Category Archives: General Interest

June 5, 2014 · 7:04 pm

A short piece by Stanley McChrystal

Here’s an opinion piece, “Securing the American Character”, by Stanley McChrystal in Politico Magazine. This excerpt gives you a taste, but the entire piece is worth reading:

“Our country has always been driven by big ideas. We were founded on the principle that “all men are created equal” — a revolutionary concept in the 18th century. Social movements like the drive for civil rights propelled us closer to the ideals that our Founders espoused. The GI Bill empowered our returning veterans to lead the country as they came home from World War II. Each of these big ideas responded to crises of the time — taxation without representation; the hypocrisy of separate but equal; 16 million veterans demobilizing from war. Right now, we are facing a new crisis: Citizenship no longer demands a common experience — and so we no longer believe in a common future. The time has come for a dramatic and bold response that calls on every young American to serve.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/securing-the-american-character-107318.html#ixzz33oCDbAKc

The Choices We Make

Many things, on many levels, disturb me about the latest President Obama disaster of releasing 5 terrorists for a US soldier held in captivity. This situation contains so many threads we’ll probably be trying to untangle this massive web of lies, truth and partisan spin for years and future historians will certainly have plenty of information to sift through to put a stamp of judgment on President Obama’s decision to make this trade. One thread I’m going to attempt to untangle (and feel free to toss in your opinions in the comments) is the choices open to Bowe Bergdahl. None of us will ever be able to ascertain for certain what he thought or what he believed and the investigation, the accumulation of facts that come forward about his actions before, during and after his leaving his base in Afghanistan, and how we line these up will lead each of us to form an opinion in the matter.

Most of us are people of beliefs, opinions, feelings, desires and no man can ever be totally objective and free from some degree of bias, because we can’t separate our thinking into tidy little separate compartments. Sadly, from watching these sorts of national crises of “conscience” play out over the years, the political strategists have trained Americans to rely on poll numbers and influencing feelings to sway “public opinion” and thus allow the politicians to pursue their agendas without much oversight from “we the people”.

Bowe Bergdahl was a young man who voluntarily decided to enlist in the US Army. Of course, I can relate to that, because as a young woman I did the same thing, in perhaps a very similar naive way. No matter how carefully you research the military before raising your right hand and swearing an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, the reality turns out very different from your preconceived notions.

The single most important lesson military service teaches you is that there are other things more important than yourself (selfless service). You are part of a team tasked with a mission and in combat the very lives of your fellow soldiers depend on TRUST – lives depend on this and accomplishing the mission depends on it (loyalty and trust).

When soldiers swear that oath, they agree to follow lawful orders and to work toward that big picture mission “defending the Constitution”. How that big mission trickles down to the individual soldier in our Republic is a combination of civilian political decision-making with the President having a great deal of latitude in execution of military missions and Congress with the prescribed role of declaring war, oversight of military actions and fiduciary responsibilities (they control the purse strings). Now, how the little missions get passed on down through the ranks has evolved in our military since General George Washington first took command of the Continental Army on June 15, 1775. From that day forward the military rules and traditions evolved and today Army soldiers operate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and we agree to uphold Army Values, to live by the Soldier’s Creed and Warrior Ethos.

Often times what you “feel” differs from what the people above you in rank order you to do and believe me, being a private in the US Army is a lesson in forbearance and self-restraint, because you’re at the bottom of the power structure and everything rolls downhill. That means you often feel like you’re being run around in circles, because you don’t know what the big picture parts of the mission are and as the little parts get tasked on down the chain of command, both good and bad decisions are made. It’s a complex organization and lots of hands are required to achieve the big picture mission. You follow your orders, unless the order is unlawful.

Based on the emails that Bowe Bergdahl’s parents reportedly shared with the frequently referenced 2012 Rolling Stone magazine article (hardly a hardcore right-wing source). Bowe Bergdahl had many negative feelings about his chain of command, his teammates and the overall mission in Afghanistan. At a later date, that will likely be a blog post to tackle – American foreign policy failures.

