Confessions from the Peanut Gallery

Don't ask Questions you Won't Like the Answer To...

2012-02-15T17:53:00.002-07:00

Eastman went on to mock the concept of marriage equality and challenge Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a swing vote in a possible Supreme Court case on marriage, saying that conservatives must ask him, "Do you want to be the critical vote that would destroy the institution that has been the bedrock of civil society since time immemorial.?"

I don't know about you, but I think I know how I would respond to that. It's not worth your time pointing out that civil society isn't about to collapse because same-sex couples are getting married. Its also not worth point out that societies throughout history have had wildly differing views of what marriage is. These people are two bigoted, stupid, or both to grasp what you're saying, regardless of how colorful the hand puppets you draft as aids are. No, I have a far better response.

"YEP!"

Bryan Fischer, Reality, File for Divorce

2012-02-15T17:42:00.001-07:00

It's always nice to know that there are things you can count on in America. Unfortunately, one of them is the Religious Right prattling on about things that they're completely ignorant about. In this case we're taking a break from science, homosexuality, and marriage and we're talking about the United States military. Specifically, we're talking about the recent decision to open up more combat roles to women. Bryan Fischer, a guy who is almost creepily obsessed with what folks do in their bedrooms, doesn't like it one bit, and he's not letting his utter ignorance on the subject to get in the way.

Santorum's concerns are entirely valid. People mistakenly believe that Israel puts women in combat positions even to this day. They are wrong. The Israeli army experimented with women in combat for about three weeks in 1948 and quickly and permanently abandoned the idea.

Except, of course, that this isn't true. Since 2000, the Israeli Army has allowed women to be integrated into most combat units. While there's a fair amount of opposition within the Army, this has been slowly but steadily occurring. Somebody might want to encourage Fischer to do some basic research, though this the same guy who doesn't think AIDS exists, so research might not be his strong suit.

But they couldn't do it when the female soldiers at their side were put in harm's way. They took their eyes off the military objective because their protective instinct was just too strong. The risk of this to Israeli national security was obviously too great, and the Israeli army bailed on this early experiment in political correctness as a gross error in judgment.

First off, what does Fischer think combat units are like? Does he think that US Soldiers don't care about their peers when they're in danger or wounded? Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta, for instance, earned his Medal of Honor charging towards enemy positions while under heavy fire so he could try to save his best friend. One of the best military documentaries in recent years, Restrepo, captures what's its like for a unit when one of their male peers dies. Its not like some movie, which I would imagine where Fischer gets his information, and its certainly disruptive. Soldiers will ALWAYS try to save there peers. Units forge close relationships, all of which are needed to make it through combat and complete the mission. Having ANYONE wounded or killed is an absolute sucker-punch every single time, and its NEVER pretty. A lot of us are unfortunately far too familiar with that fact, and its why I find myself ridiculously insulted every time I see this kind of tripe wheeled out.

According to Brian Mitchell in his book, Women in the Military, the vast majority of women in the IDF now serve as secretaries, clerks, teletypists, nurses, teachers, and army social workers. "They are barred," Mitchell writes, "from many jobs involving physical strain, adverse environmental conditions, or combat."

In fact, Israeli law requires that women be evacuated from the front in the event of hostilities. Women in the military receive only cursory weapons training, and do not even practice marksmanship. The only time they carry weapons is in parades, so photographers can get their utterly deceptive snapshots of how wonderfully-advanced Israel is on the whole gender thing.

Again, I'll go ahead and reiterate from two paragraphs ago that this simply isn't true. I haven't wasted my time reading Brian Mitchell's book (because I have far more intellectual things to do, like watching paint dry), but I don't think its his fault, since he wrote the book back in 1997. For those of you who aren't able to grasp the passage of time, that was BEFORE the IDF decided to move into the 21st Century. Perhaps Fischer should do this crazy new thing the kids are doing these days and check to see when the book was published.

Of course, considering the rest of this books title is Flirting with Disaster I'm not holding my breath that the book is well researched, even handed, or well written.

The only way it won’t is if we train our male soldiers to be indifferent to the suffering of their female comrades in arms, and I for one do not want to live in a nation that does that to its men nor to its women. We have enough problems in our society with the way in which women are treated without incorporating neglect into our military culture as a virtue.

I used to be a combat arms officer before I moved onto another position. Like all units, there was a serious push to certify our Soldiers to be Combat Lifesavers, which was designed to train Soldiers how to care for their wounded comrades while waiting for higher medical care to arrive. The very first rule when providing care under fire is that the number one priority is to establish fire superiority. Its not dragging your wounded comrade to cover. Its not assessing the casualty. Its making sure that the enemy is unable to inflict any more causalities by either suppressing or killing them. Until that time, that wounded Service Member is on his or her own. In other words, we're already more or less training this, though it isn't nearly as cataclysmic as he makes it out to be. Its just basic common sense.

Our military opponents for the foreseeable future will be Muslims. Female soldiers captured in combat will be subjected to unspeakable sexual abuse and torture at the hands of their Muslim captors, who believe the insulting and degrading things Muhammad said about the fairer sex. It is unconscionable for a Christian nation to subject its women to this kind of risk.

Yet our president blindly pushes on in his mindless effort to impose secular and pagan values on our military, weakening the armed forces and putting women in positions where they not only will jeopardize military missions but be at risk of cruel and inhuman treatment in captivity.

I have to give credit where credit's due. The man knows how to slander as many people as he can as quickly as he can. Islamophobia, hatred of secularism, and painting anyone who doesn't subscribe to his morally and intellectually bankrupt vision of Christianity as "pagans" all in one single hit. Incidentally, rape in captivity isn't something that just women face. It happens to men too.

It is just a simple fact that neither nature nor nature’s God designed the female body for the rigors of combat. Men have greater size, upper body strength and stamina for a reason: God’s intention is for them to use that superior strength to protect women and children.

The risks of women in combat are obvious. They do not have the stamina their male counterparts have when combat situations are arduous and demanding for hours and even days at a time. They do not have the physical strength to carry a wounded and heavier comrade to safety.

The problem with this is that it makes a lot of really silly assumptions.

First off, I'm a big guy. Wearing my full combat load I'm probably weighing in at close to 250lbs. Do you think some of the smaller Soldiers that I worked with could carry me? Hell, we used to use that fact to validate some of our casualty collection procedures; if they could work with somebody my size, they could work with anyone in the platoon or battery.

Second, there are plenty of women who could physically perform on par with their male counterparts, and if we allow male Soldiers who are physically weak to perform in combat units (which we do), then the arguments for women are pretty thin.

Finally, even the Army recognizes that technological advancements in body armor have lead to Soldiers in combat being saddled with massive amount of gear. As such, the new physical training test intended for deploying units involves a combat drag event. You don't have to be able to throw a Soldier over your back, you just have to drag him to cover. After all, you're not going to strip his helmet or body armor off while you're engaged in combat. So often you're simply not going to be able to do a fireman's carry, which is the sort of physical activity that Fischer is thinking of.

The Marines discovered in the 1990s that the average female soldier does not even have the arm strength to throw a grenade far enough to keep herself from getting blown up.

Pardon the turn of phrase that I'm going to use here to prove a point, but do you thing women are the only people who, to use the parlance of our time, throw like girls? I'm a lousy grenade throw, and I know plenty of other folks who are too, but it doesn't take a hell of a lot to get a fragmentation grenade out to its max effective range.

Oh, and that ignores the most blatant thing that stands out about this sentence: CITATION. FUCKING. NEEDED.

And while at the same time our culture is feminizing men, we are masculinizing women, all of which is a devil’s bargain. Our culture has lost sight of the priceless and unique role for which God has designed women: to bring new life into the world and nurture it to maturity.

Above everything else in this vile article, I think this really takes the cake. Not only is it disgusting that somehow affording people the proper respect (which is an Army Value, I would like to remind you), but that somehow now doing so means that women are poor, dainty flowers who are so delicate that they need to be squirreled off somewhere to work in the kitchen and pop out babies. That's an insult to female Service Members who have proven themselves in combat again and again, like Sergeants Leigh Ann Hester and Monica Lin Brown.

The dirty fact is that women are ALREADY on the battlefield. There IS no front line! Every time you leave the FOB you're in combat. That means women serving in logistics, military police, and medical roles are just as engaged in combat as their male counterparts.

Its time we started recognizing that. Its time we started treating these brave women seriously. Its time we stopped letting stupidity like this go by so unchallenged.

Mormon Church Forced to Apologize for Baptizing Simon Wiesenthal's Holocaust Victim Parents

2012-02-14T17:35:00.001-07:00

Hey, remember that fun tradition in the Mormon Church, the one where they just go ahead and baptize your dead relatives? Yeah...

Simon Wiesenthal's parents should not have been posthumously baptized, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has acknowledged. And on Monday, an official with the church apologized.

The uproar began last week when it was discovered that a member of the Mormon Church had submitted for posthumous baptism the names of Wiesenthal's parents, and that the couple, Asher and Rosa Rapp Wiesenthal, were baptized by proxy last month.

Now look, obviously this has absolutely no impact on his parents. There is no heaven or hell, and performing a secret little ceremony in the basement of a temple somewhere doesn't really mean much practically. But doing so is an absolute spit in the face of the people in question. Asher and Rosa Rapp Wiesenthal died as practicing Jews during the Holocaust. That belief was an important one to them, and while as an atheist I don't agree with their religious views I respect that they held them. So coming along after they died and saying that now suddenly they belong to your religious faith when they have no ability to rebuke you or your ecclesiastical position its tasteless.

I'm honestly curious how the people performing this ceremony would have felt if I walked along and said that Joseph Smith was now an atheist because I mixed myself two vodka tonics in my house and danced around in my under-pants. I would imagine that they would view that as absolutely disrespectful regardless of whether they thought I had the power to somehow turn Smith into a fervent, posthumous atheist. And as somebody who at least TRIES to respect other people I would have the common decency not to do it.

Additionally, if we took the Mormon view of the world and thought that we had the power to do this, isn't it a hair authoritarian? "Too bad, you don't have the power to defend yourself, so now you're going to believe what I believe!"

Don't you Hate it when your Social Club gets Targeted for Something Minor?

2012-02-14T17:24:00.001-07:00

You know, like wanting to kill police officers and launch an insurrection against the government?

The trial for seven Hutaree members opened Monday in Detroit; an attorney for the militia's leader, David Stone, Sr. told jurors the group was mostly a "social club", according to the New York Times (paywall).

