*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 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 (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) 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".

« Secure this line!

---

Iran, and its proxy Syria, are and have been CAUSING the problems we face in Iraq, Israel, and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Engaging in talks with them to "resolve" the problems that THEY have been causing is absolutely ASSININE and makes no sense.

They have been causing these problems because it is their STRATEGY to have us fail, and to create conditions in which THEIR influence and power is increased by our failure and defeat.

How ANYONE believes that they either can, or would, help us achieve our goals and ensure conditions that are mutually beneficial to both sides in this conflict is beyond me.

"Negotiations", "talks", and "dialog" with Iran and Syria will only REWARD their subversive strategy - at a much increased cost to us.

posted by fdcol63 on December 8, 2006 09:42 AM

---

HA!
Those pictures confirm it- our troops really are eating babies in Iraq. I KNEW IT.

posted by AFSister on December 8, 2006 10:19 AM

---

Love the third picture.

posted by Toluca Nole on December 8, 2006 04:44 PM

---

Well, Iran could stabilize Iraq. They would just make them an Iranian province.

Of course, that wouldn't solve the problem we've been trying to fix for the last 3 and a half years. It just changes the names on the (metephorical) uniforms.

posted by Masked Menace on December 8, 2006 05:28 PM

---

I've linked to you here regarding the Ralph Peters article: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/12/re-frankly-incensed-unwise-men-bear.html

posted by Consul-At-Arms on December 8, 2006 06:08 PM

---

I want the coloring book too! Note the rather crude depiction of the Type 53(?) suppressed pistol....

posted by Neffi on December 8, 2006 06:09 PM

---

I rather like the idea of ME decided whether or not I want a gun instead of Nancy Pelosi.

posted by Cricket on December 8, 2006 10:41 PM

---

fdcol, and trying to deny them by main force has done what exactly?

Okay, maybe you aren't reading everything I write. I'm pretty wordy and that's understandable.

I'm talking short term and mostly for domestic audience (yes, they benefit a little too. It's unavoidable). We make a deal that gives Iran some of what they want to get what some of what we want. We enjoy a stabilization of Iraq for a few years. We come up with something like the One China, Two Systems agreement. They break it we now have a fait accompli to attack them. We also bolster domestic support for Iraq (which is beginning stumble on toward bugging out).

The other option is invasion of Iran and Syria. Are we ready for that? Could we pull it off? If the answer is no we then we HAVE to try something else to keep the invasion of Iraq turning into 1974.

I want to win too, damnit. I would much rather steam roll Iran into the f'n ground. But I accept the reality of what we're capable of and the neccessity of the political situation which denies us such an option. I'd rather take the short term loss than risk the absolute loss---ala not only Vietnam but Somalia as well (hey, Hillary is running. What would an Obama do? J. F'n Kerry?). I don't like it anymore than you do fd. But it's a damn sight better than watching the public support fall out from underneath and potentially kill the entire global war on terror.
I want to win and this is the best path forward. YOu can hate it, and me, all you want. You don't have to like it. You just have to do it.

posted by ry on December 8, 2006 11:58 PM

---

On the Parker case: There's an 18-page thread about it over on The High Road. I'm about halfway through it; very heavy dense chewy reading, there. It's a shame that the issue has to come up at all. I, too, would like a clear restatement of the 2nd, with words like, "and this time, we really mean it!"

Heck, the Civil War was mostly fought by amateurs. Very *earnest* amateurs. Some say that's why it was so bloody. It definitely decided the issue, though, for better or worse. A lot of people these days don't seem to understand that the ballot doesn't amount to much if not backed up by at least the possibility of the bullet. It was universal access to guns which gave us the age of democracy, dammit! (with all of its evils)

posted by Justthisguy on December 9, 2006 08:54 PM

---

Actually ARGGHHH! is #1 for "touchy-feely liberally retards Democrats".

But PBS is still a close second :-)

posted by Harvey on December 9, 2006 10:38 PM

---

Harvey, I don't think I catch yer meaning, there, exactly. Could you expand and expound a bit?

posted by Justthisguy on December 9, 2006 11:16 PM

---

Harv - hoist on my own petard!

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 10, 2006 08:56 AM

---

ry,

Sorry about the late reply .... I'm not ignoring you! Just been crazy busy at work, and my home computer is disassembled for some home remodeling.

The problem, as I see it, is that we won't have "years" to enjoy a "stable" Iraq from any kind of deal we make with Iran, and I don't think we'd see a similarity between the China-Taiwan situation. And I just don't think anything good will come out of "making a deal" with states like Iran and Syria who see such deals resulting from weaknesses that they will take as license for further aggression and hostility.

In a perfect world, we'd have plenty of time to give the "reformers" and other more moderate, less anti-American/anti-Western/anti-Semitic elements in Iran and Syria to take matters into their own hands so they can revolt and overthrow the mullahs and I'm-A-Mad-Dinner-Jacket THEMSELVES, and solve the problem for us.

But, as always, the primary question is this: "How much time do we really have before Iran goes nuclear?"

As we've seen from countless examples, especially in cases dealing with very closed and authoritarian regimes which have shown their willingness to harshly repress any dissent from their own people, our intelligence gathering capability is limited. More often than not, we under-estimate and misjudge their true capabilities and their true intentions.

However, I'd prefer to err in our assessment on the side of CAUTION, rather than sit by and do nothing while hoping for the best. I'd rather that WE control our own destiny, rather than wait for fate or the generosity of others who have clearly shown their hostility towards us.

Also, we can not act as if we are the ONLY major deciding factor in the equation. And by this, I don't mean that I understand that we must take "multilateral" counsel from others like the UN, the EU, or other Arab states. By this, I mean ISRAEL.

