Archive for January, 2007
The V-22 Osprey, which may deploy to Iraq with Marines this year, suffered problems that hurt its mission effectiveness when the Air Force tested it for a month in the New Mexico desert, according to a new report from the Pentagon’s top weapons tester…
During an –operational utility evaluation” conducted last summer in the desert at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, the effectiveness of the Osprey for training missions and potential combat missions was –degraded by poor aircraft availability,” says the report, issued Jan. 18.
–Frequent part and system failures, limited supply support, and high false alarm rates in the built-in diagnostic systems caused frequent flight delays and an excessive maintenance workload,” the report says.
Some of the reliability problems –may be attributable to the extended exposure to the desert operating environment” where the assessment occurred, says the report.
Well, I guess as long as the Marines don’t deploy to any desert operating environments for extended periods they should be just fine.
Personally, I’m pulling for the Osprey program. Success would mean a huge boost in several areas, and helicopter operations haven’t been exactly a walk in the park. There were a lot of concerns about the Stryker, as well, and I called for it to be sent to Iraq ASAP so we could find out in the real world. The same applies to the Osprey (and any other new programs, big or small). We need to know, and there’s no test like actual use in a combat zone.
Like most big-ticket defense programs, the V-22 has been plagued by cost overruns, costly delays, and lowered expectations. That doesn’t mean that it’s a boondoggle. (Well, okay, it does mean it’s a boondoggle…But everything’s a boondoggle these days in military procurement, it seems.) Still, I’m more than a bit skeptical. We’ll see.
Free Frank Warner links to my post on the astonishing poll which indicates that 22% of Americans personally don’t want the new policy in Iraq to succeed.
He says this:
I don’t look at such attitudes for patriotism or lack of patriotism. I look at them for who supports the cause of democracy and freedom (and who doesn’t), and who understands the stakes in the struggle against tyranny (and who doesn’t)…
Obviously, 22 percent of Americans don’t care whether other nations are free. In the land of the free, they’re too ignorant or selfish or racist to understand that freedom is every human’s right, and repression anywhere is a threat to people everywhere.
This is, actually, a point that I overlooked while rantnig about the “anti-patriotics”. I think it’s hypocrisy, pure and simple. Though I don’t think it’s necessarily “anti-American”, I do think it’s “anti-American values”.
It’s basically saying “I’m using my freedom as an American to hope our efforts to bring freedom to Iraqis fail.” As is almost always the case with the unpatriotic demographic, it’s pathetic.
Frank, being a classic liberal (not today’s Liberal), watches and comments from the perspective of “freedom”. Worth checking out.
Sometimes I forget and go play in the sandbox with the other kids. I try to pride myself on dealing rationally with anyone, but so many times it just seems pointless.
My house!Over at Wizbang, DJ Drummond wrote about Why Nuclear War Can Be Ethical.
Now, the truth is that Murdoc doesn’t really think all-out nuclear war can really be all that ethical. But the starting point of the post is this:
“If you were President of the U.S. and were just informed that we were definitely under a full nuclear attack by a country that’ll destroy most or all our people, would you order a full nuclear counter-attack?”
My belief is that we immediately would do exactly that. And that it’s probably the best option available on a day with no good options on the table.
Like most discussions involving nuclear weapons, the military, politics, or national security, the comments section quickly degenerated into a hodgepodge of, well, podge. One commenter, in particular, took on all comers and seemed intent on disagreeing with almost everyone about almost everything. Unfortunately, he responded to my comment, and I responded, and thus began a monumental waste of time.
Sort of like talking to Aaron (if you remember him), but at least this guy stayed more or less on topic, though he seemed to want to make up his own rules as he went, and the foaming mouth treatment was held in check. Actually, that means it not very much like talking to Aaron at all. Whatever.
If you need a reminder about why to avoid these sorts of internet discussions, go check it out. Plus, the guy insists that some sarcastic, over-the-top, rhetorical anti-NMD talking points I used to illustrate a bit of irony are now actually my official position on NMD whether I like it or not.
Never get out of the boat. Absolutely goddamn right.
Anyway, I’d be interested in hearing what MO readers think about this very question.
Would we
- Retaliate massively immediately?
- Wait and absorb the hits, then decide what to do?
- Figure that shooting back would just make the environment worse and stand down?
- Decide that hitting back means that we would become what we hate and just give up?
