February 20,
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:
Lies, Conscription and Leadership
| Table of Contents | |
|
| FROM THE EDITOR: Strategy of Lies Will Hurt the Pentagon More Than Its Enemies |
By Ed Offley
This has got to be the dumbest Pentagon idea since the $600 toilet seat.
As part of the campaign against international terrorism, the Defense Department has created a unit called the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), charged - reportedly, since Messrs. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Myers have yet to comment publicly in any detail - with organizing a range of "information operations" worldwide to counteract the rhetoric of terrorist Osama bin Laden and other troublemakers.
It's not the public diplomacy, white papers or even propaganda envisioned in the OSI mandate that is causing this idea to blow up in the Pentagon's face.
It's the fact that one of the optional strategies is for the Pentagon to deliberately lie to the foreign news media.
Ever since the 9-11 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush administration and U.S. military leaders have enjoyed one powerful psychological edge over their enemies: The ability to speak truth to the distortions and lies emanating from al Qaeda, the Taliban and hostile Islamic radicals throughout the world.
It was those adversaries who shot themselves in the foot with lies about a secret U.S./Israeli/capitalist plot to destroy the World Trade Center and attack the Pentagon and falsely blame the actual perpetrators. The Bush administration, after several fits and starts, made an impressive show of proof of bin Laden's culpability, particularly in releasing the home video shot as the al Qaeda and his flunkies chortled and smirked over the deaths of 3,000 American civilians on Sept. 11.
With a war on, it has been inevitable that the Pentagon and western news media have frequently clashed over access to U.S. combat units, information concerning the ongoing campaign, and other subjects. As a tight-lipped leader of the Defense Department in a very tight-lipped administration, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has set a new standard for minimalist release of information that has caused many reporters to chafe under the collar.
Nevertheless, it has been striking that even with those frustrating conditions, the press has widely given the Pentagon the benefit of the doubt - or at least, some maneuvering room - as it grapples with a number of controversial issues, particularly allegations of accidental civilian deaths in the Afghanistan bombing campaign, and criticism over the handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
I submit that the primary reason for this stems from an unstated but generally accepted premise among journalists and military officers to date: The Pentagon may be maddeningly non-responsive, unwilling to provide reporters access to combat units, and reluctant to go beyond what it perceives as the minimum disclosure of information on Operation Enduring Freedom.
But it has not deliberately lied.
A report in The New York Times on Tuesday indicated that as part of the OSI operation, the Pentagon is spending about $100,000 a month to the Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm the Rendon Group to advise on information strategies that the Defense Department can employ to shape public opinion overseas.
They should divert $21.95 of that budget to purchase a copy of Bob Woodward's 1987 book, Veil, which analyzed the Reagan administration's war against terrorism in the 1980s, focusing in part on the covert operation of the same name in which National Security Adviser Oliver North, CIA Director William Colby and other senior officials mounted their own disinformation campaign against Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi. This included planting deliberately falsified stories in major U.S. and foreign newspapers about a fictitious U.S. military operation planned to topple Ghadafi from power.
There were three immediate consequences of "Operation Veil," which kicked off on Aug. 16, 1986 when Reagan signed a top secret decision memorandum. First, instead of persuading the Libyan leader to back off his support of terrorists, Ghadafi instead took the counter-offensive and orchestrated a terrorist attack three weeks later against a Pan American airliner in Pakistan that led to 21 deaths. Second, word of the disinformation plan quickly leaked, seriously damaging the Reagan administration's credibility as it attempted to win support from other governments in its own war against terrorism. Third, the effort caused a serious loss of credibility for the Reagan administration within the U.S. news media.
If nothing else, the lesson from "Operation Veil" should be that this is a tactic doomed to fail. Worse, with the proliferation of the internet and global media communications, it is impossible to attempt targeting disinformation against the foreign news media - it will inevitably result in a "blowback" into American newspapers and television programs.
The Pentagon has a wide range of options it can bring to bear in the ongoing war, including psychological warfare and information operations aimed at delivering America's message to the Arab world. Putting Secretary of State Colin Powell on the al Jazeera TV network to explain American foreign policy was just as much a tactic as converting B-52s and JDAM munitions into close-air support aircraft.
But for all of the complexities of the current war - ranging from the diverse ethnic factions squabbling for power in Afghanistan to the technological intricacies of precision-guided munitions and satellite communications - one very simple reality must continue to guide the effort: We must safeguard and protect our nation's credibility above all other factors.
And that means, don't lie.
Ed Offley is Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at defensewatch@aol.com.
| Hack's Target For The Week: Will Osama bin Laden Bring Back the Draft? |
By David H. Hackworth
A few
weeks ago, I wrote in this space about the terrorist rats at Club Fed in Cuba
living the good life in comparison with their American Regular Army guards.