A nuclear Iran under the control of the radical mullahs will force neighboring "moderate" Muslim states to accelerate their own nuke development programs to counter the threat that Iran poses to them. The problem here, of course, is that nuclear proliferation in these relatively unstable Muslim regimes is a very dangerous thing that would very probably lead to possession of nukes by radical Islamist terrorist elements if and when these radical elements seize control from the so-called "moderates".

After all, if they can seize control from the "moderates" in Iraq if the US pulls out prematurely due to our lapse of will, they will know they can do it elsewhere.

However, the greatest danger that I see, one that I've commented on before here at Castle Argghhh and elsewhere, is Israel being forced to deal with Iran on its own, due to the failure of the US and the rest of the "international community" to help resolve the existential threat that a nuclear-armed Iran and its Syrian/Hezbollah/Hamas proxies poses to Israel.

Quite frankly, I think history has shown that Israel can not rely on any state other than the US for assistance with its security. If the Israelis arrive at a point where they realize that they cannot even rely on the US to help resolve the Iranian threat, then the Israelis will be forced to deal with it by themselves.

The odds for another successful Osirak-style attack on Iranian nuclear facilities are pretty much zero due to the distances involved, improved Iranian air defenses, dispersal of numerous sites, and hardening of those sites. The Israelis are good and heroic, but they just don't have the conventional resources to deal with this.

We're foolish if we think we can sit by, risk nothing, and hope that the Israelis will be able to do our dirty work for us because we're too afraid and unwilling to commit ourselves to the task in the hope that we can achieve "short term gain" at their expense by "dealing with" Iran and Syria.

When push comes to shove, an isolated Israel will do what it must to stop Iran: They will most likely be compelled to conduct their own pre-emptive first strike against Iran with their own nukes. My own personal belief is that Israel will know that it will get only ONE chance to achieve any kind of long term strategic advantage from this strike, being fully aware of the likely response from their Arab neighbors and the UN, as well as even the US (especially a Democratically-controlled US), and will expand their targeting to include sites in Syria and perhaps other threatening states. Things could quickly escalate into a very nasty situation from this point, and I don't think "Armageddon" is too far from the mark.

By failing to stop Iran's aggression and nuclear ambitions NOW, and by preventing proliferation elsewhere in the Muslim world, we will allow conditions to develop that will not only pose great risks to US here at home, but we will also allow the existential threat to grow that Iran poses to Israel. I don't think we'd see any "short term" gain ANYWHERE, and even if we did, we'd create LONG TERM consequences that are truly frightening to contemplate as Israel is forced to take matters into their own hands to deal with Iran alone.

The bottom line is that many people will die, no matter what we do. However, which path we follow will determine just how many, just how wide the death and destruction is, and whether they are predominantly civilian or military, and whether the deaths are here in America's streets, or in Iraq, Iran, Israel, Syria, or elsewhere.

posted by fdcol63 on December 11, 2006 09:30 AM

---

No hassles FD.
We're thinking the same types of thoughts, but in anti-parrallels apparently. I'm not talking about this being a long term thing. Look at the 'Band Together or Hang Seperately' thread. Just long enough for the people's opinion to change. That's something measured in months or weeks, but not measured in years.
The China-Taiwan thing was just a for instance. It was to highlight that to get something you have to give something aspect of int'l relations. They aren't just going to come around all of a sudden and decide we're right, and then stop opposing us. Their leadership is convinced to the core they're right and aren't likely to shift without some shiny bauble to entice them to. Making a deal to respect their nuclear power program(a deal we never fully intend to honor) in exchange for them to reign in the militias or look the other way while we annihilate them is that bauble.
Why go the 'Dirty Tricks and Bastardy' route? What else have we got?
Iran is continuing its nuclear program as we speak. So is DPRK. We have nothing to stop them cold with. Osirak type actions are just delaying actions, and delaying actions with serious consequences---nuclear fallout is no laughing matter and likely to piss off both Japan and Pakistan/Afghanistan if we were to hit either Pyongyang's group or Tehran's group of reactors. The environmental and health costs of such things is staggering. Osirak was hit before it was online. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak). That isn't the case in either the Iranian or DPRK cases. Those suckers are live. Osirak-ing is out because of that.

Which leaves us with........ regime change. But with what? So we do a draw down(not a withdrawl). We get Iraq stabilized somewhat. We prop up a strongman who can bring the country together some how and look the other way as he beats the snot out of opposition groups sponsored by Iran and Syria, but we do it on the down low. It's Dirty Tricks and Bastardy.
We use the time to get our gear back up to 100%(all those tanks and armored vehicles sitting in depots waiting repair...).
Then we have real options for dealing with Iran. DPRK remains odd because of the PRC which won't want a Western style democracy sitting on its border any time soon. Otherwise we have jack while we continue to slog along in Iraq and other things go to hell.

I don't want to sell Isreal out. But I have to ask: are we in this for the US or are we in this for Israel? Isreal is an ally and all, but we shouldn't be tied down in long term strategy by their fears. Who wears the pants in the Israeli-US relationship?

By seeming to toss them under the bus in this manner(and if you're reading Haeretz(sp) you know how they're already feeling betrayed over the Baker/ISG report) we buy the means to actually shape things in the long term. With zero ramifications by doing so? absolutely not. There's lots to not like in this plan. Creating another Pinochet, looking fickle and faithless, giving Iran/Terrorists a PR victory,...
But what else have we got at this point? I'm not talking surrender. I'm talking dragging out the negotiations for a surrender the way Robert the Bruce did in myth with his 90 day negotiation enabling him to then attack instead.

