What Politicians Don't Say About the Military's Sexual Assault 'Epidemic'

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/24/The-Military-s-Sexual-Assault-Epidemic-in-Context (via shareaholic.com)

When I joined the U.S. military in January 2011, a family member asked me: "Aren't you worried about being raped?" And she wasn't the only one. Many people cautioned me that I would be entering an institution synonymous with machismo, authoritarianism, and violence.
What I found instead was very different: professionalism, respect, and a strong presence of women in the highest ranks. I also found the most transparent, aggressive, and in-your-face Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program I had ever witnessed.

Under the UCMJ, any military service member or even retiree can be punished for offenses (UCMJ Article 77), including accessories (78) and anyone who conspires in the punishable activity (87). People who attempt to commit an offense and fail to succeed may also be court-martialed (80). And offenders may be punished for any lesser included offenses (79).
So even if the preponderance of evidence fails to support a conviction for rape or sexual assault, an accused soldier may still be discharged from the military and punished for a related offense like failure to obey an order (92), cruelty toward and maltreatment of a subordinate (93), unbecoming conduct (133), fraternization (134), or providing alcohol to a minor (134).
If service members fail to obtain justice through the regular process, which is largely at the discretion of their Commanding Officers (COs), there already is a way for them to circumvent the CO and file a complaint of wrongs against the CO under UCMJ Article 138.
That is why I have been surprised to hear U.S. Senators imply that service members currently have no recourse outside their CO and that a new, parallel organizational structure is needed.

Compare all this to the model for sexual assault prevention and response at the institution I belonged to before the military—Harvard College. There, complaints of sexual assault are filed with the Administrative Board, or "Ad Board," comprised of deans and faculty members. The written policies regarding sexual assault are far less favorable to victims, requiring non-consent to be expressed "verbally or physically" and requiring the Ad Board members to be "sufficiently persuaded" that an assault occurred.
In stark contrast to the stories I've heard about military perpetrators landing up in Leavenworth Prison, Harvard's history of dealing with sexual assault cases might easily give more encouragement to perpetrators than victims.
During my time at Harvard College, between 2005 and 2009, I had one friend who was sexually assaulted by a fellow student, another who was beaten by her boyfriend (a fellow student), and another who was involved in a highly improper and abusive relationship with a professor. Not one of these incidents was ever reported.
In the five years from 2005 to 2010, according to the Harvard Crimson, eight cases of sexual misconduct were brought before Harvard's Ad Board. Only three perpetrators were required to withdraw from Harvard College for at least six months, and none received a permanent expulsion.

Don't Gasp, Don't Kvell

Dafydd ap Hugh at Big Lizards has a series on he repeal of DADT: Don't Gasp, Don't Kvell part IIII - Faster Than a Speeding Pullet:

"
As readers well know (and generally lament), I do support the ending of Bill Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that allows gays to serve in the military, so long as they stay in the closet. I believe gays should be allowed to serve openly, but not flauntingly. (Similarly, I believe women should be allowed to serve in any position in the military for which they qualify, including combat.)
But I do not in any way like the way that DADT was repealed. Following the crushing GOP victory in the 2010 midterm elections, it's appalling that the lame-donkey Congress which has just been repudiated has the audacity to vote on major pieces of transformative legislation -- that everybody knows would not pass in the incoming Congress. That's just wrong, and there's no two ways about it.
The previous rants of this ongoing Obamanation are:

• Don't Gasp, Don't Kvell part I - a Reader Shibboleth


• Don't Gasp, Don't Kvell part II - a Modish Proposal



• Don't Gasp, Don't Kvell part III - a Blogger Responds

....
But in the pell-mell rush to jam through Congress the instant repeal of DADT, I cannot imagine that the Obamunists have the slightest interest in a 'go-slow' approach that would give us the time to work the kinks (sorry!) out of the system. Rather, I agree with Paul Mirengoff at Power Line: Obama will shove this revolutionary transformation (which underlying policy I support) down the tracks like a runaway freight train, and any testing policy that tries to slow it down will be squashed flatter than today's GDP growth (which unseemly haste I abhor).
After all, the policy must actually be a done deal before January 3rd; else the incoming House of Representatives might refuse to appropriate or authorize the funds to implement it.
This is exactly what I was afraid would happen: Because conservatives made it clear that they would never, ever, ever vote to repeal DADT, no matter when or how, the 'progressivists' rightly concluded that they have only this one brief window, which, if not seized upon, slams shut in just under a fortnight... so the Left must move the policy faster than a cannon-fired chicken. Full scream ahead, and damn the training!
Well, never let it be said that Congress failed to disappoint.
"

