Military Culture Wars

Review: Occupations, Cultures, and Leadership in the Army and Air Force
George R. Mastroianni
Parameters, Winter 2005-06, pp. 76-90


The Fall Winter issue of Parameters, the journal of the US Army War Collage has a very interesting article by Dr. George R. Mastroianni on the cultural differences between the military services. He is well qualified for this as he is a Professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership at the Air Force War Collage and a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army Reserve.

I spent several years as a civilian employee of a jointly manned headquarters, the differences between the services cultures are real, usually the cause of much humor, but also a potential problem in our ability to conduct war and preserve the peace.

The article's focus is on the differences between the Army and the Air Force officer corps, which is where he has his personal experience. He also limits his study to combat arms officers for the Army and pilots for the Air Force as these groups set the standard for their respective services.

He starts out with the observation that large organizations can be characterized by their members intuitional and/or occupational commitment. Are the members of the organization committed to the organization and its ideals or to a occupation that they can take to another organization depending on their self interest. He makes the assertion that, while officers in both services have share these commitments, Army officers have a stronger intuitional commitment that the Air Force officers. Partly this is because pilots have a portable skill, they can leave the service and be airline pilots, infantry officers can leave the service and be anything but infantry officers.

The differences that different occupations have on the cultures is also a factor, the way you process information as pilot flying at supersonic speeds is different than the way you would process information in a fox hole. By the time these officers reach mid and high level positions these patterns of thinking come with them and effect their actions and decisions.

A major difference between the two services is the their approach to leadership and the relationship between commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers. The humor is that the air force would say their enlisted men strap a weapons system on the back of their officers and send them into combat, whereas in the Army the officers send their enlisted men into combat. The Army would say that an Air Force pilot is really the commander of a flying tank and is a grossly overpaid staff sergeant. Both these observations are extreme overstatements. But the differences are real. An army officers first job is as a platoon leader; his platoon has a platoon sergeant, who has the job of teaching the lieutenant how to be a combat officer. While the Air Force prizes its enlisted mechanics who keep the planes flying a mechanic is not going to teach the new Air Force officer how to be a pilot. I gather that in many Air Force organizations the pilots and mechanics are in different sub-organizations. The Air Force officer respects the NCO's specialists with whom they have few interactions, the Army officer dealt with the senior NCO as a collaborator in the day to day work of his unit. The result is that an Air force Officer will spend his first formative years with a group of people who have similar backgrounds, education, training and aspirations. The Army officer spends his first formative years with other combat officers but also with people who have different backgrounds, education, training, and aspirations. At later points in their service this effects their professional relations with persons outside their service, outside the military and government. He suggests that Air Force officers can are more effective in dealing with scientific/technical people. Army officers generally have experience and training that allows them to work better with a broader set of situations and people.

When I was working in joint headquarters I saw this in play, the officers of both services were usually Captains or higher. This was typically the first assignment where an Air Force officer was in a leadership position. The Army Officer had been the platoon leader and maybe the company commander of units ranging from 20 to 150 soldiers. The Air Force officer had been held positions where his technological knowledge was essential to the organization, the army officer was a generalist who called on technical experts. This would cause problems as higher ranked Army officers had assumed that a Air Force Captain should already be an experienced leader and higher ranked Air Force officers assumed a Army Captain should have much deeper technical skills.

An observation.

The President’s military experience was as an interceptor pilot. The Secretary of Defense was a Navy reserve anti-submarine pilot. They appointed a strategic Air Force pilot as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Other appointments tended to follow a similar pattern. The Secretary of Defense is supporting technology based transformations. The inability of the Army professional leadership and the Secretary of Defense to understand each other are legendary. We are in ground war. The Air Force flies a sortie, destroys the target and returns to base. The Army captures a place and holds it against all comers. The Rumsfeld/Shineski controversy can be described as one seeing a sortie to replace Saddam and go home - the other seeing a mission capture a place (Iraq,) control it, and hold it. While not explaining everything or even most things, the story of events leading up to the war and it’s conduct becomes much clearer when these differences are understood.


There is much more in this article than I reviewed, I strongly recommend this article.

Iraq War Strategy Explained

HT: History's End

And my comment from last February.

Second Sunday of Advent

‘Console my people, console them’
says your God.
‘Speak to the heart of Jerusalem
and call to her
that her time of service is ended,
that her sin is atoned for,
that she has received from the hand of the Lord
double punishment for all her crimes.’

A voice cries, ‘Prepare in the wilderness
a way for the Lord.
Make a straight highway for our God
across the desert.
Let every valley be filled in,
every mountain and hill be laid low.
let every cliff become a plain,
and the ridges a valley;
then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed
and all mankind shall see it;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.’

Go up on a high mountain,
joyful messenger to Zion.
Shout with a loud voice,
joyful messenger to Jerusalem.
Shout without fear,
say to the towns of Judah,
‘Here is your God’.

Here is the Lord coming with power,
his arm subduing all things to him.
The prize of his victory is with him,
his trophies all go before him.
He is like a shepherd feeding his flock,
gathering lambs in his arms,
holding them against his breast
and leading to their rest the mother ewes.
Isaiah 40:1-11

In ancient times when a King or similar dignitary was to visit a town, the townspeople would go out on the route he was to come and clean up the litter, fill in potholes, and generally spruce up the road as an honor to the King.

Isaiah, with a little hyperbole, is using this practice as a call to repent and “spruce” up our hearts and to receive the Lord, who as Saint Mark makes clear is Jesus the long awaited Christ.

Look, I am going to send my messenger before you;
he will prepare your way.
A voice cries in the wilderness:
Prepare a way for the Lord,
make his paths straight.

and thus we are told

‘Console my people, console them’
says your God.
‘Speak to the heart of Jerusalem
and call to her
that her time of service is ended,
that her sin is atoned for. . ."

Make straight the way of the Lord!

In Defense of Medical Malpratice Law Suit Abuse.

