Bio not provided
Well, of course. Not only are you an apparatchik in an apparatus in the throes of Brezhnevian decay, but you happen to be in an organization inherently ideologically hostile to the rest of the apparatus. How do you think the guys from State, OGA, DoJ and the rest of the mess really feel about you people with your uniforms and your ludicrous haircuts? So of course as you rise in the ranks and represent a larger potential threat, you are progressively more and more castrated-Byzantine politics 101. Eventually, you can be the biggest badass ever, with four stars, in charge of a war in history's Thunderdome, and guess what? You'll be reduced to issuing RoE forbidding shooting back at people shooting at you from buildings, implementing new sexual harassment policies and subject to firing at the discretion of whatever shitbag Rolling Stone sends to gather up your dirty laundry. But the retirement check is nice.
Spare me the sloganeering about "getting into the fight"-the fight is not in a cubicle in DC.
1 year, 9 months ago on Access denied | The Best Defense
Then make the article about the need for the rules to be changed, not about "comrades, due to increased interdepartmental cooperation, milk yields continue to rise."
So push more intel dudes downrange and push them forward. If you have advisors, you can (supposedly, theoretically) do more with less by leveraging (theoretical) intelligence of the battlefield for targeting and force protection. A brigade has a MICO in its BSTB, and that MICO has, on a good day, sixty people. Pushing them downrange at the expense of, say, BDE trans, MPs, CBRN, etc. is a no brainer.
>Can soldiers 'telecommute' for intelligence work?
Since most "intelligence" "work" consists of "analysis" extracted from the "analyst's" rear passage, I am sure soldiers can "telecommute" for it. If you want to talk about actual collection, targeting and first-line analysis (often the only kind that gets done,) then, no.
>The business world is witnessing a communications revolution, and the military's top commanders have already incorporated classified video teleconferences into their weekly or even daily routines (of course, there's an acronym for this: VTCs)
Oooh, conference calls! Revolutionary. Now, you're on video, so don't let the boss catch you making faces.
>The reach-back team could capture off-the-cuff analysis from experts and analysts
Straight from the passage!
>after that they began to understand they would not develop the same depth of knowledge as the analysts in Afghanistan, deployed close to the action. Modern communications technology, however robust, can't replicate the importance of being there and seeing the ground for oneself.
What kind of dope you on? Analysts in Afghanistan sit on megaFOBs, in a SCIF with connectivity, behind two or three layers of security. They are a world away from the action, and the ground they see is what they walk on from the CHU to the chow hall.
>On more than one occasion, Bastogne's team has sought advice from an expert in Washington, who in turn directed them to an analyst in Kabul that they knew personally to be the most expert on that particular subject. The team could then put the Brigade directly in touch with the Kabul analyst, close the loop, and flatten communication.
I can't understand why we're not winning more in Afghanistan. Seriously, just reading that gives me a migraine. Is this a Duffel Blog article?
>These analysts -- both in Afghanistan -- would never have learned that they were working on the same issue unless this connection was made.
So, getting your ass on a bird and flying to Kabul to shake hands and make friends is a bridge too far? How about just writing a couple of emails, or picking up the phone? No, obviously this is too difficult for intelligence troopers.
>Gen. Stanley McChrystal has said "it takes a network to beat a network" and Bastogne's intelligence team at the DIA has demonstrated the importance of establishing nodes to link friendly networks together.
Man, that sounds like an excellent PowerPoint bullet at a BN S2 brief. I mean, nobody pays attention to those after about a month or two in country, but it would still sound good. Or maybe a finishing line in an article in one of those Army mags nobody reads. Good for the resume, though. I still think you should rework it in a more matter-of-fact way and submit it to the Duffel Blog.
>This is a systemic problem within the U.S. intelligence system that requires a more systematic solution.
