Posted tagged ‘U.S. military’

Humor | The DB interview: White House Press Secretary clarifies U.S. involvement in Iraq

May 11, 2016

The DB interview: White House Press Secretary clarifies U.S. involvement in Iraq, Duffel Blog, May 11, 2016

joshua-earnest-1-1000x600

WASHINGTON — Reporter Kate C sat down for an exclusive interview with White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest to get straight answers on U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Kate C: Thank you for sitting down with us today, Press Secretary Joshua Earnest.

Joshua Ernest: Please, call me Press Secretary Josh Earnest.

KC: Sure thing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest. Three U.S. troops have died in Iraq since 2014, the most recent being Navy SEAL Charles Keating IV in a firefight.

PSJE: Yes, terrible news for us here. Oh, and for everyone of course.

KC: But at Tuesday’s press conference you said U.S. troops “do not have a combat mission” in Iraq. Could you clarify “combat mission?”

PSJE: Excellent question. You’ll notice I use “quotation marks” a lot with my “hands” for this interview, but don’t pay too much “attention” to that.

KC: Got it. So the mission —

PSJE: You have to understand that “combat” and “mission” are just two words from a dictionary. What do they “really” mean? What are words even? Hard to say.

KC: Perhaps I should rephrase. It’s documented that our troops are coming under fire in Iraq. You said, “the relatively small number of U.S. service members that are involved in these operations are not in combat but are in a dangerous place.” What is the White House’s definition of “combat?”

PSJE: I like your use of “hand quotes” at the end there. See how it really looks like quotation “marks”?

KC: The definition of combat —

PSJE: My hands have been tied — I mean dry — lately so I use Aveeno “Active Naturals” in “Lavender.”

KC: Um, ok. Let’s move on to the number of “boots on the ground” in Iraq. President Obama announced a troop cap of 3,870 and this April it was raised to 4,087, but there are an estimated 5,000 there now, not including contractors.

PSJE: I’ve actually been working on a “flow chart” for this one.

boots-on-the-ground-flow-1

KC: I’m not sure you’re supposed to be showing anyone that.

PSJE: Look, it’s better to keep things murky until a major “news” paper makes a fuss about it. Discretion keeps our troops “safe” and the “enemy” on their “toes”. You want our troops “safe” don’t you?

KC: I’m not sure what’s happening right now, and I am actually more confused about U.S. involvement in Iraq than before this interview started. But thank you for your time?

 

The Perilous Politicization of the Military

April 18, 2016

The Perilous Politicization of the Military, American ThinkerJonathan F. Keiler, April 18, 2016

We are looking at a permanent structural change in the American armed forces that will not only weaken the nation’s ability to defend itself, but endanger constitutional principles. A year ago in an article titled “Obama’s Generals,” I described an American military increasingly politicized under the current administration.  The evidence at the time was already abundant:  the military’s refusal to identify the Fort Hood shootings as terrorism, the coddling of Bowe Bergdahl, the relief or prosecution of politically unreliable generals, and unrealistically rosy appreciations of the campaign against ISIS being the major points.  If anything, things have worsened since, most especially with the purely political decision to remove all restriction on women in combat, and as noted in a recent AT posts the mostly symbolic but still significant decisions by the Navy to issue “gender neutral” uniforms and to ignoreregulations regarding naming ships to honor Democrat politicians and leftwing social activists.  Add to this, ongoing and increasingly aggressive recruiting policies that mandate “diversity” and the situation becomes scary.

Arguably there has been some good news here and there, but even that must be taken with a large grain of salt.  Last year Congress passed legislation allowing for the soldiers wounded at Fort Hood to receive Purple Hearts, and the Army belatedly acknowledged former Major Nidal Hassan’s terrorist ties, though has yet (to my knowledge) formally remove the “workplace violence” moniker it attached to the shooting, despite the fact that Obama late last year reluctantly acknowledged the Fort Hood shooting as a terror attack.

Similarly, in the Bergdahl case, also after incredibly long delays, the Army decided to try the soldier at a General Courts Martial.  This is seen by some as the “old Army” reasserting itself in a case that reeks of liberal political influence.  Perhaps this is so.  However, the decision to try Bergdahl only came after he badly embarrassed the Army by going public with his account of his desertion and capture on NPR, practically forcing the hand of convening officer, General Robert B. Abrams.   Moreover, though the decision to try Bergdahl was made last December (four days after the first NPR appearance), the trial will not take place until August, scarcely demonstrating a hard charging prosecution in a relatively simple case.  Even assuming Bergdahl is convicted, his attorneys will argue that Bergdahl has successfully served on active duty for over two years since his release by the Taliban in May 2014, and thus deserving of leniency, undermining the contention he is a bad soldier.  This might sound ridiculous to some, but the jury will have to consider it, and it is part of the reason why military prosecutions are usually expeditious, though the Army has not demonstrated any sense of urgency in the case.

