A Very Good Read

En Route to Military Rule by William Norman Grigg is a must read. At first glance one might take the concepts of this article to be just a bit over the top. As I reflect upon my professional knowledge of the subject coupled with what I observe elsewhere I do not find it so implausible. Frightening that...

I found it interesting that a link within Grigg's post references a 1992 article by one GEN Dunlap, "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012," Interesting not only for the read but the date of 2012.... The "Homeland Security Brigade" will be operational by 2011, this guy writes in 1992 a fictional account of a coup that occurs in 2012...all the new agers are up in arms about some big event in 2012 (you know the Mayan calender and all that)...I am kidding really, no worries I do not buy into all that stuff- I just mentioned it as it is odd.

(I also found it interesting the Grigg was a Patton admirer in 1999 but has reconsidered, I can count myself in that small number)

Reply to a Comment

In response to my post "When is Disobedience a Moral Imperative", Gibbons writes:

I've read both the Patton Papers and the Rommel Papers. "Infantry Attacks" by Rommel, writing of his experiences in World War I, is one of my favorite books.

I understand the admiration of Rommel. But I don't understand your comment about Patton. There's a recent article suggesting Patton was killed because of his "dangerous" opinions about the Russians. If so then he's very much like Rommel, who lost his life because of his breaking with Hitler's program.

I'd be interested to read more about why you think Patton is the worst sort of human being.

I admit I made a statement of opinion as fact without providing sufficient evidence to support my position. I can say this from my understanding of and study of Patton. He was selfish, self-centered, profane, and more than likely a little bit unhinged mentally. Judged by the standards of his contemporaries it cannot be argued that he was not profane - although that may be only a relatively minor vice. I believe, and trust that in academic terms it could be easily proven, that Patton was motivated his entire professional career by what he thought was best for Patton. He all but bribed superiors that could do him favors and spared no opportunity to put his peers down to his own benefit. That is my opinion of the man and the reason I think so lowly of him.

He was successful on the field of battle because of his audacity, and the well-known fact that by the time America entered the war the German army was stripped of all its former advantages. I believe his audacity was born of his desire for Patton to personally succeed - he believed the myth in his mind. I certainly would not have wanted to serve in one of his units as a private soldier.

I agree with you that he had it right about the Russians. One might say that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I tend to believe that while he was certainly capable of seeing the Communist for what they were, he was probably also very happy to see another enemy that might offer him the opportunity to command in battle just a little longer. That is never the right or moral reason for a soldier to support war. Perhaps he was killed for these opinions but I am not sure his opinions on this matter arose from the most noble of places.

Make no mistake, as a child and young man I idolized Patton. As you see, my views have soured over the years.

Essentially as I compare and contrast Patton and Rommel it boils down to this. Rommel believed audacity saved the lives of his soldiers in the long run. Patton believe audacity won victories that might attach to his name.

I Promise I wrote mine first

I penned my last post before going to bed last night only to find this post ('Question 46,' Revisited) by Norman Grigg on the Lew Rockwell site this am. It might appear that my thoughts were spurred by his but that is not the case. In any event his is a good read and amplifies and corrects a misstatement I made about this 1994 survey (I actually thought more Marines said "yes" tot he most nefarious questions).

I am glad other people are saying these things, otherwise you might just think I am making it all up....

When Is Disobediance a Moral Imperative

I mentioned previously that I have just completed reading a book titled "Patton and Rommel". I do not have it near by so I apologize for not knowing the author. I essentially skipped all the chapters about Patton as there is nothing about the man that I want to know that I do not know. He was, in my opinion, the lowest sort of man.

Rommel fascinates me. Not so much for his successes and failures on the field of battle but rather for the actual story of his life. Here is a man that counted himself lucky to have a job in the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic during the 20's, a job that he loved no less.

I find it truly engaging to imagine the thoughts of a thoroughly professional German officer (professional in the real sense) as events unfolded and the Nazi's gained power. A middle-class family man that had spent his entire adult life in uniform probably did not see a lot of other options, resigning in disgust meant poverty. Principles are hard things to live up to and Rommel was no exception to the rule. He remained in uniform with the same hope many German officers held - "the Nazi's are just a phase".

