IS GENERAL JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT REALLY QUALIFIED TO BE THE NEXT CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF?

Other than being the most hated and liberal general officer in the entire US Military along with being President Obama’s BFF and consummate “yes man,” I’m not sure Marine Corps General Cartwright has the requisite experience, judgment or qualification to lead our Military. In addition to having the incredibly bad (or good) luck of not being able to squeeze in even one day of combat experience during his 40 years in uniform, he recently underwent a rather ugly Inspector General investigation and is in the midst of what is expected to be a messy divorce that could make the Schwarzenegger separation look like a love fest.

Commissioned in 1971, the General has been on active duty during the Vietnam War; the invasions of Grenada, Panama and Haiti; interventions all over the Balkans; OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM/1st Gulf War; and 10+ years of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (Afghanistan), yet he has never heard a shot fire in anger. An incredible achievement equaled by few others with even a quarter of his active service.

Not withstanding his obvious talent for avoiding armed conflicts, I believe in these trying times it would be best that our Wartime Chairman have at least a little first hand experience in the art of War. Hence, maybe this is not the right time to OJT a neophyte when we have so many outstanding war tested candidates to choose from already serving in the Four Star ranks. In addition to the Obvious General Petraeus, we have Ray Odierno, Lloyd Austin, Carter Ham, Martin Dempsey, Jim Thurman and several others; all of whom have between 5 and 7 years in Combat. Why not select someone that has paid his dues and already knows a little something about War?

Complicating a Cartwright selection is that pesky IG Report. Despite the New York Times 23 Feb 11 headline declaring: “General Is Cleared of Sex Accusations,” Cartwright, who the Times calls “President Obama’s favorite General,” wasn’t quite “cleared” by the IG. The IG actually recommended disciplinary action only to be overruled by the Secretary of the Navy.

Seems what happened was the General was accused of having an improper physical relationship with a female military aide during a 2009 overseas trip to Tbilisi, Georgia, when the aide, drunk and visibly upset, visited the General’s hotel room alone and either passed out or fell asleep on a bench at the foot of his bed. The Inspector General (IG) investigated the incident and issued a report in March 2010, clearing the General of the most serious allegations but did find he mishandled the incident and questioned his judgment. The IG faulted Cartwright for not insisting the aide leave or be removed and said the Aide felt “licensed” to enter the general’s room late at night and drunk, despite being advised by a security agent not to do so. The IG report also faulted Cartwright for failing to act on an earlier incident in which the woman also apparently drunk had a disagreement with a Secret Service agent guarding President Obama at an elite Alfalfa Club dinner in Washington.

“Gen. Cartwright witnessed questionable conduct in both Tbilisi and at the Alfalfa dinner, but chose not to directly confront or correct [the] behavior,” the report states. “We conclude that Gen. Cartwright did not fulfill his responsibility to impress upon [the subordinate officer] the importance of sobriety and sound judgment.” Hence, the IG questioned General Cartwright’s judgment and command style in dealing with the aide and recommended administrative action for two lesser infractions: failure to discipline a subordinate and fostering an unduly familiar relationship, but Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary, overruled the IG’s recommendations and took no action.

Every officer should learn early in his (or her) career that every time they condone unacceptable behavior they have lowered the standard for discipline. Obviously the General was absent the day the Marine Corps taught that at his Basic Course.

Given the circumstances, maybe it would be best this time for the Nation and all Servicemembers if the President were to let competence and experience trump personal friendship and he were to select someone that was actually qualified. Of course the President would run the risk of having to listen to solid military advice rather then getting what he wanted to hear but that would be a small price to pay for providing the Nation’s Military with superior competent leadership.

Nancy Pelosi’s absurd math on senior citizens losing their meals

For those of you that linked here from my comments on the Washington Post Fact Checker hatchet job: "Newt Gingrich’s Pinocchio-laden debut" -- here is the Nancy Pilosi piece I referenced. Achieving four (4) Pinocchios puts Newt in some pretty elite company, a feat last achieved on 7 April by House Minority Leader Pelosi when the WaPo called her out for her “absurd math on senior citizens losing their meals." Seems Ms. Nancy said: “In one of the bills before us, 6 million seniors are deprived of meals — homebound seniors are deprived of meals." The WaPo pointed out Tons of problems with Pelosi’s statistic not the least of which was only 2.6 million seniors receive meals. Seems the meal program (cost ~$818M/year) is managed by the Administration on Aging (AOA), an arm of Health and Human Services and The House bill only cut $65M from the entire HHS $2.4B agency budget.

