Carrots for Taliban, Sticks for U.S. troops
ISAF commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal has ordered the closure of morale, welfare, and recreation facilities to pay for the Obama administration’s troop increase – which if you will remember was far less than what the military said would be necessary for “victory” (a word which Obama will not use).
“This is a war zone — not an amusement park,” stated Command Sgt. Maj. Michael T. Hall on the decision to close fast food restaurants and other amenities on Afghanistan bases.
“One of the ways we’re going to do that — in order to accommodate the troop increase and get re-focused on the mission at hand — is to cut back on some of the non-essentials. That includes some of the morale, welfare and recreation facilities throughout Afghanistan.” said Hall. “In the coming weeks and months, concessions such as Orange Julius, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Dairy Queen and Military Car Sales will close their doors.”
Perhaps the Commander-in-Chief forgot who is fighting on our side: While the Obama administration is considering a stimulus package for the Taliban, McChrystal is forced to cut funding for our troops. And let’s not forget the trillions of dollars of new government spending.
Fewer first-run movies. Fewer canned and bottled goods. Fail.
But the bright news is that Canadian troops get to keep their Tim Hortons coffee shop in Kandahar. And the profits pay for health and welfare services for the Canadian forces.
Maybe the famous American quote should now read “Trillions for entitlements, but not a penny for defense!”
In: Military · Tagged with: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Stanley McChrystal, US military
Defeating Moral Equivalence
While I served to protect the principle of free speech, I detest when people choose to follow perceptions rather than reality and attempt to rewrite history. Especially when those people equate the honor and sacrifice displayed by the members of the U.S. military with the evil perpetrated by the Taliban.
To those who cast aside reason in this manner, I ask: What do you stand to gain by taking the position that the U.S. is no worse than the Taliban? And to those who claim that the Taliban are “freedom fighters,” what liberty does the Taliban offer?
The United States stands for liberty. And those who have joined the military must have felt sufficiently motivated by the principles and traditions of this country to do so (I can speak only for myself) – knowing that they are risking their lives. And they do so not only for our interests, but for the entire world – including our enemies. Our humanitarian efforts makes the U.N. look like Uncle Scrooge. Since we are human, that means we aren’t perfect. Every culture has it’s skeletons, and ours is no exception. Over the course of human history, the world has been dominated by one civilization or colonial power after another. But things changed in 1776. The United States stands for liberty, not tyranny. In our wars, we have taken only enough land to bury our dead. The Taliban on the other hand stand for tyranny. And an incredibly barbaric tyranny at that.
The U.S. military doesn’t use human shields, but the Taliban does. And how do you suppose they get children – who are typically scared of the dark, let alone the sights and sounds of battle – to stay or even participate?
The Taliban aren’t the ones building roads, dams, schools, and other infrastructure – our military is. The U.S. military doesn’t threaten, disfigure, and massacre little school girls and threaten their teachers simply for trying to go to school.
The U.S. military doesn’t use land mines (IEDs) – which far more often maim and kill the Taliban’s fellow Afghans than Westerners. George Soros’ phony human rights groups are nowhere to be found when it comes to this issue, and the media could care less (perhaps for the same reason they won’t wear U.S. flags on their lapel). The U.S. military doesn’t prefer to operate amongst civilians, with the express purpose of creating death and destruction, as is the choice of the Taliban. In fact our military limits our rules of engagement to the point that many of our men have died because of the decision. The U.S. military’s prisoners in Gitmo have better medical care than any citizen I have ever met, and their chief concern is weight gain – not beheading and a subsequently-mutilated corpse.
The U.S. military doesn’t produce opium that destroys millions of lives worldwide. The U.S. military treats women with respect, not as a sub-species only useful for sexual purposes. And the U.S. military has never lured in hundreds of women with promises of free health care, only to be raped on video as the Haqqanis did. And when the videos were discovered, the rape victims were tracked down and murdered in order to cover up the atrocity.
The U.S. military coexists with all ideologies – including thousands of non-jihadist Muslims who serve without prejudice (so much so that they promoted an openly-jihadist officer to Major) – while the Taliban seek a global caliphate.
When the U.S. military come across children in need of medical care, they stop at nothing to give them that care, including flying them to hospitals on the other side of the world, at incredible expense. The U.S. military even give medical treatment to captured enemy combatants, side-by-side in the helicopters with the soldiers who they tried to kill just moments ago. The U.S. military follow the laws of warfare, which were there to protect civilians from exactly what the Taliban, al Qaeda, and co. are doing to their own people.
To come to my conclusions, I cite fact. The truth is what it is, and I stand nothing to gain from misrepresenting it. If anyone doubts what I have posted, see for yourself if what I cited is true. It is preposterous to equate the U.S. military with the barbarians in the Taliban.
[Originally posted at Blackfive]
In: Military · Tagged with: Taliban, US military
The Gunny speaks
Military Times recently interviewed R. Lee Ermey, combat veteran of Vietnam and Drill Instructor extraordinaire, on important subjects such as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, rules of engagement, tattoos, and stationary. A couple of excerpts (emphasis mine):
Q. What are your thoughts on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and recent efforts to end the ban on open service by gays and lesbians?
A. I don’t have a problem with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It works. Now all of a sudden, this illustrious leader of America decided he wants to put openly gay people in the military. But where are they going to live and take showers, and which bathrooms are they going to use?
I liken it to putting me in the woman Marine barracks. I would have a great time, but I don’t think they would like it very much.
If I’m taking a shower in an open shower bay, the last thing I want is some guy looking at me having sexual fantasies.
I think everybody in this country should have equal rights, but I don’t think we should infringe on someone else’s to give another person more.
Funny, the founding fathers had the same thing in mind when writing the Constitution.
Q. You served in Vietnam. What do you think about the rules of engagement today in Afghanistan?
A. We lost Vietnam because a bunch of people in Congress who had never been in the military or never experienced war were calling the shots.
In Vietnam, we couldn’t fire our rifles unless we were fired upon. That seems like chicken s— because you might not get your turn.
Under this administration, after a firefight, it seems like we just about have to put up yellow tape, conduct forensics and collect shell casings like a crime scene.
It’s gotten to the point where a young man is afraid to shoot his rifle in self-defense because he might be brought up on murder charges. I think we should be above that. We should have amnesty. Higher-ups in Washington have amnesty. How about the poor warrior in the field just trying to do his job?
In: Military · Tagged with: Don't Ask Don't Tell, R. Lee Ermey, Rules of Engagement, US military
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: what does it really say?
I refer you to U.S. Code: Title 10 Subtitle A Part II Chapter 37 § 654
Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
Excerpts:
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) … it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that … the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
And the pièce de résistance:
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
The entire policy can be found here. And it is well worth reading.
So exactly what about homosexuality has changed since 1993? Do openly gay soldiers all of a sudden not damage “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion?
[Originally posted at Blackfive]
In: Military · Tagged with: DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell, US military