My wife and I were discussing many matters today, most theoretical. We talked of the events in Greece and elsewhere and the predictions of greater gloom on the economic front here. We discussed the ugly "what-ifs". As a man that has spent his entire adult life in uniform with just a wee bit more to go before I am allowed to take it off I think deeply about the worst-case what-if's. I told my wife at one point "you know there have been many things I have done that I did not understand or agree with but there are others that I simply will not do". These are words I did not have to speak, she knows, but I uttered them all the same. I will never be part of any of the business we have done in Iraq in the US, never.

I recall a survey conducted among Marines back in the 1990's that asked something along the lines - "if ordered to disarm American citizens would you follow orders". A vast majority said yes. This was long before we had a precedent of the National Guard and the Coast Guard disarming citizens after Katrina. This was before our military had seven years experience as a constabulary force on foreign soil. Such a survey is not even required today, we know the answer.

In 1993 the Command and General Staff College highlighted a paper written by Major (General Staff) Dr. Ulrich F. Zwygart entitled "How Much Obedience Does an Officer Need?". It is discouraging that I cannot find an example, dirivative or offshoot of this topic written and published by any US Officer. I recommend this paper to anyone interested in what the professional officers in the German Army did and failed to do about the "constitutional crisis" in Germany in the 1930's. in Zxygart's words "Conscience, which regulates man's impulsive aggressive action, is diminished, however, when man enters a hierarchical structure".

Not so for Chief of the General Staff General Ludwig Beck --

Beck criticized Hitler's aggressive plans for territorial policy that could only lead to defeat and reduction of Germany. Beck renounced a brilliant career, preferring to resign in protest rather than serve a regime that did not act in favor of its people. His opposition was rooted in a firm Christian faith and in a conservative attitude that believed legality, integrity, ethics, and responsibility were crucial for the servant of a nation. When Beck resigned in 1938, he was motivated not only by "professional and political knowledge" but also by the "dictate of conscience" --believing that
"obedience ends where knowledge, conscience, and responsibility prohibit the execution of an order." Doubtless, the conspirators, civilian and military, held him in high esteem and looked to him as their true leader.

Several officers junior to him made the same brave choice - others silently plotted, while most gave in and played along. I am not certain that we have many men of Beck's character serving in our military today. And while I do not find it conceivable that our government could become as overtly murderous as that of the Nazi's I do not find it inconceivable that it could radically and fundamentally change our very concept of freedom amidst some major crisis. One needs only look at the radical redefining of rights over the last few years to understand how that could go. One need only look at the evaporation of posse comitatus by degrees to understand the government's willingness and intention to use the military to retain control and power is said crisis "requires" it.

To resign amidst this economic turmoil and the much worse troubles that would precipitate a conclusion that "obedience ends where knowledge, conscience, and responsibility prohibit the execution of an order." That is harsh, forfeiting an earned retirement is harsh - but there are some orders I simply will never follow. I pray I never receive such orders and have to follow my conscience into personal ruin.

So Long Joe

There is, of course, nothing romantic or enviable about war. It is something that brings out the very worst and the very best in people - a man's true character is exposed for all to see. I know that war has always been and always will be part of the human condition. In a world without war, considering all human frailty, we would be left with benevolent (or malevelent) tyranny. History has proven, over and over again, that somethimes war is neccesary, sometime it is just and occasionally it is the only option.

There is nothing wrong with children playing at war, so long as someone within the family explains that war is not simply a game. Playing with heroes and villians is an important part of a child developing into a man - so long, as I said they eventually come to see that the world is not so simple as all that.

So we have the venerable GI Joe, a man that I came to know and love as a child. He was a Marine but more than that. In his career after the Corps he performed every sort of exciting, adventurous job imaginable. I recall that he was a smoke jumper, an "Indiana Jones" sort of adventurer and a dozen other things (in the 1970's Hasbrio downplayed his Marine past and released several personifications of Joe performing these other adventurous but non-military functions).

To me these "politics" did not matter, Joe was always a Marine, no matter what other function he might perform. Perhaps I did not understand the technicalities but it was simple to me, Joe could always put on the uniform, no matter what image Hasbrio tried to sell. I owned the original (I guess) version of Joe from the early 1960's - he was a heck of a hero to me in my young childhood.

Now it seems that Joe is just not international enough, he is too American. Paramount would fashion Joe as not a man, but rather some international group of co-ed commando's fighting for world peace and harmony. Stripping Joe of his true historical connection and his identity.

