*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

---

Easy. Its from the motor pool. Its a tailpipe expansion tool.

posted by Nate on December 6, 2006 11:30 AM

---

Sorry, but when I look at that picture, all I can think of is Steve Martin singing "Oh, I'm picking out a thermos for youuuuuuu. No ordinary thermos will dooooooo."

posted by AFSister on December 6, 2006 12:46 PM

---

Stainless steel belaying pin. What kind of fancy sailboat do you have?

posted by hdw on December 6, 2006 02:00 PM

---

Milspec Tiki torch.

posted by Eagle1 on December 6, 2006 05:15 PM

---

The original design for the AH-1 Breakout Knife. Mother Rucker didn't want yet *another* sharp object rattling around in a Cobra cockpit, so Bell-Textron made it blunt -- and, in order to allow the pilot to still produce the desired result, i.e., shattering the canopy in the event of a rollover, they gave it a little heft. Sucker weighs 120 pounds -- try flailing *that* one-handed while the flames are crackling up through the side panels.

Dollars to donuts *somebody* will take that seriously...

posted by BillT on December 6, 2006 08:43 PM

---

Looks like a gauge of some kind.

posted by og on December 6, 2006 09:08 PM

---

SureFire flash light....prototype...

posted by haji 0 matic on December 6, 2006 09:40 PM

---

I vote it's chuckable.

posted by Trias on December 6, 2006 10:26 PM

---

maybe a go/no-go gauge for some sort of thing that goes bang.

posted by Rick on December 6, 2006 10:54 PM

---

...with a knurled grip

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

---

Sure looks like some kind of fuse setter to me, but then, everything looks like some kind of fuse setter to me...

posted by Pogue on December 7, 2006 02:15 PM

---

Looks both too short and too big, but howbout some kinda throat gauge?

posted by Rod Thorsen on December 7, 2006 09:30 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

very interesting.

and i shall accordingly suspend my prior pre-judgment until i learn more.

it does raise one question, though... you can tell that a shirt is "mauve"??

posted by MajMike on December 6, 2006 08:42 AM

---

Well, mauve is less cumbersome than "pale, bluish purple"...

As for Mr. Rushing, time will tell. He certainly has a good reason to tell the story as he does - but at the same time, his popularity on the military lecture circuit says something.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 6, 2006 08:49 AM

---

I completely agree with Mr. Rush's assertion that the US needs to do more with Middle Eastern media outlets. Yes they have an agenda and yes it is counter to ours. So what? So does most of the MSM. I watched Al Arabiya when I was in Dubai and I read AlJazeera (dot com and dot net) and Jihad Unspun. You need to see all sides, heck, I listen to NPR. All kidding aside, AlJazeera is not the total terrorist tool it's made out to be. I read a hugely interesting article in Foreign Policy magazine about the fact that AlJazeera.net recognizes that it is for many Arabs their only portal on the rest of the world. They take that seriously and make an effort to include interviews with Israelis. We need to counter negative opinion in the Middle East and we can't do that from the sidelines.
If AlJazeera English was available on my cable listing, I would work it in. It wouldn't knock out CSpan or FoxNews, but it would beat out CNN. At least AlJazeera is upfront about their agenda.

posted by Maggie on December 6, 2006 09:35 AM

---

Amazing!
Close mouth.
Suspend initial reaction.
Open ears.
Evaluate.

If you can teach this to the 80% of adults who are totally clueless in regards to this simple procedure, you would be worthy of a Nobel Prize.

posted by Russ Sanders on December 6, 2006 09:45 AM

---

Maggie - go to Al-jazeera.net, select "English" and you can stream the video reports.

As Josh noted in his pitch "What you see depends on where you stand."

Trite, but true.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 6, 2006 10:56 AM

---

You see, John, just HOW important your blog is?
I LEARNED SOMETHING here that means more to me than if I had sat in a classroom and listened to
an academician Of The Left. I would have not been as willing to listen.

You don't spin things...YOU PUT THEM IN CONTEXT.
A rare gift.

And that goes for the readership and posters too.
You have no idea how much I do take in when I am able to devote my full attention to something.

posted by Cricket on December 6, 2006 12:20 PM

---

Cricket
Not all the time. John likes to post photos out of context in order to see his faithful readers spin. Then comes the counter-spin as tangents and false leads are followed. Then the distracting "hints" ...

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on December 6, 2006 03:15 PM

---

So the CUlture Centric Warfare people return and volley inthe tennis match that is the argument of Hammer vs CCW. Interesting.

He puts another bit into place for why I believe in the bifurcation of roles: Big War and Non-Big War. Asking for everyone in the military to be super-soldiers or Swiss Army knives cuts down on the viable population for service. How many people out there really are polymaths?

If he ever does a CSPAN taped event I'll be sure to watch.

posted by ry on December 6, 2006 03:43 PM

---

JMH: 8^)

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 6, 2006 03:53 PM

---

Well...I feel about as foolish as the others who had to close mouths and re-evaluate. Thanks for another eye opening lesson.

posted by Coach Mark on December 6, 2006 04:04 PM

---

I do watch the streaming video, actually I listen more than I watch. I was talking about having it on TV so when I was home I could just have it on. I don't really care to *watch* much on the computer. I like having it on while I do stuff around the house...........is this enough info about the Princess' viewing habits? Do you want to know what it is I'm doing? What I'm wearing?

posted by Maggie on December 6, 2006 04:41 PM

---

Nah, we've already heard all we need to about your undergarments and the differences between flashing and mooning...