Say, after years of giving premiums to your favorite insurance company, you need an operation on your prostrate, the doctor knowingly gives you an anti-biotic with known serious side effects, when other antibiotics are available, and he does this without your knowledge to reduce his costs. He does this in response to your insurers policies. The result is you are deaf for the rest of your life.

What happens?

You suit!

First there is no informed consent.

Second the doctor’s duty is to the patient not the insurance company.

Third giving the wrong medicine was a willful act.

Why is it that this seldom happens?

Because the damages that will be awarded far exceed any additional profit the doctor or insurer would receive. Hopefully most do not need this kind of threat to insure reliable medical care, but the threat of a suit tends to keep even the corrupt in line.

Granted there are problems with malpractice suit system, certainly in Illinois where I live. Any thing that can be receipted produces damages for the receipted amount When the question of “mental anguish” or punitive damages is in question there are no receipts and the amount of the settlement is often made by emotion rather than some sort of rational analysis. This produces highly inflated settlements, which is raising the overall cost of medical care. But is also makes it even more imperative that the medical provider run a clean operation. In the example above, since it is a willful act punitive damages are proper. I am not in favor of lawsuit abuse; it should be prevented and punished where it happens. But it is clearly better to have the malpractice suit system even with abuses than the alternatives that are used elsewhere.



Paul Belien of The Brussels Journal tells the story of his grandfather who went to the hospital for prostrate operation in May, was knowingly given the cheaper anti-biotic which left him deaf. What our courts would call “mental anguish” left him despondent and he was dead by November.

So what happened to the medical “practitioners.” Well, I’m sure it was just another forgetable day at the office.

How is the Belgium system different than ours. Basically it is a department of the government not medical persons in private practice. In the US one pays premiums to the insurer, when on gets sick the insurer pays the doctor. The role of the government is the honest broker between the patient and the provider if there any disputes. The government through programs like Medicare is becoming more of an insurance provider than before, but all most all medical personnel are not government employees. There is still enough differentiation of roles that the government, at least in court system, can still be an honest broker. In Belgium the provider of the insurance and the medical personnel is also the honest broker. Since the government also controls the right to suit, the government can just refuse to take the role of honest broker . Paul in his article notes that in Europe like the US the cost of providing health care is rising as a percentage of GNP. Where there is a major cost, there is a need to minimize it. Under a malpractice suit system the way to do this is work smarter and more carefully. With a system with no effective honest broker it is just so much easier to deny the care promised or use second class drugs, equipment and practices.

I do not support lawsuit abuse, but if that is price for a medical system where the goal is to treat the patient, not save the government money, I’ll take it

First Sunday of Advent

You, the Lord, yourself are our Father,
‘Our Redeemer’ is your ancient name.
Why, the Lord, leave us to stray from your ways
and harden our hearts against fearing you?
Return, for the sake of your servants,
the tribes of your inheritance.

Oh, that you would tear the heavens open and come down!
No ear has heard,
no eye has seen
any god but you
act like this
for those who trust him.
You guide those who act with integrity
and keep your ways in mind.
You were angry when we were sinners;
we had long been rebels against you.
We were all like men unclean,
all that integrity of ours like filthy clothing.
We have all withered like leave
sand our sins blew us away like the wind.
No one invoked your name
or roused himself to catch hold of you.
For you hid your face from us
and gave us up to the power of our sins.
And yet, O Lord, you are our Father;
we the clay, you the potter,
we are all the work of your hand.Isaiah 63:16 - 64:8


Advent is the time for preparing for the coming of the Lord. In one sense we prepare for Christmas to celebrate the fact that God became man. But is is also a time to prepare for the Lord’s second coming.

The reading from Isaiah tells of the people of ancient Israel who over time have lost their fervor for the Lord and even fallen away.
And yet, O Lord, you are our Father;we the clay, you the potter,we are all the work of your hand.

It is the new beginning - the advent of the Lord - come home to the Lord!

"Why don't you speak for yourself, John?"

Happy Thanksgiving to Everyone


From a classic about Thanksgiving



So he entered the house: and the hum of the wheel and the singing

Suddenly ceased; for Priscilla, aroused by his step on the threshold,

Rose as he entered, and gave him her hand, in signal of welcome,

Saying, "I knew it was you, when I heard your step in the passage;


For I was thinking of you, as I sat there singing and spinning."

Awkward and dumb with delight, that a thought of him had been mingled

Thus in the sacred psalm, that came from the heart of the maiden,

Silent before her he stood, and gave her the flowers for an answer,

Finding no words for his thought. He remembered that day in the winter,

After the first great snow, when he broke a path from the village,

Reeling and plunging along through the drifts that encumbered the doorway,

Stamping the snow from his feet as he entered the house, and Priscilla

Laughed at his snowy locks, and gave him a seat by the fireside,

Grateful and pleased to know he had thought of her in the snow-storm.

Had he but spoken then! perhaps not in vain had he spoken;

Now it was all too late; the golden moment had vanished!

So he stood there abashed, and gave her the flowers for an answer.



Then they sat down and talked of the birds and the beautiful Spring-time,

Talked of their friends at home, and the Mayflower that sailed on the morrow.

"I have been thinking all day," said gently the Puritan maiden,

"Dreaming all night, and thinking all day, of the hedge-rows of England,--

They are in blossom now, and the country is all like a garden;

Thinking of lanes and fields, and the song of the lark and the linnet,

Seeing the village street, and familiar faces of neighbors

Going about as of old, and stopping to gossip together,

And, at the end of the street, the village church, with the ivy

Climbing the old gray tower, and the quiet graves in the churchyard.

Kind are the people I live with, and dear to me my religion;

Still my heart is so sad, that I wish myself back in Old England.


You will say it is wrong, but I cannot help it: I almost

Wish myself back in Old England, I feel so lonely and wretched."



Thereupon answered the youth:--"Indeed I do not condemn you;

Stouter hearts than a woman's have quailed in this terrible winter.