Consider the story of the real Joe, the man GI Joe was fashioned to look like, the man that inspired the true action hero. (from Review Journal)

On Nov. 15, 2003, an 85-year-old retired Marine Corps colonel died of congestive heart failure at his home in La Quinta, Calif., southeast of Palm Springs. He was a combat veteran of World War II. His name was Mitchell Paige.

It's hard today to envision -- or, for the dwindling few, to remember -- what the world looked like on Oct. 25, 1942 -- 65 years ago.

The U.S. Navy was not the most powerful fighting force in the Pacific. Not by a long shot. So the Navy basically dumped a few thousand lonely American Marines on the beach at Guadalcanal and high-tailed it out of there.

On Guadalcanal, the Marines struggled to complete an airfield that could threaten the Japanese route to Australia. Admiral Yamamoto knew how dangerous that was. Before long, relentless Japanese counterattacks had driven the supporting U.S. Navy from inshore waters. The Marines were on their own.

As Platoon Sgt. Mitchell Paige and his 33 riflemen set about carefully emplacing their four water-cooled .30-caliber Brownings on that hillside, 65 years ago this week -- manning their section of the thin khaki line that was expected to defend Henderson Field against the assault of the night of Oct. 25, 1942 -- it's unlikely anyone thought they were about to provide the definitive answer to that most desperate of questions: How many able-bodied U.S. Marines does it take to hold a hill against 2,000 armed and motivated attackers?

But by the time the night was over, "The 29th (Japanese) Infantry Regiment has lost 553 killed or missing and 479 wounded among its 2,554 men," historian Lippman reports. "The 16th (Japanese) Regiment's losses are uncounted, but the 164th's burial parties handled 975 Japanese bodies. ... The American estimate of 2,200 Japanese dead is probably too low."

You've already figured out where the Japanese focused their attack, haven't you? Among the 90 American dead and seriously wounded that night were all the men in Mitchell Paige's platoon. Every one. As the night of endless attacks wore on, Paige moved up and down his line, pulling his dead and wounded comrades back into their foxholes and firing a few bursts from each of the four Brownings in turn, convincing the Japanese forces down the hill that the positions were still manned.

The citation for Paige's Medal of Honor picks up the tale: "When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machine gun section with fearless determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering fire."

In the end, Sgt. Paige picked up the last of the 40-pound, belt-fed Brownings and did something for which the weapon was never designed. Sgt. Paige walked down the hill toward the place where he could hear the last Japanese survivors rallying to move around his flank, the belt-fed gun cradled under his arm, firing as he went.

Coming up at dawn, battalion executive officer Major Odell M. Conoley was the first to discover how many able-bodied United States Marines it takes to hold a hill against two regiments of motivated, combat-hardened infantrymen who have never known defeat.

On a hill where the bodies were piled like cordwood, Mitchell Paige alone sat upright behind his 30-caliber Browning, waiting to see what the dawn would bring.

The hill had held, because on the hill remained the minimum number of able-bodied United States Marines necessary to hold the position.

And that's where the unstoppable wave of Japanese conquest finally crested, broke, and began to recede. On an unnamed jungle ridge on an insignificant island no one ever heard of, called Guadalcanal.

When the Hasbro Toy Co. called some years back, asking permission to put the retired colonel's face on some kid's doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.

But they weren't. That's his mug, on the little Marine they call "G.I. Joe." At least, it has been up till now.

Mitchell Paige's only condition? That G.I. Joe must always remain a United States Marine.

It took just one tough 'sumbeach' on that hill to hold, that was the minimal number of able-bodied Marines required. I am not a warmonger, but wars happen and a free people - if they are to remain free, occasionally need heroes. Mitchell Paige was just such a hero, among thousands but because of his own character and the cruel combination of fate that placed him on that hill he showed that he was just such a hero- he through the image of GI Joe has represented the sort of hero free people require at times.

Now it seems that is just not good enough....

A Bit More about That B-52

If the "mistake" was deliberate, it means that somehow the normal chain of command was bypassed. I've heard two theories about how this might have happened.

The first- the Chinese supplied key components of the computer systems that control our military command structure, and built in a "back door" route, by which they can override any orders in the system. They tricked the people at Minot and Barksdale with false orders, in order to demonstrate to the US military that orders cannot be trusted. This paralyzes the chain of command. They wanted to demonstrate their ability to do it in a peaceful way, so as to forestall an attack on Iran.

