Lately there seems to have been a rash of books and articles praising President Eisenhower for this “sage” advice he gave to the country shortly before leaving office in 1961: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." (Review at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020402995.html )
But remember, Ike’s Defense Strategy of the mid 1950s for a lower-cost, more efficient military that produced a $5-billion cut in the 1955 defense budget was the threat of "massive retaliation" to discourage communist military ventures that threatened American interests.
Ike slashed the Defense budget some 26% and took huge cuts of half-a-million troops in conventional forces while investing heavily in our nuclear arsenal. The question none of these historians pose is: Did putting all our eggs in the “nuclear basket” make us safer or was it a high stakes gamble?
David Eisenhower wrote a wonderful biography on this grandfather’s war years and when he was visiting my class at the National War College I asked him the following question: “I am the son of a career military officer who grew up on bases when your grandfather was president. I remember those were tough times as he all but emasculated the conventional military with massive cuts; why did he hate the military so much?”
He answered that his grandfather didn’t hate the Military but needed to convince Soviet leaders that he was serious about using nuclear weapons so that “massive retaliation” and “mutually assured destruction” were not just slogans but a credible US defense strategy. The only way to do that was to cut conventional military forces to where nuclear weapons were our ONLY option to retaliate against a Soviet threat.
Of course upon taking office and after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy immediately began rebuilding our conventional forces so he had that option to incrementally react to Communist aggression in places like Southeast Asia. It was President Kennedy’s rebuilding of our Conventional ground forces that enable him to react to Communist Aggression in Vietnam by sending in Army and Marine Corps troops rather than having to solely rely on Air Power. Hence, with this newly reinvigorated capability, when the Kennedy Administration realized the need for a change in South Vietnamese leadership they were able to support the assassination of President Diem. This resulted in Kennedy’s escalation of American involvement in that country which was just carried on by President Johnson…. and the rest is history! Although getting off subject for a moment, as a student (and participant) of the Vietnam War I strongly believe Kennedy holding the line there which carried on until the mid 1970s (ground troops left in 1972 and Congress withdrew support allowing the South Vietnamese Government to fall in 1975) stemmed the tide of Communist aggression in Southeast Asia. The fact that President Kennedy established MACV and introduced combat troops into South Vietnam in sizable numbers thus providing the “breathing room” that kept most of Southeast Asia free should be a proud part of the Kennedy legacy.
The real question these historians fail to address is: Was Ike really prepared to use those Nucs to respond to Soviet aggression or was he bluffing? With his dismantling of Conventional Forces there was no third option. Did Ike’s National Security Strategy make us more or less safe? As a school kid I remember several Air Raid drills every year and learning how to respond in the event of a nuclear attack. Also, I remember neighbors constructing and provisioning underground nuclear survival shelters in their backyards. After becoming a Soldier myself and attending Nuclear Training I discovered how useless those shelters and everything we did in school would have been in any real nuclear attack. That still leaves historians to ponder the question: Was Ike’s “Massive Retaliation” a viable defense strategy or a reckless gamble?”
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Jarrett Mistakes Vice Chief of Staff of Army for Waiter
According to ABC News (February 03, 2011 8:07 PM): Valerie Jarrett Mistakes Vice Chief of Staff of Army for Waiter (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/valerie-jarrett-mistakes-vice-chief-of-staff-of-army-for-waiter.html )
At a black tie event over the weekend, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett mistook the vice chief of staff of the Army for a waiter and asked him to get her a drink.
Does the fact that a Senior White House official can’t pick out a senior military officer in a line up of hotel doormen really surprise anyone?
With the departure of National Security Advisor General James Jones several months ago, NO ONE in the West Wing has ever donned a uniform in defense of this nation which makes Obama's truly a "Vet-less Administration." Even the people who were of Prime Draft age during Vietnam like VP Joe "5-Deferment" Biden (like Dick Cheney to be fair), former acting Chief of Staff Pete Rouse and his replacement William Daley appear to have done everything short of maiming themselves (probably didn’t have the guts) to dodge the VN Draft. By comparison, the present White House crowd makes “George W" look like a war hero! (For the record, Bush flying antique Air Guard Convair F-102s was probably in more danger than I was during an extended CIB-earning tour in Vietnam!).
