Archive for the 'Department of Defense' Category

James Mattis is a good man, a legend, and a true warrior monk.  But that doesn’t make him perfect.  He had nominated Ann Patterson for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.  But this is highly problematic.

Back during the months leading to the June 30, 2013 revolution, Patterson — the “Brotherhood’s Stooge” as she was called by all, from news analysts to the Egyptian street — was arguably one of the most hated individuals by the millions of Egyptians who took to the streets against Morsi and the Brotherhood.

Not only did her face regularly appear next to Obama’s in placards; it sometimes appeared alone, indicating just how closely she was seen as supporting the Brotherhood.

[ … ]

In the days leading to the revolution, Patterson called on Egyptians not to protest. She even met with the Coptic pope and asked him specifically to urge the nation’s Christian minority not to oppose the Brotherhood — even though Christians were naturally going to suffer the most under Morsi, especially in the context of accusations of “blasphemy.”

That’s enough.  She’s an author of the so-called “Arab Spring,” and an instigator of Christian sufferings.  That’s all you need to know.  You can read the rest of it for yourself, but suffice it to say, she is a supporter of Islamic oppression, ignores the sufferings inflicted because of it, and stateside she is a SJW of legendary proportions, as much of a legend as Mattis is a warrior.

Just why Mattis would have done something like this is puzzling, but it points to flaws in his character, deformities in his judgment.  It’s a good thing the Senate shut this down.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has withdrawn retired senior diplomat Anne W. Patterson as his choice for undersecretary for policy after the White House indicated unwillingness to fight what it said would be a battle for Senate confirmation.

U.S. officials said that two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), were strongly opposed to Patterson’s nomination because she served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt from 2011 to 2013, a time when the Obama administration supported an elected government with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood that was ultimately overthrown by the Egyptian military.

Good for senators Cruz and Cotton.  But this isn’t all we learn from the article.

Although he reportedly insisted that he be able to select his own team when he accepted Trump’s offer to head the Defense Department, Mattis has skirmished repeatedly with the White House over appointments. His initial choice for deputy secretary, Michèle Flournoy, withdrew from consideration after meetings with White House officials. Flournoy served as the department’s undersecretary in the Obama administration.

Good grief.  Flournoy founded the progressive CNAS, Center for a New American Security, where Phillip Carter and like-minded progressives give lectures and write papers.  As I said, this all points to a fundamental flaw in Mattis, and he is a good man and legend, but not perfect.

It’ll be interesting to see where he takes the U.S. military.

I would like to pose a very simple question, or more correctly a set of questions, and they’re not rhetorical.  I would really like to see my military readers weigh in on this, but first, the setup.

In January, Lt. Col. Khallid Shabazz received the call every Army chaplain dreams of, the call that validates years of intense study and hard work toward keeping the U.S. military in good spiritual health.

He was offered the job of chaplain for an entire division, an honor for anyone in his field but a milestone in his case. After a ceremony this summer, Shabazz will become the first Muslim division-level chaplain in the history of the U.S. military – a Muslim spiritual leader for more than 14,000 mostly Christian soldiers.

Shabazz, who’s dedicated his life to working across religious lines, found it hard to keep calm as he received the news at his desk on Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington.

“I’m on the phone saying, ‘Thank you, I appreciate it. I’ll serve honorably,’ and then I hang up the phone and I’m jumping all around like a little kid,” Shabazz, 48, recalled in interviews in February. “I was running around the office saying, al hamdulillah, al hamdulillah, praise be to God!”

From reader Mack there is also this.

Several posters that had been on display for at least six years were removed from a wall at Langley Air Force Base after the National Organization for Women and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained that they were sexist, according to the Air Force.

The foundation at first filed a complaint by itself about two of the posters with the Air Force on behalf of 16 clients, including Air Force enlisted personnel, officers and civilians, that initially focused on language from a 1955 Air Force manual that repeatedly referenced “faith.”

“Men cannot live without faith except for brief moments of anarchy or despair,” one poster read. “Faith leads to conviction – and convictions lead to actions. It is only a man of deep convictions, a man of deep faith, who will make the sacrifices needed to save his manhood. … It is obvious that our enemy will attack us at our weakest spot. The hole in our armor is our lack of faith. We need to revive a fighting faith by which we can live, and for which we would be willing even to die.”

