National Review - Boots to Suits: Reforming the State Department

The National Review's The Corner hosted a recent article by Jim Hanson (of Blackfive fame) and Brad Patty ruffled a few feathers among my colleagues.

Money quote(s):

"The State Department needs people who know how to do direct diplomacy under fire, and who are comfortable in muddy boots."

How much national-level diplomacy can actually be accomplished "under fire," as it were?  Read on.

"Tillerson is right to take a hard look at the culture of the institution. For more than a decade, State has failed to address cultural challenges its leadership has acknowledged. 

The two of us have seen this cultural failure in the field. Jim was a Special Forces weapons sergeant in First Group. Brad spent long parts of three consecutive years in Iraq, including working closely with “State Department” Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). We put that in scare quotes because almost all State employees stayed in the embassy. Aside from a handful of Provincial Reconstruction Team leaders, State sent contractors out to the field in boots. The PRTs and the USAID presence were both made up almost exclusively of contractors because State simply could not get its people to volunteer for such hazardous and unpleasant duty."

We heard about something called "expeditionary diplomacy" for awhile.  Was that before (or after) "transformational diplomacy"?

(Buzzwords make CAA's head hurt.)

Why might, do you suppose, a federal agency engage contractors to fill positions on Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT)?  Might it be because the particular hard skill needed on that team was one not maintained in any abundance on-the-shelf at that agency?  DOS team leaders, unless I'm wrong, on PRTs were full-time "Direct Hires" in most cases, whereas specialists of various sorts on those teams might represent skill-sets outside the scope of traditional diplomacy but which State nonetheless was responsible for staffing.

And as for the "almost all State employees stayed in the embassy" crack, that might just have something to do with travel and security restrictions imposed on them by risk averse chiefs-of-mission and by Diplomatic Security representatives, no matter what personal preferences might have been.

"The State Department traditionally hires academically inclined people who come from a fairly narrow collection of universities and think tanks. This makes sense as many of the skills and knowledge necessary to be a successful Foreign Service officer are nurtured in these circles. The department, however, could also use the kind of people who know how to do direct diplomacy under fire, and who are comfortable in muddy boots. A perfect collection of those have served in U.S. Army Special Forces."

Like much of the federal government, there's a hiring preference for veterans with the result that a higher percentage of the Foreign Service (just like the Civil Service) are veterans than are present in the general population.  These days that means in most cases that they are veterans of combat deployments to one or multiple theaters of operations.

Unfortunately, with current FSO hiring almost entirely coming from Pickering and Rangel fellows due to the self-imposed hiring freeze, I expect those percentages to slip steadily.  I have yet to meet a Pickering or Rangel fellow who was a combat veteran.  I would be very happy to learn that I am wrong in my sense that nearly all of these highly-credentialed folks have taken an academic career track that completely avoided military service.

Might State be well-served to recruit (once it resumes a recruiting effort that involves actual hiring) highly-qualified ex-SF personnel?  Certainly.  There was a pilot "mustang" program not that long ago open to non-State federal personnel not so many years ago that could be revived to good effect.

re: "Budget axe may kill our military’s edge"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") explained why defense cuts are fraught with peril.

Money quote(s):

"One of the things that concerns me with all of the talk about huge budget cuts to defense is the distinct possibility that such cuts will take away the edge our military now has and has enjoyed for decades.

That edge, or advantage, is something that has helped make our military successful in every sort of combat imaginable. But developing and maintaining that edge are both time consuming and expensive. Research, development, testing, field and support don’t come cheap.

Yet that seems to be what is being demanded in an increasingly technologically advanced and dangerous world. The edge we’ve developed technologically over the years is what makes our military so exponentially lethal. We’ve provided combat multipliers to our warriors and they’ve used them expertly.

But to maintain such an edge, we must also be willing to spend the money necessary to do so.

There are numerous examples of cuts being considered that are dangerous. They will not only make our military much less capable, but also threaten our national security. Not only that, the cuts could end up actually costing us more than they save by sticking the military with outdated equipment that requires more maintenance, has more down time and will need continued parts and support."

That last might seem counterintuitive, but really isn't. To those with any military experience whatsoever (which exempts most of Congress), it's obvious. Older stuff breaks more often, is offline or "deadlined" longer, and requires replacement of broken or wornout parts with greater frequency. It's why military logisticians go with 150 percent "redundancy": in essence, if you need two trucks, you'd better have three because one is always going to be "down" for maintenance.

