Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Obama the Undecided
The New York Times reports:
The truth, however, is that Obama is undecided about the major troop buildup he himself proposed during the campaign.
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
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
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
...In Which I Rise to the Defense of General McChrystal
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.
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 theWar 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.
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
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
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Angela Peacock Returns
If PTSD and "Military Sexual Trauma" are such widespread phenomena among women veterans, and if this soldier's profile is so similar to others, as the article states, why is it they keep interviewing the same Angela Peacock?
I think Paul Reikoff keeps her number on speed-dial. A rapid-deployment victim. The poster girl for PTSD.
Angela's on the prayer list, big time. Lord knows lots of veterans have had trouble coming home. But come on, CNN! Up your game! Do your own research! Don't get led around by the nose by the Huffington Post/IAVA axis!
I already started a tag with her name. I'm thinking I'm gonna have to start a Google Alert to track Angela Peacock sightings!
Splash, out
Jason
I think Paul Reikoff keeps her number on speed-dial. A rapid-deployment victim. The poster girl for PTSD.
Angela's on the prayer list, big time. Lord knows lots of veterans have had trouble coming home. But come on, CNN! Up your game! Do your own research! Don't get led around by the nose by the Huffington Post/IAVA axis!
I already started a tag with her name. I'm thinking I'm gonna have to start a Google Alert to track Angela Peacock sightings!
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: Angela Peacock, CNN, Paul Rieckoff, soldiers' issues, The media, veterans
Saturday, September 26, 2009
WIth scarlet majors at the base
The great Michael Yon takes a vivid look at how the British Army public affairs machine is interfering with the press.
Labels: Afghanistan, Great Britain, soldiers' issues, The media
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Lying Talking Points Memo
As if to underscore the notion that liberals can't even cover the smallest subjects without lying about them, here's Talking Points Memo on the photography of US dead and dying soldiers and marines in the War on Terror:
Here's the photo TPM's writer, John Taplin, runs to illustrate his point.
The photograph, taken in 1965 or 1966, I believe, by Time Life's Larry Burrows, was one of the most famous photos of the war. Here's the lie: No one in the photograph was dying.
One commenter, Ripper McChord, has it about right:
That said, I do not support a blanket ban, imposed by our government, on publishing images of dead and dying troops. Such images have been a part of war reporting since the camera appeared on the battlefield, and unpleasant and gruesome as they are, I believe that the images taken of dead soldiers at Gettysburg, Petersburg, Fredericksburg, and later and famously, the photos of American dead on the beach at Buna should be part of the record.
The SecDef should confine his efforts to the pursuit of war, not telling journalists what they may or may not publish. There should be narrow exceptions made in order to protect operational security and to protect the integrity of the family notification process.
I think the final call should be made by the fallen service member's family, and by the enlisted members of the fallen service member's unit. NOT by the media outlet, and not by the Secretary of Defense
Splash, out
Jason
Yesterday, War Department Secretary Gates excoriated the Associated Press for publishing a photo the the dying Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard in Afghanistan (above left). WTF! For those of you with short memories or who were not alive in 1968, I can tell you that photos of dying American soldiers in Vietnam were a regular part of the day's news.
Here's the photo TPM's writer, John Taplin, runs to illustrate his point.
The photograph, taken in 1965 or 1966, I believe, by Time Life's Larry Burrows, was one of the most famous photos of the war. Here's the lie: No one in the photograph was dying.
One commenter, Ripper McChord, has it about right:
A Marine's life belongs to the country. His death is his own. I've interviewed th parents of dead servicemen and this is a personal grief that only Gold Star families know.
A right to watch his last minutes?
No. certainly not. Perhaps a privilege--if he or his parents so allowed, but they directly asked for privacy.
A duty to watch his death? Only if your a voyeuristic moron who's never seen a car accident or watched "Saving Private Ryan." Can anyone really say that encroaching on the sacred sacrifice this young man made actually shows them something they haven't seen in a thousand horror movies or enlightens the public debate one iota? Like hell. If that's your argument, you're just mirroring the anti-abortion activists who put photos of bloody fetuses on billboards for shock value and politics.
Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard was a human being who volunteered to serve you and me. His life and death deserve more consideration than crass political sport.
That said, I do not support a blanket ban, imposed by our government, on publishing images of dead and dying troops. Such images have been a part of war reporting since the camera appeared on the battlefield, and unpleasant and gruesome as they are, I believe that the images taken of dead soldiers at Gettysburg, Petersburg, Fredericksburg, and later and famously, the photos of American dead on the beach at Buna should be part of the record.
The SecDef should confine his efforts to the pursuit of war, not telling journalists what they may or may not publish. There should be narrow exceptions made in order to protect operational security and to protect the integrity of the family notification process.