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Argue

The crowd at The Weekly Standard is sharply divided on the repeal of DADT

The Marines, the Media and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' John R. Guardiano

Why DADT Has to GoJohn Tabin

Re: Why DADT Has to GoJohn R. Guardiano

Thoughts on DADT RepealAaron Goldstein

Re: Thoughts on DADT RepealW. James Antle, III

Goldstein Misunderstands DADT John R. Guardiano

Guardiano Misunderstands Goldstein Aaron Goldstein

DADT and ‘Hard Empirical Evidence’ John R. Guardiano

DADT and Left-Wing Intellectual Bigotry John R. Guardiano

Re: DADT and 'Hard Empirical Evidence' Aaron Goldstein

The Problem with Debating DADT John R. Guardiano

...this is a difficult and complex issue that is all too easily caricatured and distorted, and by the extremes on both sides of the debate.

OMG: There Are Gays in the Military

OMG: There Are Gays in the Military: "

One of the issues that always comes up is sharing showers. The reason the gay guys in the shower aren’t grabbing anyone’s ass is not because there is a DADT rule, it’s because they aren’t ass grabbers. Changing that rule isn’t going to lead to mass ass grabbing in the showers. There is a word for people who like to have sex with people who don’t want them to, that word is rapist. Somehow I must have missed the epidemic of homosexual rape in the British/Canadian/Aussie armies. It didn’t happen there and it won’t happen here. Of course there will be some concerns and difficulties in implementing this, but it won’t be long before it becomes old news.

In that case, why not have men and women shower together in the military, as they did in that "Starship Troopers" movie? What possible objection could there be?"

Don't Repeal "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"

Stuart Koehl at The Weekly Standard on why allowing openly gay soldiers in combat will hurt effectiveness.

On May 27, 2010, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the so-called "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" (DADT) law of 1993 that, while leaving intact the military's ban on homosexuals serving in uniform, prohibits the military from inquiring into the sexual preferences of military personnel or requiring them to answer questions about it. The Senate is expected to follow suit in coming weeks, though the public dissent by the chiefs of the individual Armed Services in opposition to Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shows how contentious the issue remains. Just a month earlier, the Navy announced that it would allow women to serve on submarines, further eroding the military's traditional prohibition on women to fill combat roles. 

Both issues—women in combat and gays in the military—are different manifestations of a single problem: the failure of America's political leadership to understand the factors that motivate men to fight in battle and to continue fighting under the most horrific conditions—what professionals call "combat effectiveness" and "unit cohesion" respectively. In all the discussions of the issue, these terms seldom come up; when they do, it is only to be dismissed out of hand by those who wish to see all military positions opened to both women and homosexuals.

Those who have never served in combat have no idea what it is like. The most graphic books and movies do not even scratch the surface.  Take the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan, amplified by an order of magnitude, plus the smell of blood, vomit, excrement, explosives and burning vehicles would still not be sufficient. After more than thirty years investigating the experience of men in battle, I don't even pretend to understand it as well as a soldier who has been through just one firefight.  This is why combat veterans are so reluctant to speak of their wartime deeds—civilians, and even rear-echelon military types, lack the frame of reference that would make understanding possible. 

....

Historically, most armies have seen homosexual behavior as undermining military discipline.  Even the Spartans didn't tolerate it in the field, while the Romans considered it a capital offense.  There is just one noteworthy example of open homosexuality in military service—the Theban Sacred Band, 150 pairs of homosexual lovers who swore an oath to stand by each other to death (and who were wiped out by Alexander the Great at Cheironeia). So even fairly tolerant societies found homosexuality unacceptable in the army, for the same reason that women were unacceptable:  they introduced sexual tension into small group dynamics, undermining unit cohesion. 

