Obama's Libya Speech - Word Cloud

Here is the official, "as prepared for delivery" word cloud of Bush's Obama's speech on Libya tonight:



Apparently it had something to do about people (mentioned 39 times)... And here I thought he was going to talk about the current war we are engaged in over Libya, but he only mentioned that word once..

Gulf War - Air Campaign: 20 Years On...

While it may get lost it the official holiday, Monday is the 20th anniversary of the start of Operation Desert Storm.

The Air Campaign was kicked off by Task Force Normandy, as 2 USAF MH-53 Pave Low helicopters led 8 Army AH-64 attack helicopters across the Iraqi border...

At 2:38 a.m. on Jan. 17, 1991, U.S. Army 1st Lt. Tom Drew launched Operation Desert Storm by speaking into his radio microphone: “Party in ten.” The pilot of an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, Drew was part of a joint Army-Air Force strike team making a secret, nocturnal attack on Iraqi radar stations. Drew’s radio call told others in the force that AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles unleashed by Apaches would detonate on their targets in ten seconds.

It was called Task Force Normandy. The strike team consisted of a dozen helicopters – eight missile-firing Apaches with a ninth as a backup, a UH-60A Black Hawk for combat rescue if needed, and two Air Force MH-53J Enhanced Pave Low IIIs. The Pave Lows were equipped with a terrain-following and global positioning navigation system to bring the attackers to their destination.

The target was a pair of Iraqi air defense radar installations. On the first night of a conflict, destroying these stations would open a path to Baghdad for warplanes of the coalition arrayed against Saddam Hussein. The timing of Task Force Normandy’s attack was determined by the projected time when Iraqi radar would detect Air Force EF-111A Raven aircraft preceding F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters in attacks on downtown Baghdad. Destroying the radars would open a pathway for the bombers to proceed.

Army Lt. Col. (later, Gen.) Richard A. “Dick” Cody – a future vice chief of staff – led the strike. Lt. Col. (later, Col.) Richard L. “Rich” Comer led the Air Force contingent.

The attack was devised after U. S. Central Command, under Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, decided against inserting Special Forces troops to destroy the sites. Apaches could bring firepower to bear on the targets and confirm that they had been destroyed.

After months of training, on Jan. 14, 1991, Cody’s force positioned itself under radio silence at Al Jouf, near Saudi Arabia’s border with Iraq. Cody divided the force into two teams. After an ultimatum to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein went unheeded and the order for war came, Cody led the White team out of Al Jouf. The Red team, led by Capt. Newman Shufflebarger, followed 12 minutes later.

The radar installations were close to the border but were separated by 70 miles. About 30 miles south of the target, the MH-53Js delivered their last position update and then peeled off to loiter nearby. The two Apache teams approached their respective radar sites. Each team split into two two-ship groups positioned half a mile apart.

The Hellfire warheads must have created a horrendous mess of concrete and metal churning inside the orange fireball associated with the missile. But the American helicopter crews never witnessed this. They turned home seconds before blowing up the radar sites and opening a 20-mile wide strip for coalition warplanes to travel into Iraq with impunity. Cody transmitted a radio signal indicating the strike had succeeded and led his helicopters back to safety. Minutes later, above a command center in Baghdad, an F-117A dropped the first bomb of the war. Thereafter, air operations faced little danger from what had been Saddam Hussein’s vaunted air defense network. Operation Desert Storm achieved its goal of liberating occupied Kuwait from Iraq six weeks later.

It is hard to imagine that it has been 20 years, and how far we have come as a military since then....

'Classic Airliner' = Military Lifeline

Wired has a gallery of "Classic" airliners, which if you are an aviation buff like me, is pretty cool.

They do qualify that to make the list they must be retired from regular passenger service, regardless of other status.

First on the list is the venerable Boeing 707.

A classic airliner by any measure...but also still a military necessity and lifeline for ongoing wartime operations.

Sadly this old workhorse is still on the front lines in the guise of ISR platforms (RC-135 variants, and E-8 JSTARS) as well as the KC-135, an aerial tanker that the Air Force has been trying to replace for close to a decade.

Unfortunately, as Congressmen posture and postulate, these 'classics' get older and older. The US cannot fight a war without them....

Take a look at this old photo from around the early 1960s. Both the B-52 and KC-135 are still major workhorses in the USAF 40+ years later. 40 years. Classic my ass....

[h/t: Instapundit]

Sen Feinstein's Military Discrimination

So President Obama will nominate Lt Gen James Clapper, USAF (Ret) to be the next Director of National Intelligence.

