Today is a day for those with a sense of History. For one, it is Constitution Day. 222 years ago, the United States Constitution was created. It has served as a guide for not just our country, but has inspired other nations as well.
It has served over two centuries, delicately balancing power amongst three branches of government. It has shown that it can be amended (27 times), but not frivolously as hundreds of amendments tend to be proposed each session of Congress.
Our Constitution is notable in that it not only gives power to the national government, it also limits it.
It reserves powers and rights to the States and to the People (Tenth Amendment).
And often forgotten is that the Constitution is not the first form of government for the United States of America. Our nation had previously been guided by the Articles of Confederation. The failures and imperfections of the Articles helped guide the framers as they crafted the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't even the original plan as the framers had hoped to merely modify the Articles, but when they realized that more was needed, they set about redesigning the whole kit and kaboodle.
Our Constitution today seems to be a shadow of its former self, as our government has grown far beyond the enumerated boundaries our framers initially set. Has it grown such that it can never shrink back to the limits once set? Do our Citizens, on this "Citizenship & Constitution Day" know what is laid out in the Constitution?
-=-=-
Elsewhere in History, today marks the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union (Russia) invasion of Poland. Two weeks after Germany had swept into Poland, and as Poland was struggling to mount an effective defense, the Russians extinguished all hope when hundreds of thousands of their troops moved in. The result was a partitioning of Poland between the two, and Poland not being a truly independent nation again until over fifty years later.
The anniversary was marked notably by the US Government announcing that it was reneging on its defensive promises and canceling its intentions to place Ballistic Missile Interceptors in Poland. While it was announced that this is due to the lack of a perceived threat, it is much more reasonable to presume that it is an appeasement to Russian objections to the plan.
In contrast to a perceived lack of threat, the Associated Press is reporting that Iran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is working on a missile to deliver it. This is the same Iran that openly supports Hezbollah and whose weapons have been used against our troops in Iraq.
The Poles are used to being abandoned by the West. It is a shame that history is repeating itself.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Peace Was Our Profession
Once upon a time, the United States Air Force was simply and clearly delineated into three major commands - MAC, TAC, and SAC (Military Airlift Command, Tactical Air Command, and Strategic Air Command, obviously respectively.)
That all changed in 1992, when the Cold War having been declared won by default, it was felt that a reorganization was needed.
Why?
Various reasons were given, cost-savings of course being one of them, however sometimes organizations reorganize for the sake of reorganizing.
The USAF changed to AMC (Air Mobility Command, to replace the more pronounceable MAC, though not sure why), ACC (Air Combat Command, combining assets from TAC and SAC, and providing another unpronounceable acronym), and to further complicate matters, the nuclear assets of ACC, formerly of SAC, would also report to USSTRATCOM (US Strategic Command). Confused?
Yeah. (First rule of thumb of military acronyms - the military SPEAKS in acronyms, so they should at least be pronounceable.)
We went from having one command managing ALL of the assets needed for nuclear response via air and space (the Navy handling the submarines, logically enough) to spreading the wealth.
The result?
A "Lack of Focus" according to the report recently issued by a panel chaired by retired USAF General Larry Welch.
These are nuclear weapons, folks. Our government agonizes about the potential loss of control of nuclear weapons in other nations, e.g. Pakistan, Russia, and the development of weapons in countries such as Iraq and Iran. Yet, we've managed to instituionalize the loss of control in a formal manner within our own nuclear forces.
An interesting quote from the article:
The general is correct. Until 1991, we faced primarily ONE nuclear enemy - the Soviet Union (I know, I know, the Soviets had disbanded, but I'm trying to keep this simple). Now? Who knows. Literally. Russia hasn't had the tightest control of its nuclear assets, and those potentially lost nukes could be anywhere. Iran is trying to gain nuclear assets, North Korea does have nuclear assets, and let's not forget our friends, the terrorists.
This is a time when we need ABSOLUTE control over our nuclear forces with a clear, simple chain of command. Anything else is foolish and inviting trouble.
That all changed in 1992, when the Cold War having been declared won by default, it was felt that a reorganization was needed.
Why?
Various reasons were given, cost-savings of course being one of them, however sometimes organizations reorganize for the sake of reorganizing.
The USAF changed to AMC (Air Mobility Command, to replace the more pronounceable MAC, though not sure why), ACC (Air Combat Command, combining assets from TAC and SAC, and providing another unpronounceable acronym), and to further complicate matters, the nuclear assets of ACC, formerly of SAC, would also report to USSTRATCOM (US Strategic Command). Confused?
