« December 2012 | Main | February 2013 »

January 2013

US military despised by Progressives

Progressive twit shows amazing combination of condescension, intolerance, ignorance and all around ass-hattery.

On her MSNBC show today, Melissa Harris-Perry stated that the U.S. military is "despised as an engine of war by many progressives."

Woah, good thing I was sitting down when I read that shocker. I might have passed out and hit my head. The most awesome thing about our moral superiors on the left is just how biased, and prejudiced and venomously hateful they are. It is a simple matter of projection. They assume all those who don't share their views are as angry and closed-minded as they are.

It is a sad truth about her and her fellow forward thinkers not-really-veiled disgust for the military. But she compounds the sad truth of that honest admission with the full and even sorrier statement "It is a surprising historical truth that the US military, despised as an engine of war by many progressives, has been a leading institution in America's fight for racial equality"

She was speaking about the military being a leader (as usual) in righting wrongs. The pathetic thing is that she assumes this is an anomaly. Obviously the "education" she got focused more on PC BS and less on the fact that the US military has been the greatest force for freedom and liberty in the history of this planet. Hundreds of millions of people live better lives due to the completely, unsurprising historical truth that the US military has fought and defeated tyranny and totalitarianism all around the world.

You are welcome sweetheart, now go read a real book.

Anti-Authoritarian Anthems

I am feeling a bit oppressed by the state. The Ministry of Truth tells me the Ministry of Plenty will ensure I have as much little as I have earned need. The looters and moochers are running things and I find myself asking "Who is John Galt?" So I needed an antidote to antipathy. And this morning that came in the form of some amplified anarchy. I got some amazing audio accessories for an after holidays indulgence, and they got a full work out this AM. This is the rig, plus a gratuitous inclusion of the guitar my SO got me for my birthday. If you are an audiophile check out the NHT Xd speakers, amp & DSP rig  that was moving the man cave off its foundation this morning.


Since I wanted to use the amazing clarity and soundstage of the system, while simultaneously raging against the machine I chose the greatest power trio ever, Rush. This served to vent my frustration and indulge my need to hear Neal Peart perfectly pound out some profound percussion and poetry. I give you "2112 Overture- The Temples of Syrinx"

We've taken care of everything
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It's one for all, all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why...

Look around this world we made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the brotherhood of man
Oh what a wide contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the red star proudly high in hand

Rush has quite a few more in this vein, like Red Barchetta, Subdivisions, Working Man etc. But now I ask you what music do you hear when you storm the Bastille? Signs by Five Man Acoustical Band, Freedom by RATM, Ball and Chain by Social D? Fill the comments with your revolutionary soundtrack.

UPDATE: As more Rush flows through the ether, who could forget the answer to more and less equal arboreal activists in Trees

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

Military Dog Denied Burial In Military Cemetery

White Lake, MI:  The mother of an EOD Soldier, he with multiple tours in Afghanistan, wants to bury the EOD Working Dog that he adopted in a military cemetery.  However, there is a problem - it's against the law!

The Story:  

After U.S. Army Sergeant Corey McCourt graduated from Livonia Franklin High School, he became an explosives expert assigned to an army mine detection team -- a real life hurt locker.

He's done tours in Afghanistan and is still serving in the war on terror.

He worked alongside a military legend, Mina, a male black lab who did nine tours of duty in Afghanistan, three tours with Sergeant McCourt.

"The dog sits in front of the bomb and my son, who does this, he goes in and he disarms the bomb after the dog finds it," says June Etlinger.

Mina was also promoted to sergeant and then later retired with an honorable discharge from the army.

But at the age of 13, Mina developed a serious lung ailment and sadly had to be put down.  

The Request:  

So with her son serving, mom volunteered to arrange for Mina's final resting place.  She choose the Great Lakes National Cemetery in Holly.  The cemetery serves as the resting place for our nation's military.


The Problem:

...all national cemeteries are guided by federal law and there are no provisions for the burial of animals.  They cited the federal law from 1973 -- the National Cemetery Act.  The law reads burial of animals is not permitted.  That includes canines who served the U.S. in combat.

There has been a decison made yet by the family but another option exists:  There is a Military War Dog Cemetery in Lyon, Michigan.  

I'd like to think that, with the continued and more recognized service of Military Working Dogs, someone in Congress can quickly put together legislation in a bi-partisan manner to right this wrong.  I will pass this onto my Congressman and see if he can spur this. 


