Two months after the terrorist attacks and a month after our initial retaliatory strikes began, the politicians, press and people are focused on the ongoing military campaign in Afghanistan and the plethora of homeland security issues, particularly the anthrax outbreak.

In this edition of DefenseWatch, we offer a broad variety of articles and information reflecting the long-term nature of this new war. David Hackworth, who fought in two lengthy wars – Korea and Vietnam – brings his expertise and credibility to the forefront in arguing that this time, there is an endgame that is both identifiable and achievable, despite the chorus of critics who cannot fathom (out of their own political myopia or ignorance of military realities) that destroying the al Qaeda network and Taliban regime will not be a 100-hour ground war as we experiences in Operation Desert Storm. This is underscored by JCS Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers, who in an interview on Nov. 4 (excerpts included below) specifically cautioned, “As the president has said, as the secretary of defense has said, we know this conflict is going to take a long time, and we're prepared for that.”

I also commend your attention to our articles on the deep roots of the intelligence failure on Sept. 11; on the need for effective psychological operations to break the terrorists’ will; on common-sense tactics ordinary Americans can take to protect against anthrax infection; on the nationwide reaction to a Boulder, Colo., library rejection of requests to display the American flag; on the role of the Civil Air Patrol in homeland security, and a useful recommendation for defensive tactics against future terrorist attacks. Finally, Robert Koontz checks in again with an update on his controversial analysis of purported al Qaeda communications on the Internet.

Which brings us to an issue that is not receiving top-billing on the nightly newscasts or newspaper front pages, one that DefenseWatch plans to address in future issues: For the second time in three years, the U.S. armed forces have been thrust into war with an infrastructure and inventory of ships, aircraft and weapons that are aging faster than they can be replaced or modernized. Trade publications and military newsletters in recent days have revealed a number of disturbing trends, including these three examples:

* The Air Mobility Command’s fleet of KC-135 and KC-10 aerial refueling tankers, and C-17 and C-5 transport aircraft, are being used to near capacity in supporting the ongoing air strikes and supplying ground forces in the region (a single B-2 stealth bomber sortie from Missouri to Afghanistan and back requires twelve separate refuelings!).

* The Navy, meanwhile, is looking at yet another precipitous decline in the size of its fleet with the planners being forced by current budget caps to retire 19 Spruance-class destroyers by 2006, while the first hull of the redesigned DD(X) destroyer won’t even begin construction – assuming all else proceeds – until 2005. This latest manifestation of the “procurement holiday” that is the legacy of the Clinton administration will mean that the Navy will likely fall below 300 ships – including just 98 combatants – by mid-decade.

* And the Army, which was wrestling with its separate force transformation and digital revolution initiatives at the time of the terrorist strikes, now finds itself facing a budget gap of as much as $115 billion during 2003-07. That is after receiving a boost of $57.5 billion to the five-year planning total of $427.2 billion that the Defense Department had already approved before the war against terrorism erupted.

The Bush administration and Congress have made headlines in pressing for an additional $40 billion to respond to the al Qaeda attacks (to be split about 50-50 between the Pentagon and a number of domestic homeland security measures). This is needed and certainly welcome.

But at this critical juncture, neither the White House nor Congress seems aware that current federal budget caps will lock in the accelerating obsolescence of the force – a dangerous erosion of our combat capability – that will only increase under the wartime optempo of Operation Enduring Freedom. Months before the world turned upside down on Sept. 11, a growing chorus of defense experts were warning that the U.S. military as currently structured would need an increase of between $50-100 billion per year just to maintain its current capability, much less gird for the complex and difficult issues of asymmetrical conflict such as we now face. Neither the administration nor Congress had even begun to address this crisis when the nation found itself under direct attack by terrorists on Sept. 11, and they have not done so since.

If our political leaders fail to recognize and take solid action to overcome the Clinton-era procurement deficits inherited by the Bush administration when it took office 10 months ago, our troops on the front lines and at home face a threat to national security that could dwarf even the terrorist attacks themselves: a sudden collapse of U.S. military power from within.

And this time, we have a clear definition of both the threat and the calculated time of its arrival.

Footnote: 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. Every little
contribution helps. Mail your checks to:

Soldiers For The Truth Foundation

P.O. Box 11179

Greenwich CT 06831

Table of Contents

Hack’s Target For The Week: This Time, a Light at the End of the Tunnel

By David H. Hackworth

We're in Round One of a 30-rounder, and after only a month-long bombing campaign, the Doubting Thomases are already saying we're bogged down in another no-win war. These naysayers – many of whose entire counterinsurgency experience, apart from office politics, consists of movies like “Apocalypse Now” – are comparing our efforts in Afghanistan to Vietnam.

This is pure nonsense! There's no similarity except that the terrain in both hot spots favors guerrilla warfare, and both opponents are clearly fanatics skilled at hit-and-run ops.

Our opponent in Vietnam was fully backed by the Soviets, the Red Chinese, the former Warsaw Pact countries and an international peace movement that included many more Americans than we had soldiers in Vietnam.

Our fight with the Taliban and with international terrorism, on the other hand, is a just war in which we have the moral right. Sept. 11 got us into this conflict, and long before 9/11, the Taliban provided sanctuary and support to bin Laden's murderers as they prepped and launched their strikes on America.

The Reds were based out of Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam, where they trained and licked their wounds. And from the beginning of the war until its bloody end, the communist bloc supplied the Viet Reds with tanks, MiGs, SAM missiles and other gear. Also, by the end of the war, both the Viet Cong and eventually the North Vietnamese army units that reinforced the VC in the south had the backing of the majority of the South Vietnamese people, who supported their efforts with volunteers, supplies and intelligence.

China's Mao Tse-tung likened a guerrilla war to fish and water – the fish being the insurgents, the water the people. In the case of Vietnam, the pool was very deep, and as the war dragged on, it got deeper and was stocked with more and more communist fish.