Active military service was a certainty for any male born between 1940-49 unless morally, mentally or medically unfit, or they took some overt action to "dodge" the draft so when these guys evaded, someone else, probably less educated or advantaged and definitely less eligible, served in his place.
I suspect eventually as his reelection nears, for survival President Obama will be forced to hire at least a few Vets to help prevent him from repeating some of those early Administration boneheaded blunders like trying to bill veterans’ private insurance for combat disabilities or allowing his DHS Secretary to accuse Vet of being potential Terrorists -- Ray Charles could have seen what the public reaction was going to be to these preposterous utterances but the Presidents “Vet-less” inner circle allowed it anyway. Including a Vet in his decision circle could have pointed out the obvious and avoided some embarrassment.
All Americans should encourage President Obama to add a little “diversity” to his administration and set an example for the rest of the country by hiring a few Vets. It might even have the serendipitous effect of lowering the Veteran unemployment rate.
At a black tie event over the weekend, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett mistook the vice chief of staff of the Army for a waiter and asked him to get her a drink.
Does the fact that a Senior White House official can’t pick out a senior military officer in a line up of hotel doormen really surprise anyone?
With the departure of National Security Advisor General James Jones several months ago, NO ONE in the West Wing has ever donned a uniform in defense of this nation which makes Obama's truly a "Vet-less Administration." Even the people who were of Prime Draft age during Vietnam like VP Joe "5-Deferment" Biden (like Dick Cheney to be fair), former acting Chief of Staff Pete Rouse and his replacement William Daley appear to have done everything short of maiming themselves (probably didn’t have the guts) to dodge the VN Draft. By comparison, the present White House crowd makes “George W" look like a war hero! (For the record, Bush flying antique Air Guard Convair F-102s was probably in more danger than I was during an extended CIB-earning tour in Vietnam!).
Active military service was a certainty for any male born between 1940-49 unless morally, mentally or medically unfit, or they took some overt action to "dodge" the draft so when these guys evaded, someone else, probably less educated or advantaged and definitely less eligible, served in his place.
I suspect eventually as his reelection nears, for survival President Obama will be forced to hire at least a few Vets to help prevent him from repeating some of those early Administration boneheaded blunders like trying to bill veterans’ private insurance for combat disabilities or allowing his DHS Secretary to accuse Vet of being potential Terrorists -- Ray Charles could have seen what the public reaction was going to be to these preposterous utterances but the Presidents “Vet-less” inner circle allowed it anyway. Including a Vet in his decision circle could have pointed out the obvious and avoided some embarrassment.
All Americans should encourage President Obama to add a little “diversity” to his administration and set an example for the rest of the country by hiring a few Vets. It might even have the serendipitous effect of lowering the Veteran unemployment rate.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Washington DC Gun Violence - The Real Lesson Behind the Numbers
On New Years Day, 1 Jan 2011, there was a Washington Post front page article: District, Prince George's report continuing decline in number of homicides (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123103990.html) and I was absolutely delighted with the drop in homicides in the DC area from 299 in 2009 to 278 in 2010 but one needs to delve a little deeper into the numbers to understand the real lesson of the article. The articles states, the DC rate was 22 per 100,000 population (131 homicides & 599,657 population per the current Census website). The 5 Maryland jurisdiction’s (PG, Montgomery, St Mary’s, Charles, and Calvert) rate was 5.6 per 100,000 (119 homicides & 2,140,597 population) while the 5 Virginia jurisdiction’s (Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Prince William and Loudoun) rate was 1.33 per 100,000 (28 Homicides & 2,085,431).
This means that us “gun tottin” Virginians who are fortunate enough to live in a state where firearms ownership is almost unrestricted are 16.4 times less likely to be a homicide victim than an unfortunate DC resident where lawful gun ownership is still almost impossible. We Virginians are also 4.2 times less likely to be killed than a poor Marylander where firearms are also heavily regulated but even they are 3.9 times less likely to be a victim than the unfortunate DC resident.
