Missing headlines: Obama’s Pentagon kills American troops

On November 7, 2011, the Army sent out a tweet.  It forgot to tell anyone that the Obama ROE's made this tweet a lie.

On November 7, 2011, the Army sent out this tweet. It forgot to tell anyone that the Obama ROE’s made this tweet a lie.

Do you remember how, during the Bush years, Democrats and Progressives wept every night for those poor American troops being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those tears are dried now that Obama is in the White House, but the troops are still dying — and worse, they are dying in increasing numbers because the Obama Pentagon has put into place rules of engagement that ensure troop deaths:

[I]t is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

Read more here.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again:  I support the military, but Obama is hell bent on changing it into a military that is hard to support.  It’s becoming a metrosexual death trap, if you will.

Reservists in lieu of a standing, trained army? Really?

IRAQI FREEDOM

Back during the Iraq War, PBS showed a documentary about reservists from a Southern state who had been called up for active duty.  (For the life of me, I can’t remember the name.)  The documentary was very sympathetic.  It showed these reservists as pathetic, out-of-shape bubbas — family men, of course — who were being forced out of their peaceful, domestic routines and sent to be lambs in George Bush’s evil, military-industrial-complex, oil- and Halliburton-driven slaughter.  They were victims as surely as the innocent Iraqi children they were being sent off to kill.

The hyper-serious, oozingly-sympathetic documentary was another reminder, as if I needed one that, in the world of the liberal media, there is no correct way to have a military:  trained, standing troops are sex-hungry rapists and, of course, baby killers.  Reservists are bumbling, out-of-shape fools.

That documentary, which I haven’t thought about in years, popped unbidden into my mind when I read that the Pentagon is proposing to trim America’s standing military and to rely more heavily on reservists as a cost-saving measure:

The Defense Department is preparing to send a controversial report to Congress that explains in detail how Reserve-component troops are substantially cheaper than active-duty members — an official analysis that is likely to fuel a growing debate about the future shape of the all-volunteer force.

Based on a two-year study conducted within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the report marks the military’s first attempt to provide an itemized cost for the active and Reserve components in an effort to help determine what mix of forces can provide the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

According to a draft copy of the report obtained by Military Times, the Pentagon analysis concludes that Guard and Reserve troops not only are cheaper when in drilling status but also when fully mobilized, in part because their overall compensation is lower when taking into account noncash benefits such as retirement accrual and health care.

As a friend of mine dryly remarked, a Yugo is also cheaper than a Mercedes.

I have great respect for reservists — certainly more than the PBS documentary did, which subtly managed to paint the ones it filmed as mentally defective.  These men and women reserve a corner of their lives for America’s defense, which is a lot more than can be said for the rest of us.  But they are not a standing army.  They are weekend warriors — something I say, not in a pejorative way, but as a factual statement.  They no longer engage in the constant training that hones strength and reflexes, and that too often is the difference between life and death.

You guys know that I periodically link to a mil blog called Castra Praetoria.  I like Mike’s sense of humor and I like the insights he offers into military life.  The very first time I read his blog, I read a post called “Dr. Tabata.  We hate you!“  The post resonated with me because I’ve done some Tabata training and, even though I’m fit, it was the most exhausting thing I’ve ever done.  For the Marines, though, this is part of the training necessary to keep our front line fighters able to accomplish their jobs:

Simply thrashing a group of Marines into the ground is pretty easy and not a method of instruction I prefer. If they are simply getting their doors blown off without learning anything then I figure I’ve passed up a great training opportunity.

I like to ask Marines why we PT at all. Their answers are inevitably: “To be in shape.” “Be fit.” My personal favorite is: “To look good naked 1stSgt!” I appreciate the honesty.

The bottom line is we conduct PT in order to make our bodies harder to kill. Never mind the idea of being fitter and stronger than your enemy. Fit, healthy bodies tend to survive being shot, blown up, infected, and other rough treatment. It’s only natural the Corps would develop a culture of physical fitness within its ranks.

Being fit enough to survive is a full time job (and it helps if you’re young, too).  Making our military rely most heavily on those who are neither fit nor drilled is cruel:  it’s cruel to the reservists, who are pushed into responsibilities inconsistent with their entirely appropriate day-to-day lifestyles, and it’s cruel to Americans, who will be forced to lose their first and best line of defense in a world too heavily populated with people inculcated in a culture of death — people, moreover, who have America in their cross hairs.

photo by: expertinfantry

Pentagon will court martial people charged with religious proselytizing

SECNAV prayers with Marines and Sailors at Fallujah in 2006

In connection with my post about the Left’s fierce hatred for Christianity (which burns bright alongside its antisemitism and pathological love and respect for Islam), I wrote about the Pentagon’s decision to partner with Michael Weinstein, a rabid anti-Christian who’s set his sights on the military. The next phase in this secularist crusade is the Pentagon’s announcement that, why yes, we will be court martialing proselytizing.

