Showing posts with label US military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US military. Show all posts
Aug 27, 2024
Nov 4, 2023
Jun 14, 2023
Ukraine
"It (defending Ukraine) matters, not because we love the people, but because of where it sits on the map. If we think strategically about the Black Sea Region, we'll be a lot more clever with our interactions with our Turkish ally..." and we can better understand the importance of other countries like Georgia and Romania, etc.
For myself, I do have an emotional connection with Ukraine because I have a familial connection there. And while I don't know any indigenous Ukrainians, I definitely feel a pretty strong bond, which goes along with, and strengthens my support for the strategic aspects of this big fuckin' mess that Putin's ego has blundered us all into.
Слава Україні
🌎🌏🌍 ❤️ 🇺🇦
Mar 11, 2023
Oct 8, 2022
Un-Fun Fact
At $800B ($800,000,000,000.00) per year,
the amount we spend on the US military
is greater than the GDP
of all but about 15 countries in the world.
What makes it really hard to push down on the spending is the fact that right now, the Ukrainians are using our weapons (and without a whole lot of training) to make the Russian army look a lot worse than they really are.
There are of course, other factors - all the NATO allies have pitched in quite a bit - but the tide really started to turn when the M777s showed up, and then the HIMARS, and soon (possibly) some F-16s too.
There has to be a way to find a better balance.
I don't now what that is, but we could expand nationwide programs and really dig into solving problems of mental health, hunger, crime, and homelessness with less than 10% of what we spend on ways to blow shit up.
Dec 11, 2021
Today In History
U.S. Army Executes 13 Black Soldiers in Houston, Texas
On December 11, 1917, the U.S. Army executed 13 Black soldiers who had been previously court-martialed and denied any right to appeal. In July 1917, the all-Black 3rd Battalion of the 24th United States Infantry Regiment was stationed at Camp Logan, near Houston, Texas, to guard white soldiers preparing for deployment to Europe. From the beginning of their assignment at Camp Logan, the Black soldiers were harassed and abused by the Houston police force.
Early on August 23, 1917, several soldiers, including a well-respected corporal, were brutally beaten and jailed by police. Police officers regularly beat African American troops and arrested them on baseless charges; the August 23 assault was the latest in a string of police abuses that had pushed the Black soldiers to their breaking point.
Seemingly under attack by local white authorities, over 150 Black soldiers armed themselves and left for Houston to confront the police about the persistent violence. They planned to stage a peaceful march to the police station as a demonstration against their mistreatment by police. However, just outside the city, the soldiers encountered a mob of armed white men. In the ensuing violence, four soldiers, four policemen, and 12 civilians were killed.
In the aftermath, the military investigated and court-martialed 157 Black soldiers, trying them in three separate proceedings. In the first military trial, held in November 1917, 63 soldiers were tried and 54 were convicted on all charges. At sentencing, 13 were sentenced to death and 43 received life imprisonment. The 13 condemned soldiers were denied any right to appeal and were hanged on December 11, 1917.
The second and third trials resulted in death sentences for an additional 16 soldiers; however, those men were given the opportunity to appeal, largely due to negative public reactions to the first 13 unlawful executions. President Woodrow Wilson ultimately commuted the death sentences for 10 of the remaining soldiers facing death, but the remaining six were hanged. In total, the Houston unrest resulted in the executions of 19 Black soldiers. NAACP advocacy and legal assistance later helped secure the early release of most of the 50 soldiers serving life sentences. No white civilians were ever brought to trial for involvement in the violence.
Oct 1, 2021
On Leaving Afghanistan
Generally, as kind of a default, I'm in favor of going out of our way to help when a fledgling new government is trying to stand up a working democracy.
We Now Know Why Biden Was in a Hurry to Exit Afghanistan
He made several missteps, but on the big picture, he was right.
There was a moment in Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the withdrawal from Afghanistan when it became clear why President Joe Biden decided to get the troops out of there as quickly as possible.
It came when Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained why he and the other chiefs—the top officers of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines—all agreed that we needed to pull out by Aug. 31. The Doha agreement, which President Donald Trump had signed with the Taliban in early 2020 (with no participation by the Afghan government), required a total withdrawal of foreign forces. If U.S. troops had stayed beyond August, Milley said, the Taliban would have resumed the fighting, and, in order to stave off the attacks, “we would have needed 30,000 troops” and would have suffered “many casualties.”
