What’s all the hoopla about Gov Rick Perry and his faith? Here’s what the papers reported about how President Obama addressed his faith yet not a peep was heard about him being a religious zealot by the press:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Thursday (3 Feb 11) that his faith has deepened during his two years in the White House … Speaking at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Obama said "I pray that God will show me and all of us the limits of our understanding and open our ears and our hearts to our brothers and sisters with different points of view, that such reminders of our shared hopes and our shared dreams and our shared limitations as children of God will reveal a way forward that we can travel together."
…and here is what Gov Perry said and he’s being portrayed as a religions fanatic:
HOUSTON - Texas Gov. and possible Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry led a crowd of roughly 30,000 Christians Saturday (6 Aug 11), asking God to help a nation he calls “in crisis,” at a Christian-revival event he organized “Father, our heart breaks for America, we see discord at home, we see fear in the marketplace, we see anger in the halls of government, …. As a nation, we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us, and for that, we cry out for your forgiveness.”
I would opine that reporting on the religious proclivities of our politicians is a distraction from the real issue concerning Americans… In the words of VP Biden, it a 3-letter word… JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! (Nobody ever accused Biden of being able to count).
Rick Perry is the ONLY candidate of either party, declared or undeclared, that can boast of creating jobs while in political office! During the Obama reign, half of ALL jobs created in the US were created in Perry’s Texas! Pretty impressive! BY contract, according to the Fact Checker in the 19 Jun 11 Washington Post, “since Barack Obama has been president…there are 2.5 million fewer jobs.”
Also with the exception of Ron Paul, Perry is also the ONLY candidate that has ever served in the Military which the President presides over as Commander-in-Chief. Perry was commissioned in the Air Force in 1972 out of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets ROTC program and after completing pilot training, flew C-130 tactical airlift in the States, Middle East, and Europe. He left the Air Force in 1977as a captain. Ron Paul, a medical doctor, was an Air Force active duty flight surgeon from 1963 to 65. At least no one would have to teach Perry how to salute or identify the insignias of rank.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
My Book Review: “Haunting Legacy: Vietnam and the American Presidency from Ford to Obama” by the Father-Daughter Kalb Revisionist Historians
Just because the father-daughter tag team of Marvin and Deborah Kalb say it in a book doesn’t make it true – especially when coming from one half of the Harvard-New York Times bred Bernard-Marvin Kalb elite team of revisionist historians. Such is the case here with the Kolb’s accretion that we “lost the Vietnam War.” Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it Bernard that quit the Reagan Administration because he didn’t like how they were treating Libyan leader COL Gaddafi? As an extended tour Vietnam Vet, I don’t much like how the Kalb’s are spinning history to fit their thesis for their new book: “Haunting Legacy: Vietnam and the American Presidency from Ford to Obama.”
One only has to look at how the Kalbs participated in spinning what even the North Vietnamese considered a terrible defeat -- the Jan-Feb 1968 Tet Offensive -- into a U.S. loss and debacle to recognize they have an agenda here beyond selling books and making money. Even the Hanoi leadership was apoplectic over the outcome of their great gamble that ended in their dismal failure and defeat. In total, approximately 85,000–100,000 communist troops participated in the initial onslaught and the follow-up phases which resulted in 45,267 of them killed. In 1968 alone over 181,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops were killed and from that point on Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the Viet Cong ranks with North Vietnamese regulars. It was only after the Communist leadership saw how the U.S. Press reacted to the Tet Offensive that they began to propagandize their "victory" and U.S. anti war newspapers like the Kalb’s own New York Times were only too happy to give voice to this communist propaganda.
Fast forward past the “Vietnamization” of the war to January 1973, and The Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam." This agreement resulted in a cease-fire, release of U.S. POWs, the guarantee of the territorial integrity of Vietnam, national elections, and total withdrawal of U.S. forces. Although U.S. military forces withdrew from South Vietnam, North Vietnam was allowed to continue supplying communist troops in the South, but only to the extent of replacing materials that were consumed.
The communists had expected the ceasefire terms would favor them but Saigon, bolstered by a surge of U.S. aid just before the ceasefire, began to roll back the Vietcong. With U.S. bombings suspended, work on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and other logistical structures proceeded unimpeded and Logistics would be upgraded until the North was in a position to launch a massive invasion of the South by 1975.
But it was what happened in U.S. politics and a Democratic take over of both houses of Congress in the Nov 72 elections that ultimately contributed to the U.S abandoning our South Vietnamese allies. Although McGovern lost 49 of 50 states for Nixon’s reelection, many American voters split their tickets. In March 73, Nixon hinted he might intervene militarily if the communist side violated the ceasefire but the Democrat Congress reacted unfavorably and when during his June 73 confirmation hearings Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam, the U.S. Senate passed the Case-Church Amendment on 4 June 1973 to prohibit such intervention. Then when Nixon resigned over Watergate and Ford became President in Aug 74, Congress cut financial aid to South Vietnam from $1 billion a year to $700 million. The U.S. midterm elections in 1974 brought in a new Congress dominated by Democrats who were even more determined to confront the president on the war and Congress immediately voted in new restrictions on funding and military activities to be phased in through 1975 and to culminate in a total cutoff of funding in 1976. It was this and NOT any U.S. Military defeat that doomed South Vietnam.