The Air Force dismissed that complaint because “the display does not endorse, disapprove of, or extend preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief,” Air Combat Command said in a statement.

But soon after the Air Force dismissed the complaint, the National Organization for Women joined the foundation by writing to Air Combat Command on Feb. 9 calling for the posters’ removal.

“What message does that send to young women who currently serve, or want to serve, in the military?” NOW President Terry O’Neill wrote. “What do you say to the women in your command who make the same sacrifices to protect their country as do men? General, there is simply no compromise when it comes to fighting the bigotry of sexism nor the prejudice of religious triumphalism. Women are just as patriotic, just as dedicated and just as worthy of our nation’s trust as their male counterparts.”

Now, you know that “FBIAnon,” who answered questions at Reddit, has told us that fully one third of the upper echelons of government are affected by “pedogate.”  You also know that former SpecOps boys, in combination with the CIA, the Muslim Brotherhood, the State Department, and The Clinton Global Initiative, have toppled much of North Africa for the oil, human trafficking, human organ market, money and weapons.

So we have complete corruption in the upper echelons of the U.S. government, a Muslim appointed to head the religious health of an entire division, and political correctness causing removal of posters that fifty years ago would have been considered good (because they were).  I’m sure you could add to the list yourself with what you know.

So here are the question(s).  Why are you fighting?  Or if you aren’t actively fighting and only training to right now, why are you training to fight?  What is it for?  For whom do you risk your lives?  For what?

David Codrea gives us the background, and then embeds a video.  I won’t bother to embed the same video since you can go to Oath Keepers or WRSA to get it.

For the record, I don’t know if the voice you hear is the legitimate author of this discussion or not.  It might be someone reading the entry at Reddit.

If you want to see the full transcript, here it is.  I have a lot of thoughts on this, but for this time, I think it’s better to leave this open for commenters to hash out what this means and fill in the blanks.

Popular Mechanics:

This morning, President-Elect Donald Trump suggested he will attempt to significantly curb military spending by slashing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

It’s no secret that the F-35 program has run into cost overrun after cost overrun, tied to multiple technical and design flaws including engine fires, software failures, and airframe cracks since the plane’s first flight a decade ago. But even though the F-35 has become a grossly bloated project, hacking away at the fifth-generation fighter would open up some significant holes to fill. President-elect Trump’s tweet alone initially dropped Lockheed Martin’s market share by $4 billion, though it recovered some shortly after.

Full-scale production of the F-35 was originally scheduled to begin eight years ago, but this proved to be an overly-optimistic estimate by 11 years—and that’s assuming full-scale production does, in fact, begin in 2019 as projected now. The F-35 will be the most expensive weapons system in history by a significant margin, exceeding $1 trillion in projected lifetime costs. Trump has targeted the program as an area to save money, along with the new Boeing 747s intended to serve as the new Air Force One jets.

That’s funny.  The article says that the F-35 is tied to “multiple technical and design flaws.”  I would have said it differently.

I would have said that the F-35 is a piece of shit, good for nothing at all except the ridiculous imaginations of fifth generation warfare advocates, failing at everything it does, a complete bomb at dogfighting, capable of carrying very little ordnance, incapable of defending itself, and an expensive waste of taxpayer money – where the U.S. would be better served with the F-22, refurbishment of the existing fleet of fighters, new Harriers for the USMC, and A-10s in the role of infantry support.

But that’s just me.

Military.com:

Mattis, now a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution in California, has questioned whether women are suited for what he called the “intimate killing” of close combat, and whether male commanders would balk at sending women into such situations.

Mattis also said he was concerned about “Eros” in the trenches when young men and women live in close quarters in the “atavistic” atmosphere of combat. “I don’t care if you go anywhere in history where you would find that this has worked,” he said of putting “healthy young men and women together and we expect them to act like little saints.”

In periodic speeches to the Marines’ Memorial Club in San Francisco, Mattis said that the U.S. military is a “national treasure,” and it is inevitable that women would want to serve in every MOS.

“The problem is that in the atavistic primate world” of close-quarters combat, “the idea of putting women in there is not setting them up for success,” Mattis said. He stressed that he was not talking about whether women could perform the required amounts of pushups, pullups and other physical requirements — “that’s not the point.”

Commanders must consider “what makes us most combat effective when you jump into that room and you’re doing what we call intimate killing,” he said. “It would only be someone who never crossed the line of departure into close encounters fighting that would ever even promote such an idea” as putting women into close combat.