That tension has several causes. First, heterosexual men in the unit may not like becoming potential objects of sexual attraction to their fellow soldiers (the same thing also applies to women in mixed units), especially given the close quarters and lack of privacy that is part of field service. Second, there may be the suspicion that one or more soldiers may actually have entered into a sexual relationship, with the disruptive effect that can have on both discipline and performance (i.e., favoritism—will this guy risk his life to save me, or will he look out for his "special friend" first). If the homosexual involved is an officer, it creates all sorts of opportunities for abuse, which we have already seen in sexually mixed units. Given the kind of minefield that civilian workplaces have become due to sexual harassment laws, one wonders about the wisdom of tossing metaphorical mines in among the real ones with which our troops have to contend. 

There's a lot more.  RTWT.

Birther news

Jay Tea at Wizbang has a couple of observations touching on the Birth Certificate Conspiracy.

Stripped of the whole "birther" baggage, the bill simply codifies something that has been presumed to be common sense, but has been challenged. If you wanna be president, you better be ready to demonstrate that you meet even the minimalist requirements spelled out by the Constitution. And while on the surface it gives the birthers a victory, it takes away their very reason for existence as of the next election cycle.

While my personal philosophy is "don't cater to the crazies' delusions," in this case I find nothing objectionable about the solution -- and, indeed, their "demand" here doesn't really offend my sensibilities. Indeed, I think it's entirely OK.

Indeed.  If this bill had been law during the last election, the whole Birther movement would have been nipped in the bud.  Anyone claiming Obama was not a "natural born citizen" would have to account for the fact that Obama made it onto the ballot in Arizona.  Someone would have had to have presented reasonable proof to the Secretary of State.

I guess the remaining question is, will the Birthers notice their reason for existence has evaporated?

Meanwhile, there's a birther who's feeling exceptionally certain of his convictions. And those convictions might cost him his freedom.

Terry Lakin is utterly unconvinced that President Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, and as such has no authority to hold the office of President of the United States, let alone carry out the duties of said office. And under that theory, Lakin -- that's Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin, M.D., United States Army -- is refusing to accept his orders as Commander In Chief sending Lakin to Afghanistan. He says his oath to obey the Constitution and refuse to obey illegal orders takes precedence.

After looking at what makes an order "illegal" -- orders that are illegal on their face, or orders given by people not in a position to give them, Jay believes Larkin doesn't have a case.

There is nothing inherently illegal about the orders issued to Dr. Lakin. They were not issued directly by President Obama, but by Dr. Lakin's chain of command. Further, as far as the military is concerned, the issue of Obama's eligibility is a closed matter. Quite frankly, it's not up to the president to prove to the military that he is qualified to be their Commander In Chief. We have civilian control of the military, and that means that the civilian governing structures decide who controls the military -- not the military itself. And Obama was certified as the president by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Electoral College when they confirmed him in office.

Maybe he can assist the prison doctor wherever he winds up.

Gays in the Militaries

Bret Stephens writes in the Wall Street Journal: Gays in the Militaries

Also worth pondering is the experience of countries in which gays and lesbians serve openly. Britain and Canada are often cited as cases in point, though the deteriorating overall capabilities of their armed forces do not inspire confidence. A better comparison is the Israeli military, which hasn't yet been deemed incompetent or pusillanimous even by those who otherwise routinely defame it.

Israel is not the U.S. It has a conscription-based army that can't idly turn people away. It has its own set of cultural assumptions. The most religiously Orthodox Israelis are the least likely to serve. But it remains an instructive case, especially to those who have sincere and reasonable doubts about the effects of lifting the policy and aren't persuaded by the cheap accusations of "bigotry" that pass for reasoned argument on the subject. As Capt. Raz says, "by not treating it as an 'issue,' it doesn't become one. That's the bottom line."