Original Story  http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20664791/great-lakes-national-cemetery-denies-military-dog-burial

The follow up http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20701439/pentagon-law-prohibits-dog-burial-at-veterans-cemetery


From Team Rubicon - "POS REP"

Myfriend Fran Townsend (@frantownsend) posted this article from Forbes that should be of significant interest.  Often the best good ideas are born of tragedy that spurs a feeling of "never again".

The Tragedy:

Sergeant Clay Hunt killed himself on March 31, 2011. He was a 28-year old Marine Corps Purple Heart recipient with multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hunt also suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.

At his funeral, two close friends and fellow co-founders of Team Rubicon, Sgt. William McNulty and Sgt. Jacob Wood discovered that Hunt had additional Marine Corps friends that had actually resided within a 15-mile radius where Hunt had lived.

However, none of those nearby Marines knew Hunt was in need, let alone that he was just a few miles away.

The Solution:

An app (currently only for iOS but Android version is inbound) designed to connect Servicepersonnel who served together.  Essentially a way to maintain the bond that military service (combat or not) engendered.

POS REP, short for ‘position report’, was conceived by McNulty, Wood and Anthony Allman, another military veteran-turned entrepreneur, to prevent the next Clay Hunt tragedy.

This mobile application provides a location-enabled, social network exclusively for the military veteran community. While POS REP’s main purpose is to reconnect veterans who served together, its underlying significance is to connect veterans to peers and resources within their communities.

For more info on the app:  www.pos-rep.com

Article here:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/shaunso/2013/01/24/a-tragic-veteran-suicide-spawns-an-entrepreneurial-call-to-action/ 

Update:  Blackfive busting in here to say this is a great follow up to a piece we did last April -  we've been onboard with POS REP for awhile.  Great to see Forbes pick up on it.

Women in Combat

I assume you have all heard that Sec. Panetta has lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is audible and I understand the concerns, well some of them. I don't have time to cover this adequately now, but I can say the decision is not unexpected and in the end, I support it. The devil is in the details, and so all possible pressure will need to be brought to ensure that standards and consequently readiness and combat effectiveness are not compromised.

My significant other will be in studio on NPR's Talk of the Nation today around 2:30 pm eastern to discuss this. She is an Army LTC, airborne, Desert Storm, OIF and several other mobilizations vet who applied for Ranger school more than a dozen times as a Lieutenant. Obviously she didn't get in, but we will soon see the first female Rangers. Let's make sure we do this right.

An opposing view from the ever curmudgeonly, and always informative Jonn Lilyea at TAH.

Needs Of The Service....

BS Photo

Before we set about heading down the road of me once again explaining why chicks fighting our wars in the combat arms means the end of our civilization, I want everyone reading this to take a long look at that picture and understand what it means. 

The needs of the service come before the needs of the soldier.  And we will make our way to that, I promise.

Everyone that reads this blog understands where we are coming from, and I respect LW, LongTabSigO and the others that have given their opinions here regarding the evolution of women being assigned to combat arms.  The last time I waxed poetic is here, to refresh yourself with the topic if you are just joining us.

SecDef Panetta's parting shot at completing the destruction of military readiness and taking yet another brick out of the walls that support our modern society will undoubtedly be hailed by the Lamestream Media as a giant leap for womankind in allowing them to finally be able to have the same opportunity to hump a M240B machinegun up and down the mountains and dodge enemy fire just like every other man in the unit.  Many of us, who have walked those mountains, assaulted those cities and lived to tell about it know something that many in society do not.

Historically, societies that have placed women in combat arms positions were seen to be unable to continue to exist without them in those positions.  I think it speaks volumes about what value we place on women, how we esteem them and what we think of their value to us.  But in the larger sense, as it relates to military affairs and our ability to fight and win the nations wars, it says even more...

Continue reading "Needs Of The Service...." »

A Lovely Parting Gift - Mr Panetta To Authorize Women For Combat Roles

In the continuing quest to social engineer the world's finest military (since fiscal management is too hard) outgoing SECDEF Leon Panetta (with CJCS GEN Dempsey) are expect to announce a major policy change any day:  

... (He will lift) the military's ban on women serving in combat, a move that will allow women into hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando units, a senior Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Obviously there is significant angst/significant joy from the various factions as the social engineers continue to "break down barriers" in this brave new world.