Yeah! We're a social club! We have punch and pie socials, organize pot lucks, and practice how to react to contract and execute a squad attack! Totally normal! We're kind of like the local inter-mural soccer league, only with a fanatic hate of a democratically elected government of our fellow citizens!

That's one of those rare and wonderful legal defenses that left me in hysterics. Until I realized that they represent a real and enduring threat to the United States and its citizens, far more than the bulk of Islamic terrorist organizations.

Fox Pundit: If You're a Woman in the Military, "Expect" to be Raped

2012-02-14T17:10:00.006-07:00

I'll flat out say it: the military has a serious problem with sexual harassment and sexual assault. Positive steps have been taken to rectify the problem, but instances of sexual assault are still disturbingly high. Ultimately, this problem won't be solved until sexual assault is all but wiped out Department of Defense-wide. Its perhaps an even more disturbing act that one service member can take advantage of the culture of trust and comradeship and do something so utterly and indisputably evil. It not only degrades the victim, but completely destroys that culture, one that's so essential to readiness. I would like to think this is an ethical value that isn't just a military one, but a social one as well.

...which is why, of course, I was stunned to see Fox News "contributor" Liz Rotta posit that women who decide to put country above self should expect to be raped.

ROTTA: But while all of this is going on, just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact, the whole airing of this issue has never been done by Congress, it’s strictly been a question of pressure from the feminist.

And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims’ advocates, sexual response coordinators. … So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.

First, I'm disgusted at the idea that somehow women should expect to be raped going into military service. What does Rotta think military service consists of? Is there some kind of rape phase of basic training that I didn't hear about? Even worse is how apparently thinking that rape is a serious problem is apparently now an exclusively feminist one. If that's the case, then anybody who doesn't consider themselves a feminist is an absolutely horrible human being.

Second, is there every some kind of acceptable level of rape? I've never heard somebody described as being "raped a little bit." Nor (thankfully) have I ever heard somebody say anything along the lines of "it was alright, I only got raped a couple of times." Absolutely despicable.

Third, building a bureaucratic to help tackle a persistent rape problem within the ranks is somehow a bad thing? What exactly makes a bureaucracy worse than somebody being sexually assaulted? Is identifying a few people in each unit as responsible for providing a safe channel to report sexual assault somehow worse than a physical act of violence designed to rob a man or woman of their very humanity and dignity? Its unfathomable to me that anyone could be so fanatically angry at the government that they're willing to accept rape as an acceptable alternative.

Mind you, this is the same woman who thought it would be great if somebody assassinated the President of the United States because she doesn't like him, so perhaps we're looking at somebody with a fairly flawed moral compass.

Did you Know that Lesbianism Causes Breast Cancer? No?

2012-02-13T20:12:00.002-07:00

...good. That means you're not an idiot like Bryan Fisher. In one of his latest articles, he posits that lesbians are at an increased risk for breast cancer. What evidence is there for that, you ask? Shut up. That's what.

Will America’s young women be just a bit more likely to experiment with lesbianism now that JCPenney is mainstreaming it? Too any objective observer, the answer must be yes. Is this a good thing? To any objective observer, the answer must be no.

Research has indicated that lesbians suffer from increased levels of depression, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, breast cancer and vaginal diseases compared to heterosexual women.

Thus what JCPenney has done, by increasing, even if ever so slightly, the chances that young women will experiment with this behavior will turn out to be a tragic thing for some. JCPenney will have to share some culpability for that. This once proudly pro-family company will have done its part to define deviancy down.

This is coming from a known AIDS denialist. So I would take some ANY science knowledge from this guy with a grain of salt.

Oh, he also takes a shot at the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Things have reached the place where one of the Republican candidates for the presidency does not think the state should restrain prostitution at all, and voted twice to normalize homosexuality in the United States military.

You do realize that there's a difference between refusing to penalize people for their sexual preference and advancing one sexual preference over the other, right? Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell really doesn't mean that the barracks buildings have degenerated into an orgy of depravity. Well, more than did before. I've done health and welfare inspections. Trust me, the barracks weren't all sunshine and lollypops before.

Peter LaBarbera and Patrick Wooden Upset that it's Unacceptable for People to be Bloody-Minded Savages

2012-02-13T18:52:00.001-07:00

Typically while CPAC is underway the internet is awash in hilarious levels of conservative delusions, like Fox News secretly being controlled by right-wing boogieman George Soros. But so often we forget about the parade of delusion and barbarity that's simultaneously vomiting onto the airwaves. Take Peter LaBarbera's show.

Wooden: My heart breaks and I literally mourn over what has happened to the NAACP. Ben Jealous says he has a brother who is transgendered in his family, the little boy grew up dressing like Diana Ross or somebody when he was a child, well I say his parents should’ve took the child and whooped the child’s behind and taught the child how to dress.

…
Wooden: If you want to get knocked out just go into a male bathroom in the African American community or any community I would think and you’re standing there in a dress and many times the people are trying to hit on people, trying to make sexual responses, one man there, you know, you don’t want to be in there feeling like another man is trying to look at your penis. We’ve always had a hostile response, or a disrespect if you will, for that kind of behavior.

LaBarbera: It used to be common of course, I’ve heard many stories. I remember a story from a military guy, saying a guy came and he was a sailor and they had some temporary little day off at port and some guy hit on him and he decked him.

Wooden: That’s normal.

LaBarbera: When you make a sexual advance against a man on man, that is a normal response, and yet I fear in the rise of political correctness what’s going to happen is, somebody is going to find out that there was a man in his wife’s—his wife was in the restroom when a transgendered man, a biological male, was in the female restroom and he’s gonna punch him, but then the man who punches him is gonna be charged with a hate crime, that’s what I’m afraid of.

Wooden: We’re not promoting, advocating violence here.

LaBarbera: Of course not!

We're not advocating violence! We just think its crap that its now considered unacceptable to beat somebody within an inch of their life because of their sexual preference! That's totally different!

Additionally, I love that these guys think that transgender Americans go into different restrooms to troll for sex. It really puts their own bathroom needs into an interesting new light.

We should use the Catholic Church as a model for birth control? Seriously?

2012-02-13T18:38:00.002-07:00

I was perusing Facebook the other day, and a colleague of mine posted what might be one of the more ridiculous articles to come out of this birth control debate. The author here not only decided that the requirement for religious organizations to act like any other employer went too far, but that the mere EXISTENCE of contraception was a problem. Spoiler alert: It's an absolutely asinine article.

“Here's the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It's given us some of the world's greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it's not that they're a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.”

You know you have to reach for items to defend your position when you fall back on the “Wisdom of the Ages” argument. That isn’t to say that we can’t learn lessons from the past; as a historian I hold this as close to sacred as one reasonably can. But arguing that since the Catholic Church has survived for several millennia that it somehow means its doctrine are of value to the world is absolute nonsense. The church survived as long as it has because it’s politically savvy. Its initial rise was in part due to a strategic alliance with the Byzantine Empire, and its constant efforts to tie itself to the political power structures of the day. That was why the Catholic Church ended up legitimizing Napoleon Bonaparte's regime, siding with the Spanish Monarchy as it became increasingly repressive, and happily led Europe into the Crusades.

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That's it. But it's pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it's probably never been as salient as today.

Today's injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

1) General lowering of moral standards
2) A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
3) The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
4) Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

Because it sure sounds like what's been happening for the past 40 years.

First and foremost, nobody is denying that love, marriage, sex, and procreation belong together. What many of us are arguing is that those elements can often be separated without threatening the rest. For instance, my having sex with somebody who isn’t my spouse doesn’t somehow cheapen the sanctity of marriage, nor does it invalidates the biological imperative of reproduction. To say so is to argue that by enjoying driving fast, skydiving, or riding on roller coasters that one is cheapening the adrenaline pathways that make somebody more successful in combat or more prone to learn valuable survival lessons that improve one’s chances of long-term survival.

If anything, I would argue that if you go into marriage without first sleeping with your partner you are, without a doubt, making a huge mistake. You’re rolling the dice on an important element of long-term compatibility, and you’re doing it with odds that are worse than ones you’ll find in Las Vegas. It doesn’t make marriage any worse. If anything, it strengthens it by ensuring that both partners are going to be more likely to make a go of the relationship.

That said, since Pope Paul VI decided to phrase his (incredibly self-serving) prophecy into four discrete parts, I’ll respond accordingly.

1) Religious and political figures have been arguing that morality has been on the decline for as long as there are written records. As Plato wrote the following in the 4th Century B.C.E:

What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?

Social mores shift and change as frequently as the societies that spawned them. Since social mores are more or less intended to facilitate harmonious social interaction, as the makeup of a given society changes so must those mores. Certainly there remain certain immutable rules, but the idea that somehow people have the audacity to enjoy sex doesn’t alter them any. The one universal social imperative is that of the Golden Rule, which was good enough to be co-opted by the Catholic Church two millennia ago.

2) Define infidelity. Technically every time I sleep with somebody outside of wedlock I’m committing infidelity. Yet unless it’s with another married woman, and unless its not conceptual, there’s not a damn thing wrong with it, and I refused to be shackled to the barbaric ravings of a bunch of savage minded virgins, and no man or woman should! If you don’t like sex out of wedlock, don’t have it! Otherwise don’t deliberately try to compromise my health to advance your agenda. Additionally, what about open relationships where both parties consent? As for illegitimacy, I’ll touch on that a little later.

3) The reduction of women to the status of objects? Hate to say it, but that was happening long before contraception. It used to be acceptable to treat women as objects that could be exchanged as if part of a commercial transaction. That’s what marriage used to be, and it was something that was enthusiastically embraced by the Catholic Church.

4) Government coercion in reproductive matters. Isn’t this coming from an organization dedicated to doing just that by barring women from safe, affordable abortions?

As George Akerloff wrote in Slate over a decade ago,

By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.

Instead of two parents being responsible for the children they conceive, an expectation that was held up by social norms and by the law, we now take it for granted that neither parent is necessarily responsible for their children. Men are now considered to be fulfilling their duties merely by paying court-ordered child-support. That's a pretty dramatic lowering of standards for "fatherhood."

