COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

The New York Times reports:

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general.

The truth, however, is that Obama is undecided about the major troop buildup he himself proposed during the campaign.

Democrat Barack Obama said Monday that as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attack in three years on Sunday.

The proposed force increase - about 7,000 troops - is part of Obama's plan to pull combat troops out of Iraq and focus on the growing threat from a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan," Obama said in an op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, a day before he plans a speech here on his vision for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there," Obama said.

Obama hasn't articulated a contrary position since that time. McChrystal came out in support of the only guidance Obama has publicly given so far. Truth be told, it was Biden, not McChrystal, who 'put his cock on the anvil' arguing a position contrary to the President. It was Biden, not McChrystal, who was "off the reservation," with his proposal.

Biden should keep his council private and use the chain of command. If Biden really has a problem with the Commander-in-chief, he should resign now, and then he can go as public as he likes.

Democrats, of course, philosophically hold the same position -- and blame McChrystal.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, Biden, foreign policy, McChrystal, Obama, Politics, soldiers' issues, War on Terror, Warfighting

So General McChrystal is getting excoriated by the leftards in the media, by Gen. James Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor, and now by Generalissima Pelosi herself for providing a forthright answer to a question directly in his purview by a member of the media.

The treatment he is getting is outrageous.

Why?

1.) The question was whether the General would support Biden's suggestion to dramatically lower troop strength in Afghanistan, and try to fight it with special operations forces and Predator strikes. The general said he would not.

There are strong doctrinal resources for this: COIN doctrine, however imperfect the fit with the Afghanistan battlefield, holds that the "key terrain" in the counterinsurgent fight is the population itself. The fight is not for control of real estate, but for the loyalty of the people.

That takes boots on the ground.

The second doctrinal reason to reject the Biden plan is that COIN, by its nature, is intelligence driven. The best source of battlefield intelligence is a strong relationship between our soldiers and marines on the ground and the local population. If we enact the Biden plan, the result will be a rapid retreat from the battlefield, leaving the population, including many who risked everything to support us, to the tender mercies of Taliban reprisals. If we retreat even a little from our commitment to village and tribal elders who have stuck their necks out to support us, word will spread like wildfire and the village and tribal elders will cut their own deals in order to survive.

In my view, we may already be seeing this happening: In a vicious firefight last week, in which an American outpost was in danger of being overrun, the Taliban was able to stockpile hundreds of weapons in a nearby village mosque. Large numbers of villagers must have known. And yet no one alerted coalition forces.

The logistics for massing materiel already underway, the Taliban managed to quietly gather in battalion strength to launch two deliberate attacks against American and Afghan outposts... and again, no one alerted Coalition forces.

This is symptomatic of a huge tactical intelligence failure on the ground. American forces were not, apparently, present in enough strength to defend the position and patrol aggressively simultaneously - with disastrous but not unsurprising results: A poor relationship with the people of the neighboring village and the ceding of the tactical initiative.

General McChrystal is seeing the same compromise being made all over the country: Troop strength being spread too thin. And Biden, without acknowledging the strategic and operational tradeoffs that MUST come with a reduction in troop strength, and without adjusting the General's mission in Afghanistan, wants to spread those troops even further.

So General McChrystal sticks up for his mission - and what's more, advocates precisely what President Obama himself is already on record as advocating: a substantial increase in troop strength in Afghanistan.

"I said a year and a half ago that we needed more troops in Afghanistan -- at least two brigades," Obama said. "John McCain, at the time, didn't think that was necessary, and now there's a convergence around the notion that we need at least two and maybe three brigades in Afghanistan."

McChrystal, then, was simply articulating a view already publicly endorsed by the Commander in Chief. As far as we know, the President has said nothing since that piece was published that would contradict that view. He has long held that Afghanistan is the central front on the War on Terror Group Hug Against Scary Things, and has repeatedly called for more troops in Afghanistan to prosecute that war. McChrystal was well within his guidelines, and when the President has been as vague and noncommital in policy statements as he has - despite a direct request from McChrystal for more troops, what else does McChrystal have to go on besides Obama's own public pronouncements?

Further, given the President's repeated calls for an increase of two to three brigades in Afghanistan, it wasn't McChrystal speaking out of school, it was Biden. I would argue that the Biden plan is the outlier, not McChrystal's statement that he would not support it.