Now I’m not opposed to registration and some reasonable limits on ownership such as terrorists, ex-cons and the mentally unstable but there should be no restrictions on owning or carrying a gun by average citizens – anywhere in the US. There is a “God-given” right of self protection and a gun is an exercise of that right. These above statistics clearly demonstrate that contrary to liberal rhetoric, “guns actually do make us safer.” Case in point, Virginia has by far the laxest gun laws and the least gun violence of any of the surrounding jurisdictions. Could it be criminals are not so anxious to murder law abiding citizens if they might be "packing heat?"
The obvious message in these statistics - guns make us more and not less safe.
While we’re talking gun violence, here are a couple of other interesting (and maybe) inconvenient FACTS:
In any given year in this country there is one child drowning death for every 11,000 residential swimming pools or 550 children under the age of 10 drown every year in our 6 million pools. Meanwhile there is one child killed by a gun for every one million (plus) guns in this country or with about 200 million guns, approximately 175 children under 10 die. This means a child is over 100 times more likely to drown in a pool than be killed by a gun. Hence, banning residential pools is a much more effective way of protecting children than banning fire arms.
In Switzerland, every male adult is issued an assault weapon for militia duty and required to keep it in his home. As a result, Switzerland has the highest per capita rate of guns in homes in the entire World yet is one of the safest places to live. Fire arm deaths in Switzerland is .56/100,000. Compare that to the United States where Assault Weapons are heavily regulated and automatic ones are outlawed and our rate of fire arm deaths is 2.97/100,000 per year. That means an American is 5.3 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the United States than someone in Switzerland where everyone and their brother has an automatic assault weapon. Go figure!
- (sign me) A "Gun Tottin" Virginian-
This means that us “gun tottin” Virginians who are fortunate enough to live in a state where firearms ownership is almost unrestricted are 16.4 times less likely to be a homicide victim than an unfortunate DC resident where lawful gun ownership is still almost impossible. We Virginians are also 4.2 times less likely to be killed than a poor Marylander where firearms are also heavily regulated but even they are 3.9 times less likely to be a victim than the unfortunate DC resident.
Now I’m not opposed to registration and some reasonable limits on ownership such as terrorists, ex-cons and the mentally unstable but there should be no restrictions on owning or carrying a gun by average citizens – anywhere in the US. There is a “God-given” right of self protection and a gun is an exercise of that right. These above statistics clearly demonstrate that contrary to liberal rhetoric, “guns actually do make us safer.” Case in point, Virginia has by far the laxest gun laws and the least gun violence of any of the surrounding jurisdictions. Could it be criminals are not so anxious to murder law abiding citizens if they might be "packing heat?"
The obvious message in these statistics - guns make us more and not less safe.
While we’re talking gun violence, here are a couple of other interesting (and maybe) inconvenient FACTS:
In any given year in this country there is one child drowning death for every 11,000 residential swimming pools or 550 children under the age of 10 drown every year in our 6 million pools. Meanwhile there is one child killed by a gun for every one million (plus) guns in this country or with about 200 million guns, approximately 175 children under 10 die. This means a child is over 100 times more likely to drown in a pool than be killed by a gun. Hence, banning residential pools is a much more effective way of protecting children than banning fire arms.
In Switzerland, every male adult is issued an assault weapon for militia duty and required to keep it in his home. As a result, Switzerland has the highest per capita rate of guns in homes in the entire World yet is one of the safest places to live. Fire arm deaths in Switzerland is .56/100,000. Compare that to the United States where Assault Weapons are heavily regulated and automatic ones are outlawed and our rate of fire arm deaths is 2.97/100,000 per year. That means an American is 5.3 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the United States than someone in Switzerland where everyone and their brother has an automatic assault weapon. Go figure!
- (sign me) A "Gun Tottin" Virginian-
Friday, January 21, 2011
Remembering President Kennedy - 50 Years Later!
