Home / military
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Any guesses where the Afghanistan Taliban will be hiding?

Any guesses where the Afghanistan Taliban will be hiding?

So guess where the Taliban will be having their "business" meetings? In office buildings or homes?

Afghan President Hamid Karzai says he will no longer allow NATO airstrikes on houses because they have caused too many civilian casualties. He says a recent strike that mistakenly killed a group of children and women will be the last.

Mr. Karzai told reporters in Kabul on Tuesday that "from this moment, airstrikes on the houses of people are not allowed." It was the president's strongest statement against the strikes, which NATO says are a necessary weapon in the war against the Taliban insurgency. . . .
One cost of killing Osama

One cost of killing Osama

This isn't saying that it was wrong to go after Osama or to go after him in the way that he was gone after with a strike team. Apparently, the helicopter that was abandoned was a U.S.'s top secret stealth-modified helicopter. There hadn't even been public pictures of this helicopter in the past.

U.S. officials have not officially disclosed any details on the helicopter, but President Obama said it was a "$60 million helicopter," according to a report by The Washington Post. While the price tag on normal Blackhawks varies depending the type, none cost more than $20 million according to the latest Department of Defense procurement report. . . .
Libyan War cost at least $600 million in First Week

Libyan War cost at least $600 million in First Week

Obama has been avoiding discussing the exact cost of the war. He mentioned the word "cost" multiple times in his speech on Monday, but there were no specifics. Here is an estimate of the costs from ABC News.

One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.
U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have launched at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals, costing $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.
U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.
A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.
And operation of ships and aircraft, guzzling ever-more-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week, experts say.
"Each sortie, even if it drops no munitions, is very pricey," said Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information. "These airplanes cost us tens of thousands of dollars to operate per hour, and the fancier you get in terms of planes, the costs get truly astounding."
The three B-2 stealth bombers that flew from Missouri to Libya and back on an early bombing mission each cost an estimated $10,000 per hour to fly, a defense official said. . . .
Too many men top officers in the military?: The Obama administration independent panel seems to think so

Too many men top officers in the military?: The Obama administration independent panel seems to think so

I am sure that this will shock most people about the concern over too many males. Do women enjoy being in the military as much as men? Are they willing to make it their career as much as men?

The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes ... the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.” . . .
"Pentagon’s Gay Poll Was A Sham"

"Pentagon’s Gay Poll Was A Sham"

Ann Coulter has these points:

The Pentagon's poll on "don't ask, don't tell" is beyond idiotic. Instead of asking whether the troops support repeal of DADT, the Pentagon asked only if they can learn to play nice with the gays.

Even more absurdly, the Pentagon polled all military "personnel" -- and their spouses! Only a small portion of what is known as "the military" actually does the fighting. The rest is a vast bureaucracy along the lines of the DMV. . . .
Obama and Democrats pushing too much in Lame Duck

Obama and Democrats pushing too much in Lame Duck

On the one hand, Obama promised the Russians that the Start treaty would be his priority.

President Obama said on Sunday that he has told Congress that passing the new START treaty during the lame duck session is a “top priority.”

“I reiterated my commitment to get the start treaty done during the lame duck session,” the president said after a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. “And I’ve communicated to Congress it is a top priority.” . . . .


Here he is again.

President Obama made another plea for the ratification of the arms deal with Russia on Friday, arguing that a failure to approve START “would put at risk the substantial progress that has been made” on national security.

“Nobody is more aware of a need for a strong, secure and democratic Europe than our eastern and central European allies,” Obama told reporters in Lisbon.

He added, "Just as this is a national security priority for the United States, the message that I’ve received since I’ve arrived from my fellow leaders here at NATO could not be clearer: New START will strengthen our alliance, and it will strengthen European security." . . .


He also is promising to push amnesty for illegal aliens. Pelosi and Reid have also made promises on amnesty also.

President Obama met privately in the Oval Office Tuesday with leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss immigration reform, and aides say his hope that Congress will approve the DREAM Act during the lame duck session. . . .


Pelosi has also made other promises:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reassured representatives of several LGBT organizations this week that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and a measure to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) will get votes this year.

Pelosi made her comments in an hour-long telephone conference call with representatives of six LGBT groups on Monday. . . .


She renewed her promise to homosexual groups on passing Enda (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) here.

Senator Harry Reid will also be pushing for a vote on DADT.

