Category Archives: national security

June 2, 2010 · 17:32

June 1944 and June 2010: Fog Friction and the Unexpected Events that Influence History

The Normandy Invasion

There are few months in history when the courses of events change in a global sense, however the month of June 1944 was one of them. In June 1944 the Allies were on the offensive. The initiative had shifted to their favor in every theater of the war. On June first 1^st 1944 the United States and Britain were preparing to cross the English Channel and invade France at Normandy. In Italy Allied Forces were moving forward after a long series of battles at Salerno, Monte Casino, the Rapido River and Anzio the US 5^th Army was closing in on Rome. In Russia the Red Army was preparing for its summer offensive aimed at the destruction of the German Army Group Center. In Central Pacific US Navy and Marine Forces with some attached Army units were sailing to invade the Marinas islands and into a confrontation with the bulk of the Imperial Japanese Navy which was planning to attempt the destruction of the US Fleet and invasion forces. In offices and headquarters around Germany and occupied Europe senior military officers, politicians, police officials and members of the intelligentsia and clergy were plotting a coup to kill Hitler and drive the Nazis from power. In the United States President Roosevelt was running for re-election for the 3^rd time, it was a time when the world hung in the balance and while each adversary had a desired outcome none was sure.

In fact D-Day was a very near run thing and Rome was surrendered by the Germans without a fight that might have bled the Allies in Italy dry, the Germans were quite adept at defense in built up areas and the Soviets benefited greatly from the withholding of vital reinforcements from the front by the Command of the German Replacement Army which was deeply involved in the plot to overthrow Hitler and keeping large numbers of divisions in Germany to assist them to take over when Hitler was killed. In the Pacific the Admiral Nimitz and his subordinates commanded a fleet like none before yet still faced many unknowns that could derail the campaign if they were not careful. The lives of millions of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen from a host of nations as well as noncombatants in almost every theater of the war depended on decisions made in carious capitals, military and naval headquarters and such annoying things as weather, logistics and the “fog of war” as Clausewitz so aptly put it. In fact once the die was cast and the battle joined on all of these fields of battle decisions of junior commanders and even small units would play major roles in the outcomes and the plans of the various nations would have to be adjusted as no plan survives contact with the enemy.

Carl Von Clausewitz in his book “On War” developed the understanding of “the fog of war”

That is the way that history tends to develop. The participants see the events around them, make plans and make assumptions. They do this in the hopes of achieving an outcome that favors them and their cause yet at the end of the day no matter how well they plan, whatever advantages or disadvantages they or their opponents have are subject to chance once the die is cast, unexpected circumstances events and seemingly innocuous choices lay waste to the most carefully crafted plans. Add to this the mistakes and actions of even the most modest and unassuming people, failures of equipment, the introduction of new or unexpected weaponry, tactics or operational concepts and the fog becomes thicker and friction greater. Finally there is the success or failure of the boring aspects of war such as logistics, economics, industrial production and the respective national will of each nation all affect the outcome of conflict as the failure of a simple part of a system can have catastrophic results.

Iranian Missile Boat and UH-1 Helicopter…What will happen in June 2010?

One has to ask what ifs when dealing with events in times of war, conflict and economic chaos and this is exactly the world that we live in today. I do not need to recite the numerous areas of war and conflict around the globe but in each case the participants all have desired outcomes which whether grounded in reality or not influence their actions and their responses to competitors in given situations. The United States is trying to withdraw US combat forces from Iraq and at the same time launch a major offensive at the spiritual heart of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Additionally the US is working with Allies to prevent Iran from developing or obtaining a nuclear weapon and attempt to garner a settlement in the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and conflict with Hezbollah. Any of this missions would be difficult enough on its own but the United States like all major powers has other concerns and when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship, a clash erupts between Israel and groups attempting to breach the Israeli blockade of the Palestinian Authority all the while natural and commercial disasters impact the US, our economy and the environment. At home the country faces continued terrorist threats from radical Moslem extremist groups as well as a crisis at its southern border. To cap everything off the political division in the country adds yet another complication to an already muddled mess.

All of this as well as things that I have not mentioned or that we don’t expect to happen impact military plans and operations around the world just as unexpected and unplanned for events impacted what happened in that fateful month of June 1944. What will happen in June of 2010? God only knows, the best laid plans of mice and men are often rudely disrupted by the uncertainty of the fog of war as well as the unexpected events that seem to occur when they are the least convenient for us. It will be interesting to see what the world likes like by the end of the summer. God have mercy on us.

Peace

Padre Steve+

The North Korean Order of Battle

This article is a follow up to my article about the sinking of the South Korean Navy Corvette Cheonan and the subsequent developments on the peninsula. With North Korea continually raising the rhetoric following its sinking of the Cheonan on March 26^th it is important that people in the United States know what this tiny, poor, aggressive, paranoid and mysterious, yet militarily savvy nation has in its arsenal and what its goals in a renewal of hostilities against the South and US Forces in Korea might look like. I will publish articles on basic North Korean plans and war aims, Special Weapons, and ROK/US Forces and plans in the next few days. All are from unclassified sources. Since this was originally posted the situation has continued to deteriorate and I have published an article entitled The South Korean Order of Battle

https://padresteve.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/the-south-korean-order-of-battle/

DPRK Forces are large, well trained in military tactics and political ideology

The according to the Library of Congress and unclassified Central Intelligence Agency estimates the make-up of the military forces of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is listed below:

PERSONNEL
Total Population: 23,479,088 [2008]
Population Available: 12,414,017 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 10,280,687 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 392,016 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 1,170,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 4,700,000 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 189,000 [2008]

ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 16,400
Tanks: 3,500 [2006]
Armored Personnel Carriers: 2,500 [2006]
Towed Artillery: 3,500 [2006]
Self-Propelled Guns: 4,400 [2006]
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 2,500 [2006]
Mortars: 7,500 [2006]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 11,000 [2006]

NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 708
Merchant Marine Strength: 167 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 12
Aircraft Carriers: 0 [2008]
Destroyers: 0 [2008]
Submarines: 97 [2008]
Frigates: 3 [2006]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 492 [2006]
Mine Warfare Craft: 23 [2006]
Amphibious Craft: 140 [2006]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 1,778 [2006]
Helicopters: 612 [2006]
Serviceable Airports: 77 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $5,500,000,000 [2005]
Purchasing Power: $40,000,000,000 [2007]

OIL
Oil Production: 141 bbl/day [2005]
Oil Consumption: 10,520 bbl/day [2006]

LOGISTICAL
Labor Force: 20,000,000 [2004]
Roadways: 25,554 km
Railways: 5,235 km

GEOGRAPHIC
Waterways: 2,250 km
Coastline: 2,495 km
Square Land Area: 120,540 km

The Same sources provide this data for South Korea

PERSONNEL
Total Population: 48,379,392 [2008]
Population Available: 26,721,668 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 21,966,367 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 696,516 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 687,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 4,500,000 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 22,000 [2008]

ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 8,325
Tanks: 1,060 [2004]
Armored Personnel Carriers: 2,480 [2004]
Towed Artillery: 4,000 [2004]
Self-Propelled Guns: 500 [2004]
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 185 [2004]
Mortars: 6,000 [2004]
Anti-Tank Guided Weapons: 58 [2004]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 1,692 [2004]

NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 85
Merchant Marine Strength: 812 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 4
Aircraft Carriers: 0 [2008]
Destroyers: 6 [2004]
Submarines: 20 [2004]
Frigates: 9 [2004]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 75 [2004]
Mine Warfare Craft: 15 [2004]
Amphibious Craft: 28 [2004]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 538 [2004]
Helicopters: 502 [2004]
Serviceable Airports: 150 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $25,500,000,000 [2007]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $262,200,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $1,206,000,000,000 [2007]

OIL
Oil Production: 17,050 bbl/day [2005]
Oil Consumption: 2,130,000 bbl/day [2006]
Proven Oil Reserves: 0 bbl [2006]

LOGISTICAL
Labor Force: 24,220,000 [2007]
Roadways: 102,062 km
Railways: 3,472 km

GEOGRAPHIC
Waterways: 1,608 km
Coastline: 2,413 km
Square Land Area: 98,480 km

According to the National Intelligence Service (NIS) of the Republic of Korea (ROK) the balance of forces between the South and the North is listed below.

Ground Forces

North Korea possesses a total of 996,000 ground forces in twenty corps units (12 infantry, 4 mechanized, 2 artillery) plus a light Special Forces command, which oversees special warfare units.

Its heavy equipment consists of 3800 tanks (T-55, T-62, T-72, light tanks), 2270 armored personnel carriers, and 11200 pieces of field artillery, with a major percentage self-propelled for purposes of speedy artillery support. The units are geared for mechanized warfare reminiscent of the Nazi blitzkrieg.

Last but not least, 100,000 Special Forces troopers stand ready to engage in sabotage behind the lines, sowing confusion and turning the whole ROK into a battlefield.

Navy

Yono Class Midget Sub

The DPRK Navy is divided into East Sea (10 squadrons) and West Sea fleets (6 squadrons) with a total manpower of 48,000.

North Korea’s fleet consist of approximately 430 combat vessels (Patrol craft, guided missile boats, torpedo boats, fire support craft), 40 submarines (15 midgets), and 340 support craft (landing craft, hovercraft). Like the ground forces 60% of the vessels are stationed near the demarcation line.

North Korea has constructed and is operating up to 130 hovercraft, each one capable of transporting a special forces platoon and operating freely in difficult terrain such as tidal flats, and able to be used for multiple landings by special forces troops at the onset of the war.

Air Force

The air force has a total of six divisions (103,000); 3 for combat (fighter/bomber regiments), 2 for transport and helicopter, and one devoted exclusively for training.

Most of the 1670 aircraft are obsolete, with only sixty modern aircraft (MiG-23, 29). The mainstays consist of 470 old Soviet aircraft (MiG-19, MiG-21, IL-28, SU-7, SU-25) and 320 of ancient type (MiG-15, MiG-17). But it does possess a whopping 820 support aircraft and helicopters.

The aircraft that causes the most concern is the 300 AN-2, flying at 100 mph at low altitudes, that makes detection by radar very difficult, and its transport of Special Forces troopers deep behind the lines is a very definite threat.

The NIS provides the following comparison between the forces of the two Koreas.

