January 23,
2002
Soldiers For The Truth
(SFTT) Weekly Newsletter
When we assumed the Soldier, We did not lay aside the Citizen.
General George Washington, to the New York Legislature, 1775
In this week’s Issue
of DefenseWatch:
Looking
After the Troops
| Table of Contents | |
|
by Ed Offley
There was a media firestorm in the British press over the treatment of al Qaeda detainees at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay over the weekend, but when the Defense Department allowed London officials to visit the site for a first-hand look, the controversy all but evaporated like morning fog in the tropical sunshine.
That this scandal-in-the-making came and vanished so quickly says much about the tough, but not inhumane treatment the U.S. military has planned for killers who, in Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers' words, "would gnaw hydraulic lines in the back of a C-17 to bring it down." Alas, the incident also says much more about how the raw appetite for news may inadvertently skew the efforts of major news organizations into bias or error as the campaign against terrorism moves on.
With combat all but at an end in Afghanistan and the other operations against al Qaeda (e.g. security arrests in Singapore and U.S. military assistance to the Philippines army) difficult to capture on videotape, it is no surprise that the western news media quickly turned to the treatment of captured al Qaeda fighters as the story du jour.
After all, these are living, breathing examples of the killer fanatics who hijacked the four airliners and killed nearly 4,000 innocent Americans on Sept. 11, and likely include survivors of the prison riot at Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan that resulted in the death of CIA operative Mike Spann. There are several hundred of these thugs already in confinement, with more than 1,700 more to come.
From what has emerged in limited media visits to the Camp X-Ray facility at Guantanamo Bay, the prison is short on amenities and very long on physical security, including see-through chain-link walls and an abundance of armed Marines. However, the Pentagon has also arranged for a Muslim chaplain, is providing copies of the Koran, and food and medical care far beyond what the fighters enjoyed in the final weeks of their ill-fated struggle against the United States and its allies in Afghanistan.
Pentagon officials say the furor erupted upon release of a photograph showing a group of al Qaeda prisoners sitting on the ground with their hands cuffed behind them, and with opaque goggles and earmuffs masking their vision and hearing. This image inadvertently suggested that the prisoners are being kept in that condition, when in fact the additional restraints were employed for the short ride from the airport to the prison site.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday defended the prisoner treatment, calling it "proper, it's humane, it's appropriate, and it is fully consistent with international conventions."
It was refreshing - but not surprising - that the British officials who visited the prison and the inmates, quickly stepped forward to say they had received "no complaints" after interviewing three detainees who reportedly hold British citizenship. Their immediate verdict: The U.S. military is adhering to adequate standards of prisoner treatment as dictated by the Geneva Conventions and international law. In a similar move, Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman on Sunday said, "I think our military is doing just the right thing in the way they are handling them at Guantanamo."
The Pentagon decision late Tuesday to temporarily suspend prisoner transfers to Cuba provides additional proof that the Defense Department is balancing security and safety in regard to the site. That decision stemmed from the fact that the temporary prison has filled up even as the Marine Corps unit in charge presses to construct a permanent detention facility capable of holding around 2,000 al Qaeda fighters.
The Bush administration has yet to make a formal determination as to whether the al Qaeda prisoners will continue to be classified as "unlawful detainees" or may have their status formally changed to Prisoners of War (which provides them a number of rights that they do not now enjoy). Their long-term fate likewise is in limbo.
But two things are as clear as the sunshine over Guantanamo Bay: The prisoners are being treated far better than al Qaeda has treated its avowed enemies or their Taliban hosts treated the ravaged country of Afghanistan; and the harsh security under which they are now living - the armed guards, the razor-wire-topped fences, the chain-link cages - remains fully justified.
Ed Offley is Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at defensewatch@aol.com.
by David H. Hackworth
Special Forces Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Chapman was shot in the back by a terrorist in Afghanistan this month and killed. Ranger Sgt. Casey Joyce was shot in the back by an insurgent in Somalia in 1993 and killed.
Both of these deaths probably could have been prevented had the grunts been wearing decent flak jackets. Joyce was wearing the Army's best at the time, the Ranger vest, but he'd removed the armor plates at the back to lighten the load. Chapman, like most of our Special Forces operators on dangerous missions, wasn't wearing any vest at all - these warriors say they're too heavy, too cumbersome.