I can sympathize having been a private in the US Army and having grave misgivings about our military mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially since President Obama took office, but truthfully even for most of the Bush presidency too. From the very biggest picture level on down to the execution on the ground, I have disagreed with everything from nation-building on down to rules of engagement. I have nothing but contempt for military strategy reliant on lame slogans, rather than a clear strategic vision for America, both short-term and long-term. It looks to me like Bowe Bergdahl drank the “hearts and minds” three cups of tea mission. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now. COIN is not a strategy – it’s a tactic, in my opinion and I’ve felt all along it should be just a part of our military toolkit, not the complete doctrine in the Army. Yes, we’ve all listened “shock and awe” and “it will be a cake walk” on to the “winning the hearts and minds”, which the media regurgitate like trained parrots. Right now, the press and the politicians hit us with “we never leave one of our own on the battlefield” type slogans.

Most in the media have no clue about anything having to do with military matters. No one in the President’s inner-circle of trusted advisers knows anything about military matters (and they suck at managing their PR big time too). From watching this unfolding circus, sadly way too many of the retired military pundits and commentators on which the media and public rely to translate military matters into civilian language are partisan political hacks. Sadly, I’ve thought most of our top brass are political hacks for a long, long time. When the “war on terror” began and the Bush administration began briefing these retired officers and sending them out to be “military analysts” for the media, it’s pretty easy to determine where these officers’ political loyalties lie and it’s not with telling the truth.

So, now back to Bowe Bergdahl, the Private First Class, arriving in Afghanistan in March of 2009 and on June 30, 2009 he walked away from his base. I love my Sun Tzu, while our military is more attuned to Clausewitz and Jomini. I love reading about military strategy and military history, so naturally I have lots of opinions. Bowe Bergdahl seems to have formed lots of opinions too. And that is what the point of this post is. No matter how the media and politicians or his supporters or the folks for the war or against the war try to spin it – at the heart of the matter is Bowe Bergdahl, whom I can sympathize with in many ways, as a naive young man, “wanting to help the Afghan people” according to his father. I am always trying to “help people” too. I can even sympathize with his parents and even his father trying to talk to the Taliban, trying to get his son released. The crux of the matter and what this will boil down to – unlike Bowe’s father, mine lived by a simple code of honor that he drilled into our heads, “If you give your word, you keep it!” Bowe’s father, a religious man, told his son, according to that Rolling Stone interview, “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!” Bowe gave his word and didn’t keep it, nor did he discuss his change of conscience with his chain of command. He walked away in a war zone for an as yet to be determined personal mission.

Here’re the simple facts. Bowe Bergdahl had other choices. It was not a matter of he had no other course of action to pursue if he felt, as a matter of conscience he couldn’t do this. Like everything in the military, conscientious objector status is covered in UCMJ too. Did Bowe Bergdahl ever talk to anyone in his chain of command about his misgivings about the war? Did he attempt to seek conscientious objector status or even try to get out of the Army? The reporting indicated he tried to join the French Foreign Legion, wanting to be a mercenary, so fighting didn’t seem to be morally reprehensible to him then. He joined the Army and was reported to have earned the nickname SF, short for Special Forces, because of his fascination with COIN. How he was planning to help the Afghan people matters and we may never get that answer from him. I would love to hear his father explain in what ways he believes Bowe intended to help the Afghan people. How was he going to help them, this young man fascinated with being a mercenary and survivalist skills? To me, I’m trying to wrap my mind around his father’s views in this video, where he at length talks about how he feels the mission in Afghanistan was wrong, but I can’t make heads or tails out of how he believes his son intended to help the Afghan people.

So, away from the politics, there are honorable and dishonorable ways to “obey your conscience” and sorry, walking away from your base is not one of them. Not being a JAG lawyer, I don’t know if Bowe Bergdahl’s convictions would have met the threshold for conscientious objector status. This website About.com on this issue it states: “You can’t pick and choose which war you object to. By law, a conscientious objector is one who is opposed to participation in all wars. The person’s opposition must be based on religious belief and training, and it must be deeply held.” My husband had a soldier who found God on the way to the Gulf War and he was still in the company when they returned, albeit on his way out. I haven’t consulted Gladius on this matter yet, but like everything else in the Army, there are various types of actions commanders have at their disposal to deal with a soldier and his/her conscience in a war zone – Bowe Bergdahl decided to skip all that.