Meanwhile the low level war against ISIS goes on. The U.S. continues operate under ruinous rules of engagement which result in countless wasted strike sorties, wearing out men and equipment to no gain.  While ISIS is probably weakening under the bombardment, the campaign’s military logic is held hostage to politically correct dogmas.  The Pentagon goes along with this, hyping over-optimistic casualty reports with promises that ISIS is close to breaking.  While the Pentagon and some commentators trumpet the arrival of B-52 bombers in the region, those expecting carpet bombing will be disappointed.  The B-52s replace more capable B-1s which flew many hours but dropped only a small fraction of the munitions they are capable of throwing at the enemy.  The B-52s will do the same.  By contrast, Russia’s politically incorrect but effective Syrian intervention seems to have accomplished much more, in a much shorter time span, with inferior equipment, money and support.

I got to see some of the strain on Marine pilots, ground crew and aircraft when I visited the Beaufort Marine Air Station a few months ago.  While there I also learned a lot about recruiting, and especially political influences that are pervasive and potentially permanent. Beyond the already divisive, controversial and standard-destroying policy of allowing women in all combat billets is the military’s intensive drive to fill the ranks with as many women and other categories of “diverse” recruits as possible, at almost any cost.   Diversity is now effectively the primary goal of military recruiters, even beyond meeting basic quotas.  Recruiters that enlist too many qualified and ready applicants (read Caucasian males) that don’t meet the description of “diverse” can be sanctioned for going after easy pickings.  Recruiting goals are first defined by diversity rather than by quality, availability or cost.  In a situation in which the Marines say over 70% of young American adults are unqualified for service, and in an era in which officer quality is a serious concern, this program verges on folly.

Officers and senior enlisted who wish to progress must effectively buy into this program, and the folks they recruit and advance will too.  While diversity is not a bad thing (I live and work in very diverse environments) its empirical benefits are extremely debatable, and when adopted forcefully as a matter of policy, it is a completely political matter that reflects a strong leftist bent.  It may be desirable to have a military that reflects demographic reality in the country, but effectively favoring some categories of citizens willing to serve over others is a recipe for ineffectiveness, tension, conflict and potentially serious political turmoil.  That is not a price worth paying for a cherry-picked military selected to fit an idealized demographic template.

While to some extent the services have always been and will continue to be organizations affected by politics, among the many departments of government, the services are probably the most sensitive to political influence in terms of maintaining a free society.  The openly leftist orientation that the Obama administration continues to force on the armed forces not only damages morale and national security, but is potentially a serious long term (if not permanent) phenomenon.  Senior officers have to be sympathetic to the administration’s moves in order to advance, and junior officers are oriented politically both by selection and doctrine from the get-go.  On the other hand, mid-grade officers who do not buy in are forced out via the evaluation process or through their own disgruntlement.

While plenty of former senior officers (and Defense secretaries) have criticized the administration, and some were eventually maneuvered out, I’m not aware of any who explicitly resigned on principle, which at least might offer some encouragement for those disturbed by this process.  Whether senior officers continue to soldier on based on loyalty to the military-political system or just plain careerism is hard to say (and certainly in many cases both are true), but the practical effect of going along to get along allows this extremely dangerous politicization to snowball, a process which will only worsen if another Democrat is elected in November.

Secret Cables Link Pakistan Intel Org to Deadly Attack on CIA

April 17, 2016

Secret Cables Link Pakistan Intel Org to Deadly Attack on CIA, Clarion Project, April 17, 2016

Jennifer-Ehle-Jennifer-Lynne-Matthew-Zero-Dark-Thirty-HPJennifer Ehle plays Jennifer Lynne Matthew in the film Zero Dark Thirty about the killing of Osama Bin Laden, head of Al Qaeda. Matthews, a mother of three was described as “one of the CIA’s top experts on al-Qaeda.” She was head of Camp Chapman and killed in the attack on the base.

Pakistan’s intelligence agency paid a Taliban-affiliated terror group in Afghanistan to perpetrate one of the deadliest attacks on the CIA in the agency’s history, according to inferences made in recently-declassified U.S. government cables and documents.

On December 30, 2009, a Jordanian suicide bomber blew himself up in Camp Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan, located near the border with Pakistan, killing seven CIA employees. The bomber, a Jordanian doctor and double agent, tricked the Americans, telling them he would lead them to Ayman al-Zawahri, now head of al-Qaeda and, at the time, second in command.