And yet, as Milley also testified on Tuesday, he, the chiefs, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and other military officers advised Biden to keep 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the Aug. 31 deadline. The difference is that those troops wouldn’t be attached to any “military mission.” Instead, they would “transition” to a “diplomatic mission.”
However, it is extremely unlikely that the Taliban would have observed the semantic distinction. In their eyes, 2,500 U.S. troops would be seen as 2,500 U.S. troops, regardless of whether their mission was officially said to be “military” or “diplomatic.” Therefore, the Taliban would resume fighting, as Milley said they would, and Biden would then have been faced with a horrendous choice—to pull out while under attack or send in another 30,000 troops.
Some historical-psychological perspective is worth noting. In the first nine months of Barack Obama’s presidency, the generals were pushing for a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan—an increase of 40,000 troops—and a shift to a counterinsurgency (aka “nation-building”) strategy. Biden, who was then vice president, was alone in suggesting an increase of just 10,000 troops, to be used solely for training the Afghan army and for fighting terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistani border. As Obama recalls in his memoir, Biden urged the new and relatively inexperienced president not to be “boxed in” by the generals. Give them 40,000 troops now, and in 18 months, they’ll say they need another 40,000 to win the war. As Obama later acknowledged, Biden was right.
And so, as Milley was advising Biden to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, even while acknowledging that another 30,000 might be needed if the Taliban resumed fighting, it’s easy to imagine Biden thinking, “They’re trying to box me in, just like they did before, just like they’ve always done since the Vietnam War,” which was raging when Biden first entered the Senate in 1973 and has shaped his views on war and peace ever since.
Milley and Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the head of Central Command, both acknowledged at the hearing that the U.S. military was flying blind through much of its 20-year war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history. The officers of the day tried to mold the Afghan army in their own image, making them too dependent on U.S. technology and support, so that once we withdrew, collapse was inevitable. Milley also noted that he and the other officers paid too little attention to Afghan culture and to the corrosive effects of the Afghan government’s corruption and lack of popular legitimacy. So, Biden might well have been thinking, why should he pay attention to anything these guys had to say on the war in Afghanistan, which they’ve been wrong about from the very beginning?
Biden made several missteps, some of them disastrous, in the pace and sequence of the withdrawal. Most of all, he should have pulled out all the spies, contractors, U.S. citizens, and Afghan helpers before pulling out all the troops. But on the big picture, he was right, and the generals, as they now grudgingly admit, were wrong.
But no matter who you are, there's always a couple of problems with that, and especially so when you're the dominant power on the planet:
1) We can't be everybody's guardian - everybody's mentoring uncle. We have to choose our projects a lot more wisely, and then do it a lot better.
2) Our good intentions are usually worth exactly diddly-shit when there are assholes like Dick Cheney and Tom Cotton in on the deal - guys who wear The Helper mask so it's hard to recognize them as The Conquerors they truly want to be - so we'll always draw some harsh criticism for throwing our shit around.
Anyway, here's a piece from Slate lining it out pretty well.
We Now Know Why Biden Was in a Hurry to Exit Afghanistan
He made several missteps, but on the big picture, he was right.
There was a moment in Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the withdrawal from Afghanistan when it became clear why President Joe Biden decided to get the troops out of there as quickly as possible.
It came when Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained why he and the other chiefs—the top officers of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines—all agreed that we needed to pull out by Aug. 31. The Doha agreement, which President Donald Trump had signed with the Taliban in early 2020 (with no participation by the Afghan government), required a total withdrawal of foreign forces. If U.S. troops had stayed beyond August, Milley said, the Taliban would have resumed the fighting, and, in order to stave off the attacks, “we would have needed 30,000 troops” and would have suffered “many casualties.”
And yet, as Milley also testified on Tuesday, he, the chiefs, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and other military officers advised Biden to keep 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the Aug. 31 deadline. The difference is that those troops wouldn’t be attached to any “military mission.” Instead, they would “transition” to a “diplomatic mission.”
However, it is extremely unlikely that the Taliban would have observed the semantic distinction. In their eyes, 2,500 U.S. troops would be seen as 2,500 U.S. troops, regardless of whether their mission was officially said to be “military” or “diplomatic.” Therefore, the Taliban would resume fighting, as Milley said they would, and Biden would then have been faced with a horrendous choice—to pull out while under attack or send in another 30,000 troops.