McQ concluded:

"These are the things that should concern us all as we watch a group of politicians with vested interests in other areas, many of whom look at defense spending cuts as a way to pay for other programs they are interested in, get ready to swing the budget axe.

Do we keep and improve the technological edge which has made our military the most powerful and predominant military in the world for decades? Or do we refuse to pay the price necessary to keep our military’s edge and continue to make it the most powerful and flexible force in the world and risk our national security?

No one knows how many wars and conflicts our military has been able to avoid simply because we’re as powerful as we are. But if history is a teacher, as soon as we’re perceived to be in decline militarily, there are those who will test us. This is one area of the national budget with which we must be very careful. Budgetary fat is always fair game, but the systems that will be the heart and soul of our national defense capability for decades to come should not be cut heedlessly. To do so would be a tragic mistake."

10/26

re: "Libya: Muslim law and secular dreams"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") was unsurprised at anti-secular developments in Libya.

Money quote(s):

"If your hope for the latest version of “Arab Spring” to be found in Libya was a secular democratic state, you can quickly forget the secular part of the dream."

&

"I’d love to tell you this comes as a complete surprise, but then I’d be acting like some politicians I know.

I’m certainly not going to contend that keeping Gadhafi was the best thing we could do, but let’s be clear, what has happened darn sure doesn’t seem to be an outcome that we’d have hoped to see either. At least as it now seems to be shaking out.

In that area of the world, secular dreams seem to me to be the most foolish. How that particular dream manages to stay alive among the elite of the West is beyond me. It isn’t now nor has it ever been a probable outcome of any of these so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions. The revolutions are steeped in Islam because the governments being replaced were relatively secular for the area and the Islamic groups now rising were the ones being repressed."

Hope is still not a plan. (And it's not a very useful analytical tool either.)

10/24

A Different View: Travels with Team Easy, Iraq 2007

Blog friend (and CEO of Cooking With The Troops ) C. Blake Powers, the Laughing Wolf, and co-blogger at Blackfive, has a new book out:

A Different View: Travels with Team Easy, Iraq 2007

Also available in Kindle.

The official book blurb states:

"A Different View Of Life At The Front Rather than combat, this book is about the day-to-day life with troops in Iraq. The focus is on the 90-99 percent of the time that is tedium or boredom, rather than the one percent that is the focus of most photographs seen on the news. Foreword by Matthew Currier Burden, author of "The Blogs of War" "You can see that in his excellent work here. And I sincerely believe that you will experience something new through his “arch” into a very untraveled world…" Introduction by JD Johannes, author and filmmaker, "Outside The Wire" "Blake’s photography shows the preferred normative, but because it is not news, rarely seen." “Blake has come a long way since his days as an assistant at Playboy Chicago. It’s great to see just how far, by his showing a side of combat that few ever see, or even have the opportunity to see. A super job, I’m glad to say I knew him ‘when’….” David Mecey, former staff photographer, Playboy Magazine. "Blake has generated an outstanding work that reframes the still quiet moments of war. One could easily use this book in reintegrating one's self, family, and life. The parallels drawn between the landscape of war and the landscape of our southern United States (which still bears the scars of past war) are particularly apt. I'm pleased to see this work become available to our community." - Damon Bryan Shackelford, creator of Delta Bravo Sierra military cartoons." (Bold typeface and links added for emphasis and all-around linkery goodness. - CAA.)

Bottom Line At Bottom (BLAB): Both Matty 0'Blackfive (the original "paratrooper of love") and the DBS cartoonist say you should read it.

(I guess I'd better read it too.)

re: "The Definition of Insanity"

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") found fault with the latest iteration of the "peace dividend."

Money quote(s):

"We did this after WWI, WWII and during the decade of Slick Willie and the Peace Dividend. Resurgent China, collapsing Norks, Nuclear Iran, unfinished Afghanistan; really, I probably could go on and on with people who would wish us ill."

