This site has been maintained as an archive and not an active blog. That may changing soon, as I no longer think I am preaching to the choir. For all those who visited through the years, my thanks to you, and well wishes for your endeavors in your current and future projects.
May God richly bless you all.
JMT
Adding to the list of things not being done by the federal government during the government shutdown, the Pentagon has released a statement that it does not have the "authority" to authorize death benefits for service members killed during this time period.
All of the leaders noted that despite the recall of most civilians, and the
resumption of many activities across the Department of Defense, there are
critical programs and benefits that remain halted. For example, the department
does not currently have the authority to pay death gratuities for the survivors
of service members killed in action – typically a cash payment of $100,000 paid
within three days of the death of a service member. In addition, emergency
funding that supports commanders on the ground and intelligence activities
remains unavailable. Service leaders also reported that because of the shutdown,
they are curtailing training for later deploying units – an activity that has
already been reduced due to sequestration.
Blame who you will for the current governmental shutdown, but for service members to be denied death benefits, for the families of those service members to have stress added upon them unnecessarily, because two groups of people cannot come to terms, compromise with each other, and come to agreements over what amounts to little more than individuals being worried about their legacies over serving the public they were elected to represent, is reprehensible.
It is of little wonder that our founding fathers warned us against political party systems.
To our legislative bodies: fix this mess.
Now.
Sic vis pacem parabellum.
MT
Update: A private charity has stepped up to the plate to do what our government can't/won't do during the shutdown period.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Wednesday families of troops who die during the government shutdown will receive a death benefit payment, despite legal restrictions on the Pentagon, thanks to a deal reached with a private charity.
Barack Obama just might need the help of Tom Cruises "Ethan Hunt" character to pull of one of his biggest campaign promises. Some things sound great when discussed, but the actuality of the situation may not always make things come off like promised.
Members of the United States armed forces face a unique situation that other American citizens generally are unaware of. While members of the armed forces can participate in the electoral process of the nation's business like anyone else, they are not as free to express individual political opinion as civilians, especially in regards to candidates who will potentially become their commander-in-chief. That doesn't mean, however, that they can't express their opinions on the feasibility of ending a mission before it's completion, or giving their analysis of the consequences of premature termination.
One of the key elements that put Barack Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race for the party nomination was the issue of bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Senator Clinton, in a reasonable and sensible approach, maintained that the war in Iraq should be ended as quickly as possible, but maintained that she would reserve judgement on the return of combat and support forces for after being briefed, as President, by top military officials on the effects and eventualities that a sudden exodus of forces from Iraq would bring.
Senator Obama, on the other hand, has maintained that he will begin bringing troops home, withdrawing all combat troops, two brigades per month, over the first sixteen months of his presidency. Such a withdrawal, according to many military personnel, could have dire and long term effects in Iraq, and for the rest of the world as well.
Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.
We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.
"We still have a ways to go. Number one, we're working on security and it's very encouraging, that's true, but what we're really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let's look at the conditions.
"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question," Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.
Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."
This doesn't even begin to touch on the logistical considerations for moving that many troops, and that much equipment, in that short of a time frame, without creating a situation that affects the military budget and capacity to wage an effective combat operation if redeployed elsewhere because of having to abandon equipment in country in order to meet a political time line.
This is the kind of information that policy makers usually get before formulating policy. We can rotate troops out of Iraq on the kind of timetable Obama suggests, but we’d have to leave all of our heavy equipment in Iraq. Unless Obama plans some kind of nationwide garage sale, that would be a rather large loss for the American military in materiel as well as making our exit look more like Dunkirk.
Obviously, Obama didn’t have any awareness of logistics when he made this proposal — and that’s the point. His lack of experience, combined with a hubris that he has consistently shown on the campaign trail, makes clear that he is in way over his head at this point of his career. He has no sense of military policy at all, and got the biggest call of the war — the surge — completely wrong. Yet he insists that he’s ready to lead this nation’s military during a time of war as Commander in Chief?
Realistically, it's not plausible. Obama himself has even begun to waffle on the issue verbally, but maintains, on his official website, that this is still one of his key campaign promises that he will fulfill upon taking the office of the President, if he is elected to such.
Just words?