A document dated January 11, 2010 , issued less than two weeks after the bombing, reports how the head of the Haqqani network, a Taliban-allied organization designed as terrorist by the U.S., met twice with senior officials of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI) the month of the bombing.

During the first meeting, funding for “operations in Khowst [Khost] province” were discussed. “Funds were later provided to tribal elders in Khowst province for their support of the Haqqani network,” according to the cable.

At the second meeting, ISI officials gave “direction to the Haqqanis to expedite attack preparations and lethality in Afghanistan.”

Although heavily redacted, a cable issued the following month specified the head of the Haqqani network as well as another individual were given $200,000 “to enable the attack on Chapman.” The cable specifically mentions a number of individuals involved in the operation, including an Afghan border commander who was given money “to enable a suicide mission by an unnamed Jordanian national.”

The Jordanian mentioned is assumed to be the suicide bomber, Humam al-Balawi, whom the CIA had cultivated as an al-Qaeda informant. Codenamed “Wolf,” al-Balawi turned out to be a double agent, perpetrating the deadliest attack against the CIA in the 15-year history of the war in Afghanistan.

Although each document states, “This is an information report not finally evaluated intelligence,” Admiral  Mike Mullen (former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) terms the Haqqani network a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s intelligence agency. The U.S. has long-documented the connection between the ISI and the Haqqani terrorist organization.

The documents were the first public disclosure connecting the attack on Camp Chapman to the Pakistani ISI. They were released in connection with a Freedom of Information Act request. The U.S. had previously blamed al-Qaeda for the attack.

Satire | Navy to Name New Destroyer The USS Alfred C. Sharpton

April 15, 2016

Navy to Name New Destroyer The USS Alfred C. Sharpton, Dan Miller’s Blog, April 14, 2016

(The views expressed in the body of this article are not necessarily mine, those of Warsclerotic or it’s other editors. — DM)

Thinker of the day

Inspired by the profound wisdom of Nancy Pelosi

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus stated this week that Navy ships no longer need be named after dead old White geezers with medals of honor or politicians who have helped the Navy. Naming them after politicians favored by our dear leader Obama is now Navy policy.

Sharpton may never have won a medal of honor, served in the U.S. Military or helped the Navy. However, he is a fighter for social justice and has destroyed lots of racist stuff. Once the Navy names a destroyer in his honor, he will have much more work to do. Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Min! White Power Gotta GO! Soon, under President Hillary Clinton, Admiral Sharpton will have an entire task force of destroyers with which to fight environmental and other racism. 

Navy Secretary Mabus is breaking new ground, and it’s high time somebody did. He recently stated that

an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer will be named the USS Carl M. Levin. The Michigan Democrat served 31 years in the Senate and chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee from 2007 to 2015.

One congressional staffer noted that Mr. Levin presided over the committee during the Obama administration’s major drawdown of troops and weapons systems. Joint Chiefs of Staff officers testified in recent months that they doubt they can fight one major war on the schedule outlined in the National Military Strategy.

Gutting the racist and Islamophobic U.S. military is good! Devout members of “our” military love killing peaceful Muslims and other people of color at least as much as they enjoy breaking things. As our dear leader Obama has often emphasized, we must negotiate with poor and underprivileged people who try to kill us. We must help them to see how wonderful they already are and how we can help them to become happier and even more wonderful. Use of “our” military only makes them hate us and so is completely out of bounds.

Naming a destroyer after the Reverend Sharpton will promote social justice and put racists in their proper place — under his heel. He is good at destroying America’s racist culture and that includes preventing racist white people from appropriating America’s vast and beautiful Black culture. Here’s a stupid video by a vile White racist pig, Bill Whittle.

Whites have never developed any culture of their own beyond that of enslaving Black people. Despite their White privilege, they have no legal right to appropriate the rich and vibrant culture of Blacks, whom they despise and continue to enslave.

Navy Secretary Mabus is also aligned with own dear leader Obama in recognizing the need to prevent global warming global cooling Climate Change. Children and other adherents to the Religion of Peace won’t harm us; Climate Change will kill us.

The Navy will become the first branch of the military to require big vendors to report their greenhouse gas emissions and to outline what they are doing to lower them in response to global warming.

“We’ve got skin in this game,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a technology conference on government and climate change on Tuesday, noting that the Navy’s fleet is the military’s largest user of fossil fuels.

. . . .

The U.S. military in recent years has called climate change a serious threat to national security. The Pentagon has said climate change is exacerbating everything from droughts to the rise of Islamic terror. [Emphasis added.]

The pentagon appears to have misspoken: there is no such thing as Islamic terror, because Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance. Perhaps the pentagon meant the terror we inflict on innocent Muslims.

