Ken Nelson

To the stockade with you!

An Army Major General in command in Northern Iraq will soon have his hat handed to him, but I admire his effort. The general, sick of losing skilled soldiers to pregnancy, intends to put a little teeth in his efforts to stop the losses by court martialing both the woman, and the father, if they are on active duty.

‘I’ve got a mission to do, I’m given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them,’ Maj Gen Cucolo said.

‘So I’m going to take every measure I can to keep them all strong, fit and with me for the twelve months we are in the combat zone.’

Married soldiers on active service should either put their love lives on hold or take precautions. It was a ‘black and white’ issue, he said.

I like it.  His command loses more soldiers to pregnancy than the enemy and he puts a reasonable measure in place to stop it. Good thinking.  While some of these pregnancies are inadvertent, many aren’t. When I was in, I heard more than a few female soldiers say they would use pregnancy to get out of a deployment or assignment they didn’t want to do. Now they have some consequences to consider.

Alas, he should prepare to retire as a Major General. But hey, career is over rated.

Personally, I’d promote him and put him in charge of the whole war. Sounds like he knows how to achieve a mission.

Navy Seals

Just as our troops try to implement the new counter insurgency (COIN) in Afghanistan, they encounter a revived enemy… Bureaucracy.

Our soldiers have learned, adapted and adjusted – but the bureaucrats haven’t been standing still.

For some units, ground movement to dislodge the Taliban requires a colonel’s oversight. In eastern Afghanistan, traveling in anything other than a 20-ton mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle requires a written justification, a risk assessment and approval from a colonel, a lieutenant colonel and sometimes a major. … Combat commanders are required to submit reports in PowerPoint with proper fonts, line widths and colors so that the filing system is not derailed.

Bureaucratic sclerosis results from a few things… first, the length of the war permits bureaucracy to take hold and urgency to wane.  Second, the lower the mission urgency, the more risk prevention that will be done.

That a  “bureaucracy” developed means the war has taken too long and the mission isn’t urgent.

Endless wars should be avoided

An unintended consequence of the Confederacy’s fight for states rights is that it ended up building a large central government:

Although southerners rebelled against growing centralization of the federal government, they had no qualms about establishing a strong national state of their own.  Scholars have classified the Confederate central government as a form of "war socialism."  The Confederacy owned key industries, regulated prices and wages, and instituted the most far-reaching draft in North American history.

War causes large government growth. Permanent war, like the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror…. leads to permanently larger governmental roles.

I favor strategies that fight wars away from America and that lead to short wars. As Afghanistan drags on for 8 years now, I can’t help but wonder what just the length  of the effort costs us, over and above the casualties and military spending.

Be careful… thinking this way leads to very un-PC steps… like not letting Muslims into the U.S., legalizing drugs, and having states and cities – not our federal government – address poverty.

For freedom, think small, be practical, and make your wars short.

“My role is not to advocate policy but to execute it.”

Arron Conley
President of the Class of 2010
United States Military Academy

He had been asked about Obama’s Afghanistan speech.

I agree with Mr. Conley, but would stress that when you feel the policy isn’t wise you should be willing to resign rather than participate.

It turns out that one expert think it is a bad idea to use a gun to defend an oil super tanker from pirates:

As Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at London-based think-tank Chatham House, says, "You’re sitting on a huge ship filled with flammable liquid. You don’t want somebody with a gun on top of that.

Instead they suggest non-lethal approaches:

And hey, I’m all in favor of not turning the boat I’m riding on into a fireball….

BUT the article report that the pirates are armed with RPGs and guns. And it even covers that the last tanker attacked used guns to defend themselves:

According to a statement from the US 5th Fleet, when a pirate skiff approached the ship, the security team on board responded with evasive maneuvers, and blasted them with Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) and small-arms fire. The pirates then broke off the attack.

It seems odd to not list firearms as a valid approach WHEN IT JUST WORKED!

Sure, an interviewed expert said no firearms, but IT WORKED. IN. REAL. LIFE. Maybe its time to ask another expert or two….

Is this an example of some liberal journalist, who wants to be the next Karl Woodward, but is stuck earning a paycheck at a trade rag but still injects liberal bias?  I don’t know. I’ve only known one trade rag journalist, and that description fit him to a tee.

THE PATRIOT MICRO CHIP is intended to be implanted in terrorists. 
The implant is specifically designed to be installed in the forehead. 
When properly installed, it will allow the one implanted, to speak to God. 