I'm saying play 'stab them in the back' instead of frontal assault. Well, more like look meak and then frontal assault. Dirty Tricks and Bastardy. Why? Because being straight up players hasn't gotten us where we need to be fast enough. Fewest number of dead bodies with the greatest level of long term gains is the only measure I have at this point because winning at these matters is so important.

Don't think of what I'm saying as being the same stuff you see it being portrayed on TV and in the smug democrat websites as the admission that we're beaten and leaving. Nope. I'm saying let's do something to change the current dynamic with an end run. It isn't noble. It isn't nice. It isn't honest. but it can be far more effective in securing those long term goals(a non-nuclear Iran or an Iran not ruled by the IRC; a democracy on the borders of Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saudi with how that'll effect those nations; securing the global oil supply security(we get less than 20% of our oil from the ME, but the rest of the world is largely dependant); eliminating or isolating nations that harbor and support terrorists;...) Not surrender but subterfuge.

posted by ry on December 12, 2006 12:30 AM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

These people are fast... I first saw that pic at least 4 months ago.

posted by DoesNotMatter on December 8, 2006 12:31 PM

---

First time I've seen it - that's funny!

posted by Barb on December 8, 2006 02:03 PM

---

lol must be Operation Dishes Evasion

posted by Trias on December 8, 2006 02:51 PM

---

I think those guys stole my mom's couch. Or maybe my grandmother's couch.

posted by Heartless Libertarian on December 8, 2006 04:21 PM

---

Nope, that was my couch, I got rid of it a coupla years age. Does my heart good to see my castoffs go the nations defense.

posted by Rod Thorsen on December 8, 2006 05:47 PM

---

I had a cat that could do this once. Calico colored cat on a 70's era couch (gotta love college furniture) equals "you better sweep before you sit."

posted by J-P on December 8, 2006 07:41 PM

---

Damn!

Seriously, for a minute there, I was wondering why you were posting a picture of an empty couch.

posted by Harvey on December 9, 2006 10:40 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

As I was gathering the stuff for picture taking, I paused when looking at the assembled gimcrackery.

I instantly detected the presence of Officers In Peacetime. I make a living studying things and ideas for the Army, and I've been a combat developer myself. I can sense the odor of the ordure of Officers in Peacetime.

See, we've got a problem. Someone gave the artillery some new-fangled things called mechanical time fuzes. Like these two.

Well, ya gotta be able to twist 'em, when seated on the projo, to align the marks that match the time setting the Fire Direction Center sends to the guns. And you don't want these things to be all loosey-goosey, so they're made with some decent resistance so that the spin imparted during firing doesn't cause the fuze setting to change. And artillerymen do their jobs outdoors in all weathers, so wet, slippery, muddy hands could also use some mechanical advantage.

So, obviously we need a gizmo to help the soldier do his job.

Enter the Officer.

The M28 fuze setter, shown here on an M564 MTSQ (Mechanical Time Super-Quick) fuze, was obviously designed by an officer. With an Engineering degree.

How can I tell? Well, lessee, no less than two settable dials, made out of hard, expensive steel. I mean, look at the engineering and manufacturing effort that went into this thing.

That big handle? Nicely rubber covered? It contains two C-cell batteries. And a switch. Because that triangular projection just above the scales on the dial... contains a light. So that the Gun Bunny (Hi Frank!) can see those close-set numbers on the dial at night. Of course, because we ended up making it do all things for all fuzes, it has some scales that are on the edge of the setter, where the light doesn't shine... but hey, they tried, right? Yep, a lighted fuze setter, with comfy grip, ability to set the scales on multiple fuzes in all weather, that has to be made in a precision machine shop by highly trained and experienced personnel. Which we will then give to people who will, because they're in a hurry being shot at and need to move, toss it in the back of the track and move out. Or leave it behind.

So, after some years of use (and expense), we give the officers another shot - and this time, we tell 'em to ditch that fancy stuff and stick to the basics. Heh. But... well, they're officers, probably engineers and graduates of West Point, and they just can't help themselves.

And they come up with the M23. Okay, that's an improvement. Got rid of the light, simplified manufacture, kept the comfy handle, and made the scales easier to read. It only costs half of what the other one does (no, I actually have no idea what these guys cost - I'm sure it's on the 'net somewhere though...).

The Democrats take power, and they wanna spend money on something else, so they cut the budget. Some ROTC grad with a degree in forestry is given the job of coming up with a cheaper, even simpler, and please, cheaper and more robust a fuze setter.

Alright! *Now* we're getting somewhere! The M27.

Kewl! It's got three pieces. The big, cheap, aluminum casting with a little machining required. And two little steel pieces (one of them a rivet) which will engage the notch on the fuze. Darn near indestructible, easy to use, and, for officer-work, cheap too.

But, the Dems are still in power and budget pressures are tight. So the Army implements an incentive program that will pay for good ideas - significant sums of money, too, if the savings from the idea are big enough.

So, an enlisted soldier, someone like frequent commenter fdcol or pogue, looks around, grabs a piece of mild sheet steel, does some cutting with a torch, grinds off the edges and submits this design for a fuze setter that does what all those others do, and costs about $1 after the stamping die is made. The M27.

He takes his money and immediately retires to Florida.

Um, and my undergrad degree is in Geography and I went to a Land Grant college. Why do you ask?

« Secure this line!

---

LOL - thank goodness SOMEONE had already made it simpler for my limited "junior enlisted" brain by the early '80s! We predominantly used the M34, but also used the M27 on occasion.

The others would have been much too complicated for us non-officer types! LOL

posted by fdcol63 on December 8, 2006 10:36 AM

---

That's great! You don't mind if I print this out and post it on the unit bulletin board, do you?

posted by Pogue on December 8, 2006 11:01 AM

---

Well, only if *everyone* who reads it promises to come visit and gimme traffic anyway.

