Happy As Kings

The US Army is Doomed

This weekend, all I seem to be thinking about is sex.  It's enough to make the children blush.

In my online travels, I ran across this blog post (with the same subject line) concerning the use by the Army of empathy bellies for soldiers learning how to run PT for pregnant soldiers and soldiers who are new mothers.  The writer is truly gobsmacked.

I left a reply, but don't see it.  Either it is being held for moderation or the blog ate it.  I don't like to waste thinking or typing, so here is my reply:   

From the blog:  I know this sounds harsh, but if a woman is pregnant, why wouldn't they be honorably discharged, given some form of severance and sent on their way, or given the ability to transfer to a non combat role, but only if there are spots open for them.

She wouldn't be discharged because it's against the law to fire women for pregnancy, which is a temporary condition despite its long-term effect. Mothers aren't the only ones to experience this effect (parenthood) as many fathers stay with their children until the kids grow up.

Aside from that, DoD made the decision to allow pregnant women and mothers to remain on active duty when the draft ended in the 1970s and the Army shifted to all volunteers. 

• The Women's Army Corps, 1945 - 1978, p. 264: "A week later, however, Secretary Froehlke, faced with reports projecting that the elimination of the draft would leave the Army unable to maintain a minimum of thirteen active duty divisions after FY 1974, called upon the Army staff for a plan that would achieve the speediest and largest supportable increase in the WAC."
• The U.S. Army's Transition to the All-Volunteer Force, 1968-1974, p. 192: "[LTC Jack] Butler believed that an expansion of the WAC in order to substitute enlisted women for men required no justification; the need was self-evident." 

As for the empathy bellies, it is a cost-effective measure to have instructors understand the limits of what a troop with a physical condition can tolerate.  These women have received expensive training and may be very good at their jobs.  To flush them from the system for pregnancy is a waste of your tax dollars and would leave their co-workers playing catch-up.  For the women to be injured from unsuitable physical training and possibly be medically discharged would result in a similar financial loss for the Army.  For a woman to be injured and lose a baby would be a tragedy.

The argument for women in the military not to bear children until they complete whatever term it is that they intend to complete is also a form of discrimination given that older mothers tend to have more complications with pregnancy.  Enlisting at 20, waiting twenty years to retire, and then start a family has a woman waiting until 40 to become pregnant. Also, no one asks men to refrain from becoming fathers because they are in the military. The services do not discharge single fathers although they, like single mothers, must have a plan for care of the child/ren in case of an emergency. In fact, it would seem that the military encourages parenthood/family life by providing family quarters and dependent travel, among other family support mechanisms.

To correct a misperception at the blog, no woman, with or without a 1-year old, would be sent "into combat," much less any pregnant woman.  During pregnancy a woman who is a soldier would have what is called a "profile" limiting the kind of work she can do, just as any soldier who is unable to complete his or her duties because of a temporary condition. Yes, women have been killed in combat situations but only because the battlefield can be anywhere. These women were not "in combat" although combat came to them.

American military as a socialist entity

The local headline of Nicholas Kristof's column today in the Kansas City Star, gave me a laugh:  The Socialist U.S. Military System Works -- Hoo-ah!  I came to the same conclusion decades ago, not that the realization was anything spectacular, or public, it was merely an ironic realization, before the collapse of communism, and in the kitchen of the government quarters where our family lived.  The microcosm in which I lived was, short of being Spartans or 1st century Christians, the epitome of what my husband was actively working against.  Given our social group, I didn't bring up this viewpoint much in polite company.  (and yes, I supported my husband in his work -- realizing an -ismic irony didn't negate the reality of the opposition's intent)

I don't know that the military model is one that 'society' should emulate as a way of sustaining us all, but invoking socialism and communism as dread -isms, in and of themselves, holds as much truth as saying that pure free-market capitalism, unconstrained by any liberal practices, is the way to go.

Religious Civil Rights: Why Have the Washington Times and the Air Force Academy Savaged Them?

 Last week, a Washington Times editorial, "Air Force witchcraft," tried denigrating adherents of earth-centered religions by referencing a timely quote from Julius Caesar.

The religions of the barbaric tribes of Europe faded away as the Roman conquest brought civilization to the region. ... "They have likenesses of immense size, the limbs of which are composed of wicker, that they fill with living men," wrote Julius Caesar, describing a Druid ceremony. "After these are set on fire, the men inside perish in the flames."