Here's my take:  

(1) If we're going to do this, lets start with all-female infantry units.  Lets get the PT/HT/WT discussion off the table and focus on Army FM 7-8 (or whatever they use these days).  
(2) I would prefer that a group of qualified women be screened, vetted, assessed, trained and employed by SOF then a general cohort foisted on any number of commanders who, frankly, don't need this hassle right now.

(3) How many men would like to serve in combat arms but never get the chance because of the Needs of the Service.  If this policy is absolutely necessary (under any version of "fairness") then logic dictates that every able-bodied man who is qualified to do so should have first refusal on slots to the Combat Arms. 

(4) Similarly, there are a lot of men in non-combat arms, content to be there, who would still liked to have a chance to go to Ranger School.  Yes, in theory it IS open to all men, but anyone who's ever tried to go to Ranger School from most non-combat branches knows that the theory and practice vary greatly.(Again, if this is about "fairness" then lets be fair!)

(5) I don't recall seeing any significant writing from females with all this "combat experience" on the operations they conducted, their assessment of tactics, techniques, and procedures, or the like.  I was sure hoping we'd have a slew of new material from them, based on their collective experience.  So how exactly are we improving our combat power?

(6) I remember watching Restrepo and wondering how all the "grab-ass" and the like would work in a mixed unit.   I concluded it would probably go bad at some point. 

((I originally had something here, but I decided that it would distract from the topic.))

I guess we hope for the best....

Women Cleared For Combat

As he's headed for the door, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has apparently removed all bans, bars, and other impediments to women serving in combat.  This comes as welcome news to Molly Pitcher, Margaret Corbin, Elizabeth Newcume, Dr. Mary E. Walker (MOH), and a host of others who served openly or in disguise over the years. 

The fact is, women have served openly in combat since the Revolutionary War, some (check the names above) with distinction.  Women have served in disguise as infantry and other positions in every war up until modern times.  There are a number of women in the current conflict (and others such as WWII) who have seen combat, not just as pilots, nurses, or such; but, who have found themselves in the fight and responded as such to do any warrior proud. 

Speaking strictly for myself, and no other and no organization, I've found some of the restrictions on females being in "combat" zones to be foolish and short sighted.  The efforts to restrict or remove them when someone suddenly realized that there was no rear area have cost time, money, and sometimes even blood needlessly.  If you are a troop, you are a troop, and if you don't understand and/or accept that and the risk that goes with it, you shouldn't be a troop.  That applies not just to women, but to all. 

The problem is, times and the art of war have changed.  The new move is going to open up a range of MOS positions that are currently barred -- with some good reason.  That reason is the physical requirements for those jobs, and the fact is that many/most who try for them don't make it as it is. 

My own personal take is that I have no problem with women in combat, with one proviso.  That condition, however, is that they meet all extant standards, and that includes the unspoken standards that go with it.  I do not want to see anyone, of any gender/whatever, get a job (any job) unless they meet every standard extant.  That means the phsyical, the mental (toughness), intellectual, and  -- most of all -- the conditions that come with the job.  The lack of privacy, the harsh conditions, the exposure, the danger. 

For reasons I won't go into, I need to tread carefully here; but, I implore command not to do the easy thing, the political thing, and change standards to meet an official or unofficial expectation in regards participation.  Those that meet the standards deserve the shot, no matter who or what they are. 

Those that don't, well, they have the knowledge that they tried and tried their hardest.  Depending on what area you are talking about, the washout rate can be the majority of those who try.  Hurts like hell not to make the cut, but you can (often) try again.  Some do, some make it.  The rest, well, they tried.

The reason our troops do things well, with shock and awe, and putting more power with more precision than ever before, with the lowest number of casualties, is because we do insist on high standards -- particularly for our elite forces.  They will remain elite forces only as long as we maintain (and even increase) the mental, intellectual, and physical standards.

Based on recent trials, I honestly don't see a huge number of people beating down the door for some, or even most, of those positions.  That could change. 

There are some women who can and will meet the standards, and they do deserve a shot.  That said, I'm going to quote Jonn Lilyea who makes some very good points:  

I’ve never subscribed to the theory that women in combat will distract from the job being done, but rather I’ve opposed this because the sociologists will force square pegs into the round holes, with a hammer, if needed.


If history has taught anything, the services had better keep the standards for combat jobs regardless of sex. As I’ve always said, the bullet isn’t forgiving and doesn’t discriminate.

Wise points to ponder.