ROK (South Korea) DPRK (North Korea)

Total Ground forces Navy Air Force	690,000 560,000 67,000 63,000	1,147,000 996,000 48,000 103,000
Corps Div./Brigades	11 71	20 153
Tanks APC Artillery	2,150 2,250 4,800	3,800 2,270 11,200
Combat vessels Submarines Support vessels Total	180 5 40 225	430 40 340 810
Combat aircraft Support aircraft Helicopters Total	550 180 630 1,360	850 510 310 1,670

North Korea’s regular army consists of 4 corps in the front area, 8 corps in the rear area, one tank corps, 5 armored corps, 2 artillery corps, and 1 corps for the defense of Pyongyang, a total of over 80 divisions and Brigades. Almost all of these forces are based near the DMZ and require little time to be ready for an offensive. In fact because the North Koreans maintains these forces on a continuous state of alert there will likely be little appreciable warning before a commencement of hostilities.

DPRK Special Operations equipment, the SILC Submersible Landing Craft, a Mini-Sub captured in 1996 while attmptign to land commandos in the South and the AN-2 Colt transport aircraft

North Korea has approximately 120,000 troops assigned its Special Forces, the largest Special Forces organization in the world. The Special Forces of the DPRK are grouped into 25 brigades of various types to include light infantry, attack, airborne, and sea-born commando units. They have the support of the Navy and Air Force and use high speed hovercraft and other fast maritime craft, miniature submarines and the AN-2 “Colt” which can transport a squad of soldiers and is virtually undetectable to radar. These troops will be tasked to open a “2^nd Front” by attacking US military installations in Korea, Japan, Okinawa and Guam as well as by disrupting South Korean headquarters, logistics centers, communications facilities, media outlets and government agencies in particular targeting members of the National Command Authority.

The Korean Peninsula is rugged and crisscrossed with numerous streams and rivers. The climate is difficult hot summers and very cold winters. The one time that the North has invaded the South it did so in the summer, June 25^th 1950.

To be continued….

14 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, Military, national security

Tagged as an-2 colt, cheonan warship, democratic people's republic of korea, north korea, north korea military forces, north korea special forces, republic of korea, silc attack boat, south korea, t-62 tank

May 12, 2010 · 00:56

Padre Steve Might be a Mad Cow Carrier and Can’t Give Blood…He’s “Mad” as Hell and isn’t going to take it anymore!

I am guilty yes guilty my friends. I have about a one in a zillion chance of having the dreaded variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease but if your believe those who promote conspiracy theories and unscientific assumptions I am probably something like Typhoid Mary just waiting to unleash death and destruction on millions of unsuspecting God fearing beef eating Americans by donating blood. That is my alleged crime and while it is not a ‘crime’ in the truest sense of the word it might as well be as it ostracizes me and hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of veterans and their dependants from a civic duty that many of us did before all the media hype that surrounded the decision to ban us from being able to give blood. It is discriminatory, exclusionary and for that matter bad public policy.

Now my dear readers what is my crime and the punishment that has been inflicted on me? I was in the military and lived in Europe in the 1980s and 1990s for a period of about four years. That my dear reader makes me ineligible to donate blood even if I am otherwise healthy and willing to give in time of need. However the rule is rather arbitrary in nature. It specifies that living in most of Europe for 6 months or more if you are in the military is enough for a person to be a risk. However the rules tolerate those who go on beef eating and haggis hogging binges for limited amounts of time while wearing kilts in Great Britain. It is an absurd standard to hold anyone to as the fact is simple, if you didn’t eat high risk cattle you have almost no chance of contracting or carrying the disease.

I readily admit that in that time in Europe I did eat beef. Mind you dear reader it was always well cooked and I certainly never ate Haggis. However I am now and have been for many years treated as if I had some exotic and deadly plague like I was infected with HIV or Hepatitis B, diseases that are proven to be transmitted through contaminated blood products. I my friends am the poster child of what it is to be discriminated against based on special interest groups and media fear mongering. That absurd fear mongering got our wonderful Food and Drug Administration and other government regulatory agencies to take draconian measures to stop something that in the scope of infectious disease is rather low on the threat scale. I say that such action is not based on legitimate public health concerns but on a political agenda that uses fear to accomplish what it never could at the ballot box.

Now mind you Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) or the variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) or the real “Mad Cow” disease is no laughing matter but statistics underlying the incidence of the disease in the United States of vCJD show that if there is a threat it is very limited and that the chances of the Cubs winning the Worlds Series are better than getting this dread disease. Even statistics of a supposed “second wave” of vCJD in Great Britain estimate about 70 persons over a period of years during a “second wave” of vCJD might die, at worst case the number is 600. In fact in Britain only one case of transmission of vCJD though blood products has been confirmed and if all people who had eaten beef lived in and eaten beef in Britain were barred from donating blood the British would likely have to convert oil tankers to bring blood in from around the world. But they are not while people in the United States who lived in Europe, not even Great Britain are banned as a class from donating blood and the vast majority of these Americans are military members and their dependants.

I am a supporter of stringent policies on infectious diseases but if in Britain, the very epicenter of a disease that reared its ugly head in the early 1980s people can and do donate blood and the incidence of the disease is miniscule and is scientifically regarded to having more to do with genetics than eating beef. Yet the Federal Government responding to fear mongering press reports and conspiracy theory maniacs have banned an entire class of people from donating the gift of life to those in need. It is absurd and dishonest and plays into the hands of fear mongering power seeking special interests groups that claim the public good while discriminating against a whole class of people whose only crime was to serve their country. Bill O’Reilly and Steven Colbert do you hear me?

Before this I was almost a religious blood donor I learned it from my dad who I think had his golden bucket from the Delta Blood Bank in Stockton. In fact he took me to donate for the first time and I continued because it was the right thing to do. I donated until I was branded with the scarlet letter of being a potential carrier of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and have been refused ever since. This is also true for hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of healthy military members, veterans and family members who ate a steak in Germany or some other western European country because we might have eaten a significant amount of “Bully” British Beef or perhaps a butt load of Scottish Haggis even though the chances of having these delicacies is significantly lower in good old Deutschland where people would rather eat Argentinean beef than beef from a country that they thought they should own by now and where the vast majority of the beef is well rather “brown-shirted” if you get my drift. If the CDC or FDA has banned a whole class of patriot Americans from donating blood at least do it based on a preponderance of evidence and not speculation and paranoia.

In the United States we often run short of blood but we exclude by default one of the healthiest and giving groups of people in the world from giving. There are times in every major medical center that blood products run in short supply because of supply and demand. Most donations centers have on hand no more than a 3 day supply for normal transfusion needs and if a major catastrophe involving vast numbers of traumatic injuries occurred, the supply would be gone in no time and people would die for the lack of blood. Unfortunately in the world of potential mass casualties caused by terrorism or natural disaster this is a more likely occurrence than a mass outbreak of vCJD. Quite often there is more demand than supply and red blood cells have a short shelf life of 35-42 days at refrigerated temperatures and plasma can be frozen but has a shelf life of only about a year meaning that those stocks are also limited.

So rather than looking at statistics and solid data military members are banned from donating blood unless they choose to dishonor themselves by lying about it. I have never done that as much as I wanted to give blood. Heck we have an Armed Service Blood Center in our very hospital whose outreach director is one of my former Lieutenants from my days as a company commander in Germany. I may be at times “mad” but my “madness” is both genetic as from a bit of PTSD, but my blood is a-okay high test 104 Octane B positive blood and I cannot donate when I want to because the debate is being driven by anti-beef eating, anti-military food Nazis who use this ‘cause’ to spread fear and increase their power relative to the rest of us. Just take a look at their websites which are populated with hyperbole even more hyperbolous than what I spout.

I contend that I and hundreds of thousands of veterans and military members have been damaged by the zealotry of the “Mad Cow” fear mongers and their media accomplices which did its best to spread panic about this incredibly rare disease by showing infected cattle lurching around barnyards. Now it is true that this is a heinous disease but incredibly rare and for the most part has been controlled even in docile cows.

My argument is that there is a terrible need for blood products and a whole group of people are being discriminated against on the basis of media hype and pressure by special interest groups. I know by saying this that it makes me a target and that once this post gets some hits that I will have one of these anti-beef eating, anti-military and national security ignoring bozos will post nasty things about me. So far as they don’t call me a Dodger fan I will be civil despite the fact that they won’t rest until none of us can give blood because we ate beef once in our lives.

I wish that some bold law firm would take this up as a class action suit naming the FDA, CDC and every major television network that spread the fear which drives the decision to bar an entire group of healthy people from giving blood. This may seem callous and insensitive but I say let’s stick it to these guys and let them see the shoe is on the other foot. Let’s kick their vegan asses back to the planet Vegan where they belong. It’s late tonight but tomorrow its cheeseburger time for Padre Steve, pass the condiments please and get my stein ready.

So until the next time I say peace and may the law be with us. Maybe there is a reason that some of my classmates in seminary said that I should have gone to law school. Maybe that’s what I’ll do with my GI Bill when I retire go to law school pass the bar and be a Priest-Lawyer, but not a Canon Lawyer, no money in that is there? So let’s go out and win a billion dollars or so from these oppressors of individual liberty and the common good.

Anyway Peace Out my brothers and sisters, have a burger or steak tonight.

Love ya,

Padre Steve+

23 Comments

Filed under healthcare, laws and legislation, national security, Political Commentary

Tagged as beef, bill o'reilly, blood donation, blood product shelf life, blood supply, bully beef, cdc, cjd, class action lawsuits, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, discrimination, europe, fda, germany, great britain, haggis, lawyers, mad cow, media fear mongering, media lies, military exclusion from donating blood, special interest groups, steven colbert, vcjd

February 5, 2010 · 23:59

I Agree With Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

Note: This is an article that many will not agree with me on. I know this and write it anyway because I feel it is the right thing to do and also support the highest leaders in my military chain of command in what will be a contentious and acrimonious debate. I know that people on both sides of this issue are sincere in what they believe and if my position is in opposition to others I mean no disrespect. My position comes from 28 plus years in the military in which I have both served with and commanded homosexual soldiers who were stellar individuals and soldiers. Likewise as a chaplain I have dealt with, served with and cared for homosexual Soldiers, Marines and Sailors who in order to serve were and still are forced to cover up an essential part of their life in order to serve in the military, deploy in harm’s way and risk all to serve our country. While some readers may not agree with me I do hope that people will not simply write off what I have to say because of their passionately held beliefs. I do believe that people can disagree and debate but at the end of the day we are all still Americans. I dedicate this post to the service of the homosexual men and women with whom I have served and continue to serve among. I pray that they will be able to serve openly without fear of retribution.