The administration routinely repeats that position when discussing the challenge of global warming as the top threat the world faces. GOP presidential candidates often cite the stance to criticize President Obama’s policy priorities. [Emphasis added.]

Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate totally opposed to environmental racism. On April 13th, She promised Al Sharpton “a task force” to fight it.

[A]ir pollution from power plants, factories, and refineries contribute to disproportionately high rates of asthma for African-American children. Nearly half of all Latino children live in U.S. counties where smog levels exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s health standards, the campaign says.

Minority communities will also be disproportionately affected by climate change.

“And the impacts of climate change, from more severe storms to longer heat waves to rising sea levels, will disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare,” the campaign memo states.

. . . .

If elected president, Clinton says she will establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force on her first day in office. [Emphasis added.]

By giving Admiral Sharpton a massive task force, President Clinton will make him Her principal destroyer of environmental racism. As Queen Hillary’s Monarch of the Sea, Admiral Sharpton will rule the waves as well as did Queen Victoria’s own sea ruler!

Three cheers for our own dear leader Obama, His great Secretary of the Navy, our soon-to-be glorious Monarch of the Sea and our loving next president, Hillary Clinton!

The little children knew years ago and now, after almost eight years under Obama, we must all celebrate their profound wisdom, clarity of thought and maturity by giving dear leader Obama at least another eight years by electing Hillary as our beloved Queen! Long may She reign!

Editor’s note:

Oh well.

 

Report: US army building secret missile-proof base in Israel

April 7, 2016

Report: US army building secret missile-proof base in Israel, Israel National News, David Rosenberg, April 7, 2016

img682871US officers at missile battery near Tel Aviv Ziv Koren flash90

Iran’s recent ballistic missiles tests, which have led to concern and consternation in Israel, apparently have the United States military worried as well.

In late February the US military took part in a five day joint military exercise with Israel code named “Juniper Cobra”.

The central focus of the exercise was coordinating responses to a potential ballistic missile attack.

Since then, however, security officials have revealed that the US military has serious concerns about the possibility of missile attacks by Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, and is taking additional precautions to protect American assets in Israel.

Speaking to Walla News, these officials said the US is constructing a secret army base in central Israel.

The new base, which is being built in response to the Iranian missile threat, is reportedly designed to withstand ballistic missile attacks.

According to the report the base, which is already in advanced stages of construction, will be fully manned at all times and prepared for emergency situations.

The base is linked to the US army’s radar facility in Dimona.

In March Iran conducted a series of ballistic missile tests, the first since October 2015.

Iran’s ballistic missiles, which are capable of reaching Israel and can be fitting with nuclear warheads, have prompted partial American sanctions, with some American lawmakers calling for harsher measures to punish the Iranian regime.

U.S. Seizes More Iranian Weapons at Sea

April 4, 2016

U.S. Seizes More Iranian Weapons at Sea, Investigative Project on Terrorism, April 4, 2016

A U.S. naval vessel intercepted a large Iranian weapons shipment, seizing massive quantities of arms and sophisticated weaponry destined for Yemen, the Pentagon announced Monday.

The seizure occurred in the Arabian Sea on March 28, officials said, marking the third interception of an Iranian weapons shipment in recent weeks. The ship was carrying 1,500 AK-47 rifles, 200 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and 21 .50-caliber machine guns. They were en route to Houthi insurgents battling in Yemen’s civil war at Iran’s behest.

The U.S. Navy let the crew go after seizing the weapons, in line with current rules of engagement, according to a U.S. official speaking with Fox News.

This incident marks another major development in a string of recent Iranian provocations, indicating growing belligerence among the Islamic Republic’s decision makers.

Last month, Iran tested missiles in violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution associated with the nuclear deal, which prohibits Iran from developing its ballistic missile program for eight years.

Iran also continues to expand its presence throughout the Middle East in line with its regional hegemonic ambitions.

On Monday, Iranian General Ali Arasteh said that the Islamic Republic deployed special forces to Syria as “advisers.” Last month, Arasteh revealed that Iran may deploy commandos and snipers from its regular armed forces as military advisers in Iraq and Syria.

Iran expert Ali Alfoneh told the Jerusalem Post that “the regular army has begged for some time to get involved in Syria because it would be a source of prestige and funding.”

The deployment indicates a shift in the army’s constitutional mission focused on ensuring Iran’s territorial integrity, writes Iran expert Amir Toumaj of The Long War Journal.

These developments support critics of the nuclear deal who argue that financial sanctions relief emboldens Iran to increase its sponsorship of terrorism throughout the region and worldwide.