This isn’t about the merits of the US mission in Afghanistan or the partisan politics, this is about one soldier who swore an oath and the choices he voluntarily made. And when the political left tries to turn this into an indictment of the policy in Afghanistan – what matters here is that the UCMJ applies to every soldier and that’s why so many soldiers are demanding he be held accountable for his actions. We might sympathize with his feelings, but we can’t lose sight that we are a nation of laws, not men. That law is the Constitution of the United States of America and if keeping your word no longer matters, our Republic will crumble. Don’t once again buy into the crap about the polls of how the American people feel or the partisan spin – that doesn’t matter!!! We are a nation of laws, not of what people feel this week based on the latest poll numbers!

5 Comments

Filed under American History, Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, The Constitution, The Media

June 4, 2014 · 8:16 pm

Undue Command Influence

Just to put “undue command influence” in clear terms, I once again called on Gladius to explain it, as he is well-qualified to speak to questions of the law, both civilian and military, and I hope he doesn’t mind me divulging he served as an officer in the US Army. Here’s how he explained undue command influence:

“When a command authority, such as a 2-star division commander, assigns an officer to investigate a major concern under his or her 15-6 authority, that commander should not and must not dictate to the investigator what the expected outcome of the investigation should be.

For instance, “Colonel, I’m assigning you to investigate the allegations against Corporal Jones. Make sure that low life stands trial for his crimes. We need to make an example of him.” The General has now told the Colonel what the outcome of the investigation should be. Better to have said, “Colonel, I’m assigning you to investigate Corporal Jones. I want to make sure you have all the resources and authority you need to conduct a thorough investigation.” That statement has no indication of what the outcome should be
.
Recent problems at the Air Force Academy is a good example. The Air Force leadership told the investigators to go after certain individuals, to make an example. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force made statements to that effect, about what he would and would not tolerate.

Same with the prosecution of the NCOs down at Lackland regarding sex with recruits. Several recent examples exist where general officers made speeches or statements that presupposed the outcome or guilt of the subject of the investigations.

Command influence is the life of the military. By nature, commanders influence. If they didn’t we wouldn’t have a military; we’d have a club. Undue command influence is outside the proper chain of command communications. When a senior officer, either intentionally or carelessly, makes statements or takes actions to influence, persuade or oppress a junior officer in the performance of his or her fact-finding or trial duties, that is undue command influence. The influence can be in the form of direct instructions to the subordinate, instructions through the subordinate’s chain of command, or statements and actions done in such a manner that the influence is clearly directed at the outcome of the subordinate’s duties. On the other hand, if there is a subordinate unit that is failing to perform to standard, counseling of that subordinate command to improve, replacing that failed commandeer and instructing his/her replacement to perform, is not undue command influence.”

Here’s a good website: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa103000d.htm

Thanks Gladius for that excellent explanation. Of course, this Bergdahl situation will present new challenges and hopefully we can count on this obtuse CINC to rein in his mouthpieces and let the military justice system handle this matter – fairly, impartially and without undue command influence. The wise thing for this administration, not noted for its discipline or sense, would be to duct tape the mouths of all those know-it-all women, from Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice on down to that twit, Marie Harf, at the State Dept. ALL matters concerning SGT Bergdahl should be referred to the Pentagon, with only a few, well-briefed spokespeople assigned to field those questions. But what do I know, I spent most of my life being a homemaker, lol.

5 Comments

Filed under General Interest, Military, Politics

June 4, 2014 · 10:43 am

Another lie?

ABC This Week – Susan Rice, the Obama administration’s gift that keeps on giving, spoke about Bergdahl’s dire health. What dire health?:

“STEPHANOPOULOS: Also questions about whether the president violated the law, that charge has come from congress as well, that he was supposed to notify members of congress before the transfer of any GITMO detainees.

RICE: Well, George, in fact what we had to do and what did do, consistent with the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief, is prioritize the health of Sergeant Bergdahl. We had reason to be concerned that this was an urgent and an acute situation, that his life could have been at risk. We did not have 30 days to wait. And had we waited and lost him, I don’t think anybody would have forgiven the United States government.”

The Taliban repays the President already, omg, with this Taliban video of the release of Bergdahl, showing a Bergdahl who could walk of his own volition and didn’t seem on death’s door:

One can only wonder when we will reach the lie that breaks the camel’s back…….