I want you to keep a roster, and check 'em off as they comply...

Hey - I'm an officer, remember?

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 8, 2006 11:31 AM

---

still too complicated.

i'm guessing a flat tip screwdriver and a BFR to hit it with wouldn't work?

posted by MajMike on December 8, 2006 03:22 PM

---

Well, I have used a Leatherman tool to set an M577...

posted by Pogue on December 8, 2006 03:50 PM

---

My favorite dispay at the Cavalry Museum at Ft Riley is the display of Army saddles over the years. It starts out in the mid 1800's and ends in the mid 1940's. The saddles start very simple ... have additions ... gets to heavy for the horse ... are gradually simplified ... and the 1940's saddle looks almost exactly like what they started in a hundred years before.

posted by LarryK on December 8, 2006 04:10 PM

---

Way cool! It's hard to tell from the pics, is the gauge graduated in degrees around the tapered part? That would make a great deal of sense.

Nicely done.

posted by og on December 8, 2006 06:06 PM

---

Way cool! It's hard to tell from the pics, is the gauge graduated in degrees around the tapered part? That would make a great deal of sense.

Nicely done.

posted by og on December 8, 2006 06:07 PM

---

Og - the gauge is graduated in seconds, to match the fuze setter settings.

MajMike. Only a tanker with "open protective" would want an artilleryman setting time fuzes with a screwdriver and a rock.

What we did was change the fuzes to use a screwdriver - as Pogue notes. With nice big black numbers on a white background (looks just like an odometer). I'll post a pic when I get back from this weekend in Boston.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 9, 2006 08:37 AM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

*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 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 (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) 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".

« Secure this line!

---

Guys used to gripe about us Instrucker Pilots harping about honing map-reading skills, but you never have to wait for a map to initialize, a map never loses a satellite signal, a map's batteries never crap out and ya can't jam a map.

And you never have to wonder if some idiot punched the wrong digits into a map's waypoint database...

posted by BillT on December 7, 2006 07:07 AM

---

Ah yes. Many yearz ago at Lewis, a certain Wheeled Engineer Battalion (which shall remain nameless)had a Ragged Dump session in the which
a 2nd Looey Got Lost and gave as his position
to a Rescuer as "I am on the Left Side Of The Moon."

Since this was publicly pronounced at a local eatery, much hilarity ensued. The Engineer and I never found out Who The Lost Looey Was (TE was not assigned to that Partiklar Battalion until after that episode of Lost and before this Hail and Farewell)but we Have Had Our Suspicions.

heh.

posted by Cricket on December 7, 2006 08:36 AM

---

Hey, has anyone heard of this: silly string to save troops lives?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/no_kidding_sill.html

posted by J-P on December 7, 2006 08:57 AM

---

Hee! Once again, the MSM are late to the story...

We won't ask where you were last week, J-P...

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 7, 2006 09:06 AM

---

Actually, we were reacting to the 27 November story in Time.

On the Internet, *everything* is new!

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 7, 2006 09:11 AM

---

Military.com had a story on it today too. I wish there was something more definitive. Mrs. shriver is having it flown over to Kuwait because the USPS won't accept it for shipment (hazardous cargo). But there are reports that it's being held up in Kuwait and not making it to the soldiers.

posted by Maggie on December 7, 2006 09:55 AM

---

Right now, Fuzzy is in a bit of a funk because there are chuckleheads out there who can't see or appreciate the vast advantage they would gain in having Fuzzy on their team...
...At some point, however, the dam is going to burst, and she is going to get snapped up by some forward thinking benevolent organization, and there will be some well and true Lioness-style romping and stomping... And then it will be most enjoyable to contemplate the conversation when the top dogs of the organizations who decided against our dear Fuzzy call their HR recruiters into their offices, tap Fuzzy's resume, and ask:
"Exactly HOW did you manage to let this one get away?"

Stout heart, Fuzzy!

posted by Sgt. B. on December 7, 2006 02:44 PM

---

Perhaps we are not paying enough attention to the credentials of the surrender monkeys who did the report on Iraq.

Here are some of Lee Hamilton's awards:

These include the Knight Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1999.

A slew of Medals under President Clinton.

The grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1985, and the Knight of the French Legion of Honor in 1984.

Knight of the French Legion of Honor in 1984.

Was co-chair with former Senator Howard Baker of the Baker-Hamilton Commission to Investigate Certain Security Issues at Los Alamos. (And we all know how well that issue was handled ... NOT).

posted by jim b on December 7, 2006 02:45 PM

---

I agree on keeping the land nav skills sharp, and I work on the gps mapping thingies that they use. Once down range, I needed a compass to align something and had a heck of a time finding one. I know it doesnt say much about me, but I was only a nasty civilian contractor. :)

posted by Kilabe on December 7, 2006 09:35 PM

---

you notice it was a LT that was lost...? Dang officers.... can't keep 'em, can't shoot 'em. Well..maybe....

posted by 1sg keith on December 8, 2006 10:03 AM

---

Humm...
It has been my understanding, based on what I have learned over the years, that the behavior and actions of a LT can sometimes be linked to the guidance offered him by his Pl Sgt. Or as my first Troop Warrant used to say, "Here's what I think you should do ..."

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on December 8, 2006 12:58 PM

---

Well, TE is a mustang.

He got an award from his first platoon that named him the best '*amn* platoon leader in the whole US Army.

He had a PLTSgt. that was a gem. He was referred to by the other LTs as 'grumpy old Sgt. V***** but this guy was the NCO you wanted to mentor you.