As a retired Army Colonel who was drafted into Secretary McNamara’s Army, commissioned out of OCS and had the privilege of serving an extended CIB earning Vietnam tour, I don’t believe President Kennedy is given sufficient credit for his committed bi-partisan, anti-communist foreign policy and his principled defense of South Vietnam by sending in U.S. Forces and actually creating the Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) on 8 Feb 1962. As everyone that fought in Vietnam knows, MACV was the US Command that prosecuted the war right up until the end.
President Kennedy was totally committed to stopping communist expansion and knew not acting decisively in Vietnam by committing US troops would fatally damage U.S. credibility with our allies. As Kennedy so eloquently stated "Now we have a problem in making our power credible... and Vietnam looks like the place.” He went on to reaffirmed his commitment to defend South Vietnam in his 11 May National Security Action Memorandum 52, which became known as "The Presidential Program for Vietnam." Its opening statement reads: “U.S. objectives and concept of operations [are] to prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological, and covert character designed to achieve this objective.”Although initially totally supportive of the Vietnam Catholic minority administration of President Ngô Đình Diệm, the Kennedy administration grew increasingly frustrated with Diệm because his crackdown against protesting Buddhist monks that sparked a Buddhist Revolt where several monks committed self-immolation covered by the world press. Hence, on 1 Nov 1963, with the tacit approval of the Kennedy administration, Vietnamese military officers launch a coup d'état against Diem and on the next day he was assassinated. President Kennedy knew to be successful there needed to be a change in Vietnamese leadership and he was not afraid to make it. By the time President Kennedy was himself assassinated he had established the MACV Command and had 16,000 troops in country with plans for a significant escalation. Although President Johnson presided over the troop increases, he was following the Kennedy blueprint so President Kennedy is due the lion’s share of the credit for saving most of Southeast Asia from Communist domination.
As a student of the Vietnam War who strongly believes holding the line there until the mid 1970s (ground troops left in 1972 and Congress withdrew support allowing the South Vietnamese Government to fall in 1975) actually stemmed the tide of Communist aggression in Southeast Asia, I believe the contributions of President are often overlooked.
The fact that President Kennedy established MACV and introduced combat troops into South Vietnam in sizable numbers providing the “breathing room” that kept most of Southeast Asia free should be a proud part of the proud Kennedy legacy and I am honored to have been one who was inspired to answer the President’s call “to ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.”
President Kennedy was totally committed to stopping communist expansion and knew not acting decisively in Vietnam by committing US troops would fatally damage U.S. credibility with our allies. As Kennedy so eloquently stated "Now we have a problem in making our power credible... and Vietnam looks like the place.” He went on to reaffirmed his commitment to defend South Vietnam in his 11 May National Security Action Memorandum 52, which became known as "The Presidential Program for Vietnam." Its opening statement reads: “U.S. objectives and concept of operations [are] to prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological, and covert character designed to achieve this objective.”Although initially totally supportive of the Vietnam Catholic minority administration of President Ngô Đình Diệm, the Kennedy administration grew increasingly frustrated with Diệm because his crackdown against protesting Buddhist monks that sparked a Buddhist Revolt where several monks committed self-immolation covered by the world press. Hence, on 1 Nov 1963, with the tacit approval of the Kennedy administration, Vietnamese military officers launch a coup d'état against Diem and on the next day he was assassinated. President Kennedy knew to be successful there needed to be a change in Vietnamese leadership and he was not afraid to make it. By the time President Kennedy was himself assassinated he had established the MACV Command and had 16,000 troops in country with plans for a significant escalation. Although President Johnson presided over the troop increases, he was following the Kennedy blueprint so President Kennedy is due the lion’s share of the credit for saving most of Southeast Asia from Communist domination.
As a student of the Vietnam War who strongly believes holding the line there until the mid 1970s (ground troops left in 1972 and Congress withdrew support allowing the South Vietnamese Government to fall in 1975) actually stemmed the tide of Communist aggression in Southeast Asia, I believe the contributions of President are often overlooked.
