re: "Our America"

LC 0311 Sir Crunchie I.M.H., K.o.E. at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") shared some 9/11 remembrances.

Money quote(s):

"Do not allow the emasculated wimps of our so called ruling class to tell you that 9/11 was “a horrific event”, a “disaster” or a “tragedy”. It was a deliberate act of war, nothing less. In those 10 years many have moved on and forgotten what happened that day. Others wish only to remember the dead, and downplay the evil cult of Islamofacism that killed them."

Just like the recent shootings in Aurora are not a "tragedy." They are an atrocity, a crime. A tragedy is if the theater's roof collapsed on the movie-goers.

"We are told that we must embrace those who hate us. And the gains of the Long War, paid for with the blood of our nations finest, are squandered"

&

"(T)hese arrogant elitists who sneer at our national character, the bureaucrats who write the regulations which have kept the rebuilding from being done 10 years later, the academicians who belittle our exceptionalism, they are not the real America. They do not represent our greatness, our strength. These people, raised in a safe world, are kept free by those they demean. They are safe and secure to spout their anti-American ideals because the true Americans sacrificed and bore the heavy burden. And even when they are smacked in the face by the ugly reality that there are those who wish them dead, they still maintain their utopian world view. That they live in a country secure enough to do so is a testament to those who stepped up when our nation called. It is a testament to you, the real Americans." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

9/9

re: "Magic 43%; Citizens and soldiers"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook.") approaches the civil-military nexus with the long view of an historian.

Money quote(s):

"One effect of the Fluke affair has been to draw attention to just how onerous Obamacare is even in its early phases. It is becoming clear that the government is expecting the general population to pay for more and more services through their taxes, and it is slowly becoming obvious that putting the cost onto insurance companies and employers merely masks the fact that nothing is free: the companies required to give entitled services must pay for them somehow. They raise rates, or they ask for subsidies, or, probably both."

TANSTAAFL,* as some of you will already know.

If you're getting something for "free," that means either someone else is paying for it or you're over-paying for something else.

"Kandahar

.... professional citizen soldier was deployed four times in his eleven years of service. I doubt they will find any warning signs – particularly in comparison to the warning signs displayed by the Muslim psychiatrist.

Incidentally, the official Pentagon description of the Fort Hood murders is “a workplace act of violence.” The word massacre is used in the Kandahar murders. Again, the international implications are considerable here. but one wonders if the top layers of the military understand just what is happening here.

The typical tour of duty in Viet Nam was 12 months, with various incentives given to those who would voluntarily extend their tour. Many of the extensions were taken by personnel in positions that put them in heavily fortified enclaves where they were relatively safe. Of course no place in country was completely safe, but after the end of the Tet offensive campaign of 1968 the native Viet Cong effectively ceased to exist, and the rear areas and much of the countryside in the south was statistically not particularly dangerous and nearly all casualties outside those actual combat areas were due to the same factors that affect people of military age anywhere including in the US. Indeed, accident fatalities were lower in Viet Nam than in many parts of the US due to the superior medical capabilities there. That has not been the case in Iraq or Afghanistan."

No. It certainly hasn't.

"Through history there have been many kinds of armies. There are armies of citizens in arms, literally armed men, often peasant farmers, who turn out to fight at need. That was the army of the Roman Republic for most of its history. The Legions were raised by conscription and served for the duration; but they were not paid except for rations and the like, and they expected to go home when the war was over. This lasted until the Gallic invasions caused Marius to raise armies of non-citizens and slaves, who became long term professionals who, if they survived, might hope to be given a patch of land and a chance to become a peasant and citizen, and whose children might be citizen soldiers. In fact, though, the era of the citizen soldier was just about over, and after Marius came the civil wars, the Cataline conspiracy, Caesar, and then Caesar Augustus. The citizen army was lone gone by then; the Legions of the Principate were paid professionals.

Over time the differences between citizen soldiers and long term professional soldiers has been closer or looser depending largely on wars and deployments. Some professional soldiers became palace guards, citizens in all but name and sometimes in reality, even though their units had begun as imported mercenaries. Sometimes the professionals were kept in barracks when not actually deployed, in part to keep the citizens safe from them, but also to protect them from the citizens. There were the periods in the late middle ages and renaissance when mercenary soldiers dominated. Machiavelli argued in favor of citizen soldiers with conscription.