Why should Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen operate charter schools on U.S. Military bases?

March 31, 2016

Why should Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen operate charter schools on U.S. Military bases? The Hill, Robert R. Amsterdam, March 31, 2016

(Mr. Gulen professes an interesting Islamic doctrine. According to Wikipedia,

Muhammed Fethullah Gülen (born 27 April 1941) is a Turkish preacher,[5]former imam,[5][6]writer,[7] and political figure.[8] He is the founder of the Gülen movement (known as Hizmet meaning service in Turkish). . . .

Gülen teaches an Anatolian (sort of Hanafi) version of Islam, deriving from Sunni Muslim scholar Said Nursî‘s teachings.

. . . .

Gülen does not advocate a new theology but refers to classical authorities of theology, taking up their line of argument.[50]His understanding of Islam tends to be moderate and mainstream.[51][52] Though he has never been a member of a Sufitarekat and does not see tarekat membership as a necessity for Muslims, he teaches that “Sufism is the inner dimension of Islam” and “the inner and outer dimensions must never be separated.”[53]

Sufism:

Sufis strive for ihsan (perfection of worship) as detailed in a hadith: “Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you see Him; if you can’t see Him, surely He sees you.”[4] Jalaluddin Rumi stated: “The Sufi is hanging on to Muhammad, like Abu Bakr.”[5] Sufis regard Prophet Muhammad as Al-Insān al-Kāmil, which is a concept that describes Muhammad as the primary perfect man who exemplifies the morality of God.[6] Sufis regard Prophet Muhammad as their leader and prime spiritual guide.

— DM)

A secretive Islamic movement is trying to infiltrate the U.S. military by establishing and operating publicly-funded charter schools targeted toward children of American service personnel.

That charge may sound like a conspiracy theory from the lunatic fringe, but it is real and it is happening right now.  The most immediate threat is in Nevada, where Coral Academy of Science Las Vegas (CASLV) is currently negotiating with the United States Air Force to locate a charter school at Nellis Air Force Base, with classes starting this fall.  What is not widely known is that CASLV is part of a nationwide organization of charter schools and other businesses headed by Islamic cleric Fethullah Gülen, a reclusive but influential Imam living under self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania to avoid criminal prosecution in his native Turkey.

Our law firm has been engaged by the Republic of Turkey – a key NATO ally in a hotbed region – to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into the operations and geopolitical influence of the Gülen organization, which is behind the Coral Academy of Science and over 140 other public charter schools scattered across 26 American states.  Our investigation, still in its early stages, reveals that the Gülen organization uses charter schools and affiliated businesses in the U.S. to misappropriate and launder state and federal education dollars, which the organization then uses for its own benefit to develop political power in this country and globally.

Aside from defrauding American taxpayers, the Gülen organization has an even more ominous objective in the United States.  The organization is one of the country’s largest recipients of H1-B “specialty occupation” visas, which it uses to import Turkish teachers into its charter schools, supposedly because local U.S. talent is not available to fill math and science teaching positions in its charter schools.  The Gülen organization illegally threatens to revoke these visas unless the Turkish teachers agree to kick back part of their salary to the organization.

More importantly, the Turkish teachers in Gülen organization charter schools are evaluated not on the basis of their teaching skills, but rather on whether they achieve monthly goals in a secret point system designed to instill Turkish culture and Gülenist ideology in our American students. The goal, we are told, is to develop a Gülenist following of high achievers, incubated in our local community schools across the country.

The Gülen organization has been able to grow in the U.S. largely because it conceals both its identity and its motives.  The first line of defense for Gülenist charter schools and companies has been to deny any affiliation with Fethullah Gülen (their officers and directors claim that they are merely “inspired by” Gülen’s religious teachings), as if the simple creation of business entities in which Fethullah Gülen himself holds no ownership interest could alter his ultimate control over the organization.  In reality, the governing boards of the Gülen charter schools are populated disproportionately by loyal Turkish men answering to a handful of Imams who rule over defined regions across the U.S., reporting ultimately to Gülen in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania.

In Nevada, CASLV is a three-campus school operating under a charter held by tax-exempt Coral Education Corp., headquartered in Reno.  Three of Coral’s board members are Turkish, one of whom was formerly the Principal at two other Gülen organization charter schools, the Sonoran Science Academy at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona and the Bay Area Technology School in California.

Unfortunately, Nellis Air Force Base is not the Gülen organization’s first stab at a U.S. military base.  The organization successfully opened a school on Davis-Monthan AFB in 2009, and it tried but failed to gain access to Marine Corps Base Hawaii and Naval Station Great Lakes in Illinois.  In California, Magnolia Public Schools applied for a charter in Oceanside, where Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is located, although it temporarily withdrew its application after our law firm pointed out Magnolia’s connection to the Gülen organization earlier this year.