Yours is tender and trusting, and needs a stronger to lean on;

So I have come to you now, with an offer and proffer of marriage

Made by a good man and true, Miles Standish the Captain of

Plymouth!"



Thus he delivered his message, the dexterous writer of letters,--

Did not embellish the theme, nor array it in beautiful phrases,

But came straight to the point, and blurted it out like a schoolboy;

Even the Captain himself could hardly have said it more bluntly.

Mute with amazement and sorrow, Priscilla the Puritan maiden

Looked into Alden's face, her eyes dilated with wonder,

Feeling his words like a blow, that stunned her and rendered her speechless;

Till at length she exclaimed, interrupting the ominous silence:

"If the great Captain of Plymouth is so very eager to wed me,

Why does he not come himself, and take the trouble to woo me?

If I am not worth the wooing, I surely am not worth the winning!"

Then John Alden began explaining and smoothing the matter,

Making it worse as he went, by saying the Captain was busy,--

Had no time for such things;--such things! the words grating harshly

Fell on the ear of Priscilla; and swift as a flash she made answer:

"Has he no time for such things, as you call it, before he is married,

Would he be likely to find it, or make it, after the wedding?

That is the way with you men; you don't understand us, you cannot.

When you have made up your minds, after thinking of this one and that one,

Choosing, selecting, rejecting, comparing one with another,

Then you make known your desire, with abrupt and sudden avowal,

And are offended and hurt, and indignant perhaps, that a woman

Does not respond at once to a love that she never suspected,

Does not attain at a bound the height to which you have been climbing.

This is not right nor just: for surely a woman's affection

Is not a thing to be asked for, and had for only the asking.

When one is truly in love, one not only says it, but shows it.

Had he but waited awhile, had he only showed that he loved me,

Even this Captain of yours--who knows?--at last might have won me,

Old and rough as he is; but now it never can happen."



Still John Alden went on, unheeding the words of Priscilla,

Urging the suit of his friend, explaining, persuading, expanding;
135
Spoke of his courage and skill, and of all his battles in Flanders,

How with the people of God he had chosen to suffer affliction,

How, in return for his zeal, they had made him Captain of Plymouth;

He was a gentleman born, could trace his pedigree plainly

Back to Hugh Standish of Duxbury Hall, in Lancashire, England,
140
Who was the son of Ralph, and the grandson of Thurston de Standish;

Heir unto vast estates, of which he was basely defrauded,

Still bore the family arms, and had for his crest a cock argent

Combed and wattled gules, and all the rest of the blazon.

He was a man of honor, of noble and generous nature;
145
Though he was rough, he was kindly; she knew how during the winter

He had attended the sick, with a hand as gentle as woman's;

Somewhat hasty and hot, he could not deny it, and headstrong,

Stern as a soldier might be, but hearty, and placable always,

Not to be laughed at and scorned, because he was little of stature;

For he was great of heart, magnanimous, courtly, courageous;

Any woman in Plymouth, nay, any woman in England,

Might be happy and proud to be called the wife of Miles Standish!



But as he warmed and glowed, in his simple and eloquent language,

Quite forgetful of self, and full of the praise of his rival,

Archly the maiden smiled, and, with eyes over-running with laughter,

Said, in a tremulous voice, "Why don't you speak for yourself, John?"

Excerpt from The Courtship of Miles Standish

Background

It's All a Plot

Christian Science Monitor has an excellent article on conspiracy theories.

Extract:
Conspiracy theories are now so influential that the US State Department's website desperately tries to contain the damage these theories cause to the reputation of the United States. It recognizes that conspiracy theories have "a great appeal and are often widely believed." Indeed, the theory that American foreign policy is the outcome of a carefully elaborated secret plot concocted by a cabal of neoconservatives is widely believed both inside and outside the US. Preoccupation with conspiracies is no longer confined to the margins. Virtually every unexpected event provokes a climate of suspicion that breeds rumors and conspiracies.
On the hunt for a conspiracy theory by Frank Furedi.

However it seems the preferred method of avoiding the influence of secret government conspiracies is not as effective as hoped. HT:Dean’s World

Wow – It’s Been a Year

I made my first post on Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings, Cause Not Harm a year ago. I was trying to think of a good first post. Then Glen Reynolds said something to annoy me, and I meandered into it.

I was tired of just leaving comments on other Blogs. But I was not sure where I wanted to go with a blog, Since my interests are eclectic and I meander between them “Eclectic Meanderings” seemed like a good name. I did a Google search, and while I did not find a blog named “Eclectic Meanderings,” it seemed to be a rather common expression so I put my name in front to avoid conflicts.

Since them I have had a lot of fun looking things up to post. Getting my thoughts in shape to post has helped clarify an number of issues. My writing has improved marginally. So as I find things that are interesting, important, or entertaining I’ll keep posting. Who knows maybe some one will read them.

Senator McCain and Torture

Wretchard at the Belmont Club has made an open post asking questions on the McCain Admendment restricting torture. He includes the text and related links.

A long time ago, I presented my opnion on Torture which bears repeating. The comments below I posted as a contribution to Wretchards discussion.


The GWOT torture presents an opportunity that would not appear in a
conventional war. In a conventional war one would capture a 100 or so prisoners
and a reasonable percentage will blab without any pressure. There is no point in
torturing the rest for duplicate information. Officers and technitions with
valuable information are not allowed near the front. In the GWOT because other
means of information are less usable, a single prisoner can be potential source of
major information. Is this a justification for torture?

I would say not.


There are several minor points against the use of torture and I would say a
big one.

Minor

It is not very reliable. The subject is inclined to say what will end the
session, i.e. what they think the interrogator expects to hear. The interrogator
quite possibly does not have the means to sort this out. Since it is what the
interrogator expects to hear they will give it little challenge.

Usually the prisoner will talk without torture sooner or later.

It opens our soldiers to retaliation in kind. Even if the
current enemy does not a future one may do so.