- Hope that National Missile Defense would shoot down all incoming warheads?
- Something else?
Remember that this is a definite full-scale nation-killing attack. Time frame isn’t established, but I figure that it’s either today (NMD won’t stop them all) or in the future (where tech advances in delivery will also mean NMD won’t stop them all). Regardless of NMD, it’s a nation-killing attack, so I read that to mean that stopping them is out.
What would we really do?
Suddenly getting lots of search engine hits for this bad boy. I recently posted a pic from the Milkor display at the SHOT Show. Here it is again:
The Milkor rep told me that there are currently about 250 of these in Iraq with the Marines, and that several other nations, including Australia, are looking at them as well.
He said that the accuracy is surprising and that they’re getting head shots at 150m. With a grenade launcher. Part of that accuracy is due to the electronic targeting system automatically compensating for the left-hand downward spin.
The current model weighs in at about 15 pounds, fully loaded, but that the next generation units will be about 10 pounds.
Many Marine squads are using the M32 in place of the SAW gunner.
Kind of makes you wonder about the XM25, huh? I haven’t heard anything about that for quite some time.
I don’t seem to have made enough people mad enough with yesterday’s post about the 22% of America (according to a FoxNews poll last week) who personally hope that the new plan in Iraq fails. Here’s some more, based in part on the comments section of that post.
First, here’s the poll question in, um, question:
You can click to enlarge it, and the entire poll is here (.pdf). The question is “Do you personally want the Iraq plan that President Bush announced last week to succeed?”
63% answered “Yes”, 22% answered “No”, and 15% answered “Don’t Know”.
A reader commented:
What about the 15% that “don’t know?” I think you have 37% that would be definitively UNPATRIOTIC, for he exact reasons you lay out.
I will agree with the 37% number to an extent, but here we wade into dictionary territory. Not to define “patriotism”, which I believe to be sort of like trying to define “love”, but to define degrees of patriotism.
Just patriotic to some other nation or ideal besides the United States of America.
I would say that, if we’re playing these dictionary games, those undecided 15% are “un-patriotic” in the sense of “not actively patriotic”. That would make the 22%, I guess, “anti-patriotic”, as in “actively interested in the opposite of patriotism”.
All “patriotism”, of course, is from the United States’ perspective. I apologize to MO’s international readers, but Murdoc is American, the overwhelming majority of his readers are American, and he’s not going to write “American patriotism” or “unpatriotic American” every time.
Along those lines, I suspect that at least some of those 22% are, actually, quite patriotic. Just patriotic to some other nation or ideal besides the United States of America.
So, yes, 37% of poll respondents are not patriotic.
Another possibility would be that some of the 15% were totally unaware of any new plan and just said “don’t know” because they didn’t know anything about it. I’ve been polled over the phone like this before, and it’s sometimes tough to know what to answer when you’re not familiar with the subject. Still, I must repeat that it shouldn’t matter what the plan is or how much you know or don’t know about it. Wouldn’t “patriots” want it to succeed no matter what?
I guess I will say at this point that I don’t feel the same about “un-patriotics” (as vaguely defined here) as I do about “anti-patriotics”. “Anti-patriotics” are at least tantamount to being the enemy of America and in some cases the active enemy of America. My enemy. Not someone with a different opinion than I have. My enemy.
Those “anti-patriotics” who are active enemies of America and do something about it are traitors. Often not in the legal sense, but traitors nonetheless.
The “un-patriotics”, on the other hand, aren’t really my enemy. They’re sort of like France. Not a friend, but we’re not going to start bombing any time soon. We can be useful to each other at times, and we often have similar interests. Even though our basic beliefs are different, much of what we want is, in the end, very similar. No reason to fight as long they remain non-enemy. (Stupid, though…)
The large percentage of undecideds is part of what made me decide that the 22% number is genuine. Some of the “undecideds” probably were confused or something, and some might have answered “No” if they had been personally courageous enough to tell a pollster that they hoped America’s new plan would fail.
It also occurred to me that saying you “don’t hope it succeeds” is not necessarily the same as you “do hope it fails“. I guess I’m pretty skeptical that more than a small few who answered “No” could have been thinking that when they did so, though.