I’ll go ahead and ignore the massively arrogant and insulting subtext that's dripping from this section that essentially implies single parents are somehow inferior to their married counterparts, and point out that marriage is by no means a grantee of solid parenting skills. What about situations of spousal abuse? What about emotional neglect? What about alcoholism? According to this logic forcing two people together due to the presence of a child is presumed to be a better option, but more often than not an immature parent being out of the picture is far better than trying to shoehorn an immature male into a forced pairing.

Providing child support was always a social choice. Though noble, the idea that somehow birth control gave irresponsible males an out to avoid taking responsibility for parenting ignores the legions of bastard children that have been born since time immaterial. Additionally, nobody considers paying child support to be a parent “doing their part” but rather as the most practicable way of forcing those who are going to be naturally inclined to irresponsibility to do the bare minimum.

Doing away with contraception isn’t going to change the fact that some men are absolute cowards when it comes to children. If anything, contraception ensures that these gems aren't able to spread their seed.

How else are we doing since this great sexual revolution? Kim Kardashian's marriage lasted 72 days. Illegitimacy: way up. In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women. By 2010, it was 40.8% [PDF]. In 1960 married families made up almost three-quarters of all households; but by the census of 2010 they accounted for just 48 percent of them. Cohabitation has increased tenfold since 1960.

Though there’s a correlation between the listed metrics to the increase in accessibility to birth control, there isn’t any causal link demonstrated here. This is straight out of Lying with Statistics, and it’s so incompetently done that I’m almost begrudgingly proud of it.

…almost.

But hey, even if we took these at face value and assumed a causal link, so what? Though ideally you want two parents in a relationship, forcing a couple of have children before they’re ready isn’t a method for success. It’s a technique to be sure, but not one that’s necessarily preferred. First off, though contraception has increased dramatically since the 1960s, there has been a fanatic effort on the part of the Religious Right and the Catholic Church to slander and distort it. Abstinence-only education has been foisted on the American people under the absurd premise that somehow teenagers won’t think about sex unless it’s mentioned in class.

As to the other statistics, I’m really quite underwhelmed. Marriage is an increasingly irrelevant institution. While it has significant legal implications, I think it’s being increasingly rejected as more people recognize what it was originally designed as: a property transfer between two families. Just because somebody isn’t married doesn’t mean that they can’t live together. In fact, I would argue that its absolutely irresponsible for somebody to marry somebody who they haven’t lived together with. What matters in a relationship is love and respect; that doesn’t require a piece of paper and a change to one’s tax status.

Also, Kim Kardashian? Celebrity marriages have always been a mess. Even back in history there have been marriages that have lasted a spectacularly short amount of time. The Kardashian marriage has nothing to do with contraception, and it has everything to do with the narcissistic nature of our current 24-hour entertainment cycle.

And if you don't think women are being reduced to objects to satisfy men, welcome to the internet, how long have you been here? Government coercion: just look to China (or America, where a government rule on contraception coverage is the reason why we're talking about this right now).

Pornography has ALWAYS been an element of human existence, as has prostitution and rakish behavior. It’s the natural order of things. Prostitution used to be viewed far more leniently than it is today, and that is the ultimate pinnacle of the objectification of the human body. To argue that contraception has made that any worse is absurd. If anything, it’s helped to afford women a means by which to protect themselves, whereas before they would be both objectified AND subject to numerous health complications.

Additionally, the government rule in America isn't about forcing people not to have kids. Its to force the Catholic Church and other religious institution to act like decent human beings and ensure that their employees have access to basic healthcare items. Perish the thought.

Is this all due to the Pill? Of course not. But the idea that widely-available contraception hasn't led to dramatic societal change, or that this change has been exclusively to the good, is a much sillier notion than anything the Catholic Church teaches.

Nobody is denying that contraception, like all technology, can have dramatic effects on the human population. But arguing that we should go back to a time where women and men were slaves to the natural order is complete insanity. Mankind’s greatest strength has been leveraging technological innovation. From agriculture to antibiotics we’ve found ways to disconnect ourselves from the pressures of our previous existence (one that, if god did exist, found amusing to shackle us to). Contraception is no different.

Besides, in contraception’s defense, it doesn’t have nearly as many people wearing silly hats.

So is the notion that it's just OBVIOUSLY SILLY to get your moral cues from a venerable faith (as opposed to what? Britney Spears?).

This is a beautiful example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. If we’re not slavishly devoting ourselves to the Church, then clearly we’re worshiping at the Altar of Brittany. This is almost Newt Gingrich-levels of arrogance. Perish the thought that human beings can use their own evolved moral compass without crouching it in the shadow of their invisible friend in the sky.

But let's turn to another aspect of this. The reason our editor thinks Catholics shouldn't be fruitful and multiply doesn't hold up, either. The world's population, he writes, is on an "unsustainable" growth path.

The Population bureau of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations sees (PDF, h/t Pax Dickinson) the rate of population growth slowing over the next decades and stabilizing around 9 billion in 2050…and holding there until 2300. (And note that the UN, which promotes birth control and abortions around the world, isn't exactly in the be-fruitful-and-multiply camp.)

Amusingly, if the authors had bothered to pay attention to the report they linked that stabilization is in large part to declining fertility rates, which are in part the result of contraception. Whoops.

More broadly, the Malthusian view of population growth has been resilient despite having been proven wrong time and time again and causing lots of unnecessary human suffering. For example, China is headed for a demographic crunch and social dislocation due to its misguided one-child policy.

There’s a difference between understanding that sound family planning is a necessary state objective and the heavy-handed Chinese approach. States, in my mind, have an obligation to ensure that their citizens have the ability to access the tools they need to take charge of their reproductive health. That doesn’t necessarily preclude women from choosing NOT to use it.

Human progress is people. Everything that makes life better, from democracy to the economy to the internet to penicillin was either discovered and built by people. More people means more progress. The inventor of the cure for cancer might be someone's fourth child that they decided not to have.

Of course that’s true. But it’s also possible that said fourth child grows up to knife said inventor of a “cure for cancer” in a mugging. Which, incidentally, is a more likely occurrence within lower income populations who are the most likely to suffer from lack of access to contraceptive care. Additionally, the lack of human pressure means that children can be born into families that are more prepared, both mentally and financially, to have them. That affords them more opportunities, which in turn allows the truly gifted greater opportunities to advance.

Look, I was raised Catholic. I understand the Church isn't cool about contraception. If you don't want to use birth control or engage in pre-marital sex, more power to you. But this bull-headed refusal to keep step with the times was one of the reasons that I could amuse myself in class while attending my Catholic high school as my class mates frantically searched the internet for details about the morning after pill.

Progress exists for a reason. Either you keep up or you fall behind. But if you don't keep up don't be made when people look at you like you're an idiot.

Herman Cain and The 3am Phone Call

2011-11-15T16:12:00.000-07:00

The latest negative reporting on the Herman Cain death-march to the capital.

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has dismissed as overblown the furore over a video showing him stumped by a question about Libya, reopening doubts as to his fitness to be commander-in-chief.

In an interview on Monday with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Cain struggled to be coherent on whether he agreed with Barack Obama's handling of Libya. He repeatedly stumbles, then asks: "OK, Libya. President Obama supported the uprising, correct?" The video has gone viral in the US.

This story brings up a much more interesting point. One of the most common responses by the Cain Campaign to his gaffes is to insist that the candidate is tired. This has happened before. The thing a lot of people have been missing, I think, is that dreaded 3am phone call.

If Herman Cain can't properly function during soft-ball interviews this early in the campaign, before the stress of Iowa and New Hampshire really ramp up, how can we expect him to perform any better when there's a major crisis somewhere in the world? That would certainly be a lot more stressful on Cain than anything he's seeing now.

Romney Campaign Kicks out Navy Veteran for Opposing his VA Voucher Program

2011-11-15T16:03:00.000-07:00

This latest story coming from the Talking Points Memo:

Melissa Harmon tells TPM she was given the latter treatment by Mitt Romney staffers at an event in Columbia, SC Tuesday. Harmon, who was discharged honorably from the Navy under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell before the policy changed, showed up at the rally to protest Romney’s suggestion that VA benefits should beat least partially privatized.

Harmon, like a lot of veterans, is worried about the idea. But she said the Romney campaign thought her form of protest — a handwritten T-shirt — was too hot to handle and so she was kicked out of the Columbia event.

Ultimately, I think this underlines the Republican approach to defense reform. Avoid discussing culling programs that are bloated and irresponsible. Ignore the needs of the individuals who actually make all those shiny (and increasingly expensive) weapon systems work. We're seeing it with retirement benefits, and now we're seeing it with the Veterans Administration. I wish I could say that this is limited to just one party, but don't forget that even President Obama's new Secretary of Defense is talking about radically restructuring military retirement to make room in the budget for other programs.

Representative Bachmann: Hezbollah Wants to Place Missiles in Cuba

2011-09-28T11:40:00.005-06:00

Are we trying to reboot the Cuba Missile Crisis here?

BACHMANN: Why would you normalize trading with a country that sponsors terror? There’s reports that have come out that Cuba has been working with another terrorist organization called Hezbollah. And Hezbollah is potentially looking at wanting to be part of missile sites in Iran and, of course, when you’re 90 miles offshore from Florida, you don’t want to entertain the prospect of hosting bases or sites where Hezbollah could have training camps or perhaps have missile sites or weapons sites in Cuba. This would be foolish.

First things first. There IS no evidence that Hezbollah maintains a relationship with Cuba, let alone that they want to let them place missiles in Cuba. That's just more Islamophobic nonsense. However, if the point of freaking out about Hezbollah placing missiles in Cuba is that a potentially hostile group or nation has the ability to strike the US, then they haven't looked at either Hezbollah's weapons stockpile or Cuba's military that closely.

Hezbollah currently has several missile types in its inventory. Assuming intelligence reports are accurate, Hezbollah's longest range system is the Zelzal-2, which is an Iranian-engineered improvement of the FROG-7 rocket (9K52 Luna by Russian designation). This missile has a range of 210km (that's 130 miles). To get the most range possible out of any kind of artillery system, you need favorable atmospheric conditions. First, that means that humidity is low. The higher the humidity, the more difficulty the rocket has at achieving a high velocity (as the water molecules physically slow the rocket), which in turn reduces the range. Low humidity is unlikely considering the geographic location. Second, winds should be calm. Theoretically, a tailwind would help increase the velocity of the rocket, but that would also buffet the rocket and degrade accuracy. Finally if the missile itself is hot (which is a function of the ambient temperature), the propellant will release more energy, which in turn increases velocity, which will in turn improve range. Even with these factors, it is unlikely Hezbollah would be able to eek out much more than one or two more kilometers to the maximum range. At best it'll hit just north of the Florida Keys, at the edge of Key Largo.