I have been in the military 28 plus years having served in the Army, Army National Guard, Army Reserve and the Navy. In my Navy career I have served multiple times with the Marines and also Navy EOD. I have been a platoon leader, company executive officer, company commander, and battalion, brigade and group staff officer. I have served two tours in combat zones as an advisor to US Navy boarding teams before Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as working with our Marine, Army, Navy and Air Force advisers in Al Anbar Province. In the course of my career I have served alongside of many homosexual Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors. With very few exceptions I found them to be selfless, patriotic, professionals who had to live a lie in order to serve the country that they love.

When Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates announced their support to end the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law that in effect says that homosexuals are allowed to serve as long as they lie about who they are I was pleased. I have known so many professional, patriotic and selfless men and women who as military servicemen and women have had to lie about an essential part of who they are in order to serve that I felt horrible for the fact that they had to hide who they are or face removal from the service. Even if they served with distinction and rose to the highest ranks as was the case with some and did not cause problems that they could be discharged from the military for either admitting their sexual preference or having someone “turn them in.” Of course either under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was enough end their career and was something that I found to be both cruel and hypocritical.

I was platoon leader, company executive officer, company commander and brigade and battalion staff officer in the Army prior to becoming a Chaplain. As such I dealt with military justice, military law and personnel policies as well as the management of soldiers diagnosed as HIV positive. As the Adjutant of the Academy Brigade of the Academy of Health Sciences I worked with commanders and prosecutors the first case where a heterosexual soldier was convicted of intentionally spreading the HIV virus in 1987. I dealt with the heartbreaking cases of career soldiers who found out that they had tested positive for that virus simply because I was the junior personnel officer in the organization and those senior to me at the schoolhouse did not want to meet these men. I helped draft with members of the Office of the Surgeon General the Army policy on managing personnel with HIV and AIDS.

In my career I have known many honorable, decent and even yes “Christian” soldiers, sailors and Marines who were homosexual. In fact the vast majority of them were less trouble, less promiscuous and better soldiers, Marines or Sailors than their peers. Even so they could not then and still cannot openly admit to their sexual preference. My take is that in this age of where so many people are willing to say “I support the Troops” a yellow ribbon in their yard or decal on their car but unwilling to sign on the dotted line that it is wrong to forbid homosexuals to serve without fear of being discharged for admitting that they are gay for their sexual preference alone. I feel that a man or woman who wants to serve our country knowing that we are at war and that they will likely be deployed into a combat zone should be allowed to so long as they meet the same standards that every other military member must meet in order to serve. To me the issue is about conduct and performance and not someone’s sexual preference. From a professional point of view this comes down to a matter of military personnel exhibiting professional conduct and behavior and not to their sexual preference. So long as they are not making unwanted sexual advances in the workplace, not using command influence to force people into unwanted sex nor being so promiscuous that their conduct off base jeopardizes compromises them or jeopardizes national security that they should be allowed to serve openly. These are exactly the same standards applied to heterosexuals. If they violate them then like any other Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman they should be disciplined. I do not believe that various religious groups and political parties or even veterans groups should have veto power over this should the study commissioned by the SECDEF determine that the change will not cause undue disruption in the force or compromise our ability to successfully wage war and the Congress change the law to allow them to serve openly.

Twenty-five other countries including Israel and much of NATO allow openly homosexual men and women to serve and this has not impeded the professionalism of their military. Those countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay. Many of the soldiers from these nations currently serve alongside of American forces in Afghanistan and have been in Iraq. Additionally the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency all allow openly homosexual men and women to serve in their ranks.

I liked Admiral Mullen’s blog http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?ID=221 and could not agree more with the Admiral. I can say that I have served alongside homosexuals since the time that I enlisted. For the most part they have been hard working, honest and decent people who I would have loved to have as a neighbor or friend. Like any other segment of humanity there have been some that I did not think should be in the military but this was not to their sexual preference but rather their performance and conduct. Simply put some people regardless of sexual preference do not have what it takes to serve in the military. If they cannot cut being in the military due to bad physical conditioning, lack of the brainpower needed to function in a high tech military or medical reasons, past criminal conduct or associations with groups opposed to the government, they should not be allowed to serve. I don’t care if they are heterosexual, homosexual or vegisexual if they meet service criteria to serve they should be allowed to serve. Likewise if someone is willing to endure multiple deployments knowing the reality that they will serve in harm’s way and are willing to do so for King and Country I definitely think that they should be allowed to do so without penalty. I do not see the military seeking to throw out every heterosexual who has committed adultery, have sexual additions of various sorts or who have relationships that if are not outright fraternization are awfully close; all of which violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Thus it puzzles me as to why homosexuals, especially those in a committed and stable relationship should be held to a higher standard than heterosexual who are not. If the standard is conduct then the rules need to apply equally to all in an equitable manner.

To me as a Christian, Priest and career military officer it seems hypocritical to ask homosexuals to lie about a major part of their lives in order to serve on active duty and then if they do “come out of the closet” to bring them up on charges or discharge them because they seek to be honest about their sexual preference. When one takes a look at some the rather distinguished careers of some of those discharged, men and women who have served bravely in combat and been effective leaders it seems that the policy is flawed. It makes men and women who volunteer to serve the country in time of war to live a lie, in other words make them commit a violation of integrity in order to serve. What if the same standard was applied to other personal beliefs? Can you imagine the outcry if Christians were told that in order to serve in the military that they could not do anything to acknowledge their faith even off base or in their home? Can you imagine the outcry if someone who is the member of a legal and legitimate political or social group such as those who are part of the pro-life movement or any other religious or moral cause being told that they will be discharged if they acknowledge their beliefs with a bumper sticker supporting their cause? What “don’t ask don’t tell” tells people that if they want to serve that they cannot be honest about where they are. Fundamentally is tells them that they should violate personal integrity in order to serve in a manner that is not applied to others who have beliefs or viewpoints that may be controversial or even serve to cause discord in the ranks. Cases in point are military members who identify themselves as such on Neo-Nazi websites, such behavior and beliefs are certainly more potentially more dangerous to the military than homosexuality.

To be sure “throughout its existence, the United States military has viewed homosexuality as being incompatible with military service. The military identified sodomy as grounds for a dishonorable discharge under the Articles of War adopted in 1776, though it did not identify homosexuality as a “status” until 1942. During the Carter Administration, the “no exception” policy was adopted, officially banning homosexuals from military service.”[i]

“A Navy study, popularly referred to as the Crittenden Report, concluded as early as “1957 that homosexual service members did not pose a greater security risk than heterosexual personnel.” The Secretary of the Navy appointed a board to evaluate the Navy’s policies and procedures governing homosexual service members. No major changes were recommended, in part because of the military’s reluctance to “liberalize standards ahead of the civilian climate.”

The findings did acknowledge that many more homosexuals were likely serving in the Armed Forces than the small number that had been involuntarily discharged. The report noted that “there have been many known instances of individuals who have served honorably and well, despite being exclusively homosexual.”

The board also found no factual data to support the premise that homosexual service members “necessarily” posed a security risk. Research indicated that factors unrelated to sexual orientation constituted security risks and that the type of sexual activity mattered less than the “matter of indiscretion.” “According to the report, intelligence officers sometimes considered heterosexual relations more of a security threat than homosexual conduct.” See the PDF of the Crittenden report at:

http://www.lonelygods.com/res/crittenden_report.pdf

[ii]

From what I see in the ranks the younger generation of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen are much more open-minded about homosexuals in the military than my generation and those immediately following mine. It is doubtlessly true that some would not be comfortable around openly homosexual servicemen and women but it is also true that many of the same service members serve alongside homosexuals presently without conflict or any major issues. However as both Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates noted it is best to actually hear from the troops as we look at the issue and be prudent in the way the change is done. It is far more preferable to let the military examine the issue and come up with a plan than it is to allow special interest groups of any kind and politicians to decide the issue by legislative fiat be it to keep “don’t ask don’t tell” or to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military. The Israeli experience may actually help the U.S. military in dealing with the issue. In 1993 Israel removed “all restrictions on gay and lesbian soldiers were dropped. Homosexuals in the Israel Defense Forces could join close-knit combat units or serve in sensitive intelligence posts. They were eligible for promotion to the highest ranks. Fourteen years later, Israelis are convinced they made the right decision. “It’s a non-issue,” said David Saranga, a former IDF officer and now Israel’s consul for media and public affairs in New York. “There is not a problem with your sexual tendency. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one and be gay at the same time.”” [iii]

Attitudes in the ranks have changed since the 1990s like the rest of the country military personnel are now more comfortable with openly homosexual personnel. A Zogby poll conducted in 2006 noted that “nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Of the 20% who said they are uncomfortable around gays and lesbians, only 5% are “very” uncomfortable, while 15% are “somewhat” uncomfortable. Just two percent of troops said knowing that gays are not allowed to serve openly was an important reason in their decision to join the military.” http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/readnews.cfm?ID=1222

Having served for nearly 29 years I think that the numbers in the poll are reflective of the military population. A CNN-Gallup Poll of 4-6 May 2007 reported that “Seventy-nine percent of poll respondents said openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. Eighteen percent said they should not.” http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html If we indeed are a republic that reflects the views of the people then maybe politicians and special interest groups need to listen to military men and women as well as the country at large. I have listened to arguments on both sides of the issue and while in 1993 I agreed at “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was the right way to go I do not agree with some of the arguments used to maintain the present law like people ogling each other in the showers. Since most showers even in combat zones have separate stalls it is a straw man argument which appeals to emotion rather than appealing to fact. Likewise comments such as those by Oliver North insinuating if gays were allowed to openly serve in the military that: Now, here’s what’s next. NAMBLA members, same-sex marriages. Are chaplains in the U.S. military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they get government housing?[iv] North’s comment is simply incendiary especially in regard to the question about chaplains being “required” to perform “these types of rituals” is not rooted in any fact as no chaplain is required to perform rites or sacraments that go against what his or her church or religious body teaches nor their personal beliefs. To suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous.

An interesting study by a student at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College making the point to change the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law is found here:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508994&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

This is a subject that needs to be addressed because it deals with patriot Americans who desire to serve their country in time of war. I pray that the law will be changed and that when the times comes for that change that people will not act in an acrimonious manner but instead be thankful that these men and women are willing to serve when so many are not. I know that some will totally disagree with my reasoning and that I will likely get some flak for this position, but I find the arguments of the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to have merit and to be reasonable and should at least be examined in a dispassionate matter by the military before any decision is made by Congress.