This is something that Sen. Dianne Feinstein does not like, because Clapper is from the DoD. She said: "The best thing for intelligence is to have a civilian in charge. The elbows are less sharp."

Well technically Dianne, Clapper has been a "civilian" for 15 years, as he retired from the Air Force in 1995. But what you probably meant was that we can't have any of those dastardly types with military resumès running the intelligence biz.

While there are many qualified "civilian" senior executives out there in the Intelligence Community (with sharp elbows to boot!), those with experience leading the various agencies are primarily military generals. In fact, before his current intelligence related leadership gig, Clapper ran *two* of those 3-letter intelligence agencies (DIA, NGA). So, by all measures, he is supremely qualified.

But unfortunately for Clapper, he served 45+ years in the military and DoD civilian positions, which disqualifies him in the eyes of Sen. Feinstein. By all means oppose him for his leadership style, personality, or aversion to congressional oversight. But don't oppose him because he has spent his life in military service.

Oh, and one more thing Dianne...according to the Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act, veterans "are entitled to receive preferential treatment in hiring for Federal government jobs, including civilian military jobs and homeland security jobs." In addition, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994 "prohibits discrimination against reservists and veterans in any aspect of employment, on the basis of their military service."

So, while this is an appointment, and not a hiring, it would seem to me that Sen Feinstein is trampling all over the spirit of at least two federal laws, and is being extremely shortsighted to boot.

C'mon Cali voters, why do you continue to send these military-hating women to the Senate?

Restrepo - One Platoon, One Valley, One Year

Acclaimed author Sebastian Junger, widely known as author of 'The Perfect Storm', has put together what looks to be a most interesting look at an isolated U.S. Army platoon that he embedded with during 2007/08 in eastern Afghanistan.

The movie 'Restrepo', filmed by Junger and co-hort Tim Hetherington, will be released next month. The film has already won the Grand Jury Prize for Best Documentary at the Sundance Film Festival.

Here is a trailer:



Another (better) version of the trailer can also be viewed in HD here.

Junger has also released a book about his embedded experience titled 'War'.

DPRK - ROK Clash?

Could President Obama be getting his first 3am Phone call?

Let the Testing Begin

We've often written that President Obama will face at least one national security crisis during 2010. From the Middle East to the Far East, there is no shortage of rivals and rogue states willing to test the administration and its mettle. Put another way, we may soon get a look at Mr. Obama's "spine of steel," famously touted by running mate Joe Biden during the 2008 campaign.

And that first test may come on the Korean Peninsula, based on this dispatch from the Washington Post. Quoting South Korea's semi-official Yonhap News Agency, the Post is reporting that a ROK Navy vessel is sinking in waters near the North Korean coast, possibly the result of a torpedo attack from the DPRK.

What actually happened here remains to be seen, as I am always ready to remind all of a key tenet of breaking news -- "The first reports are always wrong."

More to follow...

TOTUS Strikes Again!

"There's a world of difference between a corpsman and a corpse-man" - Bob Owens



Indeed!

Methinks that someone needs to ditch the dependence on the teleprompter, or at least let your military aides go over military references with you before you give speeches....

When It Comes To Compassion...

No other country comes close....



One great way that you can help the Haitian people, is by donating to Team Rubicon, a self-financed and self-deployed group of former Marines, soldiers and health care professionals currently providing emergency relief in Haiti.

Right Idea...Wrong Target

After a week of reality injection, you're getting warmer Mr. President, but you have chosen the wrong target for your "help".

Obama May Call for Freeze on Discretionary Spending

Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- There is a “fighting chance” President Barack Obama will propose a freeze in most discretionary spending by the federal government in his State of the Union speech next week, Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said.

Gee, the last time I checked, our Federal spending problem wasn't a discretionary spending problem....



And of course, whenever you hear a democrat calling for a freeze/reduction in 'discretionary spending', you know what that really means....



How about we look at all that entitlement spending....yeah, fat chance, right Mr. President?

Consequences of Delaying the Afghan Decision

Over at Bouhammer's Afghan Blog, an Afghan vet lays out why President Obama's delay in making a decision on an Afghan surge will make things a lot more complicated.

Dear Mr. President:
Posted By The Dude on December 6, 2009

Now that I’ve had a few days to ingest, digest, and perform my own mission analysis on your new plan for Afghanistan, I’m a bit concerned. My concerns are based from my experiences of being on one end of the spectrum at the tip of of the spear defending freedom in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions, to the opposite end of that spectrum in Kuwait serving in the logistical nerve center for both Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

Some points to consider....