 This appeal to ancient authority prompts me to rhetorically ask whether adherents of Christianity ever committed atrocities -- perhaps inquisitions, or religious wars, or genocide of civilizations new-to-Europeans? (I suppose Jewish atrocities are the ones in the Tanakh/Old Testament in which the Israelites wiped out neighboring tribes) Some might say, "Those things happened long ago. They don't happen now."  Children in Nigeria disagree. 

Another inaccuracy in the Times editorial is the statement:

All of the actual Wiccans and Druids died out hundreds of years ago.

 The thrown-together thinking behind the "actual" sentence is shown by the anachronistic mixing of Druids and Wiccans.  Druids were iron-age Celts; Wicca is a modern development; witches in the popular conception -- since the word is one synonym for Wiccan -- are, to my mind, mythological along with sorceresses and wizards.  In the here and now, some people do call themselves Druids, but as these neo-Druids are building websites and sending out home study courses, they've hardly died out.

 Another indicator of sloppy thinking by the article's writer is by referring to "actual Wiccans and Druids."  What is an "actual" Wiccan, or an "actual" Druid?  Would an "actual" Druid's physical existence be biologically equivalent to the body of a believer of a mainstream religion, or is there a difference between "actual" people and those who merely believe?  To me, the labeling of Wiccans and Druids as "actual" indicates the writer thinks that genetic Harry Potteresque wizards exist(ed), which brings up a pretty theological question:  Since most religions gain members by thoughtful teaching/conversion, do "actual" members of a religious group have their religion in their DNA?  If that were true, wouldn't an identifiable DNA marker for a specific religion lend more legitimacy to the status of "actual" believers?  (possibly? [see final paragraph])

 Metaphysics aside, how are secular authorities supposed to treat religion?  Should only the adherents of large-group religions be respected?  If that is how things should be, should secular authorities ignore minority-religions, or perhaps ban them? What is an appropriate secular treatment of group members with religious beliefs?

 Again from the Times article:

This is a space cadets can use to perform rituals if they happen to be witches, warlocks and tree-worshipers. ...

The Air Force is not alone in pandering.

 I'll overlook the Freudian "space cadets," although it gave me a laugh, but "pandering" is impossible to misconstrue.  One definition of pander is to receive special treatment. In a modern, tolerant country is it "pandering" to allow people to worship as they choose? 

The Times writer continues with the special treatment theme:

These neo-Pagan worshippers now have a federally supplied space they can call their own in the hills of Colorado Springs, Colo.

Why not?  The famous Air Force Academy Cadet Chapel is also "federally supplied," so why can't the minority-belief worshippers have a space in the hills?  Who is injured by either facility?

In the United States, practicing your religion is not a privilege, it's a right.  Which brings me to USAF Academy grad, Mikey Weinstein:

Religious Civil Rights: Why Have the Washington Times and the Air Force Academy Savaged Them?, 9 May 2011, Truthout

Shame, shame, shame on the Times for failing to recognize that, while the First Commandment might indeed say that "you cannot have any other Gods but Me," the First Amendment's clarion call is quite simply, "Oh yes you can!"

 The "clarion call" is echoed in the booklet, "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups" published by the U.S. Army.  (link to text: here)

 The United States is not a theocracy.  The Constitution (the one the cadets will swear to uphold when they become Air Force officers) says so.  What Julius Caesar thought, is of no civic consequence.

TV program irritation: drunk GIs shooting tracers

This time it's CSI's new episode, "Take my life, please!" -- such a disappointment from this program.

Setup:  CSIs examining a bad-man victim who had been shot over 100 times.  Sarah says something like, "X-number were blackened and thought maybe it was GSR, but they were singed."  Ray replies that the burns could have been caused by tracer rounds, then adds that when he was a kid his dad and his Army buddies "would get drunk and fire tracer rounds on the base" and tell him they were fireworks.

Note to television writers:  if you don't know anything about a subject -- leave it out.

#1:  Army installations are not bases and an Army brat would know that.  An Army brat says "on post," not "on base."  The Army installations are forts, or posts, or camps, or depots, or proving grounds, or arsenals, or barracks, or presidios.  But unless they are co-located with another service, Army installations are not bases.