Then he had a CO who was rather uh, well, um...
oh never mind. I can't put my finger on it, but this guy just didn't have the right 'feel.'
Not that he was a bad person or even a lousy commander, just that he was standoffish and rude.

posted by Cricket on December 8, 2006 10:55 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

You know, he could make some serious money turning that into a bumper sticker and selling it in the Red States...

posted by Cricket on December 7, 2006 08:39 AM

---

"War sucks, but running from war sucks more."

posted by J-P on December 7, 2006 09:03 AM

---

Bill Kristol quoted Boggs on Fox News Sunday (yes, I am running late, watching it on the DVR)

posted by Maggie on December 12, 2006 09:19 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

Casualties
USA : 218 KIA, 364 WIA.
USN: 2,008 KIA, 710 WIA.
USMC: 109 KIA, 69 WIA.
Civilians: 68 KIA, 35 WIA.
TOTAL: 2,403 KIA, 1,178 WIA.
-------------------------------------------------
Battleships
USS Arizona (BB-39) - total loss when a bomb hit her magazine.
USS Oklahoma (BB-37) - Total loss when she capsized and sunk in the harbor.
USS California (BB-44) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS West Virginia (BB-48) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS Nevada - (BB-36) Beached to prevent sinking. Later repaired.
USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) - Light damage.
USS Maryland (BB-46) - Light damage.
USS Tennessee (BB-43) Light damage.
USS Utah (AG-16) - (former battleship used as a target) - Sunk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cruisers
USS New Orleans(CA-32) - Light Damage..
USS San Francisco(CA38) - Light Damage.
USS Detroit(CL-8) - Light Damage.
USS Raleigh (CL-7) - Heavily damaged but repaired.
USS Helena(CL-50) - Light Damage.
USS Honolulu(CL-48) - Light Damage..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destroyers
USS Downes (DD-375) - Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Cassin - (DD-37 2) - Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Shaw (DD-373) - Very heavy damage.
USS Helm (DD-388) - Light Damage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minelayer
USS Ogala (CM-4) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seaplane Tender
USS Curtiss (AV-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair Ship
USS Vestal (AR-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Tug
USS Sotoyomo (YT-9) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft
188 Aircraft destroyed

« Secure this line!

---

Being one of the fortunate thousands who have visited the Arizona Memorial, for me it was a touching experience. Looking down the long list of those killed, there was one guy with the same last name as me. It personalized the experience, as I looked down and watched the oil globules still coming to the top. My dad like thousands of others went down the following week to enlist. He picked the Navy. They told him .... you're too old Pops .. go home. So he did. Two weeks later he was drafted by the Army, and served in the Pacific in the 41st Infantry Division.

The second surprise attack on the USA was 911. Women and children murdered this time.

Makes you wonder when the next one will be.

posted by jim b on December 7, 2006 08:27 AM

---

Apparently, we both got the same images sent to us...

posted by PigBoatSailor on December 7, 2006 08:49 AM

---

Apparently, we both got the same images sent to us...

posted by PigBoatSailor on December 7, 2006 08:50 AM

---

Presented as *all newly discovered* in someone's suitcase?

Regardless of the fact that many of them were classics?

I did a get new images from that bunch, but I had most of them already.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 7, 2006 08:54 AM

---

Unlike the pics of the Cassin and Downes, the various views of the Shaw exploding, etc - the pic of the aircraft (I assume a Zero) diving at the sub was new to me.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 7, 2006 08:57 AM

---

Amazing photos, John, thanks. The information about human and material losses is equally valuable. Consider the resolve and labor required to recover, repair, and fight on.

If it's not too forward, offer a retrospective of my own here:

http://edefense.blogspot.com/2006/12/its-easy-to-forget.html

posted by Michael Puttre on December 7, 2006 09:03 AM

---

My Dad was at Pearl Harbor, on the seaplane tender USS Tangier, tied up to the Utah. He witnessed the entire attack from the "Crows Nest" on his ship. He remembers seeing a Japanesse pilot eyeball to eyeball at his height. They were one of the very first ships to fire back and were involved in sinking one of the midget subs. Later he was on one of the cruiser sunk at Savo Island near Gualdacanel (spelling?). Was radio operator on a PBM. Did not get a scratch during the entire war.

posted by LYNN HARGROVE on December 7, 2006 09:14 AM

---

My grand dad was working on the Cassin while it was in dry dock that day. I think an enemy plane destroyed the ship by crashing into it. Grand dad survived the attack and fought on.

posted by Rob on December 7, 2006 10:00 AM

---

Thank you for honoring this important anniversary. I served on a sub out of Pearl in the '80s. The only reason I was able to relax in relative peace was due to the heroes of WWII. I've posted a rememberance of one of the heroes at our blog.

posted by Jon Gabriel on December 7, 2006 11:16 AM

---

You forgot the USS Utah. She has a memorial on Ford Island.

posted by Higgy on December 7, 2006 11:30 AM

---

Never mind found her under Battleships. I think she was a target ship though.

posted by Higgy on December 7, 2006 11:31 AM

---

Oh, just forget it.

posted by Higgy on December 7, 2006 11:33 AM

---

Yup, the email read:
PEARL HARBOR PHOTOS FOUND IN AN OLD BROWNIE STORED IN A FOOTLOCKER

THESE PHOTOS ARE FROM A SAILOR WHO, I'M TOLD, WAS ON THE USS QUAPAW ATF-11O. INTERESTING AS I'VE NEVER SEEN THEM ANYWHERE ELSE.
I THINK THEY'RE SPECTACULAR.

If you've never seen them anywhere else, you weren't looking too hard, save a few. They are breathtaking, though.