Peace,

Steve+

[i] Captain M Suhre, Changing the Department of Defense’s Policy on Homosexuals Marine Corps Command and Staff College 19 February 2008 retrieved from

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508994&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf 5 Feb 2010

[ii] The Crittendon Report: Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing with Homosexuals 21 December 1956- 15 March 1957. Retrieved from http://www.lonelygods.com/res/crittenden_report.pdf 5 February 2010

[iii] Martin, Susan Taylor. Israeli experience may sway US Army policy on gays retrieved from http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=361 5 February 2010

[iv] Oliver North on the Sean Hannity Show retrieved at

http February ://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584942,00.html 5 February 2010

5 Comments

Filed under Military, national security, Political Commentary

Tagged as crittendon report, don't ask don't tell, gays in military

February 2, 2010 · 22:24

Groundhog Day, Tapping the Keller Heller and Padre Steve’s Top World War Two Articles

Well today is Groundhog Day and Punxatwany Phil has predicted another six weeks of old man winter. This is something that does not surprise me as I expect to be “chilling” at Harbor Park the night of April 8^th when the Tides play the Bulls in their home opener. Back in 2005 the temperature was 38 degrees at game time with winds gusting to 40 mph blowing in over the center field wall. Since we have already had a massive snowstorm this last weekend and may get another bout of winter weather beginning Friday I know the cuddly furball is right. Every day I wake up thanking God for global warming as I can’t imagine how cold it would be without it. So winter is here to stay for a while and I guess my short cargo pants have to wait until opening day to come back out. Anyway while at back after trudging back to the office after my 0715 meeting I ran into one of our other chaplains in the hallway near our small Navy Exchange. I went into the exchange to pick up a bottle of water and some apples and after waiting in line left the exchange to head back to the officer where I ran into the same chaplain in almost the same location. I asked “didn’t I just see you here?” Since I had just passed him and he was going the other way I thought it was déjà vu all over again. I followed up my question with the comment “well it is Groundhog Day.” So once again though not waking to the sound of I Got You Babe I was confronted with the reality of Groundhog Day in the flesh several hundred miles from Punxatwany Phil. C’est le guerre.

Not today’s picture but still fun

Tonight was the tapping of the new Gordon Biersch seasonal brew, a “Keller Heller.” The Abbess and I went there with our 80 plus friend Eileen who is here on her annual trip from Brooklyn back to North Carolina. Eileen is a good Irish Catholic who remembers bar-hopping with her late husband. She had a blast and folks loved her. Some of the regulars were calling the Keller Heller a Heller Keller when we first tried a version of it at our Stein Club Christmas dinner and voted on the next seasonal. When I heard “Heller Keller” I automatically started calling it “Helen Keller” because if you drink too much of it you’ll go blind. We tasted brew master Allen Young’s version at a Stein Club get-together last week and it is well worth it. The hops are from Germany and have been used in the making of the Czech Pilsner Urquell for many years. They are a bit pricy from what I understand and Allen got a metric ton to do the brew so this seasonal should be around for a while. According the Allen only one other American brewery has used them. I can attest that the “Helen Keller” is great and well worth the effort to get it. Of course if you don’t live in Hampton Roads or happen to travel here during the time that we have it you will miss a very good beer. On a side note the Abbess was inducted into the Stein Club and Greg, a recently retired Navy Medical Service Corps Officer and I provided back-up to the back-up singers at the tapping party. The good thing was that the music was ‘50s retro and “do-wops” and other such lyrics are not hard to do. The best part was when we helped out with “Jailhouse Rock” and yes we were dancing to the jailhouse rock, actually kind of reminded me of the Blues Brothers. I guess that there is nothing like a couple of old Navy junior officers to have some fun at something like this. So anyway if you are in Hampton Roads and want a great beer come down to Gordon Biersch at Town Center. Do I get extra Passport Points for the plug?

So anyway, since I am just kind of rambling right now here are links to my “Top 10 World War II Articles.” I have left off articles that are more composite and only included some Second World War material.

The Ideological War: How Hitler’s Racial Theories Influenced German Operations in Poland and Russia

D-Day- Courage, Sacrifice and Luck, the Costs of War and Reconciliation

Operation “Dachs” My First Foray into the Genre “Alternative History”

Mortain to Market-Garden: A Study in How Armies Improvise in Rapidly Changing Situations

“Revisionist” History and the Rape of Nanking 1937

Unequal Allies: Lessons from The German’s and Their Allies on the Eastern Front for Today

The Paradox of Conflicting Doctrine: The US Campaign in France and Germany 1944-1945

Can Anybody Spare a DIME: A Short Primer on Early Axis Success and How the Allies Won the Second World War

Ein Volk Steht Auf: The German Volksturm, Ideology and late war Nazi Strategy

The Battleships of Pearl Harbor

So as Groundhog Day 2010 ends and we live our own Groundhog Days over the coming year don’t fear, find the humor in it all and remember that somewhere and somehow in this primordial mess that we live in that the Deity Herself still loves you and that God will never leave you or forsake you, even if you seem to be stuck in some hellish place where one day seems just like the last and the last and the last before the last or even the one or one hundred day that was just like it before that. Did that make sense? If not I think what we have is a failure to misunderstand each other.

Peace

Padre Steve+

Iran Makes Noise in Persian Gulf: Obama Dispatches Patriots and Ships to Deter

Mahmoud Ahamadinejad threatens a “harsh blow at global arrogance”

Something is going on in Iran. The despotic regime of Mahmoud Ahamadinejad has been cracking down on dissidents and protestors over the last few months since the disputed presidential election. Two opposition leaders were hanged yesterday. The opposition is calling for protests on February 11^th to coincide with the 31^st anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. At the same time government supporters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces are planning both pro-regime activities as well as anti-opposition crackdowns in the days leading up to this event. To add to the volatile mixture Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahamadinejad has threatened a “harsh blow against global arrogance” on the 11th. There has been no explanation of what Ahamadinejad meant by his cryptic comments by the Iranian news service but the Obama administration is taking them seriously by sending additional Aegis Missile ships equipped with anti-ballistic missile systems as well as Patriot air defense missiles to the Persian Gulf. To give you a glimpse of some of the confusion surrounding the current situation in Iran and in its implications for the West I have linked a number of articles from a wide variety of sources here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/31/iran.protests/index.html?section=cnn_latest

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U18R20100131?type=politicsNews

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8490929.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01/missile-shield-gulf-ups-ante-iran/?test=latestnews

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=111329&categ_id=17

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201022\story_2-2-2010_pg20_1

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gulf-countries-accept-air-defences/story-e6frg6so-1225825224604

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8811080764

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Supreme-Leader-Claims-Iran-Remains-United-Against-Outside-Threat-82073702.html

http://www.rferl.org/content/Irans_Protesters_Must_Keep_Their_Eyes_On_February_11/1942248.html

http://www.opendemocracy.net/volker-perthes/iran-2010-11-four-scenarios-and-nightmare

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100129/157712614.html

http://www.rferl.org/content/Iran_Media_German_Diplomats_Involved_In_December_Riots_/1941229.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146909.html

http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=25925

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116955&sectionid=3510303

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hos0sGvW5l2cEN2xO2ex4fhamzIw

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L3838323,00.htmlhttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3838323,00.html

http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201001284565/World-Politics/iran-morality-police-vanish-as-more-protests-loom-in-tehran.html

Massed Protests in Iran have been met by force

If you take a look at the details of these various reports there are a number of possibilities in regard to Iran, its internal political tensions and its repeated threats to US and Western interests. There are a myriad of possibilities many of which while directed outward are also directly related to the internal unrest in Iran in which a new generation who have grown up under the religious totalitarianism of the Mullah’s and men like Ahamadinejad who are convinced of the certainty of their beliefs and determined to impose them not only on their own people but their neighbors. Ahamadinejad’s belief in the return of the 12^th Mahdi to bring in a new era where the Caliphate will be established in Jerusalem is another wild card to factor into any equation.

Shahab-3 Missile test launch from mobile launcher

In the past year the Iranians have been increasingly more bellicose concerning their nuclear program and ballistic missile programs and have thwarted US, EU and UN initiatives to ensure that the nascent nuclear capacity is only capable of peaceful use and not capable of producing weapons grade uranium which could then be used in nuclear weapons. They have expanded the number of centrifuges used for enriching uranium as well as continued to disperse and harden nuclear facilities against possible Israeli or US preventive strikes. Additionally they have continued to increase their ballistic and cruise missile capabilities and the newer versions of the Shahab missile are capable of striking Western Europe. The Revolutionary Guard forces have been actively supporting the Hezbollah terrorist group in Lebanon which in 2006 waged a successful war against Israel on the Israeli-Lebanese border. It has continued to improve its asymmetric warfare capabilities as well as Naval and Revolutionary Guard Naval force capacity for disrupting shipping in the Straits of Hormuz through which a large percentage of the world’s oil is transported.

Iranian Missile Boat and Helicopter

Ahamadinejad’s latest remarks are ambiguous and could mean a number of things ranging from empty rhetoric designed to evoke a response from the United States or Israel up to military action. Possible events within the continuum could be measures to destabilize Iraq where recently Iranian forces briefly occupied an Iraqi oil facility on the border near Basra before leaving when Iraq sent troops and threatened force to retake the facility. Likewise a missile test of an upgraded or longer range Shahab could be planned, a military exercise in the Gulf or a test of a nuclear weapon which they might have succeeded in developing in their clandestine labs from previously enriched uranium. The timing of the threat could also mean a military attack against Israel or US allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. Iran could in a “doomsday” strike launch a nuclear weapon (should it have an operation weapon) or chemical or biological weapons against Israel or even the rival Sunni Moslem Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, provoking a retaliatory strike which could embroil the region in a major war and might have worldwide implications. While I would think that the military attack would be a lower possibility the timing which coincides with the anniversary of the Revolution coupled with domestic unrest could mean that Ahamadinejad may feel that the benefit outweighs the risk. It also could mean a stronger domestic crackdown on Iranian dissidents, whichever course of action the Iranians take it could make life even more interesting.

Shore based C-802 Surface to Surface Anti-Ship Missile in Iranian service

With the full spectrum of possibilities from simple rhetoric to a military strike laid out the Obama administration reportedly has sent Patriot Missile batteries to shield key Gulf allies and dispatched additional Aegis anti-ballistic missile capable ships from the US Navy to the Gulf. Past remarks by the administration have been perceived as weak by the Iranians and the demonstration of US resolve by the dispatch of additional forces to the region may be designed to show that the Obama administration is not indecisive but capable of countering military threats to the region.

