A Very Good Read

En Route to Military Rule by William Norman Grigg is a must read. At first glance one might take the concepts of this article to be just a bit over the top. As I reflect upon my professional knowledge of the subject coupled with what I observe elsewhere I do not find it so implausible. Frightening that...

I found it interesting that a link within Grigg's post references a 1992 article by one GEN Dunlap, "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012," Interesting not only for the read but the date of 2012.... The "Homeland Security Brigade" will be operational by 2011, this guy writes in 1992 a fictional account of a coup that occurs in 2012...all the new agers are up in arms about some big event in 2012 (you know the Mayan calender and all that)...I am kidding really, no worries I do not buy into all that stuff- I just mentioned it as it is odd.

(I also found it interesting the Grigg was a Patton admirer in 1999 but has reconsidered, I can count myself in that small number)

Stumble It!

Rattling of Sabers

It is interesting in these times of economic introspection (i.e. that is all we care about) that so little discussion is occurring on the blogsphere about the saber rattling along the Indian-Pakistan border.

In all honestly, from my worldview, such events do NOT hold the same importance as they do to those that see the role of the US as some sort of global interventionist entity. I do realize the fact that we are under our past, present and future leadership a global interventionist entity - I just do not accept that as the right answer even if it is the current fact.

Saber rattling is often just that but in this case we have two nuclear armed nations with weak governments playing this game of brinkmanship.

In terms of what this all means to Obama's stated strategy of "getting an easy win" in Afghanistan it does not bode well. With Pakistan pulling 20,000 troops off an already porous Afghan border the prospects of an "easy win" become infinitely more problematic.

Can the governments of India and Pakistan exercise enough positive control over their forces facing each other across an increasingly militarized border? If they cannot prevent the predictable "cross-border incidents" can they then prevent an escalation? More importantly what will our interventionist thinkers come up with to mitigate and "control" such a situation?

This is worth watching.

Stumble It!

Reply to a Comment

In response to my post "When is Disobedience a Moral Imperative", Gibbons writes:

I've read both the Patton Papers and the Rommel Papers. "Infantry Attacks" by Rommel, writing of his experiences in World War I, is one of my favorite books.

I understand the admiration of Rommel. But I don't understand your comment about Patton. There's a recent article suggesting Patton was killed because of his "dangerous" opinions about the Russians. If so then he's very much like Rommel, who lost his life because of his breaking with Hitler's program.

I'd be interested to read more about why you think Patton is the worst sort of human being.

I admit I made a statement of opinion as fact without providing sufficient evidence to support my position. I can say this from my understanding of and study of Patton. He was selfish, self-centered, profane, and more than likely a little bit unhinged mentally. Judged by the standards of his contemporaries it cannot be argued that he was not profane - although that may be only a relatively minor vice. I believe, and trust that in academic terms it could be easily proven, that Patton was motivated his entire professional career by what he thought was best for Patton. He all but bribed superiors that could do him favors and spared no opportunity to put his peers down to his own benefit. That is my opinion of the man and the reason I think so lowly of him.

He was successful on the field of battle because of his audacity, and the well-known fact that by the time America entered the war the German army was stripped of all its former advantages. I believe his audacity was born of his desire for Patton to personally succeed - he believed the myth in his mind. I certainly would not have wanted to serve in one of his units as a private soldier.

I agree with you that he had it right about the Russians. One might say that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I tend to believe that while he was certainly capable of seeing the Communist for what they were, he was probably also very happy to see another enemy that might offer him the opportunity to command in battle just a little longer. That is never the right or moral reason for a soldier to support war. Perhaps he was killed for these opinions but I am not sure his opinions on this matter arose from the most noble of places.

Make no mistake, as a child and young man I idolized Patton. As you see, my views have soured over the years.

Essentially as I compare and contrast Patton and Rommel it boils down to this. Rommel believed audacity saved the lives of his soldiers in the long run. Patton believe audacity won victories that might attach to his name.

Stumble It!

I Promise I wrote mine first

I penned my last post before going to bed last night only to find this post ('Question 46,' Revisited) by Norman Grigg on the Lew Rockwell site this am. It might appear that my thoughts were spurred by his but that is not the case. In any event his is a good read and amplifies and corrects a misstatement I made about this 1994 survey (I actually thought more Marines said "yes" tot he most nefarious questions).

I am glad other people are saying these things, otherwise you might just think I am making it all up....

Stumble It!

When Is Disobediance a Moral Imperative

I mentioned previously that I have just completed reading a book titled "Patton and Rommel". I do not have it near by so I apologize for not knowing the author. I essentially skipped all the chapters about Patton as there is nothing about the man that I want to know that I do not know. He was, in my opinion, the lowest sort of man.

Rommel fascinates me. Not so much for his successes and failures on the field of battle but rather for the actual story of his life. Here is a man that counted himself lucky to have a job in the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic during the 20's, a job that he loved no less.

I find it truly engaging to imagine the thoughts of a thoroughly professional German officer (professional in the real sense) as events unfolded and the Nazi's gained power. A middle-class family man that had spent his entire adult life in uniform probably did not see a lot of other options, resigning in disgust meant poverty. Principles are hard things to live up to and Rommel was no exception to the rule. He remained in uniform with the same hope many German officers held - "the Nazi's are just a phase".

My wife and I were discussing many matters today, most theoretical. We talked of the events in Greece and elsewhere and the predictions of greater gloom on the economic front here. We discussed the ugly "what-ifs". As a man that has spent his entire adult life in uniform with just a wee bit more to go before I am allowed to take it off I think deeply about the worst-case what-if's. I told my wife at one point "you know there have been many things I have done that I did not understand or agree with but there are others that I simply will not do". These are words I did not have to speak, she knows, but I uttered them all the same. I will never be part of any of the business we have done in Iraq in the US, never.

I recall a survey conducted among Marines back in the 1990's that asked something along the lines - "if ordered to disarm American citizens would you follow orders". A vast majority said yes. This was long before we had a precedent of the National Guard and the Coast Guard disarming citizens after Katrina. This was before our military had seven years experience as a constabulary force on foreign soil. Such a survey is not even required today, we know the answer.

In 1993 the Command and General Staff College highlighted a paper written by Major (General Staff) Dr. Ulrich F. Zwygart entitled "How Much Obedience Does an Officer Need?". It is discouraging that I cannot find an example, dirivative or offshoot of this topic written and published by any US Officer. I recommend this paper to anyone interested in what the professional officers in the German Army did and failed to do about the "constitutional crisis" in Germany in the 1930's. in Zxygart's words "Conscience, which regulates man's impulsive aggressive action, is diminished, however, when man enters a hierarchical structure".

Not so for Chief of the General Staff General Ludwig Beck --

Beck criticized Hitler's aggressive plans for territorial policy that could only lead to defeat and reduction of Germany. Beck renounced a brilliant career, preferring to resign in protest rather than serve a regime that did not act in favor of its people. His opposition was rooted in a firm Christian faith and in a conservative attitude that believed legality, integrity, ethics, and responsibility were crucial for the servant of a nation. When Beck resigned in 1938, he was motivated not only by "professional and political knowledge" but also by the "dictate of conscience" --believing that
"obedience ends where knowledge, conscience, and responsibility prohibit the execution of an order." Doubtless, the conspirators, civilian and military, held him in high esteem and looked to him as their true leader.

Several officers junior to him made the same brave choice - others silently plotted, while most gave in and played along. I am not certain that we have many men of Beck's character serving in our military today. And while I do not find it conceivable that our government could become as overtly murderous as that of the Nazi's I do not find it inconceivable that it could radically and fundamentally change our very concept of freedom amidst some major crisis. One needs only look at the radical redefining of rights over the last few years to understand how that could go. One need only look at the evaporation of posse comitatus by degrees to understand the government's willingness and intention to use the military to retain control and power is said crisis "requires" it.

To resign amidst this economic turmoil and the much worse troubles that would precipitate a conclusion that "obedience ends where knowledge, conscience, and responsibility prohibit the execution of an order." That is harsh, forfeiting an earned retirement is harsh - but there are some orders I simply will never follow. I pray I never receive such orders and have to follow my conscience into personal ruin.

Stumble It!

Watch This

Must see, this young man describes things that many of us feel inside - the demons we carry.

I was in Fallujah in 2004 when this young Marine became so famous for his smoking picture. His story is really not that uncommon - his pain is not uncommon.

Stumble It!

Envoys Resist Forced Iraq Duty, Military Recruitment & Retention Waning

I guess I never considered that a labor union would represent "management" in our fedgov....hmmm. Also, you might be interested in this: Army Has Record Low Level of Recruits. Looks like recruitment prospects are waiting for a safer, non-shooting world before putting on a steel pot. Or, even gone off to Mexico seeking work. Living in a world of perpetual pre-emptive war is wearing down our officers and More of Them Are Leaving. I guess we'll just have to have more Blackwaters.

