COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

Guard duty. No posts til monday. Have a great weekend!

Jason

Jane Galt has a very well written endorsement column here.

While I haven't really 'endorsed' a candidate (to do so for me would feel a bit pretentious. I have arguments, beliefs, and some insight into a limited few topics close to me, mostly having to do with small unit operations and logistics at the company and battalion level in Iraq. But who am I to "endorse" somebody?

And is there really any doubt to readers of this blog who I'll be punching for on Tuesday?

As a unit commander, I also like to retain a certain strategic ambiguity about my political leanings. I'm an officer to Democrats, Republicans, Greens (although right now I don't know of any in my unit), and I've even come across soldiers reading biographies of Eugene Debs and works by Noam Chomsky. As far as I know, only one or two of my troops read my blog. But I like to keep politics out of the workings of the unit, and one of the ways I do that is by listening respectfully to troops who tell me what they're thinking (seems to be 70% for Bush in my little corner of the army, which corroborates the Army Times survey and Annenberg surveys.). But I don't tell them what I'm thinking. If they really want to know, they can read the blog.

I don't mind other bloggers endorsements. And Jane Galt's thinking very much parallels mine on most issues. I like the way she set up the issue.

Splash, out

Jason

The New York Times paints a bleak picture of Ar Ramadi.

I wrote back in November 2003 that our main effort ought to have been civil affairs and reconstruction. It looks like the security situation has deteriorated to the point where the 2nd Bn, 5th Marines have lost the initiative.

The insurgents have the jump on the contractors, and it appears the Marines are doing their best just to maintain the status quo.

It will get better after we disinfect Fallujah. And if clearing out Fallujah forces the insurgents onto the open road, so much the better. Some of them will get nabbed as they try to slip into Ramadi.

The Marines do seem to be having a troop numbers issue, if they can't seal off the routes between Ramadi and Fallujah. There are two highways that connect them directly. Then you can take another route on the north side of the Euphrates, but you will have to cross a bridge somewhere to get to Ramadi. (Not that they'd neccessarily head to Ramadi right away). There are some other very rough routes that take you through the open desert south of the lake you see on the map. They would take you close to a US-controlled former Iraqi airfield that's nestled on the east side of the lake, between the lake and Fallujah. It would not take a huge force to interdict that traffic, with good weather and good helicopters.

And, of course, a healthy and well-advertised willingness to smoke anything that tries to move through the desert without our OK.

It's looking like the Marines, at current manning levels, are stretched thin. Are we concentrated somewhere else?

Splash, out

Jason

Two from the inbox:

Your item "Hey, While We're on the Subject...
How come it took the New York Times to break the First
Command and American Amicable story?" is right on.

The Army Times even published an article on this
subject quoting our good friend MAJ Patrick Swan and
then failed to mention that he is a former First
Command agent. I think he might be a "former agent"
only because he is currently an activated reservist. I
noticed that the week after the softball editorial
that failed to ID First Command, that First Command
ads once again reappeared in the Army Times.  The Army
Times has not responded to letters to them, nor
published my letter to the editor asking them to
provide full disclosure on Patrick Swan.

And this one from a field grade officer and OIF vet (I'm not sure if he's still in Iraq)

I was with one of the Task Force Bullet units policing up some of the millions of tons of ordnance around that country.  To hear a presidential candidate so badly distort our efforts -- when he knows he's telling lies -- is extremely insulting to me.  I just can't take another president that uses the military for props & political convenience, and whose administration can't be trusted to find the truth when given the PLGRed coordinates.  8 years of it during the prime of my career was more than enough.  I suspect I'm not alone.  If he's elected there will be an exodus, IMHO.

There may be an exodus if Kerry's elected. But it will be difficult to pin it on Kerry, if it happens early in his term...I think Bush/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz will get a share of the blame for increasing OPTEMPO to unsustainable levels - which I think is reasonable.

Ultimately, there's no getting around the fact that the Iraq garrison was supposed to be around 50,000 now, but we're still up around 130,000. I think that's a major planning-resource disconnect.

If I leave, it will have more to do with micro-issues, poor reserve component retirement benefits, and military-employer conflicts - as well as an unwillingness to sustain a deployment every 4-5 years as a guard officer. Kerry won't have much to do with it. I enjoyed my service under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II alike.

Ultimately, we support the Commander in Chief, whatever party he's from.

If Kerry wins, I plan to do my damnedest to help make him look good.

The first 300 pounds are the toughest.

How can they live with themselves?

The Times overstated the amount of missing RDX explosives material by, oh, over 10,000 percent.

(Plus it now comes out that some of the seals were useless because the bunkers had easily removable ventilation slats.

How come it took the New York Times to break the First Command and American Amicable story?

After all, these companies have been doing business on military installations for years! The story was right under their noses. It was on their beat!

Hell, I was spoonfeeding it to them in February!

Where were they? Why were they so embarrassingly scooped by a reporter in New York, of all unmilitary places?

Answer: They were too busy cashing their advertising checks.

Splash, out

Jason

Why are First Command's contractual investment plans a bad deal for investors?

Money Management Executive magazine lays the numbers out:

Based on a 10-year contractual plan with payments of $100 a month, an investor would incur a total sales load of $1,080 on total investments of $12,000 over the life of the plan. Compounding this unappealing setup is the fact that sales loads can be collected on an accelerated basis. In that scenario, the distributor can deduct half of every $100 payment until the entire sales load has been paid.

For example, after 22 months and $2,200 in contributions, only $1,120 will have been invested while the broker will have pocketed $1,080. In the event that the participant cancels the plan, the broker gets to keep the entire sales load, with the investor getting shafted with a 50% loss. In traditional mutual funds, sales loads cannot exceed 8.5% with most funds capping them at 5.75%. These loads are deducted from contributions as they are made and cannot be accelerated. Thus, if an investor cancels an investment, the commission paid does not exceed 5.75%.

Fortunately, the bill banning such contracts, and providing more protection to military customers (actually expanding the supervisory authority of insurance commissioners so that military customers get the same protections and safeguards against unethical and abusive practices as everyone else) passed the house by unanimous voice vote, passed the Senate 96-3,and was signed into law by the President on October 23rd.

The senators opposed were McCain and Kyl (Republicans from Arizona) and Feingold (D-WI).

Meanwhile, a recent Army Times editorial on the subject, in which these contracts were presented in a negative light, was very careful not to mention First Command by name (First Command happens to be a major advertiser in the Military Times publications.)

So much for a commitment to transparency, or to the reader.

Thank you, Army Times, for selling out the soldier to protect your advertiser.


Splash, out

Jason

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post erroneously listed Feingold's state as California. I regret the error.

What is it with these people?

The Times today runs an article based on an interview with the man who at the time commanded the 2nd Brigade, 101st division. He says his unit arrived on April 10th but did not search the site, because he didn't realize it was particularly sensitive. (Actually, he was probably more focused on destroying leftover Republican Guard formations. You know...finding the enemy and killing him where he was. Why on earth would anyone want us to be forming rings around shit and playing DEFENSE at that particular time?

So the NY Times is taking the US to task for failing to search Al Qaqa'a.

Unfortunately, they failed to mention that the area was already searched.

The 3rd ID had been there a week before, and searched it at the time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml

The site is enormous and U.S. troops are still investigating it for potential weapons of mass destruction, the official said.

"Initial reports are that the material is probably just explosives, but we're still going through the place," the official said.

Peabody said troops found thousands of boxes, each of which contained three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

He also said they discovered atropine, used to counter the effects of nerve agents.

The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N. inspectors visited the plant at least nine times, including as recently as Feb. 18.

The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa.

So apparently, the 3rd ID knew it was sensitive, even if the 2nd Brigade of the 101st did not. Which would make sense, because the 3rd ID would have been the ones to recieve the mission to seize it anyway. The 101st would have known that the area would have already been 'cleared' by the 3rd ID. And may even have conducted a relief in place from 3rd ID rear elements at the site who needed to push forward - I don't know. It would have made a handy logistics staging area, even if empty.

The Times interviewed the wrong unit, and failed to uncover that Al Qaqa'a had been previously searched even before the 101st arrived on the scene.

Funny how all the newspaper errors break the same way. Good job, guys!

Now, I'd like to see the NY Times analysis piece on how Saddam managed to move a monstrous truck convoy and enough troops and forklifts to move all the explosives between April 3rd 2003 and the collapse of his C and C which was--ohhh, sometime before that, actually-- without the convoy running into a US checkpoint, and without the looting effort being picked up by US helicopters?

Just how did that happen?

It boggles the mind.