Professional armies, he argued, could ruin you by losing a battle, or by looting the paymaster. France developed a three tier system, with the Foreign Legion that would never set foot in European France, a professional army of long term service, and conscripts. Switzerland kept the professional component of its army small by rigidly enforcing universal male conscription and requiring a very long term of compulsory reserve service after conscription. Sweden employs much the same system to this day (as does Switzerland with some modification).

Between the World Wars the United States had regular forces, but the troops were generally kept in barracks and not expected to mix in with the general population; and of course the regular army was small. In World War II the entire nation took arms for the duration of the war, and quickly disbanded when it was over. Conscription continued until after Viet Nam.

When the United States went to an all volunteer service there were diverse opinions about its makeup. The old British regular army consisted essentially of long term volunteers – at one point two four year terms ending with an invitation to a further 12 year hitch. Britain had an empire to govern, and it needed all kinds of soldier."

And so the British supplemented their (relatively) small regular army with militia (essentially what is now the "Territorial Army"), colonial troops, native troops, and other sorts of auxiliaries. Folks like Dr. Pournelle and Col. Kratman have suggested, from time to time, that we do something similar.

"Students of military history have always understood that Republics, which typically had short and intensive wars interspersed with long periods of relative peace, need a different kind of army than does an Empire, which needs Legions, but most of the fighting is left to Auxiliaries. The US had such need during its imperial periods following the Civil War and particularly during the Philippine pacification.

It takes a different kind of soldier to withstand long periods of war and danger in hostile places, as opposed to the long term citizen soldier who lives among the population and is often indistinguishable from the citizen. Machiavelli was generally correct, citizens make the best soldiers for a Republic, but he also knew that the professional condottieri and their troops – such as the English Sir John Hawkwood who saved Florence in exchange for a memorial stature – could be very effective. Some like the Sforza became the leaders of the state and made the office hereditary. Hawkwood was unusual in that he was a man of his word. (Florence determined that while it was grateful for Sir John’s service, it could not afford a bronze or granite statue, and Sir John had to settle for a painting of his statue on the wall of the local cathedral. It’s still there.)

The Kandahar massacre will and should be punished; but it was predictable. Of course the Afghani will ask for the head of this soldier."

They may feel free to not hold their breath, as there are considerably more Afghani heads owed to us, and to themselves, that should be surrendered first.

"The ability to endure long term service in a hostile environment under constant danger is not often coupled with the temperament of the citizen soldier, long term husband and father and expected to take part in civic life. Professional soldiers may in theory know they may be deployed four times in eleven years in hostile and unpleasant environments, restricted in action by rules of engagement imposed by bureaucrats over the objections of their officers – they may in theory know that when they volunteer, but few think it can or will happen. When it does, some of the best will crack. It is inevitable." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

It's not that our citizen-soldiery is broken, but there's a lot of wear and tear on organizations and individuals.

"This kind of war is not the kind of war that can be fought by a long term professional citizen army. Conscripts won’t do it well, but conscripts in a Republic have political means of protesting the situation. The Constitution of the United States never really contemplated the kind of service that we have been demanding of the troops since we ended conscription. We had no business sending a large army into Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, just as we had no real mission in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The United States was fortunate to have good results following World War II, in which our occupation armies were citizen soldiers, most of them volunteers but not long term professionals; but the circumstances were very different. We have forgotten the horrors of our Korean occupation in the period after the Japanese surrender and before the invasion of the Inman Gun in 1950, and few Americans will remember that period. For the most part the occupations elsewhere went well because the occupied countries had been thoroughly defeated, we had trained companies of military government specialists, and the Cold War soon threatened occupiers and occupied alike with something a lot less pleasant than a US constabulary."

That last is something I'd never heard mention of before, and bears some investigation.

"We were not prepared for the kind of war that we undertook in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we never did prepare for it. Our citizen soldiers did wonders considering the enormity of the task. It is a wonder that we have not had many more instances of horror.