If nominated, Mattis would almost certainly be challenged on women in combat in confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has six women on the panel.

One of them is Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican who retired as a lieutenant colonel after 23 years in the Army Reserves and Iowa National Guard. Ernst, who served a deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom and is the first female veteran in the Senate, has applauded the opportunity for women who meet the standards to serve in the combat arms.

Joni Ernst isn’t qualified to shine shoes for Mattis.  And Ernst never engaged in combat, so I don’t give a shit what she has to say about anything on this issue.

But there are progressives in the GOP just like the Democratic party.  Women, if I have any reading this column – and I hope I do have female readers for all of my columns – always remember this.  Never forget.  Progressives want to see women perish in combat and have a deleterious effect on combat effectiveness of the unit because of physical differences between men and women.  They want to see you die, and they want more men to die because of you.

Progressives don’t care about the military, and they don’t care about women either.  But everyone already knows that.

There is a deep, dark history in the engagement at Benghazi.  I’ve covered it exhaustively, but I’ll rehearse only a few details since there are just-released revelations we must cover.

Within 24 hours, my own military readers knew precisely that this was the result of a well-planned, well-coordinated combined-arms attack with the use of crew served weapons (see Dirty Mick’s comment and others).  The administration knew that as well, but the reason they didn’t acknowledge it has now been revealed.  But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

I knew that there was a QRF that could have responded, I just couldn’t prove it, or demonstrate where they were and what happened.  Eventually it all began to drip out (secrets cannot be long hidden, the truth eventually finds a way to see the light).  Take for instance this report.

The team – at Aviano Air Base in northeastern Italy – raced to the field and was briefed, as planes were armed and prepared to launch. Hundreds of miles away, fellow Americans were under attack in Benghazi.

“There were people everywhere,” said the witness, who was on the ground that night but wished to remain anonymous. “That flight line was full of people, and we were all ready to go” to Benghazi. Only they were waiting for the order. It never came.

“The whole night we were told that we are waiting on a call,” he told Fox News. This account is from a squadron member at Aviano the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack in Benghazi. The source, the first in his squadron to speak out publicly since that attack, is going public to explain – in his view – that more could have been done to save Americans under attack that night. He asked that his identity be protected for fear of retribution. He says others in his squadron also have wanted to talk about Benghazi from the beginning, but no others have been interviewed and all are afraid of the potential backlash from speaking out.

“I’m not trying to give away any type of [information] that could ever harm the military,” the source told Fox News. “That is never my plan. I feel that some things need to come to light.”

Namely, he said, that a team was ready to go that night to help protect Americans under fire in Benghazi – an account that runs counter to multiple official reports, including from a House committee, a timeline provided by the military and the controversial State Department Accountability Review Board investigation, which concluded the interagency response to Benghazi was “timely and appropriate.”

The source said: “I definitely believe that our aircraft could have taken off and gotten there in a timely manner, maybe three hours at the most, in order to at least stop that second mortar attack … and basically save lives that day.”

Matt Bracken has also dealt with Benghazi, explaining that ultimately all the administration had to do to prevent timely support is NOT grant authority for cross-border operations.  Kris Paronto has addressed the issue of forces being turned back, and this post at Judicial Watch is clear based on a FOIA request that the Department of Defense had forces that could move to Benghazi to assist.

Judicial Watch today released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Now there are revelations that the QRF was intentionally delayed.  Furthermore, the very guards that the State Department hired were terrorists.

An obscure private firm hired by the State Department over internal objections to protect U.S. diplomats in Benghazi just months before the American ambassador and three others were killed was staffed with hastily recruited locals with terror ties who helped carry out the attack, multiple sources told Fox News.

The explosive charge against Wales-based Blue Mountain Group comes from several sources, including an independent security specialist who has implemented training programs at U.S. Consulates around the world, including in Benghazi, where he trained a local militia that preceded Blue Mountain. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Blue Mountain used local newspaper ads to assemble a team of 20 guards, many of whom had terror ties, after securing a $9.2 million annual contract.

“The guards who were hired were locals who were part of the Ansar al-Sharia and Al Qaeda groups operating in Benghazi,” said the source, whose assignment in Benghazi had ended in November 2011. “Whoever approved contracts at the State Department hired Blue Mountain Group and then allowed Blue Mountain Group to hire local Libyans who were not vetted.”