Passing extensions to unemployment benefits is moving forward and it is quite controversial in that Republicans will support it only if the spending is paid for. Keeping middle class taxes from going up is also a big priority. And of course, congress hasn't passed any of the spending bills for the budget this year. The lame duck session only lasts for a month. I think that this session could be a real mess for the Democrats.
Openly homosexual troops in the military?: About 95 percent of Marines say "no"

Openly homosexual troops in the military?: About 95 percent of Marines say "no"

The problem of having homosexuals in a fighting force is that it creates the potential of romantic relationships and jealousy -- this could lead to problems in soldiers trusting the actions of others. Would a soldier follow orders and abandon someone they are romantically involved with if they were ordered to do so? Just the possibility of doubt can raise problems when lives are on the line. The head of the Marine Corps has his concerns. The current rules don't stop homosexuals from serving in the military, the rules just stop them from serving openly.

As many as 95 percent of Marines would be uncomfortable serving alongside openly gay troops, the retiring commandant of the Marine Corps told Fox News in an exclusive interview.

Gen. James Conway told Fox News' Jennifer Griffin that a majority of his men and women think a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy barring gays from serving openly will be problematic, so he has to believe that, too.

"When we take a survey of our Marines, by and large, they say that they are concerned that it will cause potential problems with regard to their order and discipline -- that it will impact their sense of unit cohesion," Conway said.

Gen. Conway was the first member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to speak out against a repeal earlier this year after Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen publicly endorsed President Obama's desire to change the law.

Conway plans to retire Oct. 22 after 40 years of service with the Marines. . . . . And wartime, he said, is "probably not the time" to change the military's policy on gays. . . . .
A military plan in Afghanistan that avoids trying to produce victory, what is the point?

A military plan in Afghanistan that avoids trying to produce victory, what is the point?

Fighting a war where soldiers are just biding time?

President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday.

According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

"This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room." . . .


This is nuts. Stronger after the terrorist attack?

Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."
Marine Commandant General James Conway speaks out about homosexuals in the military

Marine Commandant General James Conway speaks out about homosexuals in the military



He doesn't explicitly raise the issue of unit cohesion and how relationships between marines could impact that. An article on this is here:

Marine Commandant General James Conway told reporters, "We have some people that are -- that are very religious, and I think in some instances -- I couldn't begin to give you a percentage -- but I think in some instances we will have people that say that homosexuality is wrong and they simply do not want to room with a person of that persuasion because it would go against their religious beliefs."

In response to why Marines appeared to have more of an issue with changing the policy than perhaps other branches of the military, he offered, "That's a tough question to answer because I'm not as familiar with the other services as I am my own Corps...we recruit a certain type of young American, a pretty macho guy or gal, that is willing to go fight and perhaps die for their country."

He added, "We are forced to live in close proximity aboard ship, in the field for long periods of time and that type of thing...and we'd just as soon not see it change."

General Conway's comments come one day after Pentagon officials mailed out 150,000 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" surveys to military spouses, seeking input about the potential dismantling of the federal law that bans openly gay, lesbian or bisexual applicants from serving.

"We're anxious to see what the survey indicates when it's made public toward the end of the year...but if the law changes, we pride our Corps in leading the services in many, many things, and we're going to have to lead in this too. We've got a war to fight, and we need to, if the law changes, implement and get on with it." . . .
Why shouldn't war zone pregnancies be punished?

Why shouldn't war zone pregnancies be punished?

I had a number of years ago that 15 percent of women on naval craft in war zones after 9/11 became pregnant. If getting pregnant allows women to get out of service that they have gotten tired of doing, it really gives them a perverse incentive to get pregnant. I am willing to bet a significant amount of money that women serving in war zones get pregnant at higher rates than women of the same age and education level.

A recent military policy that added pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier could be disciplined in a war zone will be rescinded by a new order drafted by the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Gen. Raymond Odierno drafted a broad new policy for the U.S. forces in Iraq that will take effect Jan. 1, and that order will not include a controversial pregnancy provision that one of his subordinate commanders enacted last month, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

Odierno's order comes about a week after the pregnancy policy issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo triggered a storm of criticism. Cucolo had issued a policy that would allow soldiers who become pregnant and their sexual partners to be punished.

The order listed a variety of offenses, and the punishments for them could range from minor discipline to a court-martial. But in a conference call with reporters earlier this week, Cucolo said he would never actually seek to jail someone over the pregnancy provision.