We have lost a citizen soldier. The Afghans have lost women and children. There are no winners here."

Too true. And some will try for gain from this nonetheless.

* TANSTAAFL: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch."


3/13

re: "Kandahar"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook") examined unintended longterm consequences.

Money quote(s):

"The average Army deployment is supposed to be one year, but the effective deployment period has been 15 months since 2007. That is a long time to be in a combat zone. In World War II once one was sent overseas it was generally for the duration, but there were some periods of relief from combat: not just R&R away from the front – there was, after all, a front – but in transport between operations. There were some secure zones in Italy and later in France, because by that time USAAF had established effective air superiority, and the civilian population wasn’t hostile. In Iraq and Afghanistan even our fortresses and enclaves are not really safe. Being in one of our enclaves is not quite the same as being in a trench in the Battle of the Sarne, but it is certainly more stressful than being in operations out on some lonely atoll during our Pacific war in 1943.

Stress and its results are among the costs of long wars fought with professional soldiers. Conscripts in a democracy generally can’t be kept deployed that long. Volunteer troops can be and are. Long term deployments in danger zones are stressful."

"But they volunteered!" is not an answer, nor does it cure the ills to which the flesh (and the mind) is vulnerable.

"I note that one of the answers given to Congressional inquiry on justifications for deployment of US troops without a formal declaration of war is international authorizations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84 Of course this has been true since the Korean War.

The American way of war has been all-out effort after a war is declared. That view was reinforced after our experiments in the Philippines – a nation building effort that was partially successful, but at a very high cost. “Let him never dream that his bullet’s scream went wide of its island mark, Home to the heart of his darling land where she stumbled and sinned in the dark.” We returned to the American War (sic) of War after that, but the return was eroded after Korea under what was perceived as the new international condition. The Cold War continued, but when it ended we found ourselves in the Balkans, with the troops unable to know who were the good guys, who the bad, or what the devil we were doing over there, and why the United States. We widened the gap with Russia, but for what object we never knew.

President George H W Bush rightly understood the costs of a long term involvement on the ground in the Middle East. I thought the first Gulf War a mistake – better we should spend the money developing our resources and winning independence from the Middle East – but at least we got in and got out again.

Then came the second Gulf War and the occupation of Iraq, followed by victory in Afghanistan and following that quick victory a long expedition without clear objectives." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Go big or go home.

This has been CAA's concern about Afghanistan (and Iraq) since before the Second Gulf War began: that the U.S. would engage in a long-term "nation building" effort in either or both places for which it simply does not have the national or political attention span to see to a successful conclusion.

3/12

re: "Afghan Meadows Massacre - or Haditha Redux?"

Dafydd at Big Lizards ("Please enjoy the blog while you wait with breathless breath and baited hook for the rest of this fershlugginer web site. It really will be coolsomeness personified, the very apex of intelligent web design, when it's done. I promise.") exhibited some honestly acquired media skepticism.

Money quote(s):

"An American staff sergeant has just been indicted, tried, convicted, and condemned for a horrific massacre in Afghanistan; the court was the mainstream media -- which also served as judge, jury, and sentencing panel....

The trouble is, we don't know what really happened there, because the investigation has barely begun." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Still true. This is the point, one presumes, of an investigation and (subsequent) trial.

"(W)hile such staggering carnage was carried out -- evidently by a lone American soldier -- not a single resident could locate a weapon and shoot back at the man. Not one.

But in areas of Afghanistan like Panjwai, that are forever in a tug-of-war between Taliban and government forces, shouldn't we assume that every man would be armed, or nearly so? Shouldn't these three villages be awash with AK-47s, M-16s, and heavier weapons, and thick with Afghans boasting much recent experience using them?

Yet a single soldier can not only walk from house to house, trying doors and entering domiciles to butcher women and children at will, but even finds the time and leisure to pick up eleven dead bodies, convey them (presumably one at a time on his shoulders or tucked under his arms) from one place to another, and there burn them. A veritable Superman. (Didn't anybody think to fire upon him while his hands were thus occupied?)