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 6, 2006 04:52 PM

---

LOL, I am wounded! Are you saying the mystery is gone?

posted by Maggie on December 6, 2006 05:33 PM

---

Hey John, did Rushing have anything to say about CENTCOM paying for good press scandal that went on last year? Did he use that as proof of 'we don't know jack'?

posted by ry on December 6, 2006 06:11 PM

---

Why Ry? Do you have a problem with that? I think it's perfectly acceptable. It's common practice there. This is a case where "Everyone's doin' it." is an acceptable answer. It's not underhanded. It's the way things are done. Don't forget - they paid, yes - but the stories were true.

posted by Maggie on December 6, 2006 06:29 PM

---

Yes, Ry, he did as a matter of fact. I countered with the appalling attempt by Big Army to reel in bloggers with "exclusive content" that was not only not exclusive, but wasn't even well-disguised recruiting ads.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 6, 2006 08:29 PM

---

Maggie - Rushing's point on that issue was... we talk about establishing a 'free and independent press' and then we start doing what all the local state-owned or cowed media does.

The message doesn't match the policy.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 6, 2006 08:39 PM

---

Well ya gotta start somewhere! We advocate a safe democracy for them, but we're starting off with heavily armed curfews. We have to get our stuff in front of their disapproving little faces before we can establish a free and independent press.

posted by Maggie on December 6, 2006 09:12 PM

---

Off the subject, only slightly... when we were stationed in Bahrain (before the US State Dept kicked us out in 2004) I was confused noting that the local and very popular grocery store was also named Al Jazeera! The name is everywhere. I, for one, wouldn't have automatically assumed the connection.

posted by US Navy Wife on December 6, 2006 11:50 PM

---

"Why Ry? Do you have a problem with that? I think it's perfectly acceptable. It's common practice there. This is a case where "Everyone's doin' it." is an acceptable answer. It's not underhanded. It's the way things are done. Don't forget - they paid, yes - but the stories were true."
Ack. I'm not used to having the eye of the Blog Princess on me like this. Make her stop, Chief!

Maggs, I was only trying to feel out where Rushing was going. Trying to find out what he felt worked and was good tactics in the Public Affairs/Hearts and Minds arena. Just trying to feel out where the borders of his thoughts are in relation to mine own.

Though I do differ on the 'it's perfectly acceptable'. To me it was dumb because of the negative effect finding out the 'astroturfing' would have on the H&M campaign.

It's like finding out that a critical study on car safety was bankrolled by General Motors. It easily can generate the feeling that people are being manipulated, lied to, and the buyer/occupier is duplicitous(something the Arabs seem pre-disposed to based on my readings of Col de Atkine).

Fair? Probably. Order of the day in the region? Most likely. Effective and smart(particularly that we're dealing with a leak of secrets just about every week)?

The truthfulness of the reportage is immaterial if the general impression resulting from it is negative and counter-productive. I might just like this Rushing guy or at least agree with him on some crucial things. I am the most active member of the CCC after all.

"Yes, Ry, he did as a matter of fact. I countered with the appalling attempt by Big Army to reel in bloggers with "exclusive content" that was not only not exclusive, but wasn't even well-disguised recruiting ads." LOL. So you disagreed by agreeing to the 'we don't know jack' then?

I often wonder how we would feel if the military came up with a compatent PR wing? Would we feel safe? Would we feel, collectively I'm speaking here, more afraid of the 'military-industrial complex'? Just because it's effective doesn't necessarily mean it is the right thing to do. Even if we aren't fighting a 3rd Generation type war but one centered mostly in the skulls of the American populace as the means to secure victory by our opponents. Am I nuts here? (mostly thinking on the fly).

Oh, and whatever you did has stopped the error messages. Which means my spelling goes back to complete crap from just mostly crap. Never would've suspected that I was once second overall in my elementary school all grades spelling bee would you? ;)

posted by ry on December 7, 2006 01:39 AM

---

And Navy Wife hits on the core of the copyright suit. al-Jazeera apparently means either 'the island' or 'the peninsula' in arabic, and is, in fact, a very common business name.

Kind of like the flurry of copyright suits that the french clothing designer Claude Montana was threatening to businesses in... Montana, for using the name Montana. He never did get around to trying to sue the state itself.

IIRC (and I could be wrong) he was taking advantage of then-recent changes in EU copyright laws, and was bringing actions mostly to show he was trying to protect the brand, without really having an expectation of winning. Still, musta been scary to be some little business getting threatening letters from high-powered lawyers.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 7, 2006 06:05 AM

---

But Ry - It didn't hurt us over there and that's what mattered. The bad taste in the mouth happened back home and frankly, who cares! The MSM almost universally picks at whatever we do over there so F#$^% 'em. The point of the operation was to get our story out to that population. The people of the ME thought nothing of our paying to get it there.

posted by Maggie on December 7, 2006 07:44 AM

---

Maggie - Rushing's contention is that it *did* hurt us over there, because our actions didn't match our words... IOW, we were little different on the issues of the Press than are the local governments over there - yet we are claiming to be.

And that the locals note the failures more than the successes, and since we're trying to buck the tide, we have to be more consistent - and consistently different.

I'm with Ry on this one.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 7, 2006 07:52 AM

---

You know, what has me wondering is this: Why would the media accept Dan Rather's obviously
faked memos, the photoshopped evidence, yadda yadda if there was no propaganda value in it that served an agenda? I mean, come on. If we are to insist on accuracy in reporting, we need to hold those who lie accountable.

That isn't censorship to demand integrity in reporting.

But to not understand a culture like Islam in light of what they are given to percieve is naive. Having an American former member of the military in there will be interesting to see how he walks the walk.