Words mean things, and if one is going to make such a straight forward and committed position as Obama has made, one should be prepared, in advance, to be able to achieve such tasks as one promises to deliver. Obama, in true political fashion and demonstrating a marked lack of experience and understanding of the deployment of military forces, has committed himself to a politically suicidal position, should he gain the office of President. On the one hand, if he is elected and is unable to deliver on his promise to bring the troops home from Iraq within the first sixteen months of his administration, he has delivered, upon the proverbial silver platter, ammunition for a Republican opponent (as well as potential Democratic opponents) for the 2012 election cycle. On the other hand, should he manage to move 2 full brigades of troops back to the states per month, forcing a wholesale abandonment of equipment in country in Iraq (which undoubtedly will fall into the hands of those whom we would prefer not to have said equipment, provided the military doesn't render it unusable prior to departure), our military will face a state of unpreparedness unseen since the days of the Carter administration.
Should Obama become President, his lack of experience and understanding of the military, and his lack of willingness to listen to expert advice, has caused Obama to create for himself, within the less than a year and a half of taking office, the ultimate political death; he has backed himself into a no-win situation.
They began as a ragged bunch of farmers and businessmen who believed in an idea; a free Continental Colonial America free from English rule. Today, the United States Army celebrates it's 233rd birthday.
At the outset of the American Revolution in April of 1775, the American Colonies had no standing army. Initial confrontations with British forces were conducted by militia units in Lexington and Concord. A gathering of thousands of New England militiamen to lay siege to British troops at Boston prompted the Second Continental Congress to realize the need for a centralized command structure, and on June 14th of 1775, the Continental Army was born. The next day, George Washington was unanimously voted by the Congress to be the Commander in Chief, a position for which he refused any recompense other than reimbursement for his personal expenses.
From Bunker Hill to Baghdad, the Army, the first commissioned military organization by a congressional body in our nation, has held the standard for service and excellence in standing ready to defend our nation. And today, this oldest branch of our nation's military is an all volunteer organization of highly trained men and women who utilize a wide range of technology and equipment applied to old fashioned traditions and standards.
Take a moment today to visit the Army Birthday website, and to reflect and give a moment of thanks for the men and women who have devoted a portion of, or the entirety of, their lives to ensure that a nation and a people remain free.
233 years.
Army Strong.
Drive on!
Once and ALWAYS, and American Fighting Man (and proud Army vet)
During the 1960's it was not uncommon for young men to travel in droves across the border between the United States and Canada to avoid service in Vietnam. Today, deserters from the U.S. military are finding that things have changed for them, drastically.
Corey Glass, a 25 year-old United States National Guardsmen AWOL in Canada and under charges of desertion, is not a happy young man today. Corey has been ordered by Canadian officials to leave the country on his own accord by the 12th of June, denying his application to stay in Canada His ordered deportation is the first rejection by Canadian courts by a group of other deserters who have sought asylum in Canada as war resisters.
An Indiana native, Glass's tenure with the military began in 2002 when he joined the National Guard to complete "humanitarian work" within the United States, he said. At that time, he had no idea he would end up fighting on foreign shores.
"When I joined the National Guard, they told me the only way I would be in combat was if there were troops occupying the United States," he said. "I signed up to defend people and do humanitarian work filling sandbags if there was a hurricane. ... I should have been in New Orleans, not Iraq."
When he was deployed to Iraq in 2005, Glass said he tried to quit the military and was returned home on a leave later that same year.
He then went AWOL for eight months before defecting to Toronto in August 2006. He has since been working as a funeral director at a Toronto funeral home.
Perhaps Glass should have read the mission statements found on the National Guard website outlining their Federal and State obligations before enlisting.
Consequences for desertion of the United States armed forces carry very stiff penalties. If convicted by a Court Martial procedure, under statutes of the United States Code of Military Justice, Glass, and the other deserters in his group in Canada, could be facing a possible death sentence under the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
885. ART. 85. DESERTION (a) Any member of the armed forces who-- (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently; (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or (3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion. (b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion. (c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
Glass, as a National Guardsman under Federal deployment in a time of war, is subject to UCMJ law.
We live in a different time than we lived in the 1960's. Military service today is voluntary, not compulsory. There is no draft. Men and women in uniform today are they because they have enlisted or been commissioned of their own accord, not because they have been called into service by the draft board. National Guard units have been deployed overseas in this war, in the Gulf War, in Vietnam, Korea, and World War II. For Glass to proclaim that he was told he would not have to be deployed overseas goes entirely against the mission and purpose of the National Guard, which is to act as a supplementary and reserve branch of the military at large.