What's more, there is no way that McChrystal can possibly be seen to be bucking the chain of command... because A.) Obama, the commander in chief, is already on record as calling for MORE boots on the ground, not fewer, and B.) Biden is NOT NOT NOT in the chain of command in any sense whatsoever.

I'm very cognizant that subordinates at all levels should take care not to pain their leadership into a corner. But that obligation goes both ways - leaders owe subordinates clear guidelines and directions. And that goes ESPECIALLY when the battlefield situation is vague.

I've noticed for several months now that Afghanistan policy was coming apart at the seams. Not from any one thing, but from having read a variety of news reports and hearing things through the military grapevine, the infantry mafia, the blogger boys club, and the intel syndicate. I haven't had time to blog them lately, and I regret that now. But this was a long time in the making.

McChrystal used the chain of command. He submitted his request to his boss,, General Petraeus at CENTCOM. And that, apparently, is where it languishes, because the President and his National Security decision-making apparatus has not yet produced a product useable for the commanders in the field.

McChrystal used the Chain of Command... the Chain of command, unfortunately, is not functioning.

McChrystal is entitled to know what he is expected to accomplish. He needs to know in order to issue orders down the chain. Every soldier and marine and corpsman and airman on the ground is entitled to know what he or she and their units are expected to accomplish.

Everyone involved in the effort is entitled to a decision from the President.

It's not like he didn't know the Afghan war was waiting for him when he got to the Oval Office.

Splash, out

Jason

And Pelosi's an ignorant twit.

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, COIN, McChrystal, soldiers' issues, USMC, War on Terror, Warfighting

And so it goes ...

WASHINGTON — Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking.
Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy, says he will recommend that Gates adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.

The study by the Institute of Medicine, requested by the VA and Pentagon, calls for a phased-in ban over a period of years, perhaps up to 20. "We'll certainly be taking that recommendation forward," Smith says.

A tobacco ban would confront a military culture, the report says, in which "the image of the battle-weary soldier in fatigues and helmet, fighting for his country, has frequently included his lit cigarette."

Also, the report said, troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a "stress reliever." The study found that tobacco use in the military increased after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

The story goes on to note that combat troops smoke more than noncombat troops. I don't think they get the correlations right, though. Combat MOS's have higher proportions of southern and rural white guys... who are also vastly more likely to use snuff and chewing tobacco, as well as smoke. I'm not sure how strictly the reporter is able to draw the distinction, nor am I sure if the suggested ban also targets chewing tobacco.

Now, why might a combat soldier chew tobacco? One reason is because it's REALLY hard to fall asleep with a wad of tobacco in your mouth. So guys on sentry duty use it in lieu of uppers. Or in lieu of just falling asleep. I don't think anyone who hasn't been there can really understand how HARD it is to maintain absolute silence, in the prone position, behind your weapon, at 3am after a full day of marching and fighting. Soldiers and marines grab every edge they can.

Further, I wouldn't disregard the role of cigarrettes on the battlefield - especially the countergeurrilla battlefield. From a humint or interrogater's point of view, or simply from the perspective of a local leader trying to build a relationship with an Iraqi or Afghan, the simple act of offering a nicotine-starved Iraqi a quality American cigarette, and lighting one up one's self, is a time-honored way of establishing a rapport with a local or detainee - and is frequently the first and necessary step in breaking the ice and gaining the trust and cooperation of a local or detainee.

Honestly, we wouldn't get NEAR the HUMINT we do without it. Verily I say unto you... if tobacco were to vanish from U.S. soldiers' kits tomorrow, there would be an almost immediate and bloody, but nearly untraceable consequence on the ground. It would significantly degrade our relationship with locals and our ability to gain intelligence from detainees and HUMINT sources. Tread VERY SLOWLY here.

Finally, tobacco sales also count towards the morale, welfare and recreation budget of the post. If we eliminate tobacco sales from post, that's that much less money available to support MWR for our military service members and their families. Will it be made up somewhere?

Honestly, I have a real problem with any rear echelon pogue declaring, by edict, that one of my guys -- Grown men, all of them, even the kids -- coming back in wired and jumpy from a tough patrol or convoy can't take a few minutes to light one up and unwind. An infantryman in a combat zone? He might well be dead by nightfall. You took him away from his wife and/or girlfriend. He can't drink alcohol. I think we should allow him the luxury of a smoke if he needs it.

