Washington Post "Blows" GEN Shalikashvili Obit - Why the WaPo Should Employ at Least One Vet!

Once again, the WaPo has demonstrated why they should hire at least one Vet proofreader so they can quit making boneheaded misstatements like this one in their 24 July Obit: “Gen. Shalikashvili, a four-star general in the Army, was the first immigrant and the first onetime enlisted man to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the highest military council in the United States. He was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993 ….” As an aside, as a young Major I served with the general in the early 80s on the ARSTAF in the Pentagon and was present at his promotion ceremony to brigadier general.

Several Chairmen have enlisted service (while attending officer training) similar to GEN Shalikashvili although he was the only one originally drafted into the Army. He was drafted into the Army in 1958 and, as a college graduate, was offered the opportunity to attend Officer Candidate School (OCS) immediately after he completed his basic entry enlisted training. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in 1959 having never served in a line unit as an enlisted man.

The ONLY Chairman with REAL enlisted service was GEN John W. Vessey, Jr. who served Jun 82 – Sep 85. GEN Vessey enlisted in the Minnesota National Guard in 1939 at age 16 and was activated in Feb 41 in the mobilization prior to our entry into WWII. By Sep 42, he was a company First Sergeant (Top enlisted man in the unit) and received a Battlefield Commission to Second Lieutenant in May 44 on the Anzio Beachhead in Italy.

Granted GEN Shalikashvili was President Clinton’s Chairman and in retirement has become something of a darling to the left because of some of his liberal views such as his support for allowing Gays to serve but that’s no excuse for the WaPo to embellish the General’s resume. He was a distinguished Soldier in his own right with a resume that needs no puffing and his passing is a reason for mourning by all who have served. REST IN PEACE GEN SHALI (as he was known to those who knew him).

Posted Comments about the West-Wasserman Squabble Demonstrates How Little the General Public Knows about the Military!

I’m not going to get into the substance of the squabble between Rep. Allen West (R-FL.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) other than to say both are making a ton of money in campaign contributions off it and for Schultz to “play the female victim” here makes her appear a touch “Palin-esque.” What I have noticed from reading the comments and blogs is, if those commenting are any reflection of the military knowledge of the general public, then elimination of the draft has resulted in a military-clueless generation.

Unlike several “experts” opining on the Blogs, I don’t know much about West except I checked and he is definitely on the U.S. Army retired roles in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel so those claiming he resigned in lieu of Court Martial are as ignorant as some in Congress! Other than what I’ve read in the newspapers, I don’t know the true circumstances of his retirement … but, being a retired Army Colonel who has been a convening authority and president of several Courts, I do know a little about Military Law and regulations -- which is something that obviously several of the contributors to this discussion don’t.

The applicable Army Regulation governing a Resignation for the Good of the Service (RFGOS) in Lieu of Court Martial is AR 600-8-24, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-13, and an officer submitting such a resignation normally receives an Other than Honorable Discharge but regardless of characterization of service, the officer is not authorized to retire nor receives VA benefits with a very few exceptions (e.g. converted life insurance).

Some of the pontificators are probably the very same “military experts” that still believe the Washington myth that former Army Chief of Staff of (& now VA Secretary) GEN Eric Shinseki was fired for standing up to Rumsfeld and challenging the Bush administration over the Iraq War when in truth, he retired after serving every last minute of his full four year term.

After posting this above comment, I received several responses wishing to “correct me” and telling me that “it’s a matter of record that LTC West was given an Article 15 and retired in Lieu of Court Martial.” Once again, this demonstrates the public’s ignorance of Military Law. There is NO provision in law or regulation to even FORCE a service member to accept Non-Judicial Punishment (UP Article 15, UCMJ). Non-judicial punishment is OFFERED to an accused to resolve minor offenses under the UCMJ in lieu of Court Martial but it is an option of the accused to either ACCEPT non-judicial punishment or DEMAND a Court Martial. Once the Article 15 was accepted by LTC West, a RFGOS in Lieu of Court Martial was off the table. Granted, an Article 15 is career ending for an Officer so they normally retire if eligible but they cannot be forced to retire. If the Army really wishes to terminate the Officer, it can begin administrative elimination procedures but this is a whole new action from the non-judicial punishment. Initiation of elimination proceedings might “encourage” a retirement eligible officer to submit for retirement but this is neither a “resignation” or a retirement “in lieu of Court Martial.”