&

"(D)id anyone consult any random first sergeant out in the motor pool or Infantry branch officer on what they learned at West Point?, I mean, besides the mandatory attendance at presidential speeches and diversity classes? You know, the strategy and tactics part, theatre logistics, air land battle? Have any of those mental midgets heard of being there "firstest with the mostest" to win the battle? The 82nd Airborne is built around the idea that we are not going to spend time in the mutual circle jerk of international diplomacy, we are going to put men on the ground to influence our enemies decision making process and get inside their OODA Loop. Ships and airplanes driven and flown by men can still not own the ground that young men in the mud will be forced to wrest from our nation's foes. We owe it to them to give them enough comrades to ensure it can be done.

And the last time I walked the battlefield, the only dude who owned the ground was not the pilot in the B-1B I invited to the party after I kicked it off with my own fireworks; it was me, and all the other dudes on the bad-ass list I brought with me; standing on the earth I wanted to own and kicking the stinking jihadis off of it in the nastiest, most lethal and final fashion I could come up with moment to moment."

These are serious subjects studied seriously by serious people. I'm not sure they fit in with the narrative.

"Wars are not something you can fight with a coupon or try to duck out on the cheap and my bet is that we could afford a poop ton more troops and equipment if we weren't making loans/campaign contributions to outfits like Solyndra and putting our debt at 100.3 percent of our GDP, along with all of the other Marxist crap that the OinC has decided is good for America.

This is bad voodoo and the sooner the amateurs in Foggy Bottom and the Puzzle Palace that are entertaining the whisperings of the Good Idea Fairy are on the rocket sled to irrelevance, the better."

&

"(T)his is the worst idea this administration has ever had, and the Libturds that thought this up better start studying up on their Chinese and getting familiar with the 12th Imam, because there may test questions at the re-education camp later."

This presumes that their new overlords will bother trying to re-educate them.

1/5

re: "Iraq Pullout - Not A Cause for Celebration"

LONGTABSIGO at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") commented on strategy.

Money quote(s):

"I must have been absent in strategy class the day they taught that you can declare a war over unilaterally."

Well, you can. But normally you destroy their ability to make war and occupy their capital first.

Oh wait, we did that.

At least one bright observer theorized that we've fought at least three wars in Iraq already, since invading in 2003.

So which war is that we won this time?

(Hint: Identify your enemy.)

(Take your time.)

(Another hint: Read the Max Boot quote towards the end of the linked post.)

"But the rationale is not even adversary-based. It is ostensibly because DOD and State Lawyers cannot work out an appropriate Status of Forces agreement such that US Troops would not be subject to the arbitrary whim of Iraqi law (even if taking an action deemed to be "in the line of duty" by US law/standards).

I've heard of "lawfare" as a check against offensive action out of fear of risk or possible bad press. But an inabilty to convincinly negotiate as a rationale for major troop reduction?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

10/21

re: "Losing a war and a peace"

UNCLE JIMBO at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") explained some quite simple concepts.

Money quote(s):

"We are making a deal with the Taliban, a losing one. Our Commander in Chief fundamentally misunderstands the way wars must be fought, and I am not talking about strategy or tactics. I am talking about winning or losing."

There is, for those who haven't been following along at home, quite a difference between the two, and the consequences will echo into eternity.

He goes on to admonish the president:

"You can't end wars Mr. President; They are won or lost. Afghanistan has been lost."

In all fairness, he also notes:

"I am not certain at all that the war in Afghanistan could have been won."

Not as it's been fought; it seems reasonable to question whether the proper action in Afghanistan should have been simply a punitive expedition to schwack a sufficient number of alligators, rather than attempting to drain, and subsequently gentrify, the swamp.

"We will now cede the field of battle, where so much US blood has been shed, to the enemy. And we will sue for something less than peace from the very people who hosted the planning and execution of 9/11."

I suppose the inevitable question, should this proceed as it appears envisioned, is how long before Taliban-sponsored and sheltered embark on their offensive against the U.S.

That and how much money we will pay in tribute, er, development assistance during the interim.

"It has been a long decade of war and we are all tired, none more so than the troops who have marched to the sound of gunfire over and over again. They, with the steadfast support of a real Commander in Chief George W. Bush, won the war in Iraq."

1/5

re: "Spy problems"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") critiqued how America collects intelligence.

Money quote(s):

"One of the biggest flaws in our national security is the lack of any serious human intelligence capabilities. I do not mean to demean those who do practice this most dangerous craft, but to point out our lack of focus on this area."

We do have folks whose (dangerous) business this is; CAA has had the privilege of working with some of them in the past.