Some historical-psychological perspective is worth noting. In the first nine months of Barack Obama’s presidency, the generals were pushing for a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan—an increase of 40,000 troops—and a shift to a counterinsurgency (aka “nation-building”) strategy. Biden, who was then vice president, was alone in suggesting an increase of just 10,000 troops, to be used solely for training the Afghan army and for fighting terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistani border. As Obama recalls in his memoir, Biden urged the new and relatively inexperienced president not to be “boxed in” by the generals. Give them 40,000 troops now, and in 18 months, they’ll say they need another 40,000 to win the war. As Obama later acknowledged, Biden was right.
And so, as Milley was advising Biden to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, even while acknowledging that another 30,000 might be needed if the Taliban resumed fighting, it’s easy to imagine Biden thinking, “They’re trying to box me in, just like they did before, just like they’ve always done since the Vietnam War,” which was raging when Biden first entered the Senate in 1973 and has shaped his views on war and peace ever since.
Milley and Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the head of Central Command, both acknowledged at the hearing that the U.S. military was flying blind through much of its 20-year war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history. The officers of the day tried to mold the Afghan army in their own image, making them too dependent on U.S. technology and support, so that once we withdrew, collapse was inevitable. Milley also noted that he and the other officers paid too little attention to Afghan culture and to the corrosive effects of the Afghan government’s corruption and lack of popular legitimacy. So, Biden might well have been thinking, why should he pay attention to anything these guys had to say on the war in Afghanistan, which they’ve been wrong about from the very beginning?
Biden made several missteps, some of them disastrous, in the pace and sequence of the withdrawal. Most of all, he should have pulled out all the spies, contractors, U.S. citizens, and Afghan helpers before pulling out all the troops. But on the big picture, he was right, and the generals, as they now grudgingly admit, were wrong.
And that last bit is the operative principle - generals make the plans, but the civilian command authority makes the decisions.
Jun 28, 2021
Closer Than We Think
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound for any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the authorization order, he wrote that U.S. Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.
The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. Maritime Court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
(my apologies to Gilbert-n-Sullivan, and to anyone who still has the tiniest bit of sensibility left in this ridiculously non-sensical period of political madness)
And I think the reason for Milley's supposed turnaround, is that he's not a guy who's going to roll over and beg for a belly rub from any random puke - even a POTUS - when he knows the guy is playing him for a fool.
Trump's Situation Room shouting match
Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, repeatedly blew up at President Trump over how to handle last summer's racial-justice protests, The Wall Street Journal's Michael Bender writes in his forthcoming book, "Frankly, We Did Win This Election."
The backdrop:
Trump wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act and put Milley in charge of a scorched-earth military campaign to suppress protests that had spiraled into riots in several cities.
Milley — now a GOP villain for his testimony last week on critical race theory — pushed back, Bender writes in a passage Axios is reporting for the first time:
Seated in the Situation Room with [Attorney General Bill] Barr, Milley, and [Secretary of Defense Mark] Esper, Trump exaggerated claims about the violence and alarmed officials ... by announcing he’d just put Milley "in charge."
Privately, Milley confronted Trump about his role. He was an adviser, and not in command. But Trump had had enough.
"I said you're in f---ing charge!" Trump shouted at him."Well, I'm not in charge!" Milley yelled back."You can't f---ing talk to me like that!" Trump said. ..."Goddamnit," Milley said to others. "There's a room full of lawyers here. Will someone inform him of my legal responsibilities?""He's right, Mr. President," Barr said. "The general is right."
Asked for a response, Trump told Jonathan Swan through an aide: "This is totally fake news, it never ever happened. I'm not a fan of Gen. Milley, but I never had an argument with him and the whole thing is false. He never talked back to me. Michael Bender never asked me about it and it's totally fake news."
Trump later added: "If Gen. Milley had yelled at me, I would have fired him."
Bender then told Swan:
- "This exchange was confirmed by multiple senior administration officials during the course of hundreds of hours of interviews with dozens of top Trump World aides for this book."
- "Contrary to Mr. Trump’s assertion, I asked the former president for his side of this particular argument in a written question — as he requested — along with other queries included in my thorough fact-checking process. He did not reply.”
P.S. At Trump's Ohio rally on Saturday night, he attacked Milley without naming him: "You see these generals lately on television? They are woke."
The brink of disaster is always something we should keep in mind.
Lately, we've been dancing at the edge of the abyss.
Apr 26, 2021
Today's Dumbass
And for a guy who depended on the largesse of the JAG corps for most of his "military cred" (along with his being a total suckup to John McCain), this dope is way outa step with the people he thinks are on his side.