Stumble It!

So Long Joe

There is, of course, nothing romantic or enviable about war. It is something that brings out the very worst and the very best in people - a man's true character is exposed for all to see. I know that war has always been and always will be part of the human condition. In a world without war, considering all human frailty, we would be left with benevolent (or malevelent) tyranny. History has proven, over and over again, that somethimes war is neccesary, sometime it is just and occasionally it is the only option.

There is nothing wrong with children playing at war, so long as someone within the family explains that war is not simply a game. Playing with heroes and villians is an important part of a child developing into a man - so long, as I said they eventually come to see that the world is not so simple as all that.

So we have the venerable GI Joe, a man that I came to know and love as a child. He was a Marine but more than that. In his career after the Corps he performed every sort of exciting, adventurous job imaginable. I recall that he was a smoke jumper, an "Indiana Jones" sort of adventurer and a dozen other things (in the 1970's Hasbrio downplayed his Marine past and released several personifications of Joe performing these other adventurous but non-military functions).

To me these "politics" did not matter, Joe was always a Marine, no matter what other function he might perform. Perhaps I did not understand the technicalities but it was simple to me, Joe could always put on the uniform, no matter what image Hasbrio tried to sell. I owned the original (I guess) version of Joe from the early 1960's - he was a heck of a hero to me in my young childhood.

Now it seems that Joe is just not international enough, he is too American. Paramount would fashion Joe as not a man, but rather some international group of co-ed commando's fighting for world peace and harmony. Stripping Joe of his true historical connection and his identity.

Consider the story of the real Joe, the man GI Joe was fashioned to look like, the man that inspired the true action hero. (from Review Journal)

On Nov. 15, 2003, an 85-year-old retired Marine Corps colonel died of congestive heart failure at his home in La Quinta, Calif., southeast of Palm Springs. He was a combat veteran of World War II. His name was Mitchell Paige.

It's hard today to envision -- or, for the dwindling few, to remember -- what the world looked like on Oct. 25, 1942 -- 65 years ago.

The U.S. Navy was not the most powerful fighting force in the Pacific. Not by a long shot. So the Navy basically dumped a few thousand lonely American Marines on the beach at Guadalcanal and high-tailed it out of there.

On Guadalcanal, the Marines struggled to complete an airfield that could threaten the Japanese route to Australia. Admiral Yamamoto knew how dangerous that was. Before long, relentless Japanese counterattacks had driven the supporting U.S. Navy from inshore waters. The Marines were on their own.

As Platoon Sgt. Mitchell Paige and his 33 riflemen set about carefully emplacing their four water-cooled .30-caliber Brownings on that hillside, 65 years ago this week -- manning their section of the thin khaki line that was expected to defend Henderson Field against the assault of the night of Oct. 25, 1942 -- it's unlikely anyone thought they were about to provide the definitive answer to that most desperate of questions: How many able-bodied U.S. Marines does it take to hold a hill against 2,000 armed and motivated attackers?

But by the time the night was over, "The 29th (Japanese) Infantry Regiment has lost 553 killed or missing and 479 wounded among its 2,554 men," historian Lippman reports. "The 16th (Japanese) Regiment's losses are uncounted, but the 164th's burial parties handled 975 Japanese bodies. ... The American estimate of 2,200 Japanese dead is probably too low."

You've already figured out where the Japanese focused their attack, haven't you? Among the 90 American dead and seriously wounded that night were all the men in Mitchell Paige's platoon. Every one. As the night of endless attacks wore on, Paige moved up and down his line, pulling his dead and wounded comrades back into their foxholes and firing a few bursts from each of the four Brownings in turn, convincing the Japanese forces down the hill that the positions were still manned.

The citation for Paige's Medal of Honor picks up the tale: "When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machine gun section with fearless determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering fire."

In the end, Sgt. Paige picked up the last of the 40-pound, belt-fed Brownings and did something for which the weapon was never designed. Sgt. Paige walked down the hill toward the place where he could hear the last Japanese survivors rallying to move around his flank, the belt-fed gun cradled under his arm, firing as he went.

Coming up at dawn, battalion executive officer Major Odell M. Conoley was the first to discover how many able-bodied United States Marines it takes to hold a hill against two regiments of motivated, combat-hardened infantrymen who have never known defeat.

On a hill where the bodies were piled like cordwood, Mitchell Paige alone sat upright behind his 30-caliber Browning, waiting to see what the dawn would bring.

The hill had held, because on the hill remained the minimum number of able-bodied United States Marines necessary to hold the position.

And that's where the unstoppable wave of Japanese conquest finally crested, broke, and began to recede. On an unnamed jungle ridge on an insignificant island no one ever heard of, called Guadalcanal.

When the Hasbro Toy Co. called some years back, asking permission to put the retired colonel's face on some kid's doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.

But they weren't. That's his mug, on the little Marine they call "G.I. Joe." At least, it has been up till now.

Mitchell Paige's only condition? That G.I. Joe must always remain a United States Marine.

It took just one tough 'sumbeach' on that hill to hold, that was the minimal number of able-bodied Marines required. I am not a warmonger, but wars happen and a free people - if they are to remain free, occasionally need heroes. Mitchell Paige was just such a hero, among thousands but because of his own character and the cruel combination of fate that placed him on that hill he showed that he was just such a hero- he through the image of GI Joe has represented the sort of hero free people require at times.

Now it seems that is just not good enough....

Stumble It!

A Bit More about That B-52

If the "mistake" was deliberate, it means that somehow the normal chain of command was bypassed. I've heard two theories about how this might have happened.

The first- the Chinese supplied key components of the computer systems that control our military command structure, and built in a "back door" route, by which they can override any orders in the system. They tricked the people at Minot and Barksdale with false orders, in order to demonstrate to the US military that orders cannot be trusted. This paralyzes the chain of command. They wanted to demonstrate their ability to do it in a peaceful way, so as to forestall an attack on Iran.

The other, more sinister theory is that Dick Cheney, who Bush put in charge of such things early on, has a separate override system which was in effect that day, and that all participants are sworn to secrecy. The cluster of violent deaths of young airmen and one woman from Minot and Barksdale AFB's from June-September- 6-7 young people in good health, and not in combat zones, makes one wonder.

If it's part of a Bush/Cheney plot, what's the plot? Normally, nuclear weapons are not loaded onto airplanes at all, and flown across the country, for fear that a crash would spread radiation around. These weapons were on top of cruise missiles, armed, under a wing of the plane, in firing position. (OpEd.News)

Warning: break out your tin-foil coated Armadillo helmet, we are entering deeply into the cavern of conspiracy and speculation.

That is the point, however, is it not? Government lies beget conspiracy theories - when the people (or at least enough of the people) know that the government routinely lies we are left with speculation when events that simply do not make sense occur.

I have read a little about the first possibility presented above - it is not that it is not plausible in some very remote way, that is not why I do not accept it. I reject it because it is based upon a set of assumptions that do not hold water in my view. To be certain we rely heavily on computer systems to accomplish everything. However, people still have a role in events like this. The degree of infiltration required to achieve a coup like this using only computer systems would be tremendous, and it would involve more than just hacking the system itself. It would involve a lot of real time human intelligence, as well as human agents within the system working to pull the plan off. I could go on and on about why this Chinese scenario is implausible but suffice it to say I just do not buy it.

The second scenario - i.e. this was part of an administration approved mission gone awry - is infinitely more plausible than the accident story or theories about Chinese involvement. Of course this scenario brings up its on list of questions:

1. To what end, what purpose, did this weapons serve?
2. If it was in fact part of a plan to attack Iranian nuclear facilities with some degree of "plausible deniability" that is ludicrous logic. The world would blame a) the US or b) Israel and no matter who the blame ultimately fell upon the result would not be good.
   
3. The Air Force I know does not routinely produce officers capable of thinking outside the rules - if this was part of a secret mission I still find it difficult to accept that anyone in the Air Force would have resisted ( an important assumption that one must accept if we are to tear down the accident story).
4. Are these deaths at Minot AFB related to this? We will never know and that is the problem with conspiracy theories and government lies.
   

I would like to know specifically how this entire event unfolded - i.e. how the nuclear ordinance was "discovered". If I had to venture a guess, based upon the second conspiracy theory and the limited amount of truth that one can garner from existing stories I would say this. The "fall-guy", the hero of the mutiny story is the Colonel that was relieved. Those more junior officers that were relieved and the enlisted ground crews that received reprimands are merely collateral damage. If there was a mutiny I suspect it occurred at the O-6 level and below (if anyone with a star was involved in a secret refusal to a secret and illegal mission it would be kept quiet, his punishment will come in a different form).