According to Lee Zaslofsky, a who fled the U.S. for Canada to avoid service in Vietnam and who is the co-coordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign, the order for Glass to be deported lies in contradiction with a motion passed last December by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration calling for the Canadian government to allow conscientious protesters of war to remain in Canada without facing deportation.
The Canadian Parliament has not yet passed the motion and set it into law.
Glass is the first of nine others who have applied to stay in Canada after desertion from the United States military.
Glass also said he saw the war as "illegal and immoral." Personally, I don't give a damn, myself, how he saw the war. We were at war when he enlisted, and that was common public knowledge. There is no excuse for his action, in my opinion, and he will get what he deserves if found guilty under court martial proceedings.
I'm going to ask a very simple question before we dive into the rest of this article, a question that ponders within my heart and soul as well as my mind, a question that I ask every time I watch the national news, a question that we should all be asking ourselves whenever we see one of our elected "leaders" open their mouths and start using their split tongues to double-talk us with lies and rhetoric.
That question is this: Have we become a nation of idiots?
A few months ago, I did a piece entitled "Inverted," in which I addresses several key issues of the day in which I see our thinking as upside down as a society. It appears that my piece might have hit home with a few people, but it hasn't had the significant impact that I had truly hoped it might have when I wrote it. I wasn't expecting mountains to be moved, nor rivers to change courses, but perhaps a few minds to be opened to thinking, something that seems to have become a dying art in our modern society. I have determined that one piece alone doesn't have the impact today of something as significant as Martin Luther's 99 Theses; instead, it takes perseverance and persistence and a constant showing of what is going on with things.
Therefore, I have decided that this will become an ongoing feature for Wake Up America. This will be the first of an ongoing series that will discuss the question, "Have we become a nation of idiots?"
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are preparing for their next round of Congressional testimonies this coming week. There is a lot to report. According to the latest NIE update, the troop surge in Iraq has worked, there is slow but steady progress in the country politically, and Iraqi forces are taking a more active role in their own security.
Petraeus is a career military officer, not a politician, and Crocker is a diplomat. These are not men who are coming to Washington jockeying for position with other lawmakers, opening themselves to the flirtations of lobbyists, or trying to determine how much pork they can bring home for their districts in the form of earmarks. Petraeus is a warrior, Crocker is a peace-broker. Despite the seeming contradictory roles they play, both men actually are working for the same goal in a country that needs their experience and expertise to begin full work in governing itself, with our help as a nation at the outset.
One needs only to look at history to see that our own nation had the help of the French at a time when we were struggling to emerge as a nation of our own right.
There has been no advanced word on what the Petraeus or Crocker reports will say. No one has leaked information, yet, as to what will be discussed at the Congressional testimonies. But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seems to think she already knows what will be said, and has gone on the record saying that she doesn't want to hear it.
“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.
Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.” “We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution that looks less violent when in fact it has been dictated by al-Sadr, who can grant or withhold that call for violence,” Pelosi said.
So the Speaker of the House has determined that she can warn a United States Army General in command of a theater of operations what not to say? The Speaker of the House is forwarding a message to a United States diplomatic official what not to report upon? Does this not come across as being less than open-minded in preparing for a report on the activities in Iraq, as she should be?
By the way, Petraeus and Crocker will have support when they go in to speak before Congress. Members of Vets for Freedom will be there tomorrow, as well.
From email:
For the past three weeks, the National Heroes Tour took the message of the success in Iraq straight to the American people. From San Antonio to Saint Paul to South Carolina, we engaged crowds large and small, and spoke with over 200 media outlets, reaching over 20 million people through local television and radio.
With just 3% of news coverage in the mainstream media committed to Iraq, we bypassed national media all together, and it worked. Local media outlets were very receptive to "ground truth," and our veterans were able to provide it. Any way you slice it, the National Heroes Tour has been an overwhelming success.
But it's not over yet. Tomorrow we bring our message to Congress, when over 400 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans descend on Capitol Hill for "Vets on the Hill." Our guys will enjoy breakfast with the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard Myers, before heading to Capitol Hill for a bi-partisan press conference with two-dozen members of Congress, including Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham.
After the press conference, Vets for Freedom will flood the halls of Congress with a sea of warriors, armed with first-hand experience, facts about the incredible progress in Iraq, and a passion for nothing short of victory, Their stories are "taking points" that no one can refute—and members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, will hear from them.
Our message is simple: Let them win! and listen to General David Petraeus. He was right in September, and has the best pulse on events in Iraq. Congress would be wise to heed his advice.