3 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics

June 4, 2014 · 10:07 am

Other news

The Bergdahl saga diverted media attention away from covering other news stories of which there are many. A hugely important story for American foreign policy, largely overshadowed, was President Obama and the EU deciding to work with (fund) the Palestinian Unity government of which Hamas is a part. Here’s a Washington Post link from yesterday. One more step at abandoning our only true ally, Israel, in the ME and following a decided pattern of misguided and dangerous foreign policy missteps by the Obama administration. President Obama’s quickly becoming a combination of “the ugly lame duckling and the emperor’s new clothes”, with Congress reciting, “three (or 535) blind mice”….. It sure looks like President Obama decided he doesn’t need Congressional approval for anything. And so far he doesn’t. Scary times.

The VA scandal keeps spreading and it’s important that pressure be maintained on the press to report and on Congress to follow-through on oversight and reform or the Obama administration will slap on a band-aid by appointing a new secretary and Congress will kick the can down the road one more time. Check out, “VA Axed Veterans Programs While Approving $1 Million In Bonuses” (DailyCaller yesterday).

With the Obama administration, beware, as soon as one scandal diverts your attention, they will sneakily make other moves quickly trying to stay below the media radar. as the current scandal sucks up all the oxygen.

Just the facts…..

Bryan Preston at PJMedia has a piece on General Dempsey’s thoughts and military judgment (or lack thereof) on the Bergdahl situation. Preston has the complete statement in his piece, so just follow this link. So, now the whole matter rests on what Bowe Bergdahl says – really, General Dempsey that will reveal the “facts”, as if Bergdahl is going to say, “Oh yeah, I deserted my post.” And oh, btw, he is entitled to legal consul, who will advise him to shut-up. What planet is General Dempsey living on. The investigation must include all the evidence gathered surrounding this case, because chances are Bowe Bergdahl, invoking his rights, may well decide not to say anything to incriminate himself. So, then what General Dempsey???

We may all become amateur JAG lawyers before this is over, but from “Military Justice 101“:

“F. Lee Bailey, a famous civilian criminal defense attorney, once said if he were accused of a crime he would rather be tried in a military court than in any other system of justice because of the protections afforded the military accused.

Many people don’t know that as soon as they become a suspect their rights must be read to them before questioning. Article 31 of the UCMJ gave military people that right 16 years before the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a case called “Miranda.” The UCMJ provides that military suspects are also entitled to the services of a lawyer at no cost, regardless of rank or economic level. The U.S. Supreme Court did not guarantee that right to civilians until 12 years later, and only then if the accused could show he was needy.”

Bowe Bergdahl does not have to say anything to military investigators – ever. If you feel like reading more about Article 31 (Rights), just follow the link above or do your own Google search. Heck, we may all need to find a JAG lawyer to befriend to guide us through this military justice minefield.

1 Comment

Filed under General Interest, Military, Politics, The Constitution

June 4, 2014 · 1:08 am

They embraced it

Watching civilian reporters talk about military matters is about like me trying to talk about quantum physics, where I might be able to recite the terminology, but remain completely clueless about the concepts. It’s like I wandered over to Malcolm Pollack’s blog when he gets really engrossed in one of his many scientific topics – I read the words (having to look up most), but remain lost.

All afternoon I’ve been thinking about writing about “moral courage” and trying to put into words my disgust with this CINC and it’s in that context that President Obama completely disgusts me. I have felt for a very long time that he is not fit to command the US Armed Forces – that is my heartfelt belief. Every action he undertakes rests on his political agenda, replete with his arrogant, elitist inner-circle concocting “narratives” to spin it (lie) to the public. The endless lying may be his undoing in this Bergdahl situation, where he released some of the most dangerous Gitmo detainees in exchange for the return of what was not a “military hero”, possibly a deserter/collaborator. Still, these self-important dilettantes turned military experts, continue this sad parade of brazen mendacity. They are now military experts and military historians, cockily tossing out military phrases with abandon, of which they know nothing.

The military operates under a different code of laws called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and after spending my entire adult life around the Army, (serving a short time on active duty, the bulk as an Army spouse), in addition to reading for years about military matters, I am not a JAG lawyer, nor will I ever pretend to be one. Bowe Bergdahl deserves to have the circumstances of his case investigated and if charged with crimes under the UCMJ, then he is entitled to legal representation and a fair trial – that much I do know.