I think we should discourage smoking, sure. But an outright ban? Must be liberals invading the Pentagon.

At any rate, this is one of those things that if it's to be done, Obama should lead by example. He can't quit smoking. Yeah, he's got a stressful job. He's not the only one.

Splash, out

Jason

UPDATE: I suspect Jolly Rancher is behind this.

Labels: Army, Marines, soldier's issues, stupid

This time the Boston Globe, being led around by the Huffpo/Paul Reikhoff press operation, hits on the 'women homeless vets' angle.

Let's take a look:

The number of female service members who have become homeless after leaving the military has jumped dramatically in recent years, according to new government estimates, presenting the Veterans Administration with a challenge as it struggles to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

As more women serve in combat zones, the share of female veterans who end up homeless, while still relatively small at an estimated 6,500, has nearly doubled over the last decade, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For younger veterans, it is even more pronounced: One out of every 10 homeless vets under the age of 45 is now a woman, the statistics show.

Well, women make up 9% of homeless veterans under 45. But they make up 15% of the military. So the real story is that women are vastly underrepresented among the ranks of the homeless. But that doesn't make for a sexy, sensational headline that homeless advocacy groups can leverage into increasing funding.

The trend has alarmed top lawmakers and veterans groups, who fear that the federal government - which is already straining to care for new veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries, and other physical ailments - is ill-prepared to deal with the special needs of female veterans who find themselves on the street.

What special needs? I think they'd have the same special needs as male homeless vets. They may be more likely to have children with them, but I don't see anything quantifying that, other than Riekhoff's assertion (though IAVA's backgrounder says that 23% of homeless women in the VA's programs have children. This does not mean that the children are homeless, though.)

Many of them are like Angela Peacock, a former Army sergeant who was diagnosed with PTSD when she returned from Iraq in 2004 and became addicted to pain-killers.

If there are so many thousands of homeless women veterans, why is it the Globe couldn't find anyone except Peacock, who, coincidentally, has already been featured in a documentary, and been the subject of an extensive writeup in the Huffington Post.

Incidentally, Paul Rieckhoff, the director of the nonpartisan group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, also keeps a blog on the Huffington Post.

Because that's what "nonpartisans" do. Keep blogs on Huffington Post.

Moreover, most homeless vets... apparently about 130,000 on any given night, if the figures in the story are to be believed, are men over the age of 45. (My own belief is that a large number of these homeless vets are liars).

I'm not pooh-poohing Peacock's experiences. Nor belittling the plight faced by female veterans undergoing a tough time. Just noting that the same people seem to show up in newspapers quite a bit. It's as if IAVA hands out Peacock's phone number with its press releases and backgrounders.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Angela Peacock, Army, Paul Rieckoff, soldiers' issues, The Left, The media, veterans

From the A.P.

BEAUMONT — Relatives of a slain sailor are calling the 29-year-old’s death a hate crime.
Rose Roy of Beaumont said her nephew, Navy Seaman August Provost III, had complained a year before about being harassed for being gay.
Roy said she advised Provost to report and document the incidents, but she said the military did little to help.
“He went to the Navy to serve and protect,” she said in an interview with Beaumont’s KFDM News, “he didn’t get protected at all.”
Roy told The Associated Press that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy discouraged her nephew from asking for help.

What did I tell you? What the fuck did I tell you five years ago? Yeah, I called it. And for calling it exactly like it was, I got accused, at the time, of penning "homophobic rant."*

At any rate, the conclusion that the DADT policy is to blame is utter hogwash. That's not the military's policy that discouraged her nephew from asking for help. It is the UCMJ, which is the law of the land. The military has zero choice in the matter, and absent a change in the law, approved by Congress, Provost would have been in the exact same predicament had DADT never been enacted.

I get pretty tired of dumbass reporters getting led around by their noses.

The 29-year-old Houston native was found dead Tuesday at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego. Roy said the family was told that Provost was shot three times, had his hands and feet bound, his mouth gagged, and body burned.

Just terrible. But that problem is a hell of a lot bigger than DADT. Indeed, had the military still had a blanket ban on gays serving, August Provost would probably still be alive today.

