Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: January 07, 2007

by Denizens on Jan 13, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | General Commentary

A whatziss of a different color.

One of these things is not like the other. Of course, that's the easy part.

So, what *is* the thing that's not like the other? What's the oddness of it being here in the first place?

One of these things is not like the other...

Extra credit? Who, what, and where on the photo.

Just to be kind - hi-res here.

by John on Jan 13, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | Gun Pr0n - A Naughty Expose' of the fiddly bits

Heh.

Anybody seen Neffi or Bill lately?

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Photo taken at Meadowlake Airport , Falcon, Colorado (suburb of COS ). Reportedly the pilot walked away after climbing down a tree.

H/t, Dick T.

by John on Jan 13, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | I think it's funny!

News of the Kansas Guard.

The surge washes across Kansas.

SOME KANSAS GUARDMEMBERS MAY STAY IN IRAQ LONGER TO SUPPORT GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
President Bush's announcement regarding the need for additional troops in Iraq will impact Kansas National Guard soldiers. The U.S. Army's 1st Brigade, 34th Division may be needed to continue its missions in Iraq for an additional time of up to 125 days to help carry out the president's plan.

The 1st Battalion, 161st Field Artillery, headquartered in Wichita, is attached to the 1st Brigade, 34th Division. The battalion was scheduled to return to Kansas in the spring of 2007. However, the change would likely mean a return in the summer of 2007.

"Our Guardsmen know there is always a possibility that they will be needed for additional missions or an extended timeframe and we appreciate the service they provide in protecting our nation," said Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, Kansas adjutant general. "We know this means additional time away from their families and greater sacrifices for everyone involved. We will continue to support the families of the deployed soldiers and work to ensure the soldiers are brought home as soon as possible."

At this time, the announcement has not impacted other Kansas Guard units, however, additional information is expected in the coming weeks regarding other possible impacts.

The change for the 1st Brigade, 34th Division came about as a result of the Department of Defense implementing policy changes Thursday, Jan. 11, to better allow the military to succeed in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The policy change will also affect the maximum mobilization time for members of the reserve forces. Currently, the policy is for a maximum mobilization time of 18 months. However, for soldiers being deployed in the future, this change will reduce the maximum mobilization timeframe to one year.

According to Department of Defense, the policy objective for involuntary mobilization of Guard/ Reserve units will remain a one-year mobilized to five-year demobilized ratio. However, a number of selected Guard/Reserve units may be remobilized sooner than the current policy goal. That deployment to demobilization ratio remains the goal of the department.

The policy change will also establish a new program to compensate individuals in both active and reserve component forces that are required to mobilize or deploy earlier than established policy goals of deployment to home station ratio times. It will also involve those service members who are required to extend beyond established rotation policy goals.

The policy change also directs commands to review their administration of the hardship waiver program to ensure that they have properly taken into account exceptional circumstances facing military families of deployed service members.

by John on Jan 13, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

H&I* Fires, 12 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Admittedly, I'm fibbing. Trackbacks are still broken]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

************************
This is something John’s covered before. But it was prominently on The Keith Olberman Show last night and I found another report on it today: Reactive armor to beat RPG and ATGM, and more specifically the TROPHY system developed by Israel, that the Army refuses to buy and deploy in Iraq.

Yeah, throwing material in the way of oncoming missiles is a good idea. That's the idea behind the CIWS the Navy uses. In the right circumstances it’s a great idea. Is a Striker or Bradley MICV in a market full of people and with a bunch of dismounted infantry walking patrol such a circumstance? Doesn’t the utility of something like this in the current conflict have to be decided with that as a factor? Just blindly saying “We want the best for The Troops” is not actually doing what is best for the troops.

It also makes a lot of a very old problem. If it wasn’t designed and built by ‘Muricans we ain’t buying. Was ever thus. There’s some good reasons, and some terrible ones, for doing it this way. But that’s for another day.
______________________________________
I think we have a new job for the old F-14s. Why ugly up an F-15 by putting a huge missile under her when the Tomcat was already designed to carry something monstrous and provide area defense?
Putting a PAC-3 (Patriot, advanced capability---meaning it has, among other refinements, an anti-ballistic missile capability) missile on a plane for CM and TBM defense? Brilliant. Putting it on an F-15? Not so sure it’s brilliance even if they were the vehicle of choice for the old ASAT system.

Now, would we really need such defense? That’s another post for another day, or at least to be argued in the comments.
______________________________
Something to think about from the boys (and at least one girl last time I checked) over at Crooked Timber. Again, I go so you don’t have to.

Don’t agree with it. The simple Prisoner’s Dilemma from game theory comes to mind---with a modification for small group benefit against large group benefit. Or, say, you know the other guy is limited to bargaining and are therefore being a royal pain getting more than you could otherwise? Wouldn’t it be nice for the other guy to have a trump card to make you play fair? Or how about simply not being able to compromise, which, while speculation only, may be the problem with ‘reconciliation’ in Iraq right now? Those situations DO come up in real life and in international relations.

But it never hurts to question yourself about biases you carry.
ry
*********************************
Klingenschmitt, the Navy Chaplain who insisted on pray 'In Jesus' Name', is out of the Navy.
ry
************************

Email today: starting tomorrow I shut up again. Hope your week wasn't that bad, Boss

My week was fine, thank you. And initiating H&I Fires is now your *job*, night owl. -the Armorer

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

Ry,

I think the Patriot-on-a-Mudhen vs. a Tomcat has to do with the level of sophistication of the launch platform. The F-14 is (or was) years behind the A/C model Eagles, to say nothing of the E models. That's one of the reasons the 'Cat had two seats--it takes two to fly the jet and run the systems thanks to their design, not necessarily their sophistication (less user-friendly equals more hands/eyeballs required).