"I am saddened by the amateur nature of it. We decided back in the days of Jimmy Carter that spying was too nasty a game for a civilized nation to play and consequently we have blundered about like Mr. Magoo since then. We rely on signal intercepts to learn what is going on, and while this is valuable, absent the context and reality check of human intelligence it is guess work. Sadly all too often our guesses have turned out to be wrong."

Within the IC, the "science is settled" on this; the post-Vietnam focus on technical intelligence and severe cuts our human intelligence capabilities were a mistake.

Post-9/11, much time, effort, and money has gone to re-building our human collection capabilities but this isn't something that can simply be achieved, it's a moving target.

"If we want to avoid big wars, then we need a true intelligence gathering capability. That means spies, real spies, spying on people. We can scarf up all the data we want, but the value of an insider telling us what is really going on trumps all that. So let's thaw out some of the Cold War tactics that kept us safe. It may not be Boris & Natasha (or it might) but we need to keep an eye on all kinds of folks."

11/21

re: "Terrorists sightseeing in San Antonio"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") correctly described our enemies.

Money quote(s):

"It has been a long time since foreign terrorists successfully perpetrated anything heinous on US soil. That is partly due to the fact that our enemies are losers, but eventually they will pull something off."

There are, after all, quite a few of them making the attempt, and quite a large bankroll behind them.

"(W)e are fortunate that these scumbags are dumb as dirt, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then and it's only a matter of time. Anyone up for a little profiling? I would say some "country of origin". age, sex and religious affiliation selection points might narrow down the search a bit, eh?

Nah, instead we will rely on the ignorant incompetence of those who wish to slaughter us."

Not to raise too big a fuss, but our criteria, post-9/11, for extra "administrative processing" for visa applicants who meet just about all Uncle Jimbo's listed selection points had this covered.

Not sure if it currently does.

10/19

re: "From 2004: Blackfive's Exit Strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan"

Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") re-posted some cartographic excellence:

re: "Abdicating Iraq"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") waxed pessimistic about U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hat do you call cutting and running from victory before it has solidified?"

"Abdication" works for me.

It also represents the creation of our second-largest potential hostage situation.

"Iran is our biggest enemy in the Middle East and this naive and misguided action leaves the playing field to them and they will certainly take advantage. We could have a good friend and ally on the free country of Iraq, a la Japan or Germany or Korea."

&

"Iraq is free to choose its own path in a dangerous region and that is a good thing. But they do not act in a vacuum. Iran and Syria and others attempt to influence them and not in ways that are good for peace-loving people. We sacrificed the lives of thousands of US troops to allow millions of Iraqis to taste freedom."

10/18

re: "Afghanistan and Honor"

GRIM at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") asked the hardest questions about Afghanistan.

Money quote(s):

"I asked a question at the end of the last post. The consensus from you ladies and gentlemen is... let it go. We've spent almost three thousand American, UK and NATO soldiers' lives there. That's a hard thing to walk away from.

Not that you're wrong."

In business, the concept is "sunken costs."

(It means not throwing good money after bad.)

But it doesn't mean it won't leave a bad taste in your mouth for some time afterwards

"The logistics have never worked, except for illegal goods whose value is exaggerated by artificial scarcity. Moving them into legitimate markets was never an option. Take a look at the railroad situation. They have no seaports, so rail roads are the next best thing. Of their neighboring countries, China is on a different track gauge; Pakistan and nearby India are on another; Iran is on a third; only the former Soviet states share their gauge. But that means a vast distance to the nearest seaport, and connection to global trade; or else, investment in the kind of infrastructure needed to hook up with the several other lines on offer."

Grim is talking about logistics in terms of integrating Afghanistan, and its economy, into the wider global economy; in other words: nation-building.

The same problems complicate the logistical effort necessary to support our military (and diplomatic) efforts in Afghanistan.

"If we walk away from the dead, though, there is a debt of honor owed. We must have a reckoning with those who led us to this place."

The same could have been said about our war dead from Vietnam, a reckoning long overdue.

2/1

re: "We Need To Put This Idea To Bed...."

DEEBOW at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") outlined his objections.

Money quote(s):

"(E)vidently, this has now climbed out of the rabbit hole of political correctness and right back up onto the stage. Appearances are that the illiberal liberal caucus in Congress and the Progressives/Feminists felt like they have the wind at their back with the DADT decision."

Reinforce success.