Lest there be any doubt about the objectives in the United States, the strategy of subtly indoctrinating school children into the Gülen movement is a familiar one overseas, and there is great peril in allowing it to flourish in this country.  In his native Turkey, Gülen created a network of hundreds of schools that have produced – over the past three decades – a vast cadre of followers now prepared to perform his bidding from official positions in government, law enforcement, the judiciary and the media.  Although precise numbers are impossible to verify, some have estimated that he currently controls more than half of the entire Turkish police force. The Economist newspaper compared Gülen’s influence in Turkey to the Freemason infiltration of law enforcement and judicial elites in Europe during the last century. Numerous documented cases in Turkey involving planted evidence, tainted prosecutions and illegal incarceration of Gülen critics underscore that he is quite willing to abuse his power and influence.

The same game plan is playing out, at last count, in 101 countries on every habitable continent.  With an estimated six million followers globally and assets in the range of $20-$50 billion, the Gülen organization has managed to conceal a great deal about its doctrine, mission or objectives.  Whether Gülen’s followers are classified as a religious sect, a commercial enterprise, a political movement or – as Dutch legislators concluded – a cult, it should be a matter of significant concern for our security and regulatory authorities.

In light of Gülen’s modus operandi elsewhere, the Department of Homeland Security should be asking itself why such a non-transparent, religion-based organization would seek to establish itself on our military bases, teaching the children of our service men and women.

Satire| Breakthrough military technology enables cutting-edge micromanagement

March 27, 2016

Breakthrough military technology enables cutting-edge micromanagement, Duffel Blog, March 27, 2016

TRUSTOVISION-1000x600

FORT MEADE, Md. — New technology unveiled by the Pentagon today promises to offer the Army “an unparalleled level of battlefield supremacy in micromanagement,” according to Pentagon Spokesman Peter Cook.

The breakthrough technology, dubbed “Trust-o-Vision,” enables the company commander on the battlefield the previously-limited ability to send continuous reports to higher and receive instant verbal critiques, guidance, and second guessing.

Col. Peter Hammond, Brigade Commander of 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, heralded the advancement in technology as “exactly what Corps, brigade, and battalion commanders need in order to more efficiently keep control at ever increasing distances of time, space, and reality,” he said.

“With Trust-o-Vision, my junior leaders can rest assured that I will always be watching,” Hammond added, “and always be ready to step in at a moment’s notice when I’ve decided I’m needed.”

The next generation technology, set to be installed in garrison headquarters and Tactical Operations Centers (TOCs), as well as every vehicle and personal residence of company-level leaders everywhere, features a persistent full HD audio and video feed of every commander at every echelon, from Battalion to Chief of Staff of the Army.

Cook introduced a video demonstration of a recent field test of “Trust-o-Vision” by 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, during their deployment to Southern Afghanistan.

A captain using the callsign “Legion 6” contacts a lieutenant with callsign “Legion 1-6.” As Legion 6 announces movement of another unit, 3-6, an interruption occurs.

“Break break break,” says the voice, identified by subtitles as Brig. Gen. James Mingus, who is then immediately followed by Maj. Gen. Ryan Gonsalves, who asks “Hey! What is that guy doing?”

Mingus then asks the unidentified captain, “Why is that rifleman facing that direction? Shouldn’t someone be calling out sectors of fire.”

Gonsalves can then be heard ordering a machine gun team to “go cyclic on that 240, dummy!” while an unidentified voice argues they should use “sustained fire, to keep their heads down, stupid!”

Cook noted as the video ended that, “A number of awards are pending for the Division Staff for their unparalleled handling of the company in the face of sustained enemy resistance.”

Sources confirm that the static “Trust-o-Vision” will be supplemented in 2018 with a drone-based version that will be able to constantly hover in front of a dismounted company commander’s face.

Lee Ho Fuk and Jay contributed to this report

 

Dunford: U.S. Military Isn’t Ready Across the Board

March 22, 2016

Dunford: U.S. Military Isn’t Ready Across the Board, Washington Free Beacon, March 22, 2016

Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers Tuesday that the United States military currently is not prepared or capable across all the service branches of addressing the threats facing the country.

Dunford gave his assessment of the military’s readiness while testifying before the House Armed Services Committee alongside Defense Secretary Ash Carter on the fiscal year 2017 proposed defense budget.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R., Texas), chair of the committee, first listed evidence he has heard from other senior military officers to illustrate how the military does not have sufficient readiness capabilities across the services.