The Eagle started with the premise that a one-man jet needed a cosmic system to allow one guy to fly AND fight AND maximize the system's capabilities, which are formidable, and made even more so by the digital "backbone" in the jet that allows for rapid and frequent upgrades, software changes and capability expansion. The E-model went to two seats not due to design but due to capability--the radar/sensor/multi-weapon choice suite is beyond the ability of one guy to FULLY exploit.

Now, the F-14 may have been re-wired over the years to approach the F-15C/E's abilities, but I doubt it. That said, the F/A-18 is a design whose philosophy much more closely mimics that of the Eagle. However, the Mudhen, I think, has a greater payload capacity and is thus better for hauling a Patriot to the launch parameters the engineers are considering.

So, to cut to the chase, I think the Eagles offer both a more modern system that is easier to integrate with another system never originally considered for air launch and the aerodynamic capability (thrust-to-weight ratio, sufficiently structurally robust to carry large payloads, etc.) to get it to where the users need it to be effective. -Instapilot

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

I got a job!!!!!!! - FbL

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

Another "Macho Dem." (see here for context) - FbL

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

Ry - on the issue of TROPHY, I've got some sources. IIRC, we are quietly buying Israeli kit (not just ammuntion, either) but we aren't buying Israeli kit that doesn't do what we need. We've got people who looked closely at TROPHY, and it didn't pass muster for a number of reasons, not least the unfortunate characteristic of collateral damage to exposed troops and nearby civilians, a subject already mentioned by MajMike, I believe. There is plenty to indicate now that the manufacturer is trying to win politically, via PR, what they were unable to accomplish on the merits. -the Armorer

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

don't forget that reactive armor poses its own threat to of our own dismounts and/or civvies who happen to be in the vicinity...

posted by MajMike on January 12, 2007 08:03 AM

You all have brought up 2 very interesting, and seemingly related, issues. However, as has been said before, besides the free speech/expression/religion issue, the Klingenschmitt case also involves long standing restrictions on how active duty personnel exercise their rights of speech, petition and assembly. As long as I can recall (back to 1975), active duty personnel have never been allowed to participate in any form of political assembly or public speaking while in uniform. Now, maybe the good chaplain’s superiors did have it in for him, but that is even more reason for him to protest within the rules. BTW, I agree with his basic point, but I also agree that the Navy has to not only maintain good order and discipline, but also avoid the appearance to the public of a politicized military service. Now, all that said, I think the Nave screwed up by charging him with failure to follow the order of his superior rather than relying on the fact that he appeared at a public protest in uniform. I predict that, at some point, it will be ruled that the order of his superior was not lawful and therefore he was under no compulsion to obey.

posted by Oldloadr on January 12, 2007 08:16 AM

I just realized that I wasn't clear in saying I was comparing the Klingenschmitt issue to the Rumble in the Blogosphere here: http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/006960.html

posted by Oldloadr on January 12, 2007 08:26 AM

The Rooskies started fielding anti-ATGM projectile-based reactive armor for the T-90 just before the Soviet economy imploded. It utilized a series of UV sensor (not IR; UV spoofers are few and far between) to detect launch plumes and triangulate the incomer -- if it wasn't closing with the tank, the system went back to passive search mode.

Sounds like the Israelis took the basic idea and carried it further. We had the same opportunity in the '90s, but didn't follow up because the world was now all lovey-dovey and Congress was too busy divvying up the imaginary Peace Dividend to countenance testing it, let alone fielding same...

posted by BillT on January 12, 2007 08:32 AM

If it wasn’t designed and built by ‘Muricans we ain’t buying.

Well, to a point, yes. But ain't the M-240 and M-249 Belgie guns?

(Not to mention the occasional MP5, the Ranger/Seals with their M3 aka Carl Gustaf,

posted by Sigivald on January 12, 2007 01:45 PM

Ry
When you read Professor Quiggen again, you might also check the relevant commentary at TimBlair.net. His pronouncements are quite often the source for unintended amusement.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on January 12, 2007 01:46 PM

Re: Reactive armor...

As I sat in the gunner's position of my mount (Bradley MICV), I wondered the same thing regarding my protection against ATGMs and RPGs.

I will be keenly learning the counter-measures, and, no, I'm not going to share the "word"...

posted by Sgt. B. on January 12, 2007 02:42 PM

JMH, dude, I thank you so much for providing high powered rebutle to Quiggin. I don't know how many hours I've lost wrestling with issues he and the others over there present. It never hurts to have someone nudge me along. Thankee sir.

"Well, to a point, yes. But ain't the M-240 and M-249 Belgie guns?"
And there was much handwringing over that wasn't there? Once in a while we seem to buy stuff, but mostly not. Why build Standard when the Brits already had a battle tested system? Why not use Cheiftan MBTs instead of following MBT80 to the Abrams? We wants our own stuff built here at home.

And yes, it was mostly an over generalization but not by much. Something like the Rhinemetal big bore guns and the JSF programme aren't the order of the day on this side of the Pond.