(Just because it was Soviet battle doctrine doesn't make it wrong.)

"(E)xchanging gunfire with an enemy force while in a war zone can be loosely defined as "direct ground combat," but being involved in direct ground combat and being assigned or detailed to a unit that does it day after long, arduous, bloody day are as comparable as apples and coconuts; sure, they both grow on trees, but they have zero relation to one another."

CAA started out in combat arms before migrating, as a reservist, into combat support arms (with a mercifully short detour, shudder, into a combat service support specialty). It's just not the same.

CAA values quite highly the contributions of my many female colleagues and comrades with whom I served, in peacetime and war, and without whom I cannot imagine we would have successfully completed our missions. Full stop.

But combat support, even when engaged by (or engaging) the enemy during combat operations, just isn't the same thing, as Deebow correctly states.

"A couple of gunfights does not an infantryman make. Just because you have been in a gunfight, doesn't mean you are a gunfighter. I would argue that they have proved their effectiveness as capable war-fighters by flying Apache helicopters and dropping bombs and missiles on our enemies, and in this war, they are serving in ways that could not be imagined 20 years ago. They have been detailed everywhere in the media, including this blog; and their contributions have been noted and honored." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Iraq and Afghanistan, and the earlier examples of Panama and the Balkans; more importantly the media depictions of those operations and campaigns, have given a perhaps false sense that troops of all sorts have much the same experiences. While, to an extent, this is somewhat true, it masks the deeper, darker truths about combat.

Those truths are well-expressed by the tales of "fobbits" (the modern-day REMF; and CAA has been this also) versus the soldiers in remote outposts, without daily showers and post exhanges, internet cafes, and fast food franchises.

"(I)n every category necessary for the endurance of direct ground combat, women are behind men. They rank behind men in every category by large margins except in lower body strength, where they are the least behind."

Note that lower body strength is not the same thing as being able to cover distance quickly, carrying a full combat load, due to the other sorts of strength involved, as well as average leg length and resultant stride.

"(R)egarding reproductive differences or the needs that women have regarding that, nor have we delved into what introducing 18 to 24 year old women into a Rifle Battalion would do to a unit full of testosterone filled, type A++, motivated, steely eyed killers, who are also 18 to 24 years old.

But let's put that marker down on the table right now; I say virtually everyone of them pregnant at some point during the unit deployment life cycle, higher rates of reports of sexual assault, sexual harrassment, constant reassignment to other sections and units of boyfriends and girlfriends, more sensitivity training (instead of machine gun training), and pretty much overall unit ineffectiveness based on the fact that the 18 to 24 year olds would rather be " justa he'in and a she'in" instead of doing their job.

Feminists need to understand, but it is very unlikely, that college is the place for this kind of experimentation, not in the nation's military. Combat involves physical strength, proper mindset, physical skills, aerobic capability, sharp vision and a killer instinct."

At this point, CAA hisself only has a plurality of those last listed qualifications; back in the day that wasn't the case. Still, it's mighty hard work even for a young man in peak physical condition.

"The nation's wars against our enemies, who don't have these issues in their armies, are not going to wait for us to sort this issue out. In fact, I bet they are falling out of their chairs right now laughing hysterically. I personally just want the Feminists to agree that they value women as much as they say they do, because putting them in places that they are even more likely to be violently killed, subject to capture, torture, rape by our enemies, or mostly for not thinking that women are above the day to day drudgery of life not only in an infantry unit in extended ground combat, but the drudgery of the job while not deployed seems to me to be a bit in conflict with the idea of honoring them and their abilities."

11/18

re: "Infuriating idiocy about Islamists"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") presented an award.

Money quote(s):

"This wins the prize for complete inability to admit the blisteringly freaking obvious point that al Qaeda is an Islamist terror group, they are at war with us and we are at war with them. This member of the Defense Department wastes bushels of oxygen evading the simple fact that our enemies are religious fanatics of an easily-identifiable flavor, identifiable because they shout their "god's" name as they hack the heads off living men and women. It is sad reminder that our "leaders" would rather bury their heads in sand, that our enemies tread wearing the iron sandals of violent Islamist extremist ideology, than be shunned by the "right"-thinking left as politically incorrect."

He does have a point. Patterns and indicators, as any intelligence analyst will tell you, assist one in identifying opposing forces.