A grunt wrote: "A Marine general came right down and read your column
to us, and things immediately began to improve. We got hot chow that very
next day and cold beer that night."
An Army officer had canceled the Marine general's beer order. Apparently the
thinking went that the troops we trust to defend us with their lives can't
be trusted with a can of beer. Another MP wrote: "Your article got everyone's
attention. Even our Army leaders are now visiting us and acting like they
care about our welfare."
The soldiers who blew the whistle say their communications are monitored,
and they've been told to clam up when the press is around. They're regulars,
the Army is their job, and almost 70 percent are married with mouths to feed.
Since sounding off is a sure way to get on the CO's black list, they're super-paranoid
about being ID'd.
That's nothing new. I saw the same censorship during Operation Desert Storm,
in Haiti and during our ops in ex-Yugoslavia. Nothing like a Top Secret Pentagon
stamp to cover up bad leadership and botched missions such as "Black
Hawk Down."
So our regulars either accept the gagging drill and play the game, or they
find a new profession - while the rest of us rarely pay much attention to
what's going down in the armed forces unless it personally affects us, our
family, our town.
In 1965, when our all-volunteer forces first went to Vietnam, Jane and Joe
Average Civilian were similarly disconnected. And while almost everyone deployed
to 'Nam instantly knew it was a bad war and that our forces were ill-trained
to fight their veteran guerrilla opponent, no one sounded off. Not until the
draft kicked in and planeloads of dead conscripts began coming home in caskets
did America's moms and dads start asking hard questions and getting the straight
skinny from their sons.
At the
end of the day, it was the draftees who kept our politicians and brass reasonably
straight and caused LBJ to hang it up and Nixon to finally pull the plug on
that ill-conceived conflict.
Now we're engaged in an even more difficult, more complex war that could well
become our longest and our most costly in terms of casualties and dollars.
With it being waged right here in the USA, with our very way of life on the
line, the burdens of battle should be more intimately borne by us all, not
just by our pricey volunteers.
The draft
would bring this war home to every family in America - and if our own kids'
lives were on the line, you had better believe that we'd watch the threat
conditions and how and where the war was being fought even more closely than
the saga of Enron.
Our military would be infused, as it was during World War I and II, Korea
and Vietnam, with sharp citizen soldiers who'd not only be fulfilling their
civic duty and reducing the high cost of defending America, but also would
be keeping the Pentagon straight. With their proud record of exposing the
trespasses of the brass, draftees are Olympic gold medal whistle-blowers!
It would also be a plus for our youngsters - most of whom need the military
as much as the military needs them. Too many have lost their way because their
parents and our institutions haven't given them the right values to be good
citizens and lead worthwhile lives. No question Uncle Sam's drill NCOs could
provide the moral compass.
And consider the positive ripple effect on our country if the kids of the
powerful, the connected, the privileged and those who take all the wonderful
gifts of democracy for granted without ever thinking about who pays the price
were defending our country side by side and back to back in the melting pot
with their patriotic regular brothers.
Though national service is a turnoff to so many, it's kept our country free
since we booted out the Brits. And those who've had the privilege of wearing
the uniform come out of it much better Americans. Maybe it's time to sow the
seeds for a Greatest Generation II.
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.
© 2002 David H. Hackworth
| ARTICLE 01 - Poor Planning, Leadership Are Hurting the Reserve Component |
By Paul Connors
Anyone who has paid attention to national and international affairs in the 11 years since the end of the Persian Gulf War has been made aware of one very salient fact of life in the U.S. armed forces: There are not enough "regulars" to perform all the missions assigned by a thoughtless government.
Another corollary to the equation is that our senior military leaders lacked the moral courage to stand up to the abuse of the military during the eight years of incompetence of the Clinton administration as it turned the world's pre-eminent fighting machine into the world's police force.
Due to the massive drawdown in the size of the active component forces, military planners realized that if all missions were to be covered, they would have to rely on mobilized National Guard and reserve personnel and units. Since the end of Operation Desert Storm, that reliance on the reserve components has become a fact of life and individual reserve component soldiers and airmen, their families and employers have had to deal with a new reality that they could be mobilized for overseas duty at any time.
To be sure, many senior leaders in the reserve components welcomed the opportunity to show what their people and units could do. And over the last 11 years, there has been no shortage of reserve and guard members who were willing to do so.
However, there have been costs associated with this volunteerism. Families have lost mothers or fathers for months on end. Employers have had to endure the loss of employees and the concurrent increase in costs as they hired temporary replacements for their missing employees. The constant use of reserve component members was wearing especially thin with employers until 9/11, when everyone realized that the call-ups would continue and most likely increase in frequency and duration.
The weeks and months that have passed since that tragic day have proven the assumptions correct. More than 50,000 part-time soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have been activated to support Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. The call-ups have varied in length, from as little as six months to as long as two years.
The Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard have long been factored into the "total Air Force," and reserve and Guard units are now programmed into the Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) packages the service uses to meet its military commitments around the world. With the war in Afghanistan, the Air Force continued to rely on Air Force Reserve and Air Guard aerial refueling, airlift and rescue units to support their overworked organizations. And again, volunteers stepped forward to fill the gaps.
Now, with the "opstempo" continuing unabated, unit and individual mobilizations have begun. Air Guard and Air Force Reserve rescue wings have received orders to cover various AEF or Enduring Freedom/Noble Eagle missions, many of them overseas. In one ANG wing, members were offered the choice of volunteering for as little as 45 days overseas with 60-90 days at home station, or face mobilization for a full year.
Those members who could not volunteer because of civilian job or family requirements are now faced with what appears to be retaliatory action by their own units. In essence, they are being pressured into volunteering for a shorter tour or face the prospects of a year away from home, family and jobs.
In addition to the attempted blackmail, the call-ups would, on the surface, appear to be less than well thought out. Some Guard units do a fine job of mirroring their active component sister units and fill their task orders the way any active-duty unit would. Other units however, cherry-pick personnel (mainly flyers and maintenance personnel) while all but ignoring support personnel such as personnel specialists, historians, medical technicians and so on.
While President Bush as Commander in Chief is lawfully exercising his constitutional prerogatives by mobilizing reserve component personnel, the commanders and their staffs at the unit level have a great deal of leeway in who they mobilize and who they don't. What the public doesn't know, hear or see, are the behind-the-scenes plans that determine who goes and who stays. And many Guardsmen, fearing that they might inadvertently violate operational security requirements, do not discuss pending mobilization (or the threat thereof) with employers until it is almost too late.
Given the fluid and dynamic nature of the mobilization process and this new type of war, reserve component personnel have a right to expect honesty and candor from their local unit commanders and staffs. Advance notification of what career fields are required, how many of each are needed and the length of deployment are just a few pieces of information the average reserve component soldier or airman has a right to expect from his or her local chain of command.
Meanwhile the threatening comments - "If you don't volunteer for at least 45 days, that means that you'll be mobilized for a year if you wait for call-up" - need to stop. Threatening individual Guardsmen and reservists is a shoddy way to provide manpower to accomplish a mission away from home, loved ones and civilian careers. Extorting volunteerism will only backfire later, when retention of experienced personnel plummets as the result of the short-sighted actions, poor planning and self-serving leadership that we are sadly experiencing.
Paul Connors is DefenseWatch Air Force Editor. He can be reached at paulconnors@hotmail.com.
| ARTICLE 02 - A Farewell Salute to Vernon A. Walters |
By J. David Galland
I met a great man in 1988 whom I will never forget. At the time, he was the serving U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. On the occasion of this, our first meeting, I was to brief this gentleman on the "in's and out's" of an intelligence program that we were getting off the ground; utilizing a long-time, "denied area" intelligence source.
Having never had met Ambassador Vernon A. Walters prior to this event, I rapidly informed myself as to his career accomplishments. Initially, I wrongfully assumed that Vernon Walters was just another State Department connectee, a government marplot or another political fair-haired son.
In short order, however, I learned that I was about to brief a man of legendary service to his country and to freedom, a true American hero whose talent and contributions were awesome.
During the course of the briefing, I felt strangely connected to Mr. Walters, as though he knew what I would next say. It seemed that Mr. Walters was looking right through me, and in fact, he was. At the end of the briefing Mr. Walters approached me personally and thanked me for what I was doing for my country. He then issued a stern and sobering warning to me: "Be careful young man, you are employed in a very dangerous business and the weight of the world is on your shoulders!"
In the next three years, I would be fortunate to have numerous encounters - mostly business - with Walters while he was serving as the U.S. Ambassador to West Germany. On each occasion, this fine man, of incomprehensible talents and intellectual gifts, took time to chat, question, probe, and to offer his advice. Not many distinguished U.S. officials would make such an effort with a lowly U.S. Army enlisted man.
Ambassador Walters died on Feb. 10 at the age 85, and the nation lost a warrior for freedom the likes of whom we will probably not see again anytime soon. His life was rich in service to his nation and to freedom.
Vernon Anthony Walters was born on Jan. 3, 1917 in New York City, and at the age of six his family moved to Europe, where as a child he mastered the French, Spanish, Italian and German languages. As if that were not enough, he later became fluent in Portuguese, Dutch, Chinese and Russian.
He received his commission as an Army 2nd lieutenant in 1941, and went on to serve in North Africa and Italy. As an assistant to Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Walters helped establish SHAPE Headquarters in Paris, and following the end of the war he helped shape and design the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Western Europe.