"I will be keenly learning the counter-measures, and, no, I'm not going to share the "word"..." Dang. Glad you aren't, but dang. I'd love to know. Take care of yourself Sgt. B. You're in our prayers, dude.

posted by ry on January 13, 2007 01:09 AM

Oh, I even got slapped down by Dusty. I'm moving up in the world.;)
"So, to cut to the chase, I think the Eagles offer both a more modern system that is easier to integrate with another system never originally considered for air launch and the aerodynamic capability (thrust-to-weight ratio, sufficiently structurally robust to carry large payloads, etc.) to get it to where the users need it to be effective"
Probably. I was kinda thinking that you were pulling for the AF out of service rivalry until here. Still could be. :0). BUt this actually is a bit to chew on.
I was also thinking along the lines of do we have enough airframes to add one more mission to the Eagle? They can't be everywhere. Limited number of airframes and little money likely available to allow us to buy the numbers we really need to allow for this.
Area defense like this is what the F-14 was totally designed for. Flying some kind of anti-missile CAP could be a real low stress on airframe type mission so the age and stress showing on the 'Cats is less a factor. Plus it allows the 15's to go do their real job: air supremacy. It might cost a little more. Another engine upgrade and some electronics tinkering(the 14's a big girl and open to mods) and it might allow us to keep the 15 doing the job she was really intended for: kicking booty.
Note: I'm not a fan of jack-of-all trades swiss army knife-ing of platforms across the board. Some specialization is absolutely necessary in my opinion.
But thanks Dusty, that's definitely something to think about.

posted by ry on January 13, 2007 01:24 AM

by Denizens on Jan 12, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | General Commentary

Rumble in the Blogosphere

"Rumble" as we used the term in the days of my (misspent) youth: A street fight.

Seems the Left side of the street doesn't think the First Amendment applies to the hosts of a certain San-Fran talk show co-hosted by Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers (caveat -- both sites are link-heavy to some really neat places, so don't go surfing at work unless the boss is elsewhere) and have declared jihad on them, their employer and the radio station itself.

The Right side of the street, with FREEpers in the van, are mobilizing to defend a Lady in Distress.

The Lefties have opened with a BlogSwarm and the Right is countering with a FaxSwarm.

Electronic Mayday call from Melanie is in Flash Traffic, slightly abridged and annotated by Yrs Trly...

A smear campaign by liberal bloggers is currently underway to silence the conservative opinions offered by myself and other conservative talk radio hosts at one of the highest-rated conservative talk radio stations in the nation. (KSFO 560 AM).
It began when one liberal blogger tried to get us fired. When that didn’t work he began an anonymous campaign to intimidate advertisers to not support “hate speech.”

Now liberal bloggers are calling for our firing. They are also pushing for implication [note: implementation?] of the Fairness Doctrine to force liberal radio programming down the public’s throat. (They tried to compete in the free market with “Air America” and that failed miserably, so now they are using these tactics to silence conservative radio voices).

To respond to growing pressure from these ruthless liberal bloggers and political activists to silence us, we are going to do something unprecedented. We are opening up our airwaves, cancelling our normal programming and having an open forum where the public, news media, bloggers, critics and friends alike can call in and address any issues surrounding this matter.

I am asking you to call in and voice your support!

We will do this from 12:00 Noon – 3:00 PM Pacific (or longer if need be!) which is equivalent to 3:00 PM – 6:00 PM Eastern. [note: lacking day/date information, I'm guessing this is a one-shot event]

The media will be covering this event live, and I want to make sure you are invited to weigh in on this matter. We will give out the phone number to call in during the special program.

I’d ask that you FAX in letters/notes of support to:
(415) 954-4013

[note: even if the show was a one-off, the FaxSwarm is still a Go]

You can also send email to our station here:
http://www.ksfo.com/contactus.asp

A final note…

I want you to know the lengths these people are going to smear us and to try to silence us. They’ve gotten reporters to say that I’ve called for targeting Nancy Pelosi for assassination because of the following comment.

[note: first hyperlink stripped. I'm not gonna bump mm-dot-org's count or give them a trackback]

1. I want you to go here and play this clip (on the liberal Media Matters website of all places) and see for yourself how these people are engaging in a shameless effort to misrepresent our comments:
http://mediamatters.cut-paste-delete-italicsorg/items/200611210011

2. There have been times when I have regretted making a comment or felt I was insensitive in characterizing a situation. When such incidents have occurred, I have been forthright in offering a retraction and apology. Here’s one incident from December 2006.
http://www.melaniemorgan.com/frommelanie.html

[note: do the cut 'n' paste trick on the following, too. I don't wanna blow the bottom out of the bandwidth budget in the middle of the month and have to keep ry company in the sub-garderobe]

And related to a similar incident here was the comments made by my co-host Brian Sussman:
http://melaniemorgan.com/1_short_sussman_apology.mp3

I am sharing these clips with you so you can know that I take my efforts to fight for conservative causes very seriously. I would never sink to levels of advocating violence or other such inappropriate comments.

I hope I can continue to count on your support.

- Melanie

[final note: keep the faxes upbeat and supportive. Ummm, Ladies -- I suspect goin' into Valkyrie mode would be counterproductive] --Bill

« Secure this line!

by CW4BillT on Jan 12, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | Moonbat Watch

H&I Fires*, 11 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Admittedly, I'm fibbing. Trackbacks are still broken]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

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

I have it on good authority that Darryl Worley's new song, "I Just Came Back From War", tells it like it is. Go watch and listen to the video for yourself. Then go read the thoughts of America's Son.
-Barb / Proud blogmom

********************
Doing a little poking around to find reactions to the Pres last night/The Surge I found worth the look. So, I give to you:
a) TPM Barnett’s reaction (gollum’s take: I’ve always had dwell to deploy ratio and op-tempo issues with further plus ups. There’s good reasoning behind many of the arguments behind doing it, but in the back of my mind there’s always ‘what are we gonna’ do about tomorrow?’
I also think Tom’s gone a bit too far with his big list of nations to include in the discussion for regional security. Yeah, there’s good reason to bring in Russia and China---economics of the region--- but I think you have to worry about how the people in the region will react to you saying Russia and China’s interests matter as much as theirs. That might not play so well.