The other, more sinister theory is that Dick Cheney, who Bush put in charge of such things early on, has a separate override system which was in effect that day, and that all participants are sworn to secrecy. The cluster of violent deaths of young airmen and one woman from Minot and Barksdale AFB's from June-September- 6-7 young people in good health, and not in combat zones, makes one wonder.

If it's part of a Bush/Cheney plot, what's the plot? Normally, nuclear weapons are not loaded onto airplanes at all, and flown across the country, for fear that a crash would spread radiation around. These weapons were on top of cruise missiles, armed, under a wing of the plane, in firing position. (OpEd.News)

Warning: break out your tin-foil coated Armadillo helmet, we are entering deeply into the cavern of conspiracy and speculation.

That is the point, however, is it not? Government lies beget conspiracy theories - when the people (or at least enough of the people) know that the government routinely lies we are left with speculation when events that simply do not make sense occur.

I have read a little about the first possibility presented above - it is not that it is not plausible in some very remote way, that is not why I do not accept it. I reject it because it is based upon a set of assumptions that do not hold water in my view. To be certain we rely heavily on computer systems to accomplish everything. However, people still have a role in events like this. The degree of infiltration required to achieve a coup like this using only computer systems would be tremendous, and it would involve more than just hacking the system itself. It would involve a lot of real time human intelligence, as well as human agents within the system working to pull the plan off. I could go on and on about why this Chinese scenario is implausible but suffice it to say I just do not buy it.

The second scenario - i.e. this was part of an administration approved mission gone awry - is infinitely more plausible than the accident story or theories about Chinese involvement. Of course this scenario brings up its on list of questions:

1. To what end, what purpose, did this weapons serve?
2. If it was in fact part of a plan to attack Iranian nuclear facilities with some degree of "plausible deniability" that is ludicrous logic. The world would blame a) the US or b) Israel and no matter who the blame ultimately fell upon the result would not be good.
   
3. The Air Force I know does not routinely produce officers capable of thinking outside the rules - if this was part of a secret mission I still find it difficult to accept that anyone in the Air Force would have resisted ( an important assumption that one must accept if we are to tear down the accident story).
4. Are these deaths at Minot AFB related to this? We will never know and that is the problem with conspiracy theories and government lies.
   

I would like to know specifically how this entire event unfolded - i.e. how the nuclear ordinance was "discovered". If I had to venture a guess, based upon the second conspiracy theory and the limited amount of truth that one can garner from existing stories I would say this. The "fall-guy", the hero of the mutiny story is the Colonel that was relieved. Those more junior officers that were relieved and the enlisted ground crews that received reprimands are merely collateral damage. If there was a mutiny I suspect it occurred at the O-6 level and below (if anyone with a star was involved in a secret refusal to a secret and illegal mission it would be kept quiet, his punishment will come in a different form).

Perhaps there was authorization to load the missiles at Minot, perhaps this all occurred a little outside of the normal chain of procedures but that is not unusual in a "special and very classified mission". After all if you really have to do something secretly the less people that know the better. Perhaps only when the plane arrived at Barksdale did those involved really begin to understand the nature of the mission and maybe that is when people began asking questions. Once people began talking the secrecy of the mission was spoiled and an explanation of what had occurred was necessary. Thus exist the need for a fall guy and a cover story.

The fact of the matter is we will just never know. I think a lot of people realize something is wrong and incidents like this only highlight the degree of mistrust. The saddest part of this all is that we are forced to even ponder items such as conspiracies and government lies. This is the paradigm in which we live, the system we have in place. Things should change but unless more people ask tough questions and refuse to accept the status quo this is the government and the system we deserve.

Re: Dr. Strangelove

I believe that it is a crime against humanity for anyone to own and assemble nuclear weapons.

I tend to agree, in retrospect, looking back at the Cold War era it seems like a disturbingly weird mindset.Mutually assured destruction certainly does not meet the criteria of jus ad bellum.

I have not given this incident a lot of thought nor have I read a whole lot about it before today. My initial impression was "no way", "no way something like this could possibly occur as an accident". I know you might say that humans are fallible and mistakes happen but items like nuclear warheads involve a tremendous amount of checks and balances. Things like this are nearly impossible to occur as mere accidents.