But the Taliban army and bin Laden's al Qaeda forces are already fish in a dried-up swamp heading for the frying pan because they don't have the support of the majority of the people. The Taliban is a rogue gang that took over Afghanistan at gunpoint and has employed terror and genocide to stay in control. It has neither nation-state supporters nor sanctuaries in border countries where it can either stockpile supplies and equipment needed to fight a strong opponent coming at it from all directions or else run to when things get hot. And to make things worse, the Taliban has an armed adversary composed of its own people - supported by the United States, Russia, China, Iran and scores of other countries – who want its collective head on a pike.

Sure, there have been mistakes. And there will be more as the politicians patch the warring tribes that oppose the gangster government into a united anti-Taliban coalition. Because these tribes are like our Hatfields and McCoys, we'll need all of Colin Powell's diplomatic schmoozing to forge them into a cohesive team and then hold it together. But it will be done. Just as our fighter jocks and “snake eaters” and those of our allies are getting their act together a little better with every mission.

The high stakes in this long and different kind of war – freedom and our way of life –are exactly the same as in World War II, but the way it will be fought will be far different. Unlike when we went after Hitler and Tojo during the Big War, insiders say that U.S. conventional units won't be taking ground in Afghanistan. Instead, the troops that take out the Taliban will be made up of Afghan fighters supported by Special Ops folks and U.S. and Allied air power.

Winning Round One – Afghanistan – is more than doable, but it won't be easy. No war ever goes according to plan or is casualty-free. So there will be reverses, and more Americans will come home on stretchers or in body bags.

But despite the know-it-all doom-and-gloom gang, Round One will soon move to the mop-up stage. And when the bell rings for Round Two, Dr. Germ and the Mustached One better have a deep bunker.

America will win this long war. As with World War II, we have no other choice.

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.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 1 – Politics Led to Our Intelligence Failure

By J. David Galland

As we approach a point of healing after the attacks on our homeland on Sept. 11, many questions remain unanswered. The big question is, why did our intelligence services fail to provide the reliability and continuity that would have helped prevent the aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks?

Even before the carnage had stopped, politicians, community leaders, journalists and other gifted visionaries were quick to find fault with U. S. intelligence agencies. A whiplash style response, in an attempt to fix blame, was instant. The conflagration was rapidly determined to be a gross intelligence failure of epic proportions.

So lacking were the intelligence services, in the estimation of many politicians, that one would think that counter-espionage officials in the CIA, our premier intelligence agency, had been sitting around, half drunk or snoozing in their chairs. This is, unfortunately, not an entirely inaccurate description of their level of performance. But the overall responsibility does not fall on those who should have been down in the trenches, proactively ferreting out intelligence information.

Who's minding the shop? Who is out there, late at night, in lousy weather, with the individuals who have the potential to provide human intelligence? Not the CIA. Why, because they are too busy attending sensitivity training. The management of the CIA has wasted thousands of hours by requiring employees to attend workshops so they could make politically correct diversity quilts. Why do idiotic things like this happen?

The intelligence community has had its hands shackled since the mid-1970s, when the Church and Pike Committees in Congress cleaned out the CIA’s covert-action capability. The strategy of CIA detractors at that time was to emasculate the agency. In reaction to disclosures of Cold War-era operations including attempted assassinations of foreign leaders and domestic surveillance of anti-Vietnam War groups, liberal politicians in the name of reform succeeded in hamstringing the U. S. intelligence community. Today, a quarter-century later, the damage of their over-reaction is sadly evident.

It is galling to me that those who engineered and later celebrated the gutting of the intelligence community's valuable capabilities are in great part the same ones who are deriding the loss of thousands of lives at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as an intelligence failure.

In 1976, President Gerald Ford named President George W. Bush's father the new Director of Central Intelligence. He was on the right track to revive the agency, but did not last long. Following President Jimmy Carter's inauguration, Bush was replaced in early 1977 by retired Admiral Stansfield Turner.

Turner arrived with a mandate from Carter who had a prejudiced predisposition against intelligence and intelligence services to hamstring the CIA and render it impotent. Not surprisingly, mass retirements were the order, some involuntary. Turner retired almost all of the Middle East experts who spoke Farsi and other regional languages of Southern and Central Asia. The CIA director went further on Carter's instructions simply fired a great many of its human intelligence (HUMINT) assets.

Prior to Turner's appointment, the CIA had largely built up a HUMINT network throughout Central Asia. It was designed to be used to support guerrilla forces that were battling the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. Following the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan in the late 1980s, the CIA then terminated almost all of its Afghan focused HUMINT relationships and initiatives a major blunder by President George H.W. Bush a decade after his tenure at the CIA. This left the agency fumbling in an unstable and fast-moving region that was a breeding ground of terrorist training networks.

Problems exist because the CIA today normally operates out of U. S. embassies abroad. Clandestine CIA officers operate under the cover of successful American or foreign businessmen. With their Brooks Brothers suits and Bostonian shoes they don't mix well with the locals in the smoky mud houses and the fly-infested environment. Furthermore, almost nobody in the CIA today has a native fluency level in the target languages of the area, to say nothing of the absence of cultural experience and ethnic backgrounds.

This constitutes a major operational shortcoming on the part of an intelligence agency that ought to be pursuing clandestine operations through false fronts and deception operations.

The erosion of the U. S. intelligence apparatus continued throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration. While President Clinton was apparently distracted by domestic issues and, later, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the morale of the intelligence community dropped to an all-time low. Clinton's first CIA director, James Woolsey, has admitted that Clinton either did not have time, or the requisite interest in him and his agency. Woolsey has gone on record that he only met twice personally with Clinton in the two years of his tenure

Woolsey was subsequently replaced by MIT physicist, John Deutsch, who delivered more crippling blows to the CIA and clandestine operations. Under Deutsch, what was left of morale in the agency dropped even further. Deutsch later was forced to leave his post in disgrace and embarrassment in 1996 after revelations he had violated security rules dealing with highly classified materials.

The war against terrorism will be nasty, brutal and violent and not just in our bombing campaign in Afghanistan. Throughout history, U. S. intelligence agencies have by ugly necessity paid sleazy and unsavory characters to steal things, to betray friends, bosses, and colleagues, and to usurp all allegiances for cold cash.