Purges? Seriously, I was always amazed at the percentage of guys in a typical MI shop who gave a shit about anything other than the truck they were going to buy with their deployment cash when they got home. One out of five in a GOOD shop. So no wonder they can't get on the phone, or get on a bird and spend a couple of days up in Kabul or Bagram making connections, and need a liaison team at DIA.
>Meanwhile, units like Bastogne and agencies like the DIA will figure out innovative ways to expand and flatten friendly networks within defense and intelligence.
Yes. Innovative ways like, maybe, sending your S2 captain or one of his NCOs on a intel scrounging mission as necessary. I know, it's crazy. Seriously, the places I was able to waltz into, sit down and make connections over a cup of coffee, and the support I got just for asking-it was crazy. All you have to do is knock on the door, walk in and not look like a complete lumpy-headed retard. Or you can, you know, send a two-man liaison team to every place you can think of (why just DIA? what about State, CIA, USAID, NGIC, NSA and NGA?) and have them sit there playing solitaire for the duration of the deployment. Whatevs.
That's a feature, not a bug. During a purge, catastrophizing the smallest misstep, real or imaginary, allows for convenient and expeditious processing. Everyone late to work is a Trotskyite saboteur; everyone making off-color comments is a rapist. Add an extrajudicial authority like a troika, and what more do you need?
@RVN SF VET
That first paragraph just about captures it. The truth does not matter-truth is lies, war is peace, slavery is freedom, etc. This while thing is another stage in the subjugation of the last (somewhat) rightwing institution by the Cathedral. The restructuring of a basic pillar of military discipline in accordance with what 20 years ago was a fringe theory only heard in Womyn's Studies departments (Rape Culture) is a crocodile power move, following on the repeal of DADT and to be followed by...who knows? The junior officers in the article have the right idea-ride the wave to personal benefit and career progression.
@HUNTERS @Eric_Strattoniii @Another
The name for what you are doing is "catastrophizing." Yes, the ideal numberfor rape is zero. The ideal numbers for DUIs, murders, thefts, and every other kind of crime is also zero. Not considering the responsiveness of the curve to various measures, their opportunity cost (such as destroying the lives of soldiers who did nothing wrong) or the accuracy of the methods used to gather statistics is puerile.
The Anawhat? By all relevant metrics (day care centers, hours spent on sexual harassment and assault prevention training, alcohol-related incidents, women and other protected groups in leadership positions,) Xenophon was a piker. He didn't even have a JAG to advise him in his decisionmaking process.
@ironiclad @Another Opinion @HUNTERS
>now DNA evidence can often very quickly condemn or exonerate the accused
No, it can't. Half of the problem is the definition of rape, which has been expanded in the current Narrative to rape OR sexual assault (including groping) OR sexual harassment. This all adds up to accusations needing no physical evidence whatsoever. For instance, in the conviction overturned by General Franklin, which sparked the current hysteria, the accuser had accused the alleged sexual assaulter of groping her as she spent the night at his house where he was staying with his wife. There was no physical evidence to speak of, and the accused's wife testified that he had been with her all night, and that they had kicked the accuser out of the house for being noisy. What DNA evidence could there be?
@RVN SF VET
"Hasn't worked"-by what standard?
What accountability measures are going to be emplaced to protect soldiers against false allegations and to punish false accusers? What criteria will be used to determine credibility? Nobody has even asked these questions, let alone proposed answers. "Hopefully" is not a strategy. You, as a former officer, consider the judgement and integrity of the chain of command lacking. Fine. What assurance is there that the civilians brought in will be better? All I see is a witch hunt and a hysteria based on specious statistics. If the post-Vietnam military stayed in its comfort zone by fighting imaginary Krasnovians, the post-GWOT military is going one better by fighting imaginary rapists. At least nobody has to go to JRTC, and the role players will be very realistic.
@RVN SF VET
There is under-reporting by the victim? According to this article in the Fornsic Examiner (hey, look, real journalism-again!) there is a massive incidence of unfounded reports: http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
Not to worry, though, I'm sure when unaccountable civilian experts are given jurisdiction, the rate o false reports will drop as convictions skyrocket. And isn't that what it's all about?
