Elitists Lament: Their Kind Do Not Serve (Awwwww)

Andrew Bacevich and Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo Call for Compulsory Service

That means 'The Draft' boyo's  

Hat tip Instapundit (where I pretty much left this post as comment, plus of minus)

Cripes. Not this again...

Some reporter is buying into and spreading Andrew Bacevich's call for the return of the draft/universal service.

      It has been my experience that when this unhinged call for the return of the draft and 'universal' service comes from a Veteran, it invariably comes from draft-era Veterans, almost certainly Army, and usually sporting an advanced liberal-arts degree: all pinin' for those egalitarian days of yore... that never were.
      I enlisted in 1972 at 18, when they were only drafting 19 year olds and up. I entered into an Air Force full of people who didn't want to be there but they were there because they REALLY didn't want to be in the Army. I can't describe how much better it was being in the Air Force after all the draftees who didn't want to be there left. good unit cohesion, high esprit de corps, and generally all around good times, with a miniscule fraction of the number of problem-children, for 20 years --right on through Desert Storm and early Somalia when I retired. NOBODY who ever served in both a draft-era and post-draft era military misses the former. Cucolo wasn't there - he hasn't a clue.

800 Pound Gorilla...
     Which brings us to the 800-pound Gorilla in the room that is REALLY bothering guys like Bacevich: What they really lament deep down in their gut is that those from their neck of the political woods, all the so-called 'elites' (actually self-proclaimed 'exclusives' IMHO) DON'T feel the call to service themselves. So instead of promoting the "everybody in the pool" mentality that will make everyone unhappy, he needs to start finding a fix to the 'wrong' of a political class that by and large does not feel a 'call' to duty of any kind.

'Dorky Pants' Thinking...
     If there is a  gulf between the military and community where you live, chances are you are in a Blue State or a nice big Blue City. Given that most of the military come from the 'Red' states (and Southern ones at that), the problem isn't about the communities where most of the military come from, it's about those who don't join, where they live and WHY they don't. Bacevich's call for universal service falls under what I like to refer to as the Dogbert School of Thought, AKA the 'Dorky Pants Solution'.

Gee Andrew....EVERY "American"? 
     Oh yeah! He 'coincidentally' has a new book out: “Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country.”

     Bacevich calls himself a Conservative, because y' know, nothing screams 'Conservative' like COMPULSORY SERVICE.(/sarc). 

     That boy's got a Fascist streak eating away at him that I can't abide.

Airpower is Developed, Sustained, and Provided by an "Air Force"

Composite Photo of a Aerospace Power Dead End, a.k.a. A-10 N/AW

In thread over at SNAFU!, we find one commenter 'Lane" advocating the wet dream of 'Army über alles' types everywhere, i.e. the disbandment of the Air Force. I've invited him to read a couple of my older posts Space Force? and Space Coast Guard?  and have posted this to give him an opportunity to make his case a little better than he did over at Solomon's.

Thoughtful arguments (beyond 'because', 'because I say so', and 'there was this one time in band camp' please) for disbanding the AF are welcome, but will be countered even more thoughtfully. I predict and forewarn that IF I get any response, my most common references in countering will involve "Goldwater-Nichols" and the words 'Train and Equip'.

Oh!.. and please leave the 'we have x number Air Forces' B.S. for use as sound bites on some space limited I-hate-AF thread. The Army has trains and it isn't a railroad, and some say it has more floating assets than the Navy and no one claims it is a 'Navy'.  

If serious discussion on Airpower isn't your thing, then I refer you to a light-hearted romp on the subject of service roles and missions. See Harry Harrison's "Navy Day" ..........

The Army had a new theme song: "Anything  you can do, we can do better!" And they meant anything, including up-to-date hornpipes!

 

Bob Cox Still Milking the 8 April 2000 MV-22 Crash

"I know little of military aviation, and even less of experimental flying, which is perhaps the most inspiring and yet fateful of all".

 -Ernest K. Gann, in the preface to Fate is the Hunter 

US Marine Corps photo by Sergeant Mark Fayloga

There is just so much wrong with this hit piece posing as an  'article' I want to frickin' scream!