During the 15 years after World War II, Walters, served his country in a number of challenging intelligence assignments of great danger and sensitivity. He served as military attaché in Italy, Brazil and France. He was involved in U.S. negotiations with North Vietnam and China during 1969-72, and was appointed Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency during 1972-76.
Walters spent much of his career in a nether world of secrets, and was often described as the quintessential "quiet American." He believed the United States must be able to project its military power and enjoy the international credibility because of that strength.
He is remembered for his translation duties between President Dwight D. Eisenhower and French President Charles de Gaulle, while the two statesmen sat in their bathrobes before a raging fireplace at Rambouillet Palace outside Paris. He also saved then-Vice President Richard Nixon from a rioting crowd in Caracas, Venezuela in 1958, after a mob attacked Nixon's limousine.
After Walters took the reins as the CIA deputy director in 1972, the following year he was successful in keeping the agency out of the Watergate scandal, which ultimately led to President Nixon's resignation. He did so by resisting the attempts of White House counsel John Dean to involve the CIA in the Watergate cover-up by placing the Watergate burglars on the CIA's payroll following their arrest.
Under President Ronald Reagan, Mr. Walters served during 1981-85 as "Ambassador at Large," a job in which his duties took him to more than 100 countries. He then served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1985 to 1988, and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany until 1991.
Historians will recognize Walters for more than the lines on his resume. He had an almost eerie ability to be present at major world events. As an aide to President Truman, he was present as a secret notetaker at Truman's famous encounter with Gen. Douglas MacArthur at Wake Island in 1950, several months before the President fired his controversial supreme commander in the Korean War.
Walters was also in Tehran, Iran in 1953, when the CIA staged a coup in support of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The following year he was serving in Brazil when a small band of military leaders staged a coup.
He also was involved in clandestine negotiations between the United States and North Vietnam in an attempt to end the war. Walters was tasked with the duty of smuggling Henry Kissinger and State Department official Winston Lord in and out of Paris on numerous occasions. He accomplished that mission by borrowing an airplane from an old friend, French President Georges Pompidou.
Walters
wrote two fascinating and informative books based on his career and life's
work. The Mighty and the Meek was a series of profiles of famous people
with whom he had worked, and his autobiography, Silent Missions, recounted
many of his more interesting assignments.
One is left with a feeling of profound appreciation for the accomplishments
of this great man - a man of freedom and a man of peace. The world has lost
one of the great men of contemporary times: a soldier, patriot, statesman
and unflinching protector of freedom.
Walters will be buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery next month.
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.
| ARTICLE 03 - Kashmir: The Hidden Trigger for an Asian Nuclear War |
By Patrick Hayes
Border disputes, territorial acquisition, spies, and daring-do - the stuff of Kiplingesque legend and adventure from a bygone era - a time when bolt-action rifles proved to be the "superior firepower" along the Northwest Frontier. Today, the bolt-action rifles have been replaced by AK-47s and Katyusha rockets, and the price tag for border disputes and land grabs, particularly in that region, is too high.
Today the price tag may include nuclear war.
One of the hottest frontiers in the modern world is the disputed region between India and Pakistan, and as the tensions between these two nuclear powers remain extremely high in the Jammu and Kashmir region, a wrong step could very well lead the world towards a spreading and devastating nuclear war - a bullet thought to have been dodged with the collapse of the Soviet Union - and ultimate oblivion.
Walking the thin line of geopolitical reality and doing what may be, or is simply perceived to be, the "right" thing, has weighed heavily on each American administration, probably dating back to George Washington. We've gone through the extreme phases of both isolationism and nation building, and much checkerboard policymaking in between. Each administration has had to weigh the potential gains against potential losses on the tally sheet.
This is never truer than when war and peace are in the balance, particularly amid the current war on terrorism with unstable and possible unfriendly states holding the nuclear card.
The most recent game of strategic poker began when the Bush Administration decided to go after Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan. For obvious political, strategic and logistical reasons, the United States has had to cozy up to the unstable military dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf and call him an ally, while Pakistan has been a hotbed of Muslim extremists for many years - probably since the British Raj - and was certainly the birthplace of the Taliban.
On the other hand, India is one of the few Third World countries that can boast a relatively stable parliamentary democracy. Yet we currently seem to be keeping India at arms length due to geopolitical constraints.
Modern conflict in the Kashmir region dates back to 1947, when Britain granted the area independence and both Pakistan and India claimed the territory, which covers an area of 85,800 square miles. It is also bordered by China and 20 percent of the disputed Kashmir region is also claimed by China. Once independence was declared, almost immediately, a minority of Muslim extremists in the Kashmir Vale, which was under Indian control sought, alignment with Muslim Pakistan and conflict ensued when Pakistan subsequently invaded the region. The United Nations became involved and by 1949, an uneasy cease-fire agreement went into effect.