It gives a motive to enemy personnel not to surrender, increasing our
casualties.

Allowing torture and similar activities tends to break down military
discipline. Having allowed it in one case it is much harder to expect orders not
to do similar things to be obeyed in other cases.

If it becomes public it creates a terrific public affairs problem and
invites outside intervention into the running of our armed forces.

The Major Problem.

If we allow torture then we will sink to the level of Osma bin Laden and
his scum. Even when bin Laden loses (which he will in any case) we will lose
even more!



-------------

Jon Holdaway writing in Phil Carters Intel Dump that the admendment is another case of

. . . bad cases make bad law, and this is a prime example. Congress' desire to get its arm around the detainee abuse scandals is understandable, but to shift from its oversight role to its lawmaking role in order to fix the problem is not the approach to take. Statutes, by their nature, are like using a chain saw to do brain surgery, especially in an esoteric and complicated area such as interrogations.


The key paragraph of the law states:

(a) IN GENERAL.--No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

It seems to me that Senator McCains staff did not do much research.

Field manuals are usually cited by number (FM-XX) and date as well as title. So what is being refered to here? Can the Secretary of the Army change the law by amending the Field Manual? I suppose the courts will hold to the version in effect on the date of passage, hoping there aren’t two field manauals that address the issue. In any case it is usually considered good pratice for in items central to a law regulation or such to copy the text into the document rather than include something by referance.

A field manual is technically a recommendation not an order. The manual is written as reccomendations to approachs among legal techniques, not as a list of what is legal or not. Holdaway gives good review of the problems this will cause.

Is this to be part of Title X (Department of Defense) or XVIII (Criminal) of the Federal Code. Following the link back to Wretchards source the orgianal states At the appropriate place, insert the following: Since it does not list sanctions it is probably intended for Title X. If it were part of Title XVIII then any civilian official who violates the action the section would face criminal prosecution. If it is under Title X only military personnel would be subject to this criminal action under Article 92(1) (Disobeying a general order) or Article 134 (Conduct Prejudicial.) I would think that a law of this type should carry sanctions for everyone involved. This will leave the little guys holding the bag for directives that the higher up assured were legal.

The amendment is that it is worded so as not to interfere in normal criminal prosecutions, and to define prohibited actions in terms that follow existing case law. Not having either of these would cause intolerable amounts of confusion. But Holdaway points out this could import criminal procedure into POW interrogation procedures. A POW is not normally being interrogated with intent to prosecute; criminal procedure would at best be irrelevant.



I have no use for torture, but laws writen for public relations usually turn out to cause more problems than the solve. This could very well turn out like the “War Powers Act” which actully gives the President more war powers than he had previously, the exact opposite of the authors intent.

Cross posted to Wretcherds post.



UPDATE November 13,2005:

Wretchard made a follow up post. He writes:

I'm going to make a personal prediction. The number of incidents involving the torture of terrorist suspects will increase after the McCain Amendment, or something like it, is passed. There will be a fall in the number of interrogation incidents in US custody. It may even become zero. However, there will be a corresponding increase in torture incidents involving agencies of other governments, including European governments, all of whom will fully subscribe to every piece of human rights legislation which can be imagined, but who in practice will simply do what they want.

I don’t think that was going very far out on a limb.

Paris is Burning.

Well the northern suburbs anyway.

Gateway Pundit has a good round up. The Assoicated press reports the riots are gaining momentum. They report that there has been a week of riots, which is about how long they have been reported with any prominence in the US. There are also riots in Dijon and in Demark. Nouvelobs reported on the October 19th, a week before the riots started,

Nicolas Sarkozy a annoncé mercredi 19 octobre le prochain déploiement dans les quartiers sensibles de 17 compagnies républicaines de sécurité (CRS) et de sept escadrons de gendarmes mobiles dans le cadre d'une "guerre sans merci" contre les violences urbaines.

Nicolas Sarkozy announced Wednesday October 19 the next deployment in the sensitive districts of 17 Republican Security Companies (CRS) and seven squadrons of Mobile Gendarmes to conduct a "war without mercy" against urban violence. (I cleaned up the Babel Fish translation)

This sounds a lot more serious than has been reported in the US.

Roger Simon has correspondence from an American in Paris.

Brian Dunn of Dignified Rant looks at some root causes.


Some Observations
------------------------

Many years ago I was studying in Paris France. Over all it was a very positive experience.

One aspect that I did not like was the gross racism. A large number of foreign workers were imported from the former colonies, especially Algeria, to do all sorts of menial work. Paris apparently does not have pooper scooper laws, every day the Algerians were out on the street with large sweep brooms cleaning up Fido’s mess. The French treated the Algerians as lower than the merde de chien they were paid to sweep up.

I can see no justification for the riots in Paris. The people who live in these neighborhoods are going to be worse off no matter what happens, and probably their worst possobility is if the French Government backs down. However, I cannot help feeling the French are reaping what they sowed.

-----------------

Europe, including France imports a much larger percentage of their oil than the US, and a larger portion of that is from the Middle East. Europe needs to buy cheap oil, which is heavily taxed to fund the welfare state. Also much Arab oil profits are invested in Europe, and he who pays the fiddler calls the tune. The riots put the French in a bind, they need to restore order, but to harsh a policy risks annoying the Arab oil governments, which is close to financial suicide in an economy that is not to healthy to begin with.

---------------------------------------

The Progressive Multicultural worldview of the French elites has hurt on the French working classes. There is massive unemployment but where there are jobs they are held for less wages by immigrants. The crime problems that came with the immigrants fell mostly on the working class. The elites policies also lock the immigrants in ghettos with even worse unempolyment lower wages and serious crime. French society has two large groups that at least do not like each other and blame each other for their problems. The French elites have been (positive) following a well-intentioned policy that is irrelevant to the concerns and needs of both groups, or (negative) playing a cynical game of both ends against the middle to maintain power. Take your pick.