I think the final call should be made by the fallen service member's family, and by the enlisted members of the fallen service member's unit. NOT by the media outlet, and not by the Secretary of Defense
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: Media, soldiers' issues, the fallen, The media
Monday, August 24, 2009
Why we need government health care NOW
The VA tells 1,200 veterans they have Lou Gehrig's Disease - by mistake.
Hilarity ensues.
Hilarity ensues.
Labels: health care, soldiers' issues, stupid, VA, veterans
Saturday, August 22, 2009
More VA Shenanegans
Turns out when these guys aren't infecting veterans with Hepatitis C, and letting legitimate VA disability claims go unprocessed for months and months on end, they're giving out $24 million in taxpayer money to government employees in efficiency and performance bonuses.
Quick! Let's put the federal government in charge of health care right away!
Splash, out
Jason
Quick! Let's put the federal government in charge of health care right away!
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: Government, soldiers' issues, VA, veterans
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Obama Administration to Veterans: Drop Dead.
No, really.
More ...
Thanks to the Sainted General Shinseki.
Don't worry. The Democrat leadership in Congress is hard at work on a plan to include veterans in the Cash for Clunkers program.
Splash, out
Jason
Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."
Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
More ...
I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update "Your Life, Your Choices" between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").
This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better.
Thanks to the Sainted General Shinseki.
Don't worry. The Democrat leadership in Congress is hard at work on a plan to include veterans in the Cash for Clunkers program.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: culture, disabilities, health care, soldiers' issues, The Sainted General Shinseki, VA, veterans
The Price of Freedom
This song - as I'm apparently the last f***ing Guardsman to learn - was written by a twelve-year-old daughter of a National Guardsman and her 16-year-old sister.
I think they did a wonderful job, don't you?
P.S., The price of peace is steep. Freedom, on the other hand, costs a buck-0-five.
Splash, out
Jason
I think they did a wonderful job, don't you?
P.S., The price of peace is steep. Freedom, on the other hand, costs a buck-0-five.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: marketing, Music, music business, National Guard, public relations, reserve issues, soldiers' issues
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Oh, Christ ...
Are we capitalizing the word "veterans" now, too?
Mr. Black-Berets-From-China, now the Secretary ofData Security Breaches Veterans Affairs appears in -- wait for it -- The Huffington Post.
What's next? Tom Daschle writing about health care in Mad Magazine?
Mr. Black-Berets-From-China, now the Secretary of
What's next? Tom Daschle writing about health care in Mad Magazine?
Labels: generals, soldiers' issues, The Sainted General Shinseki, veterans
Monday, August 10, 2009
USAA Federal Savings Bank to allow customers to deposit checks by iPhone
This is pretty cool!
Innovation is a good thing! I wasn't too impressed with New York Times's line: "USAA is an unlikely innovator."
What the hell does THAT mean? USAA isn't from New York, Connecticut or California? Just why IS USAA an unlikely innovator, in the eyes of the NY Times?
No word on what the fee is, if any. It would seem that this would be much cheaper than processing a paper check.
Splash, out
Jason
The Internet has taken a lot of the paperwork out of banking, but there is no avoiding paper when someone gives you a check. Now one bank wants to let customers deposit checks immediately — through their phones.
USAA, a privately held bank and insurance company, plans to update its iPhone application this week to introduce the check deposit feature, which requires a customer to photograph both sides of the check with the phone’s camera.
“We’re essentially taking an image of the check, and once you hit the send button, that image is going into our deposit-taking system as any other check would,” said Wayne Peacock, a USAA executive vice president.
Customers will not have to mail the check to the bank later; the deposit will be handled entirely electronically, and the bank suggests voiding the check and filing or discarding it. But to reduce the potential for fraud, only customers who are eligible for credit and have some type of insurance through USAA will be permitted to use the deposit feature. Mr. Peacock said that about 60 percent of the bank’s customers qualify.
Innovation is a good thing! I wasn't too impressed with New York Times's line: "USAA is an unlikely innovator."
What the hell does THAT mean? USAA isn't from New York, Connecticut or California? Just why IS USAA an unlikely innovator, in the eyes of the NY Times?
No word on what the fee is, if any. It would seem that this would be much cheaper than processing a paper check.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: banking, finance, insurance, soldiers' issues, USAA
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Amputee to return to battle in Afghanistan.
"'Tis but a scratch!"
We have footage:
But read on, and look what's buried:
Impossible!!! The Taliban are Sunni radicals!!!! The Iranians are Shia!!! It's impossible for them to even be in the same zip code without spontaneously combusting!!!! Bush lied!!! People died!!!!!
Splash, out
Jason
A BRITISH soldier who had part of his leg blown off by a landmine is preparing to return to Afghanistan to settle “unfinished business” with the Taliban.
Private Matt Woollard, 20, is expected to be the first British infantryman to return to the front line after being fitted with a prosthetic limb.