Additional ships of the Arliegh Burke Class that carry SM-3 missiles and Ant–Ballistic Missile systems have been moved into the Gulf along with Patriot Missile batteries

The administration’s move is prudent considering the potential threat. Iran does not have the capabilities to fight a sustained war but could if fueled by the apocalyptic vision of Ahamadinejad mean that the Iranian government is willing to risk a confrontation with the United States because it perceives the Obama administration as weak. I think that such an assumption by Ahamadinejad would be a serious mistake, however if he were to attempt a military or asymmetric-terrorist act of some kind he could create chaos until the United States and our allies eliminate his offensive capability.

Iranian Nuclear facilities are dispersed around the country and in hardened sites

Potential problems that Iran could cause the United States could include disruption of transition efforts in Iraq through military or terrorist activity as well as to cause casualties or damage US military forces in that country. Far less likely is the possibility that the Iranians could offer support to their rivals in Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan if for no other reason than to disrupt the US/NATO mission in that country. Likewise the Iranians could attempt to cause economic and diplomatic problems in the region that would adversely affect the US and world economy that could be done short of war.

To deal with all possibilities the United States must not only be militarily ready to respond to any military threat but also to be able to exercise the full spectrum of diplomatic, economic and intelligence resources of its own and our allies.

So in about a week and a half we will know what the cryptic Ahamadinejad meant by his latest outburst, hopefully there will be some clarification before then so the US and its allies in the region can coordinate an effective response. With tensions rising and uncertainty in the air it is important for the US, Israel and the West to get this right and hopefully give the Iranian opposition time to force Ahamadinejad and his supporters in the Iranian clergy and the Revolutionary Guard from power. There is both danger and opportunity in the coming days and one can only hope that the Iranian opposition will be successful.

Peace,

Padre Steve+

A Global Force for Good

A Global Force for Good: A Sailor holds the hand of a Haitian Child

The Navy A Global Force For Good TV Spot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DriBYQvG_4

“I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: ‘I served in the United States Navy.’” President John F Kennedy 1 August 1963, at the Naval Academy

“It follows than as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious.” George Washington 15 November 1781 to the Marquis de Lafayette

“A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace.” President Theodore Roosevelt 2 December 1902, second annual message to Congress

“For in this modern world, the instruments of warfare are not solely for waging war. Far more importantly, they are the means for controlling peace. Naval officers must therefore understand not only how to fight a war, but how to use the tremendous power which they operate to sustain a world of liberty and justice, without unleashing the powerful instruments of destruction and chaos that they have at their command.” Admiral Arleigh Burke CNO 1 August 1961 at the Naval Academy

USNS Comfort off of Haiti

The newest Navy recruiting and public relations campaign features a comment “America’s Navy: A Global Force for Good.” When it first came out some expressed their dislike of the new slogan; however as a Navy and Army veteran as well as a long time “Navy Brat” I found the slogan and the accompanying commercial inspiring and I can be extremely jaded and cynical when it comes to such advertisements and slogans. See my post Memorable Recruiting Slogans and the All Volunteer Force. http://https://padresteve.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/memorable-recruiting-slogans-and-the-all-volunteer-force/

Neurosurgeons from Naval Medical Center Portsmouth operating on a patient aboard the Comfort- Baltimore Sun Photo

Maybe it is because I serve with a lot of great people who make up the Navy that I think this way. I have served with the brave souls of our EOD force, the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, the crew of an elite Guided Missile Cruiser, the USS Hue City CG-66 and the professionals of Navy Medicine. All these professionals be they war-fighters or care givers give so much of themselves to serve this country and protect others while at the same time laying their lives on the line to defend the people of the United States and others around the world. For me this understanding of the Navy being a global force for good is relational and it goes beyond the crass cynicism of so many in the world who find little good about our nation. I know that we have our faults but I really do believe that the good that we have done over the years and now outweighs our sins of commission and omission. I was really offended when I saw some of the comments from some people in other countries condemning our efforts in Haiti. I know of no other country that will empty itself to care for the people of a devastated and impoverished nation without expecting any form of repayment even while it is still in difficult economic straits.

Comfort receiving casualties- Baltimore Sun Photo

In the forefront of the humanitarian effort are my friends and shipmates in Navy Medicine on the USNS Comfort and ashore who are caring for the injured, sick and dying Haitian people. These men and women were pulled out of our medical treatment facility and others with as little as 24 hours notice to deploy on a mission of incredible difficulty and undetermined length. The emotional toll can be difficult as many of these professionals, physicians, nurses, corpsmen and others have deployed at least once if not two or three times to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Navy Pediatric Intensivist performs a procedure on a Afghan child

While the staff of the Comfort and those ashore toils to save lives others serve in Afghanistan running medical facilities often in conjunction with our allies. These professionals are deployed from 7 months to a year and include some of the finest clinicians in the Navy. Serving in Afghanistan the care for American wounded and sick, those of our NATO and Afghanistan National Army allies as well as the unfortunate civilians including children who are victims of terrorists acts, IEDs or military action mostly initiated by Taliban or Al Qaida forces. Serving in harm’s way they see their compounds bombarded by incoming rockets, mortars and occasional artillery fire. They also know that the vehicles that they travel in and helicopters that they fly in are targeted by Taliban forces and they care for those who are injured by IEDs on the same routes that they travel. Having experienced this in Iraq I can say that it is a sobering and often eerie feeling that you get after you have been with Marines or Soldiers wounded by IEDs and ambushes on routes that you travel. These men and women see the worst that humanity can do and still care about the victims.

USS Carl Vinson arrived quickly and began relief operations

Others serve in Iraq now supporting our Army troops with medical care working alongside Army and Air Force medical personnel, others are in the Horn of Africa and still others involved with other humanitarian missions or operational support of US Forces abroad.

One has to remember that these medical professionals do not just come out of a vacuum but are normally assigned to medical treatment facilities in the United States. As they depart to serve abroad those left behind continue the mission of caring for our military, their families, and military retirees going back to the Greatest Generation and other combat wounded veterans still entitled to medical care. The workload back at home does not let up and the professionals back here work harder and longer to provide the quality care that our beneficiaries deserve. Dealing with patients and families I always hear about how much they appreciate the kindness and superior care that they get from our physicians, nurses, corpsmen and other medical professionals.

Boarding Team from USS Hue City

If you do not believe that these men and women are a “global force for good” then I am sorry that you cannot see the labor of love that these men and women provide to those entrusted to their care. I am ashamed when I hear prominent media personalities call these “meals on wheels” missions. Personally I think it is hateful and demeaning towards the proud professionals who serve in these human tragedies and care for God’s people. Likewise those that claim that this is being done to further US influence in Haiti are so clueless, in Haiti there is no payback even from a military or strategic point of view and even with our forces stretched thin around the world we still go out and do what no other country can do when we use our military to care for those afflicted by disaster.

In Haiti we are working hand in hand and side by with numerous Non-Governmental Organizations and other military medical professionals from the United States, Canada and other nations who are giving of themselves to serve the Haitian people.

USS Hue City 565 Feet of Naval Power on Patrol

I think that for once a recruiting phrase actually captures the essence of the Navy. This is not about just being a better individual or improving your life or getting an education and experience. It is about serving our nation and people as well as others around the world whether that mission is combating terrorists, pirates, protecting our vital interests or like in Haiti, or during the Indonesian Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina or at the World Trade Center and hundreds of other places, this Navy is a global force for good.

Tonight as you go to bed and sleep soundly after eating well and spending time with family, friends or enjoying some form of entertainment remember those of our Navy who serve at sea, in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan, the cities of Iraq, the desolation of the Horn of Africa and around the world defending our interests, caring for our military personnel and their families and deploying to serve in harm’s way and in areas of devastation. They are America’s “Global Force for Good.” They are my shipmates. They are the United States Navy.

Peace,

Padre Steve+

2 Comments

Filed under Military, national security, US Navy

Tagged as admiral arleigh burke, afghanistan, al qaida, america's navy a global force for good, eod, george washington, haiti, haiti eathquake relief, horn of africa, ied, iraq, john f kennedy, kandahar, military recruiting, nato, navy medicine, ngo, recruiting slogans, taliban, theodore roosevelt, US Navy, USNS Comfort, uss carl vinson, uss hue city

January 3, 2010 · 23:59

The Anomaly of Operation Desert Storm and Its Consequences Today

Armor Advancing During Operation Desert Storm

There are few occasions in history where an army is given exactly the scenario to which its organization, training and doctrine coalesce against an opponent that uses the template of organization and training that it has been designed to defeat. Operation Desert Storm, the liberation of Kuwait by the United States and its coalition from Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army and Republican Guard was such a war. The operation was built up in the popular media to the extent that it created a false image of the cost of war and belief that wars can be won “one the cheap” because of superior technology and organization. That belief was shattered during the Iraq insurgency which began in earnest following the occupation of Iraq following the defeat of Saddam in 2003 by a significantly smaller US force than was used to liberate Kuwait twelve years before.

Architects of Desert Storm

The superior performance of the Army in the Gulf War did not turn out to be the template of how future wars would be fought. In the following years the US military has become embroiled in conflicts where opponents use inexpensive and often crude off the shelf technology to counter conventional US superiority in firepower and organization.

During the First Gulf War the Army was aided in that the doctrine that it developed to fight a war in Europe against the Warsaw Pact, the Airland Battle was “perhaps best suited to armored warfare in the open desert.”[i] Of course during Desert Storm this was exactly the setting that the Army would be called on to fight. Unlike Vietnam where the Army attempted to fight an unconventional war with conventional tactics the Army had the chance to fight exactly the battle that it had trained for, against an enemy trained in the tactics and using the equipment of its former Soviet adversary.

The Army enjoyed the advantages of having “reached a high level of training and technological proficiency”[ii] against the Soviet threat. The fact that the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had melted down unexpectedly in 1989 and 1990 and removed any conventional threat in Europe which allowed the Army to concentrate massive amount of forces including the VII Corps from Germany to the Middle East was nothing short of incredible. Additionally the Army had the advantages of superior weaponry and the fortuitous timing of the war before the effects of the post-Cold War drawdown were realized.

For the Army the “1980s were a golden age of military thought and debate,”[iii] and the Airland Battle concept “was greeted with enthusiasm throughout the Army.” Terms such as initiative, agility, synchronization and depth….soon became part of every officer’s vernacular.”[iv] Colonel Harry Summers who had written a critical history of the Vietnam War noted that FM 100-5, the Army’s primary manual of operations, was the “operational blueprint for Operation Desert Storm.”[v] That blueprint had a well trained and disciplined force schooled in the conduct of the Airland Battle concept enunciated in FM-100-5. David Halberstam noted that Operation Desert Storm was fought by a “professional army-a very professional army.”[vi] Seldom in the history of warfare was any army trained and equipped to fight the exact battle for which it found itself.