Retired Special Forces Colonel Dave Hunt, who ran black ops in bad places like Cambodia, Iraq and Bosnia, says, "The stuff we had slowed you down and cut your endurance."
Body armor dates back to the 13th century, when metal plates were worn under chain mail. But by the 14th century, the knights were decked out in so much armor - from head to foot - that their horses could barely trot. If a horse went down, that knight was as immobilized as a turtle on its back - easy slicing for a swordsman. Because of the lack of mobility and the subsequent introduction of gunpowder, the savvy knights eventually did what many of our defenders are doing today - gave body armor a pass.
Even though metallurgical skills and weaponry improved a thousand fold from the days of the Knights of the Round Table to World War II - where the U.S. Army took 823,483 casualties (80 percent infantry) - our grunts still went into battle much like the Johnnies and Rebs in our Civil War, totally unprotected. The same was true in the early part of the Korean War - where the Army took 109,958 casualties (84 percent infantry). By the end of that conflict, flak jackets were available, but they were heavy, made for warriors sitting behind a weapon, not for grunts slipping through the bush. While these jackets were greatly improved during the Vietnam War - where the Army took 230,398 casualties (80 percent infantry) - they were shunned by most grunts in the field because of weight, unwieldiness and the fact that they became sweat suits in tropical conditions.
Today's technology can produce a lightweight jacket that will stop most bullets. The concealed body armor currently worn by George W. Bush, the Secret Service and many law-enforcement folks does the trick.
Sure, the president should have the best vest that money can buy, but I have a hard time understanding why guys and gals in the Secret Service get priority over our grunts, especially our Special Warfare operators. Compare the casualty stats and ask yourself who needs the jackets more.
The Army has been spending serious money and too many years in search of the right flak jacket when it's already on the shelf. With just a fraction of the dough spent on research and development since Casey Joyce died, our Special Ops guys could already have been wearing the finest body armor available. If he'd been wearing one of those Secret Service specials, Nathan Chapman would probably be with his wife and kids in Tacoma, Wash., recovering from minor bruising instead of 6 feet under.
It costs a minimum of $1 million to train a Special Forces operator. Newsweek spent $700 to buy a high-quality, lightweight vest for my trip to Somalia - without having a nickel invested in my education.
After 56 years around conflicts, I've seen generals up front where the dying occurs no more than a dozen times. You can bet your old boots that if they were the ones hanging out in Death Valley, the Army would have the lightest, most up-to-date body armor going.
If the members of Congress would allocate just 1 percent of the energy they spent trying to zap Clinton over Monica or they're about to spend going after Bush over Enron and put it toward looking after our boys in the trenches, you better believe decent body armor would be made in every state in the union. And, for a change, the porkers would be doing something patriotic. Just ask widows Chapman, Joyce and scores more women in black.
http://www.hackworth.com is the address of David Hackworth's home page. Sign in for the free weekly Defending America column at his Web site. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831.
© 2001 David H. Hackworth
by Jon Barrett III
The mobilization of the Naval Reserve for the ongoing war against terrorism continues a very old story of bureaucratic bungling and mismanagement. Although naval mobilization was thoroughly disastrous in Operation Desert Storm, and many studies, revisions and plans were generated after the 1991 war to ensure future success, so far it has been the same incompetence as usual.
The Navy has called up fewer reservists than the other uniformed services, primarily due to the nature of naval operations. Peacetime operations of flying, steaming, and operating take much the same actions, manpower, and effort as wartime operations. This is just the reality of seagoing service.
There is not much different in operating in the Persian Gulf in peacetime compared with the Gulf at war. Wartime augmentation is primarily for support operations, security and the back-fill of shore jobs necessary to support the fleet. In fact, Hack himself has commented often on the Navy and Marine Corps' greater readiness status.
Yet when the orders came down to mobilize forces for Afghanistan, the Navy could not determine who, where, and when to call up - and still continues to wrestle with the issue more than three months after the shooting started.
The Navy keeps special reserve units for the express purpose of mobilizing other reserve units. Yet every time the reserves are called up, these "activation commands" find themselves buried in paper and unable to process the smooth call-up of America's citizen sailors.