The only theory that explains all the evidence is that Saddam cleared out the site between February 18th and April 3rd. He would have had plenty of time. He had the motive. He had the means. It would have been simple to do so.

Occam's Razor is looking very dull indeed at the Times.


(Hat tip: Powerline).

Splash, out

Jason

UPDATE: 2slick is confirming on Michael Totten's blogments that there WAS a relief in place conducted between the 3rd ID and the 101st at Al Qaqa'a. Which confirms that the 3rd ID did not leave the site until after the 10th, when the 101st was there.

The 3rd ID had already searched the site. They were on the site. There is no way that Saddam could have gathered 50-180 trucks (at what staging area?), then sent them from an Iraqi military installation to Al Qaqa'a, entered Al Qaqa'a, and loaded up 380 tons of explosives, WITH THE 3rd ID SITTING ON THE SITE. No way. It did not happen.

And it could not have happened after the 101st left, because A.) Air traffic would have picked up a 50 truck operation to loot the site, and B.) The 3rd ID had already searched the site and did not find a huge dump.

This story is a fraud.

It appears that the missing 370 tons of explosives -- made much of by Senator Kerry and other Administration critics as evidence of Bush's incompetence -- was missing before US troops even rolled in.

Drudge is reporting that an NBC News crew was embedded with the unit that rolled up on the Al Qaqa'a weapons facility on April 10th, and found that the expected weapons stores had already been looted.

Now, I never thought that this story was a huge deal to begin with. Yes, insurgents could use the material to make IEDs with. But every tribe in Iraq has huge weapons stores of its own, which they used to hedge against other tribes in the event of a collapse of the Hussein regime. Members of my own battalion dug up mortar shells by the hundreds, and artillery shells by the dozens, the whole time we were there. Digging up another weapons cache was almost a daily occurance at times in Ramadi.

And every few days, we'd get a notice that 30 or 40 or 50 tons of explosives were about to be detonated out in the desert south of Ramadi or west of Fallujah (so we wouldn't get spooked by the huge explosion and the mushroom cloud in the distance.)

370 tons of ordnance sounds like a lot. And it is. But if you know Iraq, it's really a drop in the bucket.

Here's the other reason it was a dumb idea for Democrats to use the missing ordnance as evidence of Bush's incompetence:

It's not the President's job to look at a map and tell the Secretary of Defense what sites he wants secured. It's not even the SecDef's job to do that. The identification and securing of the weapons site was entirely the purview of the military commander on the ground at the time, CENTCOM commander General Tommy Franks.

A Clinton appointee.

Funny how Kerry never calls Franks' competence into question.

I know I don't.

And it turns out that Franks is vindicated. He did what he was supposed to do - US troops were on the scene before the dust even cleared. Now, it is true that he could have dispatched special operations troops to secure the site even earlier. But these troops would have been isolated, and too light to last long on the desert floor, unsupported, in a static defense. On a literal powder keg. It would have been foolish to commit them; the Iraqis obviously showed up in enough strength to move 370 tons pretty quickly.

Special ops troops don't exactly grow on trees, either. A good portion of the available SPECOPS troops were committed to protecting the Iraqi oil infrastructure, as well as the dam at Hadithah.

Had sabateurs gotten to Hadithah or the oil fields before our own guys, Bush would have been raked through the coals for neglecting to secure Iraq's industry, and for allowing the prime power generator for the Euphrates River Valley to go unprotected, and for allowing insurgents to plunge the entire valley into darkness.

You never have enough troops or resources to do everything you want to do. Ever.

So jumping the gun and securing Al Qaqa'a early was not a real option, either, when you adjust the likely outcome against the risk of having an American detachment overwhelmed.

Maybe that wasn't a big deal for Clinton at Mogadishu. But soldiers tend to resent being hung out on a fishhook like that.

Kudos to Captain Ed for being one of the first to call "BS" on the original NY Times story. And to the NBC News crew for showing up.

I can't say the New York Times reporters were inept, though. The White House seemed to confirm the notion that the explosives went missing sometime AFTER the arrival of US troops.

That was clearly an error on the White House's part. The New York Times did what they were supposed to do: try to build a detailed timeline, and write the story from that.

So a good part of the blame has to fall on the White House press office themselves.

We'll see how the New York Times corrects the error, though.

Splash, out

Jason

Bob Woodward tells about how Kerry's been dodging an interview on Iraq for months.

In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.

I guess these advisers are easily persuaded.

Me, consider me from Missouri. Show me.

Splash, out

Jason

Here's one for the books:

A Colorado Springs woman recently received a call from someone claiming to be from Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign who expressed condolences about the death of her husband in Iraq. When the woman said she knew her husband was still alive, the caller said a vote for Kerry would help keep him that way.

The Kerry campaign, of course, blames it on Republicans. Makes sense. John Kerry can't even take responsibility for the car in his driveway.

How about a simple "if true, this tactic is outrageous and the Democratic party condemns this and other similar actions. This is not what the Democratic party stands for, and we call on all our members to behave with the same civility we expect of our Republican opponents."

No. They have to turn everything around as an attack. It's sheer dysfunction.


Not to be outdone, of course, here's a Republican idiot distinguishing himself in Colorado:

Randal Wagner was removing Kerry-Edwards signs from lawns in Lakewood when he allegedly shoved one homeowner who tried to stop him, according to a police report. He later ended up tripping over a chain-link fence and knocking himself out. He was charged with trespassing and theft.

Yeah, that's the ticket. He, um...

...tripped. :)


At least the Republican has responded manfully to the attitude adjustment he allegedly didn't receive at the hands of an indignant homeowner:

Wagner now says he "sincerely apologizes" for his actions and hopes "moderating voices" prevail in the political debate.

Via Drudge.

Splash, out

Jason

... Or at least is dutifully reporting that the Democrats are finally making that claim. But look how desperately they have to torture the data to come to that conclusion!

So why the confidence? Greenberg cited two internal numbers from the part of the poll that focused on "persuadable" voters. That group includes undecided voters, Bush and Kerry supporters who say their minds remain open, and a third group, Bush voters who say they want the country to go in a significantly different direction. The first number Greenberg cited was this: Fifty-seven percent of the persuadable voters in the Democracy Corps poll said they want to know how a candidate will "make the economy and health care better for people," while only 32 percent want to know "how you'll make us safe." The other number Greenberg highlighted: Given a choice between "I'm comfortable with changing to a new person if he has the right priorities" and "Bush has made us safer and I'm reluctant to change," 54 percent of persuadable voters said they were comfortable with changing, and 45 percent said they were reluctant. The responses to those two questions, Greenberg said, show that Kerry has "an audience" ready to listen to his message. He just has to "seal the deal."

Well, yeah. But 'sealing the deal' is extremely difficult.

Reminds me of a famous punchline:

"With this much horseshit, there's got to be a pony in here somewhere!"


Splash, out

Jason

MSNBC talking head Dan Abrams has aired a commentary asking why press outlets are afraid of the word "terrorist."

Dan Kincaid takes MSNBC to task for being guilty of the same syntactic spinelessness.

We searched the MSNBC web site for stories about the terrorists and found an Associated Press story referring to beheadings of Americans committed by "Islamic militants." We found a story about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who runs the group that claims responsibility for suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings. He was merely labeled a "Jordanian-born militant." Ironically, Abrams had complained about the media labeling Zarqawi "an Iraqi insurgent, not the terrorist that he is." But his own network ran a story calling him a "militant."

...MSNBC on September 30 ran an AP story about three bombs exploding at a neighborhood celebration in Iraq, killing 35 children and seven adults. The story said, "The bombs in Baghdad's al-Amel neighborhood caused the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the conflict in Iraq began 17 months ago." Insurgent? Once again, MSNBC failed to meet the standards that Dan Abrams says he expects of other media. The Washington Post wasn't any better, calling the attacks "a dramatic escalation of the country's violent insurgency…" The refusal to identify and describe terrorism dulls the public mind to the realities of what we face in this war. Using terms like "militant" or "insurgent" gives some form of legitimacy to the terrorism they were responsible for.

MSNBC talking head Dan Abrams has aired a commentary asking why press outlets are afraid of the word "terrorist."

Dan Kincaid takes MSNBC to task for being guilty of the same syntactic spinelessness.

We searched the MSNBC web site for stories about the terrorists and found an Associated Press story referring to beheadings of Americans committed by "Islamic militants." We found a story about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who runs the group that claims responsibility for suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings. He was merely labeled a "Jordanian-born militant." Ironically, Abrams had complained about the media labeling Zarqawi "an Iraqi insurgent, not the terrorist that he is." But his own network ran a story calling him a "militant."