Commence Movement to Contact,
Pete Hegseth Executive Director Vets for Freedom
It is beyond my comprehension how that Nancy Pelosi was selected to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has shown time and again over the past two years her lack of ability to actually lead, Congress has accomplished nothing during this term other than to show themselves to be able to behave like pre-schoolers who have been told they have to stay inside for recess; the Senate, under Harry Reid, has done no better. They have whined and complained and griped and moaned about President Bush this and President Bush that, but what have they done? And who keeps sending them back to do the nothing that they do so well?
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. We, the American people, continue to send people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to Washington, expecting them to do something for us when they get there. They do nothing. And yet they are reelected over and over and over until they become career politicians like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, just to name two.
They do nothing.
Insane?
I think so, that's why I very, very rarely vote for any incumbent candidate, unless the other option is worse than what is already in office. My question is, looking around at the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, and so on and so forth, is, what kind of idiot does it take to continue to vote for these people?
Phil Bredesen, take note: I didn't vote for your condescending ass either, I knew you'd show your true colors with a second term as Governor of Tennessee.
Bob Corker, take note: we are watching you. You were selected over a popular Democratic opponent because we trusted you AT YOUR WORD that you would go to Washington to do the peoples work. So far, you're doing well. Not great, but doing well. We expect to see leadership out of you; we didn't send you up there to be a follower.
Lamar Alexander, take note: you're on the verge of PISSING your constituency off when you have your staff take the phones off the hooks so that we can't get through on important issues. Unfortunately, no one seems to be willing to take you on in this coming election cycle that you're going to be in, but that could change in a heartbeat if you don't watch yourself and do what you were elected to do.
Each and every one of you from Tennessee is on notice for this business in the House this term. You Democrats who have decided to ignore your home districts and pander to Grammy Nan are going to have to answer for what you've done when you come home at election time. There are those of us who are going to see to that in your districts. You have questions that you will have to answer. Personally, I hope none of you are returned to office.
John Tanner, you especially have a record that flies in the face of the people who live in your district. Nancy Pelosi doesn't represent us in west Tennessee, you do, John, and we're disappointed as hell in you. You know better than to let the values you grew up with be overrun by a left coast liberal.
Shame on you.
Are we idiots? Are we insane to continue to send people who pay lip service to representing us in government back into office over and over?
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for this call to action. The communist/jihadist embracing leftinistra's have called out for help and they're getting it. Code Pink has been joined by World Can't Wait in Berzerkely, and as MM shows on her site, they're being joined by other groups as well across the country.
Code Pink's announcement:
Join us for Counter-Recruitment this Friday, February 22nd at our new location at the U.S. Navy Recruitment Center!
Join CODEPINK outside of the Navy Recruitment Center in Santa Monica! Wear your pink for peace as we gather to spread the anti-war message and to educate the public about the risks associated with military recruitment and why it’s smart to OPT OUT. To attend, meet us outside our new location at the U.S. Navy Recruitment Center located at 2708 Wilshire Blvd. in Santa Monica (90403) at 12 noon this Friday the 22nd. Let’s show our support for Berkeley and let everyone know that Santa Monica is still in the running with Counter-Recruitment!
Let us know you’re coming by contacting Sarah at 310.827.4320 or la@codepinkalert.org
An announcement that is obviously calling themselves "Funk the War:"
After many previous protests had found the 14th st recruiter “closed” at 5PM, Funk the War found them open, and the door unlocked at nearer to 6Pm and promptly exploited the situation by demonstrating to them first hand how an occupying force behaves.
After a loud commotion inside while outnumbered cops watched, recruiters finally managed to get protesters to leave-but not before literature and full-body length cardboard displays in the street window area were destroyed. In addition, hundreds more “Funk the War” stickers were plastered all over just about everything that would take them. By the time everyone was out it looked like a tornado had swept through the lobby.
One recruiter tried to grab an activist but found himself overpowered by SDS’s superior strength and numbers and had no choice but to give up!
This came on the heels of the whole group marching in K st and Connecticut Ave at the height of rush hour, closing War Profiteer’s Row to cars fro quite a while. The group closed out by going after DC GOP headquarters, but that door was locked and there were too many cops around to break it down.
Pass the word along, contact people you know who live in these areas and let's put patriotic American men and women out there in numbers to counter these people and send them home. If you live in other areas where you see this sort of thing happening, LET US KNOW and we'll make sure the word gets out.