#2:  Ammunition is controlled.  Weapons are controlled.  During weapons training, casings are counted afterward.  People may own their own weapons, but they don't shoot them off near children, and they damn sure don't put tracer rounds in them, even if the tracer ammunition would fit.  Were Ray's dad & buddies supposed to be firing machine guns "on base?"  Yeah, that's believable.

#3:  Unless you were out on a firing range or at an overseas "rod and gun club," firing a weapon "on base" would bring down a wrath so fast, your head wouldn't have time to spin.  All the servicemembers know the sound of gunfire, and if it was in the housing area, you'd have MPs showing up pretty damn fast.  Ray's dad & his dad's Army buddies would have shot off weapons once -- and then it would be the stockade.

Portraying servicemembers as drunk wildmen is a popular movie and television sport, but it's stupid.  It doesn't do our servicemembers or veterans any favors, and it perpetuates silly misperceptions.  In the six decades of my life, five of which have been spent at some point in military quarters, I can remember seeing one weapon other than those carried by military police or guards.  There may have been others, but that is the only one I remember. That one was a friend's father's hunting rifle in South Dakota.  It was deer season.  The deer was there, too.

Television writers, when you write nonsense you not only show your ignorance, but you shatter the suspension of disbelief, make people pause the DVR, reboot the laptop, and wind up with puny blog posts just looking for a search engine to find them.  Way to build a fan "base."

Reply to Oath Keepers post

For reasons beyond my knowledge, the comments section at the previous post would not accept this comment from me.  Because of that, it's going here.

1.  I acknowledged my authorship via the links.  In my comments, I spoke in 1^st person singular, and then provided links back to the blog.  If readers had bothered to follow the URLs, both the blog, and my authorship, would have been evident.  (my mother is out of the hospital, but care continues of course; thank you for your consideration)

 

2.  One does not pick and choose within the oath of office and say, “I will follow this part, but not that one.”  The oath requires protection and defence of the Constitution, and obeying the President of the United States and superior officers according to regulations and the UCMJ.  I did not claim that the officer oath included obeying the President, although apparently this is included in the oath National Guard officers take.

 

3.  The flag section of AR 670-1 begins on PDF-page 263/reg. page 240.

28–18. Wear of full-color U.S. flag cloth replica

 

4.  Unauthorized articles are unauthorized whether they are patches manufactured to resemble military patches in “subdued colors,” my co-worker’s red socks, your pink muumuu or an official item the wearer is not entitled to wear.  Intent is irrelevant.  Color is irrelevant.  The item is irrelevant.  Unauthorized is unauthorized.

 

5.  Encouraging soldiers, again, to pick and choose, and select which orders to follow does put unit morale at risk, as well as careers.   Whether the recommendation to pick and choose comes from a Yale graduate or from someone else is immaterial.  SAEDA doesn’t care who recommends the picking and choosing.

AR 381-12 Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the U.S. Army 
3–1. SAEDA incidents
i. Active attempts to encourage military or civilian employees to violate laws, disobey lawful orders or regulations, or disrupt military activities (subversion).
k. Participation by Army personnel in activities advocating or teaching the overthrow of the United States by force or violence or seeking to alter the form of Government by unconstitutional means (sedition).

 

6.  Comments are now moderated because I tired of the back & forth 'tennis game' with no progress.  If readers care to comment further on my opinions on this topic, they may do so at their own blogs.  

Oath Keeper badge on an Army uniform worn in Iraq

I just came across the picture that is said to be of an American soldier wearing an "oath keeper" badge on his uniform in Iraq.  If this picture is real (I've seen references to the uniform and gear looking "too clean" to have been taken in a war zone), it would show a violation of the Army regulation on the wear of the uniform.  All soldiers know that how the uniform is worn is controlled by regulation, and suggesting that active duty soldiers are wearing unauthorized items of such a nature, and approving of it, shows support for defiance of the regulation.

Army Regulation 670–1:  Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia  (337 pages worth of "do this ..., do not do that ...")

1–10. e. (1) The wear of a combination of civilian and military clothing is prohibited, unless prescribed in this regulation or other authorization documents approved by HQDA.

I presume that this would also apply to wearing civilian badges on an Army uniform.