...MSNBC on September 30 ran an AP story about three bombs exploding at a neighborhood celebration in Iraq, killing 35 children and seven adults. The story said, "The bombs in Baghdad's al-Amel neighborhood caused the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the conflict in Iraq began 17 months ago." Insurgent? Once again, MSNBC failed to meet the standards that Dan Abrams says he expects of other media. The Washington Post wasn't any better, calling the attacks "a dramatic escalation of the country's violent insurgency…" The refusal to identify and describe terrorism dulls the public mind to the realities of what we face in this war. Using terms like "militant" or "insurgent" gives some form of legitimacy to the terrorism they were responsible for.

This time in a clumsy attempt to shut me down.

Someone is coopting the email addresses of other bloggers and using them to send a blitz of viral attachments to e-mails--apparently in an attempt to shut me down for a few days right before the campaign.

Ooooh...big deal. I'm a very small fish. (Actually, in the TTLB Blogosphere Ecosystem, I'm a "Large Mammal,")

Except that Cori Dauber and Glenn Reynolds are reporting the same thing -- and the emails I'm getting are from people like Jonah Goldberg and Cori herself.

Someone wants to shut down the conservative meme factory at just the right time -- eliminating the possibility that the blogosphere will uncover another Rathergate scandal or give legs to a story that would hurt Kerry's campaign which would otherwise go unnoticed.

Funny how all the scumbag dirty tricks this year are breaking the same way.

Dumbwits.

If they really wanted to help Kerry, they'd spirit Teresa Heinz off to an "undisclosed location" and try to shut down the UK Guardian.

Splash, out

Jason

...Democrats cry "fowl."

As if the Guardian hadn't embarrassed itself enough, a columnist is openly calling for the murder of the US President within its pages:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Now, I'm not convinced that the European world, having idly stood by and watched Srebrenica get sacked, having served as enablers and financiers for Saddam Hussein, having obstructed efforts to investigate mass graves in Iraq, having sold out the people of Darfur, having served as the cradle of the Holocaust, and having given us the term "soccer hooligan" can lay much of a claim to being 'civilized' of late.

They'll pay lip service to the values of the Enlightenment. Unless, of course, it obligates them to lift a finger.

Here we have a columnist who at once pays homage to 'the civilized world' while at the same time calling for a sniper's bullet.

Left, behold your son.

Splash, out

Jason

Great news.

The U.S. military has arrested a "senior leader" in the network run by Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, along with five others during overnight raids in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, officials said Saturday.

This is significant for two reasons:

1.) Obviously, we got the guy. And five of his friends.

2.) Our intelligence has penetrated Zarqawi's network, or Fallujah, in a significant way. My guess is that this would be a combination of human and signal intelligence.

3.) Perhaps most significantly, it shows that US troops can still operate in Fallujah.


Nice.

Splash, out

Jason

The following is from the Web page of a consumer protection law firm called Lieff Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, LLP

The national consumer protection law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is investigating alleged deceptive and unfair business practices by companies selling supplemental life insurance and other financial products to soldiers, marines, airmen, navy personnel and other members of the U.S. armed forces. Allegations have been made that the insurance sold to GIs provides little additional coverage at high prices.
          Companies that Lieff Cabraser is investigating include:
* Trans World Assurance
* Academy Life Insurance Company
* American Fidelity life Ins. Co.
* American Amicable life Ins. Co.
* Pioneer American Insurance Co.
* First Command


          Specific insurance plans that are subject to this investigation include:
* Flexible Dollar Builder
* Wealth Builder
* Security Builder
* Fidelity Destiny Fund II
* Pioneer Independence Fund

They aren't Milberg Weiss, the 800 pound gorilla of the financial services industry class action lawsuit world. But they're a substantial firm with the resources to devote to a national case.


The firm isn't going to want to turn away business, so if you feel you've been wronged by another financial services company not listed here., they want you to feel free to contact them. There is no charge or obligation if they consider your case.

It's interesting...by turning the case into a class-action, the companies in question have no recourse to force the case into mandatory NASD arbitration, which is notoriously biased against the consumer.

This will substantially increase the legal costs of the lawsuit (and depress any eventual judgement or settlement), but the chances of a broad success, and meaningful punitive damages, are also increased by pulling the case OUT of the NASD arbitration rooms and in front of a jury.

Their website is www.lieffcabraser.com

Splash, out

Jason

Countercolumn received no compensation for this powder-puff posting (not that I'd complain if I did.)

The normally well-balanced Phil Carter has taken yet another opportunity to slime reservists, this time in his article on Slate.

The professional active-duty force of today still represents the best argument for why we do not want to resume the draft:A conscript-based force simply can't achieve the skill, unit cohesion, or professionalism of today's active military.

But America's weekend warriors are a different story.

The reservists closely resemble the draftees of days gone by.

Well, our draftees have historically served this nation very well, Phil, so thanks for the complement.

Reservists train for one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer

:

Must be nice. I've got 12 years in, though, and I've never been in a unit like that.

Thirty-nine days a year is hardly enough to build true tactical competence on the complex tasks of warfighting.

That's a matter of how you use your time. You can't build proficiency in battalion level operations in the reserve components. So smart units don't even try. With good training management, though, you can build excellent units from the crew and squad level up to platoon level. Reserve component units get a leg up, actually, because their crews are together for so long. And in some MOSs, our reservists have even more experience than our active duty soldiers.

Look, a 30 year old reservist who's been driving military trucks for twelve years --and who very likely possesses a CDL as a professional full time driver at home, is simply a better and safer truck driver than a 20 year old active duty soldier who's been driving trucks for 18 months. Particularly when it comes time to haul a trailer.

The same applies to mortar and artillery crews. If I got woken up in the middle of the night by a mortar attack, I used to look at my watch and time how long it was before we launched some counterbattery fire.

The National Guard guys routinely bested the active duty guys. I mean, without fail. It's not entirely an apples to apples comparison, since the Guard guys were mortarmen and the active duty guys were artillery crews, and mortars are usually more responsive than artillery for command and control reasons.

Then again, it was an active duty FDC that launched five 155 rounds into a residential area in Ramadi one night last February because they mixed up a couple of grid coordinates. (Miraculously, no one was killed, and we replaced the homes that were destroyed and livestock lost).

Now, where the National Guard units can't compete is when we get into Brigade level operations and up, simply because there are not enough opportunities to fully train battle staffs.

But a National Guard or Reserve transportation unit, after nearly a year on active duty, is going to be fully capable of putting a platoon on the road. If properly supported.

Soldiers in logistics units like the 343rd learn how to drive their big rigs and maintain them, but they hardly have time to practice convoy defense or route reconnaissance.

Well, this unit has been DOING convoy defense for nine months. Lack of competence is not at issue here, and no one save Carter is alleging it, at least as far as these troops are concerned.

The lack of training time is compounded by other resource problems in the reserves.

Many reserve leaders don't have significant active-duty experience

,

Most of us do. Especially now. But even as an infantry platoon leader in the early 1990s, my platoon sergeant and two of my three squad leaders had CIBs. My first two platoon sergeants were veterans of Viet Nam.

Now, consider the lieutenant level. In a typical Guard unit, most lieutenants will have come from OCS or ROTC, and most were enlisted before. Some extensively. When I deployed to Iraq as a lieutenant, I was 34 years old, and had already had two commands and a JROTC rotation. All of our platoon leaders were in their late 20s or early 30s, and had already made their new lieutenant mistakes.

When you compare us to the more typical 23-24 year old lieutenants on active duty, I would argue that in many cases, the

active duty

leaders don't have significant active duty experience.

they lack the expertise necessary to train their units on these important missions. Reserve equipment—particularly in the National Guard—suffers from decades of neglect.

True. But that has nothing to do with the reservists in question. The resource allocation and procurement decisions are made in Washington. By people on active duty.


Further, this unit has been in Iraq for more than 9 months already. For all intents and purposes, they are quite literally active duty soldiers.

When the Army created its "total force concept"—the mix of active and reserve forces it has today—after the Vietnam War, it allocated combat units mostly to the active force, while support and logistics units were put in the reserves. The Army assumed it didn't need highly trained truck drivers on active duty as badly as it needed infantrymen, tankers, and aviators on active duty.

False. Since about 1967, the combat arms formations have been roughly equally split between the active and reserve components, thanks to the Abrams doctrine with almost all the combat arms units going to the National Guard (with the exception of the 100th/442nd, which is a Reserve unit in Hawaii and Samoa)

Reservists today get mobilized, trained on the most basic tasks of war, and then shipped to Iraq in a matter of weeks.