Bottom line, though: I think the decision should be made by the military, not the social workers or activists.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Do Argue

Ongoing arguments over gays in the military, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, here: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Don’t Even Pretend to Be Fair–Part I: Don’t Ask | NewsReal Blog

Regardless of whether you are for or against open homosexuality in the military, you have to be dismayed at how badly biased media coverage of this issue has become. Indeed, it seems that, to the Big Media, there is only one legitimate and morally correct point of view, and that is to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and to allow gays to serve openly within the ranks.

The Washington Post, for instance, published a symposium on Feb. 7 entitled, “How to Change ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Not one of the Posts’s six contributors defends the current policy of permitting gays to serve discreetly, but not openly – and none of the contributors even tries to grapple with the arguments and reasons for keeping the U.S. military free of open homosexuality.

Instead, the contributors all blithely assume that every bright and reasonable, good and decent person must be all for allowing gays to serve openly — and that opponents of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” must be reactionary reprobates.

In fact, one contributor, Michael Buonocore, dismisses supporters of the current policy as mere obstructionists who have “petty concerns,” which the senior brass would do well to immediately bulldoze over and destroy.
....
...before we change a policy that most soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines believe has been successful, how about having a free and fair, open and honest, informed and substantive, freewheeling and robust debate?

Shouldn’t such a debate, in fact, be required before changing any successful and longstanding military policy? And shouldn’t the media help to effect (instead of stymie) such a debate?

DADT: A Reasonable Compromise

Max Boot calls Don't Ask/Don't Tell... A Reasonable Compromise

Special Forces is one of the areas in which women are still not allowed to serve even though most jobs in the military have been opened to them. Why not simply extend to gays the same policy applied to women? That is, let gays serve openly in most billets but not in a few combat designations. It seems like a reasonable compromise.

Gays in the Military

Cassandra at Villainous Company quotes Colin Powell on Dont Ask, Don't Tell: Colin Powell on DADT: Then and Now, then offers some comments of her own.

[In testimony before Congress on gays in the military], I said, “I think it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure.” Congresswoman Pat Schroeder quoted a 1942 government report and claimed that the same arguments used then against racial integration in the military were being used against gays today.

She had her logic wrong. I responded, “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."

His words bear repeating. They also deserve an honest attempt to grapple with the inconvenient truth he wasn't afraid to speak when he wasn't swimming against the tide of public opinion. Human sexuality - whether female or male, heterosexual or homosexual - is a fundamental and extremely powerful driver of human behavior. To elide past this basic truth requires an almost willful act of blindness.

My own opinions about both women and gays openly serving in the military have undergone a radical shift during the last thirty years. I began by seeing no reason why both women and gays shouldn't be able to serve anywhere they wished to. What changed my mind over the years, contrary to the bigoted assertions of close minded individuals who refuse even to entertain ideas that challenge their world view, was not misogyny or fear of Teh Gay.

It was over 30 years of observing real human behavior. What changed my mind was repeated demonstrations of a basic fact: in real life (which is a very different realm from the utopian, best case scenarios of would be reformers), people don't always behave well. And though most people are good, decent, and responsible it takes only a small number who behave otherwise to cause significant problems for the rest of us.
....
What is so bizarre to me about the arguments of those who don't even want to discuss the real life consequences of having gays serve openly in the armed forces is that they insist that considering anything but the best case scenario is de facto bigotry. But their fear fueled name calling doesn't stand up to close inspection. There are rational objections to allowing gays to serve openly and they aren't based on the assumption that homosexuals behave differently than heterosexuals. They are based on the assumption that gays are no different from you and me. How is that bigotry?
....
Any company or battalion commander could tell you that disciplinary issues related to sex have a significant impact on unit morale and readiness.

And this occurs even though men and women do not share the same quarters.

Which raises an interesting question. If we take the non-bigoted approach and assume that homosexuals have the same drives heterosexuals do; assume they are no more likely to act on these drives, but no less likely either; if we assume they are just like us; is it not reasonable to predict a similar increase in rape accusations and allegations of sexual harassment, fraternization and adultery?