Perhaps there was authorization to load the missiles at Minot, perhaps this all occurred a little outside of the normal chain of procedures but that is not unusual in a "special and very classified mission". After all if you really have to do something secretly the less people that know the better. Perhaps only when the plane arrived at Barksdale did those involved really begin to understand the nature of the mission and maybe that is when people began asking questions. Once people began talking the secrecy of the mission was spoiled and an explanation of what had occurred was necessary. Thus exist the need for a fall guy and a cover story.

The fact of the matter is we will just never know. I think a lot of people realize something is wrong and incidents like this only highlight the degree of mistrust. The saddest part of this all is that we are forced to even ponder items such as conspiracies and government lies. This is the paradigm in which we live, the system we have in place. Things should change but unless more people ask tough questions and refuse to accept the status quo this is the government and the system we deserve.

Stumble It!

Re: Dr. Strangelove

I believe that it is a crime against humanity for anyone to own and assemble nuclear weapons.

I tend to agree, in retrospect, looking back at the Cold War era it seems like a disturbingly weird mindset.Mutually assured destruction certainly does not meet the criteria of jus ad bellum.

I have not given this incident a lot of thought nor have I read a whole lot about it before today. My initial impression was "no way", "no way something like this could possibly occur as an accident". I know you might say that humans are fallible and mistakes happen but items like nuclear warheads involve a tremendous amount of checks and balances. Things like this are nearly impossible to occur as mere accidents.

I recall reading a few headlines soon after this event on obscure sites that mentioned that something more nefarious had occurred. I am summarizing because I did not dig into these stories at the time but essentially the idea was that these warheads were intended for the Persian Gulf and that the Air Force had rebelled in the middle of the mission.

This is a plausible explanation even if it is difficult to accept. I actually find this possibility much more believable than this all being nothing more than a mistake or accident. I cannot possibly imagine that nuclear armed ordinance was loaded on a plane and nobody questioned it. Heck, at the very least the pilot had to notice during his pre-flight inspection. For an event like this to occur as an accident a whole bunch of folks would have to be ignoring basic, fundamental parts of their jobs.

I know, if we apply Occam's Razor it seems to easy to accept that this was just an accident - albeit a nearly unbelievable one. Lex parsimoniae dictates that too many assumptions must be accepted to believe any other version. Yet I am not convinced. Something is rotten in Denmark and the accident story has its own list of assumptions - more assumptions than other possible scenarios.

I will tell you what I know about devices like this and their safekeeping, storage and handling (what I can tell you). These things simply do not move without being tracked, numerous levels of approval are required, an enormous amount of paperwork completed and an inordinate amount of security present. You cannot just "accidentally" drop by the warehouse, pick up a few of these things, load them on a plane and take them for a joy ride. It cannot happen - if you believe that it can I have real estate I want to sell you!

Update: I did a small search and found a few sites discussing this (well there are plenty but most are just scratching their heads about the "accident" story). Read on and please discuss if you find anything more telling - I really believe there was a lot more at play here.

It's About That Mutiny: Air Force Covers Its Tail With Transparent Feathers

Nukes Over America: Just a Stupid Mistake. Sure It Is By Dave Lindorff

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran, Not For Decommissioning: Airforce Refused!!!

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater

Update II: I see from further reading that these stories are from almost a month apart - however I do not think that discredits the possibility that this second incident is not related to something more nefarious than a mere accident.

Stumble It!

Dr. Strangelove

This scares the hell out of me. What is so curious is that the commanding officer(s) present some of the most ludicrously unbelievable excuses for this incident.

I believe that it is a crime against humanity for anyone to own and assemble nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not meant to win wars - they are meant to annihilate entire populations.

Stumble It!

Re: Why Do Generals Retire Before Opposing Dangerous Government Policies?

But Sanchez’ statement is a cop out. He never mentioned the possibility that he might have resigned in protest over the awful policy. That’s the problem. Promotion to high rank requires political reliability and officers chosen to be Generals only get their promotions upon approval of political authorities. They owe their promotions and their pensions to politicians and therefore are unlikely to be promoted if there is the faintest whiff of the possibility that they might oppose policies decided by the politicians. Independent mindedness is therefore not a quality likely to be found in the highest military ranks. Though it is interesting that Admiral William Fallon, chief of CENTCOM, called General (Saint) David Petraeus, mastermind of "the surge", "an ass-kissing little chickenshit". That story has quickly disappeared. [SPSL]

Mark said it exceptionally well, if you wish to read my views of the subject read Duty, Honor, Country! Nah Careerist Optimism.

The organizational culture of the officer corps in one of zero-defects, perfection is the objective and if that is not achieved the truth is covered in ambiguities or outright lies. Most officers learn this early and frequently. Fred Reed nails this issue on the head...

Stumble It!

Marines Want Out of Iraq, Into Afghanistan?

They said it would allow the Marines to carry out the Afghan mission in a way the Army cannot, by deploying as an integrated Marine Corps task force that included combat aircraft as well as infantry and armored vehicles, while the Army must rely on the Air Force... The Marines... are designed to be an agile, “expeditionary” force on call for quick deployment, and thus can go to war with everything needed to carry out the mission — troops, armor, attack jets and supplies.....Anyway, I'm a big fan of the KISS (Keep it simple, stupid!) methodology.... so at first glance I'm liking this plan. Marines in Afghanistan, Army in Iraq, and the Air Force out somewhere in middle America reminding everyone of how important they are. [Danger Room]

From a historical perspective this makes sense, sorta. Folks are often led to believe that the Marine Corps/Navy team fought the war in the Pacific in WWII and the Army mopped up the Nazis in Europe (from a Marine perspective the Pacific campaign was obviously much more difficult you see). Of course this is not entirely true, there were very few Marines in Europe but there were still a lot of soldiers in the Pacific. But that is not the point.

Perhaps back after WWII when some idiots in Washington decided to create the Air Force as a separate service they thought that the Army and Air Force would function as a team much like the Marine Corps/Navy. Not so, never been so and so long as there are corporate salesmen in blue suits and bus driver hats running around preaching the wonderful virtues of stand alone air power it will never be so.

If it were up to me, the Army would work for the Marine Corps as "support troops", the Air Force would fly mail runs and the Navy/Marine team would handle the rest. But it is not up to me is it?

The fact is, from my experience, the Marine Corps adapted much faster to the shifting environment in Iraq and has handled their areas of responsibilities (AO's) infinitely better than the Army. The other fact is that we have already lost in Iraq so leaving the best and the brightest there probably would not make a difference. If one of the services has to take a Vietnam-like fall for the politician's failure in Iraq perhaps it should be the Army. Let the Marines leave and find more fertile ground.

Stumble It!

Streamlining the Empire

Bush creates new military command

U.S. President George W. Bush Tuesday approved creation of a new military command for Africa.

The Unified Combatant Command for Africa is designed to secure cooperation with African nations and bolster the capabilities of allies.

For those of you who may be unaware of the fact that the US Government has divided the entire planet up into military districts from which to project its grand designs upon all creation, African Command should mark the final chapter of this conquest.

The US Government has a longstanding tradition of drawing lines on the maps of places where its military doesn't belong in order to prop up the puppet governments of its failed or failing lackey states. Until now Africa had been allowed to exist due to the benevolence of the European and Central Commanders. Two too many for one continent perhaps, but one more bureaucratic morass on which to bestow our hard-earned tax dollars in order to carry out responsibilities not delegated to the Federal government by The People of the Several States is cool beans in Dubya's 'Merka.

Stumble It!

Death (or at least unemployment) to all Bureaucrats

What really ever happened to men talking and acting like men? My wife had the displeasure of encountering a bureaucrat up close and personal last week. You would think that after so many years with me in a "profession" filled with so many bureaucrats that her experience would be much more common. For many reasons, not the least of which involving her listening to my advice to avoid such people, she has remained relatively unscathed and unaffected by these sorts.

In the aftermath of her encounter and our subsequent conversations I merely smiled at her and said - ' welcome to my world'.

Encountering double-dealing weasels that hide behind a misconstrued interpretation of some regulation or non-existent policy is par for the course for me in my daily world. To be certain some assignments are worse than others but also to be certain I am more likely to find and deal with people that think and act based, not upon principle, but upon expediency and self-advancement is just too common.

I still, to this day, scratch my head and wonder - often aloud - what is wrong with not being a "team player" if the team is just plain wrong. There is a very strong tendency toward group-think in the military. The phrase "pick your battles" is too common.

In my mind picking your battles is akin to compromise and if the battle involves a principle it is certainly worth fighting, no matter how small. There is no small compromise when it comes to principles - there is only surrender.