__________________

The French Police structure is interesting. Directly related to current events is the riot police, Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (CRS). When I was there they had a reputation as being tough, effective, and disregarding human rights. Most of the worlds riot police were issued riot clubs or bayoneted rifles; the CRS were allegedly issued sub-machine guns because they were expected to use them. But the reputation was enough so that if several buses of CRS parked a few blocks from a demonstration it suddenly became more peaceful and dispersed after a face saving period of time. Whilw part of the Naitonal Police they are organized on a military basis, whin I was there most of the manpower was consripted. The NCO’s did not worry me too much, they knew what they were doing and if you were not the subject of their orders you shouldn’t have a problem. What scared me most was the troops: nervous 19 year old conscripts, who given the short term of service could not have excessive amounts of training, and armed with sub-machine guns, hopefully that has improved. That year there was a general strike in Paris. One evening walking home I saw the CRS with sirens blaring going the same direction I was, I turned around and walked an extra mile to get home.

__________________________


Guesses on future events

Riots do not happen in cold weather unless there is a genuine food or heat shortage. These riots will be over by December.

By next summer, unless Chriac can pull off something beyond his demonstrated ability, the pent up anger will be like gasoline waiting for spark. In June and July when the temperatures get into the 90 degree range, a trivial event will cause a blow up. And Jihadists will be much better placed to exploit the situation.

If the CRS looses its reputation for toughness and effectiveness, there will be much more violence in France next summer, and not just by Moslem immigrants. If CRS busses in the city are not enough to discourage a rioters etc. the French government will have to use them in situations that would otherwise have defused themselves. I doubt the troubles will be confined to France or they might start elsewhere and spred to France.

The worst case would be a repeat of the Battle of Grozny in the First Chechen war. But once done this is a known problem, it didn’t work at Fulajah and it won’t work in France unless the French lose their nerve.

The summer of 2006 in Europe will be a hot one in more ways than one.

After temporizing with multicultural lip service and mending fences with oil providers, the French Government will remember that in the ultimate extremity a government that will not shoot dissidents in the street will be replaced by one that does. The crack down will be brutal.

Long term I see two possibilities,

1) Europe will be ripped apart at the seams.
2) Just as the US and Canada are said to have developed a national identity because of the War of 1812, this could forge a genuine European identity that will make the European Union a de facto entity as well as a de jure. A very high price to pay for European unity. If this results in replacing the current political leadership with people who have more realistic world view Europe may achieve the dream of the original founders of the Common Market.


Note: I enjoyed my time in France and I do like the French. Pray for Peace in France and the safety of everyone there.

An Interview with the Secretary of Defence

Can we have complete agreement that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is at least controversial?

He does have some good points as well as bad points, I somehow think the Armed Forces, the President and the country would have been better served if he was enjoying a non-stressful retirement.

One of his most persistent critics, from a “Is this good defense policy?” basis is Joe Galloway of Knight Rider

Unlike the hysteria from the anti-war movement he knows what he is talking about and delivers clear, accurate, and concise reports. He was the reporter that was with the 2-7th Cav at Ia Drang and has covered most US military actions wars as an “embedded” reporter, almost a novelty, before the Iraq invasion. In addition to an encyclopedic knowledge, he as a very good feel for what is plausible and what is pure BS. And always his foremost concern for the solider, marine, sailor, and airman, because that is who he is and not as a political ploy.

His latest article A battle joined with the Pentagon's upper echelon is an interview with Secretary Rumsfled and five other leaders form DOD,

Highlights.
Then the battle was joined: "I'm not hearing anything like the things you are writing about," Rumsfeld said. I responded that it had been my experience that information coming up the chain to someone with Rumsfeld's reputation was often not the whole truth. Him: "Oh, I know that but I talk to lots of soldiers all the time. Why, I have given over 600 Town Hall meetings and anyone can ask me anything." Uh-huh.

The Secretary’s screaming in staff meetings and publicly humiliating senior people who disagree with him is legendary. Can’t think of a better way to discourage constructive criticism.
Galloway responded that half of his sources are current active duty, some in the pentagon, and “perhaps some even on his staff.”

Rumsfeld said he had told Iraqi leaders that the American forces needed to begin stepping back because the growing casualties were having an impact on American public support for the war "and they understand that and agree with it."

Well, think the military situation calls for it, but is the Secretary making decisions on the basis of military reality of domestic politics?

When I asked why would the Army send bill collectors out to pursue soldiers who lost limbs to a bomb or mine because they didn't check in their armor and the equipment on leaving Iraq or Afghanistan, or were dunned or their paychecks docked for overpayment of combat pay and benefits, Cody and Rumsfeld spoke of a Pentagon computer system that had been running on automatic.

It is true that the systems were running on automatic. But he is the Secretary of Defense, they are his troops, did he ever ask before it became a news item what problems the war was causing to administrative systems and the state of medical care? I assume he does care, but this is not the first time he has been tone deaf to the needs of his troops. We should also remember that the situation is the result of many years pressure from both parties and the governments accounting agencies that wanted a more “automatic” system of debt collection to prevent frauds waste and abuse. There are many more guilty here than the Secretary of Defence.

(Marine General) Pace (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) said he agreed totally with one recent column that decried the apparent return to the use of enemy body counts in Iraq. Rumsfeld said flatly: "We are NOT going to do body counts." Me: But you ARE doing body counts and releasing them; been doing it for a year and the frequency is growing. If you don't want to do body counts then stop doing them.

I agree with everybody we shouldn’t be doing body counts; I thought there was an order against that. They are at best a distraction. Let’s (issue it and) enforce it.


On the way out the defense secretary said, in parting: "I want you to know that I love soldiers and I care about soldiers. All of us here do." I replied that concern for the troops and their welfare and safety were my only purpose "and I intend to keep kicking your butt regularly to make sure you stay focused on that goal."

Way to go Joe.

Read the whole thing, and his other columns. You will have a much better perspective than the normal pro and con.