Commentary - Esteban Castellanos
Enough about ‘not picking sides.’
The only right position is against white supremacy and extremism
In late March, the U.S. Air Force Academy held its Department of Defense-mandated extremism stand-down training to examine and to eradicate extremism and white supremacy within the ranks.
Superintendent Lt. Gen. Richard Clarke spoke of extreme ideologies on “both sides,” rather than confronting the unique flavor of the extremism threat on display Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol. Cadets learn how to lead by the example set from their leaders. Whether they lead with honor and integrity in all aspects of their lives, and especially in moments of duress, depends on the standard of leadership that is set by people like Lt. Gen. Clarke.
Many USAFA graduates feel the mild response to the insurrection from the academy and its Association of Graduates failed to reflect these values and stands counter to everything they publicly expect of graduates. We are disappointed and feel that leadership has failed our graduates, the members they lead, and ultimately the citizens of this country.
Simply put, many of our leaders are underreacting to the attack. We need them to state, unequivocally, that the insurrection was wrong, intolerable and against our values and oath of service to the Constitution. They must state publicly and emphatically that those within our ranks who participate in, or are sympathetic to, the organizations that took part in the riot at the Capitol are not welcome in our ranks because they are supporting domestic insurrectionists and terrorists.
Approximately one in five of the insurrectionists were veterans, according to criminal charging reports. They included at least one U.S. Air Force Academy graduate. Many more veterans are sympathetic to the insurrection, espouse the lies upon which it was based, or are participants in related causes.
Air Force Academy class Facebook pages and other social media sources show clear evidence that our officer corps members either do not take the threat seriously or support the underlying insurrectionist groups, many of which hold white supremacist ideologies.
Where does the academy and its AOG leadership stand on white supremacy within our ranks? Are they afraid of alienating large donors that may sympathize with the terrorists’ cause instead of doing the right thing?
It took 26 days after the insurrection for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, the AOG’s CEO, to repudiate the insurrection after failing to do so on a video call with members the previous week. He said they “made it a point that we would stay totally apolitical … and that we weren’t going to pick sides in any of this.” This unsatisfactory initial response only served to give more life to our concern.
Our character was molded by the academy, and that is why this “picking sides” debate hits us so hard, because the Air Force Academy and its Association of Graduates know better.
The average American likely doesn’t understand that the U.S. Air Force Academy, its related AOG and the US Air Force are distinct institutions. It’s all just “the Air Force.” Therefore, what USAFA or the AOG say, or don’t say, speaks on behalf of all U.S. Air Force members.
The academy’s lack of a strong rejection of the insurrection is, in effect, a political stance, one which undermines trust as well as good order and discipline within the ranks and the graduate community. Additionally, many of us, as service members of color and our allies, feel the insurrection was not only an assault on American democracy but on the value of all as equal citizens in this country. We saw our government nearly overthrown after an election victory brought about, in large part, by people of color.
Our AOG and USAFA leadership should have come together, with united strength, to support Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s call for a stand-down in a meaningful way. We need a forceful plan to continue this effort within the academy and its graduate community. We cannot wait for the next constitutional crisis or extremist attack.
This is personal and painful for those who have served because we’ve fought for our Constitution and for the rights of our fellow citizens. Any more hesitation or equivocation in doing so risks losing the trust of the very Americans we have sworn to defend.
Graduate co-signers
In late March, the U.S. Air Force Academy held its Department of Defense-mandated extremism stand-down training to examine and to eradicate extremism and white supremacy within the ranks.
Superintendent Lt. Gen. Richard Clarke spoke of extreme ideologies on “both sides,” rather than confronting the unique flavor of the extremism threat on display Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol. Cadets learn how to lead by the example set from their leaders. Whether they lead with honor and integrity in all aspects of their lives, and especially in moments of duress, depends on the standard of leadership that is set by people like Lt. Gen. Clarke.
Many USAFA graduates feel the mild response to the insurrection from the academy and its Association of Graduates failed to reflect these values and stands counter to everything they publicly expect of graduates. We are disappointed and feel that leadership has failed our graduates, the members they lead, and ultimately the citizens of this country.
Simply put, many of our leaders are underreacting to the attack. We need them to state, unequivocally, that the insurrection was wrong, intolerable and against our values and oath of service to the Constitution. They must state publicly and emphatically that those within our ranks who participate in, or are sympathetic to, the organizations that took part in the riot at the Capitol are not welcome in our ranks because they are supporting domestic insurrectionists and terrorists.