Basically, I hope The Surge works. It better work.)
b) Dan Froomkin of the WaPo. (gollum’s take: Found this to be the rather rational and representative of the ‘don’t do the surge’ from the anti-war side. Not so screechy.
A bit of wisdom Herr Low Intensity Conflict, him being an Intel Officer who saw trigger time, passed on to me once:, “Take what the opposition says seriously, believe that they believe what they say they do because if you act as if they don’t actually DO you’re bound for trouble in your created fantasy world. Now get me a gingerbrew before I kick your @55 all over the game board.”

Moving on.
Max Boot has something I love and hate going on with this piece. True, the MSM isn’t the enemy. They aren’t even purposeful enemy enablers (though I’m sure someone will tell me I’m on crack for saying that. The purposeful element should be taken note of, if you please.). They just make the enemy’s informational campaigned aimed at the most fruitful ground of all (that between your ears) job a whole lot easier by playing by the scripts they have been.

In the end, if Iraq is eventually and irredeemably lost, the MSM will have played a part in it, which they will deny forever (just as they do about the impact and role that reportage had on the ultimate loss of Vietnam. It wasn’t the sole cause, and maybe not a major element, since Johnson made a deal out of worries that China might get involved like they did in Korea that really had a serious effect on the conduct of te Vietnam War, but when the enemy’s most famous general, Giap, says it played a role and they build a shrine to the MSM’s influence in their War Memerial in Ho Chi Minh City you best believe it did.).

This from TNR shows how far Barnett’s idea of a ‘SysAdmin’ force idea has spread. Wild.
ry(scurries for hidey hole)
************************
Adding a c) to the round up from above: Mark, the ZenPundit, has a good roundup of his own and some pretty choice commentary about what the domestic political game is. Won't ruin this with my own take.
ry(rescurries for hidey hole)

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

Interesting news from Iran - FbL

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

OK, here are my two questions of the day:

First, what does this mean? What are we looking for? I heard this on the BBC World Service and have been thinking about it a lot.

Second question.........I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. Where are these Patriot missile batteries going?.......Maggie

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

There's no denying that the success of much of what the President outlined last night is dependent upon the courage and activities of Iraq's Prime Minister. So, let's hope this report is true. - FbL

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

Jim Baen, SciFi publisher, culture warrior, all 'round Good Guy. H/t, JTG. - the Armorer

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

Oh-oh! Alan, what's your lot up to? Dang Maple-syrup-swilling swine! H/t, CAPT H. -the Armorer

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

Polls as "manufactured" news... on a whole new level.

Wow. "Fourteen members of an advisory board to Jimmy Carter's human rights organization resigned on Thursday to protest his new book, which criticizes Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories." Is there any rationality to Carter on Israel, or has he really gone senile?

And one more thing: Isn't anybody else disturbed that the "loyal opposition" wants and gets official rebuttal time during war after the CINC announces a new military policy/strategy? And Dick Durbin is the one who gets to do it??!! The same guy who 18 months ago compared American soldiers to Nazis, the minions of Pol Pot, etc? - FbL

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

LMAO! Maggie, you wiped out my post with a post that addressed the same news (MNF storming the Iranian "liason" compound in Irbil).

I defer to the Princess... ;)

posted by FbL on January 11, 2007 09:11 AM

what are we looking for?

fingerprints.

posted by MajMike on January 11, 2007 10:52 AM

I completely agree about Durbin. I was so upset.

posted by Maggie on January 11, 2007 05:20 PM

I read the followup on the polls and it really struck me that this is just business as usual for the MSM. What has to happen to get the White House to respond to this kind of made-up statistics and if they do decide to where are they going to respond.

posted by dick on January 11, 2007 06:19 PM

thanks for the link.

Tom says what we needed first was a 50k each Russian, Chinese and Indian peacekeepers in Iraq, nonOccidental, so when insurgents looked across the line they saw three cultures with a demonstrated record of killing Muslims when the situation requires it.

posted by Sean on January 11, 2007 08:30 PM

Um, Maggs, you're kidding right? MajMike is on the money. A smoking gun linking Iran to funding and fueling some of the insurgentcy in Iraq. The Patriot systems? Iran has a fair number of missiles they could fire off if they get a wild hair(the Shahab series for instance). My not be nuclear, chem and bio warheads have dispersal issues, but they are a problem. We're taking a stance that Iran is not going to like and were anticipating one of their major counters. Smart.

"Tom says what we needed first was a 50k each Russian, Chinese and Indian peacekeepers in Iraq" I may have missed that in the post Sean. Even so, I'm not sure it's such a smart move. If, and I'm only saying if, part of the problem is 'outsiders' bringing in other outsiders who have issues with Moslems and have histories of killing them(Russia obviously with Chechneya, China with the Ughir(I can't spell for crap), and India with the indigenous and Pakistani Moslems) I can't see that as not exacerbating the problem. The mass effect would be nice(150K more troops? Hell yeah), but not sure it solves other issues.
I also have trouble with the rather sticky details of how such a coalition would decide how to proceed. We've very different ideas of what's necessary. Tom didn't go into that, it being a blog post and not a dissertation, but I think it potentially an issue.

posted by ry on January 11, 2007 08:51 PM

Ry- I thought they were interesting points to discuss. Aren't you interested in knowing what we were looking for or where those batteries will be placed?

posted by Maggie on January 11, 2007 10:39 PM

Of course I'm interested in knowing what was found. But it's going to be released like the Zimmerman telegram(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram) and such, if at all. I'd give up my left arm to see what was actually found there. But I'm not going to see it. Not before it gets world wide release to show Iranian intransangience.