The Highway of Death

The foundation of doctrine, training, technology and organization laid in the 1980s was solid. The Army was not only effective in the Gulf War, it was overwhelming. This is not to say that the Army did not encounter problems. It did, some which against a better trained and equipped force might have negatively impacts its operations. However the problems encountered did not keep it from dominating the battlefield.

The US rapidly deployed a blocking force of paratroops and Marines following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait at the end of August. While few in number they served as a deterrent that Saddam did not test. There was great concern that had Saddam pushed into Saudi Arabia when forces were small and lightly equipped that he might have succeeded in capturing the northeaster Saudi oil fields and production facilities. The military leadership continually reinforced these forces first to a substantial defensive force and then with the addition of more forces a significant offensive force. Thus when the decision was made to liberate Kuwait under the United Nations resolution the forces were there and ready.

When the war began advances in Joint warfare and C3 was evident in the effectiveness of the operations.[vii] Particular successes included the movement of VII and XVIII Airborne Corps into the desert to outflank the Iraqis in Kuwait[viii] and every actual engagement between Iraqi and American forces. Of note was the performance of Major General Barry McCafferey’s 24^th Mechanized Division,[ix] and the 2^nd Armored Cavalry Regiment at 73 Easting against the Republican Guard’s Talwahkana Division.[x] Likewise the action of 2^nd Brigade 1^st Armored Division against the Guard’s Adnan Division at Madinah Ridge[xi] displayed the effectiveness and lethality of the Airland Battle and joint warfare concepts developed in the 1980s.

There were weaknesses and these included various aspects of command and control and fratricide[xii] brought about by the fast pace of operations and the fog of war. Likewise conflicts between General Schwartzkopf and some of his Army commanders, notably Generals Franks[xiii] and Yeosock hindered operations. This occurred most notably in the failure to destroy the Republican Guard prior to the cessation of hostilities. This was partially was due to political considerations and faulty intelligence but was operational decision of Schwartzkopf to halt McCafferty’s 24^th Mechanized Division before it could finish off Republican Guard units facing it or letting Franks complete his double encirclement of the Guard or encircle the key southern Iraqi city of Basrah.[xiv]

The New Face of War Somalia

Iraq

Rwanda Genocide

Deadly Large Shaped Charge IED

Afghanistan: Brits in Action Against Taliban Fighters

Despite the successes of Operation Desert Storm the planners failed to anticipate the end state of what would happen when hostilities had ceased. The conditions of the cessation of hostilities were the chief contention of many against the end to the ground war at the 100 hour point. Some argue that the early end of hostilities allowed the victory to be less than it could have been. Some even today argue that the offensive should have gone forward with the goal of overthrowing Saddam, however despite its success the Army was not prepared for an occupation nor would have the coalition supporting the US have survived an invasion and occupation of Iraq. The actual mistakes were not in the stopping of the war, but rather the faulty conditions of the cease fire which enabled Saddam to recover the internal control of Iraq and put down attempts to revolt especially around Basra in the Shia south. Rick Atkinson in his book Crusade notes that there were “errors would be made in establishing conditions of the ceasefire…but stopping the war was no mistake.”[xv]

While the debate about Operation Desert Storm still persists nearly 20 years after the fact the more important lesson was not learned. That lesson was that Operation Desert Storm was not the new face of war, but rather an anomaly. It was a war that was the swan song of the Cold War where the doctrine, technology, organization and trained to and practiced were inflicted on a less well trained and equipped version of the force that they were designed to defeat, forces which were badly deployed and already isolated by airpower even prior to the ground war. Once the ground war started the Iraqi forces in Kuwait and southern Iraq had little chance against the massive US and coalition force arrayed against it short of preemptively using the chemical and biological weapons of which Iraq had an ample supply. It did not employ these weapons for a number of reasons, but without them Iraqi forces exposed in the open desert with no air support and cut off from much of their supply by constant air attacks were easily defeated.

In the past 20 years the United States and the west have only once been able to reprise the type of war displayed during Operation Desert Storm. That was in the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq. While the forces deployed were successful in defeating the Iraqi military and overthrowing Saddam Hussein they were insufficient to secure the country especially after the decision to disestablish all Iraqi police and military forces which might have assisted US forces in securing the country. Perhaps planners forgot that German military police, police and civil servants were employed by the western allies in the period immediately after the war even during the period of “de-Nazification.”

Instead of a litany of Desert Storm like scenarios US forces as well as those of NATO and UN allies have had to deal with terrorism, insurgencies, revolutionary wars, tribal wars of genocide and wars waged by religious extremists. Despite more than a decade in dealing with these types of war, many in the military and political establishment as well as the media and public opinion believed that Desert Storm was the model for future wars. As such after the brief period of euphoria which occurred after the initial phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom the grim reality of war has stared Americans and others in the west in the face. While the military has performed well, it has had to adjust and learn lessons about war that it wanted to avoid during and after Vietnam. Those were the lessons of counterinsurgency, unglamorous and unexciting they were the lessons buried after Vietnam which were ignored until it was nearly too late in Iraq and possibly now too late in Afghanistan. Desert Storm was an anomaly and one does not base the future of war on the swan song of the last war.

[i] Atkinson, Rick. Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York 1993. p.253

[ii] Gordon, Michael R. and Trainor, Bernard E. The Generals’ War, Back Bay Books, Little Brown and Company, Boston and New York 1995. p.467

[iii] Peters, Ralph. Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg , PA p.xi

[iv] Ibid. Atkinson.

[v] Summers Harry G. On Strategy II: A Critical Analysis of the Gulf War, Dell Publishing a Division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, New York NY 1992. p.159

[vi] Halberstam, David. War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals, A Touchstone Book published by Simon and Schuster, New York 2001. p.153. Gordon and Trainor note that the “never in the history of the Republic has a more competent and more professional military been fielded.

[vii] See Summers pp. 243-245. Summers is very complimentary of the advances in the Joint aspects of command and control that impacted the campaign. He notes several points at the strategic and operational levels which are complimentary of individuals including comparing General Colin Powell to General George Marshall. Gordon and Trainor writing a few years later are more critical of the “jointness” of the Americans including valid criticism of the air campaign, fire support coordination, and differences in doctrine between Marines and Army and the way the VII Corps and XVIII Corps operated based on the way that they trained and organized. Pp.471-473

[viii] Atkinson pp.309-310. Atkinson discusses the fact that American commanders involved had seldom maneuvered units of battalion or brigade size prior to this operation.

[ix] The 24^th made a great advance to the Euphrates but as Atkinson notes that it had “encountered no enemy resistance at all.” p.406

[x] See Atkinson pp. 441-448

[xi] See Atkinson pp.466-467. In a 40minute fight the M1A1s destroyed 60 T-72s and dozens of APCs at a cost of one American KIA. Atkinson notes that this battle like the action at 73 Easting “was waged with tactical acumen and devastating firepower….”

[xii] Ibid Atkinson pp.315-316. Atkinson notes that there were 28 incidents with 35 killed and 72 wounded.

[xiii] Ibid. pp.405-407. Schwartzkopf felt that Franks was not aggressive enough and that VII Corps was “sluggish” and “ceding the initiative to the Republican Guard.” Schwatzkopf even threatened Yeosock that he would fire Franks.

[xiv] Ibid. Atkinson p.476

[xv] Ibid. p.477

Bibliography

Atkinson, Rick. Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York 1993

Gordon, Michael R. and Trainor, Bernard E. The Generals’ War, Back Bay Books, Little Brown and Company, Boston and New York 1995

Halberstam, David. War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals, A Touchstone Book published by Simon and Schuster, New York 2001

Ralph. Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg , PA

Summers Harry G. On Strategy II: A Critical Analysis of the Gulf War, Dell Publishing a Division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, New York NY 1992.

8 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, History, iraq,afghanistan, Military, national security

Tagged as 24th mechanized infantry div, 2nd acr, 73 Easting, Adnan Division, airland battle, barry mccafferty, basra, counterinsurgency, david halberstam, fm 100-5, harry summers, highwway of death, iraq, kuwait, liberation of kwuait, Madinah Ridge, nato, norman schwartzkopf, operation desert storm, operation iraqi freedom, Republican Guard, saddam hussein, Talwahkana Division, united nations, vietnam war, vii corps

December 20, 2009 · 23:36

More Lies and Distortions from WorldNet Daily’s Bob Unruh

Note: It has been a good number of months since I have addressed the Lies of WorldNet Daily and it’s leadership Joe Farah and his designated hit man Bob Unruh. I stumbled across an article yesterday evening when my curser hit the Worldnet Daily link on my “favorites.” I seldom go there unless I think that they might be getting crazy, but this was accidental, or if I was a Calvinist possibly God’s will. Unfortunately late last night I saw an attack on a fellow officer by this influential “Conservative Christian” website. The attack was gratuitous and directed at an officer currently serving in Afghanistan Major Brian Stuckert who as part of a military education course published a monograph which is in the public domain entitled “Strategic Implications of American Millennialism.” As I mentioned the last time that I wrote against something that Unruh and WND published that I would limit myself to military issues as I do in this article. I try to ignore the folks at WND but feel in this case that that are again in the process of attempting to stir up opinion against an officer who has done nothing wrong but to disagree with their political-religious ideology. While the folks at WND and those like them have every right to their opinions an beliefs, which are defended by those of us in uniform, they are way out of line in this article and owe Major Stuckert an apology. Unfortunately the WND leadership doesn’t do this as is evidenced in their past treatment of the Commanding Officers of Gordon Klingenschmitt. These men have no honor and stoop to the basest means to attack those that disagree with their narrow point of view. Some will not like what I write. That is fair, I do not claim to be infallible not do I practice censoring those that disagree with me. But I will not let a fellow officer who is serving in a combat zone be the subject of an egregious attack by the folks at WND. If it were an attack by a “liberal” website I would feel the same way. The fact that it is a “conservative” website which claims to “support the troops” that attacks Major Stuckert and other military officers who disagree with their point of view only makes me angry. Now to my response:

Just when you think it is safe to go in the water and just enjoy the Christmas season Joe Farah and the good folks at Worldnet Daily come out with another whopper to attempt to whip people up against those in the military with differing opinions than that of their own. Written by noted propagandist Bob Unruh who helped spin the lies of former Navy Chaplain, defrocked Evangelical Episcopal Priest Gordon Klingenschmitt into a frenzy that had many Christians believe that the Navy was attempting to muzzle Klingenschmitt’s religious rights, the article takes aim at an monograph written by Army Major Brian Stuckert ( the link to Stuckert’s monograph is here: http://www.wnd.com/files/Millennial.pdf ) for the Advanced Military Studies program. Officers who attend courses such as this are often required to produce a research paper on a subject that deals with political, military and foreign policy topics to include how social, ideological or religious can impact military operations at the strategic and operational levels including effects on foreign policy and diplomacy. The Worldnet Daily article is linked here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119315

Unruh in his usual manner has manipulated the facts to make it appear that Stuckert and the Army is attempting to silence what Unruh calls “Evangelical beliefs.” In fact the title of the article “U.S. Army Major: Lose evangelical Christian beliefs” is a straw man intentional thrown out by Unruh to chum the waters so to speak. Unruh takes a research paper which he does not agree with and demonizes the writer. These papers are akin to any research paper done for a graduate level academic program. They reflect the opinion of the author and not the institution. Like all papers of this type they have to be evidenced based, in other words the author has to have data to show that his hypothesis and conclusions actually are not simply whims but have impact in the world in which the writer serves and for the topic that he or she addresses. One does not have to agree with them and in fact in the future other officers might actually write articles to refute what Stuckert says. This is an academic program and as such differing points of view are sought.