Approximately one in five of the insurrectionists were veterans, according to criminal charging reports. They included at least one U.S. Air Force Academy graduate. Many more veterans are sympathetic to the insurrection, espouse the lies upon which it was based, or are participants in related causes.
Air Force Academy class Facebook pages and other social media sources show clear evidence that our officer corps members either do not take the threat seriously or support the underlying insurrectionist groups, many of which hold white supremacist ideologies.
Where does the academy and its AOG leadership stand on white supremacy within our ranks? Are they afraid of alienating large donors that may sympathize with the terrorists’ cause instead of doing the right thing?
It took 26 days after the insurrection for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, the AOG’s CEO, to repudiate the insurrection after failing to do so on a video call with members the previous week. He said they “made it a point that we would stay totally apolitical … and that we weren’t going to pick sides in any of this.” This unsatisfactory initial response only served to give more life to our concern.
Our character was molded by the academy, and that is why this “picking sides” debate hits us so hard, because the Air Force Academy and its Association of Graduates know better.
The average American likely doesn’t understand that the U.S. Air Force Academy, its related AOG and the US Air Force are distinct institutions. It’s all just “the Air Force.” Therefore, what USAFA or the AOG say, or don’t say, speaks on behalf of all U.S. Air Force members.
The academy’s lack of a strong rejection of the insurrection is, in effect, a political stance, one which undermines trust as well as good order and discipline within the ranks and the graduate community. Additionally, many of us, as service members of color and our allies, feel the insurrection was not only an assault on American democracy but on the value of all as equal citizens in this country. We saw our government nearly overthrown after an election victory brought about, in large part, by people of color.
Our AOG and USAFA leadership should have come together, with united strength, to support Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s call for a stand-down in a meaningful way. We need a forceful plan to continue this effort within the academy and its graduate community. We cannot wait for the next constitutional crisis or extremist attack.
This is personal and painful for those who have served because we’ve fought for our Constitution and for the rights of our fellow citizens. Any more hesitation or equivocation in doing so risks losing the trust of the very Americans we have sworn to defend.
Graduate co-signers
Lawrence Romo ’78Martin France ’81Kathryn Smith ’82Ed Tomme ’85David Englin ’96Aaron Pultz ’97John Kleven ’98Tino Dinh ’99Diane Zorri ’01Nikki Foster ’03Leo Kim ’09
BTW - these are some really smart people coming out of our service academies. They're not in the habit of condemning shit that ain't there.
Sep 3, 2020
There's No Bottom
...to the emptiness of a man who has no soul and no honor.
The Atlantic (pay wall):
When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.
Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps. America and its allies stopped the German advance toward Paris there in the spring of 1918. But Trump, on that same trip, asked aides, “Who were the good guys in this war?” He also said that he didn’t understand why the United States would intervene on the side of the Allies.
Trump’s understanding of concepts such as patriotism, service, and sacrifice have interested me since he expressed contempt for the war record of the late Senator John McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said in 2015 while running for the Republican nomination for president. “I like people who weren’t captured.”
The Atlantic (pay wall):
When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.
Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps. America and its allies stopped the German advance toward Paris there in the spring of 1918. But Trump, on that same trip, asked aides, “Who were the good guys in this war?” He also said that he didn’t understand why the United States would intervene on the side of the Allies.
Trump’s understanding of concepts such as patriotism, service, and sacrifice have interested me since he expressed contempt for the war record of the late Senator John McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said in 2015 while running for the Republican nomination for president. “I like people who weren’t captured.”
There's more, but I can't take it any further than right here. It's making me sick.
Jun 10, 2020
Progressive Ideas Always Win
... eventually.
Justin King - Beau Of The Fifth Column
"... an installation name they can be proud of instead of one they don't wanna talk about."
Charles Beckwith
Alvin York
Robert Rogers
William C Lee
Justin King - Beau Of The Fifth Column
"... an installation name they can be proud of instead of one they don't wanna talk about."
Charles Beckwith
Alvin York
Robert Rogers
William C Lee
Apr 3, 2020
Leadership
...and casualties of war.
Brett Crozier (Capt, USN), leaving the USS Teddy Roosevelt.
Newsweek:
Veterans Denounce 'Unforgivable' Decision to Remove U.S. Navy Captain Brett Crozier, Who Asked for Help With Ship's COVID-19 Outbreak
Veterans have spoken out against the decision to relieve the captain of the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt after he sent a letter to the Navy pleading for help after his ship was stricken with the coronavirus.