This is just not the mind-set in the our bureaucratic military. My understanding of this bureaucracy helps me understand the larger bureaucracy at work behind the scenes in the Federal Government and explains, to me at least, one very real reason why the Federal Government is so far off course.

Death (or at least unemployment) to all bureaucrats!

Stumble It!

Great Idea

All volunteer my eye - you volunteer to get in but you have to ask permission to get out or to retire, and now this.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.

[...]

In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months.

Citizen-soldiers are supposed to be citizens most of the time, not just toys for delusional presidents to take out and play with every time they have a "great" idea to save their own legacies. If I were an employer, particularly in a small company I would have a hard time hiring one of these guys under such circumstances. It is too much of a risk.

That has to hurt the quality that the Guard and Reserve can recruit from. Citizen-soldiers have to earn a living in relation to their capabilities. Joining up just might endanger that.

Of course recruiting for active and reserve has taken on an entirely new set of problems....

The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the change in reserve policy would have been made anyway because active-duty troops already were getting too little time between their combat tours.

The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. No cost estimate was provided, but officials said it would be at least several billion dollars.

I suppose now the military will have to accept folks with felonies, mental defects, physical ailments, 50 year old grandmas, 16 year old girls and illegal Mexicans. I see no other way that this increase can be pulled off otherwise - nobody else is showing much interest.

Stumble It!

A Definition of Terror

(CBS/AP) A U.S. Air Force gunship has conducted a strike against suspected members of al Qaeda in Somalia, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports exclusively.

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reports. Those terror attacks killed more than 200 people.

The AC-130 gunship is capable of firing thousands of rounds per second, and sources say a lot of bodies were seen on the ground after the strike, but there is as yet, no confirmation of the identities.

One night in November of 2005 I had an odd moment of reflection. I sat in relative quiet as a storm raged just a few thousand meters south of me. I watched the sky for nearly an hour as an AC-130 Spectre gunship circled the city of Fallujah. The sky was filled with many other sites and objects but the gunshp was the most interesting and fascinating. From within the belly of this beast spewed the most horrendous and awe inspiring sight - fiery death in short bursts.

The aircraft carries three automatic cannons ranging from 25mm to 40mm and one 105mm gun. It has an IR and radar package that allows the plane to see in day or night, fog, rain, snow, sandstorm or any other nuisances.

Imagine for a moment not being 2000 meters away from the target area but instead actually being the target. All you see is a flash of light, by the time you hear the thud of the 105 or the burp of the automatic cannons you are also hearing the explosions around you.

These weapons certainly give the US a tremendous advantage but if you ever really want a definition of terror - seek out and find someone that has been in the target area of one of these monsters, if they still live.

Stumble It!

Johnny the Brave

Congratulations to Johnny - he has freed himself from the grasps of servitude to leviathan. I only wish I were brave enough to follow the same course many years ago.

It often seems hypocritical to proclaim that something is wrong but then concurrently continue to act as a gear in the big machine that makes it all possible. Johnny has taken a stand. I commend and envy him.

Stumble It!

Debunking Myths

Among the branches of the U.S. military, the Army has suffered the heaviest losses. More than two-thirds of those killed were members of the Army, which includes reservists and Army National Guard.

For the much smaller Marine Corps, the war is exacting a heavy toll, as well. The Corps has lost nearly 900 Marines, including reservists. The Navy has lost more than 60 sailors; the Air Force, just under 30 personnel.

[...]

Seventy-four percent of all the fatalities were white; 11 percent were Hispanic or Latino; nearly 10 percent were African-American; about 3 percent were either Asian, American Indian, or native Hawaiian.(NH)

Charles Rangel has claimed - as Jesse Jackson before him - that America's wars of aggression are borne on the backs of urban blacks.

Blacks comprise 16.5% of the total force but the casualty rate in Iraq is only 10%. White and Latino casualty rates equate to the the percentage of their population in the force at nearly a 1:1 rate.

Furthermore the entire notion that urban areas provide the bulk of military recruits is false.

The constant increase in the recruit/population ratio contradicts the assertion that military recruiting targets youth in inner cities. In fact, entirely urban areas are the area most underrepresented among recruits. Both suburban and rural areas are overrepresented. (HF)

Then of course there is something we all know - the Army, specifically the fighting Army, drawls.

The South is overrepresented among military recruits. It provided 42.2 percent of 1999 recruits and 41.0 percent of 2003 recruits but contained just 35.6 percent of the population ages 18/24. (HF)

This is of course not a new revelation to those that know. I cannot find the data for Southerners in combat arms specialties but my 20+ years of experience tells me that the bulk of those positions are filled with Southern men.

Lastly, consider this nearly 1 Soldier in every 909 serving in the Active and Reserve force has been killed in Iraq. One Marine in 251 has died. The Marine Corps is a small and close organization - every Marine knows a fallen brother.

The Navy has contributed beyond what is expected of a sea service in a land war. The Air Force - the second largest service - is a group I have a real problem with. They manipulate the AFN news service with propaganda about the massive contribution they are making to the effort. Only one Airmen in 18,073 has actually died in combat - you bunch of windbags ought to consider shutting your mouths or perhaps extending your "tours" past 4 months and maybe actually leaving the wire a bit more if you are going to claim you are making a big contribution.

Stumble It!

Backtrack

I have missed a few items of note and thought I would backtrack and comment now.

Most folks that know and are willing to state it have said for many months that the US is already at war with Iran, well-

BAGHDAD, Dec. 24 — The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.

It is not historically uncommon for open shooting wars to actually begin via "advisors". Whether Iran and the US enter an open shooting war remains to be seen, but covertly we are already engaged in hostilities.

I have mentioned before some of my experiences with the Iraqi police and how difficult it often was to separate the good from the bad. Here is yet another example of this difficulty -

The Independent - More than 1,000 British troops carried out a dawn raid on a police station in the southern Iraqi city of Basra after receiving intelligence that dozens of prisoners were being tortured and faced imminent execution.

Then of course there is the news of Bush's "New Deal" that Johnnie commented on last week. A lot of folks have already beat this lame horse into the ground. All I can add is this. How ironic that Bush and his gang would even consider a program called a "New Deal" based on the "success" of FDR's flawed revolution. This shows just how close the Republicans and Democrats really are on fundamental issues.

Then of course there is a recent medical study that proves that there might be a reason for us to follow the natural order.

TimesOnline - Doing housework can cut substantially a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer, according to researchers.

Last there is this, first commented on by Johnnie - recruiting of mercenaries to serve in the US military.

I viewed a "Citizenship ceremony" in Baghdad when I was last there - approximately 300 or so foreigners in US uniforms swearing in as citizens. On AFN (Armed Forces Network) they continually run a commercial showing various non-citizens how easy it is for them to apply for citizenship - fees and time requirements waived.

It is not a question of if the US uses mercenaries - the question is how many and how openly. I recall meeting a bunch of newly arrived South Africans in a contracting office I was visiting in Baghdad. One of these fellows was real chummy and very interested in where I had been and what I had done. He asked obscene and stupid questions like "how many Iraqis have I killed?" "where did I get my AK - from a dead Iraqi?" and other telling questions. We hire goons like that all the time and turn them loose with weapons on the Iraqi people.

The idea of hiring foreigners is not completely alien to the US military. We did not recruit the Irish overseas but we certainly gang-pressed them into service in the 19th century despite the fact that they were not yet citizens.

At one point early in my life I seriously considered joining the French Foreign Legion - I mailed them and phoned them and had all the contact information to make it a reality. I backed off essentially because I came to my senses - why would I want to serve France?

Much later I seriously considered transferring to the Australian Army. They had a program by which they were recruiting officers from certain Common Wealth nations and the US to fill critical needs. I dreamed at the time of buying a ranch in the Outback and retiring. I changed my mind based solely on Australia's restrictive gun laws. After all there is no need in owning a ranch if you cannot defend it - much of the Australian countryside now lives in fear of home invasion based upon their stupid gun laws. I said no thanks at the last minute.

Obviously the FFL is imperialist and my participation in that organization would have conflicted with my core principles. Australia lacks the capacity for real imperialism - I could have served in her army with no qualms.

The idea of recruiting foreigners for the US military however is simply wrong. The US is imperialist, despite whatever nice words we use to describe our forays. First we send girls to do a man's job and now we are considering recruiting foreigners in greater numbers. This is surely a sign of a society and a civilization in decline.

Stumble It!