Oh, and for what it is worth, the Quapaw was not at Pearl Harbor, "her keel being laid on 28 December 1942, launched on 15 May 1943, sponsored by Mrs. N.Lehman, and commissioned on 6 May, 1944"

posted by PigBoatSailor on December 7, 2006 11:43 AM

---

I've posted a diary entry and a letter from some civilians who lived in Pearl City. (They're family heirlooms of a sort.) Thought you might be interested.

posted by B. Durbin on December 7, 2006 11:57 AM

---

Higgy - it was fun, watching you work your way through it...!

Pigboat - yep, same one, though I didn't bother looking up the Qapaw, I admit!

As for the links to other posts - they're fine and welcome!

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 7, 2006 12:18 PM

---

It's so sad to think that this may be the last reunion, because there simply won't be enough healthy survivors to hold a 70th. *sigh*

A friend of mine told me today that her uncle was a radioman, about 20 miles offshore that day. He saw the Japanese planes incoming, and radio'd in the attack... but he never said another word about what happened that day. Only that he tried to warn them.
What a day.

posted by AFSister on December 7, 2006 12:19 PM

---

When I first went to Pearl Harbor in 1946, I could see parts of the Arizona above the water. I told the story for years it was the superstructure, I later found out it was the stacks. They built the memorial just over two of the stacks.

posted by Bob on December 7, 2006 01:41 PM

---

One footnote: USS Nevada was indeed repaired and returned to action. On the morning of June 6, 1944, she gave fire support to our troops at Normandy.

posted by Chris M on December 7, 2006 01:47 PM

---

In honor of this important date, I've been showing a bunch of the classic newsreels and Frank Capra short films (e.g., Why We Fight) on IFILM's War page:
www.ifilm.com/channel/warzone
Check it out, if you like.
-Icarus

posted by Icarus on December 7, 2006 02:38 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

The ‘Phibian does a nice job of countering and articulating my position better than I ever could. ‘Victory by any other name is just as sweet.’ More importantly, he doesn’t suffer from verbosity, I must been cursed by gypsies or something, and IDs something the ‘I love booty kicking’ group tends to ignore.

“The Political Center of Gravity of our side of this battle is the unity of support inside our government. We can do everything else 100% right, but if the anti-American Left and their bed-fellows in the Islamist Movement succeed in taking down that CoG (which is faltering), then we lose. Period. “

Got that?

It’s not because I’m a puh–uss-ie or defeatist or terminally dumb or morally challenged that I say take half a loaf, nor why CDR Salamander says about the same thing. It’s because I accept the failings and fickleness of the American public, that CoG the ‘Phibian talks about being wobbly after being worked over with a slick campaign by the opposition, to support this being the weakest and critical link in the chain that could cost us Iraq the way it cost S. Vietnam its freedom. (After having been proven utterly wrong before. Don’t gloat, John. It doesn’t go with the Santa Claus image at all.)

Of course I don’t like the ‘talk to Iran and Syria’ bit. But as the Vietnamese general said to the American general, ‘It is both true and irrelevant.’ Pro-victory. It’s not just a phrase.

Nor are those who disagree with me lame. They have a point about the immorality and the seeming dissonance of bringing in the IRC to help stabilize the region when we putatively went there to end such types of influence. Good eggs. I just wish they’d stop stepping on gollum’s neck so hard and accept that yes, guys like the ‘Phibian have critical points too.

Ultimately we better be able to rally together and start practicing what we shouted at the anti-war jerks: argue all you want before the decision is made but then back whatever decision comes down the pipe fully. Otherwise we risk losing because of our fractiousness. If The Pres chooses the ‘Butt Kicking’ option I’ll back it. If he chooses the ‘Ack’ school of thought I’m okay with that too. Pro-Victory. One Team. One Fight.
ry

« Secure this line!

---

Hmmm. Is the CoG the "Opposition" or izzit The People?

And where's your plan for dealing with the Press, which really is your conduit to The People, blogs notwithstanding.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 7, 2006 05:30 AM

---

Ry is your view of proping up a new crook likely to lead to a better situation than the old crook we had?

I'm thinking those years of effort, the wounded the dead and no real progress is what your opponents are seeing. Am i missing something?

What in your idea is an improvement over the previous status quo of more Sadam? More to the point how is it going to grant victory over terrorism? Where is your half loaf?

That's a good point John about the CoG.

posted by Trias on December 7, 2006 08:18 AM

---

AS am I Trias. If the bottom falls out of the American public support it's all been for nothing when we leave and Congress does whatever they can to make it go away. We've been down that path before. We see the same moves being made. That world is far worse than shaking hands with Saddam. We can't turn back the clock and the worst pathway now isn't a Saddam but something worse.

Take what you got. toss The People(the CoG of the political element) a bone to keep the mission going. Don't give them something and they quit and you lose it all.

Half a loaf is that the 'Vietnamization' program works. It just needs time. ARVN, and Bill can probably back me on this, wasn't real good in 1969. By 1973 John Paul Van was able to use mostly ARVN ground forces backed with US airpower to shatter an NVA offensive using more tanks than Hitler used to take Poland.

THe half loaf is keeping the enterprise going and not retreating. Retreating leads to Kosovo and not to a Saddam. We need to keep it going, and we can only do that by convincing the US public that there is an end to the tunnel. That means tangible gains in security in short order.

Talk to Iran. Make concessions to them, but not the whole hog. 2 years down the line you re-insert ground forces to do the job right when the public has moved on--- Operation Desert Fox or even Linebacker 2 style.

We can deal with the CoG that is the opposition on the ground over there. If we allow for the time necessary. We need to buy time. We need to play rope a dope just long enough for the American public to get over the negativity.