@ironiclad @Another Opinion
I think the cats need feeding. Might want to check that litter while you're at it.
Gentlemen, take note. This is the kind of harpy that will be in charge of your fate once this is over. Even if you are found innocent of specious charges after having your life destroyed by some psycho, this is the level of sympathy you'll get: "maybe he had his own issues." And you'll have to be very lucky to be found innocent-since sexual assault can be based on total hearsay with no physical evidence. Ladies, this is what will happen to your son or huband in the military if some female decides he needs to be punished for failing her on a PT test/rejecting her sexual advances/not callibg her back the next morning/treating her equally with the men when it comes to responsibility. As for you, Ms. "I have a career, who needs a family"-perhaps you can read this out loud to your cats: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal . Unlike you, CPT Petronio actually ante'd up on the feminist theory-you can see what it got her, and the conclusions she drew (at the expense of a chance to have children.) I feel very bad for her, but at least the rest of us can learn from her mistake-don't listen to feminist agitprop.
Wow. Project much?
"Research" is not a method.What methods could conceivably be used to detect unreported rapes?
My friend had not had sex with her. Why she accused him, I have no idea.
Not sure of the point of your last comment. What non-reported rapes? If a rape is non-reported, how is its existence to be verified or detected? Is it a subatomic particle, or some sort of metaphysical entity?
Oh, your questions are very precious. My friend, a 19 year old kid going through a year-long, high intensity training course, was pulled from training, told he was a rapist, told he was going to be court martialed, put on what amounts to punishment details, and in general treated like a pariah by his chain of command. Somehow, the details of the accusation were let slip into the general trainee population, which you can imagine led to more isolation. Then after a couple of months it turned out that the girl had gotten blind drunk, banged somebody who was not my friend or her boyfriend, then made the whole thing up. Whoops. So, without a "sorry," my friend was put in another class.
What facts? The "facts" here are a halfassed survey with vague questions and volunteer respondents, providing no granularity or clarity whatsoever. Then the survey's results are not juxtaposed with any comparable civilian surveys or studies, but used as a big club to beat people over the head with. And before you throw out gibberish like "slut shaming," perhaps you should read up on the incidence of false rape claims.
@Another Opinion @ironiclad @_B_
The Army is not the victim here. Their statistics were designed to be misused. The second I hear "in the last year, 30,000 soldiers had their lives threatened by hostile fire and/or unicorn attacks", I know there's about to be a unicorn eradication program, and G-d help the unicorn lover who raises an eyebrow.
The root of the problem? The root of the problem is amoral officers willing to throw the whole world under the bus for the sale of their career, the anumerate politicians they answer to, and those pulling the strings on the whole sordid affair. Btw, in the interest of accuracy, what you have is a friend who SAYS she was raped. Or was there a trial, verdict, etc? In my friend's case, there was an investigation by a chain of command which presumed him guilty until proven innocent. It was only the accuser's complete inability to maintain a cohesive story with any kind of credibility that kept him from being conclusively crucified.
I don't know where to start. If they're not reported, how do we know they happened? If they were reported, how do we know they happened? What exactly happened, to whom and in what context? Did more or less of it happen than in the civilian peer group, equalized by gender, age, ethnicity and income? Nobody is interested in asking these questions, because they don't suit the Narrative (and our host surely isn't an exception.) Instead, it's "off with their heads," and if you're not screaming loudly enough, you need your head lopped off as well.
I'll tell you something else-I had a close friend have his life destroyed by a false rape accusation in the military. His command crucified him, and then the accuser's story fell apart. In the space of a few months, he went from an idealistic minister's kid, homeschooled, a model soldier and a true believer, to something...darker. I sincerely hope that those participating in the current hysteria get to experience the receiving end, or have it happen to their children.