And he said the policy was intended to emphasize the problems created when pregnant soldiers go home and leave behind a weaker unit. . . .
"Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist"

"Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist"

This strikes me as very worrisome. From Fox News:

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers. . . . .

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

"I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health."

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued. . . .
Letter to Stars and Stripes about bases being gun free zones

Letter to Stars and Stripes about bases being gun free zones

The letter can be found here:

Bases’ anti-self-defense policy

Stars and Stripes
Letters to the Editor, Thursday, November 19, 2009
The tragic results of victim disarmament were made real with the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. If this were a moral and proper world, as soon as the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, drew his weapon, every person in the building would have had their sights leveled on him.

U.S. military installations’ immoral and unjust anti-self-defense policy disarmed only the victims of this crime. How many more events like this is it going to take before Defense Department officials realize that victim disarmament costs lives and Congress amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice to require all civilian and military personnel to be properly armed (meaning not simply carrying an unloaded weapon) while on U.S. military installations?

In many states, citizens choose to be responsible for protecting their own lives and property by arming themselves. It is the ultimate expression of patriotism and good citizenship.

Fort Hood is my home station. It sickens me that when my wife needs to go on post she, too, has to surrender her right to defend herself by going unarmed.

Stateside military installations have become the country’s largest gun-free zones (playgrounds for criminals). How many lives would have been saved on Sept. 11, 2001, if people weren’t stripped of their right to self-defense because they wanted to fly? How many lives would have been saved at Virginia Tech, Columbine and now Fort Hood?

Those who advocate policies that guarantee the criminal class has unfettered access to defenseless, potential victims need to change their tune.

Lawmakers and DOD need to ensure that those of us who took the oath to defend the Constitution have the means available to live up to that oath.

Modifying installation policies and the UCMJ to remove all restrictions on carrying firearms would be a small step in the right direction.

Sgt. Brian Singer
Camp Taji, Iraq
Is the US paying the Taliban to ensure that US supply trucks are allowed to get supplies to US troops in Afghanistan?

Is the US paying the Taliban to ensure that US supply trucks are allowed to get supplies to US troops in Afghanistan?

The UK Guardian has this amazing story. The biggest problem seems to stem from being "banned from arming themselves with any weapon heavier than a rifle."

At first the contract, for "host nation trucking", was large but not gargantuan. But over the summer, citing the coming "surge" and a new doctrine, "Money as a weapons system", the US military expanded the contract 600% for NCL and the five other companies. The contract documentation warns of dire consequences if more is not spent: "Service members will not get the food, water, equipment and ammunition they require."
Each of the military's six trucking contracts was bumped up to $360m, or a total of nearly $2.2bn. Put it in this perspective: this single two-year effort to hire Afghan trucks and truckers was worth 10% of the annual Afghan gross domestic product. NCL, the firm run by the defence minister's well-connected son, had struck pure contracting gold.
Host nation trucking does, indeed, keep the US military efforts alive in Afghanistan. "We supply everything the army needs to survive here," one American trucking executive told me. "We bring them their toilet paper, their water, their fuel, their guns, their vehicles."
The epicentre is Bagram air base, just an hour north of Kabul, from where virtually everything in Afghanistan is trucked to the outer reaches of what the army calls "the battlespace" – that is, the entire country. Parked near Entry Control Point 3, the trucks line up, shifting gears and sending up clouds of dust as they prepare for their various missions across the country.
The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is security on the perilous roads, controlled by warlords, tribal militias, insurgents and Taliban commanders. The American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it: "The army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money." . . .

Sometimes, he says, the fee is high, and sometimes it is low. "Moving 10 trucks, it is probably $800 per truck to move through an area. It's based on a number of trucks and what you're carrying. If you have fuel trucks, they are going to charge you more. If you have dry trucks, they're not going to charge you as much. If you are carrying Mraps [mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles] or Humvees, they are going to charge you more."
Hanna says it is just a necessary evil. "If you tell me not to pay these insurgents in this area, the chances of my trucks getting attacked increase exponentially." . . .