The fact that President Kennedy established MACV and introduced combat troops into South Vietnam in sizable numbers providing the “breathing room” that kept most of Southeast Asia free should be a proud part of the proud Kennedy legacy and I am honored to have been one who was inspired to answer the President’s call “to ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.”
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Susan Eisenhower's 16 Jan 11 Washington Post OpEd: 'Military-Industrial Complex,' what Eisenhower Really Meant
In the 16 Jan 2011 Washington Post OpEd piece, 50 years after the 'military-industrial complex,' what Eisenhower really meant, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011406229.html), Susan Eisenhower commented on her Grandfather’s concerns “about a rising ‘military-industrial complex,’ which he described as ‘a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions’ with the potential to acquire - whether sought or unsought – ‘unwarranted influence’ in the halls of government.” She went on to say “…. the logic of nuclear deterrence made the conventional wars Ike had commanded in the 1940s obsolete. Now, there could be no margin for error; the Cold War brought with it different calculations, which were very costly by nature. These new realities meant that the United States would not only need to project power and resolve, but also had to ensure national solvency …. as the Soviet Union appeared to reach military parity with the United States, political forces in Washington cried out for greater defense spending and a more aggressive approach to Moscow. In response, the administration publicly asserted that there was no such thing as absolute security… he followed through, balancing the budget three times during his tenure, a record unmatched during the Cold War.”
All this is true but how did he do it? Ike slashed the Defense budget some 26% and took huge cuts in conventional forces while investing heavily in our nuclear arsenal. Did putting all our eggs in the “nuclear basket” make us safer or was it a high stakes gamble?
Her brother, David Eisenhower, wrote a wonderful biography on his grandfather’s war years and when he was visiting my class at the National War College I asked him the following question: “as the son of a career military officer growing up when your grandfather was president, I remember those were tough times as he all but emasculated the conventional military with massive cuts; why did he hate the military so much?”
He answered that his grandfather didn’t hate the Military but needed to convince Soviet leaders that he was serious about using nuclear weapons so that “massive retaliation” and “mutually assured destruction” were not just slogans but a credible US defense strategy. The only way to do that was to cut conventional military forces to where nuclear weapons were our only option to retaliate against a Soviet threat.
The question Susan should have addressed in her OpEd was, was her Grandfather really prepared to use those Nucs to respond to Soviet aggression or was he bluffing? With his dismantling of Conventional Forces there was no third option. Did Ike’s National Security Strategy make us more or less safe? As a school kid I do remember several Air Raid drills every year and learning how to respond in the event of a nuclear attack. Also, I remember neighbors constructing and provisioning underground nuclear survival shelters in their backyards. After becoming a Soldier myself and attending Nuclear Training I discovered how useless those shelters and everything we did in school would have been in any real nuclear attack.
Of course upon taking office and after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy immediately began rebuilding our conventional forces so he had that option to incrementally react to Communist aggression in places like Southeast Asia. It was President Kennedy’s rebuilding of our Conventional ground forces that enable him to react to Communist Aggression in Vietnam by sending in Army and Marine Corps troops rather than having to solely rely on Air Power with nuclear bombs. Hence, with this newly reinvigorated capability, the Kennedy Administration was embolden to support the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem which led to the Kennedy escalation of American involvement in that country and it was just carried on by President Johnson…. and the rest is history!
In closing I would observe that if he had lived, I truly believe that President Kennedy would have pursued the Vietnam War every bit as vigorously as Johnson did. Not withstanding the “revisionist history” of Ted Sorensen, his speechwriter and Camelot’s “keeper of the flame” biographer, who maintained Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam in a second term, all unbiased studies of the Kennedy papers indicate differently. I suspect Sorensen (God rest his sole), who had registered as a conscientious objector with his draft board, was projecting his own anti-war sentiments and not those of the dead President.
But I’m getting off topic and this will be a good topic for a future Blog so stay tuned and check back for it.
All this is true but how did he do it? Ike slashed the Defense budget some 26% and took huge cuts in conventional forces while investing heavily in our nuclear arsenal. Did putting all our eggs in the “nuclear basket” make us safer or was it a high stakes gamble?
