Asymmetric Military

I wish I had a blog while I was deployed to Iraq in 2005. It would have been a fun distraction from my duties (I also would have caught the front end of the blog craze instead of coming in slightly behind in October of 2006).

The brass wasn't aware of blogging at the time, at least I wasn't aware of their state of awareness (of blogging). I didn't know about blogging either. Some of the younger soldiers were into Myspace (there was at least one fight because of Myspace postings). Youtube wasn't around. So, it wasn't an issue.

Commanders are aware now. There are policies in place to make sure soldiers' online activities don't compromise operational security (OPSEC) or morale (people's egos). I haven't had any problems with Asymmetric except for the time an LT at a unit I was thinking of transferring to told me that some of the things on my site may be inappropriate for a military officer, referring obviously, to some of my political posts. I'm not a hate-blogger or devote time to gossip so I didn't worry too much.

However, I'm ambivalent to the whole blogger-freedom issue. The first professional responsibility of any soldier is to his unit's mission. If blogging interferes with that, then the commander has to stop it, simple as that. That would be the policy in my command, anyways.

Is C.J. Grisham of A soldiers Perspective guilty of doing anything wrong? Unless the Taliban plans to infiltrate his home town's school to put a pro-Taliban article in the school paper, I don't think so:

In early October, C.J. started using A Soldier's Perspective as a vehicle to protest the decision to switch to uniforms mid-year at his children's school. On this blog he posted an unflattering video of school officials at a PTA meeting, an open letter to the superintendent and, of course, documented the ensuing trials and tribulations with unflagging passion. As a result, C.J. says members of the school board contacted his army commanders to complain about his candid blog, asking him to remove all relating posts.

Those very requests drove C.J. to shut down A Soldier's Perspective in early November. "Blogging is no longer worth the trouble," he wrote in a final post. "Everything is fine as long as the stories are happy and positive." This abrupt closure, which garnered much attention within the milblogging community, also grabbed the attention of Cat5 Commerce, an online retailer. In December, C.J. partnered with Cat5 in order to keep his blog afloat.

So, if Mr. Grisham hasn't degraded his primary job, then I wish him well.

Obama is putting his sincere sympathy for American homosexuals above what's best for the military.

"Don't ask don't tell" is actually an inspired compromise, a formalization of the de facto American military approach since George Washington called the first formation in 1775. It allows homosexual soldiers who wish to serve their country to do so while eliminating the negative effects to morale that would come about from a completely open policy.

Detractors of DADA often give two analogies to make their case (usually followed by some ad-hominem attack):

One is that excluding open gays is similar to the forties-era segregation of black soldiers. Segregation is different from an outright ban, but the analogy doesn't apply anyways because there are no essential differences between people of different races.

The second analogy is that permitting open gays in the military wouldn't be any different from having women in the military, and women have greatly contributed to the military. People who make this argument are correct that women do an excellent job and have made tremendous contributions to our war efforts.

That being said, having women integrated into the military brings its share of problems. During my time in Iraq, scandalous fraternization policy breeches occupied a lot of commanders' time (they told one captain that he couldn't be alone with female soldiers. What would they tell a gay soldier with that problem?). When couples inevitably formed or females became pregnant, the results were inconvenient personnel shuffles (husbands and wives; and boyfriends and girlfriends couldn't be in the same section). Although I never witnessed it, this article discusses the problem with sexual assaults amongst soldiers of the opposite sex. And, this occurred in a situation where women and men slept in separate quarters and had different showering and bathroom facilities, where there were clear boundaries.

Now, imagine the above problems- except pregnancy, of course- amongst soldiers of the same sex (we know that most homosexual soldiers wouldn't assault other soldiers sexually, but neither do most straight soldiers assault women. Yet...): No separate facilities; soldiers cowed by a speech code (for whatever reason, most male-soldier humor is sexual in nature and guys tease each other about their sexuality all of the time) and resentful for it; soldiers go off-post to a gay bar; two soldiers get drunk together and one takes advantage of the other (this happened in my college fraternity); guys carrying on, flirting; cliques, formal or informal, spring up, causing dissension.

The above things will happen if Obama changes DADA and soldiers won't like it. When the percentage of openly gay soldiers reaches a certain number, recruitment will suffer.

People will dismiss the above scenarios as bigotry and ignorance (of what?) and it's true that almost no one policy change would render the military useless, but open homosexuality in the military will cause more trouble than it's worth. Shouldn't making the best military, and not conforming it to PC agendas, be our primary concern? It is for the generals who are aware of the issues I've described and are the reason Obama hasn't succeeded so far.

I was testing my computer GPU temperatures with Google Earth (it really taxes your video processor) and decided to fly over to my old haunt, FOB Speicher next to Tikrit, in Iraq. Google has some fantastic new features where you can see comments and youtube videos relating to the site. When I zoomed into the soccer stadium, where I played soccer (very poorly), I clicked on the link and saw the following comments:

Yes, it is bombed out. One of the first things that the US did during the invasion of Iraq was to destroy the Iraqi Olympic program which included all pools and soccer stadiums.

and

Actually, one of the reasons this place is ruined is because it sits on the Iraqi Air Force Academy Grounds. It was built before the '91 gulf war and stood vacant during the years we maintained a "No Fly Zone" over Iraq. 15+ years of neglect and looting are miserable on that style of construction. It does however look like a bomb went off nearby as the interior is filled with rubble (I know cause I have walked around inside during my tour here). The rumor mill among soldiers on COB speicher says that the entire Iraqi Olympic Soccer Team was executed here for losing the olympics once by Saddam's brother or son.