I want to ask the bereaved widows why it is a 'stain' on the memory of their husbands that 'human factors' were a finding in the crash, when the Marine Corps doesn't consider it a 'stain':

A Marine spokesman, Capt. Brian Block, said the finding of "human factors" as the cause of the accident should not be equated with pilot error or blaming the pilots.


"Whenever a mishap like this occurs, we owe it to our Marines to take an honest, dispassionate look at all possible contributing factors to ensure it does not happen again," Block said. "The investigations into this mishap revealed that human factors contributed to, but were by no means solely responsible for, this mishap.


"These findings in no way impugn nor denigrate Maj. Gruber and Lt. Col. Brow's reputations as Marine officers, Marine aviators, and MV-22 pioneers. Maj. Gruber and Lt. Col. Brow were selected as pilots for what, at the time, was a brand new airframe precisely because of their courage, skill, and impeccable records."


Navy spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Tamara Lawrence said Mabus reviewed the crash investigation reports and "determined their conclusions still stand: that it was a result of a chain of events which, taken together, resulted in the loss of very talented and brave Marines."


A spokesman for Fort Worth-based Bell said "it would be inappropriate to comment on an internal Marine Corps matter."

I want to ask Bob Cox:
1. What made him think asking the aircraft manufacturer for a comment on a human factors finding in a USMC accident investigations wasn't inflammatory and inappropriate in the first place? Or did he ask knowing it was? 
2. If he recognizes the contributing role he and other jack-jawed 'journalists' played in the pressure put on the program to perform since, as he wrote in the article, the V-22 was "In development since 1981, at a cost approaching $15 billion, the Osprey was a troubled program. It had been the target of critics inside and outside the Pentagon..."?

I want to ask Lt.Col. Shaefer how much of his desire to clean a record that does not need cleaning, comes from some guilt he (wrongly, I believe) carries inside:

From his position several miles away, Schafer said he knew the two aircraft were too high as they began to descend.

For safety reasons, any pilot or co-pilot on that mission could have called a halt to the plan.


"I could have stopped that crash. I could have called a wave-off. I was the most experienced [pilot]. I had the most hours in the V-22 of the test team," Schafer said. "I've been in their position and been too high in a V-22, and that airplane isn't friendly when you're trying to descend fast."

Most of all, the article gives me (again) the urge to kick Bob Cox's macabre little voyeuristic a**.

Space Coast Guard?

How Quaint. How Naive. How 'Commercial'. How.....'Civilian'.
(H/T Instapundit)
A 'space entrepenuer' and 'Anglophile' James C. Bennett, (with whom I doubt I would find too many disagreements with based upon his writings) steps WAY out of his area of expertise in a new piece at New Atlantis titled "Proposing a ‘Coast Guard’ for Space" where he 'surprise!' promotes his rationale for a Space 'Coast Guard' of sorts. I note that his central reference, what he (not me) describes as: " a thoughtful article published in the Aerospace Power Journal in 2000" in which a "USAF Lt. Col. Cynthia A. S. McKinley proposed the creation of a Space Guard on the Coast Guard model", commits many of the sins of  predecessors in that the superficial 'roles and missions' point of view is used.

Needless to say I prefer another paradigm as a more rational approach to any perceived 'space force' needs.

I would welcome any civil discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the options as presented.

VDH on the Obamification of America

At some point, Obama may conclude that the vast presidential jet, the opulence of the Presidency, the power and influence at his fingertips, all that national wealth and more were not created by Acorn, community organizing, Michelle’s legal brilliance, Axelrod’s savvy advice, or Emanuel’s crassness, or by claiming that doctors needlessly take out tonsils and amputate limbs, or in general by sonorous tones promising to give someone vast amounts of someone else’s money, but rather through preserving a climate of freedom, respect for continuity and tradition, and government non-intrusion into the market place that encourage people to try to go into business and retain some of their profits—as recompense for getting up on Saturday morning at 6AM to get down to open the dry cleaning store, or borrowing one’s net worth to open a new stationary outlet, or staying late till 7PM to do a crown, or gambling that the new $500,000 crane will pay for itself in 5 years, or going under someone’s house on a Sunday to unclog the toilet when the employee doesn’t show up.