Placement of the Patriot(are they PAC-3?, I sure hope so) batteries is a tactical thing. They aren't going to Japan or Korea, if that's what you're thinking. we've sent some to those places or sold them some already(the ones with the anti-ballistic upgrades to software and such). These are obviously headed for Iraq and critical points in the ME to counter possible BM attack. Beyond that's purely on need to know in my opinion(and I, though I'd like to, don't need to). Don't want to make things easier for the enemy you know. Loose lips sinking ships and all.

John, you've ruined me. Now Maggs surrenders to curiousity like a 12 year old better than I do. Punk. Stop dragging me into adulthood.

posted by ry on January 12, 2007 12:52 AM

sorry, Ry. i guess that was kind of a driveby comment ;-)

the 50ks are something Tom was has said in the brief as long ago as 2 years ago. he has not reiterated this recently.

if i had a point, it was along the lines of 'this whole thing would have gone down better with a little more coalition-building on the front end a la the 50ks.

nowadays i think Tom would say Russia and China still matter b/c what we should really be trying to do is transform the whole region, and they figure in that way, overall-security-wise. further, they are, at a minimum, important trade partners (China re: oil especially)

posted by Sean on January 12, 2007 06:20 AM

No hassles, Sean. It's been a while since I saw the brief on C-SPAN(and the wife refuses to allow me to buy the DVD of it.). I must've totally forgotten he said that. It happens.

posted by ry on January 13, 2007 01:34 AM

by Denizens on Jan 11, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | General Commentary

Jason Dunham, Corporal, USMC, Medal of Honor

This isn't news, really. We knew it was coming. But now it has happened.

Corporal Jason Dunham, USMC, Medal of Honor

By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11, 2007 - President Bush today presented the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest decoration, to the family of Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham, who died shielding his fellow Marines from a grenade blast in Iraq in April 2004.

"With this medal, we pay tribute to the courage and leadership of a man who represents the best of young Americans," Bush said before presenting the medal to Dunham's family at the White House.

Dunham, who grew up in Scio, N.Y., was the leader of a rifle squad with 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, in Iraq. Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in Karabilah on April 14, 2004, when a nearby convoy returning to base was ambushed. When Dunham's squad approached to assist the convoy, an Iraqi insurgent jumped out of a vehicle and grabbed Dunham by the throat. As Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground, he noticed that the enemy fighter had a grenade in his hand. Dunham ordered his Marines to move back, and when the enemy dropped the live grenade, Dunham took off his Kevlar helmet, covered the grenade with it, and threw himself on top to smother the blast.

Dunham initially survived his wounds, but died eight days later at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., with his mother and father at his bedside.

"By his selflessness, Corporal Dunham saved the lives of two of his men and showed the world what it means to be a Marine," Bush said.

Dunham is the second servicemember in the war on terror and the first Marine since the Vietnam War to receive the Medal of Honor. His mother, father, sister and two brothers were at the ceremony today, which was attended by Cabinet members, Defense Department and Marine Corps leaders, members of Congress, past Medal of Honor recipients, and members of Dunham's unit.

Bush spoke about Dunham's upbringing in upstate New York. Dunham was a star athlete who was popular and a natural leader. His father, a dairy farm worker, and his mother, a school teacher, were devoted parents. "He grew up with the riches far more important than money," Bush said.

Dunham joined the Marine Corps on July 31, 2000. It was in the Marines that he learned honor, courage, commitment and leadership qualities, Bush said. "As the leader of a rifle squad in Iraq, Corporal Dunham led by the values he had been taught," he said. "He was the guy everybody looked up to; he was a Marine's Marine who led by example."

Bush noted that Dunham's mother called the Marine Corps her son's second family. Now that family is embracing her and the rest of the Dunham family as they deal with their loss, Bush said.

Since World War II, more than half of those who have earned the Medal of Honor have lost their lives in the action that earned it, Bush said. "Corporal Jason Dunham belongs to this select group," he said. "On a dusty road in western Iraq, Corporal Dunham gave his own life so that the men under his command might live. This morning, it's my privilege to recognize Corporal Dunham's devotion to the Corps and the country and to present his family with the Medal of Honor."

Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam.

President George W. Bush presents the Congressional Medal of Honor to Dan and Deb Dunham for their son, U.S. Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham, during a ceremony in his honor at the White House Jan. 11, 2007. Cpl. Dunham gave his own life in April 2004 by jumping on a grenade during an insurgent attack in western Iraq to save the lives of men under his command. DoD photo by Cherie A. Thurlby. (Released)

The citation has not yet been published, as far as I know. This URL is the placeholder at Marine Corps News.

In the words of Patton :
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.”

Semper Gratus, Cpl Dunham.

posted by Barb on January 11, 2007 12:07 PM

Anyone have the text of the citation yet?

I dug out the poem pen last night and wrote this:
http://www.matthewmaynard.net/?p=575

To give up one’s life for the sake of another
is an act many might find bizarre.
But when death came around, Jason chose to smother -
he covered a bomb with his kevlar.