No, that's not true by a long shot. Reservists don't just materialize out of thin air right before mobilization. It takes some time to ramp fully up to speed, but you aren't starting with basic trainees.

The reservists in Iraq lack the training, equipment, leadership, and resources to do their job.

Hogwash. This platoon has been doing its job for nine months. Our reservists and guardsmen have been doing their JOBS since September 11th! Many in shortage MOSs are on their second tours. A few are on their third, counting homeland defense and safe skies duty.

Most reserve units I had the honor to work with overseas performed terrifically. By August 2003, you couldn't tell them apart. Both forces had become lean, mean, competent, and battle-hardened. The only difference was our troops had only two sets of clothing and the active duty guys had four. Oh, and our guys weren't getting paid.

But that wasn't the reservists' fault, either. The people responsible for paying reservists attached to active duty units were...you guessed it...active duty.

And their morale proves it; surveys conducted under the Army's auspices last year showed a marked difference between the attitudes of active-duty soldiers and Marines, and of reservists like those in the 343rd.

Gee...96% of reserve component soldiers have serious pay problems. And you wonder why they might have morale problems? The pay problems alone would explain the morale differential.

Consequently, reservists today are acting in ways that look startlingly like conscripts of yesterday.

Let's see...Carter looks at the actions of a single platoon -- on which the jury is still out -- and slimes 80,000 troops with it.

I think if Mr. Carter had seen what I've seen, and had actually integrated reserve troops into active formations in Iraq, and seen how they behave in the field, he wouldn't say that.

Splash, out

Jason

...So the Spanish sell their souls in return for a separate peace with terrorists.

And what do they get in return?

A mouth full of ashes.

Splash, out

Jason

Hat tip: Ranting Profs

I don't think there's any serious doubt among thinking people (you know, other than NPR reporters and hard-core Democrats) that Sinclair Broadcasting is within its rights to critically examine Kerry's record, even shortly before an election.

I also don't think there's any serious doubt anymore that Sinclair Broadcasting is run by assholes.

Sinclair in a statement late Monday said that "we are disappointed that Jon's political views caused him to violate company policy and speak to the press about company business."

Umm, excuse me, Sinclair, but Lieberman was talking about the public trust and the use of the public airwaves.

That's OUR business!

Their refusal to waive Jon Lieberman's noncompete agreement - thereby driving him out of most major markets for at least a year and seriously handicapping his career - is a particularly venomous and vindictive touch.

Hey, Sinclair - let me know when you start looking to hire journalists and not robot Borg-men from Planet Zombie, and maybe I'll tune into your programming someday.

Splash, out

Jason

From the Wall Street Journal.

(Look, don't be cheapskates! Get a subscription!)

We got problems in the Reserve components. Not that that ought to be a surprise to longtime readers of this blog. But a thus far unpublicized Dept. of the Army survey quantifies it.

70% of reservists feel they were personally well prepared for their combat duties. But only 45% of reservists who HAD been deployed felt that their units were well prepared for their wartime duties -- a much lower figure than the total percentage of reservists, both deployed and undeployed, who felt that way (56%).

The results also indicated that the desire of the part-time soldiers to stay in the Reserves and National Guard is eroding. About 59% of Army Reservists and 62% of Army National Guard soldiers said they intended to stay in the military, down about 10 percentage points from 12 months earlier. As a result of the survey, the Pentagon in some instances tripled enlistment bonuses to as much as $15,000 for a six-year commitment, Dr. Chu said.

The Department of the Army is saying the retention numbers are nothing to worry about. But if that were really true, they wouldn't bother upping enlistment bonuses, would they?

Meanwhile, about 70% of Army National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers said they personally felt well prepared for their wartime jobs. Guardsmen and reservists who had served in Iraq reported even higher personal readiness rates of about 80%.

That's because we have some terrific NCOs and junior officers at the grass roots level. (If employers only knew the talent they have!)

Our failures are usually at company level and above. I have fallen short many times in many ways. My troops have never let me or you down, ever.

The somewhat unique nature of the Iraq war, in which supply soldiers seem to be specifically targeted by insurgents, may explain why a majority of Army Reservists operating there said their units weren't well prepared. Dr. Chu said the Pentagon hadn't reached a firm conclusion on why so many Iraq Reservists felt their units' weren't ready. "It's a puzzle...[but] we don't see it as a cause for alarm," he said.

Ok, guys...think back. Think about your OPTEMPO over the last decade. How much time did you give your SUPPORT elements to focus on battle drills, counter-ambush procedures, TTPs, live fire exercises, and rehearsals.

Sure, your infantry units got on the live fire range. But what about SUPPORT formations? Where were the live fire convoy ambush training facilities three years ago?

Did your 50 Cal. Machine gun ringmounts get rusty and frozen in place?

When your company XOs were screaming for weeks and months back in the mob site, after having new ringmounts on order for a year at home station, were higher echelons able to get them fixed?

No.

Dr. Chu, it's not that big a puzzle. And if we haven't figured it out, it IS cause for alarm, because men and women's lives are hanging in those ringmounts, and other parts like them.

The Army Reserve soldiers who refused orders last week to drive a dangerous supply route through Iraq's Sunni triangle were members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, one of the few units in Iraq whose trucks lack protective armor, the unit's commanding general said at a news conference over the weekend.

Brig. James E. Chambers, the commander of the 13th Corps Support Command, said concerns about the lack of armor along with vehicle maintenance led the soldiers to balk at the mission. "Not all of their trucks are completely armored. In their case, they haven't had the chance to get armored," Gen. Chambers said of the unit.

Why? They've been in country for nine months! (Apparently the kits DO exist for this type of vehicle) They couldn't stand down a couple of trucks a day to have the armor kits installed? WTF?????

Today, about 80% of the 4,000 vehicles in his unit have been fitted with custom steel plates, the general said. The Army says it has ramped up production of armored Humvees to about 450 a month from about 230 a month last March.

Great. There are therefore hundreds more Humvees available to commanders in Iraq. The uparmor model comes with radios and a machine gun mount. Great convoy security vehicle.

How come, with hundreds more humvees available than when I was in Iraq, a LIGHT infantry battalion was able to provide security vehicles and comms for our logpacks, but we can't find a lead and trail vehicle or two for a whole platoon of fuel trucks?

I don't get it.

The survey also showed that as the pace of military operations and the violence has accelerated, Army Guard and Reserve soldiers and their families have become less satisfied with the military life. The number of Guardsmen and Reservists who reported their spouses viewed their service favorably fell 15 percentage points from last year to 60%.

I'm surprised it's that high. Great! Our families are tremendous. I already knew that. Even the critical ones are tremendous. But I thought the figure would be closer to 40%.

Maybe that's just local to Florida, though, given the fact we've been so heavily tapped in the last couple of years.

Splash, out

Jason

I'm gonna go out and buy it!!!!

Then I'm gonna write my own children's book, called "The Blue Velveteen Rabbit!"

Sy Hersh, it is true, is a screaming lib.

He's also a first-rate, top-of-the-line reporter.

And now he's saying he has sources alleging that US troops are guilty of a mass murder.

Apparently he doesn't have enough to put it in print. But he was right about My Lai. He was right about Abu Ghraib.

I've got enough respect for him to be open to the possibility that he's onto something here.

In the evening's most emotional moment, Hersh talked about a call he had gotten from a first lieutenant in charge of a unit stationed halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border. His group was bivouacking outside of town in an agricultural area, and had hired 30 or so Iraqis to guard a local granary. A few weeks passed. They got to know the men they hired, and to like them. Then orders came down from Baghdad that the village would be "cleared." Another platoon from the soldier's company came and executed the Iraqi granary guards. All of them.

"He said they just shot them one by one. And his people, and he, and the villagers of course, went nuts," Hersh said quietly. "He was hysterical, totally hysterical. He went to the company captain, who said, 'No, you don't understand, that's a kill. We got 36 insurgents. Don't you read those stories when the Americans say we had a combat maneuver and 15 insurgents were killed?'

"It's shades of Vietnam again, folks: body counts," Hersh continued. "You know what I told him? I said, 'Fella, you blamed the captain, he knows that you think he committed murder, your troops know that their fellow soldiers committed murder. Shut up. Complete your tour. Just shut up! You're going to get a bullet in the back.' And that's where we are in this war."

Hey, I'm all about waxing terrorist assholes. And I'm also willing to give the soldier the benefit of every doubt.

What I'm not willing to countenance is the coverup of possible war crimes.

It's possible the LT doesn't know what he's talking about. He might not be privy to every piece of intelligence. The word 'execute' might not be accurate.

But if this LT's platoon was, indeed, outraged, and if this village was similarly outraged by what happened, then there's probably enough out there to jumpstart an investigation.

