My Defense Review

2006-05-19T20:48:00.000-07:00

The DaVinci Cartoons

Ron Howard's film, The DaVinci Code, was released today amidst protests from conservative Christians. Worldwide, hundreds of thousands of Christians held outdoor protests, some resorting to rioting. Police were out in force in seveal European nations where Christians heeded the Pope's order to protest this movie. NBC has reported that some overzealous Christians attacked some theaters overseas; there are even intial reports that one theater may have been torched. Some African nations, known for their large population of Christians, have reported incidents of Muslim deaths over this film. This is in stark contrast to the peaceful protests of Muslims after the "Mohammed Cartoons" incidents, in which some Muslims boycotted the cartoon section of the newspaper and others used it to share their faith with non-Muslims.

Oh, wait - I got that mixed up; it was the Muslims who rioted and the Christians who didn't. As the Vatican has stated...what would the reaction have been if this movie was about Muslims or Jews? It should be noted that a movie made some time ago on the life of Mohammed was pulled from US theaters because of Muslim protest. Imagine the fury if the movie had been "fiction" suggesting that the Holocaust had not occured!

People call Islam a "religion of peace." If what THEY did is peaceful...then what are we?

2006-04-16T15:29:00.000-07:00

Rumsfeld's Critics - Are they right?

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has come under increasing criticism from former generals who believe he has performed poorly as SecDef and should resign. To date, seven former generals have come forward, including two who commanded troops in Iraq. The list is daunting:

-General Wesley Clark, Army, former NATO commander;
-Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr, Army, commanded 82nd Airborne in Iraq;
-Major General John Riggs, Army, head of Army transformation effort;
-Major General John Batiste, Army, commanded 1st Infantry Division in Iraq;
-General Anthony Zinni, USMC, former CENTCOM commander
-Lt. General Gregory Newbold, USMC, director of operations (J3) for the JCS;
-Major General Paul Eaton, Army, responsible for training Iraqi troops in 2003;

In light of this unprecedented criticism, some might be tempted to agree and join the ranks of those who call for the SecDef's resignation. But let's put this in perspective.

To date, seven retired generals have criticised Secretary Rumsfeld. Of these seven, two are outspoken critics of the war, and did not serve under Secretary Rumsfeld, so their testimony should be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that, at the 2004 Republican National Convention, 250 - that's two hundred and fifty - retired generals and admirals endorsed President Bush. The number of retired generals who are speaking out is quite small in comparison.

Additionally, two of the closest people to the SecDef have spoken out favorably. Retired four-star General Tommy Franks, CENTCOM commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom, spoke out in support of Secretary Rumsfeld last Friday. And the general who no doubt spent the most time with the Secretary, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2001 to 2005, also came out strongly in support of the SecDef; he stated that Secretary Rumsfeld gave "tremendous access" to his generals' views, that the generals were not intimidated into not standing up to the civilian leadership, and that he believed that the Joint Chiefs gave the SecDef their best advice.

In addition, a former second in command at CENTCOM, Lt. General Michael DeLong, USMC, issues a strong rebuttal in his NY Times column.

So next time you hear of another general criticising the Secretary of Defense, consider the rest of the story. This is not to say that the generals are necessarily wrong; but their criticism must be kept in perspective.

2006-03-30T16:47:00.000-08:00

Not again...

In the lastest update from Howard Dean, entitled "We want your time, not your money" (perhaps because they aren't getting much?), Dean talks about a program in which Democrats inform their neighbors that they have a plan. He states:

Democrats have a clear vision for America, and we're going to get the word out by making personal contact with our neighbors.

Unfortunately, I have never heard what exactly the plan is. Have you?