Legio Patria Nostra

George Washington, at the onset of the Revolutionary War, derided the British/Hessian invaders as "hirelings and mercenaries". While it can be argued that this description could do for any all-volunteer military, there is a profound contrast between such a force, and one made up of homogeneous defenders of an organic culture whose call to serve is a matter of duty and honor - and not due to material prizes offered by the state. At first, the latter description characterized the armed forces of the United States. Over the last century and a half, however, the situation has deteriorated. And anyone who's ever seen a small teenage girl laboriously toting an M16 around an overseas FOB because she's been promised truckloads of money for college, or a group of overweight Blackwater goons bellying up in the DFAC while riding out their $80,000 tax-free contract, knows full well that the state of our military is now largely no different than King George's, circa 1775. As if the emulation of one belligerent empire wasn't enough, our leaders are now poised to throw our military onto the path of France's failed July Monarchy by turning it into a foreign legion.

Stumble It!

Unconfirmed but Plausable

From another anonymous soldier (take it for what it is worth- at the very least this shows how rumors fly around in places where folks do not get outside the wire enough)

“Although you will never see a word of it in the U.S. media, there is a very serious, growing and potentially critical loss of morale here in Iraq. A CIC major, working with the CID here inside the Green Zone, met with me yesterday and told me they are working on a growing, but top secret, investigation into what appears to be an organizing mutiny among U.S. combat troops in at least three different locations in occupied Iraq.

Deplorable conditions here, including defective ammunition (and a serious lack of it due to the Falcon disaster) lack of armor, increasingly sophisticated and very deadly attacks on U.S. troops with no countermeasures either in place or at all effective, coupled with Bush’s obvious intentions to quickly and greatly increase the number of troops here and his plans (often discussed by the brass) of a “huge new push” designed to “knock out the resistance and permit a withdrawal with face” ( a direct quote from a classified order.) have done nothing to defuse what my informant believes is a “critical situation.”

My source in the CIC tells me that the team is in a dilemma at this point. If this gets into the foreign media (it would never get into the tame U.S. media unless mass rebellion broke out and then it would be heavily censored) the internet, cursed by the administration, will cover it and given the gross inability of the pencil-necked geeks in DoD’s propaganda division, it would become a major political scandal stateside. If a swoop is made and GI instigators are arrested, there is the very real risk that the one thing the Pentagon is frantic to prevent and keep silent, will get out.

The CIC has an army of snitches running around all over Iraq, and especially here in Baghdad, but the more they find out, the more frightened they are becoming. Now, the rumors are that Russian or Iranian agents are fomenting rebellion but this is very doubtful. It is known that Bush hates Putin and everyone here knows Israel hates Iran so these rumors are obviously planted by these parties.

Arresting ringleaders (some of whom are very obvious) might trigger more serious problems and transferring “infected” units to Germany for some “R&R” can’t be done because they are badly needed here and worse, might terrify cadre in Germany to the point where the rot could easily spread back to the States. This is redolent of the mass mutinies of French troops in 1917/18 in which thousands were shot out of hand.

A pleasant Christmas is expected here with myself planning to get home for a week. Who knows? I might resign my commission and write a book…and then be shot while watering the lawn.”

Stumble It!

Being Principled is Not Insane

In my post on the death of Megan McClung I asked how a just society could send women and girls to foreign lands to fight and die.

One anonymous commenter stated my argument denying her the right to serve her nation as she wished was insane.

Well, I suppose I could attempt, as others have done, to rationalize the issue. For example -

Gary North argues: "The camaraderie and esprit de corps in a military unit or a police unit is heavily dependent on shared risk. When women are exposed to the same degree of risk of life and death, this disrupts the military-protective function, which is unquestionably masculine."

I could cite incidents of sexual assault - but the rationalist would simply say that the culture of the military ought to change to be kinder and gentler (less rough men standing on a wall and more politically correct bureaucrats).

I could discuss the 1992 Presidential Commission on The Assignment of Women in The Military's findings (the last major governmental study on the subject), but that would really miss the point.

The point is not whether some women can perform in the military and even in combat roles nor whether the military can be changed as an organization to accommodate women. The argument against women in combat specifically and in most military roles generally is one of principle and relates directly to philosophy.

Women do not belong in positions that place them in harms way simply because it is the function of a just society to prevent that. Women are charged in a good society with bringing beauty and elegance to an otherwise nasty world. They teach our children to appreciate elements of life that men - if men actually performed manly functions - are really incapable of passing along.

If you do not understand the paragraph above and instead paint me as -"insane", "chauvinistic", "archaic", or any other term you like - you simply do not understand the philosophical place my views derive from.

If you want to really know, and I suppose you have assumed it already - I do indeed believe the most important work a woman can do is in the home, raising good children. That is the nature of a well ordered society, a society that conforms to the natural order and natural law. My libertarian friends may scramble to remove our blog from their blogrolls - I know these views conflict with their philosophy that derives from the enlightenment and reason - whereas mine originate from lessons via a long history of good and bad societies.

Women are not inferior to men - in many pursuits they are superior. We are partners in a joint endeavor - we should celebrate our differences and stick with what we all are born of nature to do best.

I could and have argued against placing women in most military roles based upon reason and I believe a pretty good argument can be made using reason, facts and data. I no longer make such arguments.

The fact is, if a society wishes to abandon its greatest asset - ladies of strength and character - and replace them with generic persons and then send them into the world - abandoning our greatest treasure, children - that is a society in decline. It is unjust and unpardonable.

Darrell Dow puts it in perspective:

Christians who aren’t embarrassed by their Bibles should forcefully put forth the truth that there is a comprehensive pattern of differentiation between men and women outlined in Scripture. It is men who protect and lay down their lives for women, even as Christ died for the Church, and it is women who bear a responsibility as nurturers. In Joshua 1:14, we read that the “wives, young children, and livestock” of Israel remained on the other side of the Jordan River while the “fighting men” crossed the river to wage war against the Canaanites.

Stumble It!

Protect Your Own Freedom

Every year at this time (well a month or so ago) the television folks come around and want to do "hometown military greetings". Every year I resist and every year my mother begs with me to do one - and I generally relent.

Today I received an email from a lady back home that saw my little television moment telling me how thankful she was that I was "protecting her freedom". Over the years I have received innumerable messages like that. I mean no disprespect to well meaning folks and I am thankful for their kind words. I am always left with a feeling of sadness and guilt - here is why.

I have served in the military for 21 years (it will be 22 in February). I started out in the National Guard in high school (yep you can join at 17) and through college and then entered the United States Marine Corps. Because of some flawed advice, I eventually decided to take a commission in the Army and have been here ever since. (I say flawed because I miss the Corps everyday I put on boots).

I joined up with the words of Ronald Reagan ringing in my ears about the importance of standing on a wall facing the Soviet Empire. I went to Germany before the wall fell on two exercises, prepared to face down the evil bear. I thought then I was defending freedom - but perhaps not. One could argue that the Soviet Empire was destined to fall - all the same I did my part.

Since then I have done little really to defend freedom for Americans. I was young and excited in 1990 when I deployed to Saudi Arabia and was still excited when we went over the burm into Iraq in 1991. My foundation of right political philosophy was still developing (I still listened to Rush Limbaugh for crying out loud) but I knew a few things. Great men like Naval Captain John Coussons at The Citadel made me see the world through right eyes even if I could not fully understand it. I questioned, in my mind why we should fight/die/kill in Iraq but honestly it was too exciting for me. It was my war, I was a historian, I needed a war. After all, my grandfather and father had their wars -as did generations past - why not me too. Iraq was the worst sort of war - the kind that can be romanticized - an easy victory with low causalities.

Of course the first Iraq war was a tremendous mistake, it did nothing to protect our freedoms - it actually threatened them. But only a few wise paleoconservatives saw that then, and nobody listened.

In Somalia I certainly did not protect any freedoms but got something much closer to the sort of war that ought to make nations reconsider the military option.

It does not seem either that anything I did in Hati or Bosnia really helped preserve any freedoms on the homefront.

Of course Afghanistan some might consider the right kind of war - I have yet to make up my mind. I do not begrudge my time there - I suppose it had to be done. If I can rationalize that punishing wrong-doers protects freedom at home then that was probably worth it.

I cannot similarly rationalize my time in Iraq - I was and am opposed to the entire thing.

During the times I have not been doing what we imagine as kids soldiers do, I suppose I have done more to thwart freedom than protect it. I am pretty expensive to maintain - and I have lots of friends. My salary is not enormous but added together with everything else, and multiplied by everyone in uniform it is no small sum. Some old gunney told me early on that "there will be days when you are over paid and days when you are asked to do things that no money can buy". I have seen both.

Unlike liberals, I fully understand the need for a strong national defense. The very things that are important rest upon freedom. Unlike neoconservatives I also understand the tremendous cost to freedom that an interventionalist foreign policy presents. We could do just fine with a leaner and meaner military.

I am neither brave nor altruistic. I serve in my chosen profession because God made me this way. I am simply happiest during those fleeting moments when I get to do exciting things with people of character. In our effeminate, politically correct, bureaucratic military those moments are often few and far between.