Apparently, Sy's not interested.

So what's the deal, Iraq readers? Anyone know anything about this?

I'm off duty at the moment. But I'm still a commissioned officer, and sworn to uphold this little thing called the law. I'll get it to the chain of command, to the chaplain, to someone who can move the investigation forward, and no one needs to know who started it.

Oh, and to prevent my falling victim to a Mooronic hoax, don't bother writing except via a 'dot.mil' address with enough verifiable detail about the locale and incident to be fully corroborated. I.e., I'll pull your electronic service records or call your rear detachment to verify your identity and unit of assignment before I go with anything fishy.

Splash, out

Jason

Last week, the liberal English newspaper the UK Guardian obtained voting registration records for one hotly contested Ohio county, and then invited Guardian readers to 'adopt a voter' and write them letters about why they should vote for Kerry over Bush.

The scheme, predictably, generated thousands of letters and emails right back to the Guardian.

This is my favorite:

I suggest that if a particular reader of the Guardian would like to vote in America - would really like to influence the American election, say - that reader should move to America, become a citizen of the United States. Everyone is welcome here. Even the readers of the Guardian. But if you don't wish to be an American, to live in Ohio, for instance, and participate in the American political process, that is too bad. Perhaps there is something wrong with you. Perhaps it is your teeth.
New York

Jason

Last week, the liberal English newspaper the UK Guardian obtained voting registration records for one hotly contested Ohio county, and then invited Guardian readers to 'adopt a voter' and write them letters about why they should vote for Kerry over Bush.

The scheme, predictably, generated thousands of letters and emails right back to the Guardian.

This is my favorite:

I suggest that if a particular reader of the Guardian would like to vote in America - would really like to influence the American election, say - that reader should move to America, become a citizen of the United States. Everyone is welcome here. Even the readers of the Guardian. But if you don't wish to be an American, to live in Ohio, for instance, and participate in the American political process, that is too bad. Perhaps there is something wrong with you. Perhaps it is your teeth.
New York

Jason

They state their case here.

I wouldn't throw around the 'T-word' very lightly. I would rather consider the patriotism of a former president to be above question.



There's no doubt, though, that as a former Chief Exec, Mr. Carter has given our nation's enemies a rhetorical early Christmas present with statements like these:

We have had a very disturbing change in our country in the last three or four years: from a 200-year history of war as a last resort to ‘pre-emptive war’. We have to attack other people in order to prevent danger to ourselves and, of course, now aerial bombing and long-range missiles attack both military and civilian populations with impunity.

Man, getting Carter to give advice on when and where to defend the interests of the United States is like getting the Central Park Jogger to give advice on self-defense.

It's a shame that even the elder statesmen of the Democratic party have degenerated to the point where they will utter any inanity, any slander against our servicemen, regardless of how their own words will be cited by our nation's enemies and used against our interests, for the purposes of short-term political gain.

I thought Carter was above that nonsense.

I guess I thought wrong.

Splash, out

It turns out that the fuel trucks weren't armored yet.
No surprise. No matter how much armor you stick on a fuel truck, it's still a fuel truck.

The fact that the trucks were not armored would not and should not in and of itself warrant a combat refusal.

Nobody ever has every single little thing they want to have when they go into battle. No unit ever hit the combat zone with a perfect equipment situation.

But we were installing Armox armor onto our vehicles last December. Before then, you know what "armoring the vehicles" meant? It meant tying unused flak jackets to the rails and draping them over the doors.

That's it.

We did a lot of convoys with canvas doors. And no doors. In Ramadi.

So I'm not too impressed with the "lack of armor" defense.

Nor am I impressed with the army's inability to armor these trucks, though, a full nine months after my own Guard unit had completed installation on our vehicles Which took about a week. And we left our Armox kits in Kuwait for installation on follow-on vehicles from OIF II. It may be that no standard ARMOX kit is available for this version.

There's a lot more to this story than the armor, though. We'll see what comes out. The maintenance situation, and the apparent failure of the command to support this unit with security or commo gear is what interests me the most.

Trucking companies have very limited communications gear of their own. They are usually sliced out to support maneuver units for their missions.

In our case, we would usually gain a platoon of trucks to support the battalion, with maybe a 2LT platoon leader or an E-6 or E-7 platoon sergeant. And his drivers and their trucks.

And that's it.

It was the gaining unit's responsibility to provide armed escorts, to plan and resource casualty evacuation, and to ensure that reasonable commo assets were included on every convoy.

Again, though, the integration of Guard units into the Class IX (spare parts) system was so bad we couldn't support trans unit's 5 ton trucks. They had to be towed to a totally separate facility to get worked on, which forced us to run extra convoys and take more risks. (Tip: Where possible, a substantial slice of truckers should come with an additional slice mechanic and some basic spare parts and tools. That way, the gaining unit can order the parts and mechanics can crosstrain each other on the different vehicles. And simple repairs can be done forward, decreasing turnaround time on the repair and keeping trucks on the road.)

Questions to answer:

Did the gaining or supported command do its job?

Was this a chronic failure to resource for force protection, medevac, or even basic communications?

Did the gaining unit follow through on maintenance requests?

Had they been enforcing proper PMCS all year?

Is the issue with lack of parts? Or problems identifying deadline faults in order to order parts in the first place?

The Times is playing it up like these guys are martyrs. Of course, that's the kind of story you get if you're relying so much in quoting their parents.

The jury's still out.

Splash, out

Jason

The New York Times endorsed John Kerry today in a laughable essay that, in any other mainstream outlet, would pass for anti-liberal satire.

He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

No. Men with strong moral cores don't have to flip flop. Nor do they exploit the children of candidates to score political points.

The Times editorial board then goes on -- in the face of an economy better than it was in 1996 by any measure you care to name, in the face of the fall of the Taliban, in the face of burgeoning democracy for millions of people abroad who had only known oppression, in the face of rape rooms being shut down, torture chambers being shuttered, an expanding economy, and Libya abandoning its nuclear program -- in the face of all this, characterizes the president's term as "disastrous."

Normally, I would expect such intemperate language from a pajama-clad blogger.

Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency

These losers will never get over it. But it wasn't the Supreme Court that awarded the presidency. The USSC simply recognized the fact that Al Gore had yet to win a single count.

Had Al Gore EVER been ahead in Florida, he might have had a beef. The New York Times, unfortunately, would love to disenfranchise the voice of Florida voters, and credit the Supreme Court with Bush's victory.

Hell, the New York Times is still throwing around the journalistically inappropriate phrase "anti-choice agenda," which I wouldn't even let fly in a high school newspaper.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy.

It's one thing to disagree with supply-side theory. It's quite another to be so ignorant of economics - or so mired in left wing ideology that you can't even frame your argument. An editorial board that cannot even grasp that both supply-siders AND Keynesian economists would agree that tax cuts stimulate economic growth cannot possibly hope to coach their reporters to clear-eyed and balanced coverage. They don't even understand it.

As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated

Nice try, bozos. But the fact is that general fund money CANNOT be used to "strengthen Social Security." It is simply impossible as a matter of logic and structure to do so. The ONLY ways Social Security can be strengthened now is via some form of privatization, an increase in Social Security taxes in years going forward (which would only be relevant for the fiscal year in which the money is collected) or a reduction in promised benefits.

There is no way to use current revenues to strengthen Social Security against a cash-flow problem in future years unless you are willing to privatize. What else are you going to do? Buy Treasuries, dumbass? It's impossible. (Some idiot always writes in and says "put it in a bank." To be insured by what body? And to be invested in what? Congratulations, loser, you just privatized Social Security!)

But an institution that can't even properly explain Social Security again has no hope of coaching its reporters to provide decent and informed coverage, since they are wallowing so deeply in ignorance they are unable to discern between analysis and pablum.

The Times mentions the Bush Administration's "disrespect for civil liberties" (without getting more specific). The thing is, every time I turn around, it's the DEMOCRATS threatening to sue TV stations and attempting to suppress the free flow of ideas.

Immigrants were rounded up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department's own inspector general found were often "unduly harsh"
conditions.

Welcome to Clinton Era immigration policy. Ask any Haitian.

Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement.

Precisely. Combatants don't get to challenge their confinement. They've never been able to challenge their confinement. They're not normally charged with crimes. The New York Times - again hopelessly ignorant of the conventions covering the legal status of prisoners of war and how they've historically been held - doesn't even appear to have the candlepower to create an informed analysis, but instead tries to apply wholly irrelevant peacetime domestic legal practices to protect the rights of CITIZENS and residents of the United States to the conduct of a war on foreign soil.