Additionally, accuracy will be at its worst if the round is attempting to reach the maximum edge of its range. As the rocket flies through the air, the rocket motors are attempting to place it into a ballistic spin, which helps improve its accuracy. This is similar to throwing a football or firing a bullet; the more spin the round has, the more accurate it becomes. This spin, however, also creates drift, which means the round will drift slowly in the direction the rocket is spinning. This can be compensated for with a bit of mathematics. The rocket itself should come with a firing table that person aiming the weapon can use to calculate how to correct for the weather, the location, and the spin of the weapon. This, however, assumes the crew are competent (a big assumption) and that all the factors that impact the flight of the rocket are quantified (which requires competent meteorological predictions, another big if). Even if you compensate all the way, the longer it flies the more it will drift, and the more inaccurate the rocket becomes.

Now, if the crew is able to use all the things I listed above to achieve that maximum range, the weapon still has a best case scenario circular error probable. The circular error probable is basically a ring that is placed around the target, and 50% of the rounds will likely impact inside that ring. The 9K52 Luna itself has a 500-700 meter CEP. The 9K52, however, has a much shorter range (only 70km). The Iranians improved the weapon to reach as far as 210km. That improvement is typically achieved by increasing the amount of propellant and the power of the engine. However, in doing so, its likely that they increased the circular error probable.

On top of this, the weapon itself has a warhead of approximately 600 kg of high explosives. That's slightly more than the total amount of explosives in a Mark 84 2000lbs bomb. Assuming the explosives were of similar quality as the Mark 84 (a big if), that would give the warhead a maximum range of about 360 meters. Compare that to the circular error probable. Now, if they were shooting these at Florida odds are they're doing so to terrorize the population. The problem is, again, the range. At maximum range, the rocket might barely hit the mainland just north of the Florida Keys, around Key Largo. The biggest population center there is maybe 7km north/south by 2km east/west. That's a small target to hit. So the risk to population is light, even more considering that such a strike against the United States would invite a massive retaliation by the United States.

In doing this back of the paper math, I omitted one thing. There's only sketchy reports that Hezbollah has Zelzal-2s at all. They have never fired them at Israel. In fact, the only guaranteed system that Hezbollah has is the Khaibar-1, which is a souped up Katushya rocket, which gives them a maximum range of 75km. That range would be insufficient to hit even the Florida Keys.

I also mentioned Cuba's military. Cuba acquired sometime in the past North Korean-made Hwasong-5 missiles, and could possibly have Hwasong-6 missiles, which gives them a range of between 330-550km, and a warhead size of around 800 kg of high explosives. In other words, Cuba has been able to range Tampa for years now, why would they need Hezbollah?

There is, of course, another alternative here. And no, I'm not going with the obvious "Representative Bachmann has no idea what she's talking about" angle, because that's just way to easy. During the previous Presidential debate, in an attempt to seem knowledgeable on defense, Representative Bachmann accused Cuba of harboring terrorists. Much like her bizarre fury at Governor Rick Perry over mandatory vaccination of schoolgirls with Gardasil (albiet, with an opt-out), Representative Bachmann is attempting to pretend like she wasn't wrong at all.

I only have one question after all of this: who the hell takes this woman seriously anymore?

The Haqqani Network, the ISI, and Marriages of Convenience

2011-09-25T20:50:00.002-06:00

During the previous week, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen made some provocative statements about Pakistani complicity in the activities of the Haqqani Network.

To quote:

The Obama administration for the first time Thursday openly asserted that Pakistan was indirectly responsible for specific attacks against U.S. troops and installations in Afghanistan, calling a leading Afghan insurgent group “a veritable arm” of the Pakistani intelligence service.

Last week’s attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and a Sept. 10 truck bombing that killed five Afghans and wounded 77 NATO troops were “planned and conducted” by the Pakistan-based Haqqani network “with ISI support,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The ISI is the Pakistani military’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

“The government of Pakistan and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI” have chosen “to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy” to maintain leverage over Afghanistan’s future, Mullen testified during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta also testified.

While there has been plenty of discussion of the links between the Haqqani Network and the Pakistani ISI, something that has been missed in the discussion are some of the historic tensions that made maintaining a relationship with a group like the Haqqani Network attractive to the ISI. Like so many things that have influenced this region, it has ties back to the Great Game, but this post will only really focus on the more recent history, that is to say events after the conclusion of World War II.

The major players in the region during the Cold War were the Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, China, and the United States. While most are aware of the simmering tensions that have existed between India and Pakistan those tensions were also influenced by the other players.

India is faced with two major strategic threats in its area. First, it obviously has to contend with Pakistan, particularly over flashpoints like Kashmir. It also has to face off against China to its North. India became a client state of the Soviet Union, which it used to procure economic assistance, technology transfers, and military sales. Much of the Indian military inventory today is comprised of Soviet and Russian technology, and Russia and India have been collaborating on several R&D projects, to include a next-generation fighter.

Pakistan’s main rival in the region is India. Since India was a client state of the Soviet Union, it was able to rely on assistance from the United States, who was interested in countering Soviet influence in the region. But this also attracted China, who was interested in both placing pressure on India’s western frontier as well as also attempting to limit Soviet influence.

Then, of course, there were the main superpowers interactions in the region.

The Soviet Union, since Russia, has had interests in the region, which have typically focused around Afghanistan. First, a stable Afghanistan would ensure stability along their southern border, and countering Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan was seen as a vital step in preventing its expansion into its majority Muslim republics. Second, Russia had always been interested in securing more warm-water ports, which in turn lead to their attempts to bring Afghanistan into its sphere of influence so that they could push further south into Pakistan. This influenced much of their conflicts with Great Britain in this area during the 19th Century. As the United States started to provide Pakistan economic and military assistance, the Soviet Union deepened ties with both India as well as inside Afghanistan.

This, in turn, created a new battleground for the United States and the Soviet Union to fight over: Afghanistan. A little human geography: the two main ethnic groups inside Afghanistan are the Pashtuns (primarily located in the southern half of the country and spanning into Pakistan) and the Tajiks (primarily in the northern half of the country and spanning into the former Soviet Republics). During the 1960s and the 1970s both the Soviet Union and the United States did business inside Afghanistan, with the Soviet Union focusing its efforts in the northern, Tajik areas of the country and the United States, in conjunction with Pakistan, focusing its efforts into the southern, Pashtun areas.

A little disclosure here: I spent a year in Kandahar, living on Kandahar Airfield, as part of my duties in the US Army. Each day, my run route would take me past the civilian terminal, a photo of which can be found here. I also lived in one of the first barracks complexes used by US troops when the airfield was captured. Those facilities used to be the Kandahar Airport hotel. Both of these facilities were built by American engineers in the 1960s on behalf of the Afghan Republic’s central government, with financial assistance from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Additionally, USAID worked in Helmand Province to help modernize the agricultural programs that were in place there. Specifically, they focused their efforts in a place called Marjah. That should sound familiar: it was the location for the Marine Offensive that took place in 2009. There is an article about this program that can be found at the New York Times’ At War Blog, which was originally written in the 1960s and can be found here.

In turn, both Bagram Air Base in the countries east and Kabul International Airport (at least the old terminal) were both built by Soviet Engineers. Both the Soviet Union and the United States were asked to provide economic and development assistance on behalf of Afghan King Mohammad Zahir Shah, so he could modernize his country. In doing so, Zahir Shah was walking a delicate tightrope. He was maintaining as much neutrality as he could by playing with both sides, with the Soviets providing assistance in the north and the United States in the south. In doing so, however, he was also helping to widen pre-existing ethnic fault-lines. After Zahir Shah was deposed these fault-lines only accelerated, precipitating the Saur Revolution which brought the communists to power through a military coup, which in turn intensified the Civil War. This instability eventually triggered the Soviet intervention.

Of course, after the Saur Revolution the United States had an incentive to support the Pashtun insurgency. This was both to weaken the Communist regime, but also in an attempt to draw the Soviets into the conflict, where they could be pinned down and bled, not unlike the United States in Vietnam. Much of Operation Cyclone, the US transfer of aid to the mujahedin, has been talked about in great lengths, most famously in Charlie Wilson’s War. What’s worth noting about these transfers was how those weapons and supplies were actually distributed. Contrary to popular belief, the United States did not directly hand weapons to the mujahedin. Instead, the weapons and funds (drawn from China, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other locations) were passed to the Pakistani ISI, who in turn distributed them and helped them across the border. Pakistani Special Forces were also detailed to assist these groups, most famously during the Battle for Hill 3234.

The involvement of the Pakistani ISI is significant. The ability to control the flow of weapons gave the ISI the ability to provide preferential treatment to groups they supported, at the determent of others. Pakistan was being ruled under a military dictatorship, ruled by General Zia al-Haq. General Zia garnered much of his political support by ruling Pakistan under a strict Islamic banner. That banner, incidentally, helped create many of the problems with fundamentalism that Pakistan sees today. The main recipient of weapons on behalf of Pakistan were the more hardline Islamic fighters, such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, commander of HiG (Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin). This also led to increased support to another hard-line fighter, Jalaluddin Haqqani, the Haqqani Network’s commander. As the Pakistanis supported these groups, which tended to be Pashtun, they did so to the detriment of other mujaheddin commanders who were not so hardline or enamored with Pakistan, like Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmed Shah Massoud (the so-called “Lion on Panjshir”).

Which brings us back to how these tensions tied the ISI and groups like the Haqqani Network together; as Pakistan prepared itself for another potential war with India, they wanted to ensure that their western frontier was secure, and also sufficiently Islamic so as to provide them potential recruits to be thrown into battle in places like Kashmir. They were also suspicious of leaders like Rabbani and Massoud, who tended to be closer to Russia and India. They felt that if leaders like Rabbani held power that Afghanistan would become friendlier to India, which would in turn threaten their western flank. Hence the ties between groups like the Haqqani Network and the ISI. While ideology certainly plays a factor, these ties were cemented by a desire by Pakistan’s intelligence agency to have a weapon they could throw at India.