- Winter is coming has already arrived in Afghanistan. Had this decision been made during the summer, any surge of forces to the north and the east of the country could have beaten the winter conditions. Now it will be more difficult.

- With the upcoming drawdown in Iraq, logistics hubs and transport will be very busy in 2010. Add ina surge to Afghanistan, and you get a logistics nightmare. Had this decision been made during the summer, then some of the surge movement could have preceded the Iraq drawdown, and thus avoided future scheduling conflicts. I feel for my Army logistician and Air Force airlift brethren over the coming year...

Perhaps this should not come as any surprise, especially concerning the office of the President of the United States, but decisions (or lack thereof) have consequences. And even seemingly trivial decisions can have cascading effects. However when it comes to military matters in times of war, there are no trivial decisions, and the cascading effects can have serious consequences.

It can only be in Washington where 'a decision delayed is a decision made'. I don't think they teach that up at West Point, Mr. President.

Obama Afghanistan Speech Word Count

President Obama's Afghanistan Speech Word Count: 'I' - 45, 'Afghanistan' - 39, 'Victory' - 0

Here is the word cloud for the speech:


(Wordle removes the most common english words, thus 'I' does not appear)

Shocking CIA Torture News

ABC News bring us the shocking news of a CIA secret prison....

EXCLUSIVE: CIA Secret 'Torture' Prison Found at Fancy Horseback Riding Academy

The CIA built one of its secret European prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius, Lithuania, a current Lithuanian government official and a former U.S. intelligence official told ABC News this week.

[...]

"The activities in that prison were illegal," said human rights researcher John Sifton.

They go on to reveal the horrors that went on there...

They included eye-gouging; piercing of hands with an electric drill; suspension from a ceiling; electric shock; rape and other forms of sexual abuse; beating of the soles of feet; mock executions; extinguishing cigarettes on the body; and acid baths.

Oooops. That last quote wasn't from the ABC report, it was from an old Daily Mail report on the torture under the Saddam Hussein regime.

Here is the *torture* Mr. Sifton says happened at this alleged CIA location:

The activities in that prison were illegal," said human rights researcher John Sifton. "They included various forms of torture, including sleep deprivation, forced standing, painful stress positions."

Oh the horror!

Let us compare those two again.

- eye-gouging; piercing of hands with an electric drill; suspension from a ceiling; electric shock; rape and other forms of sexual abuse; beating of the soles of feet; mock executions; extinguishing cigarettes on the body; and acid baths

- sleep deprivation, forced standing, painful stress positions

Yeah, I can see the equivalence now.

Let be realistic. One is torture, and one is essentially severe inconvenience.

Actually, the second example sounds like most C-130 flights I had in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan....

Obama Supports the Military...'If Necessary'

#tcot #hhrs #rs
President Obama gave a speech at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska on his way to Japan. I am sure it was intended as a rah-rah, we support you type of speech. Unfortunately, there is some awkward phrasing that perhaps reveals a little too much of the President's real thinking toward the military and its mission.

"So as your Commander-in-Chief, here’s the commitment I make to you....I want you guys to understand I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests. (Applause.) But I also make you this promise: I will not risk your lives unless it is necessary to America's vital interest. (Applause.) [...] And if it is necessary, the United States of America will have your back. We will give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. We will give you the equipment and support that you need to get the job done. And that includes public support back home. That is a promise that I make to you. (Applause.)"

Hmmm....lets parse that a little bit....

"We will give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve..."

OK, that must be a promise for the second term, since it has been 10 months now, and the administration is still showing the indecisiveness of my three-year-old when it comes to choosing a strategy for our hottest and most vital engagement.

The big dollop of condescension however is contained in the sentence just prior to that.

"And if it is necessary, the United States of America will have your back."

Uhhhhhhh....we are the United States Armed Forces, and you are the President of the United States and our Commander-in Chief.....shouldn't you ALWAYS have our back?!?!?

President Bush may have ended up being a little squishy on a lot of issues I would have preferred he not be, but at least I always knew he had my back. Come hell or high water.

Now I will just have to settle for "if necessary" during this time of war. Not exactly the change I was hoping for....

Deficit Hawks -- Now Starring President Obama!

Suddenly this week the Obama Administration has become deficit hawks. Someone tell them that Halloween was two weeks ago...

Politico headline:

After spending binge, White House says it will focus on deficits

Let me translate that for you....say hello to Defense cuts! Hey, it worked for Clinton....

Oh, and some silly new taxes too....