In the Naval Coastal Warfare community, materiel readiness is so bad that an estimated $100 million was required to replace vehicles, parts, personal protective gear, and field gear. Across the community, the members of the reserve units are making do with flak jackets that don't fit, helmets without straps or covers, inadequate LBE, missing first aid kits, and so forth.
The word came down - everyone was going to be mobilized. When it was "discovered" that vehicles didn't work, electronics were broken, protective gear was non-existent, and personnel could not be maintained in the field without $100 million in new expenditures, the voices of impending mobilization quickly retreated. Now a few units are to be mobilized and the rest left to their own devices.
How can a unit whose mission is security be relied upon to provide security when it is impossible to protect even its own members?
The issue, of course, is one of turf lines. Naval Amphibious Warfare "owns" Naval Coastal Warfare, which is comprised 100 percent of reservists. The leaders of the amphibious warfare community are reluctant to realign $100 million from their ships to these ground forces. Therefore, port and harbor security is nonexistent in the active-duty Navy.
To add insult to injury, the Naval Coastal Warfare commands will not be involved in homeland defense, but will be utilized overseas. The battle for missions is on between the Navy and the Coast Guard, and the USCG has stated in no uncertain terms that it owns homeland defense.
It appears that the Navy will accept this position, which means that the entire Naval Coastal Warfare capability will only be use overseas in foreign ports to protect a few Navy ships, while the bulk of Navy ports in the United States will have to rely on USCG security. At the risk of sounding inflammatory, it should be noted that USCG security has not been effective against the drug traffickers. Why are we leaving naval security to them?
Today, as we mop up in
Afghanistan, the leading players of the war effort have become visible. Army
and Air Force special operations units, of course, are highly mobile, well
trained and ready to fight. The Marine Corps provided the first major ground
combat units in Afghanistan, and are being replaced by Army light infantry
and air assault troops. Apart from carrier aircraft, the Navy's main role
has been to assist special operations units carry the war to a land-locked
country.
The old Navy special warfare joke has been reconfirmed in Afghanistan: "As
long as there is water in our canteens, we are in a maritime environment."
I just hope we can protect ourselves while fighting in that environment.
Jon Barrett is the pen name of a DefenseWatch Contributing Editor who is a U.S. Navy officer whose career includes experience in both the surface Navy and Naval Special Warfare. He can be reached at jbarrett@computermail.net.
by Matthew Dodd
Do you ever wonder how the Department of Defense (DoD) keeps coming up with new buzzwords or catch-phrases? Do you ever have to stop reading DoD documents to look up a new acronym? Do you ever wish you knew how these terms were created?
I recently uncovered the tightly guarded secret of DoD's rapid and constant term development process. According to Pentagon insiders, the secret is known as, "The Beltway Acronym/Buzzword/Catch-phrase Generator," or "A-B-C Generator" for short. The most current version is depicted below.
|
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
|
0
|
Theater
|
Strategic
|
Transformation
|
|
1
|
Time
sensitive
|
Coalition
|
Response
|
|
2
|
Expeditionary
|
Inter-agency
|
Command
& Control
|
|
3
|
Joint
|
Modular
|
Experimentation
|
|
4
|
Distributed
|
Humanitarian
|
Assets
|
|
5
|
Deployable
|
Space-based
|
Requirements
|
|
6
|
SecDef/CINC/CJCS-directed
|
Doctrinal
|
Networks
|
|
7
|
Inter-operable
|
Logistics
|
Security
|
|
8
|
Precision
|
Infrastructure
|
Operations
|
|
9
|
Global
|
Intelligence
|
System
|
This handy tool has a few easy steps:
1. Decide on any three-digit
number.
2. Look in column A for the word which corresponds to the first number.
3. Look in column B for the word which corresponds to the second number.
4. Look in column C for the word which corresponds to the third number.
5. Put your three words together for your new acronym, buzzword, or catch-
phrase.
This Generator has been used and kept secret for years. No one is sure when it was first used, but one administration source said that one of the main factors in appointing the current SecDef was his "vast experience with the Generator" from his previous service in that office.
According to former DoD officials, who only agreed to be interviewed on condition of anonymity, the Generator's thirty words are updated and scrambled every year during half-time of the Army-Navy football game. The words are selected by a DoD civilian after an exhaustive analysis of no more than five randomly chosen editions of The Early Bird, the daily concise compilation of the most current published news articles and commentary concerning the most significant defense and defense-related national security issues.