Hard to type on an iPhone keyboard with my big rapist thumbs.
It's an "epidemic," meaning, it's not particularly prevalent, of "rape", meaning, "any unwanted sexual contact", defined as vaguely as possible.
My thankfully limited experience in mixed units did not lead me to suspect that the women around me were particularly concerned about rape, or that the men around me were prone to it.
In any case, the null hypothesis is not that there is a rape epidemic. The null hypothesis is that there is not. The burden of proof is on those challenging it. So far, none of them have brought any convincing proof, but then the whole point of a witch hunt is that proof is beyond the point-those demandin it too loudlyay themselves be witches.
Oh, look, Tom, an actual journalist (as opposed to mouthpiece) doing actual investigative journalism on the military "rape" "epidemic". Notice how he actually asks tough questions and looks at statistics critically instead of just retransmitting the party line. Isn't that CRAZY? I have no idea how he does this without being provided access and junkets by the Cathedral-isn't that what journalism is all about?
And what is it that keeps the Arabs from having the same?
She must feel very lonely when the other Army wives begin complaining about how the military is neglecting its responsibilities and not restructuring itself to make it easier to find a job next door with a doctorate in Postmodern Ceramics Theory.
Those Jews must have amazing superpowers, to be so powerful while the Arabs (with all their oil!) are so marginalized. To what would you ascribe their uncanny abilities?
I like how you reframe things like supplying half the Arab world with Abrams tanks and F-16s as an "investment." It's as good a reframe as "cultural amity." Tell me, what is the interest rate on this "investment"? When does the US expect returns? Will the returns be adjusted for 9/11 and honor killings in California, or not? And of course there is an Israeli lobby, but no Arab lobby. Certainly no massive endowments with oil money, or anything like that.
QED, meaning, you don't have a trade. You have a credential, which is only recognized by the US govt. and its affiliate organizations (nonprofits, etc.) These organizations, by the way, are proverbially inefficient, so complaining that they are inefficient when it comes to utilizing your skills is funny-I mean, why would they be better at that than at anything else they do?
If you don't want to learn something more productive given your lifestyle choice (being married to a servicemember,) and prefer to live the life of a dependent-that's totally legitimate, but it's not some kind of sacrifice, or cross to bear. I admire wives who actually support their husbands and children, as long as they don't go climb up on a pedestal, get an "Army Wife-Hardest Job In The Army" bumper sticker, etc.
> I have a Poli Sci degree and Masters in Strat Intel, which the government paid for BTW. My only employment options are as a GS or contractor.
So, go learn a trade conducive to telecommuting. You don't have an innate condition requiring you to work in intel, right? You can't make your profession a bureaucratic one (and the intelligence community is a bureaucracy par none,) then complain about the bureaucratic roadblocks.
Well, right. There is a process by which the military selects dependopottami with their identities completely centered on being milwives, with all that implies. It complements the process for selecting careerists, which disproportionately rewards yes-men and asskissers. The military selects for what it wants, and since there hasn't been an existential threat to the military in 70 years, what it wants is political safety, which requires complacent cadres. This is normal in a declining empire.
I would like to point out the flip side. It's 2013. Everyone has internet. If you're smart and driven enough to get a Ph.D., why aren't you smart and driven enough to develop a skillset that allows you to make a living freelancing online, or telecommuting? Why haven't you learned to program, for instance?There are only two answers I can think of: 1) your Ph.D. is in something that doesn't actually require a lot of smarts or initiative-in other words, you are like the famed Dr. Leslie Drinkwine, with her Ph.D. in Marketing. 2) You really prefer a life of raising kids, unit cupcake sales and FRG gossip to busting your ass competing for work, but don't want to admit it. It's more fun to bitch about the Army's decision to put its big bases far away from major metropolitan areas.