“Let me just offer a handful of other quotes on the record,” Thornberry told Dunford. “[Marine Corps Commandant] Gen. [Robert] Neller said, ‘Our aviation units are currently unable to meet our training and mission requirements, primarily due to Ready Basic Aircraft shortfalls.’ [Army Chief of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and Gen. [John] Allen have testified [that] less than one-third of Army forces are at acceptable forces of readiness. The readiness of the United States Army is not at a level that is appropriate for what the American people would expect to defend them.”

Thornberry then referenced Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James’ testimony from last week in which she said that “less than half our combat forces are ready for a high-end fight… the Air Force is the smallest, oldest, and least ready force across the full spectrum of operations in our history.”

“Do you agree that we have a significant readiness problem across the services, especially for the wide variety of contingencies that we’ve got to face?” Thornberry asked.

“Chairman, I do, and I think those are accurate reflections of the force as a whole,” Dunford said. “From my perspective, there’s really three issues: There are the resources necessary to address the readiness issue, there’s time, and then there’s operational tempo.”

Dunford said that the readiness problem is the result of several years of an “unstable fiscal environment” combined with an “extraordinarily high operational tempo,” or rate of military actions.

The general warned it will take many years to dig out of this situation, but said he is satisfied that the FY 2017 budget meets the fiscal requirements of each service for readiness.

The U.S. cannot buy its way out of the readiness problem this year, Dunford said, because of time and the growing need to deploy resources quickly.

He added that the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps will not be sufficiently ready to counter the challenges they need to until around fiscal year 2020, and the Air Force likely will not reach that point until fiscal year 2028.

Beyond resources, time, and operational tempo, Dunford explained that depot-level maintenance has been back-logged in Marine aviation, and likely in other branches as well, contributing to the delay in reaching full readiness.

“I think it’s important for us and for y’all to continue to not only watch this issue but really understand down deeper what’s happening,” Thornberry said. “Statistics are one thing, but you talk to these folks eyeball to eyeball, and the sense of frustration and concern is very evident.”

The military has been steadily downsized over the course of the Obama administration, with the number of active-duty ships in the Navy reduced to pre-World War I levels and the Marine Corps the smallest it has been since the Korean War in the early 1950s. The size of the Army has been reduced as well.

How American Soldiers Used Pig’s Blood and Corpses to Fight Muslim Terrorism

February 26, 2016

How American Soldiers Used Pig’s Blood and Corpses to Fight Muslim Terrorism, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 26, 2016

(Wouldn’t that suggest that terrorists are Muslims? Unthinkable! — DM)

mn

 

A century before American soldiers fought Muslim terrorism in the Middle East, they fought it in the Philippines. Their attackers were Moro Muslims whose savage fanaticism appeared inexplicable. A formerly friendly Muslim might suddenly attack American soldiers, local Muslim rulers promised friendship while secretly aiding the terrorists and the yellow left-wing press at home seized on every report of an atrocity to denounce American soldiers as murderers whose honor was forever soiled.

Much of what went on in that conflict, including the sacrifices of our soldiers, has been forgotten. The erasure has been so thorough that the media casually claims that the American forces did not use pig corpses and pig’s blood to deter Muslim terrorists. Media fact checks have deemed it a “legend”.

It’s not a legend. It’s history.

The practice began in the Spanish period. A source as mainstream as the New Cambridge History of Islam informs us that, “To discourage Juramentados, the Spaniards buried their corpses with dead pigs.”

Juramentados was the Spanish term for the Muslim Jihadists who carried out suicide attacks against Christians while shouting about Allah. American forces, who had little experience with Muslim terrorists, adopted the term and the Spanish tactics of burying Muslim terrorists alongside dead pigs.

It was a less sensitive age and even the New York Times blithely observed that, “The Moros, though they still admire these frenzied exits from the world, have practically ceased to utilize them, since when a pig and a man occupy a single grave the future of the one and the other are in their opinions about equal.”

The New York Times conceded that the story “shocked a large number of sensitive people,” but concluded that, “while regretting the necessity of adopting a plan so repugnant to humane ideas, we also note that the Moros can stop its application as soon as they choose, and therefore we feel no impulse either to condemn its invention or to advise its abandonment. The scheme involves the waste of a certain amount of pork, but pork in hot climates is an unwholesome diet, anyhow, and the less of it our soldiers and other ‘infidels’ in the Philippines have to eat the better for them.”

Colonel Willis A. Wallace of the 15th Cavalry claimed credit for innovating the practice in March 1903 to dissuade the Muslim terrorist who believed that “every Christian he kills places him so much closer in contact with the Mohammedan heaven.”