Woollard, a member of 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, lost his lower right leg after setting off an insurgent bomb while on patrol near Kajaki in May 2007. His heart stopped three times while he was receiving treatment.
“I want to get back and do what I was sent to Afghanistan to do in 2007 — take the fight to the Taliban,” Woollard told The Sunday Times.
We have footage:
But read on, and look what's buried:
The mounting casualties come amid concern among senior officers that some of the mines and explosives used in the Taliban bombing campaign are coming from Iran. Their fears appeared to be backed by statements from Dennis Blair, America’s director of national intelligence, confirming that Iran is supplying Afghan insurgents with weaponry.
In a statement to the US Senate intelligence committee, obtained by the Secrecy News blog last week under freedom of information rules, Blair said Iran was covertly supplying weapons to the Taliban while publicly supporting the Afghan government.
“Shipments typically include small arms, mines, rocket-propelled grenades [RPGs], rockets, mortars and plastic explosives,” said Blair. He added: “Taliban commanders have publicly credited Iranian support for successful operations against coalition forces.”
British military intelligence sources were more cautious. “It is an undefined amount of explosives that has come in from Iran,” said one source. “But, yes, there is concern that some of the mines and explosives the Americans are talking about may have been used in the Taliban bombs.”
Impossible!!! The Taliban are Sunni radicals!!!! The Iranians are Shia!!! It's impossible for them to even be in the same zip code without spontaneously combusting!!!! Bush lied!!! People died!!!!!
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: Afghanistan, Monty Python, soldiers' issues
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Fun With Statistics: More on Homeless Veterans
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:
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.
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.)
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
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
Sunday, July 05, 2009
More on Afghanistan ROE: FUCK THE COWS!
Marcus at JustBarkingMad continues his look at the doctrinal underpinnings of the new ROE in Afghanistan here, building on this post here, but has not, as yet, provided anything approaching a useful suggestion to the platoon leader on the ground faced with contact from an Afghan house or village.
Herschel Smith gets much the better of the argument, in my opinion.
Try as I might, and having given Marcus two extensive posts to defend his position, the new ROE just doesn't seem to me to pass the 'boots-on-the-ground' test. I think his position is complicated by the fact that if ANY guidance is so complicated to express that it takes more than two full blog posts on JustBarkingMad to spell out, it will NOT pass the boots-on-the-ground test, by definition.
Here's my guidance:
Find the enemy. Cut him off. Pursue him. Fix him. Close with him. Kill him.
If Afghan forces are capable of conduction the last two, AND are at hand, then let them take the lead, by all means. But if they are not? Then go after the Taliban and kill them where they are.
It ain't rocket science. The time to get all fucking involved and kissy-faced with the tribal elders and get your panties all in a wad over civil affairs issues is BEFORE the moojies open up on you from the house on the corner. NOT during the fucking firefight.
Jus in bello concerns about proportionality and the economy of force principle of war still apply.
Marcus says "this shit is chess, not checkers."
No. This shit ain't chess. This shit is war.
Let me take it a bit further. I'm reminded of a joke at the end of the movie Colors. There's two bulls up on a hill, looking at a herd of cows. The young bull says to the old bull, "Hey, pop! Let's run down the hill and fuck one of them cows!" The papa bull says to the young bull, "No, son. Let's walk down... and fuck them all!"
Well, guess what. Just because COIN doctrine says you WALK down the hill instead of RUN down the hill doesn't mean that when you get down the hill you don't fuck the cows. YOU STILL FUCK THE COWS!!!!
Do I need to explain further?
Splash, out
Jason
Herschel Smith gets much the better of the argument, in my opinion.
Try as I might, and having given Marcus two extensive posts to defend his position, the new ROE just doesn't seem to me to pass the 'boots-on-the-ground' test. I think his position is complicated by the fact that if ANY guidance is so complicated to express that it takes more than two full blog posts on JustBarkingMad to spell out, it will NOT pass the boots-on-the-ground test, by definition.
Here's my guidance:
Find the enemy. Cut him off. Pursue him. Fix him. Close with him. Kill him.
If Afghan forces are capable of conduction the last two, AND are at hand, then let them take the lead, by all means. But if they are not? Then go after the Taliban and kill them where they are.
It ain't rocket science. The time to get all fucking involved and kissy-faced with the tribal elders and get your panties all in a wad over civil affairs issues is BEFORE the moojies open up on you from the house on the corner. NOT during the fucking firefight.
Jus in bello concerns about proportionality and the economy of force principle of war still apply.
Marcus says "this shit is chess, not checkers."
No. This shit ain't chess. This shit is war.
