does he expect? You won't see a real divergence in perceived quality (I use the term with tongue in cheek because of the OER still is not a comprehensive evaluation) until battalion command selection. What does he want? Higher ascensions which will drive promotion rates down? That's an expensive solution, especially if there are no requirements to justify an increase in LTs. Oh, and the Army isn't letting LTs out before their commitments are up, like they did in the early 90s. That means that you will just about automatically stay in for the captain's board (which is at the three year mark, I think). With such a high demand for captains, of course promotion to CPT is almost automatic. As I recall, it was that way in the 80s as well.

So when does the first real screening occur whereby lower performing officers either get weeded out, or transfer to another specialty where they may be more suitable? I would offer that this first occurs at the career field designation (used to be at the end of the CPT window, I think it is now mid CPT window). This is where the functional areas and branches that don't need LTs, but do need CPTs, get healthy. This doesn't mean that functional areas or these other branches are made up of second rate officers. Many basic branches, such as mine, seriously neck down at the MAJ and LTC level. If we all stayed in our basic branch, the Army would either have to lower promotion rates, or force officers into other career fields. The point is, due to high promotion rates brought on by high retention dollars, you now have options.

This is especially important for rewarding risk takers. Junior officers now can take risk and not have it automatically equate to separation if you fail (unless you fail big time, such as UCMJ). That wasn't the case in the 90s...

I could go on, but it's getting late. I agree that the Army doesn't have enough branch managers to provide the quality of support as other services. His comment on having to manage his own career = whining. I sure as hell am not going to abdicate complete responsibility for my career to someone else. CPT Hsia doesn't delineate what he thinks his responsibilities should be.

Sponsorship/mentoring = unit problem. However, has he reached out to the MAJ in his SQDN? Junior officer clique = it happens anyway. Lots of highly suspect generalizations such as the retention bonus only appealing to those who want to stay in, junior officers deciding to get out because they don't know what their options are (ever go on line to your branch page?), 'brain drain among officers' (I thought that didn't happen until your mandatory lobotomy when you made MAJ). As to his statement that the promotion system needs to be better explained, I agree. Try asking the MAJ in your SQDN. If they don't take the time, ask the CDR. As to not knowing how the selection process works, why worry about a process you can only influence by keeping your records straight?

I will give him the benefit of the doubt in the next to last para with the line "these problems are acutely highlighted for junior officers..." to also include all junior Soldiers. I don't agree and think this is more a reflection of his perceptions than an accurate generalization.

Same para, up a few lines: "For high achieving officers there is little financial incentive to outperform their peers...". Hm...are you saying you are in it for the money? Or are you insinuating that 'somebody' have a bag of cash they can hand out (with some type of governance process?) as arbitrary awards? Not sure I like the idea of how this would look in execution. It doesn't work to well in the DA civilian side (everyone tends to get the same, or very similar, award). The DAC side does have some supervisor controlled things like quality step increases. Maybe de-link pay from time in grade? That could get ugly if not tightly controlled.

The last para just flat out confuses me. After reading all this, this is all just a 'cyclical evolution of the historical norm'? I haven't read Kitfield, so I'm not sure what CPT Hsia's point is. Maybe later.

Ranting complete...for now.

LTC Marty

Well...my brother is air force and a Captain. A lifer as it were, since he started out enlisted. I don't think he would agree with this whiney individual about lack of opportunities, lack information, lack of rewards not keeping people in the service.

In fact, we recently had a discussion about whether he was going to stay in the military or get out (since this year constitutes year "20", including enlisted and officer time). He was telling me about several people that he knew who had "gotten out" and joined some corporate firms who had a rude awakening when the alleged "higher pay" suddenly had giant chunks taken out for insurance (especially family coverage), taxes, etc; there was no BAQ, hazard pay or other additional pay that is typically added.

There were so many "real world" expenses that several people discovered they were not making the money they thought they should.

posted by kat-missouri on April 2, 2008 9:20 AM

Er...and, my brother is not leaving. He knows several of these folks who have left and severely regret it.

posted by kat-missouri on April 2, 2008 9:23 AM

SWJ should learn to distinguish between a martyr who was at "Calvary" from someone who is trying to sound like a martyr while serving in the Cavalry...

little whining puss.

off topic: John, check your yahoo inbox

posted by MajMike on April 2, 2008 9:44 AM

All those great "demonstrated leadership" command gigs and umpty-zillion service schools don't always translate into *marketability* with the Fortune 500 set. I know HROs who have instructed their recruiters to concentrate on the tabulae rasae just out of grad school because they consider vets multitalented individuals who are -- alas! -- psychologically incapable of adhering to the Company Way.

That said, there are still boatloads of good, vet-friendly companies out there, but a newly-on-the-street JO had better be prepared for a severe salary-shock...

posted by BillT on April 3, 2008 5:50 AM