The Generator is used in many ways by many people in many situations. Chances are that if you ever worked in or around the Pentagon, or watched a Pentagon press conference on television, you probably were exposed to the Generator's products and never realized it. Let me share the three most popular ways the Generator is used within the Washington Beltway:
First, at press conferences, senior briefers often keep a laminated copy of the Generator on the podium to help them answer questions. The best briefers can introduce enough catch-phrases in a matter of minutes to keep the most seasoned reporters off balance. "When you look at the theater strategic response (0-0-0 from the Generator) from a time-sensitive inter-agency assets (1-2-4 from the Generator) perspective, our global modular command and control (9-3-2 from the Generator) must support the coalition's expeditionary logistics operations (3-7-8 from the Generator)."
Second, some senior DoD leaders use the generator to create hours of paper and mental work for their subordinates. Right before leaving the office, the leader will tell his office executive assistant (EA) that he needs someone to brief him on a generated catch-phrase when he returns. For example: "I need to get spun up on the status of precision space-based assets (8-5-4 from the Generator)." With no time for questions, most EAs will "donkey-nod" their heads and eventually find some action officer (AO) to research and prepare a brief on the catch-phrase.
Third, some savvy AOs with inexperienced senior officers discover that they can selectively use the Generator to baffle their boss(es). When those inexperienced seniors ask questions, the savvy AOs can deflect attention away from themselves by mixing memorized acronyms and catch-phrases into their answers. The more confident the AO sounds, the greater the chances are that the inexperienced senior will "donkey-nod" and not question his AO for fear of appearing ignorant.
When asked about why one of his programs is behind schedule and over budget, the AO may respond, "The program is being held up by the JDN (Joint Doctrinal Networks: 3-6-6 from the Generator) office which is adding distributed infrastructure requirements (4-8-5 from the Generator) costs on top of our estimated budget."
The Generator's popularity is growing. I am told that now each military service, and many governmental organizations (including Congress) have their own Generators. The keys to the Generator's success are, it is easy to use, and its products do not necessarily have to be totally legitimate to be effective. "The perfect bureaucratic tool" is how one senior official describes the Generator.
The next time you hear or read a very smooth but unfamiliar acronym, buzzword or catch-phrase, do not be intimidated - challenge the source. Be confident in your challenge, for as long-time radio news commentator Paul Harvey says, "Now you know the rest of the story."
Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd is the pen name of an active-duty Marine Corps officer stationed at the Pentagon. He can be reached at mattdodd1775@hotmail.com.
by J. David Galland
Can it be true, does a military college actually have the guts, and sense to expel cadets who are in a family way?
Well, hold on to your Stress Cards, your Consideration of Others manuals and your Army Values dog tags. The esteemed Virginia Military Institute has announced that effective Jan. 15, 2002, that it will terminate both the student and the cadet status of aspiring attendees who are discovered to be "with child."
As a soldier who has served under seven presidents, this sounds like a pretty good policy to me. Inasmuch as I just had the honor and pleasure of becoming a father to a bouncing baby boy five months ago, I can bring an additional, personal perspective to this issue.
For nine months, I observed my wife - strong physically and mentally - weave her way through a pregnancy that was termed "uncomplicated." I cannot imagine how any candidate in that condition could rise to the physical rigors of a military academy curriculum while managing the requirements of being a parent.
In the active Army, pregnant soldiers are simply exempt from normal physical exercise, full workdays, and rigorous training by virtue of physical profiling and are often assigned light duties, similar to a soldier with a broken ankle (that will heal) or bad case of the flu (which will pass). A pregnant female soldier may also opt to depart the military under honorable conditions.
What the Virginia Military Institute has done is decide that it will not allow its cadets to attempt the impossible: To carry out the physical and academic rigors of institute life while simultaneously having and then raising a child.
The VMI leadership has recognized that a cadet must be a total team player and student leader. One of the core tenets of being a member of the corps of cadets is that each individual is part of a team in which a weak link will denigrate the team's overall effectiveness. This precludes time off for childrearing and both the moral and physical responsibilities that accompany such an undertaking.