The Army leadership owes it to every man and woman who swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States to investigate this situation and follow the UCMJ. Sending out Susan Rice or those twits at the State Department to lie/deflect/denigrate other soldiers who have come forward to speak of their first-hand knowledge, will not make this matter disappear – our military can not defend America if the bonds of trust between the rank and file soldiers and the top brass collapse due to moral cowardice from the top.

Gladius offered some thoughts on moral courage, which sum up this situation:

“I absolutely agree that the Army leadership should have collectively stood up and said no to the exchange — but before it happened. Now, I believe they have their hands tied in saying anything other that what Dempsey said about “may pursue an investigation.” Undue command influence has happened too often of late, when high-ranking officers order a specific investigation or a specific outcome of an investigation. I do believe Dempsey could strengthen his statement from “may pursue” to “will pursue through proper authorities”, but I doubt he can now go further. The time of courage has passed.

Physical courage is spontaneous and happens usually without meditation and pre-planning. To be sure, we soldiers can be trained to react in certain ways, but instincts of survival can be hard to overcome.

On the other hand, moral courage is deliberative, purposeful and done with full awareness of the consequences.

The reverse of both is equally true. Physical cowardice is spontaneous and done without pre-planning in most cases. Again, to be sure, we can be trained to react better to overcome our natural tendencies. On the other hand, once again, moral cowardice is deliberate, purposeful and done with full awareness. Those in leadership, in my opinion, are guilty of moral cowardice. They knew it; they embraced it; and, they were aware of the consequences. It was a gamble they took to protect their immediate position with no regard to the long time effect.”

Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer, author of numerous books on national security/intelligence/strategic matters and fictional novels, knows far more than me, your humble, mumbling amateur blogger, so I highly recommend you click over to National Review Online and read his entire piece, “Why Team Obama Was Blindsided by Bergdahl Backlash”. Peters states:

“Our military leaders need to rediscover their moral courage and honor our traditions, our regulations, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We need a fresh, unprejudiced 15-6 investigation (the military equivalent of a grand jury). We already know, as the military has known since the first 24 hours after Bergdahl abandoned his post, that sufficient evidence exists for a court-martial, but it’s important to do this by the numbers.”

I agree with Gladius that “moral courage is deliberative, purposeful and done with full awareness of the consequences”, but I believe there is still time for moral courage and let’s hope that someone in our top military leadership speaks out. Russ Vaughn, in an excellent piece, “A Five-Sided Kennel of Cowardice”, astutely harkened to the power of one courageous voice:

“A single, public resignation by a single honorable four-star could have stopped this executive branch arrogance in its tracks, like a kitchen light breaking up a roach-fest.”

When in doubt, go back and start from the beginning, so let’s listen to the echoes of George Washington’s wisdom (additional links here in old LB blog post):

“I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain (what I consider the most enviable of all titles) the character of an “Honest Man.”

And from there, perhaps, there’s still hope we can find our way to declare a truce in the relentless partisan political battles tearing America apart and :

“Let us erect a standard to which the wise and honest may repair.”

6 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, General Interest, Military, Politics

June 3, 2014 · 7:57 pm

– – The Bowe Bergdahl POW Videos

– – The Bowe Bergdahl POW Videos.

Here is a webpage put up that contains a video of Bowe Bergdahl’s father begging for his son’s release and information about Bowe. The videos purported to be of Bowe are Taliban propaganda pleas. In the April 2010 video, he seems to be speaking English with no problem. The father brags about his son’s gift for languages and the Obama administration and him sell us this story that now Bowe forgot English. If anyone finds a more recent Taliban video of Bergdahl, please post it in comments. So many questions…..

Military jargon 101 or Portrait of courage (not)

I posted this as a comment, but decided to post it as a short newsflash:

“BRUSSELS (AP) — U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey says the Army may still pursue an investigation that could lead to desertion charges against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl (boh BURG’-dahl), who was freed from five years of Taliban captivity in a prisoner exchange last weekend.”
– http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-desertion_n_5437049.html?1401797962

Key word here “may” still pursue – not “will” pursue, so just crouching for cover (CYA) from the media firestorm and trying to regroup in military jargon…