[ … ]

One former guard who witnessed the attack, Weeam Mohamed, confirmed in an email sent to the Citizens Commission on Benghazi and obtained by Fox News, that at least four of the guards hired by Blue Mountain took part in the attack after opening doors to allow their confederates in.

“In the U.S. Mission, there were four people [who] belonged to the battalion February 17,” Mohamed wrote to the Commission, an independent body formed with Accuracy in Media to investigate the attack and the administration’s handling of it.

Whether they were trying to traffic more weapons or recover the more dangerous ones they had lost is irrelevant.  The fighters at Benghazi trying to save American lives were set up for failure and knowingly abandoned by this administration, who coldly calculated that they could cover up their nefarious actions, thereby hiding the gun running and weapons trafficking they were conducting to foment revolution.  That the mission as it was conceived was ill advised and unwise isn’t the point.  The point is that on Tuesday this country has a choice.  She can voluntarily choose to firmly ensconce into office the wicked woman who caused all of this, or they can turn her over to God for judgment.

Washington Times:

Marine Corps headquarters has sent out a Communications Playbook that says top brass in Washington, not local public affairs officers, will control press statements about women in combat.

The edict was issued in the aftermath of strong disagreements with civilian leaders on gender integration.

The Corps normally gives wide latitude for spokespeople worldwide to discuss all sorts of Marine issues — but not in this case.

Under “[public affairs] posture,” the playbook says: “Proper PA coordination both up to the Office of United States Marine Corps Communication (OUSMCC) and down to lower division and Recruiting District PAO’s will be due prior to any media engagement or release,” according to a copy obtained by The Washington Times.

All commands, says the 68-page playbook, “will coordinate closely with OUSMCC to synchronize communication efforts to fulfill integration measures and communication goals.”

The playbook lists 36 Corps issues such as weapons development and aircraft accidents, but gender integration is the only topic for which Washington headquarters must approve all messaging.

Not to be outdone, the Army is following lock step as well.

Calling all female noncommissioned officers: The Army wants you to consider transferring into combat arms jobs.

Just weeks after Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey sent a memo to the force calling for volunteers, the Army is preparing to send a team of subject matter experts to several major installations to inform soldiers about the opportunities available to them.

“Currently, we have over 100 young women across America who have volunteered to join our ranks as cavalry scouts, armor crewmen, fire support specialists and infantrymen,” Dailey wrote in the Aug. 1 memo. “… As young soldiers do, they will look for leadership and mentorship from their superiors. Unfortunately, we have not had a sufficient number of serving female soldiers and NCOs volunteer to transfer into these mentorship and leadership roles.”

But they’ve got to do better.  They should follow the lead of the Navy, who seems to be leading the pack.

It’s been a long time since Americans read a headline about the U.S. military that actually had to do with national defense. And thanks to the Navy, that’s not about to change any time soon. While Congress has yet to weigh in on the administration’s push for open transgenderism in the ranks, Navy brass are making it clear that it’s full steam ahead on President Obama’s radical social policy that threatens to unravel whatever unit cohesion the military has left.

Starting November 1 (a week before an election that could help end this nonsense), all sailors will be required to undergo “transgender behavioral education.” According to Navy Chief of Personnel Vice Admiral Robert Burke, the training will include everything from multi-hour briefings to discussion groups about how to best coddle gender confusion in the ranks. Supervisors will be taught to be “on alert” for signs of mistreatment of people who identify as transgender and deal with offenders appropriately.

“Training for sailors will be conducted by command triads via mobile training teams or DVD with a facilitation guide if the unit is in a remote area and unable to receive face-to-face training. There will also be webinars for COs to ask questions prior to delivering training to their commands,” explained a branch spokesman. At a time when our troops could use real reinforcements, the Navy is even dispatching special mobile units for the sole purpose of indoctrinating sailors on transgenderism!

Oh, I doubt the election will change a thing.  The author is ascribing too much traditionalism to Trump, and he will disappoint most of his voters.  Regardless of who wins, the U.S. military loses.  If I was Vladimir Putin or the Chinese communists, I’d be laughing my ass off right about now.