Instead of just leaving this be both Unruh and undoubtedly Joe Farah is using this article to again whip up the faithful against any idea that might contradict their political-religious views. Stuckert has criticized the foundational philosophy of the Worldnet Daily leadership that of Pre-millennial Dispensationalist theology which does have very real foreign policy implications for the United States. As such Stuckert’s article is important because it draws attention to how Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist effects how many Americans view the world and international relations to include how such beliefs can influence policy making. Stuckert’s premise is found in his abstract:

“Since the beginning of the Republic, various forms of millennial religious doctrines, of which dispensational pre-millennialism is the most recent, have shaped U.S. national security strategy. As the dominant form of millennialism in the U.S. evolves, it drives changes in U.S. security policy and subsequent commitment of the instruments of national power. Millennial ideas contribute to a common American understanding of international relations that guide our thinking irrespective of individual religious or political affiliation. Millennialism has great explanatory value, significant policy implications, and creates potential vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit.”

This is a fair characterization of the effect of pre-millennial dispensational theology on American national thought. Thus it is fair to examine its effect on current policy both foreign and domestic.

Instead of taking Stuckert’s observations and critiques for what they are Unruh and his co-conspirators turn this into a conspiracy of people in the Army and government against true Christians. In the usual manner Unruh quotes someone that he agrees with on the article: Unruh quotes John McTernan a writer on Biblical Prophecy who says that Stuckert’s article is “the most dangerous document to believers that I have ever read in my entire life” and “After reading this document, it is easy to see the next step would be to eliminate our Constitutional rights and herd us into concentration camps.”

I am sorry, this is beyond reason: “eliminate our Constitutional rights and herd us into concentration camps? That is nothing more than propaganda. In fact it is delusional paranoia designed implicitly to scare people and move them further into WorldNet Daily’s orbit turning good people against honest and decent military officers. Unruh did this with Klingenschmitt in grand fashion through character assassination of Captain Carr, Klingenschmitt’s Commanding Officer on USS Anzio and Captain Pyle, the Commanding Officer of Naval Station Norfolk. This got so bad regarding Captain Pyle, a conservative evangelical Christian of the Assemblies of God denomination that he was ostracized by his own church and demonized by the Christians who were the closest to his theological views. It was shameful; people still believe the lies about Klingenschmitt spewed by the WorldNet Daily crowd. Now they attack an Army Major who is serving in combat in Afghanistan. Such conduct is beyond crude and unseemly, it is dishonest, disingenuous and dishonorable.

Unruh, no stranger to such behavior ends his article with a totally unrelated reference to the terrorist who killed 13 and wounded many others at Fort Hood just a month ago. Major Stuckert’s article was published in 2008 and has nothing to do with the actions of Major Hasan. The implication is that Stuckert supports the traitorous terrorist Hasan. This is another disingenuous attempt to link someone who disagrees with them with terrorists or other extremists. Such behavior by alleged “journalists” is simply dishonest and to use a term from American history is “Yellow Journalism.”

The conduct of WorldNet Daily and in particular Bob Unruh is shameful and shows none of the graces associated with true Christian faith. Lying and mischaracterizing what others say and demonizing them in apocalyptic terms is not Christian behavior. It is crass cynical propaganda and WorldNet Daily is one of the worst offenders around. Unfortunately these people are vicious in their attacks. The article talks of “losing evangelical beliefs” however many evangelicals either oppose or have out rightly condemned pre-Millennial Dispensationalist as heresy. Yet many pre-millennial dispensationalists, especially the type found at WorldNet Daily effectively write off all evangelicals who do not hold to one of their several Rapture theories: “All people who believe the Bible believe in a Rapture” Mark Hitchcock “What Jesus Says About Earth’s Final Days” (p. 96). This is just one example of how this camp views other Christians. If you do not believe in the Rapture as they define it you do not believe the Bible. The deduction is that Christians believe the Bible, you disagree with the Rapture, and you don’t believe the Bible and are thus not a Christian.

Even Prominent Evangelicals such as A. W. Pink (1886-1952) have disagreed with the tenants of Dispensationalism:

“Dispensationalism is a device of the enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to “make the Bible a new book” by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned. It is sad to see how widely successful the devil has been by means of this subtle innovation.”

Many conservative Christian churches and individuals do not hold this position; in fact to take the view of Unruh is to assume that Stuckert is attacking Evangelical Christianity. Stuckert is not doing so, he is simply critiquing one of several competing Christian Eschatological theories and how its influence helps shape US foreign policy and the worldview of many Americans. He asserts that such beliefs when not recognized by those that propagate them can leave the United States vulnerable to our enemies, nothing more, nothing less. In fact Stuckert is careful to differentiate the various factions in what is considered by some radical secularists to be a monolithic “Evangelical” movement.

“Millennialism, and especially dispensational pre-millennialism, derives in large part from extraordinary literalism of even the most figurative passages of the Bible. In America, literalism in biblical interpretation is most closely associated with fundamentalism. Theologically, it is best to begin a discussion of American millennialism with a brief review of fundamentalism as the term applies to the contemporary American religious tradition. Fundamentalism is a frequently misunderstood term in America. Although it has connections to each, fundamentalism is distinct from evangelicalism, the charismatic movement or conservative Christianity in general. Fundamentalism is also poorly understood when we attempt to define it as a personality style, a form of militancy, or a particular worldview.” (Stuckert pp. 6-7)

Stuckert is fair in this; to not admit that religious, ideological or philosophical views do not serve is “filters” as McTernan and Unruh seem loathe doing is simply wrong. To understand the prism of how religious, ideological and other beliefs can influence worldview and decision making is important. This is what Stuckert does as pre-millennial dispensationalism is one of the major shapers of American thought; not only for Fundamentalist Christians but anyone who follows the popular fictional writings of Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series.

Stuckert continues his monograph by discussing the importance of how Christian Fundamentalists view the Bible and the influence of pre-millennial eschatology on American political thought and foreign policy. Since the popularized version of this eschatology influences the way that many Americans view the world it is appropriate that the effects of it be analyzed by those who study foreign and domestic policy. In his summery and conclusions Stuckert makes an erudite observation that is lost on many people:

“Because religion in America directly impacts policy, military leaders and planners must learn to recognize the tenets and implications of American millennial thought. Millennialism has always been a feature of the American culture and has shaped not only the objectives of U.S. government policy, but also the way in which we interpret the words and actions of other actors on the international stage. Millennial ideas contribute to a common American understanding of international relations that guide our thinking regardless of individual religious or political affiliation. Millennialism has great explanatory value, significant policy implications, and creates potential vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit. By gaining insight into and embracing intellectual honesty where our own prejudices and proclivities are concerned, we can greatly improve the quality and clarity of our decision-making.” (Stuckert pp. 58-59)

Unruh “cherry picks” what he wants from Stuckert’s monograph in order to paint Stuckert as some kind of anti-Christian officer. The use of McTernan’s claims to buttress his article shows how biased that Unruh as since McTernan’s livelihood is based on writing books and speaking about Bible prophecy from a pre-millennial dispensational point of view. He claims to be a “student of American history” but has no academic credentials save a BA from Virginia Commonwealth University in an unnamed field. He has no military experience, no education in military or political theory other than what he may have learned on his own “study” and is in no position to be a legitimate critic of Major Stuckert’s work. McTernan claims that the “last third (of Stuckert’s work) is an interpretation of Bible belief on world events. “This report blames all the world evils on believers! World peace would break out if it were not for Bible believers in America.” In fact it says no such thing. It is not a “report” as McTernan calls it, but simply the equivalent of a graduate level thesis. This is nothing but a hit piece on a fellow officer who disagrees with McTernan and the crowd at WorldNet Daily. McTernan talks about an argument that he had with Colonel Stefan Banack of the School for Advanced Military Studies who McTernan attacks:

“The conversation was extremely heated between us, and he hid behind the freedom of speech to produce it. He refused to let me write an article to refute this attack on Bible believers. He refused to tell me what this study was used for and who within the military was sent copies. I believe that it represents an official military view of Bible believers as Col. Banack said there was no study or article refuting this one.”

The fact that these papers are in the public domain and on the center’s website makes no difference to McTernan. He attempts to paint this is a some kind of conspiracy against Evangelical Christians when in fact it is the equivalent of an academic thesis in a Masters Degree program. The fact that he says that Colonel Banack “hid behind the freedom of speech to produce it” sends a chilling message. Freedom of speech for McTernan goes only for McTernan not for those who disagree with him. Likewise McTernan uses the refusal of Colonel Banack to allow him to “refute this attack on Bible believers” is a red-herring. The School’s academic publications are for students to publish not for people with no standing in the military to use the platform to propagate their beliefs. Mr. McTernan to my knowledge is not a student at the Advanced Military Studies program and would not be using the forum for actual academic debate but to advance his own cause which he does on his own website without any restriction.

So once again WorldNet Daily drops a whopper on its readers and attacks the character beliefs and academic thought of a military officer. Their conduct in this is much more like the Taliban and the Iranian Ayatollah’s than anyone who claims to value the right to freedom of speech and religion as they do. Like the early Puritans who came to the New World for “religious freedom” the only religious freedom or freedom of speech that Unruh, Farah and other like them value is their own. Those who dissent from their narrow understanding of eschatology stand condemned as do those who ask legitimate questions about the policy implications of their belief system. If they were ever to be in a position to impose their beliefs in this country men like Major Stuckert and probably yours truly would be persecuted.