Buoyed by the Democratic Congress abandonment and in total disregard for the Paris Accords, the Communists resumed a full scale War. Then in Jan 75 when a provincial capital fell, Ford desperately asked Congress for funds to assist and re-supply the South before it was overrun. Congress refused and this finally sealed South Vietnam’s fate. This lack of an American response left the South Vietnamese demoralized but at the start of 1975, the South Vietnamese still had overwhelming military superiority over their Communist enemies but did face a highly determined and well-funded North Vietnam with material and financial support still pouring in from the communist bloc countries. Abandoned by the American military and Congressional denial of financial support, an embittered and tearful South Vietnamese President Thieu resigned on 7 April declaring that the United States had betrayed South Vietnam. By the end of April, the South Vietnamese military collapsed and by 27 April, 100,000 North Vietnamese troops encircled Saigon. Early in the morning of 29 April Sec Def Schlesinger announced the evacuation of Saigon by helicopter of the last U.S. diplomatic, military, and civilian personnel. In an atmosphere of desperation, as hysterical crowds of Vietnamese vied for limited space, the U.S. ambassador pleaded with Washington to dispatch $700 million in emergency aid to bolster the regime and help it mobilize fresh military reserves but to no avail. In the early morning hours of 30 April, the last U.S. personnel evacuated the embassy by helicopter as civilians swamped the perimeter and poured into the grounds. Many of them had been employed by the Americans and were left to their fate.
On 30 April 1975, North Vietnamese troops overcame the last resistance and captured key buildings and installations thus ending of 116 years of Vietnamese involvement in conflict either alongside or against various countries, primarily France, China, Japan, Britain, and America.
The responsibility for the ultimate failure of U.S. Policy and our withdrawal from Vietnam lies not with the men who fought, but with those in Congress. The U.S. Military was NEVER once defeated on the battlefield and left South Vietnam in a militarily superior position where they could have prevailed over the North indefinitely if they had continued to receive U.S. financial support at least equal to that being received from the Communist Bloc by the North.
By war's end, 58,220 U.S. troops were killed and more than 150,000 wounded with about 21,000 permanently disabled. Sixty-one percent of those killed were age 21 or younger. A total of 8.615 Million men served during the Vietnam era and of them 2.15 Million actually served in Country. Three-fourths of those deployed were from working families and poor youths were twice as likely to serve there than their more affluent cohorts although the vast majority of them were volunteers. Hence, socio-economic status was the greatest determinate of who actually served in Vietnam and of all the service members who served there, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics), 10.6% were black, and 1% other. At the time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population and 13.5% of the military age cohort, so they were under represented in the war zone. Casualty data shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black.
In 1995, the Vietnamese government reported that its military forces suffered a total of 1.1 million dead and 600,000 wounded during their conflict with the United States and the U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war and Civilian deaths have been estimated to be about two million total in both the North and South.
With a U.S.-South Vietnam kill ration of about 4 to 1 against the North, a record of never being bested on the battlefield and a U.S. withdrawal leaving South Vietnam in a position to endure indefinitely only to be betrayed by a withdrawal of financial support by a Democratic Congress, should this be described as a U.S. defeat?
It was certainly NOT a defeat by the U.S. Military but it might be more accurately described as a defeat by a Democrat controlled U.S. Congress – possibly with an agenda to embarrass a Republican President Ford. In retrospect, the Kalbs might have inadvertently hit on a lesson for President Obama. Not the one they intended linking Afghanistan with Vietnam but rather the consequences of one party controlling Congress trying to embarrass a president of another party and the residual affects it has on the Country.
One only has to look at how the Kalbs participated in spinning what even the North Vietnamese considered a terrible defeat -- the Jan-Feb 1968 Tet Offensive -- into a U.S. loss and debacle to recognize they have an agenda here beyond selling books and making money. Even the Hanoi leadership was apoplectic over the outcome of their great gamble that ended in their dismal failure and defeat. In total, approximately 85,000–100,000 communist troops participated in the initial onslaught and the follow-up phases which resulted in 45,267 of them killed. In 1968 alone over 181,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops were killed and from that point on Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the Viet Cong ranks with North Vietnamese regulars. It was only after the Communist leadership saw how the U.S. Press reacted to the Tet Offensive that they began to propagandize their "victory" and U.S. anti war newspapers like the Kalb’s own New York Times were only too happy to give voice to this communist propaganda.
Fast forward past the “Vietnamization” of the war to January 1973, and The Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam." This agreement resulted in a cease-fire, release of U.S. POWs, the guarantee of the territorial integrity of Vietnam, national elections, and total withdrawal of U.S. forces. Although U.S. military forces withdrew from South Vietnam, North Vietnam was allowed to continue supplying communist troops in the South, but only to the extent of replacing materials that were consumed.