I recall reading a few headlines soon after this event on obscure sites that mentioned that something more nefarious had occurred. I am summarizing because I did not dig into these stories at the time but essentially the idea was that these warheads were intended for the Persian Gulf and that the Air Force had rebelled in the middle of the mission.

This is a plausible explanation even if it is difficult to accept. I actually find this possibility much more believable than this all being nothing more than a mistake or accident. I cannot possibly imagine that nuclear armed ordinance was loaded on a plane and nobody questioned it. Heck, at the very least the pilot had to notice during his pre-flight inspection. For an event like this to occur as an accident a whole bunch of folks would have to be ignoring basic, fundamental parts of their jobs.

I know, if we apply Occam's Razor it seems to easy to accept that this was just an accident - albeit a nearly unbelievable one. Lex parsimoniae dictates that too many assumptions must be accepted to believe any other version. Yet I am not convinced. Something is rotten in Denmark and the accident story has its own list of assumptions - more assumptions than other possible scenarios.

I will tell you what I know about devices like this and their safekeeping, storage and handling (what I can tell you). These things simply do not move without being tracked, numerous levels of approval are required, an enormous amount of paperwork completed and an inordinate amount of security present. You cannot just "accidentally" drop by the warehouse, pick up a few of these things, load them on a plane and take them for a joy ride. It cannot happen - if you believe that it can I have real estate I want to sell you!

Update: I did a small search and found a few sites discussing this (well there are plenty but most are just scratching their heads about the "accident" story). Read on and please discuss if you find anything more telling - I really believe there was a lot more at play here.

It's About That Mutiny: Air Force Covers Its Tail With Transparent Feathers

Nukes Over America: Just a Stupid Mistake. Sure It Is By Dave Lindorff

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran, Not For Decommissioning: Airforce Refused!!!

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater

Update II: I see from further reading that these stories are from almost a month apart - however I do not think that discredits the possibility that this second incident is not related to something more nefarious than a mere accident.

Dr. Strangelove

This scares the hell out of me. What is so curious is that the commanding officer(s) present some of the most ludicrously unbelievable excuses for this incident.

I believe that it is a crime against humanity for anyone to own and assemble nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not meant to win wars - they are meant to annihilate entire populations.

Re: Why Do Generals Retire Before Opposing Dangerous Government Policies?

But Sanchez’ statement is a cop out. He never mentioned the possibility that he might have resigned in protest over the awful policy. That’s the problem. Promotion to high rank requires political reliability and officers chosen to be Generals only get their promotions upon approval of political authorities. They owe their promotions and their pensions to politicians and therefore are unlikely to be promoted if there is the faintest whiff of the possibility that they might oppose policies decided by the politicians. Independent mindedness is therefore not a quality likely to be found in the highest military ranks. Though it is interesting that Admiral William Fallon, chief of CENTCOM, called General (Saint) David Petraeus, mastermind of "the surge", "an ass-kissing little chickenshit". That story has quickly disappeared. [SPSL]

Mark said it exceptionally well, if you wish to read my views of the subject read Duty, Honor, Country! Nah Careerist Optimism.

The organizational culture of the officer corps in one of zero-defects, perfection is the objective and if that is not achieved the truth is covered in ambiguities or outright lies. Most officers learn this early and frequently. Fred Reed nails this issue on the head...

Great Idea

All volunteer my eye - you volunteer to get in but you have to ask permission to get out or to retire, and now this.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.

[...]

In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months.

Citizen-soldiers are supposed to be citizens most of the time, not just toys for delusional presidents to take out and play with every time they have a "great" idea to save their own legacies. If I were an employer, particularly in a small company I would have a hard time hiring one of these guys under such circumstances. It is too much of a risk.

That has to hurt the quality that the Guard and Reserve can recruit from. Citizen-soldiers have to earn a living in relation to their capabilities. Joining up just might endanger that.

Of course recruiting for active and reserve has taken on an entirely new set of problems....

The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the change in reserve policy would have been made anyway because active-duty troops already were getting too little time between their combat tours.

The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. No cost estimate was provided, but officials said it would be at least several billion dollars.

I suppose now the military will have to accept folks with felonies, mental defects, physical ailments, 50 year old grandmas, 16 year old girls and illegal Mexicans. I see no other way that this increase can be pulled off otherwise - nobody else is showing much interest.