The very picturesque Kashmir area is home to approximately 12 million people, 70 percent of whom are Muslim. Other religions include Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. Dividing the land between India and the pro-Pakistani enclave is the Line of Control (LOC), or the 1949 cease-fire line, to the east of which is the Vale of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh, which are under the control of India. To the west is what the Muslim population call Azad (Free) Kashmir, which has its own governmental structure, but one with very close ties to Muslim Pakistan.
Since 1989, conflicts have arisen from within Indian Kashmir with strong similarities to what the Russians have faced and are facing in Chechnya - Muslim terrorists, with both overt and covert support from many Muslim states. In Kashmir, the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) has been active and is believed to be behind the attack on the Indian parliament last Dec. 13 - an attack many believe the Pakistani government had supported.
Adding China to the mix of regional antagonists certainly complicates the geopolitical tension. Initiating its own border disputes with India in 1962, over the years China has been a benefactor to Pakistan and continued antagonist towards India. In 1983, China went so far as to provide Pakistan with nuclear weapons-grade plutonium and weapons design materials.
India's hands are not completely clean either. In 1998, The Washington Post reported that the plutonium used by India to test its nuclear weapons at that time was from stockpiles originally provided with the help of the United States and Canada for India's nuclear power program, but which Indian leaders had said they would never use for weapons. However, given the threat they faced by an unstable, Muslim extremist government in Pakistan, can anyone blame India for picking up the nearest and biggest rock with which to defend itself?
The sad reality is that it was the West that brought about this new nuclear standoff. Both the Indian and Pakistani programs got their start from the same Western interests who also sought nuclear non-proliferation. In retrospect, giving either of these countries nuclear material to play with in the 1970s was like handing a loaded automatic pistol with the hammer cocked to an infant in a crib. Now these nuclear neighbors are both looking down the barrel, while the conflict over Kashmir ebbs and flows - egged on, no doubt, by a hegemonic China.
Tensions in the Kashmir region have eased in recent weeks, but the United States has seen and felt the brunt of suicidal Muslim terrorists. With nothing to lose and with one area cooling down while another heats up (e.g. the Palestinian-Israeli conflict), what is to stop these maniacs from dealing another slight of hand again in a region ripe for the ultimate suicidal attack - Kashmir?
Patrick Hayes is a contributing editor to DefenseWatch. He can be reached at Gyrene65@netscape.net.
| ARTICLE 04 - Security, Common Sense and Gen. Joe Foss |
By Robert G. Williscroft
Eighty-six year old Joe Foss stood in the America West Airlines security line at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix. It was Jan. 11, and the retired Air National Guard brigadier general and former governor of South Dakota was on his way to speak at a National Rifle Association meeting in Arlington, Va.
In his jacket pocket were three items: A dummy bullet with a hole drilled through the casing so that it could be attached to a key chain, a commemorative inscribed fingernail file, and the Medal of Honor he had received in 1943 from President Franklin D. Roosevelt after shooting down 26 enemy planes in the Pacific as a Marine Corps fighter pilot.
This was not your everyday pocket litter, but then, Joe is not your everyday kind of guy.
It seems the security folks had a problem with all three items. The "bullet," security officials proclaimed, was ammunition. The nail file with its Medal of Honor inscription was an "obvious" deadly weapon. And the Medal of Honor itself: Well, they had no idea what it was, and apparently were unwilling to read the inscription on the back of the medal. They saw the general/governor as a threat, dressed as he was in a western outfit, complete with boots and 10-gallon hat, and traveling on a one-way first-class ticket.
Foss explained to the security personnel that he normally didn't travel with these things (except the dummy bullet on his key chain), but that he would be visiting West Point to give a presentation and show his Medal of Honor to the cadets. In response, they made him remove his belt, tie, and boots, and subjected him to a thorough pat-down search after his pacemaker activated the gate metal detector.
When it was all over 45 minutes later, he had gone through the "take off your boots" routine three times, guards removed a pack of safety razor blades from his luggage, and security personnel confiscated his dummy bullet and commemorative fingernail file. Reluctantly, they allowed him to retain his Medal of Honor since they were hard-pressed to determine how he might actually use it as a weapon. Clearly, they still had no idea what the medal was all about.
General Foss was pretty good-natured about the whole thing. America West would not acknowledge that he had been their passenger, and the FAA indicated that nail files and razor blades were not allowed on planes.
My question: Whatever happened to judgment?
I recently went through airport security in California wearing western boots, twice in Burbank and twice in Oakland. I had a laptop with me, various electronic items, several pens, and an electric razor and electric toothbrush. I was dressed identically each time. Twice, the metal detector went off, and twice it remained silent. Only once was I asked to remove my boots. Only one of the two personal wand scans was proficiently accomplished. No one asked to look at my electric razor or see it work; ditto my electric toothbrush. No one asked me to demonstrate that my several pens actually wrote.
