Tag: US military

The Atlantic has a long article published about how the United States has become a Chickenhawk Nation.  The author believes the American public doesn’t mind going to war as long as it doesn’t involve them.  He believes this mentality is what is allowing the endless warfare we find ourselves currently in to continue:

Too much complacency regarding our military, and too weak a tragic imagination about the consequences if the next engagement goes wrong, have been part of Americans’ willingness to wade into conflict after conflict, blithely assuming we would win. “Did we have the sense that America cared how we were doing? We did not,” Seth Moulton told me about his experience as a marine during the Iraq War. Moulton became a Marine Corps officer after graduating from Harvard in 2001, believing (as he told me) that when many classmates were heading to Wall Street it was useful to set an example of public service. He opposed the decision to invade Iraq but ended up serving four tours there out of a sense of duty to his comrades. “America was very disconnected. We were proud to serve, but we knew it was a little group of people doing the country’s work.”

Moulton told me, as did many others with Iraq-era military experience, that if more members of Congress or the business and media elite had had children in uniform, the United States would probably not have gone to war in Iraq at all. Because he felt strongly enough about that failure of elite accountability, Moulton decided while in Iraq to get involved in politics after he left the military. “I actually remember the moment,” Moulton told me. “It was after a difficult day in Najaf in 2004. A young marine in my platoon said, ‘Sir, you should run for Congress someday. So this shit doesn’t happen again.’ ” In January, Moulton takes office as a freshman Democratic representative from Massachusetts’s Sixth District, north of Boston.

What Moulton described was desire for a kind of accountability. It is striking how rare accountability has been for our modern wars. Hillary Clinton paid a price for her vote to authorize the Iraq War, since that is what gave the barely known Barack Obama an opening to run against her in 2008. George W. Bush, who, like most ex-presidents, has grown more popular the longer he’s been out of office, would perhaps be playing a more visible role in public and political life if not for the overhang of Iraq. But those two are the exceptions. Most other public figures, from Dick Cheney and Colin Powell on down, have put Iraq behind them. In part this is because of the Obama administration’s decision from the start to “look forward, not back” about why things had gone so badly wrong with America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But such willed amnesia would have been harder if more Americans had felt affected by the wars’ outcome. For our generals, our politicians, and most of our citizenry, there is almost no accountability or personal consequence for military failure. This is a dangerous development—and one whose dangers multiply the longer it persists.

Ours is the best-equipped fighting force in history, and it is incomparably the most expensive. By all measures, today’s professionalized military is also better trained, motivated, and disciplined than during the draft-army years. No decent person who is exposed to today’s troops can be anything but respectful of them and grateful for what they do.

Yet repeatedly this force has been defeated by less modern, worse-equipped, barely funded foes. Or it has won skirmishes and battles only to lose or get bogged down in a larger war.  [The Atlantic]

You can read the whole article at the link, but I think the author is correct that if the kids of the elite in this country had to face being drafted we probably would not be in as many conflicts as we are now.  With that said I do not agree with his viewpoint that the US military has been defeated by less foes.  The US military did not make the strategy to invade Iraq, politicians did.  When invading Iraq the military was not sourced for a long term occupation once again because of political considerations.  When General Shinseki spoke up about this he was strongly rebuked by the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.  Also the US military did not make the decision to withdraw from Iraq which led to the current ISIS occupation, politicians did and now the US military is back trying to put a band-aid on a poor strategic decision.

The bottomline is that the US military is only as good as the strategy they are given by the political leadership to execute.

Here is the latest reason that US servicemembers and their DoD civilian counterparts are at threat of not receiving a paycheck next month:

Congress was poised Tuesday to send an annual defense policy bill to President Barack Obama, setting up a showdown that could leave the Department of Defense without a budget and hundreds of thousands of federal employees facing furloughs.

Obama will have until Halloween to decide whether to make good on his repeated threats to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, which lays out military pay and benefits. This year, the bill also includes an historic reform of the 20-year pension system, hikes in Tricare fees, protections for the A-10 Thunderbolt II and a review of troops carrying personal guns on bases.

A veto could throw the whole defense budget into uncertainty, with Congress scrambling to come up with a new plan by Dec. 11 when the current temporary budget expires. The DOD said troops would not receive paychecks and about 400,000 civilians would be furloughed if defense spending is not resolved by then.

Republicans rallied Tuesday in an effort to paint Obama and his veto threat as an obstacle to defense priorities despite increasingly threats around the world.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link, but I would be surprised if some last minute deal isn’t worked out because it would seem to be political suicide for anyone that allows this happen.

One retired Army general is claiming everything is bigger in Texas to include the waistlines of its kids:

The average of Texas young adults ineligible to serve their county is higher than the national average, a report states.

