Tag: US military

Here is an article about the trial of a dirtbag drill sergeant that was sentenced to 20 years in prison for forcing trainees to have sex with him. What I found of interest is another example of why these cases are hard to prosecute:

A medic Sanchez deployed with to Afghanistan accused Sanchez of forcing her to have sex with him while they waited to get evacuated from a combat outpost.
She testified that she didn’t fight back and didn’t report the incident until months later, when she faced repercussions for assaulting a military policeman while drunk in Alaska where she was based.
She mentioned three other men in the military who had assaulted her, but those claims didn’t result in charges. She said the relationship with those men had been consensual at one point.
Pressed for more details about the alleged incident involving Sanchez, the woman testified that she had memory loss from being exposed to three roadside bombs.
“I don’t remember step by step” of how it happened, she told Judge Nance from the stand. (Stars and Stripes)

It is a good thing the prosecution had plenty of other witnesses because if this soldier was the star witness he probably would have gotten off.

I guess joining the military is another one of those jobs that Americans supposedly won’t do:

A small number of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally will have an opportunity to join the military for the first time in decades under a new Defense Department policy unveiled Thursday.

The new rules will expand an existing program allowing recruiters to target foreign nationals with high-demand skills, mostly rare foreign language expertise or specialized health care training.

For the first time, the program — known as Military Accessions Vital to National Interest, or MAVNI — will be open to immigrants without a proper visa if they came to the U.S. with their parents before age 16. More specifically, they must be approved under a 2012 Obama administration policy known as Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, or DACA.

The new DoD policy may be the first phase of a broader governmentwide effort to ease pressure on immigrants and create new paths to citizenship. President Obama, frustrated with the failure of Congress to pass any substantial immigration reform, has vowed to aggressively use his presidential authority to change the way immigration policies are carried out. (Military Times)

You can read more at the link, but I am sure this is just a coincidence that this was announced shortly before an election.

I have not discussed the Andrew Tahmooressi case here on the ROK Drop because of how little information there is out there about it. The usual suspects have been using it to bash the Obama administration, but now people need to seriously consider if he intentionally drove into Mexico with those weapons:

If the judge throws the case out on technical grounds, we’ll probably never know for sure whether Tahmooressi was telling the truth when he claimed that he crossed the border by accident after making a wrong turn out of a parking lot in San Ysidro.

But if the trial goes on, that question will be very much at issue. To find Tahmooressi guilty, the judge will have to determine that he intended to break the law by bringing military-style weapons and ammunition into Mexico, which has strict anti-gun laws.

In May, sources showed the arrest video to a reporter for Tijuana’s fearless weekly magazine Zeta.

In a story headlined “Ex-Marine did not enter Mexico by mistake,” Ines Garcia Ramos reported that around 10:30 p.m. on March 31, as Tahmooressi began to drive into Mexico, border officers who noticed a mattress and other large items in his truck waved him over to an inspection area, where his weapons were discovered during a search. Contrary to his assertion that he stopped to ask how to return to the U.S., she wrote, he appeared to be driving away from the border. (After his guns were discovered, he called 911, telling an American operator he had crossed the border “by accident … and they’re trying to take my guns from me.”) (LA Times)

You can read more at the link, but before Tahmooressi drove into Mexico he walked across the border earlier in the day and checked into a hotel. So if he had no intention of driving into Mexico then why did he check into a hotel and then go back to get his truck?

Odierno must get frustrated by members of Congress complaining to him about Army cuts when they are the ones responsible for it:

Fiscal 2016 is the breaking point,” Odierno said, warning it would bring “a significant degradation of readiness.”
Complicating matters is an unusual burden on Army headquarters units, Odierno said. Each one has been cut by about 25 percent, and yet he is sending them to Iraq, to Europe and to Africa to help with coordinating the Ebola response, as well as maintaining the normal rotations in Afghanistan and South Korea.
Enough is enough, he said, and the Army’s tasks aren’t going to get any easier. “I’m not seeing, in ‘16, peace breaking out all over the world.”
Defense advocates on Capitol Hill hope voices like Odierno’s, as well as the enduring crises in Europe and the Middle East, put sequestration back on Congress’ priority list. The world has shown that it’s too dangerous for Congress to permit sequestration to return, as it would under current law, hawks argue. (Politico)

You can read more at the link, but I agree with Odierno that the government needs to figure out a security strategy for the military then properly fund and resource the military to carry out.

That is what one former General thinks:

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Sept. 11, 2014) — As football season kicks off, the public is focusing on favorite teams and athletes and making predictions. That same focus needs to be on “our Soldier-athletes,” perhaps even more so, said Lt. Gen. Robert B. Brown, commander, Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Brown spoke at the Association of the United States Army’s Institute of Land Warfare Medical Forum, Wednesday.

Before kicking off his discussion on “The Soldier Athlete,” Brown walked around the audience of mostly Soldiers and former Soldiers, asking them to describe traits of good athletes. “Leadership,” “disciplined,” “talented,” “teamwork,” “commitment,” “hard work,” “determination,” “competitiveness,” “physically fit,” and “resilient” were some of the attributes given.