Potential candidates are made fully aware of this fact before they are allowed to pursue such a challenging academic undertaking at the VMI.
I believe that the VMI
decision to impose this new policy is grounded in both logic and wisdom. VMI
has determined that cadets who cannot carry their load due to pregnancy, who
cannot partake in rigorous physical training, who cannot bolster the team
with their total dedication to the training challenges, who need time off
when the blessed day comes (and weeks thereafter), are not appropriate candidates
for the corps of cadets.
One can safely assume that this policy will not go unchallenged by the great
minds of the American legal profession who believe that it less important
that VMI's formal goals - graduating and commissioning cadets as capable junior
military officers - are achieved, but rather, how flexible can the institution
be in allowing for the special needs of a few individual - that is, pregnant
- cadets.
The legal and philosophical
underpinning of the anticipated assault on VMI could be gleaned by a recent
comment from one Ms. Jocelyn Samuels, of the National Women's Law Center in
Washington, D. C., who said, "We have concerns about this policy as a
legal matter, as a policy of common sense" (italics added).
It is clear that in the "common sense" minds of the activists of
the National Women's Law Center, neither VMI's institutional purpose, nor
the educational focus of the corps of cadets nor the post-graduate realities
of military service have any significant weight in the issue over cadet pregnancies.
I can't help but wonder if Ms. Samuels would have similar concerns for a handful of male Ranger and Delta Force male soldiers getting cut to ribbons by Somali crazies. I already know the answer to that, and so do you, the reader. I am proud to add that many soldiers who have worked for me over the years have been perceptive enough to see through the thin veneer of motivation of those whom have sought to ensure gender equality in the ranks.
Yes, Ms. Samuels, there a lot of smart soldiers who see right through people like you.
Soldiers, male and female, realize that they, as individuals, mean nothing to those who claim to be the champions of women's rights and equality in the military. They remain steadfastly convinced that they have been nothing more than pawns on a political chessboard.
My undying respect and my sincere thanks go out to those female soldiers, the quiet strong performers, for seeing right through the warped motivations of the feminist movement's ideas for what the military should be, for standing their ground during the gender-equality wars and continuing to soldier on!
My own "common sense" take on pregnancy in the ranks stems from applying that scenario to an infantry rifle squad: If female soldiers were allowed to serve in the infantry, a couple of pregnant soldiers in a rifle squad would create a gap in the ranks that would literally render the team combat ineffective - that is, probably dead on a battlefield out here in the real world.
(VMI also intends to boot out male cadets who are expectant fathers, whether or not the expectant woman is a cadet, but this facet of the policy has failed to excite feminist activists.)
J. David Galland, Deputy Editor of DefenseWatch, is the pen name of a career U.S. Army senior Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in Germany. He can be reached at defensewatch02@yahoo.com.
Last of three parts
by Robert G. Williscroft
In my earlier articles on nuclear power, I reviewed how fissile Uranium-235 drives a nuclear reactor, and how Uranium-238 participates in the process by transforming into Plutonium-239, which is fissile like Uranium-235. This phenomenon of nuclear physics lies at the heart of a conceptual blueprint by which the United States once and for all can end its energy dependence on fossil fuels and the unstable Third World nations who export petroleum.
Two significant obstacles stand in the way of an energy-independent United States: (1) Finding a solution to the immense amounts of dangerous and highly-radioactive spent reactor fuel already on hand, and (2) Implementing reactor designs that generate electricity while creating more useful nuclear fuel.
In order to see how this can be done, it's first necessary to review some basic physics: Plutonium-239 produces significantly more energy than Uranium-235. And the process continues to produce the additional isotopes Plutonium-240 and 241 and 242. This raises an interesting question.
Can we take these fuel rods that contain all this Plutonium, separate out the Plutonium and whatever Uranium was not used, and make more fuel rods? You bet. In fact, we actually end up with more fuel after the process than what we started with. Why is this not being done?
Plutonium is used in atomic bombs - the fact that it's pure Plutonium-239 that makes an atomic bomb work, and not the other three isotopes, apparently didn't matter, because in 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that banned the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the United States. The rationale was that the Plutonium could possibly be stolen, and terrorists might be able to use it to make atomic bombs.