Her brother, David Eisenhower, wrote a wonderful biography on his grandfather’s war years and when he was visiting my class at the National War College I asked him the following question: “as the son of a career military officer growing up when your grandfather was president, I remember those were tough times as he all but emasculated the conventional military with massive cuts; why did he hate the military so much?”
He answered that his grandfather didn’t hate the Military but needed to convince Soviet leaders that he was serious about using nuclear weapons so that “massive retaliation” and “mutually assured destruction” were not just slogans but a credible US defense strategy. The only way to do that was to cut conventional military forces to where nuclear weapons were our only option to retaliate against a Soviet threat.
The question Susan should have addressed in her OpEd was, was her Grandfather really prepared to use those Nucs to respond to Soviet aggression or was he bluffing? With his dismantling of Conventional Forces there was no third option. Did Ike’s National Security Strategy make us more or less safe? As a school kid I do remember several Air Raid drills every year and learning how to respond in the event of a nuclear attack. Also, I remember neighbors constructing and provisioning underground nuclear survival shelters in their backyards. After becoming a Soldier myself and attending Nuclear Training I discovered how useless those shelters and everything we did in school would have been in any real nuclear attack.
Of course upon taking office and after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy immediately began rebuilding our conventional forces so he had that option to incrementally react to Communist aggression in places like Southeast Asia. It was President Kennedy’s rebuilding of our Conventional ground forces that enable him to react to Communist Aggression in Vietnam by sending in Army and Marine Corps troops rather than having to solely rely on Air Power with nuclear bombs. Hence, with this newly reinvigorated capability, the Kennedy Administration was embolden to support the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem which led to the Kennedy escalation of American involvement in that country and it was just carried on by President Johnson…. and the rest is history!
In closing I would observe that if he had lived, I truly believe that President Kennedy would have pursued the Vietnam War every bit as vigorously as Johnson did. Not withstanding the “revisionist history” of Ted Sorensen, his speechwriter and Camelot’s “keeper of the flame” biographer, who maintained Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam in a second term, all unbiased studies of the Kennedy papers indicate differently. I suspect Sorensen (God rest his sole), who had registered as a conscientious objector with his draft board, was projecting his own anti-war sentiments and not those of the dead President.
But I’m getting off topic and this will be a good topic for a future Blog so stay tuned and check back for it.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Why Americans Will Accept Gay Troops Before They Accept Gay Marriage, Washington Post Opinion, 5 Dec 2010
Whenever I read an article and the author goes out of his way to misrepresent or slant facts to support his thesis, I have to doubt his conclusions. Such is the case with this Washington Post Opinion piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303233.html ). The author, Mr. Eskridge, states: “Sixty-nine percent of the respondents to the Pentagon's recent survey said they served with men and women they knew to be gay, and almost all of those respondents reported that the sexual orientation of their colleagues made little or no difference to them.”
I invite readers to view the entire study (at: http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/ ) and you will find no question asked about service members serving “with men and women they knew to be gay.” There were questions about serving with service members “you believed to be gay” or “how much did that believe” affect the unit… you … morale… etc.? After serving in the Military for 30 years and leading units from Sergeant to Lieutenant to Colonel, I thought my “Gay-dar” got pretty good but I never thought it was infallible. Under DADT, I needed more than “a belief” to act and so as long as Service members kept their sexual orientation to themselves and did not flaunt it, it never became a problem. “Flaming Gays” don’t flock to the Military and especially the Combat Arms so the “belief” was always a questionable “belief” and DADT kept it that way – hence, usually not an issue.
I did read the entire report and the conclusion I drew from it was DADT was working as intended so I have to agree with Gen Amos/Marine Corps Commandant and GEN Casey/Army Chief of Staff when they recommend not repealing it. I was also struck by how closely the Army and Marine Corps Combat Arms responses tracked giving credence to the argument for not making a radical change for Combat Units when stressed by war.
With 40 years of active duty and another 22 as an Army Brat, GEN Casey might have just a little more experience with Soldiers than the author so I might be inclined to give his informed opinion a little more weight than this author’s. As the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale Law School, Mr. Eskridge has made a career of championing gay causes so he is hardly impartial and as someone who has never served, he has no idea what it means to be a Soldier.