If this nation is determined to get the rats out of the basement, we will have to go down there and get them and, yes, we may get a little dirty doing so. But it is clear in the current crisis that we need both to revive the covert-action capabilities of the CIA, and then unleash them against our enemies.

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.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 2 – Raising the Flag in Boulder, Colo.

By Paul Connors

Her name is Marcellee Gralapp and on Oct. 28, this obscure library director in Boulder, Colo., became a household name nationwide after she denied library workers their request to install an American flag inside the entrance to the city’s main library. Her reasons struck thousands of people in Boulder and around the nation as absurd and drew the ire of many Americans (this writer included).

As reported in the local newspaper, The Daily Camera, in denying the request, Ms. Gralapp told her subordinates that “The library should be welcoming to people of all beliefs and hanging the flag might have compromised the library’s objectivity.” The librarian, a Boulder city employee for more than four decades and a native born American, actually believed, like so many other misguided citizens of this country, that the American flag could be injurious to the feelings of the many non-Americans who used Boulder’s library every day.

Can you believe that? I can, because there have been numerous reports of continued political correctness around the country as left-leaning local governments attempt to cater to the feelings of non-Americans while ignoring the feelings and love of country of folks who were born and raised here.

As these naïve and misguided appeasers cater to every whim of non-citizens, they seem to have forgotten that they have an obligation to the people of this country, citizens who elected them, and those obligations can be far-reaching. Yet, these same public servants who appease non-citizens feel it is perfectly acceptable to stamp on the patriotic feelings of Americans who only want to display their nation’s flag.

In the case of the Boulder City Council, these misplaced feelings of altruism toward non-citizens backfired when thousands of emails and letters condemning Ms. Gralapp’s attitude and actions began to arrive.

What is particularly galling about all of this is that the attacks of Sept. 11 have united this country in ways we haven’t seen since World War II. Even far-left talk show hosts have sided with the United States in its quest to end terrorism, because in the long run, to do so is in the genuine interest of all humanity and not just that part of it which resides in the United States. Yet despite this newfound unity, there are still those among us who believe the United States should temper its actions so that those among us, who are not Americans, will not be offended.

Well, excuuuuussse meeeeeeeee!!!!!! In the wake of what has happened, who cares what they think? They are guests in this country and it is up to them to adapt to our culture and our way of life. It is not our responsibility to make their lives more comfortable by catering to their every whim and feeling. Apparently, thousands of other folks feel as I do because they took Boulder City government and Ms Gralapp to task for her ludicrous and indefensible position.

I think most reasonable Americans continue to be stunned by the actions of some local governments and businesses that deny their employees the freedom to display that most profound symbol of their national heritage, the American flag. I know I am. The flag is not a symbol of a political position. It is not a symbol of militarism or superpower status, because even tiny Monaco has a flag of its own.

The American flag is a symbol of a hope and dream realized. It is symbolic of the desire to be free of those came before us. It is a symbol of the fortitude of those who made tremendous sacrifices and bore unspeakable burdens so that this nation would prosper and thrive into the 21^st Century. Our Flag is a symbol of the amalgamation of hundreds of cultures into one and what a grand experiment it has been.

And yet with all our failings, we are the place where most people from around the globe want to come and live. So the flag is about more than the yearnings of white male colonists in 1776. It is about all that is good and wonderful in that spirit which is decidedly and definitely American. It is living proof that from many can come one.

The response to Ms. Gralapp’s inconsiderate comments has been deafening. Americans from around the country have weighed in on the matter. They have spoken up with one voice and that voice has been loud and clear. This is our country and our flag and we are not ashamed to have it wave where all can see it.

After all these modern-day patriots were heard, the Boulder City Council heard and took notice. Instead of a flag hanging in the entranceway, they have erected a new, larger flagpole with a new, larger American flag raised to its peak. Smaller flags have been erected in all of the city’s branch libraries, too.

To Ms Gralapp, I say: The next time you're tempted to question the feelings of Boulder residents and Americans in general with an ill-timed an intemperate remark, I suggest that you remember your status as a public employee and who it is that provides your paycheck. It comes from the very same people you were so quick to offend.

Paul Connors is DefenseWatch Air Force Editor.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 3 – Mounting Effective Psychological Operations

By Robert G. Williscroft

“No one has stepped forward yet to claim responsibility for this latest atrocity!” The breathless chick in the mandatory Jane Pauley bob stares earnestly at us from the tube.

Sooner or later, of course, somebody does claim responsibility. Occasionally more than one group will do so. When this happens, a mad behind-the-scenes scramble soon produces the first expert who answered his phone. So long as this taking head can properly pronounce al Qaeda, or has the ability to sound sonorous when clearing his throat, within minutes we will be treated to his analytic insight as to why terrorist group A is the more likely culprit, or why the real perpetrator is group C who pulls the strings of A and finances B.

In the meantime, we sit on our thumbs because we really have no idea who is behind the attack. Or, perhaps we actually do know, but cannot do anything about it because of a congressional prohibition against funneling money designated for one project into another one, especially if the new project is (a) surreptitious, and (b) might result in the death of somebody – any somebody. For more information on the frustrations associated with this kind of problem, contact retired Lt. Col. Oliver North or retired Rear Adm. John Poindexter for their experiences in their covert attempt to win the release of our hostages in Lebanon.

We have an emerging picture of the modern terrorist mentality: poorly educated but possibly well-trained in one or more battle or terrorist tactics, physically trim, young to middle age, militant religious fanatic-usually Muslim, but occasionally Catholic or Protestant (Ireland), or Communist (Peru and Southeast Asia, and several 1960s holdouts), and frequently stupid-as in: it's reasonable to kill innocents; I will die before betraying my comrades; I really expect a bevy of virgins in paradise; we have a realistic chance of defeating the world's superpower. As in: education cures ignorance, but stupid is forever.

The fallout from our better understanding of modern terrorists is that negotiations are not an option. Trial supplies terrorists a forum to incite more terrorism. Imprisoning captured terrorists provides another reason for new terrorist atrocities. Even a terrorist's death can become a martyr's victory.