The heart of the matter is that insurgents are getting paid for safe passage because there are few other ways to bring goods to the combat outposts and forward operating bases where soldiers need them. By definition, many outposts are situated in hostile terrain, in the southern parts of Afghanistan. The security firms don't really protect convoys of US military goods here because they simply can't; they need the Taliban's co-operation.
One of the big problems for the companies that ship US military supplies across the country is that they are banned from arming themselves with any weapon heavier than a rifle. That makes them ineffective for battling Taliban attacks on a convoy. Insurgents are "shooting the drivers from 3,000ft away" with Kalashnikovs, a trucking company executive in Kabul told me. "They are using RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] that will blow up an up-armed vehicle. So the security companies are tied up. Because of the rules, security companies can only carry AK-47s, and that's just a joke. I carry an AK – and that's just to shoot myself if I have to!" . . . .
New Fox News piece: Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones

New Fox News piece: Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones

My new piece at Fox News starts this way:

Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.

The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. . . .


A somewhat related discussion that I had with Thom Hartmann on his radio show on Air America.



President Obama claims that the rampage was just something that happens.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Well, look, we -- we have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of violence that are inexplicable. Even within the extraordinary military that we have -- and I think everybody understands how outstanding the young men and women in uniform are under the most severe stress -- there are going to be instances in which an individual cracks. I think the questions that we're asking now and we don't have yet complete answers to is, is this an individual who's acting in this way or is it some larger set of actors? You know, what are the motivations? Those are all questions that I think we have to ask ourselves. Until we have these answers buttoned down, I'd rather not comment on it."


This had about 190,000 page hits at Fox News during the first few days that it was up.

Penn and Teller on gun free zones

When soldiers stopped being able to carry guns around military facilities

When soldiers stopped being able to carry guns around military facilities

From J. Neil Schulman:

A Clinton Administration revision to Department of Defense Directive 5210.56 — Army Regulation 190-14, dated 12 March 1993 — permits the Secretary of the Army to authorize military personnel to carry firearms “on a case by case basis” for personal protection within the continental United States, but forbids military personnel to carry their own personal firearms and both requires “a credible and specific threat” before firearms be issued for military personnel to protect themselves. It further directs that firearms “not be issued indiscriminately for that purpose.”
Thus did President Bill Clinton — Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army — apply to American military personnel under his command the same anti-gun policies his administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress applied to American civilians in the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons ban of 1994.
This Clinton policy of restricting military personnel from routinely carrying arms for protection was left in effect for the eight years of the administration of President George W. Bush — even after the 9/11 terror attacks — and even though Republicans held both the White House and majority control of both houses of Congress from January 2003 to January 2007.
John McHugh became the 21st Secretary of the U.S. Army on September 21, 2009, seven weeks prior to U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 5, 2009 shooting spree that murdered 13 and wounded another 38. Secretary McHugh — not reported as having the psychic power of precognition — issued no authorization for Fort Hood military personnel to be issued arms for personal protection against the specific threat of attack by Major Hasan.
Veterans Day is this Wednesday. How many times will “thank you for your service” pass the lips of talk-radio gurus who since 9/11 have sported American flag lapel pins, play-listed War-on-Terror country music, and made the Wounded Warrior Project a centerpiece of their swaggering patriotism?
It all rings so hollow now when their punditry following the Fort Hood Massacre makes it clear the bastions of American conservatism hate Jihadis far more than they love G.I.’s. . . .
Nidal Malik Hasan and Islam

Nidal Malik Hasan and Islam

Multiple comments by and about Nidal Malik Hasan are very disturbing. If these are remotely true (and they surely look like they are), it is not obvious how one can claim that this isn't religiously motivated. Take this:

A recent classmate said Hasan once gave a jarring presentation to students in which he argued the war on terrorism was a war against Islam, and "made himself a lightning rod for things" when he felt his religious beliefs were challenged. . . .

and

Soldiers reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — an Arabic phrase for "God is great!" — before opening fire Thursday, said Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the base commander.

and

"He said, precisely, that maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor."

and

Danquah assumed the military's chain of command knew about Hasan's doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates at the Maryland graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint. . . .

and

Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 at the Fort Hood, Texas, Army base, communicated 10 to 20 times with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen who on Monday called Maj. Hasan a "hero" and criticized U.S. Muslim groups that condemned the killing spree. . . . . Mr. Awlaki was once the imam, or spiritual leader, at a Virginia mosque frequented by Maj. Hasan and his family.

and

The Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid "adverse events," the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims. . . .

A copy of his presentation is here.
Some recent editorials in the Washington Times

Some recent editorials in the Washington Times

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)