Never mind that in the real world, it is essentially impossible to separate out the Plutonium-239 from the other isotopes in sufficient purity to use it for bomb making. The British tried it, the Russians tried it, the French tried it, and we tried it, but nobody did it very well, even though we had the best scientists and all the money in the world to throw at it.
If you try to make a bomb with such a mixture of Plutonium isotopes, forget about it - it won't work, ever. We're talking about the laws of physics, Greenpeace notwithstanding. Unless you have pure Plutonium-239, your bomb will fizzle. So throwing away all that valuable nuclear fuel to prevent terrorists from making a bomb that won't work anyway is just plain dumb.
How do we get the Plutonium-239 for our atomic bombs? We built reactors fueled with Uranium-238 whose only job is to create Plutonium-239. These systems are some of the best-guarded plants in the world. Our weapons grade Plutonium is safe. And we use the stuff over and over and over, as necessary, to keep our supply of weapons grade Plutonium up to date and available.
Can we do the same thing to produce nuclear fuel? The answer is a resounding Yes!
This type of reactor, called a Breeder Reactor, actually produces more fuel than it consumes. A reactor designed to use a mixed Plutonium fuel is basically the same as the Uranium reactor we have already discussed. However, the neutrons that sustain the reaction contain more energy - they are commonly known as "fast" neutrons.
In order to regulate the internal neutron flux, the primary coolant typically is one of the light metals like Sodium. Since Uranium-238 is one of the more abundant elements in the Earth's crust, Breeder Reactors make it possible to have an essentially unlimited source of fuel for nuclear reactors - which means an unlimited supply of electricity.
At its best, the Breeder Reactor system produces no nuclear waste whatever - literally everything eventually gets used. In the real world, there actually may be some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life - the period of time it takes for half the radioactivity to dissipate - is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years!
Imagine a transformed energy landscape, where there is no nuclear waste problem, no power shortages, a safe and inexhaustible supply of inexpensive electricity. France has constructed and used Breeder Reactors like this for many years. So have the British and the Japanese. So why not the United States?
We invented the technology but then made a political decision back in 1977 that has accomplished nothing but to create immense piles of long-lived, highly radioactive material that we cannot use for anything, and worse - we must safely store for more than its half-life of 25,000 years.
The first thing we need is to identify the location and related technology that can safely isolate thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel for 25,000 years - which is a longer time than all of recorded human history. Will our descendents 25,000 years from now even be able to read a sign that says: "Keep Out!"
The scientists - not the ones who made the stupid 1977 decision - but the ones who have to carry it out, have solved part of the problem. Researchers have developed a glass strengthened with a boron complex that appears able to withstand at least 10,000 years of abrasion with little erosion. For now, they encase the nuclear "waste" in borated glass beads, and then embed these in hardened concrete inside steel drums, and store them in pools of water.
The United States has several thousand of these drums just waiting for the politicians to decide into which hole in the ground they will eventually be moved.
It is tempting to believe that our society will progress sufficiently that one day it will finally decide to make practical use of this valuable resource. Unfortunately, our scientists did a pretty good job with the borated glass and concrete encapsulation. It may turn out to be cheaper to refine new nuclear fuel than to undo what we have created.
The final irony is that there is a much better way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel if we really don't want to keep it around. We tend to think of the solid earth as just that, although anybody San Francisco or Los Angeles can tell you that it just isn't so.
Our planet's crust consists of a multitude of individual large pieces called tectonic plates. These plates are constantly moving around the surface of the planet, jostling and rubbing one another, and sliding over and under each other. For example, when the plate upon which the Indian sub-continent rests bumped into the Asian plate, the resultant crumpling formed the Himalayan mountain chain. The Western Pacific plate slides under the Asian plate, forming the Marianas Trench, the deepest spot in the ocean. These forces are enormous, surpassing by orders of magnitude anything else on this planet.
As one plate subducts under another, the entire plate edge is forced deep into the bowels of the Earth where it, and everything on and in it, is totally transformed into the stuff that makes up the Earth's mantle. This transformation results from tremendous pressure and from heat, caused in part by the pressure and by radioactive substances contained within the Earth. The Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench in the Pacific is nearly 36,000 feet deep, over seven miles of water.
If we were to drop the thousands of borated glass encased drums of so-called nuclear waste into the Challenger Deep or some other fast-moving subduction zone, within a few hundreds or thousands of years the material would be pulled deep within the Earth's interior where it would be completely and utterly dissipated and destroyed.