The communists had expected the ceasefire terms would favor them but Saigon, bolstered by a surge of U.S. aid just before the ceasefire, began to roll back the Vietcong. With U.S. bombings suspended, work on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and other logistical structures proceeded unimpeded and Logistics would be upgraded until the North was in a position to launch a massive invasion of the South by 1975.
But it was what happened in U.S. politics and a Democratic take over of both houses of Congress in the Nov 72 elections that ultimately contributed to the U.S abandoning our South Vietnamese allies. Although McGovern lost 49 of 50 states for Nixon’s reelection, many American voters split their tickets. In March 73, Nixon hinted he might intervene militarily if the communist side violated the ceasefire but the Democrat Congress reacted unfavorably and when during his June 73 confirmation hearings Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam, the U.S. Senate passed the Case-Church Amendment on 4 June 1973 to prohibit such intervention. Then when Nixon resigned over Watergate and Ford became President in Aug 74, Congress cut financial aid to South Vietnam from $1 billion a year to $700 million. The U.S. midterm elections in 1974 brought in a new Congress dominated by Democrats who were even more determined to confront the president on the war and Congress immediately voted in new restrictions on funding and military activities to be phased in through 1975 and to culminate in a total cutoff of funding in 1976. It was this and NOT any U.S. Military defeat that doomed South Vietnam.
Buoyed by the Democratic Congress abandonment and in total disregard for the Paris Accords, the Communists resumed a full scale War. Then in Jan 75 when a provincial capital fell, Ford desperately asked Congress for funds to assist and re-supply the South before it was overrun. Congress refused and this finally sealed South Vietnam’s fate. This lack of an American response left the South Vietnamese demoralized but at the start of 1975, the South Vietnamese still had overwhelming military superiority over their Communist enemies but did face a highly determined and well-funded North Vietnam with material and financial support still pouring in from the communist bloc countries. Abandoned by the American military and Congressional denial of financial support, an embittered and tearful South Vietnamese President Thieu resigned on 7 April declaring that the United States had betrayed South Vietnam. By the end of April, the South Vietnamese military collapsed and by 27 April, 100,000 North Vietnamese troops encircled Saigon. Early in the morning of 29 April Sec Def Schlesinger announced the evacuation of Saigon by helicopter of the last U.S. diplomatic, military, and civilian personnel. In an atmosphere of desperation, as hysterical crowds of Vietnamese vied for limited space, the U.S. ambassador pleaded with Washington to dispatch $700 million in emergency aid to bolster the regime and help it mobilize fresh military reserves but to no avail. In the early morning hours of 30 April, the last U.S. personnel evacuated the embassy by helicopter as civilians swamped the perimeter and poured into the grounds. Many of them had been employed by the Americans and were left to their fate.
On 30 April 1975, North Vietnamese troops overcame the last resistance and captured key buildings and installations thus ending of 116 years of Vietnamese involvement in conflict either alongside or against various countries, primarily France, China, Japan, Britain, and America.
The responsibility for the ultimate failure of U.S. Policy and our withdrawal from Vietnam lies not with the men who fought, but with those in Congress. The U.S. Military was NEVER once defeated on the battlefield and left South Vietnam in a militarily superior position where they could have prevailed over the North indefinitely if they had continued to receive U.S. financial support at least equal to that being received from the Communist Bloc by the North.
By war's end, 58,220 U.S. troops were killed and more than 150,000 wounded with about 21,000 permanently disabled. Sixty-one percent of those killed were age 21 or younger. A total of 8.615 Million men served during the Vietnam era and of them 2.15 Million actually served in Country. Three-fourths of those deployed were from working families and poor youths were twice as likely to serve there than their more affluent cohorts although the vast majority of them were volunteers. Hence, socio-economic status was the greatest determinate of who actually served in Vietnam and of all the service members who served there, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics), 10.6% were black, and 1% other. At the time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population and 13.5% of the military age cohort, so they were under represented in the war zone. Casualty data shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black.
In 1995, the Vietnamese government reported that its military forces suffered a total of 1.1 million dead and 600,000 wounded during their conflict with the United States and the U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war and Civilian deaths have been estimated to be about two million total in both the North and South.
With a U.S.-South Vietnam kill ration of about 4 to 1 against the North, a record of never being bested on the battlefield and a U.S. withdrawal leaving South Vietnam in a position to endure indefinitely only to be betrayed by a withdrawal of financial support by a Democratic Congress, should this be described as a U.S. defeat?
It was certainly NOT a defeat by the U.S. Military but it might be more accurately described as a defeat by a Democrat controlled U.S. Congress – possibly with an agenda to embarrass a Republican President Ford. In retrospect, the Kalbs might have inadvertently hit on a lesson for President Obama. Not the one they intended linking Afghanistan with Vietnam but rather the consequences of one party controlling Congress trying to embarrass a president of another party and the residual affects it has on the Country.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
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).
Friday, July 22, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
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!
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.
Friday, July 1, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)