Thomas Modly, the acting secretary of the Navy, accused Capt. Brett Crozier of having "poor judgment" for using a "non-secure, unclassified" email address to write an email to his immediate chain of command which also included "20 or 30" additional recipients.
Crozier's letter, which was then leaked and published by the San Francisco Chronicle, asked officials for help in isolating more than 4,000 sailors onboard the aircraft carrier docked in Guam, after a COVID-19 outbreak was detected among its crew. A day after the letter was published, around 1,000 sailors were removed from the Theodore Roosevelt. A total of 114 crew have since tested positive for COVID-19.
Crozier said the move was necessary as the warship's "inherent limitations of space" meant the virus was spreading rapidly despite the other crew members distancing themselves.
"This will require a political solution but it is the right thing to do," Crozier wrote. "We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset — our Sailors."
There are regulations against doing what Crozier is accused of doing, and we have to pay heed to the rule of law at all times and in all instances - and sometimes you have to say, "Fuck the regs. This is what I have to do to honor my oath - to serve the best interests of my command."
There's no real difference here between what Crozier has done and the kind of civil disobedience in the 60s that led to some positive changes in the way society functions.
A leader is required to serve the greater good no matter the consequences for himself.
Crozier has to stand before the man and account for his actions, but the Navy has to get its head out of its ass and find a way to honor the actions of a sailor who put himself at risk to do his duty as he saw it.
Brett Crozier (Capt, USN), leaving the USS Teddy Roosevelt.
The send off for Captain Brett Crozier who was relieved from duty for TRYING TO SAVE THE LIVES OF HIS CREW pic.twitter.com/EEDG1U3rYE— Danny Ocean (@The_UnSilent_) April 3, 2020
Newsweek:
Veterans Denounce 'Unforgivable' Decision to Remove U.S. Navy Captain Brett Crozier, Who Asked for Help With Ship's COVID-19 Outbreak
Veterans have spoken out against the decision to relieve the captain of the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt after he sent a letter to the Navy pleading for help after his ship was stricken with the coronavirus.
Thomas Modly, the acting secretary of the Navy, accused Capt. Brett Crozier of having "poor judgment" for using a "non-secure, unclassified" email address to write an email to his immediate chain of command which also included "20 or 30" additional recipients.
Crozier's letter, which was then leaked and published by the San Francisco Chronicle, asked officials for help in isolating more than 4,000 sailors onboard the aircraft carrier docked in Guam, after a COVID-19 outbreak was detected among its crew. A day after the letter was published, around 1,000 sailors were removed from the Theodore Roosevelt. A total of 114 crew have since tested positive for COVID-19.
Crozier said the move was necessary as the warship's "inherent limitations of space" meant the virus was spreading rapidly despite the other crew members distancing themselves.
"This will require a political solution but it is the right thing to do," Crozier wrote. "We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset — our Sailors."
There are regulations against doing what Crozier is accused of doing, and we have to pay heed to the rule of law at all times and in all instances - and sometimes you have to say, "Fuck the regs. This is what I have to do to honor my oath - to serve the best interests of my command."
There's no real difference here between what Crozier has done and the kind of civil disobedience in the 60s that led to some positive changes in the way society functions.
A leader is required to serve the greater good no matter the consequences for himself.
Crozier has to stand before the man and account for his actions, but the Navy has to get its head out of its ass and find a way to honor the actions of a sailor who put himself at risk to do his duty as he saw it.
Oct 18, 2019
Contradictions
Contradictions exist, but they cannot prevail.
One of the weirdly persistent contradictions in our current state of affairs popped up in Admiral McRaven's Op-Ed piece and it remains somehow under the radar.
(summarized in Business Insider):
McRaven said that despite the apolitical nature of various military branches, intelligence agencies, and public-service organizations, the people employed by these groups had witnessed "the assaults on our institutions" under the Trump administration.
Here's the bit I'm talking about:
"They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen, preferring their government narrative to our own," McRaven wrote. "They have seen us abandon our allies and have heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, 'I don't like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!'"
"Those words echoed with me throughout the week," McRaven added.
McRaven pointed out what he said were examples of the US neglecting its duty to be the "the protectors of the less fortunate" — including Trump's recent decision to withdraw troops from Syria as Turkish-backed militants wage assaults against the once US-backed Kurdish militia.