Although I am but a “pip-squeak” in comparison to the WorldNet Daily behemoth but I cannot let a fellow officer who is serving in harm’s way be the subject of a gratuitous attack by these people. May God keep Major Stuckert and those he serves with in harm’s way safe and may they accomplish the mission that they have been sent to do. As far as WorldNet Daily goes…I hope that they continue to have the freedom to speak in the manner that they would deny to those who disagree with them, especially those who serve in the uniform of the United States of America in harm’s way.

Peace,

Padre Steve+

10 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, Lies of World Net Daily, Military, national security

Tagged as a w pink, advanced military studies program, afghanistan, bob unruh, christianity, freedom of speech, gordon klingenschmitt, john darby, john mcternan, joseph farah, left behind series, major brian stuckert, major malik nidal hasan, mark hitchcock, pre-millennial dispensationalsim, religious freedom, religious fundamentalism, school for advanced military studies, taliban, the rapture, tim lahaye, us army, what jesus says about eath's final days, worldnet daily, yellow jounralism

December 18, 2009 · 23:59

Marshall, Eisenhower and Senior Military Leadership

Great military leaders are the products of the militaries in which they serve. This begins in their early career and includes their education, training, assignments as well as the men that they serve under in their formative years. They are shaped by the character, doctrine and organization of the military that they serve and are products of the times that they live and serve. Even the difference of a few years can make a major difference in the career path and development of a leader. Such was the case with two of the great figures of the US Army in World War Two Generals of the Army George Marshall and Dwight David Eisenhower.

George Marshall

The careers of Marshall and Eisenhower prior to the Second World War were somewhat similar but also included major differences that would shape them for their roles in the war. Marshall was commissioned 13 years prior to Eisenhower in 1902. As a result he served his early years in a peacetime army marked by slow promotion. Marshall was promoted to Captain in 1916 after serving 14 years as a Lieutenant despite attendance at the Army Staff College then called the Infantry and Cavalry School. As an infantry officer he served in the Philippines for 2 years and served in various battalion and regimental level staff positions. Marshall’s career also included as assignments working with the National Guard and State militias. His skills as a planner brought him to France as Assistant Chief of Staff for the 1^st Infantry Division and later the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) under General Pershing.

While serving in these positions he was promoted rapidly to Major, Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel. In France he worked with the training, supply and operations of the American Forces as well as coordination with the French and British. His skills were invaluable and he played a major role in the rapid transition of the AEF from the St Michel salient to the Meuse-Argonne and though he reduced in rank when the war ended he was appointed aide-de-camp to Pershing in 1919.

During the 1920 Marshall served as Executive officer of the 15^th Infantry Regiment in China and on his return to the United States he was assigned to the Army War College during which time his first wife died. Following her death he would become Director of the Academic Department of the Infantry School. His tenure at the War College was marked by his training numerous officers who would later become generals, including Eisenhower. He played a key role in the Preparation of the book “Infantry in Battle” which became a standard textbook for Army infantry officers. He then served as senior instructor for the Illinois National Guard from 1933-1936 and was promoted to Brigadier General in 1936. After his promotion he worked to improve the Civilian Conservation Corps. His organizational talents were recognized by President Franklin D Roosevelt and he was appointed Chief of Staff of the Army in 1939. Marshall’s career is unique; he never served in command of anything more than a company. His positions above the company level were all in staff or instructor duty. In our current military an infantry officer or other combat arms officer who never commanded a maneuver unit at battalion, regiment or division level would never become a General and certainly never become Chief of Staff of the Army or Commandant of the Marine Corps. Marshall was a brilliant organizer, leader, judge of men and visionary in understanding the necessity of coalitions and inter-dependence of nations in the modern world. His organizational leadership skills, ability to pick the right officers for key positions and his political and diplomatic acumen made him one of the foremost military leaders in US Military history.

Dwight D Eisenhower

Eisenhower was commissioned in 1915 less than two years prior to the entry of the US into the First World War. Like Marshall was commissioned as an Infantry officer and his career progressed in normal fashion until the entry of the United States into the war. Though Eisenhower never served in France, he was assigned to training troops and became one of the early leaders of the Armored Forces until they were disbanded after the war. In the rapidly expanded wartime army Eisenhower was promoted from 2^nd Lieutenant to Lieutenant Colonel in less time than Marshall spent as a 2^nd Lieutenant.

During his tenure in the Tank Corps he served with George Patton, commanded a tank battalion and was executive officer of an armored brigade. Following the disestablishment of the Tank Corps Eisenhower served as an infantry regiment executive officer in Panama. In this position he was schooled by General Fox Conner in classic military theory. It was fortunate for Eisenhower in that he was able to serve with and was able to gain seasoning and education under an excellent officer. Eisenhower returned to the United States and commanded an infantry battalion at Fort Benning and following this served on the faculty of the Infantry School under Marshall who would remember him at the beginning of World SWar Two.

His subsequent career was somewhat mundane. He served on the Battle Monument’s Commission under Pershing and then on the staff of the Assistant Secretary of War. However both of these assignments put him in the eye of other important officers and officials. Eisenhower was then transferred to the Philippines where he served as Chief of Staff to Douglas MacArthur from 1935-39. He returned to the US to serve concurrently as the regimental Executive Officer and a battalion commander in the 15^th Infantry regiment and later Chief of Staff to the Commander of 3^rd Army. Through his excellent work in every assignment he gained the attention of Conner, Pershing and eventually Marshall. While at the Infantry school he helped prepare Pershing’s memoirs. His experience with MacArthur in Washington and the Philippines helped prepare him for the myriad of difficult personalities with which he would deal with as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe. In 1941 he came to Washington to serve under Marshall at the WPA.

As far as who was the better officer, opinions vary; there are arguments to be made for both yet Eisenhower himself seemed to subordinate himself to Marshall. Omar Bradley says of Marshall “if there ever was an indispensable man in time of national crisis, he was that man.” (A Soldier’s Story p.205) However both Marshall and Eisenhower were excellent officers and each played a vital role in the Allied victory. However their careers were markedly different. In fact one could say that they were “apples and oranges.” Marshall served entirely as a staff officer and instructor after his service as a company officer. Eisenhower served in numerous command positions as well as staff jobs. Their careers would intersect and had commonalities but each was shaped by their different experiences in the Army.

In World War Two Marshall seems to have fewer critics. However this seems to more a result of Eisenhower’s exposed position in Europe where he was comparatively junior to many of the officers that that he would command. He also had to deal with the competing interests of such strong personalities as Marshall, Patton, Roosevelt, Churchill, DeGaulle and Montgomery while fighting the Germans. This has lent him to criticism from both British and American officers as well as various historians. But these observations are based on wartime experience and not their early careers. Field Marshall Alan Brooke seems to have had more respect for Marshall and many in the British high command showed little respect toward Eisenhower.

“Better” in the military is in the eye of the beholder and often dependant on assignments as well as the superiors that one works for. From a traditional point of view Eisenhower had the better career path with command at battalion and executive officer at regiment levels. However Marshall’s career provided him with a wider spectrum in dealing with senior staff, school, reserve component, government civilian agencies and Washington bureaucracy and politics that Eisenhower did not experience until Marshall tapped him in 1941 to work with the WPA. Their personalities were different and they dealt with subordinates in different manners, but both successfully managed their subordinates. Eisenhower was able to manage Patton and Montgomery while working in Churchill’s back yard, while others such as DeGaulle walking through his door. Both men were uniquely suited to work with each other and in the positions that they found themselves during the war and one has a hard time imagining a better partnership in command.

The interesting thing to me is Marshall’s career. In the current era he would never rise to the heights that he served. Since the Second World War no officer who has not served command in major combat arms units at all levels has risen to be Chief of Staff of the Army, Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps or Chief of Naval Operations. Nor has any risen to the Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or major Combatant Command such as EUCOM, CENTCOM or PACOM. Of we look at Marshall and his impact one has to ask if “punching tickets”in the combat arms is necessarily optimal when it comes to managing the organization at the service level. While it is proven that command is a great asset to senior command in combatant commands it may not be as necessary for the chief of a service. One can ask if an officer who has served in staff and instructor positions, especially those where they have to deal with politicians, civilian agencies, as well as active and reserve component forces as well as an instructor and writer of doctrine could not serve as successfully in a position such as the Army Chief of Staff or the Commandant of the Marine Corps as an officer who has had the “well rounded career.”

In the light of George Marshall these are valid questions to ask. Might someone who has had the ability to step back and examine the personnel, logistics and training of a force as well as having experience with reserve component and civilian agencies could conceivably serve as effectively as an officer who has served rotating between command and staff positions. In today’s world the staff oriented officer would also have experience dealing with industry and intelligence. While I do not advocate such a change I think it would be wise to consider officers such as Marshall for these service level positions.

Following the war Marshall would become Secretary of State and help rebuild Europe while serving under Eisenhower how had become President of the United States.

Peace,

Padre Steve{

3 Comments

Filed under History, leadership, Military, national security, world war two in europe

Tagged as bernard montgomery, chaiman of the joint chiefs of staff, charles de gualle, chief of naval operations, chief of staff of the army, commandant of the marine corps, douglas macarthur, dwight d eisnehower, fox conner, franklin roosevelt, general john pershing, george marshall, George Patton, omar bradley, winston churchill, world war i, world war ii

Category Archives: national security

June 1944 and June 2010: Fog Friction and the Unexpected Events that Influence History

The North Korean Order of Battle

Padre Steve Might be a Mad Cow Carrier and Can’t Give Blood…He’s “Mad” as Hell and isn’t going to take it anymore!

I Agree With Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

Groundhog Day, Tapping the Keller Heller and Padre Steve’s Top World War Two Articles

Iran Makes Noise in Persian Gulf: Obama Dispatches Patriots and Ships to Deter

A Global Force for Good

The Anomaly of Operation Desert Storm and Its Consequences Today

More Lies and Distortions from WorldNet Daily’s Bob Unruh

Marshall, Eisenhower and Senior Military Leadership

Welcome!

Subscribe to Padre Steve's World

Comment Policy

Padre Steve’s World on Facebook

What’s Hot

Padre Steve's Inglorius Statistics

Recent Articles

The Vault: Padre Steve’s Archives

Categories

Blogs I Follow

Category Archives: national security

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Welcome!

Subscribe to Padre Steve's World

Comment Policy

What’s Hot

Padre Steve's Inglorius Statistics

Recent Articles

The Vault: Padre Steve’s Archives

Categories

Blogs I Follow