The Fall Of An Honest General

Over at the New Yorker there's a great article about Army Major General Antonio Taguba who investigated the abuses at Abu Ghraib. His honest report sank his career.

Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, “I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting.”
...
Taguba, watching the hearings, was appalled. He believed that Rumsfeld’s testimony was simply not true. “The photographs were available to him—if he wanted to see them,” Taguba said. Rumsfeld’s lack of knowledge was hard to credit. Taguba later wondered if perhaps Cambone had the photographs and kept them from Rumsfeld because he was reluctant to give his notoriously difficult boss bad news. But Taguba also recalled thinking, “Rumsfeld is very perceptive and has a mind like a steel trap. There’s no way he’s suffering from C.R.S.—Can’t Remember Shit. He’s trying to acquit himself, and a lot of people are lying to protect themselves.” It distressed Taguba that Rumsfeld was accompanied in his Senate and House appearances by senior military officers who concurred with his denials.

Armored Up

Check out the military equipment that's been given to law enforcement agencies in the state of Washington. For what possible use does the Spokane County Sheriff have for a mine resistant vehicle?



Data gathered by The Marshall Project.

Stand Down

Stand Down is a program for homeless veterans. Its purpose is to provide an opportunity for veterans to take care of personal hygiene, get clean clothing, enjoy a warm meal, and receive medical and dental care. A Stand Down was held today at in Post Falls, Idaho.

Veterans of all ages formed a line snaking back and forth outside the Bitterroot Building. As they waited for the doors to open, many traded stories of their time in the service. Music by Johnny Cash, Jimi Hendrix, Credence Clearwater Revival, Willie Nelson, and others of their era played over the loud speakers. Volunteers came around offering bottles of water.  The opening ceremony consisted of a welcoming speech by Mayor Clay Larkin and a reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Disabled vets were given priority and the rest waited patiently for their turn.

Entering the door, the vets showed their proof of service and signed in. Each received two wrist bands, one designating eligibility for the surplus gear and one designating them as eligible for services from the agencies outside, and a meal ticket for a free breakfast burrito. Next they passed by tables manned by advocacy agencies and the Department of Veterans Affairs where they could receive information for getting assistance. A doctor, dentist, and a barber (free haircuts) were also on hand for those who needed their services.

As they entered the warehouse, each veteran received a duffel bag which which they could carry everything they took. They also had a choice between a day pack or a full backpack. The tables they passed by had socks, t-shirts, sweaters, long underwear, parkas, gloves, dress shirts, towels, rain covers, soap and other toiletries, sleeping bags, sleeping pads, and boots.

This was a unique experience. I think the most common words spoken were said by nearly every volunteer there. "Thank you for your service."

 The doors opened at 8:00 am. The line started forming over two hours earlier.

 Several advocacy groups were on hand.

Lots of surplus military clothing...

 ...and equipment was ready to be put to use.

 Volunteers manned numerous stations...

 ...and helped vets with their available choices.

 The St Vincent DePaul Society had free civilian clothing.

 Second Harvest had free food.

 Great of him to volunteer but nobody rode a bike there. 

 Lots of people had their dogs with them.

 The Knights of Columbus provided free breakfast burritos.

 Vets could get a ride back to their car...

 ...get help from the Boy Scouts...

...or heft it all out themselves.

Keeping An Eye On The Aggressor

Glen Greenwald makes some good points about the CNN report on Iran allegedly shooting at a US drone. CNN basically repeated what they were given by the Obama administration and didn't bother asking Iran what their side of the story was.

I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's blistering of the press corps at the White House Correspondents Dinner back in 2006.   

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home.

But I digress.

From the CNN article:

Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf last week, CNN has learned.  The incident raises fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.  

Let's put the Obama administration concerns about Iranian military aggression in the right perspective.

What country invaded neighboring Iraq over unwarranted fears of weapons of mass destruction?

What country has launched missile attacks from unmanned aircraft in neighboring Pakistan, and even as far away as Somalia and Yemen, going so far as killing Americans?

Given that, one can easily understand why the Obama administration has fresh concerns about Iranian military aggression.

Language Matters

There is some concern about Section 1031 and 1032 (PDF) of Senate bill 1867, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. The concern is that Americans suspected of terrorism could be detained indefinitely. Here are the key parts from Section 1032.

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

...

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Sounds pretty straightforward that this will require the military to detain any person except for US citizens and possibly resident aliens. However, it seems possible that they could be detained by civil authorities instead.

Here's an interesting part in Section 1031.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

This language doesn't mention any exceptions and could possibly include US citizens. Regardless, indefinite detention is an abomination. It's something that would red line our anger meter if another country decided to do the same for our citizens.

I can't wait to see how the never ending war turns out.

We Fell For It A Long Time Ago

Admiral Eric Olson is in charge of the US military special forces. He had some interesting things to say at the Aspen Institute.

But the four-star admiral warned of the fight to come against what he called al-Qaida 2.0, with new leaders like American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, who Olson said understands America better than Americans understand him.

"It will morph, it will disperse," he said of the movement. "It will become in some ways more westernized, (with) dual passport holders" and "fewer cave dwellers," he said.

There's an issue I'd like to address here. Part of bin Laden's reason for the 9/11 attacks was to bankrupt us. He guessed we would spend all kinds of money on defense. He hoped we would invade a Muslim country--any Muslim country. And he guessed we would destroy our own civil liberties in our fervent desire to feel safe and protected.

We came through in spades. We're looking that the effect of borrowing money to fund two wars, invading two countries in the process, and Congress has continually extended the Patriot Act without debate. All airline passengers are considered possible terrorists. Our safety now relies on suspecting everyone. We're supposed to report anything that appears suspicious. Islam is vilified as the greatest threat to world peace.

We may not understand Anwar al-Awlaki very well, but to imply that he understands Americans better than bin Laden did belies the fact that bin Laden had us pegged. We now have political leaders so far to the right and spout such vitriol that it's impossible to compare their positions to historical ones without proving Godwin's law.

Olson said the fight against all versions of al-Qaida could keep U.S. special operations troops deploying at the same pace for another decade, even as U.S. conventional forces draw down from places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here's to ten more years of drone attacks, surgical strikes, and military incursions. But what a relief to know we have God on our side.

Fracturing Unit Cohesion

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway is ready to take steps to deal with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

On a different, but related subject, Conway suggested that if the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law is repealed, the Marines may consider allowing Marines not to share quarters with homosexuals.

Conway said the Marines may make such housing arrangements "voluntary" to accommodate any "moral concerns." He said many Marines are "very religious" and because of their moral concerns "don’t want to room" with homosexuals.

Interesting, especially since one of the key characteristics of the military is training you to put individuality behind the team. I wonder if the general has thought through making this exception for the "very religious". The "very religious" are everywhere among us. Some have "moral concerns" for people who smoke, swear or drink. Some for people who don't have the same beliefs as them. And yet in an environment where you must be able to rely on every team member you have to set those differences aside, especially in the military. Creating a special exception is damaging to that.

Survey On Don't Ask - Don't Tell

The Department of Defense is surveying thousands of service members about how they would react in a variety of situations if Don't Ask - Don't Tell is repealed. Now remember that the whole idea behind Don't Ask - Don't Tell, implemented in 1994, is that a gay person could serve in the military as long as they didn't make their sexual orientation known. This did not stop people from suspecting someone was gay. Heck, it didn't stop some people from knowing if a fellow service member was gay. So let's have a look at how the Department of Defense worded the survey questions.

I consider this statement leading off the questioning to be a bit comical.

Throughout this survey, "gay or lesbian" and "homosexual" are used interchangeably.

Isn't that a relief?

Here's one series of questions:

Did you ever serve in combat with a Service member of any rank whom you believed to be homosexual?

About how many other members of that combat unit also believed the Service member to be gay or lesbian?

How did that unit perform in combat?

Say what? Somehow suspecting a unit member is gay affects the combat performance of that unit? Nothing about training, equipment, or other factors? Just to make sure, here's the next question.

Among all the factors that affect a unit's performance in combat, how much did the belief that the Service member was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s combat performance:

Another question: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how often your immediate unit socializes together off-duty?

Hmm, what if your unit consisted of an even number of men and women? How would that affect how often your unit socializes off duty?

If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to share a room, berth or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which are you most likely to do?

* Take no action
* Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves while sharing a room, berth or field tent
* Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation
* Talk to a leader to see if I have other options
* Something else
* Don't know

First of all, how is that different from believing a person is gay or lesbian with DADT in place? I'm guessing that rooming with a gay or lesbian is scary because they're such predators, right? Not like those guys who rape their fellow female service members. BTW, if you choose "something else" you must type that in another box.

If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, berth or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which are you most likely to do?

Is it scarier in wartime?

If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities with an open bay shower that someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member also used, which are you most likely to do?

Fend them off as they see me naked and instinctively attack me!

If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share bathroom facilities with an open bay shower with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which are you most likely to do?

Curl up in a fetal position when the incoming mortar rounds start hitting!

If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attended a military social function with a same-sex partner, which are you most likely to do?

Imply that all the single guys are dating each other?

If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you had on-base housing and a gay or lesbian Service member was living with a same-sex partner on-base, what would you most likely do?

Yes, what if you lived right next door to a pair of them?

Last of all, here's a question that should not get a single "no" answer.

Do you have any family members, friends or acquaintances who are gay or lesbian, or whom you believe to be gay or lesbian?

We've all met someone we believe is gay. Somehow noticing that is very important in our society.

No Babies And That's An Order

There has been a lot of news about the order concerning women military members getting pregnant, and military men impregnating them, while serving in Iraq. So far a few women and men have been punished.

Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, who commands Multi-National Division — North, said he instituted the ban when he took over in early November to prevent the loss of valuable female soldiers, since troops who become pregnant are sent home.

“The message to my female soldiers is that I need you for the duration,” Cucolo said in a phone interview late Monday. “Please think before you act.”

What the general has succeeded in doing is raise the awareness of this issue, but he has also tied his hands when it comes to punishing those who violate the order.

Essentially, a woman assigned to the war zone who becomes pregnant will receive a letter of reprimand and nothing more. Why? Because the next step up is non-judicial punishment administered under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The use of non-judicial punishment allows a commander some leeway in prosecuting someone who violates the UCMJ, in this case, something along the lines of failure to obey a lawful order. A military member can lose pay, be demoted to a lower rank, be assigned extra duties, etc., but still remain assigned to their unit and perform their primary duties. It gives the punished person an opportunity to redeem themselves to some extent and the unit still has that member on board.

The catch is the when a military member is offered Article 15 punishment, they have the option refuse it and be court-martialed instead. Since the general stated he will not court-martial anyone for this, then the women who become pregnant can quite likely bank on getting nothing more than a letter of reprimand which will have little effect on their careers. That doesn't mean other circumstances can't prevail. Adultery is an offense under the UCMJ. It's a rarely prosecuted offense, but that is a possibility in cases where adultery is involved. One article mentions a male non-commissioned officer was charged with fraternization and given a letter of reprimand. I don't know about that. Fraternization is an offense committed by an officer fraternizing with an enlisted member. But Article 134 of the UCMJ can be used to prosecute anything that leads to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

On the bright side the general has, whether purposely or not, created a lot of publicity which will hopefully lead to some meaningful dialogue to address the issue women military members who voluntarily become pregnant while serving in a war zone and thus make themselves unavailable for duty in that zone.

But I Feel Good About Myself

Since I'm retired Air Force I get news bulletins every once in a while keeping me abreast of changes in my military life if my prior military life were current instead of past. So I got this bit of news yesterday.

The Air Force has reinstated its Good Conduct Medal for exemplary service by enlisted airmen...

I must have missed the notice that said the Air Force did away with the Good Conduct Medal. This was a worthless medal as are most of the decorations and ribbons the military loves to encrust chests with.

The Air Force Uniform Board announced Feb. 6, 2006, that the Good Conduct Medal would no longer be awarded. It was thought at the time that the award was not needed because nearly all Airmen are exemplary performers.

They should have done that a couple of decades ago. This medal became more and more meaningless after the 1960's and 70's as tolerance levels decreased in the Air Force. Back then, as a cop, if I was busted for smoking pot I would've lost my security clearance and been retrained into another career field. A driving while intoxicated offense was not a career breaker. I don't mean to imply that these offenses aren't noteworthy or punishable, just that the response to them gradually ratcheted up. So in the 70's you were allowed to stay in the Air Force but you didn't get a Good Conduct Medal since you screwed up. Nobody noticed when you had one, but they sure did notice if it was missing. It broadcasted "I screwed up" to everyone. By the 1990's, as a minimum you were either kicked out with lost benefits or denied reenlistment. So essentially, everyone who stayed was exemplary and got the medal every three years. As standards tightened up fewer people did not get the medal and those that didn't were marked. But if everybody gets one, does it mean anything? Not really. In response to the question, "What'd you do to get that?" most people answered, "I didn't screw up."

Meanwhile, the other armed services continued to award Good Conduct Medals to their enlisted members, said Lt. Gen. Richard Y. Newton III, chief of the Air Force's manpower, personnel and services directorate.

Airmen -- who often serve in war zones alongside their Army, Navy, and Marine Corps counterparts as part of the joint-force team -- also deserve recognition for their good service, General Newton said.

No fair! How come they get one and we don't? I reckon it's tough to come up with a better reason for having a medal whose presence is only notable when it's absent.