I wonder, all you former commanders out there; would you go with just perceptions if you had to deploy your troops in harms way, or would you want to know more about the cultural climate (the reality) before you did so? And which would be more helpful?

And does anyone even understand what I just asked, cause I am not sure I understand it...
*takes deep breath to quit hyperventilating*

posted by Cricket on December 7, 2006 09:44 AM

---

Rushing states it better than I can. 'Acts don't match message.' If they think we're exactly like the regimes they've lived with there's nothing stopping them from throwing support to someone who is THe Big Guy on The Block. There's no moral or ideological difference so why not go with the guy who is controlling the streets, and then switch loyalties if it earns me a couple of bucks and keeps my family safe? They're all lying bastiches who use the people and abandone them when it suits----that's the message it sends, or can send.

And in case you keep missing what I'm saying about the talk to Iran and Syria thing: losing the domestic US audience means game over, Last Helicopter Outta Saigon all over again. It matters Maggs.

I could give a flaming crap about what the MSM does. I hated English and Communications majors when I was an undergrad because I thought they were useless twits unable to think about anything other than 'am I being paid attention to?' with all their concern about having great leads and 'hooks' in their writing. Just because they're jerks who don't care about the ramifications doesn't mean there aren't any and WE should worry about same. They can go screwball themselves. But acting like them does breed cynicism---look at how we think of the media.

I think I get what you're asking Cricket, but not the expert you want the answer from. You're asking if a commander wants some real understanding of the region and the culture he's about to deploy into? Foreign Affairs Officers exist. So I'd say yes. THere's even an institutional slot to make sure such knowledge is available. But I'm not ex-military so you might want someone to corroborate or totally destroy my answer before you accept it.

posted by ry on December 8, 2006 05:55 AM

---

But even FAOs are suspect. Journalism is about
integrity in recording history. To be fair, one does have to report the other side, but outright
lies? Is that Al Jazeera's perception of us, or
propaganda based on an agenda?

The Rathergate scandal led to a victory in the elections for our side, but that was a case of bloggers hollering foul loud enough that the MSM couldn't ignore it.

Those who point out factual errors within the theopolitics of Islam are silenced. Let us look at Al Jazeera's take on the Flying Imams.

So does Al Jazeera have an American posterboy to
silence criticism or to explain cultural differences or spin?

And I appreciated your answer, Ry. I would call that honest.

posted by Cricket on December 8, 2006 07:57 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!

---

The nominee for the Secretary of Defense said today that the USA is not winning the war in Iraq. when asked if the USA was inning he replied with a simple "No,sir"http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/05/gates.confirmation/index.html

posted by John Ryan on December 5, 2006 01:08 PM

---

OOHHHHH! "Deadly Assault Kitten"
I made the list of deadly weapons that don't exist but should!

Of course, my methods may vary from your average deadly assault kitten: I don't jump from planes.

posted by WereKitten on December 5, 2006 01:17 PM

---

I jump from cakes.

posted by WereKitten on December 5, 2006 01:18 PM

---

John - context matters. What the Secretary-Designate *said* was:

Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point."

Full context is useful, John. The qualifier makes a significant difference in the overall meaning, doesn't it?

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 5, 2006 02:10 PM

---

John of Argghhh!, surely an amateur like you shouldn't worry about context... I mean, the professionals don't. /sarcasm

John Ryan's excerpt/perspective is EXACTLY the way the story was framed on CBS News radio this morning.

posted by FbL on December 5, 2006 07:47 PM

---

I think Gates made a mistake there not saying it in the same sentence. It's far too easy for the MSM vultures to feast on it.

Is it really possible to not be losing when you're not winning?

posted by Trias on December 5, 2006 10:05 PM

---

Leaving aside Gates, yes, it is possible to be not losing, even if you aren't winning. You're hanging in the balance.

Ask Churchill after Dunkirk.

Just as you can be winning big, yet still lose. Ask the Germans and Japanese.

It's just not that simple, izzit?

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 5, 2006 10:14 PM

---

I'm with Trias. His remark was easily taken out of context because of the delay in the qualifier. It wasn't a John Kerry-sized delay, but a "No, we're not really winning OR losing at this point, but I think we CAN win with adjustments to our current strategy" would have been a MUCH better answer.

posted by AFSister on December 5, 2006 10:23 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

How embarassing. I'm not really worthy of such praise. The organisers and action people of such things are who donate vast amounts of time and effort are. I did it once with my Aunty long ago so I know what's involved. And of course the Soldiers who recieve are also worth it.

To rebalance the karma I need everyone else to donate something or I shall die of karma embarassment disorder. Is this sufficient cajoling?

How about if I claim werekitty will loose her libido? Ry his verbosity? Too unrealistic?

posted by Trias on December 5, 2006 10:24 PM

---

"werekitty lose her libido"
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Ya'll better empty those pockets and save me!

(oh... and Ry too. I'd hate to silence that boy)

posted by WereKitty on December 5, 2006 10:27 PM

---

WereKitty lose her libido?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

posted by 1sg Keith on December 5, 2006 10:29 PM

---

It could happen you know.

In an alternate universe.

Where procreation doesn't exist.

Or dancing poles....

posted by WereKitty on December 5, 2006 10:32 PM

---

Of things that COULD happen, WereKitty losing her libido is just way, way, WAY down at the bottom of the list...

posted by 1sg keith on December 5, 2006 10:35 PM

---

Hmmm. [Calls up PG-17C diagnostic screen]

All righty then, all green!

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 5, 2006 10:38 PM

---

"Of things that COULD happen, WereKitty losing her libido is just way, way, WAY down at the bottom of the list..."