If there is one long-term "lesson learned" from the recent span of history that includes the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Operation Desert Storm, and our current war against terrorists, it is that the United States must become energy independent.
We have a staggering nuclear waste problem created by a political decision that we could solve simply by reversing that original decision. We also have a perfectly viable way or resurrecting clean and safe nuclear power simply by making the political decision to develop it.
There is no compelling reason to delay shifting our dependence from fossil to nuclear fuel, and redirecting our nuclear focus to Breeder Reactors. We have the ability to control our own energy destiny if we only have the courage to renounce past executive errors and to embrace viable new technologies.
Robert G. Williscroft is DefenseWatch Navy Editor. He can be reached at dwnavyeditor@argee.net.
by Col. Roderick Smith, USMCR (Ret.)
As a fervent admirer of David Hackworth and coming from an aviation background myself, I would never pretend to call any opinion of his into question. However, on occasion it occurs to me that he may be less correct than at other moments. And so I read his column, "A Committee for the Protection of the Grunts" (DefenseWatch, Jan. 16), with interest. Here are some observations.
As a Vietnam-era Marine, I will carry to the grave my opinion that aviation alone never wins any war. I leave that to the Grunts to hold, occupy and secure. But I do recall dropping hundreds of "dumb" bombs on targets which, today would be handled by only one or two "smart" weapons at reduced cost and effort, not to mention the longevity of aircrews.
My Air Force friends are persuaded that air power can, does and will win wars by itself. But then differences of opinions make for excellent beer conversations.
As a Forward Air Controller (Ground), however, I vividly recall the misery of digging my own foxholes with an infernal device euphemistically entitled the "entrenching tool." Even back then, I often wondered why the 20th century could not create a less backbreaking and time-consuming method of digging in. Whenever possible, I resorted to bribing the local Navy CBs, whose power equipment made short work of my defensive needs. Field operations had to be dug by hand, however. I finally resolved that the 20th century had produced no better means of entrenchment because senior officers didn't have to dig their own, thereby reinforcing the old adage, "Nothing is too difficult for the man who doesn't have to do it himself."
The CH-46 helicopter problem that Col. Hackworth addressed has truly been a major headache for the Marines for over 20 years. Those "dinosaurs" have been over-rehabilitated to the point of lunacy. The Blackhawk substitution was under active consideration when I was at HQMC in the 1980s, but fell victim to inter-service squabbling and politics. Today, Marine aviation is wedded to the Osprey as our remedial hope of hopes. Personally, I don't think the technology is there yet - but I hope so.
I had to smile at Col. Hackworth's condemnation of the M-16A2, having heard both praise and damnation. I'm sure he recognizes better than I all the trade-offs that go into the selection of weapon design, weight, caliber and effectiveness. Praise or condemnation of a rifle seems to vary with the specifics of mission success. AK-47s (AKMs), while arguably the most reliable assault weapon ever devised, are notoriously inaccurate at much over 100 meters. And besides, the notorious chatter of the AK-47 makes me damned nervous.
His observation on the Beretta service pistol is not only correct, but an outstanding example of bureaucratic inability to leave success alone.
And finally, we all recognize the historic tendency of Congress to fall in love with technology, especially Air Force technology. If it can be done, it must be done, whether we have a need for it or not. Please recall that the B-2 (which flew six missions over Afghanistan) was originally designed to ferret out and attack Soviet mobile intermediate-range ballistic missile sites (IRBMs). Recalling as well that IRBMs were subsequently eliminated by treaty, our illustrious and expensive Air Force toy became an airplane without a mission, in limbo where it remains today.
Col. Smith is retired from the U.S. Marine Corps.
I could not agree more with David Hackworth's column, "Wanted: A Committee for the Protection of the Grunts," (DefenseWatch, Jan. 16.)