Google Earth users

Speicher soccer stadium

Now, why would American's want to destroy the Olympic facilities? Really. Some people are willing to believe anything that fits in with their worldview or confirms their hatreds, in this case, the United States, it's military, or, at least, George Bush.

Somebody opposed to Saddam would be inclined to think that Saddam's brother killed a soccer team. That Saddam would do stuff like that makes it much more likely.

We had Prevention of Sexual Harassment Training (POSH) today. Yes, people in the military take it too and, yes, it's as boring as it is in the civilian world.

Human interactions are complicated, but organizational policies can't afford to be which is why we get "zero-tolerance" type rules, which can be chilling, silly, and unfair.

My point in bringing this up is twofold: First, that sex-related issues in the Army are a problem worthy of a two-hour training in the Army and second, that these problems would be complicated to a great degree by having openly homosexual soldiers.

Part one, here.

Wouldn't that make private insurance more expensive for everybody? It seems pretty simple to me: War injuries are in service to the country. The country pays for their treatment.

Here

In the letter, the groups said they have been told by sources on Capitol Hill and at the VA that the idea under consideration would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to bill health insurance for a treatment of a disability or injury that was a result of military service.

The argument for the proposal is that it frees up money for the VA by charging the private insurers, allowing the VA to spend on more services, said Joe Violante, legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, who opposes the idea. While there could be savings, Violante warned it also could lead to an increase in premiums for veterans with private coverage.

I went to Camp Pendleton Marine base this weekend with my reserve unit for weapons qualification. I shot my Beretta M9 pretty well, with about thirty of the forty 9mm rounds they gave me finding their target.

I called my commander, "Mission accomplished, sir."

"Go back on the 11:30 bus."

I must have been playing on my Blackberry because I missed the bus. I'm glad I did.

I went over to the supply truck, sat in the front seat, and started reading Watchmen. I read the part where the protagonist in the comic within, Tales of the Black Freighter, straps his dead comrades onto a raft and heads out to sea. Hunger forces him to lure seagulls close to his raft, catch them, and eat them.

I love my fellow soldiers: The diversity of experience is genuinely fascinating and the general level of honor amongst them is very high. I went to the back of the truck for a cola. I say "cola" because the sergeant only buys generic colas- Sam's Club, etc. We teased her about it. I made up a story about her being traumatized by a Coca Cola accident as a kid. She turned to me with her thick Vietnamese accent, which is relevant because in Watchmen's alternative 1985, Dr. Manhattan wins the Vietnamese war (something we could have done without a naked super dude, by the way) for the United States after being asked to intervene by Richard Nixon. Author Alan Moore suggests that an actual American victory in Vietnam would have been a bad thing.

She tells me, "That's a good story" (it wasn't, really).

Then, after being prompted by somebody else, she started telling me how she escaped from Vietnam:

In 1976, because of her father's association with C.I.A. and the general horror inflicted upon South Vietnam by the North- re-education camps, confiscation, execution- she fled from Vietnam on a raft. Everybody had to stand on the tiny hand-made freedom square as there was no room to lie down. When hunger set in, people died. The survivors sliced off pieces of those who weren't and ate them.

The survivors eventually landed in Malaysia and burned the raft. The Malaysian authorities found them and separated the men from the women. The policemen stripped the men and boys of their clothes and beat them with fish skeletons. The Malaysians asked the survivors if they worked with pigs (Malaysia is a Muslim country). The raft survivors quickly learned to say "no" after the authorities punished those who had.

The Vietnamese refugees contacted the American embassy and arrived in the United States a few weeks later. That little girl is now serving our country in the military.

Her uncle wasn't so lucky. The North Vietnamese captured and placed him in a prison where they fed him tablespoons of soup a day. Twenty-five years later, he reunited with his faithful wife. The sergeant said that her aunt was afraid of him for years after because he'd get up at night and "go crazy."

By the end of the sergeant's short story, I had alternately felt gratitude, pride, and humility, although for brief moments I may have felt all at the same time.

Anyways, isn't it funny how the most unrelated things tie together?

Who says that Barack Obama's bad for business:

NEW YORK - The election of President Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress has been a boon to U.S. handgun makers, with sales of one pistol manufacturer climbing enough that an analyst Wednesday upgraded its stock to "Strong Buy" from "Accumulate."

CL King & Assoc. analyst Jim Barrett upgraded shares of Sturm, Ruger & Co. after the Southport, Conn.-based company reported its firearm revenue soared 81 percent in the fourth quarter.

"We are raising our rating, recognizing that sales are benefiting from what is clearly a one-time surge in gun sales due to the arrival of the new Democratic administration," Barrett said.

Since President Obama's Nov. 3, 2008, election, Sturm's shares have climbed more than 20 percent. And shares of rival Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., based in Springfield, Mass., have shot up about 40 percent.

Why would people buy guns at this time? How about the prospect of social unrest (S/T corner):

Read more »