.... and hosts of angels were heard on high, singing GOD BLESS US EVERYONE! For the good people of Earth have loosened their purse-strings and saved the sex drive of that shameless hussy, WereKitty! *cue angelic singing*

hey.
it could happen.

posted by WereKitty on December 5, 2006 10:41 PM

---

It COULD happen.
my ears COULD fall off and you'd have nothing to hold on to....

It COULD happen....

posted by 1sg keith on December 5, 2006 10:47 PM

---

Verbosity? Hmmm. Nope that's ingrained in the DNA Trias. Maybe if you promise that if they donate you'll do some kind of genetic treatment to treat me for verbosity they'll give more?

posted by ry on December 6, 2006 01:36 AM

---

And we have another *Castle ARGGHHH! First* -- a thread that was hijacked ab initio!

posted by BillT on December 6, 2006 06:47 AM

---

I try, Bill. All in the name of entertainment.... not to mention a very worthy charity.

posted by WereKitty on December 6, 2006 07:45 AM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

It's 1:30... and I'm the first comment of the day? JEEZ. People with *real* jobs... get in the way of all of the fun.

I took the survey, John.

posted by afsister on December 5, 2006 12:30 PM

---

jim b saunters in and sits.

So AFsis, tell me then what brings a nice lady like you to a place like this?

A.Political action
B.News
C.Hanging with people who share your views
D.Total Boredom
E.Sincere desire to improve your mind

After being here do you feel:
A.Enlightened
B.Refreshed
C.Confused
D.Violated

After being here would you come back:
A.Frequently
B.Semi Frequently
C.Rarely
D.When Hell Freezes Over

Reading other people's comments makes you:
1.Laugh Out Loud
2.Feel a Strong Gag Reflex Reaction
3.Seek Mental Help
4.Take Off Your Clothes, Set Your Hair on Fire, Run Out into the Streets and Do Damage.

posted by jim b on December 5, 2006 12:50 PM

---

Is "all of the above" a choice, Jim? How about "most of the time" for 4b?

posted by AFSister on December 5, 2006 01:14 PM

---

HEY!! That IS me ^&#($^#)*%%&^ relaxing!!!

Sheesh, canchew tell!?!?

---

BTW, not a bad survey either... Be interesting to see the result.

posted by SangerM on December 5, 2006 01:54 PM

---

Huh? Why and what am I getting castigated for now? Geez. Don't even do anything, yet, and I'm getting looked at askance. Do one little thing, like build a rep for being brittle, and people never let you forget it. Jeeez;)

posted by ry on December 5, 2006 04:53 PM

---

John, I think it says top five political blogs. Niether SWWBO or Argghhh! really fit the category of 'political'. There's definitely a philosophy underlying both, but neither is a soapbox primarily to espouse either. When they say political I think of things like The Corner, The Plank, Red State, DKos, etc. Argghhh, SWWBO, B5, etc, occupy a different genre (milblog---while having a political component at times the main focus isn't politics, unlike at The Corner.).

If they include Argghhh as a political blog then we're working from wildly different def'n and they need to tell us test takers what their def'n is to ensure they get good data. Experimental design is always a hassle.

posted by ry on December 5, 2006 05:36 PM

---

I dont' think the assumption is that Argghhh! will appear in your choices. I think they're really trying to measure who reads blogs, and what they read for what purpose - more than determining a ranking or interest in a specific blog.

That's why there's big blogs and little blogs in the list, as well as those of us in the middle.

But I'll still send your comments to Dave.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 5, 2006 05:51 PM

---

Well over at the WeBlog Awards you have made it into the top 250 blogs. Not bad.

posted by Cricket on December 5, 2006 09:17 PM

---

Thanks, Cricket - but it also means for the first time ever, I wasn't a finalist in the milblogs category.

Which is kinda sad, but, I haven't been keeping up my end of things, either.

I guess I really *am* retired, now.

Damn that beard is grey.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 5, 2006 09:23 PM

---

I was thinking that too Ry. To me Arghh is quasi political. We'd all be driving the porcelain bus if it were pure politics I think.

posted by Trias on December 5, 2006 10:29 PM

---

We'd all be driving the porcelain bus if it were pure politics I think.

Gad, I'm not sure I've been insulted, or just gotten a back-handed compliment, or what...

posted by John of Argghhhh! on December 5, 2006 10:36 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Listen Up !!
The course of the war has changed, we are on the way out. The people you work for THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS have made their decision.
Iraq will go down in history as the worst debacle EVER for our country.
It will be shown that although a small group of men in Washington can get us into a war, it is a lot harder to get us out of one.

posted by John Ryan on December 5, 2006 01:13 PM

---

Um, John, a few points.

1. Jules works for the Boston Herald, not The American Taxpayer.

2. I work for a commercial consulting entity, not The American Taxpayer.

3. I believe Bill now works for a commercial consulting entity, but I know he's not working for The American Taxpayer.

4. Dusty works for a commercial logistics firm, not The American Taxpayer.

5. The American Voters may have spoken, but many of them are *not* taxpayers, they get it all back and sometimes some extra, too. They do generally pay sales taxes, true, but I think, if you're going to come here and rant at us, you should at least have some verbal precision and understanding of Who We Are.

Just sayin'.

And the voters didn't explicitly say "Get out of Iraq" as much as they said, "Get us out of this mess we perceive it to be." I'm guessing the voters will be happy with a solution that doesn't "Get Us Out Of Iraq" if it evolves into a solution to the problem.

Certainly getting out of Iraq right now is one approach. But I don't think it was mandated (and, I suspect in the long run, the whole plan was to "get out of Iraq").