ABC News:

As gun ownership drops among young Americans and the Army trains a generation more accustomed to blasting out emojis on cellphones than taking aim at targets, drill sergeants are confronting a new challenge: More than half of raw recruits have never held, let alone fired, a weapon. Young people who form the bulk of the Army’s rookie soldiers don’t have nearly the exposure to guns as past generations. And the drill sergeants tasked with transforming these men and women into competent marksmen are going back into training to adjust their approach. Many are dropping the tendency to bark out orders and are adopting a more mentor-like coaching attitude. “You don’t hear any drill sergeants yelling, unless it’s a huge safety issue,” said Staff Sgt. Randy Fisher, one of about 600 drill sergeants working daily with recruits at South Carolina’s Fort Jackson, the Army’s largest basic combat training post. “We don’t want the soldiers to get all freaked out.” Amid deafening blasts of semi-automatic rifle fire at one of Fort Jackson’s 30 ranges, Army drill sergeants paced behind four dozen soldiers aiming M-4s at distant targets during a recent practice session. The hard-nosed, barked commands from the first days of basic training were absent. And though real bullets were being used, not one of the young recruits nor any sergeants wore heavy body armor or helmets. And, during a lull in the shooting, drill sergeants leaned over to offer guidance in measured tones to soldiers learning to fire.

My former Marine, Daniel, is thrilled he is no longer associated with a military like this.  His text reply to me concerning this article was this.

Oh …

My …

God …

Granted, he was a Marine, but even the Marine Corps is being pressed to send women through the Marine Corps infantry officer course at Quantico. We will lose the next legitimate war we fight.  But perhaps we’re already there.  A saddening question comes to mind.  The kill ratio of the U.S. military has been around 6:1 – 10:1 in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  What would it have been with no CAS, no AC-130 gunships, so helicopters, no A-10s?

It will get worse, as the U.S. government continues to fill the ranks of the military with weaklings, homosexuals, women and nonconformists (here you can safely assume what I would have to say about people like the Sikh Army Captain wearing nonconventional cover).  It’s a sad day for the U.S. military

David Codrea gives a thorough fisking to the folks at Politifact.  Sorry, but I almost can’t type or say the word “Politifact” without belly laughing.  I put them in the same category as Snopes.  Ignore all of it.

Alabama Senate on guns in cars.  Well, it’s a start.  Let’s see what the governor does with this.

Nice review of the Springfield Armory Range Officer.  It’s affinity for light ammunition and occasional FTF/FTE is troubling, but then again, the notion of a 9mm 1911 is troubling too.  If I ever got one, it would certainly be .45 ACP like God and John Moses Browning intended them to be.  I’ve been thinking about getting a RO compact for IWB carry.  Then again, Sig makes a nice desert tan Cerakote small/medium 1911 that’s on display at Gander Mountain right down the road.  Oh, life is filled with such hard choices.  What to do, what to do?

Why the U.S. Navy didn’t shoot down that Russian fighter that buzzed our ship.  I rather think it has to do with being pussies.

Only a bigot would be offended by the sight of another woman’s penis.

Beaten for being white.  This is partially why public schooling sucks.  Home school.  Your children will be better off, and so will you.

David Codrea:

And just to prove he’s willing to sell out freedom of expression and online conduct (the same way “Don’t be evil” Google has done), Facebook, in order to please domestic collectivists every bit as anti-gun as their Chinese counterparts, has implemented a ban on private account gun ads …

As if we needed any more reason to hate Mark Zuckerberg.  What a horrible, terrible man.  I knew this about him when he designed a business deal that ensured his partner would hold worthless shares, giving him sole ownership of the company.  If you have a Facebook account, then so be it.  I closed mine out.  I won’t judge you, but Mark Zuckerberg is a horrible man (did I say already say that?) and I won’t give him any more power.

From Mike Vanderboegh, here are plans and details of work weekend.  I am afraid that I won’t be able to make it due to family and other issues.  I had hoped to see Mike in person, but that will have to wait.  What I can do, and have done, is donate to assist him and Rosie.  You can too, georgemason1776@aol.com.  Oh, and don’t forget to pray for him.

The F-35 software is overrun with bugs.  Well, I’ve given you a solution before, and I’ll do it again.  Shit can the whole idea, this pathetic, overblown, one-size-fits-all super jet that can’t really do anything very well, refurbish the existing fleet of fighters, and buy A-10s.  Lots and lots of A-10s.

Where are all the German men?  They fell victim to The Alienork way.

Can China copy the U.S. Marine Corps?  Ha.  They won’t try.  They wouldn’t have women in their combat ranks.