Read the rest of this entry »
Mighty Mo opens turret No. 1 for public view
Visitors have to ask to be taken up inside gun turret No. 1, which requires a low stoop and climb up into the uppermost chamber because the entry is too difficult for some. Making it a part of the already 90-minute –Explorer’s Tour” would make a lengthy guided tour even longer, officials said.
Marc David Weintraub, a tour guide on the Missouri, said people are awestruck by the big guns. They are even more awestruck when they climb inside the upper turret room and realize there were nearly 30 men in that room alone. All worked as part of a team to fire the guns every 30 seconds.
–Everybody has basically the same reaction — ‘We didn’t know so much went into doing this,’” Weintraub said.
USS Missouri (BB-63) fires a six-gun salvo from her forward turrets, during shakedown gunnery exercises, August 1944. Six 16-inch projectiles are visible in the air at the extreme right. Photographed by Arthur Stratham.
As usual, click for a better look. If you look carefully, you can see the six 16-inch projectiles near the right edge of the photo.
AP/Army Times (not an official military outlet) is reporting that
Iraqi officials said Sunday that the gunmen who attacked the provincial headquarters in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing five U.S. troops, were wearing military uniforms and drove up in black sport utility vehicles commonly used by foreign dignitaries — an apparent attempt to impersonate Americans.
The account came as confusion mounted over the brazen attack, with the local governor saying the gunmen stormed into the building during a U.S.-Iraqi meeting to discuss security measures ahead of the Shiite Ashoura festival.
and
In the Karbala incident, provincial Gov. Akeel al-Khazaali, who was not at the security meeting, said the SUVs were able to get through a checkpoint on the outskirts of the city, 50 miles south of Baghdad, because police assumed it was a diplomatic convoy and informed headquarters that it was coming.
–The group used percussion bombs and broke into the building, killed five Americans and kidnapped two others, then fled to the area near Mussayib,” about 20 kilometers to the north, the governor said, adding that Iraqi troops later found one of the SUVs with the three dead bodies dressed in military uniforms. [emphasis Murdoc's]
The Army says all personnel are accounted for and that no one was kidnapped. Perhaps witnesses saw fleeing insurgents in US uniforms and thought that they were captives?
I haven’t bothered calling anyone “unpatriotic” lately. Not because I don’t think there are unpatriotic folks around (there are…maybe even more than ever) but because the pointless arguing over the definition of “unpatriotic” which always ensues, usually as the accused trot out dictionaries and then argue over what the dictionary says. Then, they argue over what someone said the dictionary says. Later, they argue over what someone said about what someone said about what the dictionary says.
22% of respondents said they personally hope the new plan doesn’t work.
It’s pathetic really, and all the arguing over definitions doesn’t change a thing.
Anyway, I’m often told that there isn’t really anyone who wants to see America lose…it’s just that a lot of people don’t approve of the way we’re trying to win. (It’s funny, because some of the people telling me this are the same people who seem to actually want America to lose. When I point that out they usually start arguing over what “lose” means or some such idiocy.)
Here is a question and the results from a FoxNews poll conducted last week:
I happened across this after ArmyLawyer and Greyhawk mentioned it in MilBlogs.
22% of respondents (198 out of 900, in this case) said that they “personally hope it doesn’t work”. There is no other way to read that. It is a simple and straightforward question with a yes/no answer. No more than a couple of respondents could have answered wrong because they misunderstood it.
That is unpatriotic. Plain and simple. They don’t want what we’re doing to work. Personally.
They break the results down by party, and while I think it’s interesting that three times as many Democrats as Republicans hope for failure, I don’t think it’s terribly important. What’s important is that 22% personally hope America fails.
It shouldn’t matter if you think the plan is the right plan. We are at war and to personally hope it fails is unpatriotic.
Predictably, there are those in the comments sections claiming that the question doesn’t mean what it looks like it means and that the answers don’t mean what they look like they mean. Pathetic.
To his credit, Greyhawk even rationalizes the responses to a point and notes that twice as many people want the plan to succeed as actually support the plan itself. That’s nice, and important, but it’s not nearly enough.
It shouldn’t matter if you think the plan is the right plan. We are at war and to personally hope it fails is unpatriotic. It doesn’t matter what the plan is. This is a critical point.