Searching for the Wrong Muslim Backlash

The NRO's Corner steered me to an interesting NYT article on how many "...fear that the relationship between the military and its Muslim service members will only grow more difficult..." following MAJ Nidal Hasan's murderous rampage. In other words, as stated by the Army Chief of Staff, they are "...worried about a backlash against Muslims in the armed forces..."

The NYT devotes a lot of column inches to the standard PC meme that we troglodytes in the military will take our anger out in a "backlash" on those other Muslims in the Armed Forces. This idea is pretty funny given that the military is probably the most integrated segment of American society. But hey, what would we expect liberal CSJ grads working at the NYT to know about the military...

Anyhow, despite the fact that an article abut discrimination against Muslims makes some prejudicial assumptions that all Arab-Americans must be Muslims, it does provide us an interesting revelation....there has already been a backlash against Muslims in the military.

Just not the one you might think.

In the South Asian and Arab immigrant communities where the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are deeply unpopular, Muslim military members have often felt criticized for their service, Muslim chaplains, military members, veterans advocates and others said in interviews.

Some return exhausted and traumatized from their tours, only to hear at their local mosques that they will go to hell for “killing Muslims,” said Qaseem A. Uqdah, the executive director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council.

“Imagine you are 20 years old and you hear you’re going to purgatory,” Mr. Uqdah said. He argued that Muslim groups must work harder to help their veterans cope with coming home. “We are failing as a community here in America.”

So the the largest backlash against Muslims in the military is from.....other Muslims. Hmmmm...I don't think that was the meme that the NYT was trying to advance...

Our General's Wisdom Quickly Falls Out Of Fashion

#tcot #hhrs #rs #sgp
2007:

As Speaker Pelosi said, the President's plan will receive an up-or-down vote in both Chambers of Congress. With that vote, our hope -- our prayer -- is that this President will finally listen. Listen to the Generals.

2009:

An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

Oh, how things change so quickly.... I wonder what the difference could be??

Warfare by Remote

CNN's Nic Robertson does a great job giving an inside look at the US Air Force's Predator UAV operations stationed at Creech AFB, NV. The emphasis is heavy on the flying side of the mission, and leaves out a lot of the interaction and collaboration that goes on real time amongst many people across many time zones making these missions work, but the videos are worthy nonetheless.



Watch all 3 webisodes....

Battle for Helmand

Follow the USMC during its operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan through the short videos from the Washington Post.


The entire blog can be found here.


Also, some great photoblogs on Helmand and other action in Afghanistan are out there.

Denver Post: Marines Pour into Afghanistan


Boston Globe: In Afghanistan, Part 1, Part 2



[Hat Tip to Steven Pressfield and his new blog for the Denver Post link]

Memorial Day 2009

Godspeed 1Lt Schulte

The Wrong Change for Afghanistan

Last week there was news and discussion about how the replacement of one 4-star General with another 4-star General would affect the future of the war in Afghanistan.

However, it may be more important to explore how that war will be affected by the replacement of a Major by at 2LT, and a Captain by a Corporal.

The perplexing news comes from frontline blogger Vampire 06, at Afghanistan Shrugged:

"Today, I was informed that my team will be replaced in a matter of weeks by a team from the Georgia National Guard. Not so bad on the surface, but the hazardous rocks lay below the calm exterior. The team is commanded by a Second Lieutenant (2LT) and his Non-commissioned Ofiicer in Charge is a Sergeant (E5). The remainder of the team is made up of E5s and below. Not exactly the experience rich combination that you’re looking for in a Combat Advisor Team. In fact my S3, CPT Brain is being replaced by a Corporal.

At this point I have to shake my head and wonder, “What the ..?”

Is this what we’ve come to?

Does the building of the ANA mean so little that this is what we’re committing to the fight?

Is this the surge that’s supposed to win the war and bring us all home?

I’m perplexed, pissed off and to be perfectly honest depressed. Ask any former advisor and they’ll tell you that this is a difficult mission that we put every ounce of our souls into, with the hope that one day the ANA/ANP will get it and we can go home. It’s built on your judgment, knowledge and experience and your ability to communicate them effectively.

Now, some genius has decided that we should have 2LTs advising ANA Battalion Commanders on how to plan, support and employ their Kandaks in combat. That alone will be perceived as an insult in an Army where rank means a great deal. Who the hell thought this one up?

By the way this is occurring throughout eastern Afghanistan, right against the Pak border. A border with a country that is gradually melting down and the Taliban is attempting to consolidate. Is this the time to bring in your least experienced team?"

We can change the warriors at the top all we want to find the right strategic leadership, but if we skimp on finding the right warriors for some specific tactical missions on the ground, then we are doing more harm than good.