“Conviction and punishment of these men seemed to have no effect,” Colonel Wallace related. After a “more than usually atrocious slaughter” in the marketplace, he had the bodies of the killers placed on display and encouraged “all the Moros in the vicinity who cared to do so to come and see the remains”.

“A great crowd gathered where the internment was to take place and it was there that a dead hog, in plain view of the multitude, was lifted and placed in the grave in the midst of the three bodies, the Moro grave-diggers themselves being required to do this much to their horror. News of the form of punishment adopted soon spread.”

“There is every indication that the method had a wholesome effect,” Colonel Wallace concluded.

Colonel Wallace was certainly not the only officer to bury pigs with Muslim terrorists in the Philippines, though he was apparently the only one to discuss it in such great detail.

Medal of Honor winner Colonel Frank West buried three pigs with three Muslim terrorists after the murder of an American officer. He appears to have done so with the approval of General Perishing. Some stories mention Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry becoming so celebrated for it that he was known to Moro Muslims as “The Pig”. One contemporary account does describe him burying a pig with the corpse of a Muslim terrorist who had murdered an American soldier.

Rear Admiral Daniel P Mannix III had contended that, “What finally stopped the Juramentados was the custom of wrapping the dead man in a pig’s skin and stuffing his mouth with pork”.

Media fact checks have claimed that General John “Black Jack” Perishing would not have offended Muslims by authorizing such a course of action and that any claims of his involvement are also a legend.

General Perishing however wrote in his autobiography that, “These Juramentado attacks were materially reduced in number by a practice that the Mohamedans held in abhorrence. The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig. It was not pleasant to have to take such measures, but the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins.”

We can be certain then that the practice of burying Muslim terrorists with pigs was indeed real and fairly widespread. Was pig’s blood also used on Muslim terrorists as a deterrent to prevent attacks?

The Scientific American described just such an event. In a hard look at the area, it wrote of a place where, “Polygamy is universally practiced and slavery exists very extensively. Horse stealing is punishable by death, murder by a fine of fifty dollars. The religion is Mohamedan.”

A Muslim terrorist, the magazine wrote, “will suddenly declare himself ‘Juramentado’, that is inspired by Mohammed to be a destroyer of Christians. He forthwith shaves his head and eyebrows and goes forth to fulfill his mission.”

The Scientific American described how a Muslim terrorist who had disemboweled an American soldier was made an example of. “A grave was dug without the walls of the city. Into this the murderer was unceremoniously dropped. A pig was then suspended by his hind legs above the grave and the throat of the animal cut. Soon the body lay immersed in gore… a guard stood sentry over the grave until dusk when the pig was buried side by side with the Juramentado.”

“This so enraged the Moros that they besieged the city. Matters became so grave that General Wood felt called upon to disperse the mob resulting in the death of a number of Moros.”

It is clear from these accounts which encompass General Perishing’s autobiography, the New York Times and the Scientific American that the use of pig corpses and pig’s blood in the Philippines was not a legend, but fact. It was not carried out by a few rogue officers, but had the support of top generals. It was not a single isolated incident, but was a tactic that was made use of on multiple occasions.

American forces in the Philippines faced many of the same problems that our forces do today. But they were often free to find more direct solutions to them. When Muslim rulers claimed that they had no control over the terrorists whom they had sent to kill Americans, our officers responded in kind.

“Shortly after General Bates’ arrival on the island, the Sultan sent word that there were some half dozen Juramentados in Jolo over whom he had no control. General Bates replied, ‘Six hundred of my men have turned Juramentado and I have no control over them.’”

Another version of this story by Rear Admiral Mannix III had Admiral Hemphill dispatching a gunboat to shell the Sultan’s palace and then informing him that the gunboat had “turned Juramentado”. As with pig corpses and blood, such blunt tactics worked. Unfortunately political correctness makes it difficult to utilize them today. And political correctness carries with it a high price in American lives.

It is important that we remember the real history of a less politically correct time when American lives mattered more than upsetting those whom the New York Times deemed “sensitive people” and what another publication dismissed as the “sensitive spirit” of the Muslim terrorist.

But as that publication suggested, “It is not necessary to go into spasms about the insult to the Mahometan conscience. Every Christian that walks the earth is a living insult to that ‘sensitive spirit’”.

“The murderer may feel that he is unduly treated by being defiled with the touch of the swine, but he can avoid it by refraining from becoming a practical Juramentado. Our sympathies, if anywhere, are with the innocent pig slaughtered for such a purpose and buried in such company.”

These days we do not bury pigs with Muslim terrorists. Our political and military leaders shudder at the thought of Muslims accusing us of blasphemy. And so instead we bury thousands of American soldiers.