If the plan was to airdrop cases of Coca-Cola into Iraq, with the Army Corps of Engineers following up by planting apple trees and helping the Iraqis establish an economy based on honey bees and snow-white turtle doves, anyone who personally hopes it fails would be unpatriotic. The plan would be stupid, obviously, as apple trees would have a hell of a time in Iraq, but no matter how stupid it was we should hope (even if against any hope at all) that it would work.
But many people hope this plan fails. Even though, while not genius in any way, it’s a reasonable plan. They personally hope it fails.
They are unpatriotic and I’m ashamed of them.
If you are one of these 198 people and you know me personally, do NOT tell me. If you personally agree with them, do NOT tell me. I’m ashamed of you already. Don’t push things to the next level.
Murdoc’s reward to himself for the recent publication of a feature article in Shooting Sports Retailer magazine:
It’s the DPMS Panther AP4 Carbine. Not pictured is the A2-style carry handle and rear sight.
Next reward will be forearm rails, possibly followed by a 6.8 SPC upper receiver for shooting larger dogs. I shot the 6.8 for the first time last week at the SHOT Show, and it seems to be a true “middle ground” round, shooting a lot like a 5.56 but hitting a bit like a 7.62. Any recommendations on rails?
Incidentally, my article in Shooting Sports Retailer is called “No Stranger to Danger” and covers private military and security contractors. As SSR is a trade magazine for independent retailers, I also have a few basic tips for selling to this growing market. The magazine is not available in stores, and unfortunately they do not re-publish articles online, so it might be tough to check it out. If you’re in the shooting trade, though, I recommend you take a look at the magazine if you get a chance. Lots of good stuff in every issue, particularly for store operators. I also write a regular column called “Battleground” in the mag which deals with tactical news and products, which SSR is making a concerted push into.
I will have more on the private military contractor issue in the near future here on MO.
In the meantime, I’m going to check out my new AR. Which way to the poodles?
Shiite group says it will end political boycott
Apparently reports of the Mahdi Army getting its collective ass kicked by the new Iraqi Army are on the money:
The political movement of Iraqi cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr said it would end a two-month boycott of parliament on Sunday, smoothing over a rift with its Shiite allies in the U.S.-backed government.
Darth Sadr seems to blow with the wind, cutting from the government whenever he thinks he can do better on his own. But after he gets knocked around for a while he always comes back to the table. Seems to Murdoc that this is direct evidence supporting a policy of knocking around the bad guys more than we have been lately. We aren’t quite to the “kiss and make up” stage in Iraq yet.
The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki seems to have decided to go after the militias is a large factor.
The first “surged” troops won’t enter the fight until around the end of the month, but the “surge” already seems to be working. Earlier reports had al Qaeda fighters ordered out of Baghdad before additional US forces arrive.
Murdoc’s guess is that the slight change in course, back to a slightly more offensive posture, has as much to do with these successes as any additional troops will. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki seems to have decided to go after the militias is a large factor, as well.
The Sadrists announced a boycott late last year to press their demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and to protest against a meeting between Maliki and U.S. President George W. Bush.
Late last year it appeared to many that a US-withdrawal deadline was a real possibility, so the Sadrists probably decided to pull back and wait it out. Now, in fact, the exact opposite seems to have happened, and they’ve got no choices left besides either playing along or fighting it out. Fighting it out didn’t appear to be working so well, so Sadr’s back at the table.
He must have been feeling some heat and is hoping that calls for his death will subside if he appears to be playing along.
UPDATE: Just noticed this via Milblogs: Al-Sadr Thinks He Is Being Targeted, Moves Family to Safe Place.
(It may surprise you folks, but Murdoc almost never looks at FoxNews.com unless linked there from elsewhere…)
Al-Sadr said that 400 of his men had been arrested and that he is also being targeted, prompting him to move his family to a secure location, the Italian daily La Repubblica reported…
“For this reason, I have moved my family to a secure location. I even have had a will drawn up, and I move continuously in a way that only few can know where I am,” he was quoted as saying by Repubblica.
It seems that Sadr is taking this latest push and “surge” seriously. As well he should, as his primary defender, Prime Minister Maliki, no longer seems on his side.
From a comment on Milblogs:
Also, note the (approving?) silence from Sistani, who stepped in twice before to save Sadr.
For all the necessity of military victory against the militias, terrorists, and thugs, the key to peace will be when enough folks jump aboard the bandwagon. It’s hard to tell right now, but things certainly seem to have taken a drastic change in the past month or so.