He may, Professor, he may. But I hold no hope of it happening. The supply of Obama Brand© 'Hybris' appears to be infinite.

Read all of Professor Hanson's beautiful summation of 'the story so far' here.

PJTV, American Exceptionalism and Elements of Power

Excellent! Bill Whittle at PJTV takes the President and the Pissant (Bill Maher) to school on American Exceptionalism, and does so hitting 3 of the 6 Elements of Power in proving his point via Military, Economic, Scientific and Cultural examples.

I believe his 'Scientific' examples have roots in the Cultural, Demographic, Organizational, Military and perhaps even Geographic Elements of Power (but that probably would have made the video too long).

About that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" So-Called 'Study'

It was a 'study group' of retired senior zeros. THEY CONDUCTED SURVEYS OF PEOPLE'S OPINIONS. I'll get to the so-called 'bipartisan' bit in a minute.

I recently told a late commenter to an earlier post of mine:

I believe one should always argue the data and judge the source by the data, not the data by the source.

The 'study' report gives no REAL data that supports the repeal of the DADT, but that doesn't stop them from asserting that it should be repealed because there is no real data (as they see it) that supports its continuance. This report is at the very least a mere issue advocacy PR release. Is it something else? Let's see.

Now having judged the 'data' (what the source had to say) let us look at the source a little more closely and with some earned skepticism.

I've never heard of the source of the study before: The Palm Center. Nice, friendly, name....What is it?

From their website:

The Palm Center, formerly the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Our data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high quality information is available.

The Center promotes the interdisciplinary analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other marginalized sexual identities in the armed forces by forging a community of scholars, creating a forum for information exchange and debate, offering itself as a launching point for researchers who need access to data and scholarly networks, and supporting graduate student training.

The Center's ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell Project’ will continue to be its first priority under its new name – The Michael D. Palm Center. The goal of the DADT Project is to improve the quality of information available to public deliberations about the military policy.

So, the center's whole reason for its existence is to promote this kind of s*** as science (I love the hilarious claim of 'rigorous social science' - who says engineers don't have a sense of humor?). All the while hiding behind the 'bipartisan' disclaimer. How much press would this tripe have received if it the press release read "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military Study Calls For the End of DADT"?

George Carlin once said something to the effect of: "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."

That sounds about right. Oh, and unless study techniques and data are forthcoming very quickly, I will have to call this BS 'study' PROPAGANDA!

Update 9Jun08 @2300Hrs: I've been commenting on this topic over at Box Turtle Bulletin, and have been waiting patiently for someone to pick up on the ramifications of my asserting the 'study' has a propaganda stink. Why? Because I am OF the surveyed population, and am a part of it at least as much if not more than a lot of retired generals: I am still close to my once-2lts who are now approaching flag rank, my Son is now on a base in Japan, and another significant other (don't know if this is still sensitive info and so will not reveal the relationship at this time) is headed for Afghanistan very soon. Are my opinions and reasons for them a form of bigotry? Hardly. I assert that the insistence that I must think other than I do under some PC mandate could be viewed as a form of fascism. (thank you, Jonah Goldberg). Oh, and as anyone who has read this blog for any length of time is well aware, some of my thoughts on DADT can be found here.

Update 2, 20Jul08, 2107hrs. Visited the Box Turtle Bulletin to see if any more comments of interest had materialized. Saw only one worth replying to. Saw another one from some swell guy(?) calling himself 'Ben in Oakland' who went off on a long tirade about something. I think he's upset just because I and other heterosexuals in the military don't want to sleep with him. Evidently that makes guys like me evil.

I Got the AA MD-80 Travelin’ Blues

And I don’t blame American Airlines at all: not one whit.

Friday, I was in the Ontario (California) Airport Terminal 4 and like Darryl Jenkins, I blame the FAA and the Crack Congressional Crises Squad (akin to the Crack Jewish Suicide Squad). I might even blame Boeing (the manufacturer by default since they hold the MD-80 ‘type certificate’ that came with the purchase of McDonnell Douglas).