We need a breather for the populace who is now really war weary. More along the lines of Robert the Bruce negotiating his famous surrender(for over a month) than Neville Chamberline and "Peace in Our Time". Cememnt the gains you've got by at least making the motions of following this path, and get the populace back on your side by making them think you actually listen to them. Give the next admin a decent situation to work with since this isn't going to be over by the time Pres Bush leaves.

The next guy/gal will have to bring a strategy to deal with the press. I cannot fathom one.

Granting access exclusively to guys like Roggio and Mike Yon just strengthens the 'lap dog of the Army and Administration' argument. I'm not sure ANYTHING can be done about the press with its negativity and hostility. I haven't a sol'n to this one John, and I do recognize that this particular could be the deal breaker from word go from now on. If it is we're farked, but I haven't a clue how to deal with it. I'm only gollum working on my lonesome.

Masochists. ;)

posted by ry on December 7, 2006 10:40 PM

---

Ry you say toss the people a bone. What exactly is this bone comprised of? What is this half loaf? Then show me how the people of America are going to have this breather as a result.

posted by Trias on December 8, 2006 07:53 AM

---

Jeesus Trias. Are you wearing your obstinate hat today? ;)
We draw down (but not withdraw) and thereby reduce casualties. The people get the benefit of not worrying about as many loved ones. As Barnett says, 'We don't really care about non-American deaths anyways.' And he's got good historical precedent, old and recent, to back that up. That's the bone/breather pt 1. Got it?

And this is prediction Trias. In a social science domain. There is no calculating to 6 decimals, no reducing down to prime factors to see cause and effect(unlike core sciences you can't really id most of the factors much less control for one). Besides, you can't prove causation unless you do the test, and it seems you're saying I have to prove causation before you'll be willing to let me try. A bit circular, no?

Troops come back. People get the impression we're in the final stages. We're leaving and soon. Casualties drop. Iraq get calmer as we let Iran have some of what they want and call off their militias. Things look better. We're leaving and things are getting better. we're sustaining fewer casualties and there looks to be an end to the whole damn thing. That's the breather/bone pt2. Got that?

The half a loaf is that we haven't left and are still bumping heads both inside and outside of Iraq fighting for the optimum sol'n. We still have something on the ground making a difference. We have the ability to go utterly kinetic again at a time of our choosing with a better idea of how to do the second half of the war right(the reconstruction part). That's the half a loaf. Got it?

posted by ry on December 9, 2006 12:15 AM

---

Of course i'm obstinate. It's paid off too you finally wrote something tangible.

pt1 it sounds workable but there are significant political forces pushing for total withdrawal not a drawdown. And how will this not be viewed as a US defeat?

no not 'prove' rather argue for it.

pt2 fair enough except... the Iran part. Iran adores the US floundering. They will link any agreement to US allowing them nukes and that will block diplomacy. I'm really not sure what the US will offer that Iran will get sufficiently excited about. It's not like Iran sings yankee doodle is it?

Utterly kinetic after a drawdown? I don't think so.

I dunno Ry that's a very mouldy half you have there and while you've got the US eating it places like Iran and NK will be full steam ahead. All the same the reality appears to be that the whole loaf is beyond US political and citizen will now.

How depressing.

posted by Trias on December 9, 2006 04:01 AM

---

Your way, it would seem, has us working a linear instead of convergent synthesis. Step by step.

YOu sound ChemE so I'm assuming you know how inefficient linear is compared to convergent.

I'm proposing to eat that mouldy half of bread because it works in a convergent manner to deal with multiple problems. We currently don't have the manpower to do anything about Syria, Iran, NorKor, Somalia and AFrican excursions by terrorists to establish bases there, ...... We aren't goig to have the manpower to do anything by staying on the same path either(while Iran and DPRK steam full ahead). We have X problems and we're only dealing with X-Iraq and Afghanistan. That isn't good enough.

I'm not jesting about going Kinetic either. Confidence in Coalition forces was highest when they were out smashing group after group. The mistake was in stopping that and allowing a 4th/5th gen opponent develope. Pull back. Let them become confident. Coalesce into something bigger. Stomp it flat, including the IRanian supported militias when we go back. It has a lot of downsides. But it's better than the downside of leaving altogher because domestic support evaporated.

Iran is very complicated Trias. THe threat from outside brings people who would otherwise be opposed to the IRC to side with them. Solidarity. THey have major domestic problems that threaten to fracture the country---in part why we wanted millions to fund opposition groups in Iran. The feeling of increasing IRaqi strength was the reason why much of the ME sided with us in Desert Storm. That also can be played here, particularly when we can point to the various gov'ts that we were just following their desires in pulling out(all those statements they'd written, all the op-eds in all the state run media). Of course, we'd be willing to come back and deal with the increasing Iranian power if they'd, you know, look the other way while we did it or signed on to help a little bit like when we went in 1991.

Saudi is already saying that they're going to support the Sunni in Iraq over exactly those fears Trias---Shia Iran becoming more powerful. It isn't so binary as Iran gets their wishes/Iran doesn't get their wishes. Iran getting their wishes unites the region against them to some degree, and that's something we can use so long as we don't actually bail outta Iraq and ruin or reputation. It's a yin-yang world: destruction is also a part of creation. I may not be able to articulate it but I have thought long and hard on this Trias.

"All the same the reality appears to be that the whole loaf is beyond US political and citizen will now." Which is why I'm proposing bastardy. A misdirection play if you will. Give them something that looks like what they want, but isn't. IT builds faith in the masses you can then exploit when needed. I may not like being an SOB but I play the role well.

posted by ry on December 10, 2006 12:50 AM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

*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 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 (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) 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".

« Secure this line!