How then, do we stop terrorist activity without fostering an even greater level of terrorism?

Since the current international terrorists are all Muslim, we will concentrate our discussion on this element. Muslim extremists, like any other religious extremists, practice bizarre distortions of mainstream versions of their religion. A biblical prophet mentions that faith can protect a believer from a poisonous snake bite. A lively holy roller cult has made this passing comment the central theme in its bizarre religious practice of deliberately handling poisonous snakes during special religious observances. Extremist Muslims are not different, but unfortunately many of their extreme interpretations of the Koran focus their attentions outward, and their target is the Infidel – the rest of us.

Catholics avoid meat on Fridays, Orthodox Jews keep kosher diets, and practicing Muslims follow traditions that differentiate them from other people. For example, devout Muslims don't eat pork; they are taught to use their left hand for bodily functions, and so they eat only with their right hand, and they do not touch another person with their left hand; they don't consume alcohol; they don't “violate” another man's woman.

Now let's return to the bob-headed tube chick. She announces that we don't know who perpetrated the terrorist act. Okay, so we don't know; but we do know who the terrorists are. If one of them steps forward to take credit, we should believe him, and take out his headquarters without worrying about “collateral damage.” If another group also takes credit, believe them too, and take them out as well. If no one steps up to the plate, then announce a random selection and take them out. We should do this immediately, forcefully, and without mercy.

Any “civilians” choosing to live near terrorist activities cannot help but know what is going on near them. Those who choose to remain near such groups after one or two of our responses deserve what happens to them. I suspect a no-man's zone will quickly appear around any terrorist group.

On those rare occasions where we actually capture one of the terrorists, we should play up to his or her religious perceptions.

Here are some possible examples for a member of the al Qaeda network: cut off his right hand, forcing him to do everything with his left. Give him only pork to eat. Create a special international television channel that operates 24/7. Put these guys on display, and give them unbearable pain, screaming, gut wrenching pain, but only sufficient to cause them to scream in agony, not enough to kill them. Maintain this for a month, and then let them have their martyrdom. When dead, wrap them in pigskins and put them in unmarked graves.

We are not dealing with people's constitutional rights. These are not Americans, and are not subject to constitutional protection. They are threatening our very way of life, and we cannot afford to give them any advantage, including that of acceptable martyrdom. If we desecrate captured terrorists with sufficient thoroughness, so that we obliterate even the most rabid extremist belief in subsequent Paradise, future terrorists will be much less willing to risk capture or death.

Robert G. Williscroft is DefenseWatch Navy Editor.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 4 – Anthrax: Common-Sense Defenses

By James F. McMurry Jr., M.D.

I admittedly don't understand art interpretation as cited by Robert Koontz (“Expert Warns al Qaeda Planning Major Biological Attack,” DefenseWatch, Oct. 17), but I do understand the possibilities of a tube in a backpack filled with biological agents.

A stream of infectious material could be spread with a little pressurized container or even a hand bulb attached to the bottom end of it. Is this an efficient method of biowarfare? No, but it is an adequate means of bioterrorism. The 2001 U.S. anthrax attack was done with unconventional means. While highly inefficient in numbers exposed, it was a clever piece of terrorism.

Large numbers of people were frightened, some were even “terrified.” Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control must fly by the seat of its pants on anthrax. No one could do any better with the unknowns that they are facing. (Online information is frequently updated at the CDC website at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/ )

Some simple measures could reduce the chances that you (unvaccinated) or your family become infected with some bioterrorism agent. All infections are based on exposure, the virulence or invasiveness of the agent, the “dose” of agent, and the health/immunity of the person involved. Keeping fit and healthy helps. Avoiding or reducing exposure will be of great help with contagious agents.

Exposure: Avoiding crowds – which might be interesting targets to a terrorist – makes a lot of sense. Simply storing a large pantry of canned goods (maybe even potable water) would allow you to eat well without going to the grocery or commissary for a week or more, avoiding taking a chance of exposure when it is unwise to risk it.

Exposure avoidance can be hard, though. Spreading anthrax spores is not easy – the spores tend to clump (thus being ineffective in reaching down into the lungs); much of the bioweapons research effort was expended on making the spores stay separate, so that they would “float” like dust in the air. The infamous letter to Senator Tom Daschle's office accomplished this. You would not know that you were exposed to anthrax until someone became sick and that takes days to develop.

When co-workers of known anthrax cases had nasal swabs done, some had anthrax spores and some did not. All got antibiotics. Swabs were done 1-2 weeks after exposure (when the “index case” became ill and was proven to have anthrax). Some persons may have blown the spores out of their nose, but still had them down in their lungs beginning to germinate and grow. Their nasal swab could be negative at the time of testing.

Blood tests for anthrax exist, but they are not helpful to the individual: the test becomes positive when the disease is so far advanced that infection is serious. Many treatment decisions in October 2001 have been based on treating everyone in a contaminated area where the spores were known to exist in large numbers or found present in nasal swabs.

Virulence/invasiveness: The virulence of an agent is defined by how many particles or spores it takes to usually infect a person. It takes lots of “subjects” to determine that with medical research, since few volunteer for these bad bugs. Past animal studies suggested from 500 to 50,000 spores are needed for one animal to develop inhalational anthrax. This enormous range probably exists because of the differences in virulence of different anthrax strains.

Based on recent news reports, the U.S. bioweapons program may have used the Ames strain of anthrax, because it was so virulent and very few spores were needed to infect people (animals) and cause serious illness. In the Soviet program, researchers produced an antibiotic-resistant anthrax bug. Apparently their strains were not quite virulent enough to satisfy them. Maybe ten little anthrax spores can bite you really badly if they are quite virulent (no one knows the number of spores needed). Only growing anthrax bacteria can be killed with antibiotics. Spores (the dormant form of the bacteria) are resistant to both antibiotics and most disinfectants. Formaldehyde apparently works, but it is the chief ingredient of embalming fluid.