Be Nice to the New Guy

Bob, a friend going back to the old Lycos Message Boards, has created his own blog, To Be Like Jesus. I am sure he will provide much interesting and provocative reading

Casualties

With all the press comment on reaching 2000 Killed in Action (an event that is tragic to the soldiers and their families, but no real indicator of military significance) the site meter has been recieving a lot of hits on this post I made on Viet Nam 1966 vs Iraq 2004. Comparing the wars on casualties is rather pointless because the wars are so different on many levels. I created a template for analyzing events, MaoThought or Who is Wining.

My various comments on this blog about Iraq.

The Great Game in the 21st Century

J E Pournell of Chaos Manor makes the following introduction (which is to good to pass up)

If you lie flattened on Pakistan's plains
And a P-wave comes by, to mix gravel and brains
Just scroll to Dow's website, for there Seitz explains
Why the Hindu Kush is raining boulders
scroll to near the bottom - I assume Kipling would not mind.


To an excellent article on the Pakistan earthquakes by Russell Seitz in the Opnion Journal

The first and last paragraphs

When Kipling was a cub reporter in Lahore, the area struck by Saturday's earthquake was a blank on the map separating British India from the "Independent Khanates of Chinese Turkistan." Washington scarcely cared if the Victorian Empire needed a weapon of mass destruction called the Maxim gun to deter hotheads along the Northwest Frontier, for it was a long way from anywhere. Now America's concerns are more ecumenical and acute: Pakistan's 1998 bomb test conjoined the world's three great monotheistic religions in a nuclear trinity (to say nothing of the polytheistic Hindus nearby, with their own nuclear saga).


Mountains like the Karakoram and the Hindu Kush will go on rising whether borders or empires stand or fall, and the erosive force of the Indus River will sweep away whatever the angry earth throws down as the tectonic plates continue their collision. Saturday's quake was as powerful as the one that leveled San Francisco, but one of these centuries the rafting together of the Asian and Indus plates will rock the subcontinent with quakes a hundred times stronger, as it has before. It may take a harder shock than Saturday's to persuade the subcontinent's capitals to recognize that, partition notwithstanding, they are in the same tectonic boat. The region's conflicts may seem intractable, but the Earth is ever patient in its diplomacy. The civilizations of South Asia have a half-billion years' grace in which to resolve their age-old differences before the slow tectonic violence that has put fossil seashells atop Everest crumples Ceylon--unserendipitously--into the mountainous seashore of Tibet.

And there is lots of good stuff in between.





ALSO: We should remember the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan in our prayers and remember to contribute the relief effort if you can.

A Wobbly Affair

Baron Bodisey of Gates of Vienna discovered a link for a far left fringe group and had great fun commenting on the contents.


This reminded me of when I was in graduate school and one of my left leaning friends and her husband invited me to their apartment warming party. She spent part of her afternoons volunteering at the “union.” She said there would be some friends from the union at the party. It turned out it party was also the May Day Party for the local chapter of the Industrial Workers of the World.

It was an interesting party, I got to talk to some people with whom would not normally of had a discussion. Some interesting comments stuck in my memory.

“I admire X’s revolutionary commitment, but taking a shower every a week or so would not be selling out.”

Two mothers talking about potty training.
“I don’t think I’m oppressing him enough, but I really hate to oppress him.”
“You have to oppress him, it is the only way.”

They, much to their surprise, actually organized an employer’s work force, however there reasonable demands convinced the employer to dissolve the business.
Person1 “I wonder if we have some obligation to the workers we represent”.
Person 2 “ this is good, it will increase discontent and advance the revolution.”


I am glad X has some friends who are tolerant of his lifestyle choices.

There is a theory in some extreme leftist circles that the only possible human relationship is oppression. A number of people there used a cognate of “to oppress” to describe relationships where oppression seemed completely out of place. That people are so convinced of this that they can only think of raising their children as oppressing them, if nothing else, convinces me that there is something basically wrong with this proposition. The obvious love of these mothers for their children disproves the proposition. And if such a group ever gets in power someplace; “oppression” is the only form rule they could implement

The genuine surprise they had that they could force an employer out of business was amusing, they are dedicated to helping the worker and they have little knowledge of work place economics. That some on them would consider the possibility that they might have an obligation to the workers they represent was refreshing. The suggestion that allowing or promoting opressive situations in order to promote the revolution goes back to at least Lenin. It seems to be an acceptable if not dogmatic concept in far left groups.


There is an old saw about the radical left that they love humanity, it’s people they hate. I would not doubt the sincerity in their love for an abstract proletariat, but their ideas would be the nightmare to the actual working people I know.

A Man There is Always Alone

South Coast, the wild coast is lonely,
you may win at the game at Jolon
But the lion still rules the barrancas and
a man there is always alone.

My name is Juan Hano de Castro, my father was a Spanish grandee
But I won my wife in a card game, to hell with the lords o'er the sea
I picked up the ace, I had won her, my heart which was down at my feet
Jumped up to my throat in a hurry, like a warm summer's day she was sweet

[Chorus]

Her arms had to tighten around me as we rode up the hills from the South
Not a word did I hear from her that day, nor a kiss from her pretty red mouth
We came to my cabin at twilight, the stars twinkled out on the coast
She soon loved the valley, the orchard, but I knew that she loved me the most

[Chorus]

Then I got hurt in a landslide with crushed hip and twice-broken bone
She saddled our pony like lightning, rode off in the night all alone
The lion screamed in the barrancas, the pony fell back on the slide
My young wife lay dead in the moonlight, my heart died that night with my bride

[Chorus]

Sung by the Kingston Trio

I bought the Kingston Trio Platinum Collection CD which has a selection across much of their career. It has the classics but also a number of there lesser known songs. The song selection seems a lot darker than I remember from hearing the Kingston Trio as a teenager.

A very disturbing number was South Coast from 1958/9. The story is set in a rather lawless place and time in Spanish Latin America. I do not know if the authors are reflecting on too many pirate movies or an actual place time and incident. The Kingston Trio’s arrangement and performance heighten the tension. There are questions that bother me.