Just for the context, GEN Casey’s father was a Major General who served in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars and was commanding the 1st Cavalry Division in Vietnam when he was killed on 7 July1970. He was the highest ranking officer killed in Vietnam.
I invite readers to view the entire study (at: http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/ ) and you will find no question asked about service members serving “with men and women they knew to be gay.” There were questions about serving with service members “you believed to be gay” or “how much did that believe” affect the unit… you … morale… etc.? After serving in the Military for 30 years and leading units from Sergeant to Lieutenant to Colonel, I thought my “Gay-dar” got pretty good but I never thought it was infallible. Under DADT, I needed more than “a belief” to act and so as long as Service members kept their sexual orientation to themselves and did not flaunt it, it never became a problem. “Flaming Gays” don’t flock to the Military and especially the Combat Arms so the “belief” was always a questionable “belief” and DADT kept it that way – hence, usually not an issue.
I did read the entire report and the conclusion I drew from it was DADT was working as intended so I have to agree with Gen Amos/Marine Corps Commandant and GEN Casey/Army Chief of Staff when they recommend not repealing it. I was also struck by how closely the Army and Marine Corps Combat Arms responses tracked giving credence to the argument for not making a radical change for Combat Units when stressed by war.
With 40 years of active duty and another 22 as an Army Brat, GEN Casey might have just a little more experience with Soldiers than the author so I might be inclined to give his informed opinion a little more weight than this author’s. As the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale Law School, Mr. Eskridge has made a career of championing gay causes so he is hardly impartial and as someone who has never served, he has no idea what it means to be a Soldier.
Just for the context, GEN Casey’s father was a Major General who served in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars and was commanding the 1st Cavalry Division in Vietnam when he was killed on 7 July1970. He was the highest ranking officer killed in Vietnam.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Marine Commandant: Marines are Unique – Dispelling the Myths about Marines
In a 7 Nov 10 Washington Post Federal Page article the new Marine Corps Commandant, Gen Amos, asserted: Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell (DADT) “repeal may have unique consequences for the Marine.” and "There is nothing more intimate … when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men - laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers. … I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're looking at. It's unit cohesion, its combat effectiveness." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/07/AR2010110704923.html).
Then in her 21 Nov 10 Washington Post Outlook section opinion piece: “Why are the Marines the military's biggest backers of 'don't ask, don't tell'?” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111902930.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Ms. Tammy S. Schultz, an openly gay woman employed as the director of national security and joint warfare at the U.S. Marine Corps War College, attacks the Commandant’s DADT stance but attempts to reinforce the myth that Marines are “unique” with their warrior ethos.
As a Soldier for 30 years going from enlisted man living in a squad bay to squad leader as a sergeant and commanding units from 2LT (earning a Combat Infantryman Badge) to COL, I fully concur with Gen Amos’ reticence to abandon DADT. Having commanded four companies, been a combat battalion XO and commanding a divisional combat battalion, I know from first hand experience that there is nothing more disruptive in a barracks than an openly gay Soldier. It’s a fact, “men don’t like to take showers with men that like to take showers with mem!”
What I reject is there is anything “unique” about a Marine Infantryman. Since World War II, the Maine Corps has become another, abet smaller, ground army and their performance has been identical to that of regular Army Infantry units in every conflict. In his definitive account of the Korean War, The Forgotten War, the author Clay Blair proves this beyond any doubt for Korea and for all their hype, the 8th Air Force alone in WWII sustained more KIA (27,000) than the entire Marine Corps.
Just to set the record straight about our present conflicts, let’s consider who is doing a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Every service member’s life is precious so I wouldn't diminish the death of a single one but as of 21 Nov 2010, reported US losses in Operation Enduring Freedom have totaled 1399; 985 Soldiers, 279 Marines, 66 Sailors and 69 Airmen. For the week ending 20 Nov, the Pentagon released the names of 18 service members killed in combat zones,16 Soldiers, one Marine and one Airman.