Again, these assumptions are not based on demonization of gays, nor upon the assumption that they are less moral or dedicated that heterosexuals. They are based on the assumption that, in the aggregate, gays are every bit as moral and dedicated as heteros but also that the same temptations and weaknesses that cause discipline problems when men and women are in close quarters would be present when billeting men and women who are sexually attracted to their own sex together.

This is not fear. It is not homophobia. And it is certainly not hatred or bigotry. It is common sense.

For Reference:

Questions About Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

From This Ain't Hell blog, Unanswered Questions About Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Lets go over some of the questions that nobody in the Obama administration or Congress has addressed in regards to repealing DADT:

Will there be seperate barracks, berthing, and living quarters for homosexuals?

...Mandating that homosexuals have their own living quarters (like some colleges and universities do) will require new construction of barracks and a complete rearrangement and reconfiguring of hundreds of naval vessels. On the other hand, allowing homosexuals to live with heterosexuals, will cause a whole different set of headaches for military commanders.

2. Will homosexuals be allowed to serve in combat arms units?

Women are forbidden by Congress to serve in combat arms units (infantry, arty, tanks, etc.). Some of the same issues surrounding women serving in combat units are present in the debate over gays serving openly in these same units.

3. Will people discharged under DADT be allowed to reenlist/recommission in the military if the policy is repealed?

I don’t know how many people who were discharged under DADT would want to reenter the military, but there are even more questions that need to be answered if they are allowed to reenter. Will they retain their same rank/billet regardless how long they have been out? Will they get retroactive promotions?

4. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, will the military recognize and award benefits to gay marriages or civil unions?

5. Will each service be allowed to craft its own policies regarding homosexuals?

6. How much money is repealing DADT going to cost?

Everytime the military changes a policy, it costs money.

People may differ over how much of a problem each of these may be, or how concerned the military should be about each item. For example, many will see no problem with recognizing civil unions. I think, all else being equal, why not? I suspect the military takes into account matters like blood relation between brothers and cousins, simply because the brothers and cousins are almost certain to.

(Of course, the comments are open for corrections.)

The US Military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe.

Cleaning out the inbox.

Davids Medienkritik: SPIEGEL ONLINE: "The US Military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe."

After years of calling Iraq a disaster, debacle and quagmire, SPIEGEL ONLINE has decided to declare the following:

"The US military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe."

This all stems from last week's Der SPIEGEL magazine cover feature article by Ullrich Fichtner: An enormous, fascinating and remarkably honest report on the complex situation in Iraq. (The first link above in bolded-italics leads to the English translation of that report.) SPIEGEL ONLINE is also publishing Fichtner's report that US troops are in a remarkably good mood and have high morale. That also flies directly in the face of past SPIEGEL reporting that consistently depicted US troops as demoralized, depressed, defeated, prone to suicide and suffering from low morale.

As a long-time observer of the publication, my first reaction to reading this on SPIEGEL ONLINE was: Are they on drugs?! - this directly contradicts everything they've reported for the past four years! My second reaction was: Have they finally gotten off the drugs?! Maybe reality is finally starting to sink in!

Should Gen. Casey be fired?

Dafydd at Big Lizards thinks so, at least if he stands by one of his more inept statements.

Losing our "diversity" would be "a greater tragedy" than the Fort Hood massacre itself? Does any rational human being actually believe this? And does any military historian believe that "a [religiously] diverse Army gives us strength?" I think it clear from context that Casey is claiming that having a tiny handful of Moslem soldiers -- 3,000 out of nearly 1.1 million soldiers -- somehow makes the Army "stronger."

This is ludicrous. I'm positive having Moslems in our ranks doesn't make us any weaker, but neither does it make us stronger, except marginally: If we banned all Moslems from the ranks, we might have to accept a lesser qualified Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist soldier instead of a more qualified Moslem. But the diminishment would be slight at best.
....
Casey's remark is yet another example of transforming the criminal into the victim; it's political correctness run wild. And if George Casey cannot understand why Hasan's religion -- which appears by all reports to be a violent, extremist, jihadist sect of Islam -- could be the primary motive behind the otherwise senseless spree killings, then Gen. Casey should be removed as Chief of Staff. Immediately.