Sometimes it’s best if some people just stick to talking about subjects they know something about.

US Inspector General Makes Obama ATF Admit Only a Fraction of Illegal Weapons Seized in Mexico Come from US!

Reference the Washington Post (aka WaPo) 16 July 2011, Editorial Board Opinion: A good step to slow the flow of guns to Mexico’s drug gangs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-justice-department-has-taken-an-important-step-to-reduce-the-illicit-flow-of-weapons/2011/07/14/gIQAdJ1zGI_story.html ).

This editorial has so many falsehoods Anthony Weiner must have written it for them! The WaPo has a “Fact Checker” column where their “crack” reporter, Glenn Kessler, is quick to point out errors in other peoples’ utterances but treats anything emanating from the WaPo as if it were “coming from a Burning Bush!” This editorial statement is especially misleading: “Mexico says that 93,000 illegal weapons have been seized since December 2006, nearly 90 percent of them from the United States.” Just because “Mexico says” doesn’t make it true but by not challenging this outright lie the WaPo validates it as true. This even contradicts a 14 Jun 2011 WaPo article: US report: 70 percent of arms seized, traced in Mexico came from US (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/us-report-70-percent-of-arms-seized-traced-in-mexico-came-from-us/2011/06/13/AGR2TlTH_story.html ). Even that story would merit four Pinocchios (their highest false rating) by the Fact Checker! The first paragraph of that article stated:

“MEXICO CITY — About 70 percent of the guns seized in Mexico and submitted to a U.S. gun-tracing program came from the United States, according to a report released by three U.S. senators Monday.”

Note the crafty (and misleading) wording the WaPo always employs: “Mexico says” or “guns seized in Mexico AND SUBMITTED to a U.S. gun-tracing program.” At least that article reduced the allegation to 70%. This editorial and the in the past the Obama administration’s ATF has maintained “over 90% of these firearms originated in the US” but had to back-peddle on that claim when U.S. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) made the ATF admit “the 90% figure cited to Congress was misleading because it applied only to the small fraction of Mexican crime guns that are traced and Mexico only attempts to trace guns that most likely can be traced to the US.” A Nov 10, OIG analysis of ATF data suggest a much lower percentage really come from the US and a recent Feb 11 STRATFOR (a widely respected global intelligence company) analysis calculated almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico are NOT from the US.

In 2009, Mexico reported that they held 305,424 confiscated firearms, but only submitted 69,808 to the ATF for tracing. The gap between seizures and traces and the fact they only submit those likely to come from the US puts in serious question whether any significant number of illegal guns in Mexico really come from here.

It should also be noted that the most commonly recovered firearm is the old Soviet AK-47 type rifles which is NOT manufactured in the US and that most US military grade weapons are acquired by the cartels through the huge supply of arms left over from the wars in Central America and Asia. It has also been reported that there have been 150,000 desertions 2003-09 from the Mexican army (about 1/8th desert annually) and many of them take their government-issued automatic rifles with them.

Given all this, maybe we’re talking SIX Pinocchios!

Field Marshal Moltke’s Four Types of Military Officer

Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke (1800-1891) developed this interesting Value Matrix to categorize his officer corps.

• Smart & Lazy: I make them my Commanders because they make the right thing happen but find the easiest way to accomplish the mission.
• Smart & Energetic: I make them my General Staff Officers because they make intelligent plans that make the right things happen.
• Dumb & Lazy: There are menial tasks that require an officer to perform that they can accomplish and they follow orders without causing much harm
• Dumb & Energetic: These are dangerous and must be eliminated. They cause thing to happen but the wrong things so cause trouble.

Later Field Marshal Erich Von Manstein (1887-1973), arguably the Wehrmacht's best World War II military strategists who was dismissed from service by the Fuhrer in March 1944 due to frequent clashes with him over military strategy, later articulated Field Marshal Moltke’s model in the following quote:

“There are only four types of officer. First, there are the lazy, stupid ones. Leave them alone, they do no harm…Second, there are the hard- working, intelligent ones. They make excellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered. Third, there are the hard- working, stupid ones. These people are a menace and must be fired at once. They create irrelevant work for everybody. Finally, there are the intelligent, lazy ones. They are suited for the highest office.”