[UPDATE 1752 CST] It has come to my attention (sorry Bob, so sorry, really, I truly am) that one should avoid eating or drinking when reading this. (REALLY am sorry, Bob, hope that doesn't scald).
We now return you to your regularly scheduled tomfoolery.
Martin Lewis must come from a loving family. A family that loves Martin and Lewis, that is, since their offspring must have been named for Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis.
What bothers me most is that the man is serious in what he suggests. I can't even begin to describe the way my brain began spasming, convulsing, and shaking in utter incomprehensible disbelief at the information my eyes were sending to it.
First I laughed.
Then I reread it and laughed some more.
Somewhere in the raucous laughter and gasping for air, from some corner in my mind's deep dark recesses (and my mind is a scary place to be, folks, let me tell you), I could hear the voice of Mr. T saying "I PITY the fool."
Which of course made me laugh all the harder.
OH, what did I read that sent me into such fits of laughter?
That would be Martin Lewis' (God the NAME ITSELF just ASKS for laughter, doesn't it?) column at Huffington Post.
BE WARNED, STUPIDITY CAN BE A CONTAGIOUS CONDITION!
Make sure you proceed cautiously over the next few moments in reading JUST A SAMPLING of what the clown prince of slapstick suggests...
General Peter Pace Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 400 Joint Staff Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20318-0400
Dear General Pace,
I note with admiration your courage in making clear your private concerns about the safety of the US military and the longterm danger to US national security caused by the President's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the quagmire in Iraq.
Though you are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's principal military advisor - President Bush has shown his disdain for your honesty and wisdom. Though you are a decorated Vietnam war hero - who has served his nation honorably for four decades - the President is dispensing with your services. You have one month left in your position before you are tossed out by the President.
President Bush is going to ignore your advice. Just as he has ignored the advice of other Generals who have had the courage to respectfully point out how terribly wrong he is in respect of the Iraq War and the safety of the US military he is sworn to protect. Highly-decorated colleagues of yours such as General Anthony Zinni (Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) and General John Abizaid (Commander of the U.S. Central Command).
General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.
You can relieve the President of his command.
Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.
You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.
The President is the top of the chain of command for ALL branches of the military.
HE'S STILL A CIVILIAN!
The President is not SUBJECT to UCMJ (for those of you who don't know because you haven't been in the military or just don't know because, well, you just don't know, that stands for Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Let me say this one more time, and I want it to be put forth as matter of public record MY OWN response to Martin Lewis' suggestion.
By George F. Will Thursday, August 23, 2007; Page A19
Come September, America might slip closer toward a Weimar moment. It would be milder than the original but significantly disagreeable.
After the First World War, politics in Germany's new Weimar Republic were poisoned by the belief that the army had been poised for victory in 1918 and that one more surge could have turned the tide. Many Germans bitterly concluded that the political class, having lost its nerve and will to win, capitulated. The fact that fanciful analysis fed this rancor did not diminish its power.
The Weimar Republic was fragile; America's domestic tranquility is not. Still, remember the bitterness stirred by the accusatory question "Who lost China?" and corrosive suspicions that the fruits of victory in Europe had been squandered by Americans of bad character or bad motives at Yalta.
So, consider this: When Gen. David Petraeus delivers his report on the war, his Washington audience will include two militant factions. Perhaps nothing he can responsibly say will sway either, so September will reinforce animosities.
I can understand the Weimar analogy. I really can.
Personally I'm not quite so optimistic.
Already the media and the Pelosi/Reid crowd are doing their best to kill the messenger before he even arrives. In my mind there is only one reason for them to do so; they have to discredit him before he makes his presentation because they know the positive nature of what his report is going to be.
Hence my not seeing us in a situation so similar to the Weimar scenario.
I see us more back where we were in the 1840's, prior to the Compromise of 1850, the difference being that this time westward expansion, industrialization, and slavery are not the issues. North and South were divided camps then, Left and Right are divided camps today. This time, however, we have no Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, or Daniel Webster to offer forth any sort of compromise, rather we have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and last but certainly not least Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.
See any hope for compromise out of that crowd? Or do you see further polarization of the American people, polarization that puts us in dire straights on the road to armed confrontations between the two camps in the streets?
God help us all if we break down into another civil war in this nation.
God help the world if we do...
This time there WILL BE NO winners.