Evil was the insurgent who dropped the grenade,
to kill off the Marines of Kilo.
But one of them was anything except afraid -
the one Marine hero from Scio.

In his Marine heart true love did thrive,
he revealed it at his life’s end.
Ensuring the men went home alive,
he gave up his life for his friends.

So we give this true Marine brother,
the Star-Spangled Necklace for Valor.

posted by Matt Maynard on January 11, 2007 12:09 PM

Matt,

Excellent. As Barb said, "Semper Gratus, Cpl Dunham."

posted by fdcol63 on January 11, 2007 02:22 PM

The President of the United States in the name of The Congress takes pride in presenting the MEDAL OF HONOR posthumously to

CORPORAL
JASON L. DUNHAM
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

For service as set forth in the following

CITATION:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of this life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, First Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham’s squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander’s convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering sever Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham as his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, and insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

posted by Cpl M on January 11, 2007 09:31 PM

I've been waiting for someone else to ask this, so I wouldn't look like a complete moron. Too late for that, I guess! LOL And because I just don't have the time right now to look it up myself and thought one of you higher-up "professional officers" would know ......

..... in a case like Dunham's, when a lower level decoration has already been awarded for the same act (DSC, SS, etc.) does he keep that award in addition to the MOH, or is the previous decoration "upgraded"?

Thanks!

posted by fdcol63 on January 12, 2007 02:55 PM

The new decoration supersedes the old, or interim (if awarded as an interim) award.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2007 03:28 PM

John,

Thanks. I thought that was probably so from your other post on this, but wasn't sure.

posted by fdcol63 on January 13, 2007 11:31 AM

by John on Jan 11, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | Observations on things Military

Ahhhh....

The Mistress of Snarkitude strikes.

George Bush hates white people.

Or, it that's not to your liking... there's this look at the Democratic Response to the President's speech.

Ah. Cassie uses her fingers better'n a Kansas City harlot, to butcher a phrase from a famous movie.

by John on Jan 11, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | Politics

Too much serious stuff.

Let's take a break.

Caption this:

Hosting provided by FotoTime

I'll get you started.

Little known fact about Chef Emeril Lagasse... where "BAM BAM BAM!" came from. Sergeant Emeril kicks it up a notch!

by John on Jan 11, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | I think it's funny!

Increasing ground forces.

Well, that will put some more pressure on Recruiting Command... that said - we had 740,000 soldiers in my VOLAR (old term, Volunteer Army) army of the '80s, when there were fewer Americans than there are now (not counting the illegals, either). We're not talking about going back to that era.

Of course, that was also when we had the economy we'd inherited from President Carter.

Oh, wait - the Dems are back in charge of Congress. So, in a few years, especially if they win the White House, I expect meeting those numbers won't be all that hard.

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11, 2007 - The active-duty Army and Marine Corps will grow by 92,000 personnel over the next five years, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during a White House news conference today.

"The President announced last night that he would strengthen our military for the long war against terrorism by authorizing an increase in the overall strength of the Army and Marine Corps," Gates said. "I am recommending to him a total increase in the two services of 92,000 soldiers and Marines over the next five years."

The breakout is 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

The increase will make permanent the 30,000 temporary increase in Army end-strength and 5,000 increase in the Marine Corps. Then the services will increase in annual increments of 7,000 for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps.

The Army has a current end-strength of 512,400, with the Marines at 180,000. Under Gates' proposal, the Army's end-strength will grow to 547,000 and the Marines to 202,000.

"We should recognize that while it may take some time for these new troops to become available for deployment, it is important that our men and women in uniform know that additional manpower and resources are on the way," Gates said.

The increase will give soldiers and Marines more "dwell time" at home, officials said. Currently, units are on close to a one-to-one deployment to dwell time schedule. The increase in end-strength will reduce the stress on deployable active duty personnel.

Army and Marine officials said the services cannot grow forces overnight. Currently, the active duty Army recruits 80,000 young Americans each year with the Marines bringing in 39,000.

Recruiting officials said that right now, only three of 10 young men and women in the 19-14 year old cohort meet the standards to enlist in the military.

Those young men and women have a lot of demands for their services, an Army official said, and incentives for enlisting and for service may need to be "plussed-up" to encourage these people to enlist. The services also may need to put more recruiters on the street.

Training the individuals in the proper military occupational specialties is also a potential choke-point. Both the Army and Marine Corps training establishments have some growth potential, and can probably expand to handle the influx, officials in both services said.

by John on Jan 11, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | Observations on things Military

Bush on Iraq.

I've said before that President Bush leads, and that's what a President is supposed to do. Vice someone in a leadership position who lives by the poll - effectively looking for where the herd is heading, jumping in front, and saying "Follow Me!"

That's not leadership. Leadership is having a vision, and convincing people to follow you. President Bush has a vision. He's been mixed (and lately bad) on the getting people to follow part.

But give him credit for sticking to his guns, even as he takes his lumps, though I wish he was a little less loyal to close advisors and more flexible in his adaptation.

Jules Crittenden has a pretty good round up on the subject here.

Now, I await the follow-through. Will the *deeds* match the words? We've had plenty of 'leaders' who talk the talk. The question is - will President Bush walk the walk as he has in the past, but not as much lately - and, more importantly, will he be able to make the Iraqi government walk the walk.

Did, as some suggest, the President declare war on Syria and Iran last night? No. The question is - will he *make* war on them in the context of the parameters laid out last night? Will the SOF and Predators prowl in and over Syria and Iran? Will things happen on the border, or inside their borders, in those places where overt and covert support for the mooji's is provided?