My watch could have contained a garroting wire; I could have used several of the six or so cables in my bag as garroting devices. Each of my several pens could have contained dangerous substances, and could also have been used as stabbing devices as they were.
I am not necessarily advocating that such things be prohibited from aircraft. To do so would make travel needlessly difficult. On the other hand, I really would like to see some consistency in the searches, and a smattering of discretionary judgment so that the Joe Fosses of the world are not subjected to the indignities our national hero experienced.
In an
earlier article (DefenseWatch Nov. 11, 2001) I suggested that airport
security was a simple matter of not letting any bad guys or bad stuff on any
aircraft. I then proposed that in order to accomplish this, we: (1) Require
all personnel associated with airport and airline operations to take random,
unannounced flights to ensure that they do their jobs effectively; (2) Inspect
all baggage including hold baggage using initial computerized screening to
speed up the process, augmented by hand inspections of items rejected by the
initial screening; (3) Match hold baggage to passengers using transmitting
chips on baggage and boarding passes; (4) Screen all passengers against databases
of known suspects, applying the latest computer technology; (5) Arm crew members
with non-lethal weapons, or with weapons that will not threaten the integrity
of the aircraft; (6) Assign security responsibility to airports, not the airlines
or feds; (7) Have the feds pay the initial costs, but let passengers pay the
final costs with a $25 per ticket surcharge (eventually reimbursing the federal
government for all costs).
Instead of this sensible approach, the feds have taken over security - these
are the same guys who have trouble delivering the mail and getting Amtrak
trains to arrive on time. We are neglecting obvious available technologies,
while letting cost determine our approach. We are confiscating harmless pen
knives while missing obvious real potential weapons. We are harassing national
heroes in their twilight years, while ignoring genuine threats being carried
by men obviously capable of using them.
As I said, it's all a matter of judgment.
As children we all learned the story of Chicken Little, and of how his overreaction to a falling acorn resulted in the entire village being disrupted by the "falling sky." I fear we are dealing with more than a little "Chicken Little" here.
Correction:
Foss retired as a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, but later was recommissioned
in the Air National Guard and retired as a brigadier general. An earlier version
of the story mistakenly identified him as a Marine general.
Robert G. Williscroft is DefenseWatch Navy Editor. He can be reached at dwnavyeditor@argee.net.
| ARTICLE 05 - Military Personnel Face a 'Shell Game' on Benefits |
By John M. Szelog
Since the advent of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973, military pay and benefits have received increasing attention, from both the military and civilian world. Over the last decade, however, with the end of the Cold War, and decisions by Congress and the DoD to cut costs in the military, benefits - with the notable exception of college benefits - have become two-sided.
On one side, proponents of higher military pay, or the "pay group," have pushed for higher cash compensation in order to close a perceived pay gap between members of the military and civilians in comparable fields. While doing this, the pay group has either largely ignored benefits altogether, or has made no mention of getting existing benefits restored to what they were, with the exception of college benefits.
On the other side, Congress and DoD, or the "benefits group," when countering the higher pay proponents, frequently overstate the cash and actual value of benefits, or "forget" to mention that some benefits have been reduced. These reductions in benefits were the direct result of changes to the benefits themselves, resulted from changes or policies elsewhere in the system, or are due to outside factors, such as the economy.
Benefits have traditionally been provided as compensation in lieu of higher cash pay. The government can plan, support, and provide certain benefits, such as medical and dental coverage, and housing, at less cost to both the government and service members, than if it was to pay each member individually and have them acquire their own services.
Providing certain benefits also has a secondary function of allowing the military to maintain uniform standards, and increase morale, camaraderie and esprit-de-corps among members. The inclusion of dependents for benefits was, and still is, key to maintaining morale and keeping units efficient. Military personnel, knowing their family members are safe, well-cared for, and among friends, while the member is deployed or otherwise unable to see them, will have less to distract them from their primary duties.
Medical benefits are a perfect example of how benefits have been eroded, and a good example of the "We still have our benefits, we just have to pay for them now" word game that is going on. Military members are still fully covered for medical and dental expenses. However, in recent years, many installations have reduced their hospitals to cough-syrup-and-Motrin clinics that can only handle basic diagnosis, and treatment for things such as colds, the flu, etc.
For anything more serious, or in many cases, for specialized services such as X-rays and labs, members either have to go to another base, or to a civilian hospital. Included with this reduction of hospitals to clinics, has been the closing of emergency facilities on bases. Beale Air Force Base, for example, which has an active flightline, a munitions-training school that uses live munitions, and a good-sized on-base population, has no emergency room today. The ambulances on base don't have paramedics, so all that can be done in an emergency is to stabilize a patient, and wait for a civilian ambulance. The nearest civilian hospital with an emergency room is 10 to 15 miles away, depending where on the base you are. This results in a total time of about 40-60 minutes to reach an emergency room.