When you hear "protectors of the less fortunate", it's not possible for you to convince me that what springs immediately into your mind is The Republican Party. C'mon now.
There are people in our government working diligently to consolidate power in the Executive, and to make POTUS into what would be effectively a Daddy State emperor. Those people are almost exclusively Republicans.
There are people in our government working just as diligently to revitalize the system of Checks & Balances so we can be a little more sure that power will be held to account. Those people are almost exclusively Democrats.
When the guys in the brass hats are speaking the language of the Democratic Party Platform, we know the GOP has gone completely 'round the bend.
One of the weirdly persistent contradictions in our current state of affairs popped up in Admiral McRaven's Op-Ed piece and it remains somehow under the radar.
(summarized in Business Insider):
McRaven said that despite the apolitical nature of various military branches, intelligence agencies, and public-service organizations, the people employed by these groups had witnessed "the assaults on our institutions" under the Trump administration.
Here's the bit I'm talking about:
"They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen, preferring their government narrative to our own," McRaven wrote. "They have seen us abandon our allies and have heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, 'I don't like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!'"
"Those words echoed with me throughout the week," McRaven added.
McRaven pointed out what he said were examples of the US neglecting its duty to be the "the protectors of the less fortunate" — including Trump's recent decision to withdraw troops from Syria as Turkish-backed militants wage assaults against the once US-backed Kurdish militia.
When you hear "protectors of the less fortunate", it's not possible for you to convince me that what springs immediately into your mind is The Republican Party. C'mon now.
There are people in our government working diligently to consolidate power in the Executive, and to make POTUS into what would be effectively a Daddy State emperor. Those people are almost exclusively Republicans.
There are people in our government working just as diligently to revitalize the system of Checks & Balances so we can be a little more sure that power will be held to account. Those people are almost exclusively Democrats.
When the guys in the brass hats are speaking the language of the Democratic Party Platform, we know the GOP has gone completely 'round the bend.
May 28, 2019
Weekend Hangover
Spotted aboard ship somewhere around Japan, as 45* was getting ready to deliver a Memorial Day address.
And of course, it just had to be aboard the USS WASP, right? Because these white-bread MAGA dicks are nothing if not ham-handed, obvious, and about as sharp as a bag full of wet yarn.
Anyway - UCMJ Article 134 would seem to be pretty clear on prohibiting political activities while in uniform. But they're aboard ship, and they've been ordered to assemble, and so they can make a plausible case (at least to the public) that they're just showing support for their CinC, which gives us another perfect example of Cult45 operating in SmarmSpace®.
Aside from that, though, is the corrosive effect of all this Kiss-Ass. When exactly did it become acceptable - bordering on preferable - to make your way through the ranks in the US military just by sucking up to the boss?
45* has spent his whole life accomplishing practically nothing, deflecting responsibility for his massive shortcomings, and always failing up to the next higher position. And now he's at the head of the one of the greatest organizations in history, and his management style is coming down to the rank and file as Style-Over-Substance - don't worry about doing the job, just make yourself look good, and blame everybody else for the fuckups.
Jan 21, 2019
In The Face Of It All
Avery Anapol, The Hill:
The Coast Guard Cutter Bertholf and 170 crew members left Alameda, Calif. to support military operations in the Indo-Pacific region.
In a video about the deployment, Coast Guard officials noted that due to the lapse in funding, there has been increased “tension and anxiety” among crew members.
“Our [U.S. Coast Guard] members sail across the world to protect U.S. national interests while their loved ones cope w/ financial challenges & no pay at home,” Coast Guard commandant Adm. Karl Schultz tweeted.
Oct 20, 2017
How It's Done
 |
| Mrs Myeshia Johnson |
I think 45* tried to say what John Kelly said from the podium yesterday. I think he had Kelly's words in his head, but he said it so badly, it made him look like a jerk.
And of course, he is a jerk - there can be no mistake about that at this point.
The guy has no soul and no honor, both of which are required if you're going to have even a marginally positive effect when trying to console someone who's just suffered the worse kind of loss any of us can imagine.
Starting at about 6:00, John Kelly says it really well.
I think 45* got a warm fuzzy feeling from the way Kelly puts it, because it sounds noble, and manly, and heroic - all the things 45* desperately wishes pertained to him. But those characteristics have nothing to do with 45*, so he's always looking to appropriate them for himself without doing the work necessary to earn them.
If he'd known just a tiny bit about it, he might've pulled it off, but 45* doesn't know anything. He doesn't really want to know anything. He doesn't listen. He doesn't study. He doesn't learn. He's never prepared.
So when he needed to say the right thing in a way that gave the grieving family someone to lean on; or a reason to feel something other than their crushing sorrow, he blew it. He screwed the pooch. Again. As always.
He failed at one of the basic duties of a Commander in Chief; a leader; POTUS. The guy isn't man enough to pack a lunch for any one of those dead kids. Because he refuses to learn one fucking thing about his fucking job.
This is how it's done:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, 21st November, 1864.
Dear Madam,
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln
-and-
(to 21-year-old Fanny McCollough, on the death of her father, Lt Col Wm McCollough)
Executive Mansion,
Washington, December 23, 1862.
Dear Fanny
It is with deep grief that I learn of the death of your kind and brave Father; and, especially, that it is affecting your young heart beyond what is common in such cases. In this sad world of ours, sorrow comes to all; and, to the young, it comes with bitterest agony, because it takes them unawares. The older have learned to ever expect it. I am anxious to afford some alleviation of your present distress. Perfect relief is not possible, except with time. You can not now realize that you will ever feel better. Is not this so? And yet it is a mistake. You are sure to be happy again. To know this, which is certainly true, will make you some less miserable now. I have had experience enough to know what I say; and you need only to believe it, to feel better at once. The memory of your dear Father, instead of an agony, will yet be a sad sweet feeling in your heart, of a purer, and holier sort than you have known before.
Please present my kind regards to your afflicted mother.
Your sincere friend,
A. Lincoln.
Aug 8, 2017
More Fuckery
In case you were wondering why 45* has been kind of impatient with "his" generals about Afghanistan, wonder no more.
Raw Story, Sarah Burris:
During a panel discussion on President Donald Trump’s many conflicts of interest, Michael D’Antonio, author of The Truth About Trump, blasted his financial surplus in the wake of his presidency.
According to the Financial Times, Blackwater founder Erik Prince — who happens to be Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s brother — has proposed a two-year plan to supply 5,000 mercenaries and close to 100 aircraft, bringing the total cost of the U.S. effort to turn round a failing war to less than $10 billion a year.
Raw Story, Sarah Burris:
During a panel discussion on President Donald Trump’s many conflicts of interest, Michael D’Antonio, author of The Truth About Trump, blasted his financial surplus in the wake of his presidency.
According to the Financial Times, Blackwater founder Erik Prince — who happens to be Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s brother — has proposed a two-year plan to supply 5,000 mercenaries and close to 100 aircraft, bringing the total cost of the U.S. effort to turn round a failing war to less than $10 billion a year.
I liked it a lot better when the only guys with private armies were Bond villains.
Jul 29, 2017
Sounds Mildly Important
As driftglass puts it: Isn't that what they call mutiny?
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley says, while holding a glass of wine, he too found out about Trump's transgender ban through the news pic.twitter.com/MKInvXsIRh— Natalie Johnson (@nataliejohnsonn) July 27, 2017
Vox:
President Donald Trump said his decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military, announced via Twitter on Wednesday morning, came “after consultation with my generals and military experts.” It’s becoming clearer and clearer that he was lying.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis was on vacation when the decision was announced, and privately opposed the move. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. James Dunford, said Thursday that the military wouldn’t implement the ban absent a formal, non-tweeted order from the commander in chief.
And then there were the remarkable remarks that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley made during a luncheon at the National Press Club.
During the lunch, Milley told reporters that he found out about the ban "the same way everybody else did — on the news." At the time, he was holding a glass of wine.
-and-
These policy points are not details. Without answers to them, it’s literally impossible to figure out what Trump wants the military to do.
And also too don't forget to remember - if it doesn't say specifically that he can't do it, then he'll probably try to do it. That's what he does; he's always looking for the loophole - the SmarmSpace.
BTW, there can't possibly be anyone anywhere who doesn't recognize this as 45* throwing more chaff in the air. He keeps looking for crazier-n-crazier shit he can pull as it gets harder to distract us from his Russia problem, and he can always do with a little help from the ChristoCons, so he "punched a queer" for them.
The guy has always benefited from creating chaos. Of course, now there's real potential for what he thinks is a little bit of his usual self-serving chaos to turn into a fullblown Constitutional Crisis all by itself.
The law of unintended consequences is a real thing.
Jul 5, 2017
Mar 2, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)