A Definition of Terror

(CBS/AP) A U.S. Air Force gunship has conducted a strike against suspected members of al Qaeda in Somalia, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports exclusively.

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reports. Those terror attacks killed more than 200 people.

The AC-130 gunship is capable of firing thousands of rounds per second, and sources say a lot of bodies were seen on the ground after the strike, but there is as yet, no confirmation of the identities.

One night in November of 2005 I had an odd moment of reflection. I sat in relative quiet as a storm raged just a few thousand meters south of me. I watched the sky for nearly an hour as an AC-130 Spectre gunship circled the city of Fallujah. The sky was filled with many other sites and objects but the gunshp was the most interesting and fascinating. From within the belly of this beast spewed the most horrendous and awe inspiring sight - fiery death in short bursts.

The aircraft carries three automatic cannons ranging from 25mm to 40mm and one 105mm gun. It has an IR and radar package that allows the plane to see in day or night, fog, rain, snow, sandstorm or any other nuisances.

Imagine for a moment not being 2000 meters away from the target area but instead actually being the target. All you see is a flash of light, by the time you hear the thud of the 105 or the burp of the automatic cannons you are also hearing the explosions around you.

These weapons certainly give the US a tremendous advantage but if you ever really want a definition of terror - seek out and find someone that has been in the target area of one of these monsters, if they still live.

Johnny the Brave

Congratulations to Johnny - he has freed himself from the grasps of servitude to leviathan. I only wish I were brave enough to follow the same course many years ago.

It often seems hypocritical to proclaim that something is wrong but then concurrently continue to act as a gear in the big machine that makes it all possible. Johnny has taken a stand. I commend and envy him.

Debunking Myths

Among the branches of the U.S. military, the Army has suffered the heaviest losses. More than two-thirds of those killed were members of the Army, which includes reservists and Army National Guard.

For the much smaller Marine Corps, the war is exacting a heavy toll, as well. The Corps has lost nearly 900 Marines, including reservists. The Navy has lost more than 60 sailors; the Air Force, just under 30 personnel.

[...]

Seventy-four percent of all the fatalities were white; 11 percent were Hispanic or Latino; nearly 10 percent were African-American; about 3 percent were either Asian, American Indian, or native Hawaiian.(NH)

Charles Rangel has claimed - as Jesse Jackson before him - that America's wars of aggression are borne on the backs of urban blacks.

Blacks comprise 16.5% of the total force but the casualty rate in Iraq is only 10%. White and Latino casualty rates equate to the the percentage of their population in the force at nearly a 1:1 rate.

Furthermore the entire notion that urban areas provide the bulk of military recruits is false.

The constant increase in the recruit/population ratio contradicts the assertion that military recruiting targets youth in inner cities. In fact, entirely urban areas are the area most underrepresented among recruits. Both suburban and rural areas are overrepresented. (HF)

Then of course there is something we all know - the Army, specifically the fighting Army, drawls.

The South is overrepresented among military recruits. It provided 42.2 percent of 1999 recruits and 41.0 percent of 2003 recruits but contained just 35.6 percent of the population ages 18/24. (HF)

This is of course not a new revelation to those that know. I cannot find the data for Southerners in combat arms specialties but my 20+ years of experience tells me that the bulk of those positions are filled with Southern men.

Lastly, consider this nearly 1 Soldier in every 909 serving in the Active and Reserve force has been killed in Iraq. One Marine in 251 has died. The Marine Corps is a small and close organization - every Marine knows a fallen brother.

The Navy has contributed beyond what is expected of a sea service in a land war. The Air Force - the second largest service - is a group I have a real problem with. They manipulate the AFN news service with propaganda about the massive contribution they are making to the effort. Only one Airmen in 18,073 has actually died in combat - you bunch of windbags ought to consider shutting your mouths or perhaps extending your "tours" past 4 months and maybe actually leaving the wire a bit more if you are going to claim you are making a big contribution.

Being Principled is Not Insane

In my post on the death of Megan McClung I asked how a just society could send women and girls to foreign lands to fight and die.

One anonymous commenter stated my argument denying her the right to serve her nation as she wished was insane.

Well, I suppose I could attempt, as others have done, to rationalize the issue. For example -

Gary North argues: "The camaraderie and esprit de corps in a military unit or a police unit is heavily dependent on shared risk. When women are exposed to the same degree of risk of life and death, this disrupts the military-protective function, which is unquestionably masculine."