There are obviously simplifications and oversights in this post. To capture all the tensions and motivations that fuel the insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan and how the individual actors tie together would take several books. But in many ways this is a basic primer as to the "how" and "why" the ISI finds itself in bed with groups like the Haqqani Network, and it also captures one other critical point: peace in Afghanistan requires Pakistani cooperation, and peace in Pakistan required Afghan cooperation.

Rick Santorum Thinks God is Essential to National Security

2011-09-22T17:55:00.001-06:00

Former US Sentator Rick "Seriously, Google, Not Cool" Santorum is in the news again. Well, as much news as he can actually get since the state of Pennsylvania threw him out on his ass in 2006.

SANTORUM: Because this country is a moral enterprise and unless we honor God, our country will not be held up by God and protected in any way. Whether it’s from foreign aggression or from problems here within.

Okay, so God is apparently going to be essential in protecting us. I guess he's like a National Missile Defense Version of Vincent Vega's conversation with Jules in Pulp Fiction.

Now that I've gotten my obligatory Pulp Fiction reference out of the way, I'm honestly not sure which way to go with this. Does Rick Santorum hate America so much that he thinks its god forsaken? Or does he think we can cut our massive military budget if we all pray really, really hard. Usually its the whole "There are no Atheists in Foxholes" bit with these idiots, but we're on a whole 'nother plane of wing-nuttiness here.

Oh, and when you hear somebody say that there are no atheists in Foxholes, you're right. The Army hasn't used foxholes in the years. We fight on the move! But there are plenty of atheists in fighting vehicles, parachute harnesses, and Strykers.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Addresses the United Nations

2011-09-22T16:55:00.001-06:00

Iranian President and anti-necktie crusader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations today. Since Libya's former President Muammar Gaddafi is trying to find a new apartment to rent in the "Anywhere But Here" location of Craigslist, President Ahmadinejad decided to step up his game.

“Instead of assigning a fact-finding team, they killed the main perpetrator and threw his body into the sea,” Ahmadinejad said. “Would it not have been reasonable to bring to justice and openly bring to trial the main perpetrator of the incident? “Is there any classified information that must be kept secret?” he asked.

As usual, President Ahmadinejad's speech led to a walkout by several western delegations, to include the United States, the 27 European Union members, Australia, New Zealand, Somalia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Macedonia.

I especially love the vague, 9/11 Truth-esque line that's in bold. Apparently we shot Bin Laden dead during the raid because he might have a thumb drive of himself and former President Bush playing ski-ball or something? But it's especially amusing because, frankly, his government is guilty of doing something similar during the 2007 raid on the Karbala Provincial Reconstruction Team Headquarters. During this raid, insurgents that have been linked to Iran's Quds Force drove into the compound in black SUVs wearing American equipment and with American weaponry, took four hostages, and drove out of the base. When they realized they were being followed, they pulled off to the side of the road and executed each of them by shooting them in the head. Of course, his comments about other human rights abuses, to include the slave trade, are "hilarious" when you consider his own abysmal human rights record. And I pronounce "hilarious" in the same tone of voice I reserve for the word "tapeworm" or "root canal."

Of course, despite this speech, I don't agree Representative Bachmann's comments that President Ahmadinejad should be blocked from visiting the United Nations.

"He has proven he is in violation of the United Nations charter and of international law," Bachmann declared. "Since he is, in the most literal sense, an outlaw, he should not be allowed in the United States of America."

The CBS article puts it best:

But under the treaty that established world's international peacekeeping body, what she's asking would be illegal. The 18-acre site on the east side of Manhattan that is occupied by the United Nations headquarters is international territory. Because of that, the United States is obligated to allow access for leaders of the body's 193 member nations.

Ultimately, if we want our involvement in the international community to be more than just bombs and bayonets we need to actually start using diplomatic tools. We can't do that if we ignore our treaty obligations. I'm planning on posting something on this soon, but we can't bomb our way out of the Iran nuclear problem. Unless we intend to bomb their educated middle class, we have little options available to force their hands in a way that don't cost us excessive amounts of blood and treasure.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is Dead...and Apparently it's a Bad Thing

2011-09-22T14:01:00.002-06:00

So, after 18 years, American's now have the right to defend their country regardless of their sexual preferences. I went into work that Tuesday and, despite the prophecies of doom coming from the religious fundamentalists in this country, my Battalion's footprint wasn't engulfed in flames. Of course, that isn't stopping the panic mongers of the religious right from the likes of the Family Research Council, a well know hate-group, from going ballistic.

Foaming at the mouth after the jump.

And I quote:

President Obama may not have created a lot of jobs for America--but he's creating plenty for his homosexual base. At 12:01 a.m. this morning, the radical Left celebrated one of President Obama's signature legislative accomplishments: the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a 1993 law that codified the longstanding prohibition of homosexual conduct in the military. With the completion of the training and "certification" process, today became the day when political correctness officially trumps military effectiveness, and servicemembers actively engaged in homosexual conduct are now free to proclaim that preference.

FRC will continue to monitor the consequences of this reversal of 236 years of American military policy, limit the damage--and demand that the Defense Department do the same. Expect to see celebrations from homosexual groups and fawning stories in the media about how "the sky has not fallen." That's only because there will be no press releases from the new victims of sexual harassment or assault, the soldiers exposed to HIV-tainted blood, the thousands of servicemembers who choose not to reenlist rather than forfeit their freedom of speech and religion, and the untold number of citizens who choose never to join the military. It's clear this President is more interested in appeasing sexual revolutionaries than in fighting America's enemies.

Okay, first things first. If you're going to pretend to be knowledgeable on defense issues in the United States, at least try to use the right vocabulary and grammar. It's not "servicemember," Its "Service Member." Also, if you're going to refer to a member of a specific branch, the first letter is always capitalized. So if you're in the US Army, its "Soldier," not "soldier." If you're in the US Marine Corps, it's "Marine," not "marine."

But I digress.

There are so many things wrong with this message I'm not sure where to start. First off, I love how certification is in quotations. Are they saying that the military's certification process isn't enough? Did the Department of Defense have to certify that they were ready to integrate back in the 1940s?

FRC will continue to monitor the consequences of this reversal of 236 years of American military policy, limit the damage--and demand that the Defense Department do the same.

I hate to break it to you, but just because it's been policy for hundreds of years does NOT make it a valid policy today. I simply don't understand the obsession that organizations the likes of the FRC have about what life was like hundreds of years ago. First, the Founding Fathers never had a unified vision for America. If they did, the 1860s likely wouldn't have happened. Second, the US Army used to flog Soldiers as punishment and say that African American's were too incompetent to serve. We've moved past these disgusting and morally bankrupt concepts, why can't we do it again? Oh, wait. We have.

That's only because there will be no press releases from the new victims of sexual harassment or assault...

First, people don't rape other people because they're gay, no more than they do because they're straight. People rape people because they're animals. Pure and simple. It's not an exaggeration that the Department of Defense has recognized that they have a problem with sexual assault.

Second, I can say that at least in the United States Army huge strides have been made to build an infrastructure that allows people to come forward and report sexual assault. There is also a great deal of training. But a common thread has been that while people have been coming forward more and more to report having been sexually assaulted by a member of the opposite sex, many people haven't been coming forward about being sexually assaulted by a member of their own gender. In fact, the stories that I've heard have always been people who simply couldn't hide the fact that there was an assault (typically when they had to go to hospital to be treated for their injuries). The reason many don't come forward is because they're afraid that they'll be discharged under DADT. Additionally, since DADT places such a stigma on people being gay, people are terrified to come forward because they don't want to be labeled as gay.

If the FRC was so concerned about helping to prevent same-sex sexual assault and help those Service Members who have been impacted by it they wouldn't be advocating for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They would be shutting their damn mouths. But as far as I'm concerned, the only people to blame for Service Members not coming forward are the FRC and their ilk. They're also not helping the whole suicide thing with your bluster either. So be sure to thank them for helping with combat readiness.

Oh, additionally, is sexual harassment acceptable when its two people of differing sexes? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question.

...the soldiers exposed to HIV-tainted blood...

The Department of Defense does HIV testing routinely. At a minimum, at least for the US Army, Soldiers are tested at a minimum once a year, before a major event or deployment, and for free when requested. Gays are already serving in the United States Military. The only difference is that now they can do it openly. No major HIV issues have been identified. Additionally, if there is a major problem anywhere in the Department of Defense, its unsafe sex of ANY kind. Which, incidentally, the FRC isn't helping either with insisting that schools shouldn't teach anything but abstinence-only education, which means that young Soldiers have NO IDEA how to function in the real world when they get into the fleet or the force.

the thousands of servicemembers who choose not to reenlist rather than forfeit their freedom of speech and religion, and the untold number of citizens who choose never to join the military. It's clear this President is more interested in appeasing sexual revolutionaries than in fighting America's enemies.

I’ve always wanted to take the time and go through older newspaper articles around the time of desegregation back in the late 1940s and see how many people made this exact same asinine argument. Let me make this clear: if you’re so fickle that the thought of somebody being gay makes you unable to perform your military duties because of whatever ass-backwards religious dogma you subscribe to, we don’t have a use for you.
Seriously, we’ve been at war for ten years now, and the last thing we need are people who can’t put aside their own personal feelings, act like professionals, and ADAPT.

The joke of it is, the few opponents that I’ve run into that are in uniform who piss up a storm about the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are typically the ones who complain constantly about people being “coddled” when something happens that they don’t like. Well the shoes on the other foot. Quit bitching and do your damn job.

And as for my fellow Service Members who are now free to share their sexual preferences, congratulations about not having to hide anymore. Now get back to work.

Helicopter Crash in Eastern Afghanistan Kills 31 US, 7 Afghans

2011-08-06T10:29:00.002-06:00

It would appear that a helicopter carrying 7 Afghan Special Forces and 31 American troops, to include 25 members of SEAL Team 6, were shot down over Eastern Afghanistan today. If you remember, these were the same Special Operations Forces involved in the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Right now the Department of Defense is stating that this was due to hostile fire.

To quote ABC News:

Saturday's deaths bring the total number of coalition troops killed in Afghanistan to 334 this year, according to the Associated Press.

The last worst one-day U.S. causality record in Afghanistan was on June 28, 2005 when 16 U.S. soldiers were killed in Kunar province after a helicopter was shot down by Taliban insurgents.

Afghan President Karzai's office released a statement on the incident.

"A NATO helicopter crashed last night in Wardak province," Karzai said in the statement. "President Karzai expressed his deep condolences because of this incident and expressed his sympathy to Barack Obama."