Naturally, the Kansas schoolbus driver (who is, surely, not a fundamentalist Christian, with all that implies about attitudes towards Israel) has no such qualms about the massive amount of US aid to corrupt and incompetent Arab regimes, or the money spent on projects like the Arab Spring, or on settling Middle Eastern refugees in his backyard, where they immediately go to work on turning it into a copy of home, sweet home:
That is all in the service of Democracy. Supporting those Yidden, on the other hand, well...
I smell a new Interagency Theater Crisis Working Group. Lots of field grades, some stars and a budget. Problem solved, or at least turned to advantage. Pournelle's Law in action.
1 year, 10 months ago on Access denied | The Best Defense
@JohnStum A chicken in every pot, a rapist behind every bush.
@fg42 @Sisyphus @Rubber Ducky
The question is whether the law has any power of its own, or whether it is subject to be thrown out through mob hysteria manipulated by demagoguery at any arbitrary point. I, being a skeptic on the whole American project, think that the question has been moot for a very long time. Soon, the law will be changed to accommodate the hysteria, and nothing will stand in the way of the current sexual Lysenkoism sweeping through the US armed forces. I personally think it is not even necessary to change the laws-once the public crucifixions of Generals Franklin and Helms demonstrate to the rest of the generals that they are not governed by written laws but unwritten ones, subject to instant revision and retroactive revision at that, I doubt any of them will put their careers on the line for unjustly convicted subordinates. All serving will be subject to instantaneous destruction on he-said, she-said accusations, with no possibility of reprieve.
Whooo, it just got way crayzay up in here. Fellas, take note-though sex with the mentally unstable may be fun, and the relationship intensity is enjoyable, you can see the aftermath-false profiles and all. Your superiors, clueless about these things themselves and terrified for their career, may undergo a magical transformation.
>Lying, cheating, theft, etc., are ethical lapses not cultural.
Here you are showing your cultural bias. Of course there are plenty of cultures where lying, cheating and theft are considered praiseworthy if done to outsiders and to an advantage, and what is really despicable and worthy of contempt is to be the mark. Ever been to Iraq?
>A homosexual is what he or she is in the same manner that I was born with brown hair and hazel eyes.
But this is not self-evident; rather, it is an assumption you believe in because of a software update. Until about 30 years ago, the party line of the homosexuals themselves was that homosexuality was a perfectly valid lifestyle CHOICE, that sexual orientation was fluid, etc. I know, I'm a bad person for not stuffing that hatefact down the Memory Hole. If you were to ask Nimitz or Washington, they would tell you that homosexuality was a matter of choice, and a contemptible, immoral choice at that.
>as we both know all religions are notorious for their hypocrisy and frequent lack of common sense
I'd ask you to speak for yourself. Do you think, by the way, that your sainted Nimitz got his values by meditating in a cave, or by logically reasoning from first principles? Or did the fact that he was the heir of thousands of years of Judeochristian religious thought maybe have something to do with it? You seem to be avoiding making the connection between the moral degeneracy of many of today's military leaders and the fact that they grew up in a society where religion is relegated to an optional social activity.
>women have been fighting in wars throughout history
As individual exceptions, remarkable by their very exceptionalism, or as a last ditch effort of a society forced into total war for its existence. Not in a massive social engineering experiment designed to disprove the blatantly obvious truth. You are making up your standards as you go along, or rather having them made up for you and accepting them unconditionally.
So how is it that homosexuality, single motherhood as a lifestyle choice, sexual promiscuity and using women to fight your wars went from shameful and dishonorable to perfectly acceptable, if not for software updates? How did being repulsed by all of the above become shameful? In 20 years,the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be a tranny, but of course "character and honor" will not have changed at all-we will know because the NYT will tell us so.
Well, since apparently invoking the Ghost of Admirals Past is an acceptable way to determine an appropriate course of action for today's armed forces, let's be consistent. WWND with the flagrantly homosexual members of the Armed Forces? WWND about mixed crews of combat vessels? WWND about women getting pregnant to get out of deployments, or the spate of single mothers using the military as green welfare?