Of course, everything’s vague.  Are you proselytizing if you say a personal prayer?  If you ask a subordinate what his faith is?  If you’re a military chaplain whose responsibility is to minister to people souls?  What about if you hold an after hours Bible study group in your home?

The one thing we know for certain is that if you scream Allahu Akbar and kill 12 or 13 people, and wound more than twice that many, it has nothing to do with religion.

At the end of the day, Obama will have been transformative in three significant ways, with most people paying attention only to the first two:  (1) he will have destroyed the American economy; (2) he will have destroyed America’s top dog position in the world; and (3) he will have destroyed the American military, by turning it into the perfect Leftist model:  anti-Christian, anti-heterosexual, anti-male, and anti-American.

You can sign a petition here challenging the Pentagon’s decision to partner with a rabid anti-Christianist.

And here’s the post I wrote for Mr. Conservative about today’s news:

The Pentagon was unmoved by religious extremism in the military when Major Nidal Hassan, a devout Muslim in full Allahu Akbar mode killed 13 people at Fort Hood and wounded 32 others. That, we were assured, had nothing to do with religion. Based upon a relentless Leftist drumbeat, however, one directed at Christian “monsters” in the military who actually believe in God and want to share the gospel, the Pentagon has released an official statement affirming that it will court martial “proselytization.”

This official statement followed close on the heels of a Breitbart report breaking the news that the Pentagon has taken on as a consultant Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, the fanatically anti-Christian founder of the misnamed Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The Pentagon and Weinstein are partnering to create court-martial procedures aimed at punishing Christians.

Weinstein’s concerns about alleged Christian proselytizing in the military don’t sound either temperate or rational. Mikey says that Christians who serve in the American military are “well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.” They’re also “evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures” and “bandits” who “coagulate their stenchful substances.” Go on, Mikey. Don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think.

Mikey has been pushing his anti-Christian agenda hard, everywhere. Here you can see him selling his stuff to Progressives at the Huffington Post who, despite bandying about the phrase “First Amendment,” seem incapable of understanding that the Founders didn’t ban religion, they just banned an official federal religion:

We all acknowledge that any officer who uses his power in the military to coerce those serving under him to do something for non-military reasons deserves to be disciplined, and that’s true whether the officer uses that power for sexual harassment, fraud, theft, or forced conversions. With Mikey on board, though, it begins to seem possible that, if a Christian officer even mentions faith or God, a subordinate with a bone to pick can destroy his career. As Breitbart says:

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime–possibly resulting in imprisonment–for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)–whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

This writer is Jewish. When she was a young and stupid Leftist, she took offense when Christians spoke about their faith to her. Since then, however, she’s grown up and learned that there’s a gaping chasm separating Christians who, through words only, want to share with her the benefits of their faith, in this life and the next, and practitioners of other religions who believe that the best and only way to spread their faith is through fire and sword. We’re not converting any time soon, but we appreciate the generosity of spirit our Christian friends show, as well as their graciousness when we (politely) refuse their efforts. We’re much less impressed by the “Allahu Akbar” school of conversion.

Even uber-liberal Bill Maher (who’s nominally Jewish and, like a good Leftist, actually hostile to all religions but for worship of the State) knows that it’s “liberal bullshit” to pretend that Christians are a threat to America’s safety and well-being.

How do the boots-on-the-ground guys and gals in the American military feel about Israel?

Various news outlets are reporting that the U.S. is dramatically scaling back joint exercises with Israel, something Israel perceives to be a sign of distrust and an effort (again) to create distance between itself and America:

Seven months ago, Israel and the United States postponed a massive joint military exercise that was originally set to go forward just as concerns were brimming that Israel would launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The exercise was rescheduled for late October, and appears likely to go forward on the cusp of the U.S. presidential election. But it won’t be nearly the same exercise. Well-placed sources in both countries have told TIME that Washington has greatly reduced the scale of U.S. participation, slashing by more than two-thirds the number of American troops going to Israel and reducing both the number and potency of missile interception systems at the core of the joint exercise.

“Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you,’” a senior Israeli military official tells TIME.

The reductions are striking. Instead of the approximately 5,000 U.S. troops originally trumpeted for Austere Challenge 12, as the annual exercise is called, the Pentagon will send only 1,500 service members, and perhaps as few as 1,200. Patriot anti-missile systems will arrive in Israel as planned, but the crews to operate them will not. Instead of two Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships being dispatched to Israeli waters, the new plan is to send one, though even the remaining vessel is listed as a “maybe,” according to officials in both militaries.

Those of us who have been watching the Commander in Chief (i.e., Obama) aren’t surprised by this directive. After all, he stated a long time ago that he intended to create a bit of daylight between America and Israel, and that (sadly) is one of the few promises he’s kept.