Enemy combatants have a right to humane treatment. They do NOT have a right to "due process" in the same way that an American criminal suspect does.

Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means.

Lovely. And I suppose that in the Magical Kingdom of Kerry, we're going know a priori which low level Al Qaeda sympathizers who wish to do something terrible will lack the means, so Kerry will leave them alone?

What a stupid, stupid policy assumption.

He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda.

False.

Richard Clarke himself argued that a large Iraqi presence at the chemical weapons plant in Khartoum was probably "as a result of the Iraq-Al Qaeda agreement" (page 128 of the 9/11 commission report).

Richard Clarke also warned against provoking Bin Ladin into moving into Iraq, where Al Qaeda would then be placed at Saddam's service it would become much more difficult for the US to find Bin Ladin. (p. 134 of the 9/11 commission report.)


And we haven't even gotten to Zarqawi, yet.

Hussein was harboring at least three known global terrorists: one was Zarqawi, known to have Al Qaeda links. The others were Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.

The president was clear: "We will draw no distinction between the terrorists, and those who harbor them."

But Hussein's decision to provide aid and comfort to Zarqawi - and by some accounts, to arm him - alone falsifies the New York Times's claim.

I chalk the Times' sloppiness up to their curious inability to distinguish the difference between "links to 9/11" and "links to Al Qaeda."

Al Qaeda is bigger than 9/11.

He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting.

The Times is proffering two shameless lies, back to back.

Saddam's attempt to buy Uranium from Niger have been documented further since the 'sixteen words' story from 2003. The New York Times conveniently leaves out the two reports that would damage their argument.

Indeed, the British intelligence report says that the allegation was "well-founded," and has been further corroborated by a separate American report. You don't find that in the Times, though.

And unfortunately for the Times' reputation for intellectual honesty, a leading Iraqi weapons scientist has just recently published a memoir testifying that Iraq did have a nuclear centrifuge, buried at Qusay's behest in a backyard garden in or near Baghdad.

The Times, somehow, omits the fact that this memoir exists. Are they THAT out of touch and ill informed?

Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

True. Except that they had figured that out under Clinton, if not before. You think Iran's only been working on a nuke since 2001? Given that Saddam was right across the border, how stupid can you be?

As for North Korea, the Clinton era fecklessness with which we caved to their already developed efforts to create a nuclear bomb (an effort that probably dates back to the 1980s) has been well documented. The Times' desperation in trying to tie the North Korean and Iranian nuke programs to the Bush Administration, without mentioning our resounding bloodless success in Libya, is surreal indeed.

Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands

Here the Times is demonstrating a breathtaking ignorance of Christianity and Western Culture as a whole, which I have already explained here.

Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.

Ok, chicken little: didn't you guys just get done arguing that Bush had ignored job creation? So why are you now kvetching about a decline in the dollar against other currencies--a development that makes American exports more affordable abroad and has a tendency to boost employment. Actually, a weak dollar is a markedly pro-labor policy, and is generally frowned upon by traditional Republican constituencies: i.e., the owners of capital.

Second, it is arguable that interest rates are currently too LOW, as people on fixed incomes--retirees, mostly--are having trouble generating sufficient income off of their nest eggs on which to live, which is a product of low interest rates.

I mean, 20-30 year rates are hovering near multi-decade record LOWS, you dumbasses!!!!

Third, I defy any of you guys to show me any evidence positive correlation between US deficit levels and interest rates over the last 30 years.

Inflationary expectations dwarf deficits as a market force driving long-term interest rates.

The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats

Question for the Times: Have we had another attack on US soil since the creation of the department?

Of course, the answer is no.

SO HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THOSE ALERTS ARE USELESS, YOU IMBICILES???

the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.

Bullshit. The Navy and Air Force--our traditional first-responders and fire brigades, are largely uncommitted. The Army is straining under some force management issues. But there's still enough slack to clobber the bejeezus out of anyone who's foolish enough to come looking for a fight. "Unable to respond" my ass.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency.

Wonderful. If they're so good, how come he hasn't gotten any of them through congress in 20 years?

In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam

Yeah. He also crashed the Paris peace talks in 1972, in a move that streched the bonds of legality and broke the bonds of decorum.

There's plenty more, but I just ate, and the Times is upsetting my stomach.

The bottom line is this: The Times endorsed the Democrat, the Pope is still Catholic,
In other news, women are different than men, and the Laws of Thermodynamics continue to regulate the transmission of energy.



Splash, out

Jason

"It is a doctrine of war not to assume the enemy will not come, but rather to rely on one's readiness to meet him; not to presume that he will not attack, but rather to make one's self invincible."
-Sun Tzu

A soldier writing in from Iraq is nervous that I might be giving too much away - though I won't mention exactly why.

I'll use the loose analogy of a chess game here:

You don't play winning chess by hoping the opponent doesn't see the best move. You play winning chess by assuming your opponent DOES see the most dangerous move on the board, and playing accordingly.


The fact that drivers drive rather than shoot, and that the steering wheel is on the left, is hardly a state secret. And the fact that fuel trucks aren't normally equipped with vehicle mounted radios is fully apparent by the absence of antennas.


I think you have to assume that the enemy is already fully aware of all these things, and operate with that assumption in mind.

The enemy already knows. He can see what kind of convoy security you provide with his own eyes. If you don't have crew-served weapons--if you don't have port-side security - if you don't have front or rear security, you can be assured he can already figure that out.

The solution is not to practice poor force protection, fail to provide for 360 degree security, and hope that the enemy hasn't figured out the obvious. The solution is to practice sound 360 security, and be ready no matter what the enemy decides to do.

In other words, first make yourself invincible.


To cite Sun Tzu again:

In ancient times, those skilled in warfare make themselves invincible and then wait for the enemy to become vulnerable.

Being invincible depends on oneself, but the enemy becoming vulnerable depends on himself.

Therefore, those skilled in warfare can make themselves invincible, but cannot necessarily cause the enemy to be vulnerable.

Splash, out

Jason

Andrew Sullivan is suggesting one reason to pull for Kerry would be that he "would remove from the Europeans and others the Bush alibi for their relative absence in the war on terror."

That would be nice, except it wouldn't work. Because the Europeans--at least as proxied by France and Germany, are completely and shamelessly craven paragons of moral puppyhood, hobbled all the broken spinelessness of a secondhand soda straw.

Lack of European experts has held up the excavation of mass graves in Iraq, according to an American human rights lawyer working on the investigation.

Greg Kehoe said the experts were not joining in because evidence might be used to sentence Saddam Hussein to death.

God love the Brits, Dutch, Spanish, Poles, Danes, and Bulgarians. But the populations of France and Germany ought to be hiding their faces in their hands in shame right now.

They have lost all claim to the moral heritage of the Enlightenment. They've become a cesspool of legalistic bureaucrats.

No wonder they watched while Srebrenica was sacked.

A new survey finds that Bush is unpopular with European voters.

Fine. Bush remains popular among fighting men.

He need not worry about whether he's popular with dogs.


Splash, out

Jason

A platoon of truck drivers has been arrested for refusing a fuel delivery mission in Iraq.

According to The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss., a platoon of 17 soldiers refused to go on a fuel supply mission Wednesday because their vehicles were in poor shape and they did not have a capable armed escort.

Link.

The Associate Press says they were released, 5 members were reassigned pending an investigation, and the whole unit taken off the road until a safety and maintenance inspection could be completed.

The AP also notes that the troops involved were alleging that the fuel--to be delivered to an aviation unit, was tainted, which could cause the helicopters to crash (thereby enhancing the OR rating of the aviation unit.)

The mission was executed anyway, by other members of the company. Well, they would probably have taken the same trucks. The article doesn't say whether they got that armed escort they were asking for.

I'm not one to tolerate soldiers refusing lawful orders. But this one deserves a close look to see if higherups were negligent, too. For one thing, the troops are alleging that their vehicles had "deadline faults."

A deadline fault is a fault that, according to the "dash 10" manual for that piece of equipment, renders it nonmission capable, or unsafe to drive. It is a violation of military regulations to operate a deadlined piece of equipment unless and until the company commander personally signs off on the form 2404 or form 5988 E, authorizing the use of that equipment.

Which we do all the time, but only for a limited use. For example, I might sign off on a broken headlight, a deadline fault, with "may be driven in daylight ONLY." Or I may sign off on it, saying "vehicle may be driven as far as motor pool."

So the first thing I'd look at is what were the deadline faults, were they documented on 2404s or 5988 E forms, and did the commander 'circle X' those faults, authorizing the soldiers to operate those vehicles.