And I suspect that if a miracle were to occur, and what Jules is talking about were to happen - i.e., the international community truly step up to the plate - well, that solution would satisfy those taxpayers you are so interested in.

BTW - I *do* pay taxes. Enough so that I'm playing chicken with the AMT. How 'bout you?

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 5, 2006 02:07 PM

---

Are you suggesting most Americans don't pay tax? No wonder so many want to go to America.

The only thing voters explicitly do is vote. Given the Democrats position was leaving Iraq I do think they have a reasonable mandate to leave Iraq sooner rather than later.

Jules is spouting too much bull for me to be bothered with it.

posted by Trias on December 5, 2006 10:00 PM

---

Fair enough, Trias - but yes, via the arcane nature of the tax code, many Americans effectively pay little or no income tax. At both ends of the spectrum.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 5, 2006 10:12 PM

---

1. That AMT pi$$e$ me off more than John Murtha. At least now that I'm back to being a humble technical college employee I shouldn't have to worry about it.
2. My question to John Ryan and other's from the left is, "Since you are not engaged in the war, there is no draft, the economy is surviving, most likely nobody you personally know has been killed, wounded or even deployed then why do you even care?" Could it be that the whole "anti-war" movement is either:
1. A knee-jerk reaction originating in the left's Viet Nam hangover, or...
2. An excuse to bash the right in general and the Commander-n-Chief, in particular.
I’m sure the real reason(s) for the anti-war vitriol is/are more complex than this, but probably no less ridiculous.

posted by Oldloadr on December 6, 2006 07:35 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!

---

"this fuzzy up early stuff is nice"

For some reason that statement sounds just so inherently....wrong

posted by BloodSpite on December 4, 2006 08:32 AM

---

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Bloodspite: I wasn't "up early." There were so many good things I read yesterday that I didn't want them to get lost in Sunday's big H&I Fires. So I just put together todays H&I Fires yesterday evening and left it for John to publish this morning. :)

So, no early fuzziness. ;)

posted by FbL on December 4, 2006 08:45 AM

---

Just fuzzy earliness! Really. Hadda drop SWWBO off at the airport at 0500 this morning. Which meant a 0400 reveille.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 4, 2006 08:54 AM

---

Bolton is gone. The reason is simple. He stood up for the US interests.

The Secular Progressive Democrats hate that. Yes there are a few 'Blue Dog' Democrats. Unfortunately they are not in the leadership, or the majority.

To remind the Republicans ... stand for something! It should be obvious to you now that... yes they will vote for dems when you enrage them. Or just as bad, vote for no one.

posted by jim b on December 4, 2006 12:46 PM

---

Well this will be interestingly futile:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a prominent religious and social conservative, formed a committee on Monday to explore a 2008 White House bid to help "rebuild the family and renew our culture."

"I have decided, after much prayerful consideration, to consider a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency," said Brownback, a two-term Senate veteran and staunch opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage.

"We need a culture that encourages what is right and discourages what is wrong, and has the wisdom to understand the difference," he said in a statement."

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-12-04T180300Z_01_N04176510_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-BROWNBACK.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-politicsNews-3

posted by jim b on December 4, 2006 01:01 PM

---

Yeah, the Senate Disease. They all think they're Presidential material.

I'm fine with his Honorableness as a Senator. I'd only vote for him for President to keep Senator Rodham-Clinton out of the White House, except as an overnighter in the Lincoln Bedroom. If I was going to get one of my Senators for President, I'd prefer Roberts over Brownback.

That said - perhaps he should follow the advice at The Corner - and run for Governor, and show he's got some skills in the executive branch. Of course, that would open up the potential spectre of a Senator Sebelius.

One should not be fooled by our good Governor's performance to date. She's a near old-school liberal, her impulses held in check only by a somewhat rabid Republican legislature. In that regard, they've been good for each other, each moderating the other's worst impulses.

Gimme summadat divided governance, where you *really* have to build consensus, and can't just let a thin majority run roughshod over the others.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 4, 2006 01:20 PM

---

I take it the sanctimonious arse thinks he has the wisdom.

I didn't mind Bolton, to be honest anyone who stirs up the UN I tend to view as a good thing. However he's gone for a simple reason. Americans voted Democrat.

posted by Trias on December 4, 2006 01:27 PM

---

JimB - I don't like that answer.

Also, I caught the crack in the other post and I'm not speaking to you.

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/006749.html

posted by Maggie on December 4, 2006 03:12 PM

---

Now I see why you and Da BlogFather get along so well. 'Bring on the gridlock'. I can live with that.(IT must be my 'puter because I'm still getting error messages)

Maggs, I 'm not with JimB on this one either. If the Dems were just evil we'd shoot them all on sight(that's what you do with evil, right? You destroy it whenever presented with it, right?). No, what they are is tragically wrong and are therefore more difficult to handle---because they aren't evil and we can't just shoot them all on sight. It'd be a whole lot easier, sometimes, to get things down if we didn't go around painting them as evil all the time.

Bolton is out because, as Trias says, we went to a Dem majority. Bolton isn't getting out of Committee much less getting an up or down vote with that as he didn't survive when there was a R majority. Bolton decided to not subject us to that and to not feed the feeling of lame duckness more than was necessary. Discretion is out of character for the man, but doesn't mean he never knew how to act in that manner.

Now we get to see Bush put forward someone not nearly as abrasive, but fighting for US interests(more like fighting for more ethical and moral acts out of the UN if you ask me) just as Bolton had without people being able to say 'But he's to mean and abrasive for the job.' He's forcing them to come up with a REAL argument for opposing a Bush appointment, something Bolton knew he couldn't do if he stood his ground. Advancing thru retreat. Works in chess, shogi, and other strategy games. Why not in real life strategy games like politics?