Military
dependents have been hit even harder by changes to medical benefits. Formerly,
medical coverage for dependents did not cost extra for military members. Due
to changes in military appropriations policy, dependents are covered by the
TRICARE system, which requires that military members pay a monthly premium
(for which their pay was not increased to cover), based on the number of dependents.
Military medical and dental facilities, which are space-available-only for
dependents, are becoming more difficult for military members themselves to
get into.
TRICARE is a difficult system to work with, being essentially an HMO with
the added joy of government bureaucracy factored in. Many civilian medical
groups have complained, and some have dropped out of the network, due to excessive
paperwork, low compensation, and excessively long delays for compensation
payments to be made. Members must deal with the HMO-type requirements for
getting specialist visits and treatment, which is further complicated by not
only having to find a specialist that is approved, but also one that is in
the TRICARE network. In some cases, the nearest hospitals in the TRICARE network
are 50 or more miles from member's homes, requiring them to make special plans
just to go to the doctor.
Medical benefits are just a small piece of the overall picture. Not only do
members have to deal with a similar reduction of other benefits, but they
also have to deal with benefits, like the exchange system, where "behind
the scenes dealings" raise questions as to the integrity of the military
in running those programs. As an example, gasoline prices on military bases
should be considerably lower than off base, but in many cases they are the
same. The reason given for this is that civilian gasoline vendors have complained
about losing business to the exchange gas stations.
As a result, the unofficial, or perhaps the official, policy is that gas prices on base will be comparable to those off base. The same appears to be true with the other exchange functions. Not only does this situation deprive military members and their dependents of a deserved benefit, but it also begs the question of, where all of the extra money is going? We are constantly told that there is a shortage of money everywhere.
Military Services organizations at overseas bases operate as the sole provider for many services for personnel, or contract those services out to civilian companies, which have exclusive access to the base as a result. Because of this, personnel don't get the benefit of shopping around for the best deal, and lucrative contracts with a captive consumer, like those that military bases provide, aren't always negotiated to the benefit of the consumer.
Units at overseas bases often have a "lounge" that can range from a room with a refrigerator, a TV, and some games, to a full bar with a kitchen that serves lunches and dinners. Proceeds from these lounges go to improving the lounge, and getting unit coins, t-shirts, and going-away and retirement plaques made. The base services organizations issue liquor licenses for these unit lounges, and can influence whether a unit's lounge facilities are declared safe for habitation.
At Osan Air Base in Korea, Air Forces Services, through their control of liquor licenses, was forcing lounges to either sell only the food and drinks that Services sold, and at the same prices for which Services sold them. These prices were usually two to three times what the lounges would normally charge. If the lounges did not agree to that policy, the lounge's liquor license would be denied or revoked. When one lounge decided not to get a liquor license, and instead have members bring their own food and drinks, Services proceeded to try and have the lounge facilities closed for various reasons.
All of these benefits, both official and unofficial, are important to both the military, and military members. More attention needs to be paid to getting those benefits restored, or getting regulations or policies changed to aid and protect military members, not civilian businesses, or even the military itself. Part of that will require the pay group to shift attention to getting those benefits restored and those changes made. The other part of it will require the benefits group to start telling the truth and quit trying to save a quick buck at the expense of service members.
John
M. Szelog is a Contributing Editor to DefenseWatch. He can be reached at streetgang52@hotmail.com.
Table of
Contents
| ARTICLE 06 - Gender Equality II: Examining the Ruffled Feathers |
By Jon Barrett
Predictably, my column on gender (sex) inequality ("Gender Equality Has Weakened, Paralyzed the Military, DefenseWatch, Feb. 6) ruffled a few feathers. But why?
J. Simeon writes (SFFT Feedback, Feb. 18) that the armed forces "seem to be doing rather well, performance-wise, despite all the icky, gooey girls in the tree house. Welcome to Planet Reality."
The fact is that whether or not the armed forces are doing well, the forces of political correctness in "leadership" positions will insist that the experiment is portrayed as successful. A climate in which equality is enforced despite radically differing standards is one where the truth will never be admitted. And it is career suicide for military officers to stand up and blow the whistle on the truth. Even civilian writer Brian Mitchell was fired from his civilian job in Houston for advocating that the feminization of the military has been a bad thing. (More on this story another time.)
Demetra also writes in Feedback that she "wishes some women would take their deployment more seriously." So do we. "The young girls that join up and do stupid things like get pregnant before shipping out .… It should be understood that serving on the line is not just a "job." Well said, Demetra.
She does feel that women have a place in the military - and have played important roles such as the OSS (now the CIA) as Nightfliers, or even as nurses and doctors. She feels that they have been largely ignored and we deceive ourselves if we think they haven't saved lives and carried our 200-lb. buddies out of danger.