In particular, I noted his comments on the reliability of the Soviet AK-47. He wrote, "The grunt's M-16A2 rifle has also been around since Vietnam, where our troops uniformly damned it. Updated, with most of the bugs ironed out, this 5.56-mm fly swatter still rates only average in reliability, functioning and Grunt confidence. Given a choice, most Special Forces soldiers would go with the upgraded World War II Soviet AK-47. A top SF warrior with whom I shared a foxhole in Desert Storm says, "'We have no doubt that come hell or high water, the AK won't let us down.' "
I have three AR-15s: two by Colt, and one by Olympic Arms. I take very good care of them, I am careful about what ammo I use, and I have found that many of the jamming incidents have to do with the quality of the magazine (a lot of crappy knockoffs out there) and how well it's been cleaned.
Be that as it may, I have a Romanian made AK-47 that just doesn't jam. Kalashnikov is a bloody genius. He now has a new gun that fires two rounds extremely rapidly per trigger pull and it has very little recoil. What he's done is design it so that the entire bolt and barrel move in unison and a special stock absorbs the recoil. We really need to look at that puppy. It beats the M16A3 hands down.
If I had to go into combat, it would be with an AK-47 or AKM-74
--Thomas Carney
Rank and organization: Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army Air Corps, 52d Bombardment Squadron, 29th Bombardment Group, 20th Air Force.
Place and date: Koriyama, Japan, 12 April 1945.
Entered service at: Bessemer, Ala. Born: 8 May 1921, Adamsville, Ala. G.O. No.: 44, 6 June 1945.
Citation: He was the radio operator of a B-29 airplane leading a group formation to attack Koriyama, Japan. He was charged with the additional duty of dropping phosphoresce smoke bombs to aid in assembling the group when the launching point was reached. Upon entering the assembly area, aircraft fire and enemy fighter opposition was encountered.
Among the phosphorescent bombs launched by S/Sgt. Erwin, one proved faulty, exploding in the launching chute, and shot back into the interior of the aircraft, striking him in the face. The burning phosphoresce obliterated his nose and completely blinded him. Smoke filled the plane, obscuring the vision of the pilot.
S/Sgt. Erwin realized that the aircraft and crew would be lost if the burning bomb remained in the plane. Without regard for his own safety, he picked it up and feeling his way, instinctively, crawled around the gun turret and headed for the copilot's window. He found the navigator's table obstructing his passage. Grasping the burning bomb between his forearm and body, he unleashed the spring lock and raised the table.
Struggling through the narrow passage he stumbled forward into the smoke-filled pilot's compartment. Groping with his burning hands, he located the window and threw the bomb out. Completely aflame, he fell back upon the floor.
The smoke cleared, the pilot, at 300 feet, pulled the plane out of its dive. S/Sgt. Erwin's gallantry and heroism above and beyond the call of duty saved the lives of his comrades.
Editor's Note: We regret to inform our readers that Sgt. Erwin passed away last week following a long illness. He will not be forgotten.
If you know of any MOH recipient who is hospitalized or has passed away recently, please email DefenseWatch MOH Editor Jim H. at bulldogleader@mindspring.com.
The IRS recognizes SFTT as a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Educational Foundation (IRS EIN 31-1592564).
Donations are tax deductible. Send us some moral support and encouragement to help in the struggle to improve combat readiness. Every little contribution helps. Mail your checks to:
Soldiers For The Truth FoundationJ. David Galland,
Deputy Editor
defensewatch02@yahoo.com
DefenseWatch is looking for volunteer subject editors willing to assist in screening and editing article submissions. We are looking for experts in the following areas: U.S. Army, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Operations forces/counter-terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and veterans affairs. If interested in joining the DefenseWatch team, please contact Ed Offley at defensewatch@aol.com.
http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/acronym.htm
Hack's books, About Face, Hazardous Duty, The Price of Honor and The Vietnam Primer can be found at www.hackworth.com. They make a great addition to any library. Hack is offering them at a special SFTT price.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
- Make Changes to your E-mail addresses:
An Automated Subscription Manager is Online at URL: (Coming soon)
Manual E-mail Subscriptions See Instructions below
To SUBSCRIBE to SFTT-News - Send e-mail to (Coming soon)
Enter [ subscribe sftt-news ] in the body of the
message. No subject is required.
To UNSUBSCRIBE from SFTT-News - Send e-mail to (Coming soon)
Enter [ unsubscribe sftt-news ] in the body of the
message. No subject is required.
For help or questions with the mailing list send to (Coming soon)
For help or suggestions on the new SFTT web, send e-mail to (Coming soon)