It's as stunning as if Eisenhower had said in 1942 that we should not "speculate" on the possible role National Socialism might play in the military aggression of the Axis, lest we create a "backlash" against soldiers with names like, well, Eisenhower. For heaven's sake, the ideology of National Socialism was the primary cause of World War II... just as the ideology of violent Islamic jihadism is the primary cause of global Islamic terrorism.

One thing to understand, though, is that generals got where they are by being experts in military matters and politics. Casey may well realize his job depends on being politically correct.

Colors

I saw some snide comments on Facebook about how the military is "finally" getting around to issuing desert camoflage Strykers in Afghanistan. It's interesting to read the take from someone who's been there.

Colors

A military watchdog gets it wrong on the debate over camouflage.
By Michael Yon

Some things are not as they seem. Many people, for instance, seem to think Stars & Stripes is a military lapdog, but this is untrue. If Washington had a yearbook, Stars & Stripes might be voted "most apt to slam the military." Stars & Stripes is a watchdog.

Drew Brown is a Stars & Stripes writer with much battlefield experience. Drew's stories on Iraq have always rung true, as have his stories on Afghanistan. However, his recent story from Afghanistan about Stryker camouflage left room for respectful disagreement, or perhaps a "context adjustment." One might suspect that the editorial process changed the tone.

The story begins:

Army to phase in tan-colored Stryker vehicles
By Drew Brown, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Monday, October 26 2009

ZABUL PROVINCE, Afghanistan — More than six years after sending the first Stryker armored vehicles into desert combat, the Army has decided that it's probably a good idea to start painting them tan so they will blend in with the environments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The tone here is off, depicting the situation without the context or dimension that it deserves.

Long-time readers are aware that I do not hesitate to bite the Army when the watchdog hat is on. Given my frequency in combat with our folks, any lack of gear, or poor gear, is as bad for my health as for the troops'. Hence I have been yelling at Washington that we need more troops in Afghanistan, and more helicopters.

However, controversy should only grow in fertile ground. And having spent more time in combat with U.S. forces than any writer/journalist/photographer during the Iraq War — something likely to be duplicated in Afghanistan — my observation is that the U.S. military, on the whole, is incredibly well resourced. I have probably spent more time with Stryker units than any journalist living or dead, and the fact is that while it may now be the case that Strykers should be painted brown, there are good reasons this wasn't done earlier.

The story is datelined to Zabul Province, Afghanistan, and true enough, the color out there should be desert brown. (Or perhaps, in some places at some times, white.) But elsewhere in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, civilians mostly live near water, so colors around their homes generally are green during the green months. In Afghanistan, the "Green Zone" (GZ) is the area around the rivers and lakes, and much or possibly most of the fighting occurs in these green areas. The enemy fights more when the GZ is green than during the winter brown.

Just as important, predicting camouflage needs for Strykers can be incredibly difficult. Stryker units tend to get moved around more than other combat units because Stryker units can project so much force quickly. Afghanistan's geography doesn't help: Down in the Helmand River valley where Brits, Danes, Yanks, and others are fighting, you can go from strict GZ to 100 percent desert-brown conditions in just a few seconds. The border between verdant and seemingly endless cardboard brown is usually only the width of an unpaved road — literally, a line in the sand and rocks. One side of the road can be dry as bone, while just meters away on the other side of the road, the mud tries to suck the boots off your feet. (The Brits have the opposite problem; they have very good desert-brown camouflage, but do most of their fighting in the GZ.)

Also, even if brown is a better overall camouflage for Afghanistan — though this is unclear even to many experienced soldiers and me — it is unfair to imply (by datelining the story to Zabul Province and referring to more than six years of Strykers in desert combat) that the Army has had Strykers there during the entire war. The first rotation of Strykers to Afghanistan arrived only some months ago; before that, they were in use only in Iraq.