Anthrax is treated for 60 days, because there are hints that not all spores begin to grow at once and cases may appear six weeks after exposure. After sitting quietly in the lungs for a month, some spores might wake up and cause disease. This is almost a perversion of the concept of virulence: the quiet spore that remains unkillable for weeks and then germinates and grows a week after you get tired of taking the antibiotic.

Dose of the agent: A good dust respirator would block many, if not all, anthrax spores and it is even more efficient for droplet infections such as smallpox and plague. There is a lot to be said for reducing the amount of infectious material, since this could be the difference between life and death. If I were working in a laboratory with these bugs, I would wear a positive pressure “space suit.” But I would be helped by even a paper dust mask from the drugstore or hardware store in any lesser and uncertain exposure.) If you could reduce the dose of an agent by 50 percent, it might save your life. A handkerchief over the nose and mouth should go up anytime you see a small plane flying over. The crop-duster has been the most-talked-about method for spreading anthrax by a bioterrorist.

The dinner table could bring anthrax or smallpox to you: Hand washing with soap is now essential before putting anything into your mouth. Hand washing could make the difference in getting rid of just enough bugs – reducing the dose – to stay healthy. Breaks in the skin can be an entry point for infection. Simple methods, like hand washing and then using hand cream, can reduce or deter infection entry when hands are getting chapped or you have a paper cut. This too could make the difference and avoid illness.

General good health: A healthy immune system is a major factor in converting a borderline infection into a victory over the bugs. If you cannot get proper food, rest or exercise, then washing frequently and avoiding potential exposure become even more important. Persons on chemotherapy will particularly need to stay away from potential exposures, as they would be more susceptible to any of the bacteria, spores or viruses.

The mail threat: No one has had any solid experience to guide us. In our office we put on a paper mask and rubber gloves, as we are in the Washington, D.C., area. We begin by spraying a little tap water in the air over the pile of mail before opening it up. Dampening some anthrax spores on the outside of an envelope might keep them on the paper, instead of stirring them up into the air where they could be inhaled.

Conventional means of avoiding illness may be the best answer for the public's safety with an unconventional war.

McMurry is a resident of Rockville, Md.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 5 – Defending America: The Civil Air Patrol

By David J. Albanese

The current situation in the United States has caused us to look seriously at homeland defense. This same problem was viewed almost 60 years ago as the world situation threatened America's freedom.

On Dec. 1, 1941 the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), a civilian volunteer auxiliary, was founded as Director of Civilian Defense Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, the former New York City mayor, signed the formal order. Today the CAP is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force dedicated to emergency services, aerospace education, and the CAP cadet program.

Today, 58,000 Civil Air Patrol members carry on in the spirit of the CAP's World War II-era sub-chasers.

CAP has provided many services to the United States -- not just since December 1941 -- but especially since Sept. 11, 2001. In the wake of the World Trade Center attack, Civil Air Patrol members transported blood, medical supplies, public officials, and provided the first aerial photos of the site. For the first three days following the attack, Civil Air Patrol flights were the only nonmilitary flights permitted.

Perhaps best known for its search and rescue (SAR) efforts, CAP now flies more than 85 percent of all federal inland SAR missions directed by the U.S. Air Force Rescue Coordination Center at Langley AFB, Virginia. Outside of the continental United States, CAP supports the Joint Rescue Coordination Centers in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

Just how effective are the CAP missions? CAP members save more than 100 people every year. Currently CAP is engaged in efforts assisting the American Red Cross, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and several state emergency management departments including New York and Virginia as the nation recovers in this time of tragedy.

Often overlooked but vitally important is the role CAP plays in disaster relief operations. CAP provides air and ground transportation and an extensive communications network. Members fly disaster relief officials to remote locations, and support local, state and national disaster relief organizations with manpower and leadership. In fact, CAP has formal agreements with many government and humanitarian relief agencies such as the American Red Cross, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, National Transportation Safety Board, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

Closely related to disaster relief is CAP's support of humanitarian missions. Usually in support of the Red Cross, CAP aircrews transport time-sensitive medical materials, including blood and human tissue, in situations where other means of transportation are not possible.

CAP joined the “war on drugs” in 1986 when its leaders signed an agreement with the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Customs Service offering CAP resources to stem the flow of drugs into and within the United States. Today, CAP has similar agreements with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Forest Service.

CAP has made major contributions to the counter-drug fight by providing aerial reconnaissance, airborne communication support, and airlift of law enforcement personnel. In 1997 alone, CAP units flew nearly 40,000 hours in support of counter-drug efforts.

The Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is designed to inspire youth to become leaders and dynamic citizens through an interest in aviation. Girls and boys, 13 to 17 years of age are eligible for membership. Anyone, especially veterans, with an interest in emergency services, aviation, or in serving the community, state, and nation is invited to join.

For more information on unit locations and meeting times contact 1 800-359-2338 or visit www.capnhq.gov.

Lt. Col. Albanese is a member of the Civil Air Patrol.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 6 – Lessons From Bosnia in Homeland Security

By Dave Cook

Chances are, given the current quality of our intelligence-gathering, we may not be able to stop another terrorist attack. But, given what we know about the Sept. 11 strikes, we should be able to stop any potential for a second wave of attacks.

While I was in Bosnia, we operated rescue operations where the Serbs would shell sites where we had arrived to begin rescue and recovery operations. They would also hit the hospitals and morgues as soon as the ambulances arrived.

The terrorists of Sept. 11 showed the same type of “second-wave” strategy. In the event of a future attack, we need to adopt a concentrical perimeter methodology to prevent the second wave of the attack.

Immediately following the initial attack, we must mobilize to manage traffic in and out of the attack site. Local truck drivers could be mobilized and utilized to create controlled traffic restrictions and flows and placed under the control of law enforcement agencies for the highway portion of the outer perimeter. They also provide excellent vantage points for law enforcement to overview the area. Exits and entrances from the area should be manned for law enforcement officials to screen outgoing and incoming traffic. This provides the outer ring.

At regular distance intervals from the attack site, checkpoints for management of traffic, both foot and vehicular, should be established and data should be gathered from these locations. Air cover and water defensive measures would have to be deployed with the same concentric design.