When the Washington Post awards a Liberal Democrat Four Pinocchios, they must be a World Class, can’t hide it, stand out in a crowd, No denying it -- LIAR – of the first water! Such must be the case for that “Favorite Son” (I mean daughter) of the great State of California. Read the entire article for yourself here but too bad the WaPo Pinocchio meter pegs out at four because I suspect Ms. Nancy would have gotten five if the scale went that high

How Does Rick Santorum Really Feel About Soldiers?

As an Old Soldier, I always look behind the scenes to see what people do that affects the Military rather than their “public pronouncements” when I want to know their true feelings about us. This is something I intend to do here in my Blog for the 2012 Presidential contenders as they make their announcements and the first one I want to examine is former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum. Rick recently announced his intentions to run for the Republican nomination.

Although Rick has never donned a uniform in defense of his nation, while in both the House and Senate he supported every military intervention that came down the pike which clearly marks him as a consummate “chicken hawk.” Always ready to send your kids into harms way but not himself or anyone related to him.

Probably the best example of Rick looking out for Soldiers happened back in 1998 when he (and Ted Kennedy) tried to screw disabled and disadvantaged retired enlisted service members by trying to sneak a little-noticed amendment into an unrelated bill requiring the Old Soldiers' and Airmen's Home to sell some of its property to the Catholic University of America and only to Catholic University. In other words, there would be no free market bidding. True Kennedy was the senior partner and member of the Armed Services Committee at the time so was "leader" of this "screwing team" but Santorum was his enthusiastic partner in crime.

The Old Soldiers' Home, as it is called, is where enlisted members can retire and get care if they have no other options and it is funded by a small monthly deduction from enlisted pay. The Department of Defense and Congress have refused to raise the deduction amount but the demand has remained steady thus resulting in a large budget deficit.

The Home rests on many undeveloped acres in Washington, DC, so it was decided that it ought to sell some of its property to the highest bidder, in order to raise funds to continue its worthy work. Its Catholic University neighbor had its own designs on the property but did not feel like paying market price so they approached Santorum and Kennedy who eagerly slipped in the amendment forcing the Home to sell to the university at a price about one-third of the appraised value.

Retired soldiers were outraged when they learned what had happened so held a press conference. Once “outted,” neither Santorum nor Kennedy could defended their attempt to screw Old Soldiers to get Catholic University a steal so they were forced to amend the law.

The right result would have been to open the bidding to everyone and to let the Home take the best offer. Instead, Rick forced a bidding process where Catholic University was given the right of first refusal on any "high" bid which seriously depressed the bidding. In the end, Rick, Ted and Catholic University still screwed the Old Soldiers but not nearly as badly as they wanted to!

If Rick were to ever be elected President, which I must admit is highly unlikely; I expect the Military could look forward to this same type of questionable treatment. This is one Old Soldier that hopes that never happens.

The White House Situation Room – The Picture Seen Round the World

(Photo by Pete Souza / White House; Photo has been altered to obscure a classified document)

Believe it was General Norman Schwarzkopf, the First Gulf War Coalition Commander who was heavily decorated for heroism during Vietnam with a CIB and three Silver Star medals, who put it best when he said: “It doesn’t take courage to order men into combat, it takes courage to go into combat yourself.”

That’s why it’s kind of galling to see pictures of guys like Joe "5-Deferment" Biden sitting around the White House Situation Room watching Navy SEALs take down Osama bin Laden. Of course Joe demonstrated his Military Expertise by the way he skillfully avoided any brush with armed conflict during his youth when he successfully dodged the draft and Vietnam. To be fair, Biden was in good company with others like Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Jim Clyburn and most of the other leaders of both parties. To avoid serving these guys did everything short of maiming themselves which none had the guts to do. By comparison, they make "W" look like a war hero! For the record, Bush flying antique Air National Guard Convair F-102s was probably in more danger than I was during my extended CIB-earning tour in Vietnam!

With the departure of National Security Advisor General James Jones last year, 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." No one on the National Security Council has ever served in the Military.

Two books on military-industrial complex - 6 Feb Wash Post Book Review

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?”

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.

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-