Unless you're a Jihadist, waiting for this to happen to our nation so that you and your "brothers" can come in and establish Sharia law out of the rubble.
I have long maintained, both as a veteran and as man who has past his thirties, now, that the military has it ALL WRONG in sending young men into combat.
Allow me to explain.
My fellow veterans from the Reagan era and before will be able to relate to this more, perhaps, than those who came after us in the 90's on until today. Basic training was um, a few days ago (ahem) but the memories...ah the memories.
In my day, it was not uncommon for the drill instructors to eat garlic and onions at any given meal of the day, then share the effects of said bulbs with recruits standing in formation by standing in their faces and talking to them. Loudly. At 18 that can be a bit intimidating, after the age of, oh, say 35, you're more inclined to offer said DI a tic tac.
Head games don't work on older guys the same way they work on the younger ones. Ladies, I know you'll forgive me for saying so, but by the time the average male has reached his mid-thirties, we're sort of used to people playing with our minds.
Ahem.
This shift in attitude works to the advantage when it comes to being a soldier, though, I think. At 18 the mind is not as adjusted to having to make a snap decision as it is when you're older. You're also able to think more abstractly and envision things a bit better. An example? The reason you don't point your loaded weapon at one of your buddies is because it might accidently discharge and you'll shoot him. By the mid-thirties, you're more able to envision the effects of that than at the age of 18.
By the mid-thirties you've also learned (again, apologies to the ladies here, but I think you'll agree) the art of selective deafness. This would come in handy if captured by the enemy. "What is your unit strength, and what is your mission?" "I'm sorry, what?" (Louder) "What is your mission, and how many people are in your unit?" (shaking head sadly, pointing to ears) "Say again?" (Louder still, growing aggitated) "MISSION, UNIT" (Feigning comprehension) "YES I miss my unit, will I be going back to them soon?" (Screams of utter frustration, cursing in native language)
See my point?
After we leave our twenties, we're less inclined to be interested in brawling to "prove ourselves." Remember the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones had fought off a group of swordsmen with his bullwhip, only to find himself facing one last opponent who stood twirling and brandishing his sword? Of course you do, it's cinematic history. What did Indy do? He shot the guy and moved on. Classic older guy remedy to the situation. Fight you? Heck no, BANG you're dead.
One of our readers sent the following in email to WUA a few days ago, and the man is absolutely correct.
Enjoy, and see if you can't find the solid logic in the thought processes.
Once and Always, an American Fighting Man
Drafting Guys Over 60 I'm over 60 and the Armed Forces say I'm too old to track down terrorists. (You can't be older than 42 to join the military.)
They've got the whole thing backwards. Instead of sending 18-year-olds off to fight, they ought to take us old guys. You shouldn't be able tojoin a military unit until you're at least 35.
For starters: Researchers say 18-year-olds think about sex every 10 seconds.Old guys only think about sex a couple of times a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on the enemy.
Young guys haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. If we can't kill the enemy we'll complain them into submission. "My back hurts! I'm hungry! Where's the remote?"
An 18-year-old hasn't had a legal beer yet and you shouldn't go to war until you're at least old enough to drink. The average old guy, on the other hand, has consumed 126,000 gallons of beer, and a jaunt through the desert heat with a beer and an M-60 would do wonders for the old beer belly. (Note there are 24 hours in a day and 24 bottles in a case...another convenient way to measure time!)
An 18-year-old doesn't like to get up before 10 a.m.
Old guys always get up early to pee.
If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real brainteaser.
Boot camp would be easier for old guys. We're used to getting screamed and yelled at and we like soft food. We've also developed an appreciation for guns.We like them almost better than naps. They could lighten up on the obstacle course however. I've been in combat and didn't see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor did I ever do any pushups after completing basic training. I can hear the Drill Sgt now, "Get down and give me ... er ... one." Actually, the running part is kind of a waste of energy. I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's still learning to shave, to carry on a conversation, and to wear pants without the top of his butt crack showing and his shorts sticking out. He's hasn't figured out that a pierced tongue catches food particles, and that a 400-watt speaker in the back seat of a Honda can rupture an eardrum, and that a baseball cap has a brim to shade eyes, not the back of his head.
These are all great reasons to keep our kids at home to learn a little more about life before sending them off into harm's way. Let us old guys track down those dirty rotten cowards who attacked us on September 11. The last thing an enemy would want to see right now is a couple of million old farts with attitudes.
Share this with your senior friends. It's purposely in big type so you can read it.