12/15

re: "Just Shut Up, Moron...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") didn't sugar-coat this much.

Money quote(s):

"This is wrong on so many levels that when I saw it, I had to wrap my head in duct tape to keep it from exploding.

Sure the formal liars in formal wear are important, and I know that to some extent, the circle jerking that goes on during these meetings and confabs and seminars is important on some level to ensuring that we maintain some sort of relations with a country that we liberated from a tyrant and asked for no tribute in return. I am disappointed, but not surprised, at the fact that the eggheads in this administration couldn't negotiate some sort of agreement on troop placement and further security arrangements."

Don't worry; the guy who headed up the unsuccessful negotiation team will now be the next U.S. ambassador there.

(I seem to remember something of Soviet military doctrine about reinforcing success. On the other hand, this may be the Peter Principle's revenge.)

"Are soldiers less important than diplomats? HE double toothpicks no. Diplomats can't do their work without the hard work completed by those on patrol, and the American Soldier is the quintessential diplomat."

This was an optical fail. It goes to unstated, even unconscious, assumptions (i.e., biases) about the military, military members, &tc.

(After all, if they'd been successful in life they wouldn't have had to join, &tc.)

And just to turn Deebow's point on its head, there are certainly those who would claim that without the work of diplomat's, there would be no work for soldiers (to clean up their mistakes).

"Even Bill Clinton didn't say things this galactically retarded. And I will echo the sentiments of others on this blog that have pointed out that Satan's Handmaidens in this administration have the thankless job of going out and defend these retraded (sic) statements from a guy who is out of his depth in a parking lot puddle. We need to put this guy on the rocket sled back to Chicago for his extended presidential retirement soonest."

As someone who has done volunteer work with retarded young people, I take serious exception to Deebow's use of the term, even misspelled, as a pejorative with which to label the president's statement. That's unfair and cruel to the cognitively-challenged. (No, I'm not kidding.)

12/14

re: "Total Failure"

Froggy at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") sees the dead hand of America's education establishment behind the Occupy movement.

Money quote(s):

"If there is any coherent message that can be gleaned from the Occupy Wall Street “movement”, it is that our system of public and higher education can now be declared a total and complete failure. The fact that there exists no accountability at any level of our Education-Industrial Complex is perfectly clear for all to see."

For those under crushing student loan debt, why is it that you're mad at the people who loaned you the money in the first place, rather than the universities that consumed it (even as the easily available loan money encouraged schools to steadily, and greatly in advance of inflation, increase tuition costs)?

"(A) child that makes it through that system without dropping out shows up on a college campus totally unprepared for collegiate level academics finds him/herself in a psych, sociology, history, or literature class where their glaring deficiencies aren’t as much of a hindrance as they would be in Chemistry, Calculus, or Physics. Waiting for them there is a tenured hack with the full panoply of liberal/socialist agenda items infused into their course who sees his mission as one of evangelism rather than education. The classes are easy and even inspiring as the ponytailed professor shovels decades old, discredited, leftist socio-racial-economic dogma onto the student’s plates and rewards them for vomiting it back to him with no thought or concern whether those ideas have any practical application whatsoever."

CAA managed (through no particular virtue of his own) to dodge this particular minefield. Can anyone comment as to how accurate the depiction is?

"At the end of the day these young people have been destroyed, perhaps permanently, by adults whose only priority was a government paycheck and the privilege of suspending reality by living in the ivory tower. They are pitiable creatures indeed, and the fact that they are out in public proclaiming their abject ignorance through the humiliating use of the “human microphone” ought to be to the eternal shame of those who have allowed and facilitated this disastrous system of failure inculcation we call education."

10/12

re: "Fort Hood massacre nothing more than “workplace violence” per DoD"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") disagrees with the premise.

Money quote(s):

"What happened at Ft. Hood wasn’t a case of “workplace violence”, it was a case of a radicalized Islamist going on a murderous rampage because of his radicalization. It was also a total failure of leaders to recognize the threat and act on it well before it ended in the death of 13 at the Texas military installation.

Why facing up to this seems to be such a chore for DoD and this administration remains the mystery."

Integrity. I'm sure that's a word that comes up at various times during the professional education of our top military leaders. That and oldies (but goodies) like "Loyalty Upwards and Downwards" and "Men first, Mission Always."