Let me take it a bit further. I'm reminded of a joke at the end of the movie Colors. There's two bulls up on a hill, looking at a herd of cows. The young bull says to the old bull, "Hey, pop! Let's run down the hill and fuck one of them cows!" The papa bull says to the young bull, "No, son. Let's walk down... and fuck them all!"
Well, guess what. Just because COIN doctrine says you WALK down the hill instead of RUN down the hill doesn't mean that when you get down the hill you don't fuck the cows. YOU STILL FUCK THE COWS!!!!
Do I need to explain further?
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: Afghanistan, bloggers, soldiers' issues, Warfighting
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Gay Sailor's Family Blames Military After His Death
From the A.P.
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.
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.
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
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
Monday, June 22, 2009
Run Away!!! Run Away!!!!
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.
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?
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.
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!"
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
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Rogue Cancer Unit at VA hospital botches 92 of 116 cancer treatments
... And covers it up.
More:
Quick! Let's put government employees in charge of everyone's medical care, right away!
Had the government responded more aggressively, it might have uncovered a rogue cancer unit at the hospital, one that operated with virtually no outside scrutiny and botched 92 of 116 cancer treatments over a span of more than six years — and then kept quiet about it, according to interviews with investigators, government officials and public records.
The team continued implants for a year even though the equipment that measured whether patients received the proper radiation dose was broken. The radiation safety committee at the Veterans Affairs hospital knew of this problem but took no action, records show.
More:
The 92 implant errors resulted from a systemwide failure in which none of the safeguards that were supposed to protect veterans from poor medical care worked, an examination by The New York Times has found.
Peer review, a staple of every good hospital, in which colleagues examine one another’s work, did not exist in the unit. The V.A.’s radiation safety program; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the use of all nuclear materials; and the Joint Commission, a group that accredited the hospital, all failed to intervene; either their inspections had been limited or they had not acted decisively upon finding problems.
Over all, the implant program lacked a “safety culture,” the nuclear commission found. Dr. Kao and other members of his team, the commission said, were not properly supervised or trained in what constitutes a substandard implant and the need to report it. Dr. Kao declined to comment for this article.
Quick! Let's put government employees in charge of everyone's medical care, right away!
Labels: Government, health care, soldiers' issues, veterans
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
ACLU Seeks to tear down VFW War Memorial Cross
The Thomas More Law Center files a Friend of the Court Brief opposing the ACLU.
I swear - the ACLU isn't staffed by liberals so much as sociopaths.
Splash, out
Jason
At issue is a small cross originally erected on Sunrise Rock in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in memory of the dead of all wars. The cross is located in California’s Mojave Desert, in a remote area where the only visible signs of human activity are off-road vehicles and trail hikers. The ACLU succeeded in its anti-cross agenda by obtaining a ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that the cross violated the so-called separation of church and state. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, Ken Salazar v. Frank Buono.
I swear - the ACLU isn't staffed by liberals so much as sociopaths.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: ACLU, Christianity, in memoriam, law, Religion, soldiers' issues, stupid, The Left
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Did the Obama Administration ixnay investigations on radical black Muslims?
STRATFOR has it, apparently from multiple sources predating the Little Rock shooting, that it did.
Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to “back off” of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts. At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.
Now a Little Rock soldier is dead.
Even though lone wolves operate alone, they are still constrained by the terrorist attack cycle, and because they are working alone, they have to conduct each step of the cycle by themselves. This means that they are vulnerable to detection at several different junctures as they plan their attacks, the most critical of which is the surveillance stage of the operation. Muhammad did not just select that recruiting center at random and attack on the spot. He had cased it prior to the attack just as he had been taught in the militant training camps he attended in Yemen. Law enforcement officials have reported that Muhammad may also have researched potential government and Jewish targets in Little Rock, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New York, Louisville and Memphis.
Had the FBI opened a full-field investigation on Muhammad, and had it conducted surveillance on him, it would have been able to watch him participate in preoperational activities such as conducting surveillance of potential targets and obtaining weapons.
Mission. Accomplished.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: Crime, Obama, soldiers' issues, stupid, terrorism, War on Terror
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Poetry of Veterans
MONUMENTS
We are not statues
Standing among the trees,
A tribute to what has passed.
We are not statues,
Though our faces are stone,
Chiseled by time, shaped by history
That we are now part of,
As it is part of us.
We are living monuments,
Stoic in the shadows
As the world around us moves.
Colin Halloran, 23, senior
Central Connecticut State University
More here.
We are not statues
Standing among the trees,
A tribute to what has passed.
We are not statues,
Though our faces are stone,
Chiseled by time, shaped by history
That we are now part of,
As it is part of us.
We are living monuments,
Stoic in the shadows
As the world around us moves.
Colin Halloran, 23, senior
Central Connecticut State University
More here.
Labels: Afghanistan, Iraq, New York Times, Poetry, soldiers' issues, the Arts, veterans
