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: "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: "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: "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: "Now It Is Up To Us To Arrange The Meeting...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has some harsh words for MAJ Hasan's chain-of-command.

Money quote(s):

"The US Army needs to make an example of this guy for what he has done, and show the world that this is how we deal with those that commit these kinds of acts, but I will reiterate, I hope that the chain of command that was supervising this guy has some giant rubber stamp across each of their service records saying in 2" block letters NON-PROMOTABLE. They are at least 50 percent culpable here because they had a chance to fight at least a fairly serious delaying action in seeing that this guy wasn't promoted, was assigned to someone to be out processed from the US Army, reported to US Army CID, the FBI, and after being tossed out on his ear, placed on a terrorist watch list. But evidently, instead they decided that they didn't want our "diversity" to become a casualty either. Do you think if he was sexually harrassing female colleagues, US Army Civilian office staff or patients that he would have not been taken action against and sent packing by his superiors?"

A generation of political correctness, and (justifiable) fears of career repercussions led directly to this result. While, as a group, I would hesitate long and hard before criticizing the physical courage of army officers, I would hesitate nearly as long before saying anything positive about their moral courage.

And when I finished hesitating I'd note that military officers know a thing or two about strategy, about tactics, about operations. And that these fields apply as much to the non-kinetic realm of Pentagon politics as anywhere else. And that there's such a thing a not fighting battles you know you can't win, deciding which hill it is you want to kill your career on, which sword upon which you wish to fall.

Unfortunately, in the case of MAJ Hasan, a long list of officers made their calculations and decided he wasn't worth it.

And they were wrong.

re: "The Rocket's Red Glare of the Occasional Sortie...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is following U.S. war news in the foreign press (which means he receives information, not cheer-leading).

Money quote(s):

" "KABLUEY!" in a bad way would be the way I would describe how the current president is experiencing his military successes, particularly in Libya, where the rocket's red glare and the bombs bursting in air are currently giving way to Qaddafi's flag still being there."

Way back when Gulf War I was being televised on CNN, there was talk of how it all looked like a video game: grainy and detached, bloodless and antiseptic.

This also fostered an illusion of military omnipotence.

Sure. Our guys, and their gizmos, are good. But they're not all-powerful. And sometimes the biggest bang, even if properly applied, isn't going to result in the outcome you want.

Back when dinosaurs (and Soviets) roamed the Earth, your humble scribe learned a bit of wisdom working with nuclear weapons systems: There is a proper tool for every task.

Maybe NATO airstrikes aren't the perfect tool for this task. Oh, and what exactly are this task's objectives?

"(W)ith more word games from the State Department, and diplomats don't run combat operations for a very good reason, the bombs bursting in air is likely to continue" (Bold typefaced added for emphasis. - CAA.)

No offense taken, at least not by me, and I'm a lot closer by temprament and training to actually being able to run combat operations than most of my diplomatic peers. After all, it's not what diplomats are either trained or selected/promoted to do. Nor should they be.

"(T)here is no such thing as a "passive" exchange of fire, if you don't believe me, look it up in your PIO reference guide or your protocol handbook, but since you might not have time because you are tying yourself in knots trying to explain this, I will clear it up for you; anytime you are dropping bombs on someone, you are "actively" exchanging fire. Just because they don't shoot back, it doesn't change the nature of the transaction..."

Good point. Valid point, simply put. (Perhaps this isn't something covered in law school.)

"This is what happens when you lead from the rear, and if our mission continues to be murky and gets continually redefined between noninformative press conferences, then all of the two bit, tin pot dictators in the world will know that they are safe for at least the next 16 months, because we can't seem to kill the one in Libya, if that is our mission.

And what does this say about our word in the world? Qadaffi did what he is supposed to by coming forward and admitting his WMD programs and cooperating with the US during the last administration, and for that he was rewarded by having bombs dropped on him once per day, maybe. Kind of like teaching your dog to sit and then when he does it, you beat him for it. Any of you egghead diplo-dummies over at State want to explain to me how this perverted form of carrot/stick theory works?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA apparently lacks sufficient egg-headedness to tackle the writer's request. From my obviously under-informed and inexperienced perspective, this last seems like precisely the reverse of the message we should be sending to governments thinking about a little (or a lot) bit of nuclear proliferation, like, for instance, Iran.

The phrases "counter-intuitive" and "designed to fail" come to mind.

Of course, not being a Middle East-specialist, I can make assertions like "we're doing it exactly wrong" (and not be taken seriously).