In Iraq, Generals Casey and Petraeus wisely used Strykers as their "QRF" (Quick Reaction Force) during the severe fighting of 2006–2007. Stryker soldiers fought all over the place. They moved constantly. The brigade commander would have needed ESP and the vehicles chameleon skin to keep up with the changing environments.

Drew and I both covered Operation Arrowhead Ripper with Stryker units during the scorching summer of 2007. We spent far more time in the cities than in the desert. Some Stryker soldiers might have had different experiences, depending where they fought.

Also, Stars & Stripes's insinuation that U.S. military leaders would leave our troops without appropriate materiel does not square with those leaders' recent performances. I am confident that if commanders were screeching about getting those Strykers painted, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would get it done, and bets are on that the next rotation will be brown if that is what commanders want. General Petraeus, meanwhile, is the boss of CENTCOM, where all Strykers in combat are operating. In Iraq, it was common to see General Petraeus on the battlefields, and he rode in a Stryker on at least one occasion during Operation Arrowhead Ripper. I saw him there. And though I don't know Gen. Stanley McChrystal, he has a solid reputation. He wasn't shy about asking for more troops, so it's hard to imagine he would hesitate about getting some buckets of paint.

Command Sergeant Major Jeffrey Mellinger, an ex-Ranger like McChrystal, is the senior NCO at Army Materiel Command. AMC oversees all Army materiel ranging from bandages, night vision, and weapons to tanks and helicopters. CSM Mellinger has seen a lot of combat, and I have done countless missions with him in Iraq, including missions in Strykers. Never once during that time did I think that Strykers should be brown, and if CSM Mellinger thought they should have been brown, he would surely have told his successive bosses, Generals Casey and Petraeus. CSM Mellinger still regularly travels to Iraq and Afghanistan and would not hesitate to recommend a change if soldiers on the ground were asking for it.

CSM Mellinger knows more about Army gear than anybody I know, and he's my number-one source for advice on what to wear during fighting. When I asked Mellinger about camouflage, he said that "what works today won't work tomorrow," and that "there is no perfect camouflage."

The CSM for the Strykers now in Afghanistan is Robb Prosser. I've done probably 100 combat missions with Robb in Strykers in Iraq, and now he is the senior NCO for those Strykers in Afghanistan. Never once did I hear Robb say that Strykers needed to be brown.

The Strykers currently in Afghanistan probably should be painted brown, but it is not true that the military dragged through these years without noticing, or that Gates, Petraeus, McChrystal, Mellinger, and Prosser didn't ask for something they needed. Stars & Stripes plays a valuable role as a military watchdog, but this time, they're barking up the wrong tree.

Iron Dome missile defense system

For those who say a missile defense system can't be made to work...

Israel had the first successful test of its Iron Dome anti-rocket system on July 15th. The system detected and shot down several BM-21 rockets. The Israelis expect to have the system in action, along the Gaza border, later this year. The manufacturer, Rafael, was offered a large bonus if they got the system working ahead of schedule. When Iron Dome was first proposed three years ago, it was to take five years (until 2012) to get it operational. In addition to the cash incentive, there's also the rockets still coming out of Gaza, and being stockpiled by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Iron Dome uses two radars to quickly calculate the trajectory of the incoming rocket (Palestinian Kassams from Gaza, or Russian and Iranian designs favored by Hezbollah in Lebanon) and do nothing if the rocket trajectory indicates it is going to land in an uninhabited area. But if the computers predict a rocket coming down in an inhabited area, a $40,000 guided missile is fired to intercept the rocket. This makes the system cost-effective. That's because Hezbollah fired 4,000 rockets in 2006, and Palestinian terrorists in Gaza have fired over six thousand Kassam rockets in the past eight years, and the Israelis know where each of them landed. Over 90 percent of these rockets landed in uninhabited areas.