A soldier sporting ultra-nationalistic patches on a uniform may seem "historically romantic" ("the revolutionary war was won by three percent") or "patriotically heartwarming" (Christian Embassy video in Pentagon) to people of similar opinions, but to me it indicates a breakdown of the discipline necessary for the safe conduct of operations in a war zone.  It also indicates to me a desire, on the part of some people sympathetic to the values of "oath keepers," to use the military services for anti-pluralistic propaganda.

Yes, I remember Viet Nam war era photos of soldiers with peace signs on their steel pots, and the Gulf War era photo of the young mother with a button picture of her daughter pinned to her helmet cover.  Inside each soldier is a regular person with a point of view, and those points of view are protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.  But the wearing of spurious insignia indicating allegiance to "oaths" that begin, "We will NOT obey orders to ...," is a purposeful challenge to the military chain of command. 

It also appears that the oath keepers want active duty service members to be oath breakers, in that all service members take an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ..."  If active duty oath keepers have to choose between a domestic enemy and the Constitution, which oath will prevail?

And we do all know that the person who gets in trouble for following this Hollywood moment is the trooper who falls for it, not the organization exercising its first amendment rights, don't we?

Law & Order: Embedded

Having been all but weaned on Perry Mason and every cop show ever since, I watch Law & Order when nothing else is on.  I just wish that the programs were more accurate.  On the subjects I know a little something about, usually homeschooling and the military, the writers always get something wrong.  How many other stupid errors do the writers include on programs whose topics are unfamiliar to me?

In this episode, Embedded (an old one from 2003), a soldier is (falsely) accused of shooting a formerly embedded reporter who (in this episode) gave away a military position on a news report.  In the story, this compromise of information resulted in the deaths of troops on the mission whose position the reporter gave away.  The regular characters on the program act out the pro/con discussion in America about the war in "Eye-rak," and refer to military personnel as "our boys."  The one thing I never heard troops referred to in decades of military affiliation, it's "our boys."

While I was watching the program, I dismissed most of the nit-noy inaccuracies. but I couldn't get past the story line/prosecution hingeing on the soldier, a sergeant E-5, having a "sidearm" while on leave in New York.  (I have to pause here to collect my thoughts because pointing out the absurd takes more neurons than refuting something rooted in logic)  I understand literary license, but literary absurdity is ridiculous.  Soldiers on leave never carry weapons.  In fact, on a military installation (other than in a war zone), the only people I've ever seen carrying weapons were military police or soldiers on guard.  Otherwise, there are no weapons in view.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada. 

• In eighteen years of growing up as an Air Force brat, I never saw my father with a weapon. 
• In twenty-two years of marriage to a soldier, I never saw my husband with a weapon. 
• In the dark ages of women's lib, as a WAC, I never held a weapon.
• I never saw my sailor-brother with a weapon.
• I never saw my WAF sister with a weapon.
• I never saw my career Air Force brother-in-law with a weapon.
• I never saw my soldier-son with a weapon (granted we were on separate continents, but he did come 'home' [overseas] on leave).

The idea of a soldier being on leave with an Army-issued weapon is so far from policy as to render the entire story not only fiction, but ridiculous fiction.  Military personnel are not armed and walking around.  Weapons are stored in the arms room, personnel must have weapons cards to check out the weapons, and the weapons are strictly controlled.

I realize the facts would ruin the story, but if that's the case, then 'don't do it.'  Write a better story.

I know it's a peeve of mine, but this 'image' of military personnel wandering around, armed and ready to shoot, is prejudicial.

Other annoyances in Embedded:

• The actor/soldier who is arrested in the program saluted like a toddler.  If the script is going to call for soldiers saluting, at least the actor could get the action right.  It's not that hard.
• "Ramsteen:"  Ramstein AFB is pronounced ram-stine in English.  In German it is pronounced (roughly) rom-shtine.  If the characters are going to say names, do a little research to find out how the words are pronounced.
• "I carried him over to the medical officer." (testimony while on the witness stand by the aforementioned actor/sergeant E-5 about his comrade's death in Iraq)  The annoyance?  Medics in the field aren't officers.  They'd be enlisted.  I don't know what medics are called now (if the term has changed), but I doubt it's "medical officer."

I understand that Law & Order is fictional entertainment, but at least between the writers, actors, directors and producers, someone could try to get the incidental facts correct. 