President Obama offered his thoughts and prayers to those killed in the crash.

"Their deaths are a reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices made by the men and women of our military and their families, including all who have served in Afghanistan," Obama said in a statement. "We will draw inspiration from their lives, and continue the work of securing our country and standing up for the values that they embodied. We also mourn the Afghans who died alongside our troops in pursuit of a more peaceful and hopeful future for their country. At this difficult hour, all Americans are united in support of our men and women in uniform who serve so that we can live in freedom and security."

More after the jump.

Helicopter shoot-downs are always a risk during these operations, particularly when you're in the East which has both harsh mountain terrain and an enemy that is able to shelter and organize across the border in Pakistan to carry out its operations. Additionally, Afghanistan is already very harsh environment to operate helicopters in. To quote Wired's The Danger Room Blog:

Earlier this year, Popular Mechanics reporter Joe Pappalardo spent some time with the wrench-turners who keep the helicopters flying in Afghanistan. “Afghanistan,” he concluded, “is hell on helicopters.” Here’s a list of just a few of the things he noted that can go wrong: Temperature extremes that destroy seals and gaskets; “high/hot” flying conditions that reduce engine performance; dust and sand that ruin rotor blades and clog up hydraulics. And, of course, there’s the enemy. (Soviet helicopter operations were also vulnerable, albeit for a different reason: The delivery of the Stinger missile, courtesy of the United States.)

What will be interesting now will be the propaganda war that will accompany this raid. The US will most likely play up the involvement of the Afghan National Army forces that were accompanying the raid, and the insurgents on the ground will play up the fact that they were able to shoot down the helicopter in the first place.

Afghans have an interesting relationship with helicopters, who have harsh memories from the Soviet Invasion. The Soviet Army heavily used their helicopter gunships in air to ground operations in Afghanistan, frequently using them to pound villages suspected of sheltering mujaheddin. The helicopters, mostly MI-24 Hinds, were highly armored and very difficult to shoot down, and in the days before the US started supplying the mujaheddin FIM-92 Stinger man-portable missiles they were viewed as largely invulnerable. A famous quote by an Afghan Mujaheddin command is "We're not afraid of the Soviets, but we are afraid of their helicopters."

Each time the mujaheddin were able to shoot a Soviet helicopter down it was viewed as a significant victory, and one that has traveled down in Afghan folklore. Its one of those memories that resounds in the memories of Afghans when they think back to the expulsion of Soviet troops. To compare it to something similar in American lore, it holds a similar meaning as the the Invasion of Normandy. For Afghans, being able to shoot down an enemy helicopter holds the same feelings of accomplishment, skill, and pride that is comparable to the US Army Ranger storming of Pointe Du Hoc. As such, this will be used by local insurgents to build their credibility as they deal with tribal leadership in the area, which can be used to elicit more support. It will also be used by the individual fighters involved, if they survived the aftermath, to burnish their credentials and rise to higher levels of authority in the insurgent chain of command.

Perhaps more significant is the impact that losing 25 troops in a single day would have on operational readiness. It doesn't take a much of a leap in imagination to believe that whatever unit these SEAL Team 6 members were a part of will have to slow operations to recover from this.

US Army to Reduce Deployments From Twelve Months to Nine Months

2011-08-05T12:13:00.000-06:00

NBC News is reporting that the US Army will announce a reduction in deployment times for its Soldiers. Deployments will now fall, from twelve months to nine months. There will also be a corresponding increase in dwell time.

Ultimately this shouldn't be a huge surprise. When you combine a planned draw-down in Afghanistan to the already on-going draw-down in Iraq there is less of a demand for conventional Brigade Combat Teams and a corresponding drop in demand for Sustainment Brigades, Aviation Brigades, and Fires Brigades. What will be interesting to see is how much impact this will have on deployment from US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) components. Elements of USASOC have been running flat-out since the war began, and already have truncated deployment timelines as a result.

Ultimately, having more time back at home station and less time downrange will mean two key things. From an operational standpoint I think you will see these a greater focus on training for conventional mission sets. Many units are already starting to do this. It will take time to regain the conventional war-fighting capabilities that existed in 2003 before the Invasion of Iraq. Additionally, the strain on troops and their families will be lower.

A potentially interesting part of this will be how the US Army treats the home station training regimes. Ultimately, units will still need to train for Afghanistan- and Iraq-specific mission-sets, which would be done on the back-half of dwell time. That said, there will be more time for units to train for tasks congruent with conventional operations. Artillery battalions, for instance, will be focused on how to provide fire support on a high-intensity battlefield. This requires more training time, which also requires time in the field. There will also be commanders who will attempt to maintain the flat-out operations tempo to make names for themselves. Combine this with many Soldiers who now handle garrison life poorly I think you'll see acts of indiscipline continue at the rates we've been seeing. It will take time to readjust to the new status-quo, so we shouldn't expect an immediate drop. Theoretically we will see more Soldiers getting out for the same reasons, but the poor economy means that they incentives for these service members to bite their tongues and continue to serve.

Endemic of the Defense Acquisition Malaise: Is the Marine Corps Intentionally Underreporting Accident Statistics?

2009-12-26T19:11:00.000-07:00

This to me neatly encapsulates one of the major problems in the Department of Defense's acquisition process. Shiny New Toy-itis. Keep spending billions on an acquisition program based on a few selling points, then keep sticking to those selling points regardless of if the program is actually hitting them. Data not helping? Three words: obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

Kahlid Sheik Muhammed Trial to Take Place in New York

2009-11-13T11:50:00.000-07:00

So, interesting news awaiting me this morning:

WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, the United States attorney general announced Friday.

This is good news, knuckle-dragging savages not withstanding. The military tribunal program had a laundry list of problems, both legally and morally, not the least of which being that it violates habeas corpus:

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, “I am a U.S. citizen”. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.

What if the evidence they have on a suspect is flawed? What if they're trying to continue to have me detained simply to avoid the embarrassment of admitting error. Our system, like the people who administer it, is a fallible one. There are, of course, other arguments. National security is a popular one. After all, any trial of a person like Mr. Muhammed is going to involve classified materials and intelligence, the disclosure of which would compromise one if not many ongoing investigations. However, other high profile trials have done this without any major issues. The trial of Manuel Noriega come to mind.

The odds of my Kahid Sheik Muhammed being innocent are pretty low. That being said, the most sacred part of our legal system has been the presumption that we're innocent until proven guilty. And, frankly, when you start compromising on legal principles the line between right and wrong gets very blurred. And our intelligence services have never been wrong on similar matters.

More Realistic than I Care to Admit

2009-11-11T13:10:00.001-07:00

Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare Game Features Awaiting Orders, Repairing Trucks

Blackwater and Bribery

2009-11-11T12:22:00.010-07:00

Just when you thought ~~Blackwater~~ Xe was run by Scaramanga, what with the 2007 Baghdad Shootings, the arms smuggling accusations, deliberately hiding a drunken murder, and hiring people who's previous qualifications involved participating in warcrimes, we now have their latest gem. Does everybody hate you because you just fire into crowds of civilians? Tired of all that bad press from people who just want you to go away and be replaced by somebody who isn't ruthlessly bloodthirsty and incompetent? Just changing your name from something that sounded like you were some kind of Apartheid-era thugs to something that makes you should like a nightclub somehow just not sticking? Why, just throw money at the problem! From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Top executives at Blackwater Worldwide authorized secret payments of about $1 million to Iraqi officials that were intended to silence their criticism and buy their support after a September 2007 episode in which Blackwater security guards fatally shot 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, according to former company officials.

I swear, these guys manage to take something that was intended to be good and pervert it. The US Army is paying Iraqi families compensation payments for accidental killings, wounding incidents, and property damage? Lets do that. But instead of giving it to the people we killed in cold blood, lets just give it to officials who are already pretty crooked and try to turn them into over enthusiastic shills. Whats next? "Oh, nobody wants to let us advertise, so lets build a gigantic death laser and carve our corporate logo into the moon!" Or how about "You know what our company needs? More puppy downing!" The quote from one of their former corporate Presidents, to me, what the best:

Reached by phone, Mr. Jackson, who resigned as president early this year, criticized The New York Times and said, “I don’t care what you write.

Hey! He doesn't care what we write! Score! Check it out, I have a quote from Mr. Jackson.

"I like wearing women's underwear and taking a bath in liquified human skin."

Or how about:

"I sleep in a coffin and find it difficult to shave because my reflection doesn't appear in a mirror."

I think I could have some fun with this! Seriously, though, do you really think your problems are going to go away by just cursing out the people who are writing the stories. Did you work for Roger Ailes?

Religious Extremism and Government Response

2009-11-11T11:47:00.003-07:00

A lot of hay has been made in recent days over the terrorists attacks at Fort Hood. Let me first say how horrible these shootings are, and I think I speak for every American when I say my heart goes out to the individual families involved. That being said, what is worrying to me is how quickly the American right is taking up the cause as an excuse to indulge in anti-Muslim baiting.

Extremism has been a problem that the United States Department of Defense has seen and attempted to combat for years. And, frankly, its done a very good job. DA PAM 600-15 and the numerous Christian- and White Supremacist-Extremists of the 1990s come to mind. Comments made by Major Hassan (sure can't wait until THAT rank is stripped from his chest) should have been gone after long before he got to this point. The problem is hitting the threshold needed. To quote DA PAM 600-15:

2–3. Prohibitions
AR 600-20 prohibits soldiers from engaging in the following actions in support of extremist organizations or activities.
Penalties for violations of these prohibitions include the full range of statutory and regulatory sanctions, both criminal
(UCMJ) and administrative--
a. Participating in public demonstrations or rallies.
b. Attending a meeting or activity with the knowledge that the meeting or activity involves an extremist cause when
on or off duty, when in uniform, when in a foreign country (whether on or off duty or in or out of uniform), when it
constitutes a breach of law and order, when violence is likely to result, or when in violation of off-limits sanctions or a
commander’s order.
c. Fund raising activities.
d. Recruiting or training members (includes encouraging other soldiers to join).
e. Creating, organizing or taking a visible leadership role in such an organization or activity.
f. Distributing literature or other media on or off a military installation, if such literature has the primary purpose of
and content that advocates support of extremist causes, organizations, or activities that present a clear danger to the
loyalty, discipline, or morale of military

I would argue that MAJ Hassan's presentation at the now infamous Walter Reed Army Medical Center Physician's Symposium should have met threshold (f) and at least have been a matter of some concern to those involved.