I would suggest that both Field Marshals have correctly identified the four types of officers but would respectfully disagree about who is best suited for “highest office,” especially in today’s highly competitive environment. Smart & Energetic wins every time and only the truly driven or exceptionally lucky succeed.

How Long Will It Be Before Air Force & Navy Cockpit Pilots Are Obsolete?

An MQ-1B Predator unmanned aircraft takes off for a training mission at Creech Air Force Base, NV. (U.S. Air Force photo)

Recently there has been a debate raging in the press concerning the use of drones and the morality of using them to attack “enemy” targets. Some have even suggested that using them against human targets is a form of assassination. My question is: what is the difference between attacking targets with a manned aircraft and a drone except the physical location of the pilot flying the “airborne vehicle.” I would further suggest that it is just a matter of time before ALL combat aircraft are “Remotely Piloted Vehicles” (RPVs), not because of the obvious concerns for the safety of the pilot but because the limiting factor on aircraft performance is going to be how much abuse the human body can endure. We know the limits of the human body but as aircraft technology continues to leap forward, we are going to reach a point where the aircraft will be able to “out perform” the pilot so the only way to take full advantage of the aircraft’s performance will be to remove the “limiting factor” – the pilot – from the cockpit. A drone can simply turn sharper and accelerate quicker than the human body can tolerate so an adversary’s drone will be able to defeat any piloted aircraft we field.

Much to the horror of Air Force and Navy Pilots, a cocky and arrogant bunch, modern technology is going to make them obsolete in the foreseeable future. Why? Because the human body can only withstand so much abuse and a constant 16 g for a minute is often fatal while when vibration is also experienced, relatively low peak g levels can be severely damaging if they are at the resonance frequency of organs and connective tissues. The g-force (g = gravitational) associated with an object is its acceleration relative to free-fall.

Aircraft exert g-force along the axis aligned with the spine which causes significant variation in blood pressure along the length of the pilot’s body thus limiting the maximum g-forces that can be tolerated. A typical person can handle about 5 g before losing consciousness but by using special g-suits and muscles straining techniques, trained military pilots can typically handle a sustained 9 g’s. Hence, we know the limits of the human body but as aircraft technology continues to leap forward, we are going to reach a point where the aircraft will be able to “out perform” the pilot so the only way to take full advantage of the aircraft’s performance is to remove the “limiting factor” – the pilot – from the cockpit.

Removing pilots from cockpits, regardless of how emotionally traumatic it may prove to our brave military aviators, will have to happen as our adversaries perfect their own RPVs capable of out perform any piloted aircraft in our inventory. As a matter of fact, we might eventually have to put “governors” on our aircraft to limit performance to keep within the tolerance of the human body.

Already, RPVs in Afghanistan are being flown very effectively by pilots of the 432nd Air Expeditionary Wing comfortably (and safely) sitting is a hanger located on Creech Air Force Base, Nevada. Some maintain drone reaction time is a bit slower than piloted high performance aircraft on station and this may be true – for now – but it’s only a matter of time before that is reversed. As aircraft and RPV technology advances and decision support software improves, it is only a matter of time before the pilot is out of the cockpit and even the human pilot may become obsolete as the human mind will be too slow so attack decisions have to be turned over to computers.

Having run this theory by my older brother who spent 26 years as a Navy carrier attack jet pilot, I have heard all the emotional reasons why this will never happen but deep down, even though his heart tells him differently, it’s obvious his brains recognizes the inevitable.

Despite the Cliché: "Afghanistan is the Graveyard of Empires" – History reveals they have been conquered and occupied by everyone even passing through!

The misquote most often attributed to Joseph Goebbles is: “if you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it.” Regardless who actually said it, never has it been more true then when applied to Afghanistan being called "the graveyard of empires." In truth rather than the graveyard of empires, Afghanistan has historically been conquered and occupied by everyone that has even passed through it. Beginning with the Persian Empire in the 5th century BC, Afghanistan has always been part of somebody's empire.

