Archive for November, 2003
A new thing in American history
Donald Sensing notes that today’s military is both all-volunteer and mostly married. He notes a Rand Corp. study that observes
About half of the enlisted personnel considering whether to reenlist after the first term are married. By the end of the second term, this fraction is closer to three-quarters.
Mr. Sensing notes that the intense around-the-clock media coverage keeps us informed of each attack and American death almost as it happens, and that this saturation can greatly affect the personal feelings and attitudes of those with family or friends in the armed forces. When one death is front-page news, will the military be able to effectively prosecute this war?
Of course, every single death is unbearable for those that know and love the individual. Words about the greater good must sound pretty empty.
But what if aversion to death had kept us from doing the right things at Tarawa (noted in Mr. Sensing’s post) or Normandy? Or Gettysburg? Our history is punctuated with events that cost America dearly in lives lost. More often than not, those events are the defining moments of American greatness and our willingness to stand against oppression and terror.
Mr. Sensing also notes the differences in killed and wounded rates for the 82nd Airborne Division during Normandy in 1944 and Panama in 1989.
The fatality rate [in Panama] was much, much lower, but the overall casualty rate was much higher. My basis of comparison was the number of wounded/killed per “soldier combat day.” One soldier in combat for one day equals one SCD (works like man-hours). The division?s soldiers in combat in World War II suffered fewer wounded and killed per SCD than the division suffered per SCD in Panama. But medical care today is so much better that the number of KIA was proportionately much less.
Check it out.
I believe the the “Three Pillars” speech at Whitehall Palace in London was very significant. While reading the transcript, however, I came across this:
“The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain* {sic} aggression and evil by force.”
and the bottom of the page notes
* restrain
Well, there’s one for the Leftist fun-pokers.
I’m just curious why so many of the other Bush-isms don’t seem to have any legit documentation or supporting evidence at all. Is the vast Right-wing conspiracy really that powerful?
My only official statement on the Michael Jackson case is as follows:
I sincerely hope that he is sent to Guantanamo Bay and tried by a secret military tribunal.
That way we won’t have to watch or listen.
Instapundit points out that 100,000 demonstrators marched in Berlin at the beginning of November to protest plans to cut welfare. He asks where the coverage was then. Although I don’t really think comparison between media coverage of that and coverage of the marchers in London is all that relevant, I did notice this tidbit in the article he linked to:
Answering the call of labor unions and left-wing groups including the former East German communist party, a huge column of marchers snaked through downtown Berlin…
First of all, isn’t the fact that labor unions and the former East German communist party are brothers in arms just a little telling? Shouldn’t folks be embarrassed to be affiliated with them?
Second, why is it that so many times it turns out that large groups of demonstrators are aligned with Bolsheviks of some sort?
Like Xenophon leading the remnants of the Ten Thousand through barren, hostile territory, anti-US demonstrators marched today through the streets of London with little hope for the future.
Well, okay. Not exactly like the Ten Thousand.
Predicted to top 100,000 members, the protestors number “at least 50,000″ according to MSNBC.com. Other sources give varying numbers, with the largest estimate I’ve seen being 70-80 thousand. So tens of thousands.
Not bad, but not what they hoped for. Still, the believers had their chance to pull down a fake statue of Bush, and they could paint signs with blood-red letters and chant about Bush the Butcher. All this after a British bank and the British consulate were truck-bombed in Istanbul.
As marchers chanting “George Bush, terrorist” made their way through a business district, a few scuffled with three Bush supporters holding U.S. flags and a sign saying “support America.” Police quickly intervened and bundled the trio into a nearby office building.
“I think it’s a disgrace that these people are basically siding with Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida,” said one of the three, Londoner Robert Temple. “Where were they when [former Romanian dictator Nicolae] Ceausescu came to town and why aren’t they protesting against the people who blew up Turkey today?”
The peace lovers tried to beat up the alleged war-mongers? Nooooo. Say it ain’t so. I imagine that the three pro-America demonstrators then called in a B-52 strike to wipe out some London orphanages in retaliation, right? Right?
Sorry.
So many of the anti-war types seem to feed off of the attacks and bombings against Allied troops and interests. They act like things are finally going their way. I don’t understand it, and I know that not all those opposed to the invasion of Iraq feel that way, but it just makes me shake my head.