God help me, I believe I have never felt more alive than one night when I was with one of my teams, stranded on a roof-top in Fallujah - not knowing if we would live to see daybreak. Up there, that night - politics, freedom and philosophy all meant little. Everything revolved around the moment and the fellows I wanted to ensure got off the roof-top to go home. I left that moment understanding full well Robert E. Lee's words. "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it. " I remain conflicted to this day regarding my love of something so terrible - I hate the carnage and love the primal experience.

I do not protect your freedom - there is no nation on Earth capable of invading the United States (except Mexico). You could do without me and a million more like me.

I can do nothing about your congress, president or courts as they strip away more and more of your freedom each day. I suppose I could sail home and lead a military coup - hold power for a short time - and reestablish a democratic republic based upon natural law, true federalism (states' rights), individual rights/responsibility, and separation of powers. But really - who would actually follow me in such a quest?

Folks should stop thinking that other people protect their freedoms - so long as they hold such a view they will continue to lose those freedoms. It is time decent Americans stood up for what is theirs.

Stumble It!

Megan McClung

Take a look at her face and her smile. Megan McClung (Major, USMC), was killed last week in Al-Anbar province, Iraq.

Tell me - do just societies send women and girls to foreign lands to fight and die?

Don't give me the argument that it was her right - I suppose in our culture it is her right - that in and of itself does not make this just.
Shame on us.

The world is a darker place - and we share a bit more guilt.

UPDATE - read this before you send me a nasty email

Stumble It!

Re: The Lessons of War

Johnny's last post reminds me of an American military maxim which roughly states that US forces are always exceedingly well prepared to fight a previous war. Generally the truth of this statement is that preparation is for the last major war; unfortunately in the case of the US invasion of Iraq that preparation was for WWII.

The US military has never truly adopted 3rd Generation Warfare (Maneuver Warfare in US parlance or Blitzkrieg more accurately termed.) We claim that we are a 3GW force, we have some of the trappings but we have failed to adopt the very necessary principle of valuing initiative over obedience in leaders.

Perhaps if the US Army and Marine Corps had adhered to the maxim mentioned above by preparing to refight Vietnam things would have gone a bit differently - perhaps.

I recall many fascinating conversations with a British Major I befriended down in Basra. He had a great uncle buried somewhere just north of Babil in central Iraq - he died fighting there in Britain's previous folly in that land during the 1920's.

Whatever their shortcomings, my experience with the British is that they have a much longer and more profound view of things. The organizational culture of their army has been shaped by failed wars of empire, occupation and insurgency. In addition their success in Northern Ireland is no small feat.

The British have learned something Americans do not yet understand, they have been there and failed and are smarter for it.

Our conversations in the early stages were measured; he did not want to offend me. In time he opened up his views into what might be best described as "you yanks just don't get it".

I suppose we don't. While I was in Basra the Brits operated in ways that American commanders would call reckless - they took risks but they were relatively non-threatening to the population. Contrast that to my time in Najaf, Ramadi and Fallujah - the US Marines there did not play nice or take risks, they brought the hammer and anvil regularly.

Really this all speaks to just one more reason why the US ought not engage in Wars for Empire - we are not qualified.

Stumble It!

The Lessons of War

From today's Stars and Stripes:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may be leaving under a cloud of criticism over his handling of the Iraq war, but his invasion plan -- emphasizing speed over massive troop numbers -- consistently has been held up as a resounding success.

With Iraq near chaos three and a half years later, a key Army manual is being rewritten in a way that rejects the Rumsfeld doctrine and counsels against using it again.

The truth of it is that there never was a "Rumsfeld doctrine", because -- as William Lind has pointed out -- doctrine is how to think, not what to do. Rumsfeld never worried so much about the "how to think" variable of the equation, instead he left that up to the conquered. United States troops were to simply sack Baghdad, then it would all be over. A Jeffersonian democracy would spring from the rubble overnight, shiny happy Iraqis would dance to Toby Keith's greatest hits while throwing rose petals at each other, and we'd all be one step closer to a "New American Century".

Unfortunately, the Rumsfeld plan -- which was nothing innovative -- was a complete failure. Sure it looked solid when the goal was simply to topple Saddam Hussein. But when we were kindly re-informed that the goal had been to "spread democracy", it was indefensible. As far as the brilliance of low troop levels goes, the simple fact of the matter is that the Army never had enough to send in anyway. And while the Air Force whines about having to augment Army missions with their poor little Airmen, there are currently more Sailors with their boots in the sands of the CENTCOM area of responsibility than there are at sea. But hey, maybe the idea of a Boatswain's Mate kicking down doors in cordon and search ops in Ramadi was part of Rumsfeld's plan all along.

On the subject of this new manual -- which I've written about here before -- I have not yet read it so I have no comment. Though one quote in the article does cause one to cock an eyebrow:

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on the new Army doctrine, citing the manual's draft status. But he pointed to a November 2005 directive that established "nation-building" as one of the military's core missions.

I have no clue which particular directive Whitman is referencing, but I reckon this means that Army directives are now on par with Acts of Congress and Supreme Court verdicts; superior to the responsibilities delegated to the Federal Government by The People as outlined in the Constitution.

HOOAH!

Stumble It!

Re: Rumsfeld Fired - Nice Start!

I won't miss him, either. And like El Cid, I don't know that Rumsfeld's termination will change anything. I can't comment too much about the other services, but Rumsfeld's Navy has many inherent problems...

For instance, the Navy Times ran a piece last month about Bob Woodward's State of Denial, in which Woodward claims that Admiral Verne Clark, former Chief of Naval Operations, was turned down for a gig as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by Rumsfeld, because he was too skeptical about neoconservative aims at world domination. Whether or not that's true, ADM Clark was succeeded in his office by ADM Mike Mullen, who from day one has been after a "1000-ship navy". Not a thousand US ships, mind you, but a maritime coalition that simply deployed as the US directed, all over the globe (or as the Founding Fathers would call it, an "entangling alliance"). Due to the fact that "the terrorists" could never launch any mass invasion, one can only wonder what good would come out of such a project. Besides harassing fishermen in vessels flagged from the countries which our leaders are telling us are our enemies at that particular time, The Grand Navée would probably just serve to undermine unstable governments and create power vacuums for the "bad guys" to thrive in like Iraq, or, like Somalia, undermine the power vacuum so that the "bad guys" can create an unstable government. Good luck with all that.

Of course most problems were inherited. Those of us who joined the Navy thinking it was the same one in which our grandfathers had served were in for a rude awakening when we showed up to find it was a sprawling bureaucracy with more admirals than ships, where you will waste more time watching power-point presentations -- on any touchy-feely subject from "equal opportunity training" to the "Right Spirit Campaign" which informs you that alcohol is bad and drinking it is even badder -- than you could spend on qualifying in something that was actually worth your effort. This was no longer an organization of rough men who worked hard and partied harder, but the recruiters don't tell you stuff like that.

In the end, I'd have to agree with all of El Cid's recommendations. The civilians who run the military are bought and paid for by the politicians who are bought and paid for, and the officers who get promoted tend to be those who will do whatever it takes, no matter what it takes, just to be advanced. Few are honorable, and the ones who are "dedicated to the mission" never have the guts to question it.

Nowadays an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of those appointed over you kinda cancels itself out, and is therefore meaningless.

Stumble It!

Rumsfeld Fired - Nice Start!

Today Robert MacNamara was fired for his ineptness in the conduct of the War in Vietnam - I meant to say Donald Rumsfeld was fired for his ineptness in the conduct of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Deja Vu huh, I wonder if he will write a self-aggrandizing book some day proclaiming it was everyone else's fault?).