(Source)

The war on tobacco will kill soldiers

From Countercolumn again. Jason argues a ban on tobacco in the armed forces is a very bad idea. Among other reasons, one not that obvious:

Further, I wouldn't disregard the role of cigarrettes on the battlefield - especially the countergeurrilla battlefield. From a humint or interrogater's point of view, or simply from the perspective of a local leader trying to build a relationship with an Iraqi or Afghan, the simple act of offering a nicotine-starved Iraqi a quality American cigarette, and lighting one up one's self, is a time-honored way of establishing a rapport with a local or detainee - and is frequently the first and necessary step in breaking the ice and gaining the trust and cooperation of a local or detainee.

Honestly, we wouldn't get NEAR the HUMINT we do without it. Verily I say unto you... if tobacco were to vanish from U.S. soldiers' kits tomorrow, there would be an almost immediate and bloody, but nearly untraceable consequence on the ground. It would significantly degrade our relationship with locals and our ability to gain intelligence from detainees and HUMINT sources. Tread VERY SLOWLY here.

Tobaccophobes like to argue that if a ban saves even one life, it's worth it. Well, if its presence in the battlefield saves even one life, it's worth allowing soldiers to continue to have it.

Another fake soldier?

This Ain't Hell hopes one Carl Webb will provide some documentation.

See, the Army totally F’d you my man. I mean, more than when they enlisted you through our fascist poverty draft, and the stop loss. Would you believe those silly sonsabitches have documentation that doesn’t match your stories? I mean, I was shocked as well. It’s like I tell everyone all the time, if you can’t trust Carl Webb, who in this world can you trust, eh?

....

How ’bout you just send us one shred of paper that proves the record you claim. You know, something from say, oh, I don’t know, the month before 9/11/01 through now. I know you have it. I mean, you loathe everything about the military, but shit, you’ve been living off the legacy of it since you enlisted on December 16 of 1982, so you must have a love me folder.

UPDATE:

Carl Webb Says: May 30th, 2009 at 12:47 am edit Exactly what have I claimed that you need me to verify?

NGB 22 showing service in this millennia. Also, an MOS that shows Nurse. Or, any form, document, scrap of paper, hieroglyphics or other confirmation from someone NOT YOU, that shows you were ever a deserter. IVAW should have it on record since they verify all memberships, and none of your info shows you are.

Fiskmail

Blackfive looks at a letter sent to MaryAnn of Soldiers' Angels Germany.

Probably apocryphal, but...

From Cheat-Seeking Missiles:

According to a Marine Pilot:

In addition to communicating with the local Air Traffic Control facility, all aircraft in the Persian Gulf AOR are required to give the Iranian Air Defense Radar (military) a ten minute 'heads up' if they will be transiting Iranian airspace.

This is a common procedure for commercial aircraft and involves giving them your call sign, transponder code, type aircraft, and points of origin and destination.

I just flew with a guy who overheard this conversation on the VHF Guard (emergency) frequency 121.5 MHz while flying from Europe to Dubai. It's too good not to pass along. The conversation went something like this…

Iranian Air Defense Radar: 'Unknown aircraft at (location unknown), you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.'

Aircraft: 'This is a United States aircraft. I am in Iraqi airspace.'

Air Defense Radar: ' You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!'

Aircraft: 'This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up, I'll wait!'

Air Defense Radar: (no response … total silence)

Reminiscent of Genghis Khan?

From Blackfive:

KARMAH, Iraq (September 28, 2008) – Corpsmen are often considered the medical ray of light for Marines in a combat zone.

Sometimes their light shines bright enough to reach local Iraqis in need, whether it is during a routine combined medical engagement, or for one Iraqi child who almost drowned, on the spot emergency medical attention that saved his life.

Navy Chief Roger Buck, a 34-year-old battalion medical chief from Niceville, Fla., with Task Force 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 1, saw the limp child cradled in his father's arms during an Iraqi key-leadership, joint-forces dismounted patrol.

Buck ran toward the boy and immediately began administering CPR on the drown victim.

....

Within a few minutes the boy regained consciousness, coughed up water and was taken to a local hospital for follow on care.

....

Buck said he was merely in the right place at the right time and just doing his job, and the look of gratitude and appreciation on the terrified parents was all the thanks he needed.