Retired Army Brigadier General Joe E. Ramirez Jr., also Commandant of Texas A&M University’s Corps of Cadets, said the leading reason behind ineligibility is applicants are overweight and generally unhealthy.

In Texas, 73 percent of young adults can’t serve. The national average is about 30 percent.

“It’s been a problem for a while,” he said. “Our country is getting bigger and that concerns a lot of us.”

As part of a statewide speaking tour, Ramirez visited Flour Bluff and West Oso high schools this week to discuss obesity’s impact on the military and ways to improve children’s health in the state. He used talking points from a report by the nonprofit Mission: Readiness titled “Too Fat, Frail and Out-of-Breath to Fight.”  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read more at the link, but that is pretty amazing statistic if true.

The University of Phoenix has long had low education outcomes for its graduates and is currently under investigation by the FCC, but what appears to have finally gotten the university on the bad side of the US military is its use of “challenge coins”:

The Pentagon temporarily has barred the University of Phoenix from recruiting students at U.S. military bases and will not let new active-duty troops receive tuition assistance for the for-profit giant’s courses.

The move is another blow to the University of Phoenix, which said it is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission and California Attorney General Kamala Harris related to recruitment of members of the U.S. military and the California National Guard.

Apollo Education Group, the university’s parent, said the Defense Department notified it of the move this week.

The university’s participation in the department’s tuition-assistance program has been placed on probation in part because of the FTC and California investigations, the filing said.

Military members who are enrolled in university courses can continue to receive tuition assistance, but new enrollees or transfers will not be allowed, the filing said.  [Stars & Stripes]

Here is the part about the challenge coins:

But the Apollo Group filing said another reason cited by the Defense Department in its letter was the university’s sponsorship of “various events at military installations” without the proper approval and the distribution of so-called “challenge coins” without approval to use trademarks.

Challenge coins are small coins popular in the military as signs of membership in service branches and are given to promote morale. They have emblems of military service branches.

Apollo said the university “immediately discontinued the use of challenge coins” in July after the Defense Department raised objections. And Apollo said it has discussed the issue of approval for events at military bases with the Defense Department and noted all previous events had been approved by base officials.

You can read the rest at the link, but the University of Phoenix is far from the only for profit school that makes a lot of money off of federal and US military dollars with little education outcomes for its students.

As we have seen in the past in South Korea, the anti-US activists like to use the environmental card to bash the US military with.  The Japanese government is getting out in front of this issue by getting this agreement in place that allows them to have personnel on US military bases to monitor environmental issues:

The U.S. and Japan signed an accord Monday that will permit Japanese access to U.S. military facilities in Japan for environmental surveys.

The agreement – signed at the Pentagon by U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida – supplements the long-standing Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement that allows the United States to maintain military bases in Japan. While this does not officially amend the SOFA, it is the first such bilateral supplement to the agreement since its implementation in 1960, according to a defense official who was speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link.

I have stated repeatedly that after a North Korean regime collapse that the ROK military should be the ones to secure North Korea not the US military.  Documents like this that advocate for 150,000 US troops in North Korea is why the Chinese government keeps the Kim regime in power.  Does anyone think the Chinese want 150,000 US troops that may potentially be there long term on their northeastern border?  What would people in the US think if 150,000 Chinese just parked themselves in Tijuana?

An additional 150,000 U.S. troops would be necessary to cope with the aftermath in the event of North Korea’s collapse, such as securing the communist nation’s nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, a U.S. think tank said Tuesday.

“North Korea might suddenly collapse — either as a result of war or the failure of its economy and government. After such a collapse, a key U.S. concern would be to find, seize, secure, and remove its WMD, in particular its nuclear weapons,” RAND Corp. said in a report, titled “Building the Army We Will Need.”

“In such an event, the greatest burden would likely fall on U.S. forces to eliminate these weapons … We estimate that a North Korean collapse would require an additional 150,000 U.S. troops over and above the forces already stationed and presumed to be available in the Asia-Pacific region,” it said.  [Yonhap]

You can read the rest at the link.

I guess it is okay to wear the uniform to support social causes now:

What was supposed to be a photo to decorate the 1st Armored Division’s room for nursing mothers has gone viral online.

The photo, taken Thursday at Fort Bliss, Texas, shows 10 soldiers in uniform breastfeeding their children.

“We are officially trending on Facebook. It’s crazy,” said Tara Ruby, the photographer behind the image and a former airman who is married to a soldier.

“Today I believe we made history,” Ruby wrote on her Facebook page. “To my knowledge, a group photo to show support of active-duty military mommies nursing their littles has never been done. It is so nice to see support for this here at Fort Bliss.”  [Army Times]

You can read more at the link.

The Stars & Stripes profiled a book released this month by Megan MacKenzie titled “Beyond the Band of Brothers: The U.S. Military and the Myth that Women Can’t Fight”.  Here is the part of the article that shows this author knows little about what she is advocating for:

MacKenzie acknowledges differences between the sexes but objects to them being cited as evidence of women’s inferiority for combat positions.