This was a correct step, as I have continually suggested starting back in 2004. However, this will not change anything of fundamental import. I overheard Geraldo Rivera say something tonight that I am afraid I actually agree with - Bush should have picked Eric Shinseki; the only man to get it right before the invasion. (Really I am kidding about Shinseki, he was right about Iraq but wrong about most everything else)

If Mr. Bush really wants a military capable of fighting and winning his foreign wars and "spreading democracy" around the world I offer the following suggestions: (Beware, if anyone actually followed my suggestions they might just end up with a military that refused to participate in unjust wars - as Joshua suggested recently in a post I cannot locate; such a military might be equipped in character to set things right at home)

This is how you really fix things

1. Get rid of the idea that fundamental change must "do no harm" to individuals; radical solutions sometimes hurt
2. Fire every 2, 3 and 4 star general in all branches of the military immediately
3. Tell every Colonel, Naval Captain and Brigadier General that they remain on a very temporary trial basis - just long enough to provide some stability and possibly longer if they demonstrate an ability to adapt and demonstrate character
4. Fire everyone in the Air Force above the rank of lieutenant colonel, eliminate the Department of The Air Force and recreate the Army Air Corps by integrating what remains into the Army structure
5. Fire every GS 13 and above in all departments of the military
6. Create a committee of very select and honorable men to review organizational structure, objective character traits, and personnel for promotion to the most senior leadership positions. (At a bare minimum it is expected the findings of this group ought to include the elimination all together of several of the general officer billets listed above - along with their staffs - each and every E-9 position above the Army equivalent of a battalion, elimination of every uniformed or civilian position dedicated to "Equal Opportunity" programs, elimination of 90% of the other touchy-feely full-time positions such as Safety officers and other useless staff positions; the elimination of all installation commands and their redundant staffs and probably dozens of other manpower saving steps)
7. Once done the committee should review the files, character and honor of every combat arms major and lieutenant colonel (Yes it would be tough to find the honorable men to sit on the committee but surely it could be done)
8. Select from the list above only combat arms officers that display most of the character traits a true professional military ought to have in the officer corps and promote these men immediately to fill the vacated slots above, when doing this the committee should look heavily at Marine officers and promote them to positions in charge of Air Corps and Army units
9. Eliminate females from all division (Army equivalent) units, all ships, all flying billets and any unit that is reasonably expected to ever encounter the enemy * see below
10. Forcibly retire all E-9's that are not willing to stop acting as if they are field grade officers, aren't willing to take the limited number of assignments close to troops and are incapable of being leaders of character that other NCO's can aspire to emulate

These measures would not permanently fix the military - this will just get rid of some of the dead weight and allow change to grow and take hold. Other items that would have to change:

• Eliminate dishonest awards and evaluations processes
• Eliminate all "automatic" promotions for all grades
• Create a pay and incentive program that entices the best and the brightest to want to serve and stay - leaders of 2000 man organizations ought to live in a respectable house and have a decent income
• Eliminate the idea that people can be taught leadership - leaders are born - find them and keep them
• Promote innovation, reward character, recognize those that dare to be a little different, demand moral behavior from leaders, ensure that those that lead actually understand not only military history but political theory and history as well (particularly the Constitution and Republic they are supposed to defend)

* Joshua points us to an article by Mr. Walter McDougall in which he aptly states "[t]he United States today is the only serious military power in history to contemplate thorough sexual integration of its armed forces." He said "serious military power" don't quibble with me about nations fighting desperate wars - even the Soviet Army in WWII did not integrate females into the force the way we do today.

Consider this:

One need only retrace the dramatic change of tone in the statements of top military personnel over the last twenty years to discover how much ground has been gained by the feminist camp. In 1976 General William Westmoreland agreed that recruiting women for the AVF would change the ethos of the U.S. armed forces. “Maybe you could find one woman in 10,000 who could lead in combat,” he said, “but she would be a freak and we’re not running the military academy for freaks.” By 1993, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower Barbara Pope was boasting, “We are in the process of weeding out the white male as norm. We’re about changing the culture.” And in 1997 Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen promised that the revelations of seduction and rape in training units would not lead to curtailment of opportunities for women: “We are not going to turn back the clock.”

Yes feminism and social experimentation have indeed changed the "culture". Clyde Wilson rightly claims "For a long time the US armed forces had a chivalric Southern flavor. They now combine all the worst aspects of bureaucracy, imperialism, graft, affirmative action, and Political Correctness, in an atmosphere of moral depravity." I agree, the only place you find real Southerners any longer is in combat arms and special operations units - where they make up the majority.

As as for that whole Southern knighthood thing; McDougall concludes in his essay:

Well, knighthood gave us the words courtesy and chivalry, taught men how to behave toward enemies, comrades, and women alike, and bade them prefer death to dishonor.

Stumble It!

Duty, Honor, Country! Nah Careerist Optimism

As far as military officers go I can only be best described as different. Over the years my superiors (and in many cases I must humbly use that word lightly) have used terms like; renegade, obstinate, bull-headed, confrontational and loose-cannon to describe me to my face. In private I am certain they use more profane descriptions. Some of the less offensive descriptions applied to me (still intended as rebuke) include, aggressive, non-conformist and maverick.

Somehow I have survived all of this, I sincerely believe the troops I have lead respect me - I guess ultimately only they can say, really doing what is right and being respected by soldiers is all that matters.

I have very few senior officers that I call true fans but then again there are very few senior officers I have ever truly respected. The number of my superiors that truly respect and admire me is directly related to the number of these folks that I respect and admire (odd that way).

When I was at The Citadel I was a bit of a contrarian - I never got along well with by-the-book, corn-cob in rectum sort of pretentious fellows (yes I went there before we had girls in the Corps). Don't get me wrong, I am deeply concerned with doing what is right, I have just never equated "right" with doing what looks good and what makes your superiors happy.

I am also different in my view of Iraq - the officer corps is generally steadfast in optimism for the war or at least ok with the conduct of the war. As GEN George Casey said the other day "US forces have not lost a battle in Iraq" (well that is quibbling, firefights have been lost for sure).

My difficulty in fully adapting to the military (after 21 years of trying) relates directly to the organizational culture of the officer corps.

Karen Kwiatkowski posts a description of this culture, nuanced in such a way that only someone that has been or is part of it could truly understand.

My mental scrapbook is filled with bits and pieces of the things we officers all knew to be true, things we all understood, things only we knew how to decipher. Like believing we were indeed on the leading edge of something special, something "American," something permanently useful and singularly sacrificial. We cultivated a secret and shared awareness of esoteric writings, like deployment orders, speeches of the great leaders, annual officer evaluations and glowing award citations.

The organizational culture of the officer corps in one of zero-defects, perfection is the objective and if that is not achieved the truth is covered in ambiguities or outright lies. Most officers learn this early and frequently. Fred Reed nails this issue on the head.

By contrast, officers can’t conclude anything but the positive. There are several reasons. Career officers, first, are politicians. You don’t get promoted by saying that the higher-ups are otherworldly incompetents. An officer’s loyalty is to his career, and to the officer corps, not to the country or to his troops. If this sounds harsh, note how seldom an active-duty officer will criticize policy, yet when he retires he may suddenly discover that said policy resulted in unnecessary deaths among the troops. Oh? Then why didn’t he say so when it would have saved lives?

When I was young I idealized military men from history that I read about. With a few very notable exceptions I have never met anyone close to these men in character, honor or integrity. Is this a product of our society or the logical progress of a profession turned bureaucratic via social experimentation? I cannot say for certain, at least I will not attempt to here.

Of course these problems are no longer relegated merely to the officer corps, sergeant majors all over the Army have become political toadies that no longer remember they are supposed to be trainers and guardians of troops.

I can only say that we have problems; deep, sad organizational problems.

Stumble It!

Appeal for Redress

Our nation has a pretty good history of managing itself such that the military stays apolitical. I have been in for 21 years now and I can tell you it is far from apolitical - things have changed greatly. There are some folks with profoundly negative opinions.

The other day a young soldier was driving me to a meeting and we were making small talk. I mentioned a bill that would extend the retirement benefit for soldiers killed in action and this young man said this without hesitation:

"That is right, Congress probably understands just how pissed off we are and wants to buy us off to keep us from coming home and changing things like the Roman legions."

Up to this point I considered this fellow a relatively simple man. He came to my unit from Iraq, his third tour there and he is pissed. Apparently he has thought about this and he had read a little history as well.

He is not alone, similar conversations come up in the oddest places with the folks you least expect it.

Today I discovered an article about a group seeking to pool the voices of disgruntle warriors.

From the Appeal for Redress website

As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.

It is sad that those who really ask so little feel the moral obligation to speak where so few others will speak. I suppose it is just a little more personal when you have friends that have died, have been there on the ground and seen the carnage and the failure first-hand.

The American people should be ashamed that it has come to this - their's is the voice that should speak these truths.

Stumble It!

Pat Tillman's Brother Speaks for Him

(El Cid Note I wrote about Pat Tillman in 2004 and again in 2005, I thought much of this but certainly did not say most of it. Pat made an amazing choice to leave the NFL and volunteer for the Rangers and the certainty he would see a lot of combat. The article below is written by a former ranger, sports team-mate and most importantly brother of Pat. With credentials like that this man has the right to speak for Pat - since Pat can no longer speak for himself. This is an amazingly powerful piece)

From Truthdig

It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we got out.

Much has happened since we handed over our voice:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman,

Kevin Tillman

Stumble It!

When the Empire Wants to Strike Back

NY Times: Have Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the men at the center of the twin confrontations that promise to dominate the last years of Mr. Bush’s presidency, looked at an America still pinned down in Iraq — its military stretched thin, its public weary of war — and concluded that this is their moment?

And if they have, is there much that Mr. Bush can do about it?