My name is Juan Hano de Castro, . . . But I won my wife in a card game

Even in an era where women had few formal rights and marriages were arranged, offering a girl as a bet in a card game may not be without precedent but it is rather unusual. Why did this girl get offered as a bet? What did she think about this? Why was it to her advantage to accept the situation?


My name is Juan Hano de Castro, my father was a Spanish grandee . . . my heart which was down at my feet Jumped up to my throat in a hurry . . She soon loved the valley, the orchard, but I knew that she loved me the most

But Juan Hano de Castro, taking his story at his word is a lonely man, in a place where one would not find a wife for the son of a Spanish Grandee. But a girl who melts his heart drops into his lap, so to speak. Was there a marriage or did he just start calling her his wife? Did she agree to this, willingly or other wise? Much is unsaid of their relationship when he gets back to his cabin. How long were they there? Neighbors? Friends? Children,? Servants? Did Juan treat her as the Senora of the Hacienda, such as it was, or a cook and bed partner? Apparently he fell more in love with her. He thinks she grew to love him also.


My young wife lay dead in the moonlight, my heart died that night with my bride

He is hurt in a landslide. She is quick to saddle and mount their pony. Is she riding for help or taking advantage of the situation to run? But the lions startles her pony it trips and she is killed. Did Juan’s heart die because he knows he was wrong about her love, or because she died? I would hope for the latter but suspect the former.

South Coast, the wild coast is lonely,
you may win at the game at Jolon
But the lion still rules the barrancas and
a man there is always alone
a man there is always alone.

Updated 10/07/05 - again- 09/25/07

Update 05/30/2009

Listen

Fort Sheridan

.

Book Review: Fort Sheridan

Images of America Series

Dianna Dretske
Arcadia Publishing

The cover photo. 135th Birthday of the 2d Infantry 1926















. Front Gate 1965






The water tower - the signature land mark


The Images of America series are short books of photographs about different aspects of the United States, in this case Fort Sheridan. I bought his book because I spent much time there on reserve and civilian employment.

Several years ago the Base Closure and Realignment process closed Fort Sheridan Illinois. The value of property on the North Shore is so high that the political pressure to sell it overruled any objections that the cost/benefit ratios did not justify closing it.

There are photographs of all aspects of military life from the 100 year history of the post, organized by topics. The ce la plus change ce la meme chose aspect was interesting. The uniforms changed, civilian styles changed but still soldiers and their families were making a life where the Army sent them, and this was probably one of the nicer assignments. Especially interesting were the trick horsemanship pictures from when the 14th Cavalry was stationed there.

The purpose of an Army is to go to war. The units and soldiers deployed form Fort Sheridan here served in conflicts from the Spanish American War to the First Gulf War. Many of the units once stationed at Fort Sheridan continue to serve and several are serving or have served in Iraq. The Second Infantry on the cover photo participated in the capture of Fulajah.


The post has now been converted in to a rather pricey condominium named the Town of Fort Sheridan. I drove through it a while back. It is very well done keeping architectural continuity of the orginal post. Behind the main buildings that were orginally barracks there is a nother row of building that were originally cook houses. The ugliest buildings you ever wanted to see. These are now spruced up nicely and sell as condominium apartments at several hundred thousand dollars each.

This was fun trip down memory lane.












Barracks north side Barracks south side and cook houses on right

A privates dream barracks A new condo

Katrina - National Guard Assitance

As the events of Hurricane Katrina unfolded I noticed several things that seemed unusual to me. First is that National Guard troops seemed to be leaving their home states with out being federalized. This was first that National Guard from several states were staging in Tennessee to support operations in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. After Katrina made landfall the troops going to support were National Guard units from across the country. There was no news story of the National Guard being federalized. When the National Guard went into New Orleans it was under the command of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, which one would normally assume is not an operational command position. My expectation was that the state National Guard would be federalized and reinforced with large numbers of Active Duty Federal troops. The Federal troops were mostly Coast Guard and Navy that came to the coast and units that were stationed in the area.

The National Guard is both a Militia of the State under the Constitution’s Milita clauses, and a Reserve of the Army under the power of Congress to raise an Army. This means that the National Guard can be called to state active duty as a militia of the state by the governor, called to federal active duty as the militia of the United States with the consent of the governor or ordered to active duty by the President as a reserve of the Army. If the National Guard was to leave it’s home state in an active status I thought it would have to be federalized. (Note: I discuss the history of the militia from a different angle here but the pertinent background is there.)

Thanks to Google I did a little research.

In the 1990’s the states and Congress agreed to the the Emergency Management Assistance Compact EMAC to provide a vehicle for states to assist each other in an emergency. (Pre-Katrina overview.) This compact was made on the iniative of several state governors under the authority of Section 10 Article I on the US Constitution, since compacts are passed as laws of the states that agree to them and by Congress they have the force of law at both state and federal levels. The law of the states that agree to the compact is that the governor will request National Guard support in an emergency from other states that are members of the compact, which by their own law must provide it. The troops remain on state active duty. The requesting state is responsible for funding (almost certain to be reimbursed by the federal government.) The loaned National Guard units have the same status as the requesting states National Guard, no Posse Comitatus Act and no federal supremacy doctrine. The largest previous use of National Guard under the compact was 800 Guardsman, mostly specialized units during last year’s hurricanes in Florida.

The Compact covers more than the National Guard. It can authorize all kinds of non-military assistance. This is important because what is often needed is not the military but professionals in the specialized fields of local government. News reports tell of support in police, fire, public health, medical areas and I'm sure many others. FEMA and other Federal agencies apparently have their disaster assistance programs coordinated with EMAC Compact.