---

Ry - Here's a jump-off point with some decent, open source links (Go Fish). Visit triple-dub globalsecurity dot org, click Military, then World, then China, then PLAN-overview.

Unless you want to spend a couple-fifty-bucks and browse the US Naval Institute archives...

posted by BillT on December 6, 2006 06:30 AM

---

John
I think you do fine as a milblog, but maybe the distinction should be active duty? I say that not because you are not on the ground, but because HERE is where I have learned more about the military as a group, as officers enlisted, all of the rest.

Active duty blogs to me would be front line, on the ground stuff...what we are not getting in the MSM. Here, however, I can come and read between the lines.

No, you are an important milblog, but I don't think they have you in the right context.

At least I don't think they do.

Just saying...

posted by Cricket on December 6, 2006 12:12 PM

---

Oh oh TAD hath been the ruin of him.

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who flaunts his ideological fervour, has been accused of undermining Iran's Islamic revolution after television footage appeared to show him watching a female song and dance show."

Danged Gurly Shows!!!!

"The famously austere Mr Ahmadinejad has been criticised by his own allies after attending the lavish opening ceremony of the Asian games in Qatar, a sporting competition involving 13,000 athletes from 39 countries. The ceremony featured Indian and Egyptian dancers and female vocalists. Many were not wearing veils."

Well he double hockey sticks ... no veils! (rend your garments here)

In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking now heaven knows .... Anything goes!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1964075,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

posted by jim b on December 6, 2006 12:19 PM

---

'Tanks Bill. But I'm looking for something a little more serious than globalsecurity or even StratFor. I already spent the money for USNI but they aren't offering the type of thing I'm looking for. Close, but not quite. I know there's stuff out there (someone I know found it), but he's in Alaska with all his books, magazine clippings, and notes.(which means I can't get them).
Besides, it's typically considered best to have three corroborating sources instead of just one. USNI would be only one. I've got a lead that an article I want is behind the NWC firewall and I can't figure out how to get behind it (in a cheap, legal, and timely manner that is).
But thanks Unca Bill.

Buck up John. Grey looks good on you. You don't want to give the Young Bears (and us Ferrets) any ideas now do 'ya? And you get to take the fleugzueg(sp) on Friday to see your darlin' bride. That counts for something don't it?

posted by ry on December 6, 2006 03:28 PM

---

You are so funny John. I have been writing for three years and I never even get within a mile of being nominated, much less anything else and you *know* how much effort I put into my writing :)

Why are you so hard on yourself?

posted by Cassandra on December 6, 2006 04:01 PM

---

Because I'm male, have a huge, yet fragile ego, and it gets the purty gurls to talk to me.

8^)

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 6, 2006 04:03 PM

---

Oh honestly... :) Men.

posted by Cassandra on December 6, 2006 05:53 PM

---

All the same it's my favourite milblog. if you were a populist John well you wouldn't be John anymore.

posted by Trias on December 7, 2006 04:25 AM

---

John is way too hard on himself. Always has been, at least as far as I know!

posted by beth on December 7, 2006 05:01 AM

---

John is way too hard on himself. Always has been, at least as far as I know!

posted by beth on December 7, 2006 05:01 AM

---

I did not hit the Post button twice, I really didn't!

Poltergeist.

posted by beth on December 7, 2006 06:02 AM

---

Beth, I am glad to hear you say it. You hold him and I'll hit him, gal!

Heh...

posted by Cassandra on December 7, 2006 01:22 PM

---

I agree with Cass and your Beth, you are WAY too hard on yourself. I think you definitly should have been in the MilBlog category - but who am I?

But the Best of the Top 250 ain't bad! Maybe they were seeing you in a broader context??

Anyway, I think your blog is great and a standard bearer for the MilBlogs.

posted by beth on December 7, 2006 10:49 PM

---

It's too late, Beth - I already voted for your blog...! ;^)

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 8, 2006 07:39 AM

---

Typical Army. Don't see us Navy guys whining about which category we're put in.

If you were a Marine, I'd have sympathy, because the Navy owns the Marines.

But...you're not.

Hey, look at the bright side. No matter what category you're in, you're still an Army Of One.

From that point of view, you'll win every year!

posted by Vinnie on December 10, 2006 01:22 AM

---

No, Vinnie, yer wrong. We're Army Strong!

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 10, 2006 08:57 AM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Just as a curious outsider, is this usually seen as a welcome gesture of support or sentimental pandering? I wouldn't know, but I imagine this could be taken either way.

posted by J-P on December 6, 2006 09:23 PM

---

Just reading about the military only comic and got me thinking. Me and a buddy wrote a book called The Man Code, yes before Miller Brewing Company had a clue, and we just started the Smiling Soldier Campaign. Our mission is to help the guys overseas have a good laugh with a special Soldier Edition. The only problem is that I'm having trouble spreading the word effectively. All my traditional sources are taking freaking forever like TV, radio spots and press releases. I posted a commercial on YouTube thinking those guys would help but nada. The same with MySpace. You would think the response would be better. Any ideas would be appreciated. I really want to make this big.
If you want to look at the commercial just go to my website themancode.net.
Thanks guys.

posted by TMC on December 6, 2006 10:00 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

i'm thinking something kinda HESH-y like..

posted by MajMike on December 6, 2006 08:26 AM

---

Fuze for a Beehive-type round? And we still love ya, Auld Phart- howzabout a review of the new Great War museum in KC? A trip there might lift you outta da funk...

posted by Neffi on December 6, 2006 09:53 AM

---

The new iteration of the old museum?

It's on the list.

I'm just waaaaaaaaay too busy at the moment.

Silly client thinks that since they're paying for them, they should get their deliverables. Complete *and* on time. Geez. Harda$$es.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 6, 2006 10:59 AM