Oh, and I got some(4) holiday cards with historical ships as the motif from USNI. Who wants to be subjected to getting mail from icky ol' gollum this Xmas?

posted by ry on December 4, 2006 07:54 PM

---

I'm surprised people are surprised about this open source revolution to intelligence. OS jokers have been around for a while. I got into the game that way when I met someone 8 years ago. It's not like Pike, Dunnigan, etc have been hiding under rocks since the internet became big. Oh, and you should see Alan's response over at GX40(http://www.genx40.com/archives/2006/december/spiesnetsand). That's what I do folks, and have been doing for years(2002). It takes up time(like the Wife is yelling at me that Heroes is starting and she wants me to come snuggle under the blankets we keep on the couch, but I've got reading to do.) but if you want to be good at it you look at as many sources as you can for your 'nugget'. A smart man told me that once, and I'm greatful for the advice since it's been proven true multiple times (but also 'cause he gave it, that most of all actually).

posted by ry on December 4, 2006 08:05 PM

---

Boq brings up something I've been railing against lately. Not that I'm questioning whether we should be 'breaking bread with the Syrians/Iranians'. But the resistance to it. Not going to go into tonight. I'll just point to an article in this months Proceedings: Withdraw and Win: Gaining Insights from Defeat(subscription required, and it isn't online yet). I'll also point to the leaked Rumsfeld memo.

Is winning important? Would you accept a loss done in a proper and palatable manner be more acceptable, maybe even noble?

Which is more important, the win or the method? These are questions we all have to ask ourselves. How much each pathway costs should be included in your reflection in my opinion. I've laid out my case before: if winning matters on the global scale you'll hold your nose and do what works in building up to your end state. (Which opens up the door for the Hammer vs. Cold War 2 discussion, no?)

If all you've got is 'but they're baaaad' I claim you've not much of an argument. I laid it out in another thread at length. Or is shaking hands with baaaad people only something we haul out to bash libs when it comes to intelligence gathering?

posted by ry on December 4, 2006 09:49 PM

---

Retreat?!?!? Helk - I'm just advancing in a different direction.

posted by Boquisucio on December 5, 2006 07:43 AM

---

I don't know about you, but I have written my Senators urging Bolton to not only come back but to drum up support for him at this critical time.
If a quick end to this policy is desired, Bolton has what it takes. He is not partisan. He reminds me a bit of Lord Burghley...QEI's advisor. He worked for the good of the realm.

I am only suggesting.

posted by Cricket on December 5, 2006 08:08 AM

---

The part that angers me here about Bolton isn't whether he's good or bad or effective or ineffective. It's the fact that a small part of the legislative branch is subverting powers given to the executive. The Democratic filibuster has succeeded in killing Bolton's nomination. Their reasons are immaterial. The basic fact is that they are going against the Constitution.

posted by Maggie on December 5, 2006 08:12 AM

---

Ry-> Sure I'll take a Christmas card from Icky Gollum

Mags-> BloodSpite for President. Act 1, Scene 1: BloodSpite fires Congress.......Act 1 Scene 2: BloodSpite fires Senate......

posted by BloodSpite on December 5, 2006 10:03 AM

---

BloodSpite - Like Nero? Take their property too. You have my vote.

posted by Maggie on December 5, 2006 06:22 PM

---

BlSp, then you'll have to drop me a line with a PO Box address or something. Anyone else interested can do the same.

And what happened to the traveling card i started? who has it?

posted by ry on December 6, 2006 06:27 PM

---

The traveling card never reached me and I think I was either right in front of or right behind Barb.

posted by Maggie on December 6, 2006 09:19 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

I especially like the part that talks about removing their power base - the energy that they control. No amount of pressure is going to matter as long as tyrants can pay people to keep them in power.

posted by J-P on December 4, 2006 10:53 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

As I said... Studying the goings-on inside the Politburo was far easier than this muddled mess.

posted by Boquisucio on December 4, 2006 11:21 AM

---

I would have to agree and admit that I don't have ANY confidence in Maliki. And I think Bush is sadly mistaken to continue to do so, if he does (in private).

Maliki is either incapable, incompetent, or (my greatest fear) unwilling to stop the sectarian violence (especially from the Shiite militias) to continue to exact retribution on Sunnis for past Baathist atrocities, and because of his own desires to continue to strengthen Iraq's Shiite majority ties with al-Sadr and Iran.

posted by fdcol63 on December 4, 2006 12:39 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

*I* have an autographed copy! Neenerneener!

I met this guy over at the Kennedy Museum and then went to see him speak about the book in Harvard Square. He was great.

posted by Maggie on December 4, 2006 08:43 AM

---

Heh. Mine was free. Plllppppt!

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 4, 2006 08:45 AM

---

Right, mine is worth more.

posted by Maggie on December 4, 2006 09:20 AM

---

Interesting perspective.

Actually, mine wasn't free. It took the hours of my time to read it, and the hour to compose the review.

Which is worth a lot more than $19 at my billable rate.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 4, 2006 09:21 AM

---

Are we discussing your hourly rate? Does it include the room? LOL

posted by Maggie on December 4, 2006 09:42 AM

---

I'm a Beltway Bandit, Maggie. If I'm providing the room, that's extra. Yer paying per diem, too. But we always meet our deliverables. Just make sure what you ask for is really what you want.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 4, 2006 09:51 AM

---

Surprised to see it wasn't mentioned today, but Happy St. Barbara's Day from a fellow Redleg. May all who work with sudden explosions have a safe and happy day.