I can't say it's impossible that such a massacre occured in the way that AP and its sock puppets described it... but boy howdy, what a series of unfortunate events must have occurred to prevent the local residents from doing anything, anything at all, to stop this one man death squad from devastating a village.

And what perfect timing! The alleged event occurs just as the Koran-burning riots are dying down. By a tragic coincidence, a lone American gunman goes nuts and commits a demonic act of mass human sacrifice just in time to reignite the rampage against Americans and NATO, just as withdrawal talks have finally resumed.

We don't know who actually reported what supposedly happened, but we sure know who benefits from those reports (true or false): the Taliban... in one of the home bases of the Taliban.

I'm sorry if I seem insufficiently convinced of the accuracy and veracity of this report; but I can't help remembering the "Haditha Massacre" in Iraq -- which turned out, after a lengthy investigation and multiple criminal trials, to be a complete fabrication in almost every particular reported in the first heady days of the story -- lurid "factoids" ginned up by the media, who have yet to apologize or even admit they were dead wrong." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

One question: how is that a single soldier was anywhere outside the wire? That just strikes me as odd from the outset. Nobody goes anywhere without a "battle buddy," after all.

Dafydd went on to describe two other deception operations which were, fairly successfully, targeted against us by someone.

He concluded:

"Maybe I'm jaded, but color me skeptical. It may well turn out to be every bit as horrific and shameful to America as the media gleefully report; accuracy is always a possibility, no matter how out of character that would be. But that's not how initial reports of similar incomprehensible, "American-caused" massacres have generally fared when exposed to the light of actual evidence dredged up by a thorough and complete investigation.

Let's sit tight and wait to see what the evidence actually shows before belly-flopping, yet again, upon the American military."

With the recent/pending/ongoing implosions of various media story-lines now occuring (e.g., Fluke, Trayvon, "war on women"), CAA is reminded that The First Report Is Always Wrong.

3/11

re: "Yep, LTC West, that About Sums it Up, Sir"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") considered LTC West's take.

Money quote(s):

"It all sums up to “was it wrong? Yes. Should everybody get their knickers in a wad as if this little incident was a combination of My Lai, Malmedy, Auschwitz and the Rape of Nanking all rolled into one as some pundits have been hyperventilating? No. It was wrong, the guilty should be properly and appropriately punished and, oh by the way:

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

I wouldn’t go quite that far, everybody is certainly entitled to their opinion whether they’ve been in The Suck or not (although the latter group does have a perspective that the former can never have), it’s just that in some quarters it has gone from disapproval to F-5 hysteria. But I get the sentiment.

"

In retrospect, it seems like much more fuss has been made about the near-burning of some Taliban-desecrated korans than this earlier incident ever generated.

1/13

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: "NATO: Hey, We'll Bomb The Rebels, Too"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ just keeps getting smarter all the time.

Money quote(s):

"If America wants to enter other states and declare a monopoly on sanctioned violence, well, that's a good way to keep outrages against civilians low, but comes at the cost of using American troops for every damn fight in the world.

If you're going to go a different way -- supporting indigenous fighters with air capabilities and intelligence -- you have to accept that there are going to be some vicious slaughters of civilians by "freedom fighters," but certainly you want as few such massacres as possible. What do you do? You can threaten an end to air cover and supply. But that doesn't thwart a slaughter in progress.

I'm not sure a threat to attack the rebels we're supporting is necessarily a bad thing. We need them to keep it clean. The temptation in any war, especially a civil one, is to get dirty and vicious as soon as possible and then keep topping yourself. Our troops don't do that (except for the occasional psychopaths who are then court martialed), but we don't want to have to insert our troops into every situation where we might want to flex some military might.

If we're going to fight in this limited fashion (and I think the old Cold War model of limited support is well worth revisiting), we do need to let our "freedom fighters" know that there are some things we just won't/can't countenance, and there's no way we can stay in a fight if our "freedom fighters" decide to unleash their inner Al Qaeda.

As for actually bombing them, though: I really can't think of a more preposterous situation than bombing both sides in a civil war.

Oh, and meanwhile, SecDef Gates said there won't be any ground troops in Libya as long as he's serving in his job. So, like, implicitly, he's threatening to walk."