Then, Brown asked the same question about Soldiers. The similarities of their answers were striking.

Brown has some insights into soldiering and athletics. He was the number two basketball recruit from Michigan, playing for Coach Mike Krzyewski at the U.S. Military Academy. He was commissioned in 1981, and went infantry.

“We need to be more proactive in the way we treat Soldiers,” he said. In many ways, Soldiers have to deal with situations more difficult than athletes, particularly on the battlefield, but also at home station.

The battlefield of the future will be even more confused and chaotic than ever before, and a mature, well-trained Soldier who is adaptive and quick-thinking will be required.

Who could have imagined just a few months ago that a civilian airline would be shot out of the sky, the barbarism of ISIS and the situation in Ukraine?” he asked. The only predictable thing is that the future will be even more confused and chaotic, he said.

In Brown’s early career, he said the “fog of war was not having enough information. Now, the fog of war is too much information — in overwhelming amounts.” Soldiers will need to process that information much more rapidly than ever before and to do that will require a lot of realistic training. What is certain is that “the enemy will adapt” and they won’t play by the same rules and moral values. [Army.mil]

You can read more at the link.

I definitely agree with the information overload, but as far as training soldiers as elite athletes I would just be happy if the Army became committed to keeping soldiers healthy.

It looks like next year there is going to be more attempts to reduce servicemember benefits if another round of sequestration is not repealed in 2016:

An already tough fiscal environment prompting proposed benefit cuts would get far worse if Congress does not repeal another round of sequestration in 2016, a top U.S. Defense Department official warned military spouses and civilians at town meetings here.

“If not, everything is on the table,” said Jessica Wright, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. The uncertainty means it will be difficult to predict funding for child care, family services, traumatic brain injury and other benefits, she said.

Wright is one of a number of DOD officials who have warned of impending cuts that they say will cut the size of the armed forces and take money from necessary equipment upgrades, placing readiness and national security at risk.

In fact, Wright said, the Pentagon’s proposed 2015 budget represents an attempt to reduce benefits to spend the savings on readiness. The budget includes a reduction in the housing allowance, a 1 percent military pay raise, massive cuts to commissary subsidies and potentially increased medical fees. “Quality of life is higher,” she said. “Quality of service is on the skids.”

A proposed change in commissary funding, which the Pentagon says would reduce the savings on groceries from 30 percent to 10 percent of the cost compared with groceries bought on the economy, has proved highly unpopular.

“Why did we want to do that?” she said. “None of us wants to send a servicemember into combat unprepared.’’ [Stars & Stripes]

You have to love how all the cuts are justified by the language of “readiness”.  What does bloated, over budget acquisition programs have to do with readiness?  Likely what is going on is that the Pentagon is using benefit cuts as leverage to get Congress to repeal the sequestration cuts.

It will be interesting to see who is going to get deployed to do this mission, but this shows the US government must be very concerned that the ebola outbreak could get much worse to deploy this many personnel to try and stop its spread:

Amid criticism that the U.S. has not done enough to block the spread of the Ebola virus across West Africa, President Barack Obama will announce a “significantly ramped up” campaign Tuesday that relies heavily on the U.S. military, senior administration officials said.

The Defense Department will work with local governments to plan and build 17 new Ebola treatment units, for a total of 1,700 new beds, while military medical staff will begin training a target of 500 health care providers per week in care and prevention of the lethal virus, an official said.

The scaled-up effort, along with current programs, will be run through a U.S. joint command center to be set up in Monrovia, Liberia, the country facing the most troubling transmission rate, officials said.

Pentagon officials expected the command center to eventually oversee about 3,000 military personnel on the ground handling logistics, engineering, distribution of supplies, and coordination with other government agencies and international organizations, one official said.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read more at the link.

Compared to the comfort women the women who used to work as prostitutes outside of US military bases definitely do not receive the same level of social support:

More than 70 aging women live in a squalid neighborhood between the rear gate of the U.S. Army garrison here and half a dozen seedy nightclubs. Near the front gate, glossy illustrations posted in real-estate offices show the dream homes that may one day replace their one-room shacks.

They once worked as prostitutes for American soldiers in this “camptown” near Camp Humphreys, and they’ve stayed because they have nowhere else to go. Now, the women are being forced out of the Anjeong-ri neighborhood by developers and landlords eager to build on prime real estate around the soon-to-be-expanded garrison.

“My landlord wants me to leave, but my legs hurt, I can’t walk, and South Korean real estate is too expensive,” says Cho Myung-ja, 75, a former prostitute who receives monthly court eviction notices at her home, which she has rarely left over the last five years because of leg pain.

“I feel like I’m suffocating,” she says.

Plagued by disease, poverty and stigma, the women have little to no support from the public or the government.

Their fate contrasts greatly with a group of Korean women forced into sexual slavery by Japanese troops during World War II. Those so-called “comfort women” receive government assistance under a special law, and large crowds demanding that Japan compensate and apologize to the women attend weekly rallies outside the Japanese Embassy.