The reason they aren't presenting one is because they do not have one. I know, you have heard that too many times already. But think about its practical effects. Let's assume we get a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2006. Do you think they will force President Bush to withdraw from Iraq? No, because they know that leaving Iraq as it is would spell disaster, and they would be blamed, which would most likely result in a Republican-controlled congress in 2008. (Not to mention presidency.) That is all complicated by the fact that certain extreme left-wing Democrats may introduce one or more resolutions regarding a withdrawl, which would put the Democrats in a tight spot - either vote for withdrawl and certain political doom, or vote against it and risk angering the anti-war base as well as proving that they aren't any different. Neither alternative looks good. So the best they can hope for is to announce the existance of a plan, but keep the public guessing as to what it is.

*******

If you haven't done so already, check out the next issue of Regenerate Our Culture!

2006-03-23T16:21:00.000-08:00

Why They Should not Serve

In a recent poll, 2/3 of Californians said that they support homosexuals serving in the military. Ever since the Clinton administration passed the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals, this issue has remained controversial, attacked by critics on both sides of the issue. Homosexual advocates claim that it discriminates against homosexuals, stifling them from expressing themselves. Conservatives argue that it forces the military to play both sides of the issue; allowing homosexuals in, but kicking them out if their sexual orientation is revealed.

Some will raise the question - why not? Why not let a homosexual serve his or her country? We would all allow a Mormon or Democrat to serve in the Armed Forces even though we disagree with their theology or political position. Why then discriminate against homosexuals?

The answer is simple: Because it effects morale, which, in turn, has a negative impact on combat effectiveness. And the military has a right - a duty - to discriminate against those whom it deems will have a negative impact on morale and combat effectiveness. This is not an issue of freedom of expression. Here is a portion of the text of the law passed in 1993 by Congress regarding women in the military (which the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is loosely based on). While these are all very good points, I have put a few especially relevant ones in bold.

Pub. L. No. 103-160, § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654 (West Supp. 1995)).

The statute provides:

§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

(a) Findings.-Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that-

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(Read the full text of the law here.)

Recap: Military service is NOT a right. Thus, the military can discriminate, should it deem certain qualities/characteristics detrimental to morale, unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. Nearly anyone who has served in the military can tell you how important morale and unit cohesiveness is. They can also tell you that homosexuals would have a very negative effect on it, by breaking down trust and adding suspicion. Bottom line: It's not close-minded policy; it is common-sense.

**This is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of DoD/Army**

2006-03-15T19:20:00.000-08:00

China Expands Role in South America

China has begun filling a vacuum left by the US in South America. The 2002 American Servicemembers Protection Act forbids the US military from "financing and training to nations that have not agreed to bar the extradition of U.S. citizens to the International Criminal Court" according to the Washington Times. And China is stepping into that role. The article quotes several high ranking military and congressional officials who are concerned about the move and its impact on the influence of the US on the region. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is quoted as saying that China may seek to export nuclear goods for civilian use to the area. The article names Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, and Brazil as nations that the Chinese are actively courting. Together with increased trade with Canada, one Pentagon official believes that China is attempting to encircle the US with alliances, just as the US has encircled China with alliances of US-friendly nations. Some senators are pushing to allow the US to be more involved in that region.

My thoughts: While our influence in South America is important, we must keep our prioirities straight. Do we really want to put US citizens in a position where they can be extradited to the jurisdiction of a foriegn court? Absolutely not! While it may seem insignificant at the time, this is a principle upon which we can yield no ground. The United States is a sovereign nation, and our citizens will not answer to a foreign court - especially one that will most likely be stacked against us. If we compromise that foundational principle for "influence," we will soon have none of which to speak. However, it does not end there; this situation gives us one advantage.

By giving training and equipment to the region (China has supplied MANPADS to Bolivia, fighter jets to Venezuela, artillery to Cuba, etc.), the US is given an opportunity to observe Chinese training and tactics. Additionally, did the US want to examine a certain Chinese weapon, it would be much easier to seize if it is in our continent (e.g. last year, the US, afraid that they would fall into terrorist hands, covertly seized over 40 Chinese missiles from Bolivia). China has unwittingly given us a window from which to observe them more closely. And if the situation suddenly deteriorates, we can claim the "Monroe Doctrine" and clam down on China's invovlement. Not to say that it would be easy; by then, there might be several Chinese-friendly nations in the area. But when timeless principle clashes with temporary popularity, we must choose the former.

*******

Also of interest, from the Washington Times. Evidence for Saddam-WMD connection? Let's wait and see....

2006-03-07T18:22:00.000-08:00

Setback for Equal Rights

Washington DC: Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that colleges which do not allow military recruiters on campus may lose federal funds. This case came as a result of a lawsuit filed by Wellington University against the Federal Government, after federal funds were withdrawn from the university because it did not allow recruiters on campus. WU President, Roy Parrington, said that the college was uncomfortable with the fact that the recruiters discriminated against people with disabilities. "We found that the recruiters were very narrow minded in who they let in. They refused to even consider this one very qualified young man, simply because he was in a wheelchair." Captain Andrew Benson, ROTC recruiter on campus, offered this statement. "We are very open to well-qualified candidates, and have never turned anyone away who met our standards. But people must realize that you can't send someone in a wheelchair into combat."

Dr. Julia Seward, professor of psychology at Harvard, disagrees. "The issue here is not qualification. It is whether or not the federal government can discriminate against students who don't meet their perceived expectations." Albert Finkleston, the student in question, had this to say: "I believe that I could have served my country, maybe not as an infantry soldier, but maybe at an office." Several other students agreed with him, noting that women are allowed to serve, even though they are barred from land combat. "Anyone should be able to serve their country," said one of the students, summing up what others believed.

Kay Matthews, spokesman for the Justice Department, said that people need to be realistic about this. "The college was accepting government funds. They can't then turn around and say that certain government agencies are not allowed on campus. The military sets the standards that they believe are most appropriate, and people need to realize that they know best." The Justice Department represented the government before the high court.

So where does today's ruling leave colleges now? Professor Michael Spencerfield, professor of government at George Washington University, believes that it will send a negative message to society. "What you have here is a government that is willing to discriminate against a large protion of the population, telling the education system of this nation that they will not recieve government funds unless they essentially partner with this discrimination." Disabled people make up 20% of the population, according to the 2000 census. "That is one fifth of the population that the government is forcing colleges to discriminate against," Dr. Spencerfield stated. He also pointed out that about 40% of colleges rely heavily on government funds, and thus will not have a choice but to accept this ruling. Senator Edward Kennedy, spoke on behalf of most Americans when he said, "This outrageous ruling reflects the Bush administration's attempt to return this nation to the pre-1860s, when women and minorities were discriminated against." Says Finkleston: "We have lost more than a battle - we have lost a portion of America."

(c)2006 AB All Rights Reserved.

*******

(FYI this is a parody on the recent Supreme Court ruling which said that universities that don't allow military recruiters on campus because they discriminate against homosexuals can lose government funds. This post should not be construed as being against disabled people or comparing them in any way to homosexuals; the author recognizes and appreciates all that people with disabilities have done for this nation, and notes that many great Americans suffered disabilities.)

2006-01-27T14:18:00.000-08:00

I haven't updated in like forever. I haven't forgotten. I will update. :)

2005-11-30T13:21:00.000-08:00

In response to an article posted by Matt Chancey.

First off, this is not intended to criticize him. I respect him and agree with many of his positions. However, I must address this one issue. :)

In his latest post, Mr. Chancey asks why the US can train an infantry soldier in 16 weeks, but only has been able to create 1 independant Iraqi battalion, when most American high schoolers have no combat experience but quite a few Iraqis do. The answer is simple.

Iraqi battalions are divided into three groups. Group 1 consists of those battalions that can operate on their own, without US/Coalition support. Group 2 consists of battalions which can fight, but require US/Coalition support. Group 3 consists of units that need US/Coalition help to fight, as well as our support. (By support, I mean Combat Air Support, logistics, etc.)