Democratic Rep. Bob Filner of San Diego said Thursday he wants a Defense Department investigation into the death, after leaders of the city’s gay community asked him to intervene.
Investigators have called the sailor’s death a random act unrelated to his sexuality and have taken a “person of interest” into custody. Inside sources describe possible suspects as a construction worker, a police officer, a cowboy, and an Indian chief. No charges have been filed.

I'm taking some liberties with the last part.

Incidentally, although the Navy Department has long had a 'witch-hunt' culture, to my eye, there is no reason why a commander needs to take a complaint over sexual harrassment as an admission of homosexuality, leading to a discharge. It is entirely possible to investigate the harrassment without looking into homosexual conduct itself.

I haven't been directly confronted with the issue. I've had troops who I'm reasonably sure were gay, but I didn't care, had no reason to look into it, had other things to worry about, and it wasn't a problem in the unit. I suppose had I heard the first rumblings of any kind of harrassment problem, I could have let the word out through my First Sergeant that I would not condone or permit a hostile work environment for ANY reason, and that furthermore I would consider any male on male harrassment of any soldier on the basis of homosexuality to be a tacet admission of homosexual interest on the part of the harrasser, and simply proceed with discharge papers.

**See also this reaction by Bill Cameron

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Army, culture, gays, law, Politics, soldiers' issues, The media, UCMJ

Obama the Lion has a new general in Afghanistan, and Obama the Lion's new general has announced tough new rules of engagement: Track down Taliban holing up in a house? Leave them alone.

Run away.

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.

The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle.

What kind of fellatist journo takes a look at what's essentially an order to surrender the towns to the enemy and considers that a "strong" anything?

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

Nice. So the civilians have no incentive to fight off Taliban themselves. And the Taliban get a million free safehouses around the country out of the deal.

If we lose Afghanistan, this is the moment you can point to.

McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force."

But McChrystal's orders will be more precise and have stronger language ordering forces to break off from battles, Smith said.

Run away!!!! Run away!!!!!!

The Obama military. Tough. Strong.

UPDATE: MCQ at Blackfive has the same reaction I do, and asks: "I mean, you tell me, where, if possible, would you initiate all of your contact from now on if you're the Taliban?"

UPDATE II: In the comments to the above, commenter Marcus, who apparently blogs here, writes:

General McChrystal is playing a very smart game of counterinsurgency. He understands the Afghan culture--particularly the ethical code of "Pashtunwali." Two of the major tenets of Pashtunwali are "Melmastia" and "Nanewati" which loosely translates into "hospitality" and "protection." The Afghan people--and the ethnic Pashtun in particular--will provide shelter and protection in their own homes for whoever asks for it. That includes the Taliban... and our people too.

Destroying houses and villages with Taliban in them because the locals won't turn them over is a quick way to turn the population against us. The center of gravity in this war--and any counterinsurgency for that matter--is the popular support of the people. In this case it is the Pashtun peoples, as the insurgency has not caught fire amongst the Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks or other ethic groups within the country.

Unlike in Iraq we enjoyed a tremendous wave of popularity amongst the Afghan people after we invaded. The Afghans hated (and still hate) the Taliban, and therefore welcomed us in with open arms. This has all changed within the last two years and our popularity with the people there has plummetted. Since we cannot hope to win if the people hate us, we have to get them on our side. And what the people there want more than anything right now is security--so McChrystal's metric of success may very well be spot on.

We can run around killing insurgents all day long but that will definitely not win the war for us. It didn't work in Iraq and it's not working in Afghanistan either. If we focus on killing bad guys while alienating the Afghan people we will eventually lose. Then we'll sit around like the Vietnam generation and bitch about how we won all the battles but lost the war. They lost because they didn't understand COIN. We've figured it out--it sure as hell took long enough--and now hopefully it's not too late to apply what we've learned.

If you look at the new FM 3-24 (Counterinsurgency), or more importantly read Bernard Fall, Sir Robert Thompson, Roger Trinquier or even Mao you'll see that protecting the populace and getting them to support you is critical.

McChrystal is applying COIN doctrine while tailoring it to the Afghan culture. He's also looking at it from a operational and strategic perspective... not tactical. And that's good, since that's what the man gets paid for.

Will we lose more people on the ground because of this adjustment to the ROE? Maybe. But I would argue its better to lose a few more men and women and win the war, rather than be casualty-adverse and lose it.