Secondary triage centers should be built within semi-trailers and kept available for emergency situations. Hospital routes should be closed except to emergency vehicles.

Because of the threat from snipers in Bosnia, we actually popped smoke near the attack site and on transit routes to provide cover for the rescue workers. We also utilized shipping containers that were filled with sand to stop sniper bullets to provide sheltered travelways for traffic moving in and out of the area.

These defensive tactics should be considered in event of future terror attacks at home.

Cook is a civilian volunteer aid worker who worked on several reconstruction projects in Bosnia and Croatia during 1994-96.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 07 – Bin Laden Can’t Beat Us, But TV Can

By David C. Stolinsky

The events of Sept. 11 are fresh in our minds. This keeps us focused. A generation brought up on video games and remote-controlled TV tends to have a short attention span. But as the war drags on, will we remain focused?

Television claims to give us “objective” coverage. But how can Americans be objective when reporting a war in which their own soldiers are at risk, and which began with a sneak attack on civilians?

Is it ethical to remain neutral when over 5,000 of our fellow citizens were slaughtered? Ordinarily, we consider people who are unmoved by their neighbors' suffering to be inhuman. But when those people are reporters, somehow this insensitivity becomes a virtue. Is it?

This assumes the reporters' neutrality has succeeded in giving us impartial news. Has it?

Few of our reporters are allowed entry by the Afghans, so we rely on foreign reporters, who may be anti-American. Worse, much of the videotape is obtained from the Al Jazeera network, which often gives biased reports.

We see pictures of dead civilians and are told that our bombs were responsible. But who is to say that these were not casualties of the Soviet invasion years ago, or of the current Afghan civil war? Who can know whether they might have been caused by the Taliban regime itself, to produce hatred of America? This is not impossible for a regime that regularly executes political opponents, and which beats women with sticks for going out of their houses not covered from head to foot.

Will this TV coverage affect our ability to fight? It is said that we don't learn from history. But we can learn. Imagine that color TV and satellite news was in use on Dec. 7, 1941. Would this have affected World War II? Public reaction to Pearl Harbor might have been even stronger. Imagine live color pictures of capsizing battleships, bloody casualties, and floating bodies.

But what then? It was months before our military buildup produced results. Would we have grown impatient and unsure of our leaders? The year 1942 was not a happy one. The principal good news was the Battle of Midway, where our Navy seriously damaged the Japanese fleet. This victory was made possible by the heroic attack of Torpedo Squadron 8, which forced the Japanese fighter planes to descend to low altitude and leave their carriers open to our dive-bombers. But Torpedo 8 got no hits itself, and lost all its planes and all but one of its men.

What if this battle was seen on TV? Would our key memory be not the victory, but the loss of all those men and planes? Would the price have seemed too high?

Then we landed on Guadalcanal. The outnumbered Marines pushed the Japanese off the island, but it was a terrible trial. Watching it daily on TV would have been a trial for the viewers as well. Would they have endured it as well as the Marines did?

Our first major effort against the Nazis was to invade North Africa, where we suffered hundreds of casualties at the hands of the Vichy French, who were allied with the Germans. What if our casualties had been shown in “living color?” Would bitterness against the French have caused the Normandy invasion to be cancelled?

Meanwhile, our totalitarian enemies would have seen only cheerful propaganda. They would have seen victorious German and Japanese troops “liberating” grateful towns from “brutal” Americans. They would have seen dead women and children, killed by us, of course. Imagine that these enemy films were shown on American TV for “balance.”

All this would have caused us two disadvantages. First, if we saw the grimness of war, while our enemies saw only cheerful pictures, our morale would have been undermined. Second, seeing our soldiers suffer and die, while we sat at home munching snacks, would have caused many viewers to feel guilty. In some, this would have inspired enlistment. But in most, it would have stimulated a desire to remove the cause of the guilt feelings - by pushing for peace at any price. Note that recruiters indicate that they received many inquiries after the Twin Towers attack, but few actual enlistments.

Fortunately, color TV and satellite news weren't around for World War II. We got our news from William L. Shirer, who reported from Berlin without confusing Nazi propaganda with his own observations. We got it from Edward R. Murrow, who reported from London during the Blitz, without giving gory details or implying that Britain might submit. We got it from Elmer Davis, a reporter who gave up his job to direct the Office of War Information, where he kept us informed without giving the enemy useful information.

But Shirer, Murrow, and Davis are gone. They were replaced by moussed-haired talking heads who appear to feel loyalty only to their ratings and high salaries. We see enemy propaganda video as “news.” We hear “all anthrax, all the time” to keep us glued to our sets – and as terrified as possible.

Is there a solution? We could permit free coverage of the war by Internet, radio, and print media (short of revealing our plans to the enemy), but restrict TV coverage. Television news could be shown through a pro-American filter. At the very least, we could omit enemy-made video. We could avoid interviewing “experts” who hate America. This would provide the public with needed information, but omit the bloody and often biased images that can sap our ability to fight evil.

Civil libertarians will object that freedom of the press is being endangered. But which is worse – to temporarily restrict one freedom, or to risk losing all freedoms? A wise man once said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Let us not allow our enemies to destroy all our freedoms, our civilization, and our very lives, while we vainly attempt to ensure “balanced” coverage of a war with barbarians. If both sides watched a war on reasonably honest TV, there might be no more wars. But if only the free side does so, there may be no more freedom.

Stolinsky is a resident of Los Angeles. A prior version of this article was posted on NewsMax.com on Oct. 29, 2001.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 08 – Update: Coded Art and Backpack Terrorists

By Robert Koontz

In a response to my interview in DefenseWatch on Oct. 17 (“Expert Warns al Qaeda Planning a Major Biological Attack”), in which I asserted that Muzaffar Wandawi's paintings connect him with the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Contributing Editor Robert G. Williscroft last week disagreed with my assessment that the coded artwork comprised part of a communications system between the al Qaeda network and hidden terrorist cells, although he did agree that the specific painting, “Downfall,” indicated the artist had prior knowledge of Osama bin Laden’s plan to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentqgon.