Let me emphasize: Training units to conduct operations on their own is completely different from training a soldier to fight. Training a soldier is easy. Enabling a unit to fight on its own is not.

First, let's go through the components in a US infantry battalion. You have the 3 or 4 infantry companies, made up of combat soldiers. And you have a HQ company. And even a weapons company (with mortars, machine guns, etc.). OK, that's great. Your unit can now fight! But you need more. NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) personnel, Forward Observers, medical units, legal units, chaplains, engineers, personnel to collect and process intelligence, perform communications tasks, control logistics and supplies (food, water, ammo, etc.), training, anti-armor, sniper, air defense artillery, etc. So if you lack combat support and combat service support units, you can fight, but you will lack the ability to fight well.

Now let's give the Iraqi's the benefit of the doubt and assume that each of their battalions are fully staffed. Sometimes, you need more.

The best US infantry battalions could not fight on their own for long. They require "inorganic" (i.e., not originating from their unit) support. For example, let's say you are commanding a battalion from the 25th Infantry Division (light) in Iraq. You use some HUMINT (HUMan INTelligence) personnel to find out where terrorists are. They report to you that the townspeople have told them that some terrorists are building a supply base in a nearby mountain. You then request a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) flyover to determine that the base is in fact there. The report comes back (via divisional Signal units) that the intelligence is correct. You then prepare to launch an operation. First, you need basic food, water, ammo, etc. That is produced in the US, transported to a military base, loaded up onto C-17s which fly it over to Iraq, where it is unloaded (at an airport guarded by Military Police) and trucked over to your unit. You then request a few combat air support sorties to bomb the target first, as well as a battery of artillery to provide fire support while you attack. Since the target is in a mountain region, in restricted terrain, you borrow some UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters to fly your men in, along with some AH-64 Apache gunships to provide suppression and "on-call" air support, and some OH-58D Kiowa Warriors to provide a last-minute scouting before you assault.

So you can see how much that infantry battalion relied on inorganic units. Without them, the soldiers would have to walk into the area, giving the enemy plenty of advance notice (assuming they even knew about the base to begin with!).

Thus, I conclude. A large number of Iraqi battalions can certainly operate on their own, but most lack the inorganic support that is necessary for many operations. Thus, they cannot operate completely without coalition support. And I hope you all understand how complicated military operations really are - a whole lot more than just training infantry soldiers. :)

2005-11-12T16:17:00.000-08:00

And now the post you have all been waiting for! :D But first, I would like to say something about the elections in Virginia.

A rising star has appeard on the Democrats radar. VA Governor Mark Warner, a moderate Democrat with a 70% approval rating in a Red state (VA went 55-45 in 2004), appears to be considering a run in 2008. Warner would make a perfect candidate - he is a governor. All of the presidents in the last 45 years - with the exception of Bush Sr. - were governors. And, with the exception of Reagan, Southern governors. Johnson, Carter, and Clinton - the last three Democratic Presidents were all southern governors. And Carter and Clinton were moderates in at least some way. Mark Warner fits the bill. Hillary Clinton had better watch her back!

OK, the American Civil War post! :D

Who (if anyone) was right?

Some guidelines:

-No language...don't get carried away....be friendly....have fun! :)

-Southernors: Slavery was wrong. And you lost. Keep that in mind.

-Northerners: Yeah, you won, but the Southerners whipped you....badly. So stay humble. And not every Southernor was an evil plantation owner. In fact, most of them didn't have slaves at all! And the war was over seccession, not slavery.

(For the record, while I was born up North, I am neutral/undecided. ;) )

OK....fire away! :D

2005-11-08T16:13:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned in my previous post, why should the Washington Post get off the hook for disclosing the existance of top-secret CIA prisons, while Rove and Libby are under intense fire for the possible disclosure of a CIA non-covert operative? Well, I am happy to say that is no longer the case. The Republican House and Senate leaders are calling for a probe of the Post's leak. More here.