The problem, of course, are many of the harpies screeching for blood are often blithely ignorant of those in their own camp that got their start in the US Military. The most obvious example would be Eric Rudolph, but also Neal Horsley (when he's not having sex with goats and/or watermelons) and Willey Drake. This tragedy isn't an excuse to lose sight of this kind of domestic extremist activities, and it certainly isn't an excuse to focus on one group over the rest. Religious extremism is a plague no matter where is strikes.

Posting Reboot

2009-11-11T11:34:00.002-07:00

I haven't posted anything in this blog for over a year. This was in part to deploying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I'm back, and look forward to posting more articles.

Russia, Georgia, and Information Warfare

2008-08-21T17:38:00.006-06:00

Oh, you've got to be kidding me...

Renowned conductor Valery Gergiev, who is Ossetian, led a requiem concert for the dead Thursday night in Tskhinvali — part of an effort to win international sympathy for Russia's argument that its invasion was justified by Georgia's attempt to regain control of South Ossetia by force.
"We want everyone to know the truth about the terrible events in Tskhinvali ... with the hope that such a thing will never again happen on our land," Gergiev said before the concert, held in front of the badly damaged South Ossetian legislature before a crowd flanked by two armored personnel carriers.

On today's modern battlefield it's one thing to fight and win against the opposing force you're squaring off against, but it's quite another thing to win the diplomatic war. While a fair degree of diplomacy is done behind closed door, public pressure (or lack thereof) is often influential in the shaping the direction discussions often lead. While the argument can be made that many decision makers in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Europe can be insulated from public criticism, it forces public debate in directions that are often counterproductive to a government's efforts.

A perfect example of this occurred during the 1991 Gulf War. As Iraqi forces attempted to withdraw with as much loot and equipment as they could from Kuwait before they were surrounded and cut off the Allied forces started running bombing runs up and down the highway in an effort to deny potential military equipment and reinforcements arriving that could be used to shore up Iraqi defenses and potentially fuel a counterattack back towards allied forces. The air attacks destroyed thousands of Iraqi vehicles, but the strikes themselves did not play well on international screens, earning the action the unfortunate moniker "The Highway of Death." The more disproportionate the victory the more critical a reaction a country risks. Take for instance the first Battle of Fallujah in April of 2004. One of the most famous videos coming out of this period of the Iraq War was this video, of a USAF F-16 Falcon dropping a bomb onto a crowd on the streets of Fallujah. While this video demonstrates the precision weapon systems the US is actually able to employ, it also demonstrates how media without context can color an entire operation. Take this video from BBC 4, which effectively paints the picture that US forces are bombing a crowd of unarmed civilians. Without the context to go along with it, or an overall analysis of how the release of this video would play in relation to the public conversation at the time (which, in 2004, was very negative) more than likely did more harm to the already vulnerable image of Multinational Forces Iraq and the United States Military than it did demonstrate to the world (and potential aggressors) the capabilities of our Air Force.

Anyone familiar with calling in Close Air Support, for instance, knows that there is a great deal more context behind it than the clip allows for. Before a pilot can even drop he needs to know where to be, and as such has to be guided onto the target by the observer on the ground. This isn't a conceit, but rather a critical piece of the Fire Support puzzle. After all, that F-16 isn't going to be any good to the observer on the ground unless it knows exactly where to go. This process can be at times very, very painful (believe me), and it certainly doesn't take 30 seconds to do. In fact, before this pilot got to engage this target there was most likely minutes of discussion about where the target was, what to hit and what not to hit, where the observer and supporting units were located, and the situation on the ground. Even though we don't know what the nature of that crowd was, the pilot would have, because he would have been briefed by the JTAC on the ground what that crowd was. It wasn't sight in on the target and drop, but rather a very methodical and controlled process.

Of course, the video doesn't show that.

That, in a nutshell, we have the problem of information control on the battlefield. Minus any background knowledge of how air power really works, and without any real explanation, a video that shows somebody "in-the-know" one thing has a dramatic and opposite impact when presented to the public by the uninformed. Of course, this shouldn't come as a shock to US commanders; the United States took a long, hard look at their media relations in the wake of Vietnam, knowing full well that pictures like this trump disinterested and dismissive public relations any day of the week.

That said, Russia obviously has some significant public relations issues to face in the West. The massive, fearful reaction to their invasion on the part of Poland, who went from being lukewarm on the subject of Missile Defense dramatically changed course, demonstrates that the Russian Government is hardly winning the hearts and minds of their former client states. That said, the Russian government has taken some significant steps that might be viewed as an evolutionary progression from past conflicts like Chechnya and Afghanistan. Let's not forget the War in Afghanistan, where Russian MLRS cluster munitions looked like toys. Even earlier, Russia had earned scorn and ridicule during the Winter War. Soviet troops bombed Finnish urban areas with RRAB-3 Bomb Dispensers, which Molotov claimed were mealy food deliveries, a transparent and absurd explanation that did little to win the Soviet Union public favo

Georgian government sites were came under coordinated attack from Russian sources. While the breadth and depth of these attacks has been disputed its clear that there was an understanding on the part of the Russians that the further you can limit an opposing sides means of communications, the better off you'll be. I don't want to go into this any further, though, since Danhco Danchev has done a fantastic job outlining the attacks in his blog.

I'm not making the argument that the Russian government has been successful with these efforts. Far from it, in fact. It would appear that Russia's credibility in the west has sunk to an all-time low. That said, its significant that the Russian government has increasingly come to recognize the value of media operations on the battlefield. Of course, by hosting a concert like this in what amounts to a ruined city is a powerful image, and one that the Russians will be sure to capitalize on. The more they can pain the South Ossetians as poor, oppressed victims the bigger the wedge they can drive in between public opinion and any potential response on the part of NATO countries to the occupation.

Incidentally, this reminds me of the famous photo of Verdan S mailović, the "Cellist of Sarajevo," who famously played Tomaso Albinoni's "Adagio in G minor" 22 days in a row at 4:00pm sharp to honor 22 people killed by artillery fire while lining up for bread. This imagine inspired many in the West, and I can't help but wonder if the Russian government is cynically attempting to cash in on this sentiment. After all, the Russians have a long way to go before they can win the hearts and minds war in Europe.

US to Sell M1 Abrams Tanks to Iraqi National Army

2008-08-20T18:28:00.008-06:00

The United States Army is apparently pushing for the Iraqi Army to purchase M1 Abrams MBTs:

[Iraq] is considering buying 140 of the U.S.'s most advanced tanks , at approximately $4 million to $5 million per tank, plus hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of support equipment to go along with the tanks.

The United States has a vested interest in ensuring that whatever government we leave behind in Iraq is stable and able to stand on its own militarily. While the former may be too much to hope for, the later isn't quite out of reach. The Iraqi Army, despite its significant shortcomings, has grown in leaps and bounds. However, some significant questions are raised about this sale.

First, is the M1 Abrams the best option for either party? While even the older versions of the M1 Abrams are formidable systems, leaps and bounds better than most of the regions weapon systems, does the potential for instability in the Iraqi government make them a good bet for the United States? There is no telling what direction the Iraqi government will move once the we move our military forces out of the region (and, make no mistake, one way or another this is becoming a reality). Do we really want a potentially hostile government to be in possession of a weapon system of this caliber. Small arms and helicopters are one thing, but selling Main Battle Tanks is entering a whole new ballpark.

Another, perhaps more pressing point, also comes up. It was once said that amateurs talk about firepower and technology, but it's the professional soldier that talks logistics. The question both the Iraqi Army and the US Army should be asking themselves is if the M1 Abrams family is a good fit for the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi's have been using Russian tanks for decades, from the T-55 to the T-72 MBT, and thousands of Iraqis have manned it, repaired it, supplied it, and trained its crews. Most of the Iraqi Army's senior staff have grown up in the ranks using the T-72 and are acquainted with its shortcomings and advantages. Further more, many older Iraqi bases were designed to supply, repair, and train with the T-72. It's easy to modify this sort of thing, but the question both sides have to ask is if it's worth the trouble.

The T-72 would also fit into the supply table the Iraqi Army has been using since we re-established it. Iraqi T-72s, hand-offs from former Eastern Bloc NATO partners, have been rolling out on patrols with Iraqi units conducting security operations and as such the Iraqi Army has the supply lines to maintain and operate them. By giving the Iraqi Army M1 Abrams we're faced with the prospect of having to spend more money not just to train and equip the Iraqi Armor Corps, but we're also going to have to supply them with the sheer amount of supplies needed to maintain them. Maintaining them also adds a sticking point for Iraqi units. While by US standards maintaining the Abrams is pretty simple, compared to the T-72 the Abrams is the equivalent of going from maintaining a semi-truck to maintaining an F-15. Again, this is undoubtedly a question of training, but why mess with something that works. While it would give the Iraqi Army a huge gain in warfighting ability, is that the Iraq we want to create. Keeping Iraq as a client state and dependent is a far more safe course than setting them up to be a potential regional powerhouse simple from the perspective of predictability.

Field Manual 3-24, "Counterinsurgency," builds on this premise. To quote:

While assisting South Vietnamese military forces, the United States armed and equipped them with modern small arms, communications, and transportation equipment—all items produced by and sustained from the U.S. industrial base. This modern equipment required an equally sophisticated maintenance and supply system to sustain it. Sustaining this equipment challenged the South Vietnamese economically and culturally, despite the training of several thousand South Vietnamese in American supply and maintenance practices. In short, the American way of war was not indigenously sustainable and was incompatible with the Vietnamese material culture and economic capabilities
...
After U.S. forces left and most U.S. support ended, the logistic shortcomings of the supposedly modern South Vietnamese military contributed to its rapid disintegration when the North Vietnamese advanced in 1975.

FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5, "Building a Military: Sustainment Failure," Chapter 8, Page 8-10

The moral of this story as it applies to Iraq? Don't mess with something that has been proven to work. The Iraqi Army was able to maintain enough of a force of T-72s to deter their neighbors as well as to control their own territory in the face of massive, crippling sanctions. With sanctions lifted, their ability to maintain and operate a T-72 based force can only grow. Combine this with the promise of US support in the event of an attack by their neighbors and the Iraqi Army will have all the firepower they need.