I could cite incidents of sexual assault - but the rationalist would simply say that the culture of the military ought to change to be kinder and gentler (less rough men standing on a wall and more politically correct bureaucrats).

I could discuss the 1992 Presidential Commission on The Assignment of Women in The Military's findings (the last major governmental study on the subject), but that would really miss the point.

The point is not whether some women can perform in the military and even in combat roles nor whether the military can be changed as an organization to accommodate women. The argument against women in combat specifically and in most military roles generally is one of principle and relates directly to philosophy.

Women do not belong in positions that place them in harms way simply because it is the function of a just society to prevent that. Women are charged in a good society with bringing beauty and elegance to an otherwise nasty world. They teach our children to appreciate elements of life that men - if men actually performed manly functions - are really incapable of passing along.

If you do not understand the paragraph above and instead paint me as -"insane", "chauvinistic", "archaic", or any other term you like - you simply do not understand the philosophical place my views derive from.

If you want to really know, and I suppose you have assumed it already - I do indeed believe the most important work a woman can do is in the home, raising good children. That is the nature of a well ordered society, a society that conforms to the natural order and natural law. My libertarian friends may scramble to remove our blog from their blogrolls - I know these views conflict with their philosophy that derives from the enlightenment and reason - whereas mine originate from lessons via a long history of good and bad societies.

Women are not inferior to men - in many pursuits they are superior. We are partners in a joint endeavor - we should celebrate our differences and stick with what we all are born of nature to do best.

I could and have argued against placing women in most military roles based upon reason and I believe a pretty good argument can be made using reason, facts and data. I no longer make such arguments.

The fact is, if a society wishes to abandon its greatest asset - ladies of strength and character - and replace them with generic persons and then send them into the world - abandoning our greatest treasure, children - that is a society in decline. It is unjust and unpardonable.

Darrell Dow puts it in perspective:

Christians who aren’t embarrassed by their Bibles should forcefully put forth the truth that there is a comprehensive pattern of differentiation between men and women outlined in Scripture. It is men who protect and lay down their lives for women, even as Christ died for the Church, and it is women who bear a responsibility as nurturers. In Joshua 1:14, we read that the “wives, young children, and livestock” of Israel remained on the other side of the Jordan River while the “fighting men” crossed the river to wage war against the Canaanites.

Megan McClung

Take a look at her face and her smile. Megan McClung (Major, USMC), was killed last week in Al-Anbar province, Iraq.

Tell me - do just societies send women and girls to foreign lands to fight and die?

Don't give me the argument that it was her right - I suppose in our culture it is her right - that in and of itself does not make this just.
Shame on us.

The world is a darker place - and we share a bit more guilt.

UPDATE - read this before you send me a nasty email

Re: The Lessons of War

Johnny's last post reminds me of an American military maxim which roughly states that US forces are always exceedingly well prepared to fight a previous war. Generally the truth of this statement is that preparation is for the last major war; unfortunately in the case of the US invasion of Iraq that preparation was for WWII.

The US military has never truly adopted 3rd Generation Warfare (Maneuver Warfare in US parlance or Blitzkrieg more accurately termed.) We claim that we are a 3GW force, we have some of the trappings but we have failed to adopt the very necessary principle of valuing initiative over obedience in leaders.

Perhaps if the US Army and Marine Corps had adhered to the maxim mentioned above by preparing to refight Vietnam things would have gone a bit differently - perhaps.

I recall many fascinating conversations with a British Major I befriended down in Basra. He had a great uncle buried somewhere just north of Babil in central Iraq - he died fighting there in Britain's previous folly in that land during the 1920's.

Whatever their shortcomings, my experience with the British is that they have a much longer and more profound view of things. The organizational culture of their army has been shaped by failed wars of empire, occupation and insurgency. In addition their success in Northern Ireland is no small feat.

The British have learned something Americans do not yet understand, they have been there and failed and are smarter for it.

Our conversations in the early stages were measured; he did not want to offend me. In time he opened up his views into what might be best described as "you yanks just don't get it".

I suppose we don't. While I was in Basra the Brits operated in ways that American commanders would call reckless - they took risks but they were relatively non-threatening to the population. Contrast that to my time in Najaf, Ramadi and Fallujah - the US Marines there did not play nice or take risks, they brought the hammer and anvil regularly.