Now that may sound like a cold thing to say from a "Chairborne Monday Morning Quarterback," and it would be. So full disclosure--I will personally be over there humping the hills and working with the ANA in a few months time--and I still think McChrystal's policy is the smart play. I'm willing to put my own ass on the line, perfectly comfortable with this new ROE. It's up to guys like myself to figure out the tactical problems framed within the confines of guidance nested within the operational and strategic framework. And I'm cool with that.

Like Denzel Washington said in the movie Training Day... "This shit is chess, it ain't checkers!"

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, soldiers' issues, stupid, War on Terror

Salon has the goods.

From a doctor, captured on tape by a patient suffering from an anxiety disorder (PTSD or otherwise):

"OK," McNinch told Sgt. X. "I will tell you something confidentially that I would have to deny if it were ever public. Not only myself, but all the clinicians up here are being pressured to not diagnose PTSD and diagnose anxiety disorder NOS [instead]." McNinch told him that Army medical boards were "kick[ing] back" his diagnoses of PTSD, saying soldiers had not seen enough trauma to have "serious PTSD issues."

"Unfortunately," McNinch told Sgt. X, "yours has not been the only case ... I and other [doctors] are under a lot of pressure to not diagnose PTSD. It's not fair. I think it's a horrible way to treat soldiers, but unfortunately, you know, now the V.A. is jumping on board, saying, 'Well, these people don't have PTSD,' and stuff like that."

Contacted recently by Salon, McNinch seemed surprised that reporters had obtained the tape, but answered questions about the statements captured by the recording. McNinch told Salon that the pressure to misdiagnose came from the former head of Fort Carson's Department of Behavioral Health. That colonel, an Army psychiatrist, is now at Fort Lewis in Washington state. "This was pressure that the commander of my Department of Behavioral Health put on me at that time," he said. Since McNinch is a civilian employed by the Army, the colonel could not order him to give a specific, lesser diagnosis to soldiers. Instead, McNinch said, the colonel would "refuse to concur with me, or argue with me, or berate me" when McNinch diagnosed soldiers with PTSD. "It is just very difficult being a civilian in a military setting."

McNinch added that he also received pressure not to properly diagnose traumatic brain injury, Sgt. X's other medical problem. "When I got there I was told I was overdiagnosing brain injuries and now everybody is finding out that, yes, there are brain injuries," he recalled. McNinch said he argued, "'What are we going to do about treatment?' And they said, 'Oh, we are just counting people. We don't plan on treating them.'" McNinch replied, "'You are bringing a generation of brain-damaged individuals back here. You have got to get a game plan together for this public health crisis.'"

When McNinch learned he would be quoted in a Salon article, he cut off further questions. He also said he would deny the interview took place. Salon, however, had recorded the conversation.

Read the whole thing here.

Ugly.

Time to create a few more brain injuries. By cracking some heads together.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Army, medicine, PTSD, soldiers' issues

A moving tribute to a blogger's father, a WWII vet.

Labels: Air Force, Army, aviation, bloggers, in memoriam, WWII

U.S. Finally abandons the battlefield to the insurgency.

Three and a half years after Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard is pulling the last of its troops out of New Orleans this weekend, leaving behind a city still desperate and dangerous.

Residents long distrustful of the city's police force are worried they will have to fend for themselves.

Let's see. We need nearly three and a half years of a troop presence in New Orleans to stabilize the place and secure the rule of law. But libtards and other Democrats wanted to pull pell-mell out of Iraq by the 2006 elections, less than three years after we invaded the whole country.

Labels: Army, Katrina, stupid

"It's duty, honor, country, stupid!"

For the president, the civilian who stands at the beginning of the chain of command--who, by his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief really resides on the far side of the gap--making the leap is an obligation, not an option. He, above all, should speak to his troops in the language of duty, honor, and country which is their native tongue but seems to be such a foreign dialect to a detached, cool, post-modern politician. President Obama must not simply bind up the soldier's wounds or care for his widow, but lead him.

Labels: Army, Leadership, Obama, soldier's issues

The treasurer, COL Andrew Cohen, gives a 45 minute interview here.

WOOHOO! I get a mention! :-)

Labels: Army, Associated Press, Media, stupid

accusing it of hoarding vast reserves of cash.

Between 2003 and 2007 — as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures — Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, according to an AP analysis of its tax records.