Regards,

Mike

posted by Mike Greene on December 4, 2006 09:32 PM

---

*Every* day is Saint Barbara's Day at Castle Argghhh!

posted by Justthisguy on December 5, 2006 09:14 PM

---

Oops. Mike - reality is, I never keep the date straight. In all those years of wearing the scarlet facings, we never once celebrated her day *on* the day...

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 5, 2006 09:18 PM

---

« 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!

---

Heh. When you get the link to the Ozzie museum site fixed, see if the directors followed through on their promise. They contacted every surviving Vulture earlier this year 'cuz they wanted some info about a couple of our pilots. Y'see, in the main entryway, they planned to post a life-size photo of some diggers in combat kit being extracted via Huey.

A *US* Army Huey.

A US Army Huey flown by a One-Six-Deuce crew.

"162d AHC: You call, we haul" -- and in this instance, the 'Strines called. And yes, there *are* cacti in Vietnam...

posted by BillT on December 3, 2006 11:38 AM

---

From the tenor of the intro remark, I think the "Torch" post alluded to is:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/afstan-sainted-dutch-or-mr-smith-goes.html

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on December 3, 2006 03:25 PM

---

Oops! You're right, JMH. It's been fixed.

posted by FbL on December 3, 2006 04:02 PM

---

Spread the word! Patti Patton-Bader, founder of Soldiers' Angels, will be on MSNBC with Allison Stewart on Monday, December 4 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time (2:00 Central, 1:00 Mountain, 12:00 Pacific). If viewership goes up, they may have her on again which means more exposure for Soldiers' Angels and more help for our troops.

posted by Laurie on December 3, 2006 05:19 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Leaked memos seem far too often a political ploy to me.

Rumsfield is history now, the new one will be trying to call the shots instead.

posted by Trias on December 3, 2006 01:32 PM

---

American Marine Mom, long-time resident of Canada, many a bout of "blood spurting from my eyes" (as Glenn Beck says) from living in a country where the government has been contemptuous of the military for decades, until recent election of Conservative Party. About Christie Blatchford: The Blatch is the Best. Probably the best genuine investigative reporter in Canada, began by crashing male sports preserves (hockey locker rooms) and made her second career in crime/courtoom reporting. Always does her homework when no one else does. Glad you have discovered her. The day the National Post let her leave was a tragedy-- the best paper lost the best reporter. But she's worth reading anywhere. Ooh-rah for Christie.

posted by Marine Mom on December 5, 2006 11:14 AM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

SECDEF Rumsfeld clearly sees, understands, and plans for the long term and big picture of dealing with the threat of radical Islam. Although this memo deals with Iraq specific issues, remember that he and the DOD have been, and will be engaged around the world for the foreseeable future. The goal is victory, and keeping the fight in Kabul, Kirkuk and the far away homes of the Islamists, instead of foolishly retreating to CONUS and waiting for the suicide bombers in Kansa City, Atlanta or elsewhere. Of course, the bad guy's most fervent wish, and our most horrific scenario is for them to acquire nuke capability and take out DC, or New York, or San Diego, or all of them.
Our actions in Iraq must be dealt with as part of the larger clash of civilizations, with the goal of massive cultural changes in the regions that harbor Islamist extremism, destroying its foundations and replacing it with the concepts and advantages of freedom.
Winning this requires more than cheap shot political sniping, or leaking classified materials to undercut our leaders. It requires a united country, unshakable resolve and a commitment for the long haul. This will last years, or more likely decades, and is not the time for the weak, opportunistic politicians. Hoping the threat will leave us alone, or that the suicide-seeking 12th Imam crowd in Iran with nukes will never use them is delusional.
Serious stuff, indeed. Sadly, we seem to lack serious leadership in Congress, the media, and perhaps even in the White House. Rumsfeld has led our defense well since 9-11-2001, but there is a vacuum of future leadership that will read, think, lead and win.
Our brave and successful troops are doing everything asked of them, and they need and deserve better, and so do the rest of Americans, and indeed Western Civilization.
The Democrats, may have won their political battle, but are no the verge of losing the unbelievably vital war(s) we are engaged in now, and in the near future. North Korea, the threats to Israel, and indeed, China also are part of the mix.
Interesting times, indeed.

posted by John S. on December 3, 2006 12:52 PM

---

“…reaching out to U.S. military retirees…” The system doesn’t know how to reach out to retirees except to hire us indirectly as contractors and then pay us a sinful amount of money and then wonder why the effort is so expensive. The DoD could have saved a lot of money and bad press (concerning FWA [Fraud, Waste & Abuse] in the contracting area) if they had invited all retirees to come back on active duty and use their expertise wherever it was needed regardless of branch of service. This would have been cheaper and more efficient than paying contractors enough money to get them to deploy to a war zone. Maybe the new guy will think of this instead of such a heavy dependence on expensive contracts. There is nothing a contractor is doing in Iraq that there are not plenty of retirees trained to perform that task. As I mentioned earlier, many of the contractors working in Iraq are retirees. The project I just left was over half retirees, but here’s the catch; working as contractors we came from every branch of service as we were recruited by the companies based on our skill sets. I don’t know if the Armed Services could set aside their parochial attitudes in order to field such a unit. But if they could and if they could sell the idea to the retiree community, they could save a gazillion dollars and tell KBR to go p*** up a rope.

posted by Oldloadr on December 3, 2006 07:46 PM

---

Oldloadr - And we'd get campaign ribbons... which, if you're really honest with yourself, many of us would rather have than fat paychecks.