I don't fuck around or take chances in a combat mission. And I've personally kicked vehicles out of my convoy at the last minute if I didn't trust something. (Convoy commanders--as part of your checks, try to have the vehicles staged some hours before you move out. Then look under the vehicles for oil puddles or other fluids. If you stage at the last minute, all bets are off. But I caught several vehicles that way that otherwise could have caused me problems on the road.)

The second item is this: What is the guidance on armed escorts? Because we normally couldn't move trucks around Ramadi without a couple of crew-served weapons --belt-fed 30 cal. machine guns or heavier, and usually a MK 19 or .50 cal, though an M240 B would do in a pinch.

Sometimes we violated that rule, to make a run to the police station or something, if it was just headquarters guys. But not often.

I can't imagine sending 8 fuel tankers out without some gun trucks to go along, for a couple of reasons:

1.) You know the fuel tankers are targets.

2.) The insurgents have already demonstrated the ability to stop lightly armed convoys and kidnap people. They did it with Brown and Root before.

3.) Without a gun truck or infantry escort, a convoy of tankers will have NO security on the port side of the convoy. You have two soldiers per truck, and the guy on the port side is busy driving. He can't simutaneously be effective on his weapon.

(Note to convoy commanders: Make sure you have coverage on the drivers' side of the convoy. Detail some guys to ride in the back of a truck if neccessary, and sprinkle those trucks throughout the convoy. You have got to plus up the drivers' side of the convoy to make up for the fact that your drivers can't shoot and drive at the same time.

4.) There is nowhere to evacuate a casualty, if need be. Much less have someone work on him while you're on your way back to the base.

5.) The fuelers would not have vehicle-mounted radios, like the gun trucks would have At best, they'd have manpack radios, with just a fraction of the range. These manpack radios are woefully inadequate for anything other than communicating between the front and rear trucks in the convoy. You can't use them to call in air cover. You can't rely on them to call in medevacs.

I didn't always have a vehicle mounted radio in the early days. But I hated it. And I knew we were taking a huge risk. We was getting water for the boys, without which they couldn't survive, so it was worth it. But I fought like a cat at bathtime until the XO finally said "Lieutenant, I hear you. We just don't have one for you. Now execute."

Hey, I can take a hint.

But I always made sure we had some way to evac my casualties on another vehicle, I could defend myself out of both sides of the road, I could at least bring a dedicated SAW gunner or three for security, and I wasn't hauling anything that exploded except my temper.

So I'm not going to condemn the actions of this platoon. Their tact was stupid, maybe. They should have shown for the meeting. But I want to look real hard at the command before casting aspersions on anyone.

Because I can't imagine 8 unescorted fuel trucks having any business on the road.

Splash, out

Jason

UPDATE: More here from Salon.

Apparently the fuel had already been rejected by one base. It was contaminated with diesel, according to one of the drivers. Which tells me that it was JP-8. Which is considerably more flammable and dangerous to transport than diesel.

The trip was also, apparently, to be more than 200 miles long. If there was ANY kind of a maintenance issue with those vehicles, that's too long a run. How would you recover a breakdown? And if you did recover, would you have them driving around unfamiliar territory, unescorted, with inadequate coms, at NIGHT????

The Army is now denying that any soldier was ever detained.

Well, that's obviously not the case, as multiple families report getting phone calls from their sons and daughters saying they WERE detained (although they still had access to phones, so how detained could they have been? )

Looks like the Army stepped on its crank on this one, and is trying to backpedal.

Now watch for active duty idiots who try to paint this one like its indicative of the poor discipline of reserve component soldiers.

I still wanna see their 5988 Es, though.

[CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE NET] posted by Jason : 18:34 EST 15 transmissions this net

Well, the copy editors at the New York Times blew the headline, but here are some interesting military polling numbers from Adam Clymer, former political reporter for the New York Times and reknowned "major league asshole."

But look at the way the Times frames the story!!!!!

Compare the lead paragraph with the second paragraph!

The Times could just as easily swapped the two out: in which case it would read thus:

Washington - Military members and their families overwhelmingly support the Iraq mission and nearly two thirds approve of George Bush's handling of the Iraq war, according to a new poll from the University of Pennsylvania.

The poll also found that two thirds of the respondents thought that President Bush underestimated the number of troops that would be needed in Iraq, and more than half thought that the citizen soldiers of the National Guard and Reserves carried too heavy a burden.

The information conveyed is exactly the same. But what a difference a lead makes!!!

It's typical New York Times behavior, though.

The rest of the polling numbers are interesting, too--especially the contrast between the Reserve component and active duty troops:

62 percent of the entire military sample said active-duty troops were properly trained and equipped, and 21 percent disagreed.

But only 38 percent of the sample said the National Guard and Reserve soldiers were properly trained and equipped before deploying to Iraq. The poll found that 42 percent said they had not been adequately trained and equipped, and 7 percent said they had been properly trained but not adequately equipped.

What I want to know is this:

What was the difference between OIF I and OIF II rotations. Because the Army had a full year to correct the readiness deficit and equipment deficit between the Active Component and Reserve Component units that were actually deploying.

Did they fail?

Because even at the end of my own tour in Iraq, my Guard unit was still not fully equipped. We had M16s where the active guys had M4s. We didn't have satellite tracking systems in our vehicles, where they were standard issue already in the 3rd ACR. So much so that they were genuinely surpised when I told their support battalion TOC we didn't have any. Which is a big deal when air cover is scarce and you're out of FM radio range. (I rarely got to bring a Thuraya phone along, and that was only after prolongued nagging to get one, toward the very end of my tour, when I wasn't convoying so much anyway.)

In 2003, we had problems getting ammunition as well--particularly 9mm, though I think that was armywide. Not because of a particular shortage, but because of a hidebound distribution system that did not allow for MP-5s or other 9mm submachine guns -- a far, far preferable weapon to the M9 pistol in the urban environment, because the M9 could provide for nothing except point blank self defense.

The MP-5 allowed us to establish fire superiority for a few seconds--maybe just long enough to drive around the corner.

That was probably not unique to the reserve components though.

We did arrive in theater without the kevlar flak vests, and were in Iraq for a couple of months before we managed to get them. They're lifesavers. And the Army's failure to equip their reserve component forces with them--while stocking up the active forces--was pretty embarrassing, and difficult to explain to our troops.

Well, make that impossible.

Eventually, though, we did some scrounging, and got some (thanks in large part to our attachments from the 116th Field Artillery. That scrounging saved two lives I know of.)

I'd love to see the poll breakdown between OIF I and OIF II.

I think we made some progress. But more needs to be made.

Specifically:

My M35 A3 trucks were nearly useless. The Florida guard acquired them years ago, on the cheap. But when we got to Iraq, we found that the chassis could not support sandbag hardening. And we also found that the parts for the trucks were not even in the Army inventory. The Army had long since switched to various models of 5-ton trucks, and the LMTV.

As a result, simple problems with our trucks that could have been fixed in a day or two -- or in a week if the parts could be trucked or flown in from Kuwait or Baghdad, took weeks, as parts had to be tracked down way back in the US. If they were available at all.

The 3rd ACR maintenance guys couldn't believe the Florida Guard was using these obsolete trucks. And we were an enhanced brigade!!! The maintenance situation in the remainder of the guard was even worse.

Moreover, even when we could run, the mismatch of 5 tons and 2 1/2 ton trucks caused us problems in the field, since 1.) parts could not be exchanged between the active and reserve component vehicles in a pinch, if I took two trucks on the road, and one was a 5 ton and one was a guard M35A3, and the 5-ton broke down, I couldn't tow the down truck in. I was stuck. We solved that by not running 5 tons except when they could be paired with another 5-ton, but that truck-juggling was a constant challenge. If the vehicles were more standardized, I could come up with a more modular solution.

We're trying to get our trucks replaced even now, but have so far been unable to do so.

But if any Guard unit is still in Iraq trying to make do with M35A3 2 1/2 ton trucks, I would say they are definitely ill-equipped.

Splash, out

Jason

This NBER study looks really interesting:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10835

Party platforms differ sharply from one another, especially on issues with religious content, such as abortion or gay marriage. Religious extremism in the U.S. appears to be strategically targeted to win elections, since party platforms diverge significantly, while policy outcomes like abortion rates are not affected by changes in the governing party. Given the high returns from attracting the median voter, why do vote-maximizing politicians veer off into extremism? In this paper, we find that strategic extremism depends on an important intensive margin where politicians want to induce their core constituents to vote (or make donations) and the ability to target political messages towards those core constituents. Our model predicts that the political relevance of religious issues is highest when around one-half of the voting population attends church regularly. Using data from across the world and within the U.S., we indeed find a non-monotonic relationship between religious extremism and religious attendance.