If that happens, we'll have some sense of walking the walk. That's just one example. If Maliki gets Sadr to disarm his militia - or turns loose the Coalition on Sadr's Mahdi Army, we'll have some sense.

He may have boxed the Congress for the moment - but this shift in strategy, operations, and tactics is going to have to show something, and soon, in months, for him to keep them boxed.

And the long pole in the tent is... the Iraqis. Can they, will they step up? And if they do - will we support them?

That will be leadership. Unfortunately, President Bush isn't dealing from a position of strength. Now we'll see what his metal is made of. But it won't matter if he's a girder of fine steel, if the footings are balsa.

I'll do my little bit - to include, at the extreme, becoming temporarily unemployed... the money for the surge is coming out of the budget that's been funding the work we've been doing - work that was pretty much guaranteed a month ago has evaporated as the surge sucks the money into different pots and those projects are deferred to next year. This is going to be a lean year for some of us. Hey, there's a war on. S'okay, I'm not worried. Winning is more important than my current job. I'll just engineer a recall... and figure out some way to finesse the physical!

Update: AP/IPSOS Poll shows Americans "overwhelmingly" oppose the surge. I can certainly believe that a majority of Americans believe that, anyway. I know around here, the sense amongst the Auld Soldiers is "Right Plan, Too Late."

Fully 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops, and a like number don't think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there. The telephone survey of 1,002 adults was conducted Monday through Wednesday night, when the president made his speech calling for an increase in troops. News had already surfaced before the polling period that Bush wanted to boost U.S. forces in Iraq.

This is where leadership comes in. Of course, if the surge shows results, 6 months from now 55% of the people polled will say "Good idea!"

Show us what you've got Mr. President. The troops will do their bit.

John, we seem to all be sharing the same disease: you, Grim, JHD and me. I wouldn't recommend joining our ranks, as it seems rather difficult to leave... ;)

posted by FbL on January 11, 2007 09:29 AM

Well, I have other sources of income. I get several thousand a month just for breathing.

But I'm willing to be a Wal-Mart greeter, too. Home Depot is an option - except I'd end up with no pay due and a bill every two weeks, I'm sure.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 11, 2007 09:49 AM

I would vote against the Walmart greeter....sometimes people touch them. That's not for you. But the subject reminds me of a funny joke.
A very loud unattractive, mean-acting woman walking into Wal-Mart with her two kids in tow, screaming obscenities at them all the way through the entrance. The Wal-Mart Greeter says, "Good morning and welcome to Wal-Mart...Nice children you've got there - are they twins?
The ugly woman stops screaming long enough to say, "Hell no they ain't, the oldest one, he's 9 and the younger one, she's 7. Why the hell would you think they're twins?.......Do you really think they look alike?"
"No", relies the greeter, "I just couldn't believe you got l*^d twice!"

So, no John, no Walmart greeter for you. Also, I don't see Home Depot either. You'd be turning all the tools into weapons.

posted by Maggie on January 11, 2007 10:04 AM

I think the last few lines of what you quoted is the key to that poll. I think it's terribly misleading of the AP to present that poll as being representative when it was conducted before the President made his case.

posted by FbL on January 11, 2007 01:52 PM

well, i had held off on buying the tan version of these boots...

http://www.dehner.com/dehner/me_boot.htm

posted by MajMike on January 11, 2007 02:30 PM

Snerk. At least my mother taught me how to tie my shoelaces...

Tsk, tsk.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 11, 2007 02:36 PM

http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html

posted by MinorRipper on January 11, 2007 04:06 PM

Hi Ripper. Wondered when you'd show up around here!

Okay. Three videos you've found.

Three instances. Granted, if there are three, there are certainly more.

Out of how many hundreds of thousands of soldiers who have deployed, you've found three videos.

And this, then, is Truth. The Real Deal.

Okay. So, if I go trolling in Democratic Underground or Daily Kos and find atrocious things being said, I get to say that that is representative of the whole cloth of the Left/Opposition?

You'd laugh me out of here.

And rightly so.

So, are you seriously proposing that out of all the videos on the web from the troops, that these three, however dumb the things being done by 18-Twenty-somethings are, is the True Face Of The American Military?

If that's the case - y'all need to clean up DU and some of the wilder Kossacks.

Otherwise, this is just a silly game of "gotcha".

Just as Haditha and Abu Ghraib are not "hearts and minds" events, neither are they indicative of the whole effort.

Just as a few bad cops doesn't mean all cops are bad.

Or a few black gang-bangers doing a drive-by means all black teen males are killers.

If you're trying to suddenly convulse me with guilt - well, I just remember what we found when we went into Kuwait City in Round 1.

That gives me a sense of perspective your video series lacks.

Cheers.

posted by John of Argghhh! on January 11, 2007 05:19 PM

by John on Jan 11, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

DoD Announces Changes to Reserve Component Force Management Policy

The secretary of defense announced today a policy change in the way the department will manage reserve component forces.
The first aspect of the policy change will involve the way the department manages deployments of reserve forces. Currently, reserve deployments are managed on an individual basis. In the future deployments will be managed on unit basis, allowing for greater unit cohesion and predictability for training and deployments.