If anything, shouldn’t truck bombings of banks and consulates steel our resolve? I think back to the early days of the Iraq campaign when a video of some US POWs was “leaked” to Arab television. The folks who are dissuaded by such things aren’t committed to victory to begin with.
War is ugly. I would hope we don’t wage war unless we need to, but I don’t think we were at all out of bounds when we invaded Iraq. I can respect rational, objective opposition to our actions. However, most of those that are protesting in London aren’t opposed to war. They’re opposed to the Allies winning a war.
I know that the world isn’t as clearly black-and-white as some claim it is, but those that oppose Allied victory are enemies of the Allied cause.
I just call ‘em as I see ‘em.
Basically zip today in London.
(And, to the Leftists who will be quick to point out that it wasn’t really zip, I’ll be quick to point out that correcting me by noting the hundreds that did turn up just proves my point.)
Expected to top 100,000 on Thursday, though. We’ll see. I’ve certainly been expecting it, but after the pitiful showing today, I’m not so sure. And it’s even a school day.
Darren Kaplan was kind enough to point some folks in my direction. He also pointed out Dispatches, which I was unfamiliar with, and Blackfive–The Paratrooper of Love, which I have come across from time to time.
Blackfive–TPOL is covering the LTC West issue. Check out this and this, among others.
Dispatch not only linked to MO, calling it “charming,” but Jackson Murphy has some great posts. I’ll be heading there regularly. Check out
“The Three Pillars”: President Bush in London on Bush’s speech.
and/or
It’s certainly uncontaminated by protestors on the rather skimpy mass protests in the UK so far
The incestuous link circle grows…
Prof Hall at Spacecraft notes a commentary in the Roanoke Times, titled “The Relevant Quagmire: Russia in Afghanistan” that compares the Russian invasion of Afghanistan to the US invasion of Iraq.
I know the Left eats this stuff up, but it’s really pretty silly. I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I don’t have time to listen to rhetoric that is either ignorant or dishonest. Most of the moral equivilance and the “why do they hate us?” thinking falls into both of these categories.
Give me a a little time and I could compare the Allied invasion of Iraq in 2003 to both the German invasion of Russia in 1941 and the Allied invasion of France in 1944. And nearly every other invasion of anyone by anyone in any year. But that wouldn’t mean that my comparisons were fair, honest, or informative.
Prof Hall pastes the original column (since it doesn’t have a permalink) and his letter to the editor in response to the commentary. I urge MO readers to head over and read entire. Especially those of you who go on and on about the American “empire.”
U.K. Police Gear Up for Peace Protestor Terror
Once again, I’m left wondering if a Scrappleface story is satire or not.
“Little is more terrifying to police than mobs of people eager for world peace,” said a spokesman for Scotland Yard. “They’re a threat to elected officials and to life and property in general.”
I mean, that’s absolutely 100% true, isn’t it?
Strategy Page points out that the first production LockheedMartin F-16I Soufa (Storm) has been completed in Texas.
102 of the two-seat all-weather fighter/bombers will be delivered to the Israeli Air Force over the next four years. A contract for 52 was added in September 2001 to an original 1999 deal for 50. At a total of around $4.4 billion, the fighters come in at a little more than $43 million each. (Compare that to around $250 million each for the F/A-22.) The production run is being financed by the US government as part of the normal multi-billion dollar military support we send in Israel’s direction each year.
These fighters, developments of the F-16D Block 50/52, will sport quite a bit of Israeli electronics and removable conformal fuel tanks mounted above the wings along the fuselage. These tanks will extend the fighter’s range without tying up two underwing hardpoints. Lybia and Iran will be within IAF range without refuelling. Also, advanced radar, navigation, and targeting systems make the F-16I the most advanced F-16 in the world. The new jets will replace aging A-4s and F-4s.
All in all, these fighters seem to be a good combination of capability and (relative) economy. Why the USAF isn’t doing more along these lines baffles me. When making modifications to good existing designs gets you what you need, why spend billions developing all new aircraft? Especially when none of our potential enemies field anything resembling a formidable air force.
Also, isn’t it maybe time that our military lifeline to Israel be cut? I’m reservedly supportive of Israel, especially since their enemies are currently our enemies. We don’t want to see Israel overrun, but that really isn’t a dangers these days. Why are we sending so much green their way? We’ve got a lot of stuff we need to buy for our own military, and our federal budget is not balanced.
Sell to Israel? Yes. Even give them a discount.
But why are we giving them stuff that we can’t really afford to?