As it happens, I have successfully contacted Admiral Nimitz. Unfortunately, his rotational frequency is too great and I couldn't sync up, so all I got was some garbled cursing.
Thanks, man, appreciate the heads up.
>And then she does something of incredible courage:
She...stalks him. So courageous. Certainly a welcome contrast to some coward who spends his life hiding in a submerged tin can on top of a nuclear reactor in the service of his country. A round of applause for jilted lover stalkers!
It is frankly hilarious to see out-of-touch white knights proclaiming that women have some sort of innate legal right to demand that their men are punished for acting like cads. This is the remnant of a social contract which was hollowed out, then voided by society a long time ago, and the other half of the contract was that women were punished for acting like sluts.
I doubt this Ph.D. with a distinguished career was blind to the officer's caddish qualities throughout their relationship-it's more likely her devotion was inspired by those very qualities. Which is fine-it's her choice. But now she doesn't like the long-term consequences of sleeping with a cad, so of course he must be crushed with the full weight of the system, despite having done nothing illegal. I see an implicit demand here that women enjoy the same sexual freedoms of men while being protected from the consequences of their sexual choices, freely made.
This behavior has a name in street slang. It's called being a "Captain Save-a-ho."
>most of the problems between the sexes in today's Armed Forces, are a direct result of officers and SNCOs misusing their rank, to intimidate their subordinates for sexual favors.
And never as a result of their subordinates using their gender to get ahead, or just being drawn to their dominant superiors. Right? I mean, the second a servicemember puts on that uniform, millions of years of evolution just...vanishes.
There really isn't.
Where do you think it's all going, given that this thing is constantly growing and becoming less efficient at imposing its will on its intended subjects?
1 year, 11 months ago on Access denied | The Best Defense
I for one am shocked, shocked! to see a female servicemember see the military as a giant social welfare/engineering scheme. Stupidly, I keep being blinded by my patriarchically-biased assumption that the only legitimate purposes for a military are defense and profitable aggression.
1. "all citizens must be engaged" and "this framework is based on voluntary participation": which is it? Or is this the military concept of volunteering?
2. Who will be responsible for the legions of bastards which will inevitably follow from this scheme involving taking huge amounts of young men and women at peak fertility and sending them off to remote locales with no other forms of entertainment? The US military is already knee deep in single mothers; does American society need more? Will Colonel Cope take responsibility for said bastards, who owe their existence to her scheme, when they jack my ride 20 years later, or for their care and feeding in prison?
I thought your glory days involved helping Pashtuns maim conscripts from Omsk. Which, in retrospect, turned out a lot worse than the Laos thing. Or better, if one considers its long-term effects from a Keynesian stimulus perspective (G-d forbid.)
And what will we do with all the excess government employees, academics, pundits, journalists, contractors and consultants? Lady Sky is not too old to learn a trade such as plumbing or woodworking, perhaps, so she could continue serving humanity in some fashion, but I doubt she would take kindly to such a career change; it is more likely that she would use every ounce of pull she has to fight against this sort of initiative, as would everyone else involved in the grandiose patronage scheme. You yourself in your glory days probably would not have taken kindly to the suggestion that your apparat be hacked down to a tiny fraction of its size and all surplus employees be sent off to grow cucumbers.
@beltwaycynic USG is run by committee, and a committee is first and foremost a machine for dispersing responsibility. Had her advice been taken, it would have been diluted by committee, and in the ensuing abortion she could have pointed to that dilution and said "see, they didn't do ENOUGH of what I said." Since the point of the exercise is the production of more prestige and budgets for those involved and not stable governance for those upon whom it is inflicted, I'd say from the point of view of Lady Sky and Lord Odierno, it's a resounding success.
Oh, I'm quite sure the typical American can relate to this analogy without the Chinese in it. Just explain it in terms of Detroit, they'll get it.