That's not necessarily a bad thing ... especially as one steers a charity or pension fund (or personal reserve, for that matter) into a period of low interest rates, which decrease the returns available on capital. In order to generate a given level of benefit, one needs a larger sum invested.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but haven't these people ever heard of the function served by an endowment?

Tax-exempt and legally separate from the military, AER projects a facade of independence but really operates under close Army control.

Objection, your honor. The use of the term "facade" is prejudicial. AER is what it is. There is no "facade." Nobody in his right mind thinks that the AER is the Army. And as a matter of fact, the AER is NOT the Army, though it has military officers on its board.

On the other hand, the "facade" is so carefully constructed that the organization's own home page specifically says that the charity operates through commanders.

Founded in 1942, AER eases cash emergencies of active-duty soldiers and retirees and provides college scholarships for their families. Its emergency aid covers mortgage payments and food, car repairs, medical bills, travel to family funerals, and the like.
Instead of giving money away, though, the Army charity lent out 91 percent of its emergency aid during the period 2003-2007. For accounting purposes, the loans, dispensed interest-free, are counted as expenses only when they are not paid back.

The AP writes that the fact that 91 percent of aid is in the form of interest-free loans, rather than grants, is a bad thing. It's not. Remember that the people the charity serves are active duty military. By definition, these people are employed, have access to quality health insurance, and enjoy pay raises every year. Job security for our active component is strong (our activated reserves are not quite in the same situation, though.)

This makes the AER's population fundamentally different from the population served by most charities. A prudent steward of the fund would use loans rather than grants, where appropriate.

I know that functioning as a prudent steward of capital might be a foreign concept to newspapers these days, but bear with me.

They have the ability to repay loans - particularly those made interest-free. When the soldier pays back the loan, that money is available to help the next soldier.

Furthermore, while it is true that the Army's soldiers are still operating under the strain of fighting two wars, this in and of itself counteracts some of the need, because soldiers themselves are able to save more money while on deployment, thanks to a combination of tax-free income and a variety of special pays and allowances, free food, and no Ski-Doo or Harley Dealership in sight for the length of their deployment.

Let's take a look at the disbursements, according to the AP:

Make no mistake: AER, a normally uncontroversial fixture of Army life, has helped millions of soldiers and families. Last year alone, AER handed out about $5.5 million in emergency grants, $65 million in loans, and $12 million in scholarships.

That's $77.5 million in benefits to soldiers and their families in one year, against a capital base of $214 million - a payout rate of 36 percent, in an environment in which 10-year Treasuries are yielding less than 3 percent.

To put this in perspective, a typical endowment fund, until recently, assumed only about a 10 percent rate of return (which was nuts) and a payout rate of about 5 percent.

Furthermore, the charity operates on a demand-pull basis. It makes funds available on the say-so of commanders - as it should be. If commanders don't request the assistance, then donations go to the reserve. The charity has little choice, other than to start giving away money to people who aren't requesting the assistance. But then it would become quite a different thing.

Sure, at some point, maybe it would make sense for some of those reserves to be donated to the MWR program or some other organization. But we aren't at that point yet, in my view. Nor are we at the point where the whole program can be funded from the earnings of that capital reserve without spending down principal. If interest rates rise and stay high, that will help (though more homes will be foreclosed on!).

But in my view, the AP's criticism of the AER is unwarranted.

As for the command's involvement in getting soldiers to pay back the loans, I absolutely do not see why that is a problem.

As a commander, if I put my good word on the line sticking up for a soldier, vouching for his good character and the legitimate need (and yes, I've done so before), then I'm going to make sure he pays back the loan. It's my responsibility as a commander to keep the program in place and in good shape so that the assistance will be there for the next soldier who has a need.

What the AP also fails to understand is that the commander gets a letter in the mail every time a soldier is late on his AAFES STAR-program account, and the command has to come down like a ton of bricks if a soldier is late on payment to a government travel card.

The involvement of troop commanders in debt collection is nothing new or controversial - and indeed the role used to be much bigger.

Splash, out

Jason

ADDED: The article says that "most charity watchdogs view 1-to-3 years of reserves as prudent, with more than that considered hoarding."

The problem with that statement is that most charity watchdogs are riddled with libtards who wouldn't recognize sustainable financing if it bit them on the ass. The AER's 12-year reserve is much closer to sustainable.