It comes in various sizes:

The exact size of the implant will be selected by a well-trained and highly skilled technician.  The implant may or may not be painless. Side effects, like headaches and nausea, are temporary. Some bleeding or swelling may occur at the injection site.

H/T e-mail from Rob M.

Among the many things that bugs me about this notion of  trying KSM in civilian court is that if KSM is found innocent is he released and free to go?  I’m not very happy with that notion.

If he will be kept in custody no matter the outcome, then why are we doing it? Why go to the expense? Why share secrets with his, likely, traitorous sieve to Al Qaeda defense council? Why give Al Qaeda a public forum?  And why put New York through it?

It makes no sense. Which, of course, means it is a typical policy from this administration.

Usually when something stupid comes from them, I can see a bribe to a constituency group or donor (whether the UAW or China).  The stimulus bill is a prime example of something stupid but that makes sense from a self-centered political corruption point of view.

There are two sides to this administration. The first is a “machine politics, corrupt, bribe, our job is to steal for our constituencies” side.  The second is a “we hate America, we suck, we are the problem” side. And maybe that is the side driving this decision.

That terrorists like so much?

The news that Dr. Nidal Hasan served on a Presidential Transition task force and helped set national security priorities continues to be ignored by the media.

I don’t know. But like him they do.

Something tells me his decision angst is more about the political risk to him, than wanting to get the decision right for the nation’s security.

It sucks that troops that risk all every day are “led” by a man unwilling to risk a small drop in his polls.

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)”

On the wall of my office is my commission as an officer in the United States Army.  In order to get it I had to swear an oath (above)  to defend the Country and the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to swear true faith and allegiance to the same.

This was given to me long ago and I never really gave much thought to anything but the foreign enemies part. Nor did we receive training in anything other than how to deal with foreign enemies (violently but with certain rules).   I had no training in identifying or defending against domestic enemies. And I had no training on what it meant to defend the Constitution.

I’m going to leave the Commission on my wall, because it reflects an achievement I’m proud of.  But if asked to accept it again, I’d be tempted to say “Gosh… I’m not willing to defend the Constitution as currently written, and I think you are a domestic enemy, is one out of three okay?”. 

Oh sure Ken, you say, you don’t like Obama so you call him a domestic enemy. I despised Clinton, but I would have accepted a commission from him.   I believe that Obama is a domestic enemy. I do not believe he likes or respects this country and I think he actively works against our interests and the good parts of our Constitution. I believe he and others in  his government have long term plans to subvert the freedom parts of our Constitution.

Not all parts though. I think there is one part he really likes.  And that leads me to the other reason I’d have a problem accepting a commission today… there are parts of our Constitution I would not be willing to defend.   In particular the 16th amendment – the right to tax us any darn well the Government wants to.   Put it in context with the other amendments, which detail what the Government can’t do, the 16th amendment is the most “unconstitutional” amendment one could imagine other than “this document is nullified”.

The 16th amendment led to the growth of government that threatens our rights and economic freedom and security.  Why defend it?

This is not to disparage any serving today. If I were younger I’d probably be serving as well – we clearly have foreign enemies that are actively fighting against us.

But… I’d do so with a sour taste in my mouth as I knew I’d only be willing to do a third of the job.

The Army’s aircraft carrier?

Morale declines when men disappear from families 6 months of every year on average (deploying 4 times in 8 years).

I wouldn’t be surprised if not having a clear mission and a sense of futility regarding the Afgani culture contribute to declining morale as well.  I know that having a Commander-in-Chief finding time to golf, visit with Andy Stern 22 times and go on dates every Friday but NOT deciding my fate for 4 months would drag me down.  That plus the gnawing concern that my efforts will be thrown away at the first political convenience.

Army people expect to disappear sometimes but repeated no-dependent deployments is new.  This isn’t the Navy, where the 6 months a year gone requirement is known by all when they enter and that has developed support systems for families that can help.

If this persists I’m sure the Army and its members will adapt, but the transition period will be a challenge.

Via Drudge

Drudge inserts the knife so deftly…

Ralph Peters does not like nation building in Afghanistan. I agree.

BTW: “Surge too Far” refers back to Operation Market Garden in WWII.  There, the Allies, tried to go a “bridge too far”, overextended, and got their hats handed to them.

Given resources and time our military could “nation build” Afghanistan.  I doubt the cost would be worth it. Or the results durable.

I favor Peter’s approach instead.  Does this mean I’m not “listening” to McChrystal?  No – I changed the mission.