Last week I wrote that the US military hegemony is not as complete and total as GDP spending, troop numbers, technology etc. would indicate on paper.

Johnny and I are both real fans forward thinking folks that have preached since before 9/11 that the US must understand and integrate Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) into doctrine. Most of the discussion to date centers around operational and tactical application of this philosophy.

There is application to strategic thinking and planning that we have missed also. Sun Tzu might be able better than I to counsel the "deciders" on these points but let me state it as best I can anyway.

The fact is that even the strongest enemy cannot be strong everywhere all the time. No empire in history has ever been able to be completely dominate in all areas, all regions and in all circumstances at all time. (yes I do equate an economic and military hegemon with an empire of sorts so the comparison is fair in this instance).

The entire philosophy of 4GW dictates that you seek the weak spots of your enemy and exploit those. This principle is the same whether you are dealing with squads, battalions, divisions, regional armies or entire nations/empires. It differs from 3GW which concentrated on exploitation by maneuver in that in 4GW you pick when and where you will win, not just when and where you will fight. You attempt not to fight in 4GW in places and at times that you will not achieve something or where you do not have an advantage.

The US foreign policy is still third generational. We can move carrier battle groups, deploy long range bombers and put thousands of boots on the ground anywhere in a relatively short period of time. We exercise power by maneuver. But we cannot be everywhere at once, our enemies realize this.

To the above one must also add the fact of corporate, personal and government debt to the reason the American Empire is just not as strong as some proclaim.

The giant is not as nimble as some think and there are those that have realized this fact.

Stumble It!

Fire Rumsfeld

In light of Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial, I thought I would repost an item I wrote in 2004. If the neoconservatives want to win the wars they have started they have to begin by firing the arrogant fools they have in positions of power.



Originally posted 16 May 2004

The case against the effectiveness, utility and competence of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has grown almost daily since he entered office. Many attack Rumsfeld on purely political points and utilize the weaknesses he has demonstrated as an avenue to attack the Presidency of George W. Bush. While it may be said that the chief executive is indeed responsible for the actions of his subordinates it is not entirely fair to mesh Bush with Rumsfeld as one entity. That is not my point here.

Henry Kissinger once described Rumsfeld as "the most ruthless I ever met, third world dictators not excluded." Whether this is a truly accurate picture or not is probably debatable. To be sure we can access from his demonstrated behavior that he is controlling, manipulative, arrogant and not above spinning the truth to meet his needs.

Rumsfeld began his tenure in office with the goal of transforming the force. To many this was a welcomed dialogue to enter the public forum. Many initially gave great credit to the new SECDEF for realizing the need for real transformation. The plain fact is that any person of even modest capabilities ought to have been able to see the need for change. His crusade to make transformation a reality should not in and of itself mark the man for greatness. We should judge him on what changes he was able to effect in the months prior to 9/11. If he was to be the great transformer then surely those months would have been filled with great feats of organizational change.

What we find if we carefully examine the success of real transformation during 2000 and 2001 is that little was actually achieved. The opposite must be said to be true. Rumsfeld's gruff manner and propensity to believe that he alone had all of the answers and that officers that had dedicated their lives to military service could not be trusted only served to alienate the uniformed services and push the possibility of real change further from grasp.

To be entirely fair the perception by the civilian leadership that many of the senior officer corps was neither capable nor ready to accept real change held a real element of truth. Reformers from the past faced similar challenges. General George C. Marshall was faced with an officer corps that contained a large proportion of officers that were unfit for the challenges of WWII. Marshall set about a structured program of purging those officers and placing men into positions that could adapt. Marshall often reached deep into the ranks to find the right man for the job. He did not recruit lackeys of men that cloned his world view, he placed capable men that had the ability to manage and lead at the level that they were placed. Rumsfeld fired people during the early stages of his tenure but he never initiated real reform on the level required to transform an organization as large as the DoD. In this regard he failed as a reformer.

As a strategist and tactician Rumsfeld has also failed. First and foremost his vision of transformation was from the beginning flawed. Rumsfeld's view is one that uses fewer infantrymen and relies more on precision airstrikes and on small groups of special operation soldiers. He has sought cuts to fund an elaborate missile-defense system, unmanned planes and satellite-guided bombs. The idea that technology can and will prevail over the iron will of men is as old as warfare itself. Time and time again history has taught us that technology is never the decisive factor in war. Technology when properly applied and when utilized by superior soldiers and with superior strategy is an awesome combat multiplier. Technology does not in and of itself win wars. Our current experience in Iraq and Afghanistan only serve to reinforce the principle that victory can only be truly attained by solid men on the ground.

The Army was already well on the way toward transformation when Rumsfeld took office. To be sure the path may not have been entirely correct and modification was in order. However the battle of the Stryker is a golden example of Rumsfeld's personal flaws. For all of its weaknesses the Stryker presents a viable alternative to the post cold-war Army of big, heavy battalions. Instead of fighting a system that had the potential to be useful (and had by the way already absorbed billions of dollars) Rumsfeld set about attacking the program and those that championed it. This demonstrated a very real character flaw; if Rumsfeld did not think of it then it must be a bad idea in his mind.

General Eric Shinseki was the champion of the Stryker and the first service chief to order transformation as the order of the day. He did this in 1999, a year before Rumsfeld rolled on the scene. Immediately Rumsfeld and Shenseki clashed. This clash of ego versus who thought of what first resulted in dire consequences for the US military and US foreign policy.

During the ramp up for the War in Iraq General Shinseki told congress that he believed that approximately 300,000 troops would be required to subdue Iraq after the ground war ended. This was to Rumsfeld a direct slap in the face. Rumsfeld had been in the business at the time of assuring everyone that asked that the number was "not knowable". What sort of answer is that? It is the business of professional military men to utilize the military decision making process (MDMP) to create valid estimates. Many in uniform had the right answer; Shenseki was brave enough to speak what he saw as the truth. For that he was ushered disgracefully out of the service. Rumsfeld did not know the answer to the questions of how many troops would be required because he is a civilian, not a general. He has not been trained or educated to know these things. He was too arrogant, or too dishonest to listen to those that did know.

With the benefit of hindsight we can attribute all of the difficulties now brought about by the Iraq dilemma to the fateful decision to conduct the war on the cheap. We are fortunate that the Iraqis did not fight much and did not fight well when they made an attempt during the war. We have not been so fortunate in the post-war period. In fact the very reason that the insurgency has been able to grow and remain viable is because we do not have enough troops to effectively deal with the situation. Congress has just approved an increase in the Army end strength of 30,000 troops. This is too little and too late. Imagine the difference that increasing the end strength would have made in 2001 or early 2002. Imagine the difference of an extra 100,000 troops on the ground from the beginning of the post war operations. The nebulous goal of returning sovereignty to the Iraqis by June of 2004 just might have been an obtainable objective in such a case. Rumsfeld is fully responsible for this failure.

We might also judge Rumsfeld by the men that refuse to work for him. General Tommy Franks is one of the most commonsensical and down to earth men I have ever met. Inside of his humble exterior dwells a keen intellect and a firm grasp of what ought to be done. When Shinseki was sent packing the job of Army Chief of Staff seemed to be Franks. Instead, without comment, Franks politely refused and faded off into retirement. A man that has spent his entire lifetime devoted to duty and service does not ordinarily decline the possibility to serve in the highest position in the service. This action speaks volumes about what others think of the SECDEF.

Rumsfeld seems not to fully understand his role in the DoD nor does he seem to fully understand what civilian control means. He has repeatedly attempted to keep uniformed leaders from accessing or briefing the President without his first approving what will be said or being present during the meetings. The Constitution appoints the President as the Commander and Chief and empowers Congress to appoint officers to lead the Army. The SECDEF is merely an executive agent of the President's will. The relationship between the officers that lead the Army and the President that commands it must never be usurped by politically appointed middlemen.

Finally the entire fiasco at Abu Ghraib prison can be attributed in part to the actions of Donald Rumsfeld. To quote the New Yorker:

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld's long-standing desire to wrest control of America's clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story. He said, "Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding." The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld's testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, "Some people think you can bullshit anyone."

This all appears to stem from the demonstrated propensity of Rumsfeld to believe that he alone has all of the answers and that he alone should have control of all things. His folly in this case has resulted in the tarnishing of the reputation of all service members and may very well contribute in large part to America's eventual inability to achieve national objectives in Iraq.

America needs Donald Rumsfeld now even less than America needed Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War. History will judge Rumsfeld as brutally as that incompetent previous SECDEF. It is high time that the lies and double talk end; it is time for Mr. Rumsfeld to find other ways to spend his time. It is time for a new Secretary of Defense.

Rumsfeld; Woodward; State of Denial

Stumble It!