&

"(O)f course, any time you have pilots in a war it means you're just one shoot-down away from a hostage situation."

re: "Not To Compare Bataan To Baghdad, But…"

Robert at Expat Yank ("One American living in the south of England") reminds us about the nature of the enemy. And does so exceedingly well.

Money quote(s):

"(F)or years we have endured bemoanings about “lack of proof,” unfair trials and above all, “torture.” And not just from every released prisoner (Allied forces have evidently “tortured” EVERY captured jihadist) and their lawyers. We’ve also heard it endlessly from many politicians, “activists” and much media.

Ironic all that. For coalition behavior towards this enemy in the War on Terror, 2001-2009, had actually been far better than its behavior in any previous conflict. In fact, it has inarguably been the best treatment ever meted out policywise to captured enemy in all of human history.

Consider this: imagine any enemy held previously engaging in a “hunger strike“? Those held in the past didn’t hunger strike: that’s a “privileged captive’s” jail tactic."

U.S. service members are given some training on how they are expected to conduct themselves if taken prisoner. Unlike our enemy, that indoctrination does not include how to wage lawfare against our captors by making false accusations of mistreatment.

"(A)fter page upon page of Mr Hastings’s having shared numerous examples of Japanese mistreatment (to be polite) of Western and Chinese PoWs and civilians. They ran the horrific gamut from of course starving and working them to death, to beheadings, tying them to trees and bayoneting them, leaving them to drown in the sea, kicking them into latrines and drowning them in excrement, casually pushing them over cliffs, and even subsequently noting how Japanese doctors engaged in the murderous vivisections, without anaesthesia, of eight living (at least, they were at the outset), captured U.S. pilots.

Another source tells us, for example (and no doubt Mr Hastings would not be surprised), of two downed U.S. pilots having been plucked from the sea and “rescued” by Japanese submarine and interrogated — but not harshly. Yet after questioning, their personal effects were parcelled out among the crew and the unfortunate PoWs (men captured in uniform, clearly engaged in military activity against another military) were taken up on deck, (and without even a “military tribunal” finding) weighted down with water-filled gasoline cans, and thrown overboard. And the barbaric list could go depressingly on."

Whole library shelves can attest to the barbaric treatment received by Allied prisoners of Imperial Japan. As it happens, my own family included a Baatan survivor. I grew up listening to his stories, when he would tell them. It's the sort of thing that forever innoculates one from developing an overly-optimistic or romantic view of warfare or defeat.

"(D)id any of that sort of treatment regularly happen at the hands of coalition forces in Iraq or to Guantanamo detainees? For example, was Khalid Sheik Mohammed “waterboarded” (which would have likely been considered a holiday “swim” to many an American or Briton tortured by the Japanese) . . . and then removed to shark-infested waters by U.S. submarine and unceremoniously tossed into the ocean?

During WWII, Western media rightly made much of Japanese atrocities. Yet today Western media has almost nothing to say of the last eight years’ enemy’s."

"(W)hile the Japanese were indisputably brutal in the extreme, even they never reached the all-encompassing depths of depravity and viciousness of the current enemy?"

"(I)nsofar as this blog is aware, not a single coalition serviceman, over the last eight years, has been released alive willingly by the current Islamist enemy.

That bears repeating: not one.

Nor are any now held alive anywhere."

&

"(H)ow such now almost Spartan-obsession to leave no one behind stems from the foreknowledge that every single one captured might just as well be tallied with the rest of the dead?

However one gets there, that means the current Islamist enemy has murdered 100 percent of coalition military personnel (primarily Americans, Britons, and Australians, coincidentally enough) who have fallen into their hands. No enemy has ever engaged in such barbarity in the entire history of warfare. That is to say nothing of the fate of nearly all Western non-combatants who’ve been taken.

Thus the most damning perspective of all is almost universally overlooked. That level of murderous brutality makes Japanese atrocities pale in comparison. And it makes Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and a few hours in a dog pen, look like child’s play.

Do we even want to think that in this conflict the Islamist enemy is even more inhumane that WWII Japanese? One suspects we’d rather not."