However, another pressing question remains: where to get more T-72s? While Russia is clearly out, the events in recent weeks provides the United States with a huge opportunity. Many of the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet-controlled States in Eastern Europe are concerned with the newly reinvigorated and belligerent Russian military. Selling these states newer M1 Abrams tanks, perhaps along the lines of the M1A1, would send a signal to these countries that the United States is committed to their security, it would send the message to Russia that we're committed to the defense of our new allies, and it would also free up their stockpiles of T-72 and the support infrastructure that go along with them. Spare parts, repair vehicles, and the tanks themselves would be free. Help pay for their refurbishment (either though reduced price on the Abrams or as a condition of their sale) and then transfer them to the Iraqi Army. It's a win-win-win for all parties involved.

Russian Forces Capture 20 Georgian Soldiers

2008-08-19T15:56:00.004-06:00

Another example of Russian provocations coming out of Georgia today.

POTI, Georgia (AP) — Russian soldiers took about 20 Georgian troops prisoner at a key Black Sea port in western Georgia on Tuesday, blindfolding them and holding them at gunpoint, and commandeered American Humvees awaiting shipment back to the United States.

The Russian Government has said that their intention is to withdraw from Georgia in agreement with the terms listed in the ceasefire signed on 12 August. The Russians have made some progress withdrawing from Georgia, however it appears that Russian forces still control all routes in and out of the city. This, combined with this seizure of prisoners could be one of two things. First, this might amount to mis-communications with the units withdrawing. The other is that Russia is deliberately obfuscating in order to consolidate their hold on the contested territories. The operation in Pori appears to be part of these efforts. In addition to sinking Georgian Coast Guard ships, Russian troops have also been taking every piece of Georgian military equipment that isn't nailed down:

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, said Russia would claim whatever Georgian armaments it considered useful.
“We will not leave a single barrel, a single cartridge for Georgia, which initiated this bloodshed,” he said, in an interview with Interfax-AVN. “Part of these arsenals, especially ammunition, will be destroyed and are already being destroyed, and as for the rest of the war trophies, we will use them as we please, in particular will take for ourselves part of the tanks and other armored vehicles that are in good condition.”

It appears that the seizure of the HMMWVs may have been part of this effort, and the scorched-earth policy in other parts of the countries appear to be in support of this. These HMMWVs were in Georgia to support Operation Immediate Response 2008. As such, the Russian troops have taken US Military property. Part of this is probably linked to ongoing operations to disarm the Georgian military, but it's also possible this is intended as a slap in the face to the United States.

These actions, however, provide a basis for NATO and US support to rebuild Georgian forces. While their troops are by no means ready for combat in their current state, the turmoil provides US trainers as well as Georgian troops an opening to truely reform their forces into an effient, modern force. It also gives NATO a means by which to signal their resolve in the face of Russian aggression in Georgia and the rest of the "Near-Abroad." Already it appears that the United States is considering transferring shoulder-fired MANPADs to the Georgian Army. While it hasn't been said that these systems will be FIM-92 "Stinger" missiles I feel it would be an interesting step to take. For one, it would allow the Georgian Army to have a MANPAD system that has proven effectiveness against Russian ground-attack assets, as well as tie them into our resupply system in the event of a conflict. It would also signal that the United States is willing to support the Georgian military rebuild and prepare itself for eventual NATO entry. However, it is also possible that the US will go with an alternate system provided by Eastern NATO members, like the Polish Grom, the or the 9K38 Igla (proliferated throughout former Warsaw Pact forces).

The bottom line for NATO leaders, however, is to demonstrate the commitment they made to Georgia and Ukraine to grant them membership. While I'm sure NATO will make moves to put them onto the Membership Action Program (MAP), a more important signal to Russia will be to take steps to ensure Georgia can stand as an equal partner in NATO, which will require a standing military.

Russia Deploys SS-21 "Scarab" Launchers into Georgia

2008-08-18T19:21:00.005-06:00

US officials are now saying that the Russian military has taken the step of deploying SS-21 "Scarab" short-range missile launchers into the contested regions of Georgia. To quote the news link:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Russia has moved short-range SS-21 missile launchers into South Ossetia since fighting there halted, and has yet to give any sign of a significant pullback of its troops from Georgia, US officials said Monday.

The SS-21 Scarab (Russian designation OTR-21 "Tochka") fills a similar role in the Russian inventory as the MGM-140 ATACMS missile does in US and NATO inventories. Designed to provide a point targeting capability for Russian division commanders the ability to strike key infrastructure and logistics targets behind the Forward Line of Troops. In particular, these launchers are used, in their conventional role, to target command posts, airfields, supply dumps, and staging areas behind enemy lines. It's nuclear role was to target NATO short range tactical nuclear delivery systems. While not as accurate by NATO's precision standards (the CEP for the SS-21 is only about 90m), the system does provides Russian commanders in the Georgian area of operations an ability to target high value targets within Georgia.

A more pressing point, however, is the need for these systems in Georgia. The level of force that Russia has been throwing at Georgia has been puzzling. Even though its clear Russia is trying to make a point to their "near-abroad" neighbors, the fact remains the level of force has been wholly disproportionate to the level of threat presented by the Georgian opposition facing them. The deployment of these systems appears to indicate that Russian commanders on the ground are beginning to discover that their ability to precision target Georgian troops and command centers in the field has been severely lacking.

A good example of this appears to be some of the Russian air losses during the campaign. Russian estimates put the number of aircraft lost to Georgian ADA sites to be about 7 Aircraft. The Georgians place that number much higher, claiming 20 aircraft have been downed. While accurate battlefield reporting in this part of the world is quite hard to come by (command and control limitations, combined by government transparency bordering opaque), the number of Russian aircraft lost is surprising, considering the opposition they were facing on the ground. Two additional facts compound this. First, one of the Russian pilots killed was a flight instructor (a Colonel), and one of the aircraft shot down was a Tu-22M "Backfire" that was, incongruously, being used as a reconnaissance platform. Now, it would appear that the ideal delivery method for precision strikes, the Russian Air Force, appears to be hurting on capability. The fact that they're dragging out instructor pilots to fly recon with a strategic bomber more suited for naval interdiction and long-range strikes, paints this picture pretty clearly. The reasons for this are probably many. Flight hours, often hard enough to come by in good times, have probably been compounded by logistics and funding shortcomings, and the only pilots available with the qualifications to conduct missions are probably the instructor and test pilots, who by the nature of their job are inclined to log more hours behind the stick. However, the fact remains that the Russian Air Force simply isn't up to the task.

Enter the SS-21. It's conceivable that Russian missile forces have the capability to conduct missions with a greater degree of responsiveness and accuracy than the Russian Air Force. Artillery by its nature is always more responsive to the commander on the ground, especially in Russia where the layers of brass and coordination one has to plow through to get air support are fare larger than in NATO armies. I would imagine that commanders on the ground want that capability and have found that it simply isn't coming. This says a lot about the state the Russian Military is in, even after the massive influx of cash they've seen during the Putin years. A decade of neglect is a hard thing to reverse, and it appears Russian ground forces are feeling that pinch.

That said, there are some other obvious reasons for this deployments, and all of them signal a more forceful future course by the Russians in the near-abroad. First, Georgia has been the nation of choice by the West, starting under Clinton, to host a competing oil pipeline system (the BTC Pipeline) to feed Western Europe. This has never sat well with the Russians, who see their pipelines as a means to provide the reconstruction of their country with hard currency, as well as to provide leverage with Western governments. The deployments of these systems, with the range and capabilities they provide, give the Russian military the ability to target the pipeline, sending a clear signal to NATO countries that in the event of a military conflict they could easily shutdown sources of energy to Europe, both by closing off Russian pipleines as well as targeting Georgian ones.

That said, the deployment of these launchers send a signal to both the West as well as Georgia. To the west: you energy security is not safe. To Georgia: you're military has been bested, and now we can target you without needing to use the same level of force. This is a worrying development for the region, as well as for NATO, and should be taken as a strong Russian signal that they have no intention of letting Georgia enter NATO and continue moving into the Western sphere of influence without facing serious reprocussions from the Russian military.

Welcome to the blog

2008-08-18T18:48:00.005-06:00

Welcome, all, and thank you for looking over my blog. My purpose behind this blog is twofold. First, I wish to participate in the increasingly successful .milblog movement taking place. I think that, in a lot of ways, the .milblog movement is allowing soldiers and strategically-minded folks to participate in discussions of policy and substance with a greater degree of readiness than ever before. Fantastic blogs like Information Dissemination and Worldwide War Pigs provide great analysis of developments in the respective fields of expertise of each of their authors (the authors of Information Dissemination are from Naval background, and Worldwide War Pigs is run by a former Airman in the US Air Force). One can also find supurb analysis conducted by specialty military blogs, like China Air and Naval Power, Russian Navy Blog, and others (In From the Cold provided some awesome reporting in the wake of the US Air Force's mishandling of nuclear materials, and IMINT and Analysis provides fantastic analysis utilizing opensource imagery that is becoming more widely available).

What this blog won't be is a focus on any military service I am conducting. I'm a Soldier in the US Army (an Artilleryman), but this won't be about my experiences on a day-to-day basis. The first reason for this is so that I don't inadvertently violate the great, insubstantial monster of OPSEC. This has been the downfall of many bloggers (to include the wonderful work being done by CPT G over at Kaboom, who was forced to shut down by his commanders as his blog rapidly gained popularity). My second, and more pressing, reason to differentiate this blog with my experiences is my concern for the overt politicization of military service. As is the natural course of my writings here, I'm going to often find my political views spilling over into the issues being discussed. However, by not coloring myself primarily as a military writer I avoid those personal political preferences coloring the uniform. I don't want people in this blog to think of me primarily as a Soldier, but I would much prefer that image to be one of an analyst. A quick reflection on this distinction to anyone should be apparent. I wouldn't walk into the middle of a crowded city square and start overtly broadcasting any partisan political viewpoints; a blog should be no different.

I'm expecting that my work will take me away from the land of coffee shops and laptops for a while and plunk me down into an area where time and energy are at a premium. As such, I simply can't guarantee that I'll be able to manage daily postings, and there may be periods where my writings become spotty. However, I think that keeping this blog will help me maintain my mind and give me an outlet for stress. I really enjoy talking about all things geopolitical and military, and by keeping this blog I'm hoping that it'll give me a place to enjoy that (eventually) with like-minded people.