By the way, I tried watching Army Wives.  I couldn't do it.  In order to watch that program, my suspension of disbelief would need helium.

Proselytizing from the Pentagon

I picked up this thread at Daryl's.  The I went to look at the Operation Straight Up (OSU) site.

When I was an AF brat kid, and later when I was in the Army, and later still when I was following my soldier-husband all over the world, this overt proselytization within DoD was a no-no.  Yes, there were chaplains. Yes there were chapels. And yes, I frequented them, but the combination of command influence and religion was not tolerated.

At that time in the military, the atmosphere was different that what I saw it turning into when my husband retired from federal service in 1999.  Granted, times change -- my father used to lament the end of the brown-shoe Army -- but the modern American 'Christian soldier' development is potentially dangerous in itself.  Not only is our military at war in a two Muslim nations, one of which is fundamenalistic, so that the idea of a Christian army conjures up thoughts of 'crusades,' but the military hierarchy and discipline within the services is put in jeopardy.

Pentagon: Hold On, Christian Soldiers!

In the course of defending himself to the Inspector General's office, one of the generals asserted his belief that the Christian Embassy had become a "quasi-federal entity." This seems to support assertions by Weinstein that there is real confusion in high ranks of the military regarding armed service's secular status.

 

Debate Heats Up Over Proselytizing by Military Chaplains

Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, a priest in the Evangelical Episcopal Church, says he was disciplined for some of his shipboard sermons. He has been working with Jones to overturn the interim guidelines. In December, he went on an 18-day hunger strike outside the White House to protest what he said were restrictions on how he could pray and preach.

...

But the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, disagrees.

"When you're hired as a chaplain, when you become an officer in the United States military, as every person in the military does, you give up certain First Amendment rights," Lynn said. "But this is not fundamentally an issue of free speech. This is an idea of how the taxpayers are supporting religion in the military and legitimate restraints on what those chaplains can do."

I agree with in spirit with Reverned Lynn, but even he doesn't quite grasp the gravity of the breach.

Oath for a Naval officer

"I, _______, having being appointed an Ensign/Second Lieutenant in the United States Navy/Marine Corps under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such an appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

Active-duty military chaplains are not "hired." Active-duty military chaplains voluntarily take an oath.   All persons in the military, and in federal service, take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  That oath, combined with the principle of prohibition against unlawful, or undue command influence, means that not even a chaplain is allowed to proselytize the troops.  If the chaplain cannot keep from doing this, then he or she should not enter the military.

(Debate Heats Up Over Proselytizing by Military Chaplains)

Klingenschmitt said the issue is his ability to practice his faith.

"When I evangelize and I invite sailors to come and hear my sermons and they disagree, that's fine," he said. "They are never punished for disagreeing with me.

That the words "sailors" and "punished" are even combined in the same sentence concerning religion shows how far the thinking has gone that chaplains should be allowed to proselytize.  Add that to the statement in the first quotation above by a general that he thought, "Christian Embassy had become a "quasi-federal entity," demonstrates a major change from the military's previously neutral religious support and the sanctity of private beliefs.

Now we have "OSU" (clever how that mimics USO) saying it is going to send an "entertainment" tour to Iraq and Afghanistan.  That is a public relations disaster in the making. 

We’ll hold the only religious crusade of its size in the dangerous land of Iraq.

Bob Hope must be spinning.  I know I am.

Mom in the paper

This post is a little late because Someone (:::cough:::) didn't get the photos downloaded in a ... timely fashion.  But, here is the front page (!) photo from our local paper.

For Bebe

A classmate from junior high and 9th grade was also a shipmate when we were both infants being toted along to England by our parents.  She found photos of her time in England, and asked if I had any.

Oh, my, yes.

The newspaper clipping of new arrivals 'in country.'

   

Mom watching me in my new pram.

   

Mom taking a photo of me on my first birthday in my kilt.  (I still have the kilt pin, but unfortunately not the kilt)

   

Dad holding me wearing my first pair of glasses, courtesy of the British national health system.

Me and Father Christmas.

   

Me and Mom by Canterbury Cathedral.

   

The sign in the back says a tower, so I'm supposing we were visiting The Tower.

The best photos are on slides, and (alas) I don't yet have a slide scanner.