But Demetra misses the essential point: If women can carry us out, fine. The problem is that for most of the women in the services now, we do not have the confidence that they actually can carry out that vital task. The reason for the lack of confidence is that the physical strength standards are so blatantly different (less) for women.
She accurately writes that there are small men in the Marines, and that their buddies don't complain about them (want to bet?) or fret that they couldn't carry them off the battlefield.
The fact is that women can be their own worst enemies when it comes to being accepted in the military. The reason for this is that they pretend to be equal while accepting or even demanding significantly reduced standards. If a woman can play on a level playing field with me, so be it. I don't mind. But the field is most definitely not level, and the ones on the lines are there based on a fictional measurement of equality. This is, by the way, insulting to the women who could actually compete in a fair arena.
And "J" writes that the vast majority of women could not physically or even mentally deal with the harshness of combat. "Speaking as a former member of the armed forces, I myself have seen the inequality towards men and preferential treatment in regards to women in the military. I must tell you it angers me greatly." Again, well said, J. Here is a woman who just might be able to be "equal."
Finally, Willie (a Navy trainer) writes "It is frustrating to say the least and frightening to think military readiness is sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness. I speak of these things whenever I have the opportunity, sometimes to the raised eyebrows of younger active duty military men, wondering if I can actually get away with talking about equality in the Navy like I do." Well, check six, Willie. I'll cover for you if I can.
Here's the simple fact: Women are not competing equally. Any piece that advocates the equality of women against the men has to take this into account to achieve intellectual legitimacy. I have never said the women can't serve. I say, make it even. But no one can make it even. Someone is preaching equality but practicing favoritism. That was the point of my article.
All you women out there who can compete equally should be outraged at the nonsense purveyed by the PC forces who claim to represent you.
And just to correct myself, Josh writes: "You appear to have fallen into the feminazi trap of using the term "male" for men and boys yet, in the same sentence, using the word "woman." Words are important. Feminazis know this and that is why they try to dehumanize us by calling us males."
Perhaps we should use the terms "females" or "non-men," or even "womyn." Hey guys - we are "men."
Contributing Editor Jon Barrett is the pen name of a Naval Reserve officer who has served in both the surface Navy and Naval Special Warfare. He can be reached at jbarrett@computermail.net.
| ARTICLE 07 - Medal of Honor Recipient - HALL, WILLIAM E., Lt.j.g. USNR |
Rank and organization: Lieutenant (Junior Grade), U.S. Naval Reserve.
Place and date: Coral Sea, 7 and 8 May 1942.
Entered service at: Utah. Born: 31 October 1913, Storrs, Utah.
Citation: For extreme courage and conspicuous heroism in combat above and beyond the call of duty as pilot of a scouting plane in action against enemy Japanese forces in the Coral Sea on 7 and 8 May 1942. In a resolute and determined attack on 7 May, Lt. (j.g.) Hall dived his plane at an enemy Japanese aircraft carrier, contributing materially to the destruction of that vessel.
On 8 May, facing heavy and fierce fighter opposition, he again displayed extraordinary skill as an airman and the aggressive spirit of a fighter in repeated and effectively executed counterattacks against a superior number of enemy planes in which three enemy aircraft were destroyed. Though seriously wounded in this engagement, Lt. (j.g.) Hall, maintaining the fearless and indomitable tactics pursued throughout these actions, succeeded in landing his plane safe.
Editor's Note: 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.
| EDITOR'S NOTE: Your Support is Important! |
The ultimate success in reviving and expanding SFTT depends on everyone. We need your financial contributions to continue our operation. While any amount is welcome, we suggest a $30 annual contribution from each member will enable us to succeed.
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. With our new PayPal web page you can contribute online here at sftt.us using a major credit card.
Or mail your checks to:
Soldiers
For The Truth Foundation
P.O. Box 11179
Greenwich CT 06831
| EDITOR'S NOTE: Feedback Wanted |
DefenseWatch has expanded the reader Feedback section of DefenseWatch to a separate web page accessible through sftt.us. The new section is designed to provide readers who want to add their contribution to an issue to submit letters or commentary articles. You can find the SFTT Feedback window on the right-hand column of the SFTT home page.
Our guidelines are simple and few: Feedback articles can be as brief as several paragraphs or as long as 1,000 words. When submitting a response to a particular article or commentary, please mention the article by headline and date. We allow pen names but require the sender's actual name and contact telephone number for verification purposes. SFTT reserves the right to edit articles, or refuse publication of any submission for libel or inappropriate language.
Send
your comments to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
| EDITOR'S NOTE: Article Submission Procedures/Subject Editors Sought |
J. 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.
| GLOSSARY OF MILITARY ACRONYMS |
http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/acronym.htm
| HACK BOOK SALES |
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.