While the camptown women get social welfare, there’s no similar law for special funds to help them, according to two Pyeongtaek city officials who refused to be named because of office rules. Many people in South Korea don’t even know about the camptown women.  [Star & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link, but what few people realize is that many of these former prostitutes were sold to pimps by their families and forced to become prostitutes.  Other were abandoned children or orphans that were taken in by the pimps to become prostitutes.  Could it be that the same thing was going on in regards to the World War II comfort women and thus the collective amnesia in regards to the former camptown prostitutes?

Very interesting read by a female Marine about why women should not serve in the Infantry:

While reading the February issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, I skimmed past the “Be Bold” advertisement calling for readers to submit articles that challenge a Marine Corps policy or way of doing business. Immediately a current “hot topic” came to mind, but as usual I quickly discarded it because I have purposely avoided publicly disagreeing with the passionate opinions of many of my female peers and friends. After weeks of contemplation and debate, I am “being bold” and coming clean: I am a female Marine officer and I do not believe women should serve in the infantry. I recognize that this is a strong statement that will be vehemently challenged by many. I have not come to this opinion lightly and I do not take joy in taking a stance that does not support equal opportunity for all. I have spent countless hours discussing this topic with many civilians and Marines and have discovered that a large number of people agree with the arguments in this article but do not wish to get involved in the public discussion. Interestingly, most of the people who want to incorporate women into infantry are civilians or young, inexperienced Marines. Most of the more seasoned Marines with whom I have spoken tend to oppose the idea of women in infantry—perhaps this is failure to adapt or perhaps it is experienced-based reasoning. National Public Radio’s recent segment, “Looking for a Few Good (Combat-Ready) Women,” stated, “Col Weinberg admits there’s anecdotal evidence that female Marines, who make up 7 percent of the force, aren’t rushing to serve in ground combat.”¹ If the infantry had opened to women while I was still a midshipman or second lieutenant I probably would have jumped at the opportunity because of the novelty, excitement, and challenge; but, to my own disappointment, my views have drastically changd with experience and knowledge. Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion. This article addresses many issues regarding incorporating women into the infantry that have yet to be discussed in much of the current discourse that has focused primarily on the physical standards.

Before you disagree, remember that war is not a fair business. Adversaries attempt to gain an advantage over their enemies by any means possible. Enemies do not necessarily abide by their adversary’s moral standards or rules of engagement. Although in today’s world many gory, violent war tactics are considered immoral, archaic, and banned by international law or the Geneva Conventions, adversaries still must give themselves the greatest advantage possible in order to ensure success. For the Marine Corps, this means ensuring that the infantry grunt (03XX) units are the strongest, most powerful, best trained, and most prepared physically and mentally to fight and win. Although perhaps advantageous to individuals and the national movement for complete gender equality, incorporating women into infantry units is not in the best interest of the Marine Corps or U.S. national security.  [Marine Corps Gazette via a reader tip]

I highly recommend reading the whole article at the link, but what I find most interesting about this is that if a male Marine had written this same exact article he would be called a sexist bigot by the special interests in order to drown out honest debate on this topic.  The male Marine would likely have his career blackballed as well if he was of higher rank.  It is a bit harder for the special interests to shout down a female Marine Captain though.

With that all said there are a few things I disagree with the author Captain Lauren Serrano on.  I think if the physical standards are kept high then only someone who is an extremely high-speed individual would be able to meet them.  Due to this fact the drama that Captain Serrano worries about will be largely absent. I have known only one female in the Army during my career that I think could have physically met the Infantry standards.  Her husband was in the 75th Ranger Regiment and they used to work out together all the time.  She was so high-speed that I would be shocked if she became the source of any drama.  By the way I had asked her if she would join the Infantry if she could and she said no way, it was not something she ever wanted to do. That is something else the special interests do not consider, there may be extremely fit people who could meet Infantry standards, but they choose not to because it takes a certain mentality to want to be in the Infantry.

The other issue Serrano brought up, injuries over the course of a career is hard to know, but once again if standards are kept high the women who are able to make it will be extremely fit and should help prevent injuries.  I only see the issues that Captain Serrrano is worried about coming into play if the standards are dropped in order to allow more females into the Infantry.  It is important to remember that if standards are dropped that not only will it allow more females in the Infantry that shouldn’t be there, but males as well.  Infantry is hard work and takes great physical fitness and a certain mentality to do it that the current training standards help to weed those out that shouldn’t be there.

The Chinese have been complaining about the deployment of THAAD to Korea and it looks like the Korean government is going to try and alleviate their concerns:

The government is moving to ease China’s concerns about the possible deployment of U.S. missile interceptors on Korean soil.

National Security Office (NSC) chief Kim Kwan-jin is expected to undertake this hard mission on a visit to Beijing to meet with State Councilor Yang Jiechi in October.

Government officials have recently dropped hints that they would not object to the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) plan to bring in a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.

The advanced missile-defense system that has a range of up to lometers is regarded as an indispensable element of the U.S. missile defense system.

“The NSC chief will try and acquire China’s understanding on THAAD,” a government official said. The resumption of six-party talks aimed at stopping North Korea’s nuclear programs would also be on the agenda, he said.  [Korea Times]

You can read more at the link.