“It’s starting to get old,” she said. “We keep going back to women and men are different but ignoring that warfare is also different and physical standards also potentially need to be adapted. Most militaries around the world are adapting the physical standards because war has changed so much. Just basing standards around measuring the fitness of an average 23-year-old male doesn’t tell us much about whether someone can be a combat soldier.”

Debate over physical standards also ignores that in recent years many women have been in de facto combat positions, particularly those who were in cultural support teams attached to Special Forces and Ranger teams in Afghanistan, she said. Many received combat-action badges. Some were wounded. Two died during direct-action raids.  [Stars & Stripes]

Unless exo-skeletons are invented fitness will remain a top requirement for an infantry soldier.  Serving in the infantry is physically hard and women are at a biological disadvantage.  I have no doubt that the few exceptions like 1LT Shaye Haver and CPT Kristen Griest who recently graduated from Ranger School would be welcomed in the infantry if that is what they wanted to do.

MacKenzie like other advocates before her also continue to cite female engagement teams as evidence women can serve in the infantry and special forces.  Female engagement teams did not do the grinding daily work of infantrymen and special forces; they had their purpose and they executed it well and their purpose was not to do infantry work.  Also being in a combat position and earning a CAB is also not evidence that someone can serve in the infantry.  She is basically making an argument that sounds good to people who have never served in the military before, but those of us who have served know better.

If at your next SHARP training session you get taught that it is not okay for you to go to spouses in your unit and kiss them on the lips this is why:

As Congress wrangled with the growing clamor over sexual misconduct in the military in 2013, a Fort Bragg commander made it a practice to give the wives of subordinates unwelcome kisses on the lips at public events.

After an anonymous letter was sent to the commander’s superiors, a subsequent investigation led to his removal from his job. But he stayed in the military and was allowed to quietly retire in April 2015 – more than two years after the initial complaint about his conduct.

An Army investigation – triggered by an anonymous letter to Lt. Gen. Daniel Allyn, commander of the 18th Airborne Corps at the time – reveals that Col. Chad McRee, former commander of the 16th Military Police Brigade, violated five of eight core expectations for Army leaders, made inappropriate remarks toward officers and noncommissioned officers and was unfairly authoritative toward Family Readiness Group members, officers and noncommissioned officers. [Fayetteville Observer]

You have to read the whole thing at the link to appreciate how outrageous this Colonel and his wife’s behavior was in regards to spouses in their unit.

1967 is when the first US-South Korea Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) was signed which handed over legal jurisdiction of crimes committed by US troops while off duty to the Korean authorities.  The most serious case that was first tried in a Korean court involving a US servicemember was the 1967 murder of Chun-ja Kim by Private Eugene D. Taylor.  Taylor was a cook assigned to Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry DIvision.  Taylor was just days away from completing his tour of duty in Korea when he arrested for the murder of his Korean girlfriend on November 5, 1967.

From the November 27, 1967 edition of the Stars & Stripes.

Before redeploying to the US, Pvt. Taylor decided to go on a drunken bender at his girlfriend’s residence.  For some reason during his drunken bender he decided to strangle and kill his Korean girlfriend, Chun-ja Kim that he supposedly had plans to return to Korea to marry.  He committed this murder two days before redeploying to the US.  This just shows that even back in the 1960’s soldiers at high risk of getting in trouble are those within 30 days of going home.  It also shows that the old Korean complaint of GIs committing crimes in Korea and then getting away with them by flying back to the US was also not true back then.

From the February 8, 1968 edition of the Stars & Stripes.

The landlord of the home that Ms. Kim lived at discovered the body in the morning along with Taylor bleeding with a neck wound.  He claims that when he woke up and discovered Kim’s dead body that he tried to commit suicide by slashing his neck with a piece of broken glass.  It appears he was drunk enough to kill someone else, but not drunk enough to kill himself.

From the March 7, 1968 edition of the Stars & Stripes.

Ultimately Pvt Taylor was convicted of the murder of Ms. Kim and sentenced to 8 years in a Korean prison.  It seems like a pretty lenient sentence, but the Korean court took into consideration the mitigating circumstances of him being a soldier deployed to defend Korea and the fact he was drunk.  So being drunk back in the 60’s was considered a mitigating circumstance just like it is today in Korean courts.

From the April 11, 1968 edition of the Stars & Stripes.

Taylor’s crime is now long forgotten in the dustbins of USFK history, but he does have the dubious distinction of being the first American servicemember convicted and sentenced for murder in a South Korean court.  This case shows that US servicemembers were held accountable for the crimes in Korean courts back then and continue to be held accountable today.

Note: You can read more GI Flashbacks articles by clicking on the below link: