previous post next post  

H&I Fires 11 March, 2008

By Denizens on March 11, 2008 | | Comments (9)

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).

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

From the Sage of Fort Hays comes this little primer on Capitalism (vice trying to beat the monetarists...) -the Armorer

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

Christopher Hitchens makes a good point about Prince Harry's abrupt withdrawal from Helmand:

What is the point of deploying Prince Harry in the first place? Surely, it is at least partly to demonstrate that Britain's hereditary rulers do not scorn to share dangers and rations with their soldiers and that an equality of sacrifice may be respected even if inherited inequalities are not thereby dissolved. Everybody gets this point. When Buckingham Palace was damaged during the Nazi bombardment of London, the queen mother is at least supposed to have said that she was glad of the hit because now she could look the blitzed docklands of the East End "in the face." But perhaps I should now write that everybody used to get this point. The old imperatives are now replaced by newer and slicker ones, of PR and press management and "heightened security," and it just wouldn't make a story if the young man insisted on staying in the same trenches as his fellows.

- Damian

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

The Taliban is a tad disgruntled with its cellular provider. Mainly because they want them to turn off service in Afghanistan between the hours of 17:00 and 07:00. To prove their point they are, and have, attacked cell towers in the area.

Having worked for 6 months with Qatar Telecom, I can tell you thats a pretty unnerving thing to hear, especially by the sheer design of the job often puts you far from human contact and in remote areas.

3 towers attacked thus far and counting, kudo's however to the cell techs who brought those towers back up and operational in record time despite the danger!

-BloodSpite
********************************************************************
What the... ADM Fallon quits over the Iran debate? This sucks. [FbL sez: here's another take, from those who say they're in the know]

I liked ADM Fallon. I like Navy guys in commands where the job isn't as much 'shoot it' (nearly pure military) as it is diplomatic/economic/military/humanitarian efforts. Navy just has a longer record, with successes mixed in with abysmal failures, of such efforts.
--ry
********************************************************************

*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:

9 Comments

By Maggie on March 11, 2008 10:45 AM
The old imperatives are now replaced by newer and slicker ones, of PR and press management and "heightened security," and it just wouldn't make a story if the young man insisted on staying in the same trenches as his fellows.
Not for nothing, but I think Hitchens misses the point. I believe Harry left because of the danger his presence posed to the other men. I think he wanted to stay. I base this view on his efforts to get there in the first place. Can you imagine that anything other than his insistence could have driven such an elaborate setup? If he wasn't ball$ to the wall for this, do you imagine that such an unholy alliance would have been forged between Fleet Street and the British military? Clearly a man who would go to such lengths to serve would not run from threats to his own safety. But such a man would do what was necessary to secure his men from unnecessary danger. I usually find Hitchens quite amusing. However, in this case I think his efforts to be witty and fashionably cynical have distorted his view.
 
By FbL on March 11, 2008 10:58 AM
Ditto on what Maggie said.
 
By FbL on March 11, 2008 3:42 PM
Ry, Blackfive and Wolf say things are not as they seem, or as is being reported (check the comments, too).
 
By jim b on March 11, 2008 4:01 PM
jim b sips his Scoresby and announces This just in ... via email House Hearing HB 2811 Report Well, the hearing was an enlightening day. Jordan and I were able to spend a couple hours with a gentleman from Greensburg before the hearing and I was shocked by what we were told. As far as Greensburg, here is the shocking truth. I will simply state the facts. First of all, understand that it is not lawful to carry out a mandatory evacuation unless martial law has been declared. Martial law was NOT declared and folks in the town were told they had to leave and some were forced to leave at gun point because they didn’t want to leave. The tornado happened at 9:46pm and they were forced to leave within a couple hours of it, being given no time to collect themselves or assess the damages or even try to pick up anything such as guns and valuables to take with them. Ed Klummp, Police Chiefs Association, (Ed needs to be looking for a job) testified against the bill and said the evacuations were so they could search for bodies and shut off gas and power. This town was locked down tight for 4 days and no one was allowed in or out. The only people in that town those 4 days were Sheriffs Officers, Kansas Highway Patrol Officers, ATF, FEMA, National Guard, Police Officers from surrounding areas and some volunteers from Ft. Riley. They claim no one else was there or could have gotten in and out. Many guns and other valuables such as jewelry have gone permanently missing and have never been recovered. There were some houses that were not destroyed and were in tact at one end of town. Those folks did not want to leave but were forced to leave. When they returned they found their front doors kicked in and all of their guns and jewelry missing. Guns and ammo that were collected were taken to a trailer (18 wheeler size) and an ATF agent manned the trailer. The main source of this information was a ….. (information about the gentleman deleted by me to protect him) …..he said the ATF agent basically told him to take anything he wanted. There was no collection list and guns were NOT cataloged for location of discovery or anything like that.
 
By Damian on March 11, 2008 4:08 PM
Ladies, I've actually read Hitch's piece differently than you two: his line there isn't an indictment of Harry or his mates serving in Helmand, but a condemnation of the PR and "security" nannying that pulled Harry off the front lines. From everything I've read, and from all I know of those who serve in uniform, I believe Harry and the Gurkhas he was serving with would have glad kept on with what they were doing regardless of the press or any perceived increase in danger because of who he is. But the brass in Britain certainly weren't prepared for that, since in their minds, the idea that they're protecting Harry's life is more important than the idea that Harry and his mates might be willing to sacrifice that life for something he believes is truly important. I'm pretty sure Hitchens was blasting the risk-averse brass and public, rather than Harry and those serving with him.
 
By kat-missouri on March 11, 2008 4:15 PM
You know what the Brits are scared about? Either a) he gets captured and they are forced to make a horrendous decision about whether they pull their forces or not to save him (and the public outcry might be to do just that and the Taliban would demand that), or... b) he gets killed and the public goes vengeful crazy demanding air strikes in Pakistan and other hard core, short war attitude, or... c) he gets killed and the public demands England leaves because the war is just not right and no one else is paying, etc, etc, etc In srhot, they are protecting their operational ability at the far end with protection of their operation ability at the close end because all military has essentially entered the "risk free zone". I'm not sure if that's the public's fault or the military's.
 
By Justthisguy on March 11, 2008 7:53 PM
Wow, Jim, that's right scary! Reminds me of New Orleans. Makes one contemplate the possibility of maybe deciding to sell one's life dearly, in some situations very like some I've been through. (Wilma went right through my area.) I'm sorta cat-like. If I'm feeling poorly, I'll just go hide out over here until I feel better, or die, whichever happens first. Don't you dare try to help me without my expressed desire and permission; I might have one bite left in me. .
 
By MR T's Haircut on March 12, 2008 3:20 AM
Admiral Fallon's departure gives a green deck for more hardier response to the Iran Question. Iran should stand by now and be afraid. Be very afraid. interesting aside: Gen George B McClellan was forced to resign on the same day, March 11 in 1862.
 
By Damian on March 12, 2008 8:54 AM
You're probably dead-on Kat, but that's what's sad to Hitchens, and why he says "But perhaps I should now write that everybody used to get this point." Because the old Britain wouldn't have pulled out of a conflict because one soldier was hurt or killed, even if that soldier sat reasonably near to the throne. The old Britain wouldn't have put the brass in a position where doing the right thing would have risked the whole damned war. The old Britain wouldn't have pushed the Army to back down when they should have been standing up.