I am writing to further explain my assessment of the coded artwork.

With respect to Dr. Williscroft's argument about the communication errors that could be found in paintings and drawings (“Response to Koontz Interview,” Oct. 24), I have to agree – but I must quickly add that al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence also use embedded alphanumeric codes in Internet pictures as well. Thus, on the Internet, the whole coding system involves drawings, paintings and alphanumeric text. It just happened that I focused exclusively on the visual aspects, while other researchers have been focusing on the alphanumeric coding.

I have also read that bin Laden has been using couriers more frequently of late, as Dr. Williscroft noted, particularly after some incidents where it was publicly disclosed in news reports that bin Laden's cell and satellite phone calls had been intercepted by the National Security Agency. I would agree with Dr. Williscroft that bin Laden is now using more direct, more reliable means of communication.

But I submit that while what Dr. Williscroft has said about bin Laden's direct communications is undoubtedly true, the same kinds of restrictions do not have to apply to the thousands who are part of the al Qaeda network. It is clear to me that these lower-ranking operatives are using the Internet for some of their communications.

It is unlikely that bin Laden himself and others of high rank in the al Qaeda organization – including Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian physician who brought to al Qaeda the whole Egyptian Islamic Jihad group that assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981, and Mohammed Atef, the so-called “military planner” – are using the coded artwork. But lesser-ranking al Qaeda operatives could -- and do – use the Internet, including hiding messages in pictures.

I also agree with Dr. Williscroft on his theory that the symbolism of the paintings is a coded means of inspiring the “faithful” as the terrorists await orders to commit additional attacks.

With respect to my assertion that Iraqi and al Qaeda agents have the means to employ what I refer to as “backpack biologicals,” to dispense agents such as the Ebola virus or smallpox, I must reluctantly disagree with Dr. Williscroft in a few areas – even though he makes many excellent arguments.

While U.S. experts think they know where all existing stocks of smallpox are stored, there are secret biological weapons research centers still in existence all over the former Soviet Union (FSU), many of which lie within the 16-20 “secret cities” that were used in such covert programs. What went on in those labs remains – to me at least – an unknown, although I did once get a briefing from a Russian biological weapons researcher. Her use of radiation to mutate bacteria – to create more virulent and dangerous strains of infectious diseases – was disturbing. What she told me suggests that there are all kinds of unknown, weaponized biological agents in the FSU.

In those biological weapons research centers there are bacteriological agents that are extremely dangerous and – it is my understanding – were designed to be deployed by Soviet military intelligence (GRU) agents in the field, carrying them in backpacks.

Given the notorious state of physical security in those facilities, I conclude that all sorts of bacteriological agents could have been sold to both Iraq and al Qaeda over the last 10 years. And possibly these would include GRU bio-weapons of the kind I have described elsewhere. Therefore, while Dr. Williscroft is probably correct that Ebola may not be a viable disease for a “backpack attack,” I still believe that there are diseases that can be deployed using this means.

Many Americans will have a hard time grasping that “unrestricted warfare,” as the Chinese have dubbed it, involves all sorts of things other than the use of conventional military weapons. The Chinese speak of using computer viruses to attack their enemies – along with stock manipulation, for example.

One should not be thinking of biological warfare only in terms of thousands upon thousands of people becoming sick and then dying. It could be that millions of cattle would be the target. But in either case, I assert that “backpack biologicals” do constitute a grave threat.

Why then would bin Laden, al Qaeda and even Saddam Hussein not employ whatever tactics they could to realize victories – even if they are small ones? Would bin Laden not unleash foot and mouth disease in Britain if he could? Would he not do it in America? The answer is clear. Despite press reports that allege the strain of anthrax discovered in the United States does not appear to be the form believed to have been developed by Iraq, U.S. officials should not yet rule out the possibility that we may actually be in a war with Iraq – a war in which Saddam is using unrestricted warfare and al Qaeda terrorists as his proxies.

With the nation on high security alert for more possible terrorist attacks in the days ahead, I would again admonish American law enforcement authorities to be watchful and alert for Middle Eastern men wearing backpacks in a target-rich area.

Robert Koontz, an experimental nuclear physicist, is also an expert in electronics, computer systems, software development and electronic intelligence gathering.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 09 – For the Record: Gen. Richard B. Myers, Chairman JCS

Excerpts of an interview of Gen. Richard Myers USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert on Nov. 4, 2001.

MR. RUSSERT: How goes the war in Afghanistan?

GEN. MYERS: Well, I'd say in a word it's going according to plan. The objectives are to try to capture or bring to justice as many of al Qaeda as we possibly can in Afghanistan. The other part of that, of course, is to take the Taliban regime down to the point where they can no longer support al Qaeda. …

MR. RUSSERT: How big a problem is the weather -- the freezing rain, the coming snows?

GEN. MYERS: In any combat operation or any conflict, weather's probably your number one concern. It's no different in Afghanistan. So as winter sets on, that will be an issue that we'll deal with. But let me assure people that we're going to fight right through the winter. The winter is not going to stop us from doing what we have to do. We are re-supplying the opposition with ammunition, with food, with blankets. We hope in the not-too-distant future with cold weather gear. The fighting forces on the side of the opposition on our side will be much better prepared for winter than will the Taliban. …

MR. RUSSERT: On October 20, there was a commando raid by U.S. forces into Afghanistan. You showed pictures of people being parachuted in and some infrared pictures and things like that. A New Yorker magazine [article] today reports that during that exercise, that operation, 12 U.S. soldiers were wounded, three seriously.

Is that accurate?

GEN. MYERS: Let me just tell you exactly what happened, and I don't think that report is accurate in the context that they -- that it was written. As you know, we lost two individuals to a helicopter accident before they even went into Afghanistan. They were the reserve force sitting back, waiting to respond -

MR. RUSSERT: In Pakistan.