For this recount of history, I have liberally borrowed from an article by Andrew Roberts which appeared in the 20 Sept 2010 National Review: Graveyard Of A Cliché - Afghanistan presents no impossible military challenge, its 'history' notwithstanding and on my exchanges with Retired US Army LTC Les Grau, an acknowledged Afghanistan expert and the author of two books on the Soviet experiences there: "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" and "The Other Side of the Mountain." Both are a “must read” for anyone interested in doing a serious examination of Soviet performance there. His assessment was: “for a conscript army with a conscript NCO corps, the Soviets did a reasonable job while they were there. In some respects, they were far ahead of where we are--and we make many of the same mistakes that they made.”

So what is the real history of Afghanistan? Despite the myth that Afghans are a fearsome warrior people who have defeated every imperial power since Alexander the Great, including Persians, Mongols, Moghuls, Russians, British, or Soviets, a closer review of history reveals this to be a myth. They have NEVER driven any conqueror out. The reason Alexander stayed in Afghanistan so briefly was that there was nothing to plunder there so why stay; he merely needed to pass through there on his way into India. By then Afghanistan had already been conquered by the Median and Persian Empires, and afterwards it was conquered by the Seleucids, the Indo-Greeks, the Turks, and the Mongols. When Genghis Khan attacked in 1219, he exterminated every human being in Herat and Balkh and turned the country back to the Stone Age. Mongol conqueror Tamerlane followed suit and the Moghuls held Afghanistan peaceably for almost two centuries.

Although conquerors ruled the country, none imposed any centralized direct control so allowed a good deal of tribal provincial autonomy as geography demanded in a period before modern communications. It was not until 1747 that even a primitive Afghan sovereign state could be detected.

All these empires including the British ever wanted of Afghanistan was that it not be used as a base from which attacks could be mounted. Britain's only interest was keeping czarist Russia away from its Greater Indian colony during what was called "The Great Game."

Today, people wishing to perpetuate the “Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires” myth like to cite the more recent historical examples of the Afghan struggles with the British Empire. Granted, despite some early disasters during Britain's First Afghan War of 1839-42, the popular version of events is distorted. Although it is true that 16,500 people died in the horrific Retreat from Kabul, fewer than a quarter of them were soldiers, and only one brigade was British. The incompetent commander, Major General William George Keith Elphinstone, evacuated Kabul on 6 Jan 1842 in midwinter and the freezing weather destroyed his column more than the Afghans. Several hundred -- possibly over a thousand -- survived the retreat and were rescued by the punitive expedition that recaptured Kabul by September 1842. Early in 1843, the governor-general, Lord Ellenborough, sent General Sir Charles Napier to capture Sind. General Napier is best known for putting down several insurgencies in India during his reign as Commander-in-Chief there and he once succinctly stated his philosophy about suppressing rebellions as: “The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed.” He also said: "the human mind is never better disposed to gratitude and attachment than when softened by fear." This may explain why once he finished Afghanistan stayed quiet for another 30 years.

Lieutenant General Sir Jasper Nicolls, another commander-in-chief of India, examined the “Retreat from Kabul” and listed the reasons for the defeat at the time as: "1. not having a safe base of operations, 2. the freezing climate, 3. the lack of cattle, and 4. placing our magazines and treasure in indefensible places." The only lesson to be learned from the Kabul catastrophe of 1842 is don’t appoint incompetent commanders.

The Second Afghan War was actually won by Major General Sir Frederick Roberts at the battle of Kandahar in August 1880 and thereafter Afghan resistance was subdued and Afghanistan was reduced to being a British protectorate until it was given its independence in 1919. There was a short three month Third Afghan War in 1919 which the British also won that settled the political boundary with India. Having achieved all their objectives, the Brits withdrew from Afghanistan leaving a monarchy in place that survived until 1973 although there was a great deal of post-independence instability. It should also be noted that Islamic fundamentalism is not historically deep-seated in Afghanistan and it was King Amanullah who instituted Kemalist modernizations such as monogamy, Western clothing, and the abolition of the veil in 1928.