"The debate over whether the WPA applies or doesn't apply or whether it passes constitutional muster is something that will continue to go on, but as I have talked about before, consistency is a habit of the successful and makes your leadership believable. If the president says he needs Congress to buy off on attacking Iran, then he better say the same damn thing about attacking anywhere else as well."

This is true only if consistency is valued by leaders. Consistency will be valued by leaders only if they are rewarded for it. If they are rewarded despite inconsistency, then the opposite outcome will result.

re: "Like Watching a Car Wreck...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") finds fault with the law-enforcement model of counter-terrorism.

Money quote(s):

"(E)vidently, the Attorney General of these here United States believes that the best weapon to use against terrorists isn't an M-4 with a SOPMOD package and a rucksack full of ammo in the hands of a skilled operator, it is a Miranda Warning Blaster Cannon, a Search Warrant Launcher and a Legal Discovery Bomb."

It's not that the Justice Department doesn't have a role in the GWOT, it's just not that of "lead agency." Nor should it be. Ever. At least not in more than an advisory and assist role, and that only within the U.S. itself.

Frankly, given the enemy's proven skills at lawfare, this should be more than enough to keep AG Holder occupied.

"(R)emember all those brave barristers that kicked in the doors at the Bin Laden compound and aggressively read Osama his Miranda rights and moved immediately to a speedy trial. This is not one of the most laughable things the Attorney General has ever said, nor is it the most clueless thing either, but it is consistent."

re: "This Is Why We Have Meetings...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") explains why one should avoid working with amateurs.

Money quote(s):

"It is my belief that if this "bong hit diplomacy" continues (one of my favorite Uncle Jimbo-isms BTW), we are in for at least a generation of rebuilding our character and relationships around the world, because this President can't seem to be able to order an omelet without having to first check the poll numbers (would mushrooms be offended if ham and onions were not included?), consult what MSNBC thinks about eggs (too much cholesterol--have some granola instead), ask the UN if it violates the eggs rights, get the buy in of our allies to ensure the omelet has the right amount of calories (can't have a "heavy" package omelet--allies might not like it), minimize collateral damage to chicken farms and on and on....

I had an old platoon sergeant who I watched tell my new platoon leader during an unguarded moment while training "Sir, you need to lead, follow or get the hell out of the way." Exactly.... "

re: "Killing Pirates and the Law of the Sea...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has an idea for dealing with the Somali pirates.

Presenting, the Deebow Accord:

"Hunt down and kill the pirates immediately in your sights and
operating in your corner of the ocean, sink and burn their boats, repeatedly machine gun the surviving pirates, leave what is left to the sharks, repatriate their loot, burn their hideouts and leave all of this damage and destruction as a warning to others."

Additional quote(s):

"I get that this administration and, as Uncle J pointed out, their bong hit diplomacy continues unabated"

re: "Apocalyptic Mental Midgetry...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is underimpressed with the current foreign policy leadership.

Money quote(s):

"The apocalyptic lack of actual experience in the area of foreign affairs, foreign policy, and knowledge of what actually works is becoming stunningly clear to those Americans who are willing to do the barest amount of news-watching. I wonder where we can find more of these people to hire?

And with men like Leon Panetta (whose foresight on intelligence matters is limited to his playing "Risk" in college, and evidently, watching the news), and DNI James Clapper (who evidently didn't see the word "muslim" in the title "Muslim Brotherhood"), and SOS Hillary Pantsuits (well, ummm... Never Mind..) advising the community organizer in chief on how best to not show weakness, send a consistent message and try not to alienate the .02 percent of the population that attended UC Berkeley who would vote for him 2012; we end up with a situation that, unfortunately, our enemies are watching very closely, because they get a vote in what happens as well."

Ouch. More than a little bit of partisan anger is clouding the criticism here, which should be examined cooly and with some professional detachment, thank-you-very-much.

"This is not leadership. Vacilation is not a leadership trait. Good leaders make consistent decisions from consistent thinking with intelligence guided by experience and training. This President seems to be flipping a coin or taking a poll in the Situation Room by a show of hands.

I know what real leadership looks like, the writers and viewers of this blog know what leadership looks like, and this ain't it. Fire Panetta now. Fire Clapper now. Fire Clinton now."

One of the things that's so frustrating sometimes is knowing just how little the U.S. can actually do, sometimes, to influence events in faraway places. For instance, when unorganized protesters occupy a major public square for a week or more, who has their leader (hint: there isn't one) in their Rolodex file? Lack of understanding of just how limited our options sometimes are makes it easy to direct the anger this frustration produces on simplistic targets.