This compact has been governing emergency assistance for ten years, and seems to have worked well for emergencies that required much less support. The thing that puts the Compact into operation is the request from the governor of the effected state. Mississippi and Alabma requested assistance 24 hours before the Katrina arrived. It is not clear from the news reports I have read when the Louisiana request was made, some reports suggest up to 48 hours after the levee broke. The news reports show that once the assistance was on the ground it worked well. There were a some lesser problems with implementation due to the size of the call up and key people at all levels not understanding their roles under EMAC. It appears there is a need for some better planning for large emergencies. There also needs to be a way to require key officials to be briefed and understand their roles in an emergency before it happens.



I think this is a good approach to emergency relief. It is a means to provide assistance to a state, which can be tailored to need, and without the complications of dual federal and state jurisdiction. It is completely in keeping with the Federal nature of the Republic, assistance can be provided with out stretching the Constitution. It should be improved not scrapped.

For more information do Google searches on EMAC National Guard, EMAC FEMA, EMAC Katrina, or EMAC with whatever other term you are interested in. eMac by itself will tell you all about Apple Computers.


NOTE: The Posse Comitatus Act governs and restricts the use of federal troops in law enforcement roles. The exception to the Posse Comitatus Act I and II that allows the President to put federal troops in a law enforcement role also requires a request from the state governor. Many other federal emergency assistance programs also need a request for the state governor to be implemented.

Nine Eleven -- A Memorial

A couple weeks after 9/11 I was in the hospital waiting room. The television was droning something that someone else was watching; when Robin Williams came on with one of those short commemorations to the heroes of 9/11. I glanced at the screen and saw . . .

. . . Major Rescorla was the squadron executive officer of our reserve unit.

Something of a legend, he had served in three armies,
with a Silver Star, Bronze Stars with “V”s, Purple Hearts,
and too much else to count. At first glance a snake eater,
but when you talked to him you realized the tough
exterior hid a deep intellect and compassion.

Loud, larger than life, and full of fun,
he could take the joke as well as give it out.
As he was walking back to our area one day the
Sergeants decided to from a “chain.” They walked
past him with just enough interval that he had
to return thirty some hand salutes one at a time.
He was laughing out loud by the end of the chain.

As XO, he was the chief of staff, a staff that didn’t
call attention to itself, but plans worked and soldiers
were supported. And always, more than most any officer
I ever met, he would always make the extra effort
to take care of his soldiers. To the point of making
a trip to Division HQ to get a privates records
straightened out.

When we had Squadron runs he would finish close behind
the nineteen year olds, and without missing a step turn
around go to the rear, set a pace and hustle up the stragglers.

He had the stereotypical command voice of a British
Regimental Sergeant Major. A little less effective
when we realized his bark was worse than his bite.
One summer camp the officers were put in the Hospital
area for quarters. The lieutenants and captains in
one wing and the Major and Colonel in the next, they
wanted some quiet. However it turned out the next wing
over housed the enlisted soldiers of the hospital.
And inclined to spend all night partying on the lawn
between the wings. Until one night about 0100 hours
Major Rescorla stood on the porch in his skivvies
and with that command voice put them to bed.

He was promoted and took command of another
squadron and then moved to New York for
his civilian job.


When the planes hit, the evacuation plan was sound
and rehearsed. He took 2500 people out of the building
on the sound of that voice. When informed some his
people were still in the building he went back
to get them. Last seen going up.

. . . And as Robin went off and the TV returned to the regularly scheduled commercials I was thinking. . .

“Husslin’ up stragglers, couldn’t do any thing else!”

Richard C Rescorla, Colonel, Infantry, USAR, Retired.
Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Katrina - Calling for Heads on a Platter

/Rantmode=ON

Well it has started. Katrina’s level IV winds (actually approaching level V) smashed into the Gulf Coast with hurricane defenses designed for level III storms. So before all the survivors are rescued and the damage assessed people are demanding the heads of those supposedly responsible (that is the heads of their usual opponents) be delivered on a platter.

Actually, while there was more damage than usual because of the stronger than normal hurricane, the relief actions came on rather quickly, except for New Orleans after the levee broke. The flood caused by the levees knocked out major transportation arteries into New Orleans, damaged the emergency communication systems, and destroyed pre-stocked supplies and equipment that the relief agencies would use to recover. It took three or so days to do what would have been done in hours.

Depending on affiliation, there are those who are calling for the heads at the federal level currently controlled by the Republicans, or heads at the state and city levels currently controlled by the Democrats. And who knows maybe some of them did do something malfeasant, but should we call for heads before we really know what failed and why?

New Orleans’ levees were built over the last hundred and fifty or so years. Of course the biggest problem is that the levees were built to withstand a level III storm. Every year at least one level III hurricane hits the US coast. It is easy to convince people that spending money on a threat that happens someplace every year. But level IV and V hurricanes are much more infrequent. My engineer friends point out a rule of thumb that protecting the last 10% of any thing costs at least as much as the first 90%. So when you explain the cost of upgrading the hurricane defenses to level IV, you are talking about an extremely expensive project. In any given city on the coast the probability of a level VI hurricane in the life time of the current inhabitants is minimal. It will happen someplace but it is easy rationalize away the chance that it will happen here. Not that any one is really against upgrading per se, there are just so many other good projects competing for limited funds. Politicians of all stripes prefer projects with a visible payout to their constituencies in a time frame where the voters will connect the benefits with the politician. The price tag, waiting for many years in Congress to fund, to develop the plan to upgrade the New Orleans levees to level IV is eight billion dollars. Every one will have projects that produce more immediate and visible results, so it wasn’t funded.


There certainly needs to be a major review of what happened, what went wrong, and what to do about it. It is possible that it will turn out that current leaders actually did do something malfeasant, but we should wait until the evidence is in. But we should not call for heads of the current leadership to make us feel better, get some political advantage, or deflect ones own responsibilities. The real cause is that the practical consensus of the whole political system was that upgrading the levees would cost more than anyone was willing to spend.

So get the platters and bring on the heads.

Or better yet note the politicians, of both parties, who are calling for heads and on election day hand them their own heads.

/Rantmode=OFF