As for the Soviet involvement, it was the Afghan government that made repeated requests in 1978 and 79 for Soviet intervention but the Soviet government was in no hurry to help. It was not until the anti-communist rebel factions began receiving US aid that they stepped in. On 3 July 1979 President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime; six months before any Soviets deployed. Around Christmas 1979 the Red Army entered Afghanistan with about 120,000 troops; not the Soviet's best units but with soldiers from the Soviet republics adjacent to Afghanistan to make it appear to be a limited, local operation. These two-year conscripts were often drunk or on opium and the Soviets ultimately lost 15,000 men (about ten times the number of Americans over the same length of time). Their helicopter gunships devastated most of the villages between Ghazni and Kandahar in February 1980, and the Soviets showed utter disregard for civilian casualties. Their equipment, training, discipline, and morale were poor but as I quoted LTC Grau before: “for a conscript army with a conscript NCO corps, the Soviets did a reasonable job while they were there.” As far as the Soviets were concerned, their withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 was not a shameful escape accompanied by the hooting of the mujahedeen but rather the Soviet Army entered the country, accomplished its tasks and returned to the Motherland.

When the Soviets departed, they left in place a Communist puppet regime led by Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai or merely Najibullah. Though it failed to ever win popular support, it was able to remain in power until 1992. Much like South Vietnam fell when the US withdrew its support, the Najibullah communist government fell in April 1992 when the new Yeltsin government no longer wished to continue to support their former communist puppet. The Mujahideen replaced Najibullah with a new governing council and had the Taliban not hosted and protected al-Qaeda while it masterminded the 9/11 attacks, most Americans would still have never heard of Afghanistan.

Despite the revisionist history by those wishing to point to the past failures of Great Empires to be successful in Afghanistan, they have only succeeded in demonstrating their own ignorance of history. They have distorted and greatly misrepresented the successes every invader has had against Afghans, a vicious but historically very unimpressive foe. Hopefully the US and our NATO allies will be as successful as the British Empire was in subduing Afghanistan and we leave it in such a condition that they can endure by themselves for at least as long as the last time the Brits left – 60 years (1919-1979)!

GEN Petraeus - CIA Director Confirmation Hearings Question on Leadership - 23 Jun 2011

I listened with utmost interest to the 23 Jun 11 Senate Hearings for GEN David Petraeus for his confirmation as the next CIA Director and I was especially disappointed at some questions that revealed a complete lack of understanding of Military leadership. The questions dealt with how the General would gain the trust and support of the CIA workforce because it was a relatively “flat” organization and he has been used to leading in the military which is a “top down hierarchical and structured environment.” Anyone with 15 minutes of experience leading troops in the field knows nothing could be further from the truth.

Although there are similarities in leadership among all the Military services, Army and Marine leadership is unique in regards to how close commanders are to their subordinates and how much they share their hardships and dangers. When a ship’s captain commands “Right Full Rudder,” everyone aboard turns right without question and when an Air Force Pilot pulls back on the stick, everyone on the plane goes up. But when an Infantry company commander who has been marching his troops through waist-deep mud in rice patties for three weeks straight commands after a 10 minute rest “saddle up we’re moving out,” it takes a special type of leadership to get them moving. It’s a “Follow Me!” leadership that is build on trust – trust of that leader’s competence, courage, integrity, commitment and caring for the welfare of his troops. A trust that although the mission comes first, troops know he will do everything within his power to bring them back safe and alive.

GEN Petraeus has had a career full of these kinds of leadership experiences beginning as a young platoon leader and company commander. He has been a battalion operations officer and commander; a Brigade Commander; a Division operations officer, Assistant Division Commander and Division Commander; and the Commander in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He was also the CENTCOM COCOM Commander!

Although this is a kind of leadership is foreign to most Senators, it’s the leadership exhibited by all successful troops leaders; it’s “flat” and definitely not hierarchical. If GEN Petraeus continues to practice the same leadership style that has served him well for his 37 years in the Army, I’m confident he will be a superb CIA Director. If only more politicians could have had that much “leadership experience” maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today and he certainly wouldn’t have gotten some of those inane questions.

One final observation, every article on the Petraeus confirmation hearings fails to report one important caveat the General made to his acceptance of the President’s “more aggressive withdrawal schedule than he would have liked.” The General emphasized that if conditions changed on the ground and he felt a delay or halt of the withdrawals was warranted, he would go to the President with his unvarnished assessment to stop the pullouts, either as the Commander in Afghanistan, his present position, or as the CIA Director, if confirmed. Why is this never included?