What I don’t know, though, is how much a decision about joint military exercises originates in the White House and how much originates in the Pentagon.  That ignorance leads me to a few questions:

  1. How do the guys and gals in the American military feel about Israel?
  2. Has the Navy forgiven Israel for the U.S.S. Liberty incident?
  3. Do our troops believe that Israel is a comrade in the fight against radical Islam or do they believe the Democrat line that Israel’s very existence is the sole reason Islamists are radicalized?
  4. And finally, back to my original confusion, when a decision like this happens, one that is a slap in the face to an ally, does it come from the White House or the Pentagon?

I would truly appreciate your input on this subject, as I have no information on it whatsoever.

When a carefully Constitutional military slips into politically correct stupidity

One of the many blessings of our American military is that it’s a Constitutional military that has as its Commander in Chief a civilian elected by the American public.  (Although history has shown, fairly recently in fact, that the American public sometimes elects bad CinCs.)  Because the elected CinC is frequently someone without military experience, a theoretically non-partisan command hierarchy exists to advise him.

For the most part, our military does a decent job of avoiding politics.  I’m not always sure how it manages this.  For example, the current CinC just announced cuts that will reduce our military to 1930s status — and we know how well that went back then.  He did so despite the fact that world events put the lie to his happy peppy statement that the world is entering a time of peace.  Our poor military.  It gets an order from its CinC — “You must shrink” — and then has to figure out how to do that without destroying itself.

So, how does a Constitutional military handle a command from on high that is stupid, unrealistic and dangerous?  I guess it does what our military did:  It follows orders, announcing a plan to shrink, one that serious military analysts find very worrisome.  Even smart militaries have to do stupid because the rules of them game require them to do so.

Sometimes, though, the military manages to engage in unforced errors that are clearly the result of politicization.  This is not party politics, it’s just Beltway, Foggy Bottom stupidity.  After all, if you’re going to hang around the Pentagon for a while, you’re going to be infected by the political pandering that makes Washington what it is — a place and entity that nobody likes or respects.  In this case, the United States Army could not resist affirmative action’s siren song.

You probably recall reading back in September 2009 that the Army (which was now reporting to the Obama White House) appointed the first woman ever as Command Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army’s Drill Sergeant School (DSS).  What made this appointment even more exciting for those in the affirmative action business was the fact that Teresa King wasn’t just female, she was black.  It was a two-fer for political correctness.

If Sergeant Major King had been female, black, battle hardened, and brilliant, everything would have been fine and dandy.  Unfortunately, King seems to have been more decorative than functional as a Sergeant Major:

Reports from MCC’s on the ground correspondents say King’s suspension from duty was prompted by her heavy drinking, sexual relationship with a lower ranking enlisted soldier, and the fact that at least one of the college degree she listed on her resume is from a schools deemed to be diploma mill.

Almeda College where King lists as the school from which she was granted a Master’s degree in business management, has been closed by legal action in both Florida and Idaho because it was declared a fake institution.

Another embarrassing element of King’s persona – which she has built around a “sergeant no slack” façade — is the fact that in spite of her tough talk, she has never been in a combat zone, which makes gaining the respect of her battle-hardened veteran students difficult at best.

Whoops!  One wonders if King willingly went along with the charade that she was competent, or if the heavy drinking is a sign that she was an affirmative action sacrificial lamb who knew she was in over her head.

The problem, of course, is that the decorative Sergeant Major King did not hold a merely decorative position.  Unlike today’s European royals, who are meaningless figureheads, King was appointed to an extremely important institution, ones that trains the Army’s backbone:  the sergeants.  Heck, I’ve watched enough Hollywood movies to know that, without the sergeant drilling, haranguing, fathering (and mothering) the troops, there is no Army (or Marine Corp, or anything else).  For the powers that be at the Pentagon to play silly little political games to curry favor with the Obama administration, with the U.S. Military paying the price, is a shocking example of politics.  Not partisan politics, just stupid politics.

Sergeant Major King has currently been suspended from duty and the Army is doing its best to keep this story off the front page.  Funnily enough, King’s lack of qualifications should help.  If King was actually as good as she should have been, the MSM would have been all over a story “proving” that the Army is a racist, sexist organization that never gave the first black, female Command Sergeant Major a chance.  However, if the charges against King are true — that she was a shabby paper tiger who never should have gotten the job — the MSM will work tightly with the Army to keep this story out of the public eye.  For the Army, the appointment is an embarrassing example of stupid; for the media, it’s a glaring failure in their affirmative action world view.

The difference between the troops and the brass

Was the chasm between the people in the field and the people in the Pentagon always so great?  Or has the air in Foggy Bottom become even more toxic? It’s hard to imagine the military 40 or more years ago making such a concerted effort to cover-up an investigation and promote a dubious person, just because the person fell into a politically favored class.  But what do I know?  Maybe you know?