Yesterday:

I’m sitting here typing this post in ONT - eating a too-expensive-even-by-airport-standards hamburger… and waiting optimistically for a flight back to DFW. The ‘crises’ began a long time ago but got rolling big time about the point I got airborne out of DFW on Monday -- and I’d been watching it drag out all week: hoping it would clear up before I had to return today.
VERY late last night I checked my AA reservation via laptop and a notice to call 'AA Reservations' popped up. I called them only to find my flight back to DFW was cancelled and they had me booked flying out on Saturday afternoon. As I was speaking with the very nice agent (who also had a relative trapped in Washington DC over this problem) a seat opened up for a flight later today so I took a chance. Will it go? Hope so.
I want to know several things. Why were so many of the MD-80s ‘failed’ when the previous wiring work was inspected? AA has an army of qualified A&P mechanics, and a system that supports them. Was the tech data they worked to comply with too vague? Who issued the data: the Manufacturer or the FAA? Who set the compliance urgency? The FAA?- With ‘help’ from Congress? What was the REAL risk of taking time to fix everything while keeping the schedule going, besides close to FRICKIN’ NIL? Why did the asshats in Congress start “harrumphing” and why did FAA bureaucrats start crapping their pants in response?
I’ll probably calm down and ‘let it go’ by the I get home and return to more pressing issues, but right now like thousands and thousands of other passengers I want to know the whys and wherefores of this here goat-rope, and I know it has very little to do with American Airlines.

Today:
I did get home late yesterday, and it’s good to see some questions being raised.

Congress Causing High Gas Prices: Asks Oil Companies Why

I actually prepared this a while back for a friend at work who begrudges the oil companies their profit. Every time the quarterly earnings come out we get treated to the despair over the oil company profits by our more Socialist leadership 'leaders'. Did you ever wonder why 'oil profits' are never presented in any context, but always in raw numbers without any frame of reference? I made the chart below just for those out there who can't grasp just how big 'big oil' is. This is a graphic view of the 2006 profitability of the 2007 Fortune 1000 companies.

That's right: Exxon Mobile is only a 'mid-performing company, making about 11 cents profit off every dollar it takes in. It's just a freaking HUGE mid-performing company.

Now all we have to do is get Congress to stop pandering to the Enviros and the rest of the far left, and we can lower prices at the pump AND improve the bottom line for Exxon etal.

Air Force Readiness? (AF Reshaping BS Point of Interest)

I REALLY AM still trying to close out the AF Reshaping BS series -- Honest!

The hard part is getting the answer nobody wants to hear into a form that somebody will at least attempt to read. IN the meantime, I just found a piece about how AF readiness is down at www.noangst.blogspot.com (could not get link to work for some reason, but the link is still the title of this post if you want to try it).
I intend to start visiting there regularly myself.

Enjoy.

BTW: Here's a hint on where I'm going with this series. I had a discussion with an awfully darned smart O-6 yesterday, and we agreed:

The problem is rooted in trying to do a Superpower's job on less than a Superpower Sidekick budget.

3.9% (or less) of GDP (Source: slide 25) for defense and that's WITH a war on? Gimme a break!

The Organizational Element: An Introduction

Six Elements of Power: Organizational

The Organizational Element of National Power is the net effect of a Nation State’s organizational structure and function on its overall ability to carry out and implement its agenda on the world stage. How a Nation State is organized affects its ability to react or adapt to a changing world, and how well it will endure over the long haul.

Pearl Harbor and 9/11/01 could be two examples where a Democratic Republic experienced events that perhaps a dictatorial regime might have prevented. But they are also examples of how a Democratic Republic could endure events that would have toppled a dictatorship.

This element of power isn’t all at the upper levels either. From the three branches of Federal Government down to the states, counties, and town councils, how each part of the organization overlaps when necessary, or is clearly delineated and apart from the rest, will contribute or hinder the most efficient and effective way for a society to function in a changing world. It also includes the ways and means by which civic and service organizations interact with the official organizational entities, when civic and service groups are chartered to act in support of the organizational entities' charters.

The Organizational Element, could be said to be the framework by which other elements are most (or least, or anywhere in-between) effectively exploited by a Nation State.