Today is election day. It is being put forth as a referendum on Bush and the GOP. One hour is left before polls close.....pray for the SAT as they finish things up! We shall see what happens....but, whatever it is, it is in God's hands.

And the riots in France continue. The French do not want to admit that their immigration model (all cultures are equal) is not as good as the one used in the US and other western nations (the melting pot). But whether or not they admit it, everyone can see the disadvantage of the French model. Additionally, WorldNetDaily is pushing for a "Paristinian State," hoping that partitioning France will enable peace to reign there.

There was a school shooting today in Tennessee. Am I the only one, or do other people also realize that there have been very few school shootings while President Bush has been in office?

That's all for now.......

2005-11-04T08:59:00.000-08:00

The report on the CIA's secret overseas prisons brings up two important questions.

First, where is the fine line between national security and civil rights? Very few people would oppose locking up terrorists....but what about those who are suspected terrorists? Shouldn't we give them a chance to prove their innocence? And what about precedence? Where do we draw the line? Only foreigners? What if some domestic terrorists surfaced and attacked us, as happened in England? Would the government have the right to lock up people in undisclosed locations where human rights may or may not be followed? Keep in mind that, after Stalin, torture was illegal in the USSR. But that rule was either ignored or worked around (e.g. euphemisms used). What is to stop that from happening here? One thing that concerns me is that Congress - which is supposed to have oversight of all CIA covert ops - did not know about this. Which raises the question....what else do they not know? Some things to think about....

Secondly, (this point was raised by a friend of mine at GMU) why aren't heads rolling over this? If a major investigation can be launched at the White House for the leaking of a CIA agent's identity (which was actually legal under the circumstances), they why isn't the Washington Post paying for this? It seems to me that the press is getting away with a lot of things. Sure, we don't want to restrict freedom of the press, but gone are the days when NBC did not report the bombing of Lybia until it was underway - despite the fact that they saw the bombers taking off from England. I think a little jail time would do the media some good....and they can't do the "Miller" thing and make a hero out of themselves...because they are the guilty party this time.

So what are your thoughts on these matters?

2005-10-31T05:38:00.000-08:00

Scalia-lite nominated for US Supreme Court

President Bush has nominated a well-known conservative judge to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Samuel Alito, also known as Scalito or Scalia-lite for his conservative views, has been sitting on the courts for 15 years. At 55 years of age, he will most likely last a long time on the bench. Already, the Senate Democrats are up in arms. Senator Harry Ried is questioning whether or not Alito is "too radical" for the American people - a good sign, in my opinion. Stay tuned....we may have a fillibuster on our hands.

2005-10-27T15:01:00.000-07:00

John Kerry has spoken. What he said, though, is no surprise. The Senator called upon the President to withdraw troops from Iraq, saying that the presence of 159,000 troops is hindering peace efforts. Now, let me get this straight - the presence of the troops is hindering peace efforts? I suppose DC would experience a drop in crime if the police officers left. Why doesn't Senator Kerry (or any other anti-war protestor) call for that?

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

To undermind the insurgency, you want us to withdraw troops, Senator Kerry? How will that undermine them? The only group it will undermine is the Iraqi Security Forces.

Anway, his speech contains more "misleading" statements than I want to discuss here. For a full copy, see here.

We will eventually withdraw from Iraq. But keep this in mind - we are still in Germany...60 years after the fall of the Third Reich. So don't expect us to pull every single soldier out of Iraq in the next few years. But don't expect us to leave the Iraqis hanging, either.

2005-10-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination! Hopefully President Bush has gotten the message that his conservative base wants a (more) conservative candidate! We should contact our President and urge him to follow through on his promise to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

*****

2005-10-26T21:22:00.000-07:00

Testing; testing; one, two, three!