Because of what they mean. And who we are.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 4, 2006 04:35 AM

---

John - Absolutely! In fact, when I deployed on active duty I was happy with the tax break and hostile fire pay, especially since I did get the campaign medals (and VFW membership). But then, I always looked at military service as just that... service. I never expected to get rich and didn't care that others in our society were getting rich. I'm not being a martyr, I just believed that if GIs got paid like pro atheletes, it would take something away from the idea of service... I guess I'm waxing Quijotic. Anyway, I made a lot more money as a contractor, but I would have preferred to have been in uniform wearing my stripes.

posted by Oldloadr on December 4, 2006 08:36 AM

---

I like the suggestion
"Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd."

Of course, the ones with oil in their area will not like this arrangement. So I suppose it's a weak proposal in that regard. It would breed instability. But the political boundaries that are Iraq make no sense.

posted by David A on December 4, 2006 01:00 PM

---

(This is going to sound harsh, but think before you take out the bats to thump this baby seal).
Would taking retirees back be such a good idea? I don't think so. What happens when the lot of you come back with lots of rank and your own ideas about things?

Except for the cost I like the way things are working now, inefficiency and all. We get the benefit of your expertise while not having to: a) go thru another bit of forced separation when hostilities end; b) mess with the command structure/Unity of Command Issues(if your purpose is to be the contrary how can you do that when on active duty you have to toe-the-line?) c) long term budget effects (yeah, those benefits add up and effect the services in ways that affects future readiness---it all comes from the same Congressional money pile).

As a contractor you still get to put your expertise to the good. You get to be contrary to the way things are done and have other avenues of advancing those ideas without both boots coming down on you from above(or having Whoever Sits Above circular file it because of its contrary to their wishes nature).

And then, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. Is it broken? Then don't f with it. Get your input in as best you can, but accept that you best serve where you're at now.

posted by ry on December 4, 2006 07:30 PM

---

ry - Most of your points are subjective so therefore your opinion is as good as mine, I suppose. However, there is one point I would like to mention that is somewhat in error: "... long term budget effects (yeah, those benefits add up..." That is actually where retirees are the most cost-affective since we already have the benefits for ourselves and our dependents. The only thing that would change is I would not pay $460/year for Tricare while on active duty. Most call ups are for 2 year tours so the odds of anybody being promoted (if their service would even consider them) are out there so the only out-year change would be a few dollars more in retirement based on qualifying for a higher percentage.
On the subject of speaking your mind, I did not feel any more or less free to speak up as a contractor then I did on active duty, but what I did feel is less empowered to influence decisions above my pay grade. It seemed like every technical input I made to senior management that was eventually adopted was like pushing a noodle. However, that was my personal experience and I could not in any way quantify that for the entire theater. That's why I'm not arguing vigorously on this point.

posted by Oldloadr on December 5, 2006 08:13 AM

---

Fair enough Loader. We academic punks sometimes need to cross the street and talk to the rank and file sometimes.

"the only out-year change would be a few dollars more in retirement based on qualifying for a higher percentage." But this is exactly what I am talking about. How many people are we talking about here? A few hundred? A few thousand? Ten Thousand? What's a 3% incease in retirement pay look like for a few thousand people?

Yeah, it is opinion. Reasoned opinion, but still opinion.

posted by ry on December 6, 2006 06:23 PM

---

Ry - a couple of points.

1. If I go an active duty again, I will accrue retirement credit at 2.5% a year. And when I re-retire, that will bump up my retired pay - but calculated based on my original retirement date. In other words, while my month-to-month paycheck would be at the current rates, my retired check bump would be based on my 2000 pay scale.

2. The actual number is business sensitive, but to get me over there as a contractor, at exactly my current pay, would cost a minimum (and that's *really* a minimum) of 1.5 times what I actually see. Minimum.

I'd have to sit down with a spreadsheet, but a two year stint would add about, oh, 3600 a year to my retired pay.

With what you'd pay my firm to hire me as a contractor, without going into real details, it would take 25 years or so for the bump in my retired pay to match the extra you're going to pay upfront in today's dollars for my services as a contractor. For the First Year.

Or about 50 years for the two years. My family tends to long life, but only one of us has made it to 100.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 6, 2006 08:38 PM

---

Okay, I'm an idiot. What else is new?;)

Seriously, 20 years of 3% increased pay for say 3k people in 2000 $ which will have to go through COngress along with funding for weapons systems vs. teh gov't being willing to accrue debt to pay the premium? We need a spread sheet and I'm incapable of doing something on this scale(I'm gollum and you're busy). So I'll have to remain skeptical while defering to wiser and more informed men than I.

Of course, my unstated assumption is that as soon as we're out of Iraq and 'Stan, with a Dem president, we'll see a budget major cus to the DoD. That proll'y colours my analysis a bit(that subjectivity Loadr was hinting at).

posted by ry on December 7, 2006 01:51 AM

---

2.5%, please. And if you are going to offset contractors with retirees, you are going to offset the costs for your contractors.

And remember, Ry - they're *already* paying me currently about 45% a month of what they'd be paying me if they brought me back on active duty, so the actual cost to the treasury is less than adding a body from scratch.

posted by John of Argghhh! on December 7, 2006 06:15 AM

---

So you have to wonder what is the fascination the government has with contractors? The only advantages I see to contractors from the government's perspective (and I don't think these outweigh the financial cost):
1. The MSM doesn't make as big a stink when contractors die.
2. The government can fire one in 24 hours.
3. The government can hire one and have him/her on the ground in 4 weeks.

posted by Oldloadr on December 8, 2006 01:14 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!