GEN. MYERS: – in Pakistan – waiting in case they were needed. They were not needed, but this helicopter landing in a dust storm rolled over on landing and tragically, two service members were killed. Two were injured in that one, as well. The force that went in on the ground, there were a couple of parachute injuries that we expected, and those happened, and there were some other wounds from some of the action and some of the activity that they were undergoing, but none of it was

inflicted by the enemy. We took – essentially, I think the article – I've not read the article, but I've heard that it portrays that we ran into some stiff resistance. That's simply not true. There was no resistance. The Taliban were in complete disarray.

MR. RUSSERT: The article said that there was a fire fight, and that the Taliban not only had rifle fire, but also mortars and grenades in response to the U.S., and 12 U.S. soldiers were injured, three seriously.

GEN. MYERS: And that's not true. That's not true. I – my guess is, my belief is that every soldier that came back from that particular raid is back on duty today, none of them seriously injured, certainly none of them injured by the Taliban. The Taliban probably did return fire and they had all those capabilities. We know from other reporting that they were trying to muster greater capabilities, and they were unable to do so. Our soldiers just simply overwhelmed them.

MR. RUSSERT: The [article] also says there was grave concern within the special operations community about being sent into an operation like that, suggesting they were not totally prepared or properly planned.

GEN. MYERS: Nothing could be further from the truth. This operation was planned for some time. The leader of the special operations community, General Charlie Holland, down in Tampa, Florida, was fully aware of what was going on, was participating in the planning, and when it came down to it, we were all very

satisfied that we were ready to go in. In fact, we executed that exactly as we thought we would do. The fact that we damaged a helicopter inside the compound we went into, that's just one of the things in war that's going to happen. We know

when we're sitting down helicopters with lots of troops in a dusty environment that there are going to be some incidents like that, and there were, in this case, but it went – from my view, it went flawlessly. …

MR. RUSSERT: How would you rank the Taliban as an enemy?

GEN. MYERS: Oh, it's hard -- it's -- I mean, they're not like a regular army. … I don't rate them very high, and I don't think -- I think when push comes to shove that we're going to prevail here. …

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned the war on terrorism. Do we have the capability to eliminate Saddam Hussein's nuclear and biological threat, if we decide to do that?

GEN. MYERS: Well, without getting into specific capabilities, that's exactly what we're worried about in the war on terrorism are weapons of mass destruction and those who have them and the fact they might fall in the hands of international terrorist organizations. So anybody that is harboring terrorists, anybody that has weapons of mass destruction -- or mass destruction … production capability, we're very much worried about.

MR. RUSSERT: And we're capable to eliminate Saddam's threat, if we choose to do so?

GEN. MYERS: I don't want to speculate on that. I think there's a lot of planning going on right now. That is certainly the kind of threat that we're looking and taking very seriously. You know, I think on September 11 it was quite clear that the

terrorists passed over whatever threshold we thought there was for the use of weapons of mass destruction when they killed over 5,000 people from 80 different countries -- again, every culture and ethnic group you can think of. They passed over that threshold, and so I think we have to do all we can to ensure that these weapons of mass destruction don't fall into the wrong hands or any hands, for that matter. So if it comes to that, we'll be able to take them out.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you confident, as you sit here this morning that you can say to the American people you will destroy al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

GEN. MYERS: I am very confident that we're going to win. As the president has said, as the secretary of defense has said, we know this conflict is going to take a long time, and we're prepared for that. We are steeled to that. We are resolute. …

The full transcript was prepared by the Federal News Service Inc. and released by the Department of Defense.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 10 – Medal of Honor Recipient – CAFFERATA, HECTOR A., JR., Pvt. USMCR

CAFFERATA, HECTOR A., JR., Pvt. USMCR

Rank and organization: Private, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, Company F, 2d Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Rein.).

Place and date: Korea, 28 November 1950.

Entered service at: Dover, N.J.

Born: 4 November 1929, New York, N.Y.

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a rifleman with Company F, in action against enemy aggressor forces. When all the other members of his fire team became casualties, creating a gap in the lines, during the initial phase of a vicious attack launched by a fanatical enemy of regimental strength against his company's hill position, Pvt. Cafferata waged a lone battle with grenades and rifle fire as the attack gained momentum and the enemy threatened penetration through the gap and endangered the integrity of the entire defensive perimeter.

Making a target of himself under the devastating fire from automatic weapons, rifles, grenades, and mortars, he maneuvered up and down the line and delivered accurate and effective fire against the onrushing force, killing 15, wounding many more, and forcing the others to withdraw so that reinforcements could move up and consolidate the position.

Again fighting desperately against a renewed onslaught later that same morning when a hostile grenade landed in a shallow entrenchment occupied by wounded marines, Pvt. Cafferata rushed into the gully under heavy fire, seized the deadly missile in his right hand and hurled it free of his comrades before it detonated, severing part of one finger and seriously wounding him in the right hand and arm. Courageously ignoring the intense pain, he staunchly fought on until he was struck by a sniper's bullet and forced to submit to evacuation for medical treatment.

Stouthearted and indomitable, Pvt. Cafferata, by his fortitude, great personal valor, and dauntless perseverance in the face of almost certain death, saved the lives of several of his fellow Marines and contributed essentially to the success achieved by his company in maintaining its defensive position against tremendous odds. His extraordinary heroism throughout was in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

Editor’s Note: If you know of any MOH recipient who is hospitalized or has passed away recently, please email MOH Correspondent James H. Also, if you would like more info on MOH recipients and their stories, please email James H at bulldogleader@mindspring.com.

Table of Contents

EDITOR'S NOTE: Article Submission Procedures/Subject Editors Sought

1. Try to keep articles to 750 words or less. SUBMIT IN MS WORD FORMAT, if
possible!

2. Submit your piece to one of the following editors:

Ed Offley, Editor

defensewatch@aol.com

J. David Galland, Deputy Editor

defensewatch02@hotmail.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.

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF MILITARY ACRONYMS:

We've had numerous requests from troops in different branches of the
military to establish this link so that we will all know how "all you
others" talk that talk. The DoD site is not working but the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists has an excellent online acronym roster. Please see below:

http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/acronym.htm

Table of Contents

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.

Table of Contents

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)