Lest anyone thinks the Marines are devoting their attention to Iraq, let’s dispel that myth also. There are very few Marines left there. Since the first Operation Iraqi Freedom causality in Mar 2003, we have suffered 4429 losses; 3244 Soldiers, 1028 Marine, 102 Sailors, 54 Airmen and one Coast Guardsmen. In the past year only one Marine has died in Iraq while 65 Soldiers have been killed there.
Although Soldiers have sustained a disproportionate share of the losses in both our current conflicts, the Marines have successfully garnered a disproportionate share of the press coverage so that most citizens erroneously believe it’s the Marine Corps that’s been leading the charge in these wars. In truth, it’s been Soldiers doing the disproportionate share of the fighting and dying for this country in these two wars. Don’t get me wrong, I am delighted to see that within the past year the Marines have decided to rejoin the fight in Afghanistan after having been "missing in action" for the past several years and we Soldiers welcome their help – finally.
As a footnote: as of 17 Nov 2010, there are 33 combat battlaions in Afghanistan, 25 of them are Army Battalions while 8 are Marine Corps. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/afghanistan-pakistan/afghanistan-deployment-map.html )
Then in her 21 Nov 10 Washington Post Outlook section opinion piece: “Why are the Marines the military's biggest backers of 'don't ask, don't tell'?” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111902930.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Ms. Tammy S. Schultz, an openly gay woman employed as the director of national security and joint warfare at the U.S. Marine Corps War College, attacks the Commandant’s DADT stance but attempts to reinforce the myth that Marines are “unique” with their warrior ethos.
As a Soldier for 30 years going from enlisted man living in a squad bay to squad leader as a sergeant and commanding units from 2LT (earning a Combat Infantryman Badge) to COL, I fully concur with Gen Amos’ reticence to abandon DADT. Having commanded four companies, been a combat battalion XO and commanding a divisional combat battalion, I know from first hand experience that there is nothing more disruptive in a barracks than an openly gay Soldier. It’s a fact, “men don’t like to take showers with men that like to take showers with mem!”
What I reject is there is anything “unique” about a Marine Infantryman. Since World War II, the Maine Corps has become another, abet smaller, ground army and their performance has been identical to that of regular Army Infantry units in every conflict. In his definitive account of the Korean War, The Forgotten War, the author Clay Blair proves this beyond any doubt for Korea and for all their hype, the 8th Air Force alone in WWII sustained more KIA (27,000) than the entire Marine Corps.
Just to set the record straight about our present conflicts, let’s consider who is doing a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Every service member’s life is precious so I wouldn't diminish the death of a single one but as of 21 Nov 2010, reported US losses in Operation Enduring Freedom have totaled 1399; 985 Soldiers, 279 Marines, 66 Sailors and 69 Airmen. For the week ending 20 Nov, the Pentagon released the names of 18 service members killed in combat zones,16 Soldiers, one Marine and one Airman.
Lest anyone thinks the Marines are devoting their attention to Iraq, let’s dispel that myth also. There are very few Marines left there. Since the first Operation Iraqi Freedom causality in Mar 2003, we have suffered 4429 losses; 3244 Soldiers, 1028 Marine, 102 Sailors, 54 Airmen and one Coast Guardsmen. In the past year only one Marine has died in Iraq while 65 Soldiers have been killed there.
Although Soldiers have sustained a disproportionate share of the losses in both our current conflicts, the Marines have successfully garnered a disproportionate share of the press coverage so that most citizens erroneously believe it’s the Marine Corps that’s been leading the charge in these wars. In truth, it’s been Soldiers doing the disproportionate share of the fighting and dying for this country in these two wars. Don’t get me wrong, I am delighted to see that within the past year the Marines have decided to rejoin the fight in Afghanistan after having been "missing in action" for the past several years and we Soldiers welcome their help – finally.
As a footnote: as of 17 Nov 2010, there are 33 combat battlaions in Afghanistan, 25 of them are Army Battalions while 8 are Marine Corps. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/afghanistan-pakistan/afghanistan-deployment-map.html )
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)