Here's one from my "comments" section.

Well Geez, Jason. At least out-of-touch Time has enough English Comp skills to know to capitalize Marine.

No, I don't capitalize "marine." I capitalize "Marine Corps," because it's a proper noun. "Marine," when not referring to the institution itself, is not a proper noun, and therefore warrants the same treatment as 'soldier,' 'sailor,' or 'airman.'

There is a difference from a solider and a Marine A Marine is a not a classification, but a title, earned and,thus, to be capitalized when written. Hence, a proper noun.

Wrong.

"Marine" may be a title. But titles themselves do not warrant capitalization. 'general' does not get capitalized, except when used with someone's name. Same with 'captain.' Same with 'president. One capitalizes 'President' when referring to President Grant, President Carter, or President Davis. One does not capitialize when simply referring to an unspecified 'president.'

'Doctor' is not normally capitalized, except when used as a proper noun. 'Attorney at law" is a title, and is never capitalized.

Trying to make 'marine' an exception, somehow, is silly. You guys have been reading wayyyyy too much of your own press.

Comparing a solider to a Marine is like comparing a pack mule to a Stallion!

Sorry your penis is so small. But trust me...there are more productive ways to compensate, than by denigrating members of your sister services.

What a hypocrite! Yet, my ultimate question to you as I read most of your laughable points...if you are a solider in Iraq...are you doing all this blogging on government time? utilizing government equipment? web access? Please comment, I am sure the GAO and your local or service IG would like to know as badly as I do.

Hey...my name's on the masthead, baby.

But who said I'm a soldier in Iraq?

Splash, out

Jason

The guy who writes "The Couch" says he's "getting tired of how folks on the Right are still clinging to the shreds of the “Saddam had WMD” argument," and lists me and Christopher Hitchens as Exhibits A and B respectively.

(1. I don't deserve top billing over Christopher Hitchens, and 2., Christopher Hitchens is hardly "a man of the right." He's a man of the Left with a conscience. Lefties hate that, though, so they try to slime him by associating him with the right.)

The Couch goes on to say,

I have a lot of respect for both of these gentlemen, who make a habit of speaking the truth as they see it—but I am not impressed by the current argument.

Saddam Hussein did not have WMD.

Let it go.

Well, except for the facts, and that inconvenient concept known as logic.

The proof is simple:

The statement "Saddam had WMD" is true.

The statement "Saddam did not have WMD" is false.


Q.E.D.

In memory of the late founder of the deconstructionist school of thought and a hero to liberals everywhere (for it is only by stripping all communication of all objective meaning that the perversion of classical liberalism we now call 'progressive' can possibly make any sense), I give you The Postmodernism Generator!

Jason

Heh. I beat Drudge to it.

http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us

[CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE NET] posted by Jason : 09:48 EST, Monday, October 11, 2004 8 transmissions this net

Ed Larson, The Chief Investment Officer of AIM Funds, a provider of contractual plans for mutual funds, and one of First Command's favored fund companies, has been placed on a voluntary leave of absence while he resolves inquiries related to allegations of improper fund timing activities.

The company's been in hot water with regulators for some time, but it seems to be taking steps to clean up its act. To bad it took them getting busted for fraud first to do it.

More here: http://www.financial-planning.com/pubs/fpi/20041004102.html

(Sorry...can't seem to do a hyperlink on a Mac.)

Jason

From today's Public Editor's column in the New York Times:

But before I turn over the podium, I do want you to know just how debased the level of discourse has become. When a reporter receives an e-mail message that says, "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war," a limit has been passed.

That's what a coward named Steve Schwenk, from San Francisco, wrote to national political correspondent Adam Nagourney several days ago because Nagourney wrote something Schwenk considered (if such a person is capable of consideration) pro-Bush. Some women reporters regularly receive sexual insults and threats. As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year.

Yep. But there was never any doubt about that.

It's the left, after all, who are shooting up opposing campaign headquarters and assaulting convention delegates, too.

The left has sold its soul.

Splash, out

Jason

From the International Herald Tribune:

Early in September, a German official, asked privately by a visitor if Kerry's claim of good relations with Europe could get him a German military presence in Iraq, stifled a guffaw; an explicit response, but wordless, and difficult to transcribe.
.
But last week, just after Kerry's major speech on the war in which he insisted that the United States "must make Iraq the world's responsibility" and that others "should share the burden," Schröder's sense of courtesy collided with reality and he drove a spike into the notion. He told reporters, "We won't send any German soldiers to Iraq, and that's where it's going to remain."

No. And there were never going to be. That was NEVER realistic. We couldn't even get Germany on board in a meaningful way for the First Gulf War, which did have UN backing.

It's much appreciated and helpful presence in Afghanistan notwithstanding, Germany simply has no appetite for foreign adventures. Which is as it should be.

More, from a South German newspaper:

As for the Democrat, Süddeutsche said Kerry "is suggesting that he can produce a little miracle and seduce America's battered friends into high-yield performances along the lines of Washington's wishes." For all of Kerry's opportunity to create a foreign policy with greater credibility and legitimacy, that was not realistic, it said. Schröder couldn't send Bundeswehr troops to Iraq, and there would be "no morning-after special gift for a President Kerry."

No, there won't. Kerry is deluding himself if he thinks there's going to be a Deus Ex Machina of altruistic Europeans and other nations coming to bail us out, even as he or his campaign 1.) screeches about what an awful situation it is, 2.) Denounces the Prime Minister of Iraq--on whose percieved legitimacy we rely--as a Bush "puppet," 3.) Goes on and on about how Iraq was 'the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, 4.) Argues--as his sister (and member of his campaign staff) did--that standing with the United States makes their citizenry less safe, and 5.) Badmouths our coalition partners, calling them "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed" (and while so doing, undermines their chances for reelection.)

If I were a European leader, I wouldn't touch that with a three meter pole.

More:

As for the Democrat, Süddeutsche said Kerry "is suggesting that he can produce a little miracle and seduce America's battered friends into high-yield performances along the lines of Washington's wishes." For all of Kerry's opportunity to create a foreign policy with greater credibility and legitimacy, that was not realistic, it said. Schröder couldn't send Bundeswehr troops to Iraq, and there would be "no morning-after special gift for a President Kerry."

No.

He doesn't deserve one.


Splash, out

Jason

From the International Herald Tribune:

Early in September, a German official, asked privately by a visitor if Kerry's claim of good relations with Europe could get him a German military presence in Iraq, stifled a guffaw; an explicit response, but wordless, and difficult to transcribe.
.
But last week, just after Kerry's major speech on the war in which he insisted that the United States "must make Iraq the world's responsibility" and that others "should share the burden," Schröder's sense of courtesy collided with reality and he drove a spike into the notion. He told reporters, "We won't send any German soldiers to Iraq, and that's where it's going to remain."

No. And there were never going to be. That was NEVER realistic. We couldn't even get Germany on board in a meaningful way for the First Gulf War, which did have UN backing.

It's much appreciated and helpful presence in Afghanistan notwithstanding, Germany simply has no appetite for foreign adventures. Which is as it should be.

More, from a South German newspaper:

As for the Democrat, Süddeutsche said Kerry "is suggesting that he can produce a little miracle and seduce America's battered friends into high-yield performances along the lines of Washington's wishes." For all of Kerry's opportunity to create a foreign policy with greater credibility and legitimacy, that was not realistic, it said. Schröder couldn't send Bundeswehr troops to Iraq, and there would be "no morning-after special gift for a President Kerry."

No, there won't. Kerry is deluding himself if he thinks there's going to be a Deus Ex Machina of altruistic Europeans and other nations coming to bail us out, even as he or his campaign 1.) screeches about what an awful situation it is, 2.) Denounces the Prime Minister of Iraq--on whose percieved legitimacy we rely--as a Bush "puppet," 3.) Goes on and on about how Iraq was 'the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, 4.) Argues--as his sister (and member of his campaign staff) did--that standing with the United States makes their citizenry less safe, and 5.) Badmouths our coalition partners, calling them "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed" (and while so doing, undermines their chances for reelection.)

If I were a European leader, I wouldn't touch that with a three meter pole.

More:

As for the Democrat, Süddeutsche said Kerry "is suggesting that he can produce a little miracle and seduce America's battered friends into high-yield performances along the lines of Washington's wishes." For all of Kerry's opportunity to create a foreign policy with greater credibility and legitimacy, that was not realistic, it said. Schröder couldn't send Bundeswehr troops to Iraq, and there would be "no morning-after special gift for a President Kerry."

No.

He doesn't deserve one.


Splash, out

Jason