Really this all speaks to just one more reason why the US ought not engage in Wars for Empire - we are not qualified.

Pat Tillman's Brother Speaks for Him

(El Cid Note I wrote about Pat Tillman in 2004 and again in 2005, I thought much of this but certainly did not say most of it. Pat made an amazing choice to leave the NFL and volunteer for the Rangers and the certainty he would see a lot of combat. The article below is written by a former ranger, sports team-mate and most importantly brother of Pat. With credentials like that this man has the right to speak for Pat - since Pat can no longer speak for himself. This is an amazingly powerful piece)

From Truthdig

It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we got out.

Much has happened since we handed over our voice:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman,

Kevin Tillman

When the Empire Wants to Strike Back

NY Times: Have Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the men at the center of the twin confrontations that promise to dominate the last years of Mr. Bush’s presidency, looked at an America still pinned down in Iraq — its military stretched thin, its public weary of war — and concluded that this is their moment?

And if they have, is there much that Mr. Bush can do about it?

Last week I wrote that the US military hegemony is not as complete and total as GDP spending, troop numbers, technology etc. would indicate on paper.

Johnny and I are both real fans forward thinking folks that have preached since before 9/11 that the US must understand and integrate Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) into doctrine. Most of the discussion to date centers around operational and tactical application of this philosophy.

There is application to strategic thinking and planning that we have missed also. Sun Tzu might be able better than I to counsel the "deciders" on these points but let me state it as best I can anyway.

The fact is that even the strongest enemy cannot be strong everywhere all the time. No empire in history has ever been able to be completely dominate in all areas, all regions and in all circumstances at all time. (yes I do equate an economic and military hegemon with an empire of sorts so the comparison is fair in this instance).

The entire philosophy of 4GW dictates that you seek the weak spots of your enemy and exploit those. This principle is the same whether you are dealing with squads, battalions, divisions, regional armies or entire nations/empires. It differs from 3GW which concentrated on exploitation by maneuver in that in 4GW you pick when and where you will win, not just when and where you will fight. You attempt not to fight in 4GW in places and at times that you will not achieve something or where you do not have an advantage.

The US foreign policy is still third generational. We can move carrier battle groups, deploy long range bombers and put thousands of boots on the ground anywhere in a relatively short period of time. We exercise power by maneuver. But we cannot be everywhere at once, our enemies realize this.

To the above one must also add the fact of corporate, personal and government debt to the reason the American Empire is just not as strong as some proclaim.

The giant is not as nimble as some think and there are those that have realized this fact.

Surrealism

South Korean soldier in staredown with DPRK soldier

All of this talk about North Korea pressing ahead with their nuclear program and the picture above posted on Drudge made me think of one of the most surreal places I have ever visited.

The picture is of the DMZ, Panmunjeom to be exact. I suppose for the majority of the world that has never been to such a place my meager attempt at describing it will fail to adequately paint a picture. But I will try because it is interesting and it is a wonderful commentary on the silliness that man engages in.

The fellow in the foreground is a ROK soldier, obviously the other cat is a DRPK (North Korean) soldier. The little bit of concrete to the North Korean's left is the actual border. To the right of the picture in the "conference room" with the table equally divided between north and south. There are entrances on each end. The building is used to provide a forum to discuss issues of immediate import. It is also the site where the original armistice was negotiated.

The surreal part of all of this is that the two soldiers above stare each other down all day. Of course they rotate shifts and let their buddies have a turn at staring down the opposing bad guys but this goes on pretty much everyday, all day- sun rain, sleet and snow.

Of course just looking big and bad is not enough, each side recruits their biggest and baddest for the job. Six foot, chiseled chinned, wide shouldered young men are not the rule in Korea but they are a prerequisite for assignment to this duty.

When I was last there I was inside the conference room, actually on the North Korean side of the border (when visitors from either side are in the building the other side is not supposed to go in). I was standing beside the window and suddenly got that feeling you get when someone is watching you. I turned around and discovered a North Korean soldier just inches away looking at me with all the hate and disgust he could muster. I was most amazed that I had to look up to him, something I am not accustomed to in Korea and something I certainly would not expect from soldiers that are supposed to be under fed. (I figured out later that he was standing on a ledge under the window - he obviously wanted to look big and bad for me).

How silly this all is. Two nations, the same people and all the pomp and circumstance surrounding a hatred that is merely 50 or so years old.