12/7

re: "Lawfare & our enemies"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") considered the unwisdom of treating foreign unlawful combatants (i.e., war criminals) as if they were U.S. citizen offenders against federal criminal law (they may well be, but that's not the overriding consideration).

Money quote(s):

"The current administration is making some horrendous errors in its misguided quest to treat the terrorist threat against us as a civil police matter. They are dead set on trying captured terrorists with no ties to the US and who committed acts of terror far from our country in US courts. This will imbue them with all the rights and privileges of US citizens and sets up scenarios where the ghost of Johnnie Cochran is floating around NY courtrooms intoning "If the suicide belt does not fit, you must acquit". The cognitive dissonance of this foolishness is painful to contemplate and it has led to some of the most convoluted maneuvering imaginable."

7/25

re: "The Nature of Warriors...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has a soldier's eye for historical perspective on warfare.

Money quote(s):

"Wars and battle are ugly things. The very insides of the dark side of humanity and the razor thin margins of how close we come to being animals when we fight our enemies rises to the very top for all to see. It is not pretty and it is not polite. When you fight an enemy that prefers death to surrender and straps bombs to little children and records it for posterity to blast out all over the world wide web, you need to start fighting a little fire with fire. Spending every day with death tugging at your elbow while, in some cases, watching your men die, some of them good friends. Seeing this happen right in front of you every day can lead to a thirst for revenge and pay back those life debts that few will ever know."

Into each dead terrorist's violently-ended life a little rain, or something, may fall.

One aside: what's the "correct' procedure for enemy remains handling/disposal in Afghanistan? Do we FedEx or DHL them to the nearest U.S. Navy ship for the appropriate funeral rites, a la UBL?

It would be a shame if friendly graves registration folks had to get any USMC urine on them.

"Al-Reuters has their panties firmly bunched because they think this might stir anti-American sentiment after a decade of war. Really? This is what is gonna lose the war for us? The fact that we are attempting to satisfy these subhuman POS's from the 7th Century who behead those who will not comply tells me just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole.

The nature of warriors is something that only warriors will ever know. Those that have never experienced this will never know why these men felt the need to do what they did. But if our military is going to be effective in the long run, our enemies must fear us. They must believe that we are capable of unspeakable evil and every now and then, we have to pull back the curtain a little and let them see a smidgen of what we are holding the lid on while we bomb them further into the stone age. That fear of what those warriors are capable of will save lives.

Was it wrong for these Marines to do this? Sure. Was there a breakdown in leadership? No Doubt. Do I understand with 100 percent certainty why they did it? Absolutely." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

1/12

re: "State Department war lords"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") commented on some alarmist hyperbole.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he State Department is getting into the Army business in Iraq. Since we have agreed to move all of our combat forces out of the country the remaining folks need some kind of security and State is taking the lead with a force of some 5,000 private security guards. We have built a gargantuan embassy there and while it is no longer the most dangerous place on Earth, it is hardly a shangri la. I have reservations about the idea of that many armed folks under the command and control of a non-military agency, but is this really a major problem?"

It's a valid concern. While DS (the Bureau of Diplomatic Security) has considerable experience managing local guard forces at embassies and consulates around the world, the shear scale of the security effort required to support our diplomatic establishments and missions in Iraq represents a non-trivial upscaling of scope and span of control.

"I guess he is down with the whole calling security guards a mercenary army idea. As I said there is room to question whether this is a good idea, but characterizing like this is hardly fair and he goes on to blame the shootings in Nisoour Square, where 17 Iraqis were killed, on poor oversight."

CAA takes this opportunity to condemn the labeling of legitimate contractors, even security contractors, as a mercenary army.

(Of course, CAA used to be a security contractor, although not one of this type.)

"This incident, while tragic, was a case of mistaken intention not poor control as I wrote about extensively based on information from a State Department employee with direct knowledge of the case. His main concern is that the State Department IG with responsibility for Iraq has not been given the access he feels he needs to the process of fielding this force. OK that may be a problem, but all of the over kill calling them a combat brigade and hired guns and a mercenary army is a tad bit excessive eh?"

Just to be clear, CAA is not the "State Department employee" to whom Uncle Jimbo is referring.

Also, while numerically a combat brigade is in the neighborhood of having 5,000 personnel, little things life organization, command & control, equipment, training & doctrine, and mission make this security force (or forces) a horse of a different tincture.

7/22