Interested in the rest? It's in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

I've experienced the effects of raping and pillaging to fill slots for deploying units... and I have to say, this is good news! Reservists with certain desirable MOS's are being pulled from all over the country, including Puerto Rico and Guam, to fill spots with deploying units. The results are two-fold: The Reservist is pulled from his unit to go to war, then is left on his own when he returns because the rest of the guys in his unit didn't deploy with him and therefore can't relate to his specific experience, and two, if the Reservists unit is then called up for Active duty, he can't go, because he just got back and is considered non-deployable, further seperating him from his home unit.

This new policy is GOOD NEWS. I just hope they stick to it.

posted by AFSister on January 11, 2007 11:48 AM

Good news, yes...

but...

it still does nothing to drag out the REMF weasels who sat back in a cushy TDA slot stateside, and then flocked to our unit's doorstep AFTER we had arrived safely back home. now they are firmly embedded in a unit they know won't be going anywhere, and they'll successfully sit out another war.

posted by MajMike on January 11, 2007 02:41 PM

I'm not so sure I like it. For purely political considerations at this point. Had it been done in a vacuum, say a decade ago, I'd proll'y be of a different mind. Now though it's going to be wildly umpopular and something that'll be used for domestic political ends. Will also be used in argumentation for abandoning Iraq. Every time the Reserves and NG are used we hear this---and this time they'll have something concrete to complain about(that's not what the deal was when they signed up).

posted by ry on January 11, 2007 08:33 PM

I'm not sure it really changes anything. When we mobed for OIF3 it turned out to be 15 months total, and could have easily been done in 12 with us still spending 11 months in country. The one mobe per 5 year period isn't any different than we were told, and notice it's a goal, not a guarantee. Also, the cynic in me observes that with a 12 month mobe you can get two deployments from a unit without having to pay the big bonuses and getting the special dispensation to activate reserve components for more that 24 months.

Major Mike, I suspect the REMF's are offset by the volunteers. Several people I deployed with in 2005 have moved over to the new infantry unit our state stood up to deploy to Afghanistan on this rotation. Hey, if you have trouble adjusting to being home (I know I did) going back to war is not as unreasonable an option as some might think. :-)

Ry, I don't understand your comment - Guard and Reserve (all branches) have been in constant use since OIF 1, if anything is seems like this would reduce the number of complaints. Still, I don't see it being a significant change for us...

posted by Pogue on January 11, 2007 09:55 PM

Haji0matic, ever the cynical Reservist mutters: " I'll believe it when I see it...."

posted by haji0matic on January 11, 2007 10:38 PM

"Ry, I don't understand your comment - Guard and Reserve (all branches) have been in constant use since OIF 1, if anything is seems like this would reduce the number of complaints. Still, I don't see it being a significant change for us..."
Think of it purely in political, not militrary usefullness, context. It'll def be grabbed onto by the 'we're sending people who joined because they were poor or wanted to fight forest fires' crowd. They've largely been shut up because of the contract. now it looks like they can attempt another revival(like the back door draft thing, which had a negative impact on public opinion for a while). Look at it simply as a matter of politics.

posted by ry on January 12, 2007 01:01 AM

by John on Jan 11, 2007 | TrackBack (0) | Observations on things Military

H&I Fires*, 10 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Admittedly, I'm fibbing. Trackbacks are still broken]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

************************
Since John hates Argghhh! being an echo chamber I give you things that are likely to put you on heart medication:
1) Senator Kennedy: More troops is an escalation of the war, and he can't do that without our(Congressional) okay.
(gollum's take: the verbiage used (the repeated use of 'escalation'), much less Kennedy coming right out and calling it 'Bush's Vietnam', is very, very odd---like they're running off a script or something(and makes CDR Salamander's Kennedy link real timely in more than one way.). Maybe it's because escalation means something to me in reference to military affairs---going from MOOTW/Low Intensity to full blown armored battle at Kursk type of situation, which the troop plus up wouldn't be doing----that it doesn't to other commentators. Keep that in mind. Jargon is a real bastiche. As are semantics games.)
2) Center for American Progress(CAP) puts something out there that kinda-sorta sounds like Kennedy ain't utterly off his rocker(or in the bottom of a whiskey bottle).
(gollums's take: I'm not a Constitutional Scholar. I think there's some problems with what Kennedy and CAP are saying, but I'll have to look into that a bit more. Separation of powers might be an issue or I could be really wrong. I wouldn't mind hearing from ArmyLawyer or Eugene Volokh on this.)
3) Why are we bombing Somalia?! Apparently we really aren't hunting Al Queda according to the folks over at at-Large.
(gollums' take: Well, at least she didn't claim the US created al Queda. And the 'confirmation' of Atta getting money from ISI doesn't make me like Pakistan more than I did before. But that I have to take with a grain of salt. People claimed Atta was in Prague based on another nation's intelligence but we dismiss that in certain circles because it's inconvinient. I dunno. Mushariff and Pakistan are the bastards we decided to shake hands with ages ago, and in terms of Pakistan I mean that quite literally. Not everyone is Australia or Canada when it comes time that you need a regional ally.)
4) US court will not block the trial of several alleged terrorist financiers.
(gollum's take: I couldn't leave you all with such a downer start to the midweek hump.)

Now to crawl back into my hidey-hole before Big Tribble is able to get his big mitts around my neck for sassing him.
ry
****************

Laurie at Soldier's Angels sends:

In lieu of trackback, thought some of your readers might be interested in seeing what else our wounded troops are in need of at combat support hospitals. Sheets, towels & other stuff

-the Armorer

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

To supplement Ry's lighter fare at the end of his post, check out the cool activity over at Neptunus Lex. The comments alone are well worth the visit, but only after you carefully follow Lex's instructions. - FbL

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