ADDED: Don't miss Rustmeister's Alehouse today! His take on the reporter: "you're a douchenozzle, Jeff. Your hit piece on AER might read well with the latte sippers, but here, it's just so much crap."

Yep.

Plays well with seditionists, though.

Labels: Army, charities, finance

Hope and change!!!

Labels: Army, Obama

Now this is interesting:

CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Not convinced? Well, if he's not convinced by the combined advice of Gates, Petraeus and Adm. Mullen, speaking with one voice, then obviously, Obama's been convinced by someone or something else. He's basing his decisionmaking on some other source of information and advice he considers more reliable.

The question is, if he doesn't accept the considered professional judgment of Petraeus, Gates and Mullen, then who's advice is he taking?

I guess this is that retreat from empiricism I've heard so much about. Or more precisely, it's Ready, Fire, Aim decision-making (RFA-DM).

On a more meta level, it's interesting trying to parse who's doing the leaking here. If it's DoD people doing the leaking, then Obama deserves better than what he's getting from the DoD. That's unacceptable.

Likewise, if it's White House people doing the leaking, then Obama's staff is deliberately undercutting the perceived authority of our senior military leadership - authority they were so exquisitely hypersensitive about when it came to the sainted General Shinseki. And that's unacceptable, too.

It will be hilariously funny to watch the libtards, who were so orgasmic when a few Generals Eason, Sanchez, Zinni, Newbold, Swannack, and the others were publicly critical of the Bush Administration, fly into high hysterics when retired flag officers state what they really think about President Obama's leadership.

But if Obama continues on his present course, and a bitch fit ensues between Gates/Petraeus and the White House, then rightly or wrongly, you are going to see a Generals' revolt that will make the problems the Bush Administration faced 2006 look like a parade ground exercise.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Army, generals, Iraq, Obama, Warfighting

A look at the declining standards for enlistment and retention.

Via Memeorandum.

Labels: Army

CNN discovers Colby Buzzell - four years after the fact.

Labels: Army, bloggers, CNN, Iraq, Media

The U.S. Army promotes the first woman to 4-star rank.

Looks like she was a loggie coming up. Outstanding. War is simply a logistical shoving match, sporadically interrupted by gunfire.

She was also the 82nd Airborne's first female battalion commander, some years ago.

Hooah-tov!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Army, generals, soldiers' issues, women

The Army is all about families.

Labels: Army, family, Humor, soldiers' issues

I happened to pick up a paper copy of Army Times today and went over the poll results, and was planning to post on it.

But Greyhawk is already all over it.

See the pie-chart breakdown here. The troops have spoken, and while the methodology probably overstates the results (very young soldiers are undersampled and are not broken out separately), those who are career-minded overwhelmingly support the veteran on the ticket.

By the way, is this a first? The Democrats have run a ticket with NO military experience on the part of either candidate.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Army, Politics, soldiers' issues

Columbia Journalism Review reports that the Asinine Press killed two photographs of soldiers after they were alerted that they may have been photoshop jobs.

The CJR, natch, can't be bothered to run them side by side. But the folks at Think Progress do, to their credit. Naturally, the leftards take three yards and a cloud of dust and imagine a 89-yard pass to the end zone.

One of their commenters gets it, though: The photos in question are official portraits. They are typically taken in photo studios by professional photographers...usually civilians. And yes, just like in Sears portrait studios, the use of photoshop is common. Specifically, it's very common practice for a photographer to use photoshop to digitally alter an official DA photo to ensure the right medals are portrayed, and to correct minor uniform blemishes. Someone working in a photo lab, asked to create a DA photo for a soldier who does not have one on file, for example, would probably think nothing of working one up.

Why might someone not have a DA photo? Well, many reserve component soldiers don't live near a DA photo lab, or can't take time off work to have a photo taken. Or the soldier may have been promoted overseas, since the last time the photo was taken. If there is a need for a home town press release, as there was in this case when the soldiers died, then it seems natural to me that in the absence of an official DA photo, one would be created - out of respect for the soldier.

The fact that these libtards can extrapolate from this story to Jessica Lynch to all manner of conspiracy theories and corruption says far more about their fever-swamp state of mind than it does about the Army.

The Army did this so the soldier can have a portrait to run in the newspaper, or for the family to display at the funeral.

That's all.

Chill, people.

Splash, out,

Jason

Labels: Army, Media, soldiers' issues, The Left