Yeah. (First rule of thumb of military acronyms - the military SPEAKS in acronyms, so they should at least be pronounceable.)
We went from having one command managing ALL of the assets needed for nuclear response via air and space (the Navy handling the submarines, logically enough) to spreading the wealth.
The result?
A "Lack of Focus" according to the report recently issued by a panel chaired by retired USAF General Larry Welch.
After the Cold War, the once-vaunted Strategic Air Command, which controlled all Air Force nuclear weapons, was dismantled. The military's nuclear missiles were assigned to a division responsible for operations in space, and its nuclear bombers were moved to Air Combat Command, which also includes nonnuclear fighters and reconnaissance aircraft.
Although the internal Air Force review has not been made public, a copy of its executive summary obtained by The Times asserts that the split organization has led to fragmentation of policies and accountability, without a single commander responsible for nuclear missions.
These are nuclear weapons, folks. Our government agonizes about the potential loss of control of nuclear weapons in other nations, e.g. Pakistan, Russia, and the development of weapons in countries such as Iraq and Iran. Yet, we've managed to instituionalize the loss of control in a formal manner within our own nuclear forces.
An interesting quote from the article:
"We can't go back to where we were in 1991," Peyer said. "We don't live in the same world. It's not the same environment."(Note: Major General Polly Peyer conducted an internal United States Air Force review.)
The general is correct. Until 1991, we faced primarily ONE nuclear enemy - the Soviet Union (I know, I know, the Soviets had disbanded, but I'm trying to keep this simple). Now? Who knows. Literally. Russia hasn't had the tightest control of its nuclear assets, and those potentially lost nukes could be anywhere. Iran is trying to gain nuclear assets, North Korea does have nuclear assets, and let's not forget our friends, the terrorists.
This is a time when we need ABSOLUTE control over our nuclear forces with a clear, simple chain of command. Anything else is foolish and inviting trouble.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Curses to Iran
Curses to Iran.
One of the most magnificent, beautiful, and downright sexy aircraft that has graced the skies is being forced to suffer an ignominious death. Why? Because there are only two countries in the world that flew it: the United States (yay, us!) and Islamic Republic of Iran (boooo).
Which aircraft? The F-14 Tomcat.
Most of you may know her from her starring role in Top Gun (Sorry, Mr. Cruise, but the Tomcat was the star. Ask Naval Recruiters from that era.)
Anyway... since the US has had an embargo on Iran ever since Iran invaded the United States in 1979, thus severely limiting the Iranian Air Force's ability to acquire spare parts for the F-14. Understandably, with the recent retirement of the F-1 by the United States, Iran has drooled over the prospect of acquiring parts from the F-14s being stripped for military use.
Congress acted, and declared that it must be ensured that no parts that could be useful to Iran be available.
And there's only one real way to do that.
Destroy the F-14s we have. Viciously. Savagely. Reduce them to tiny little bits.
So, the beautiful beast that once owned the skies the world over... is being reduced to rubble. She was once lovingly maintained by crews who showered her with affection, and now... a mechanical monster sinks its teeth into it like a lion pruning the weak gazelle from the herd.
If you can stomach it, watch here:
Link: sevenload.com
Thanks, Iran. May your birds meet the same fate one day.
One of the most magnificent, beautiful, and downright sexy aircraft that has graced the skies is being forced to suffer an ignominious death. Why? Because there are only two countries in the world that flew it: the United States (yay, us!) and Islamic Republic of Iran (boooo).
Which aircraft? The F-14 Tomcat.
Most of you may know her from her starring role in Top Gun (Sorry, Mr. Cruise, but the Tomcat was the star. Ask Naval Recruiters from that era.)
Anyway... since the US has had an embargo on Iran ever since Iran invaded the United States in 1979, thus severely limiting the Iranian Air Force's ability to acquire spare parts for the F-14. Understandably, with the recent retirement of the F-1 by the United States, Iran has drooled over the prospect of acquiring parts from the F-14s being stripped for military use.
Congress acted, and declared that it must be ensured that no parts that could be useful to Iran be available.
And there's only one real way to do that.
Destroy the F-14s we have. Viciously. Savagely. Reduce them to tiny little bits.
So, the beautiful beast that once owned the skies the world over... is being reduced to rubble. She was once lovingly maintained by crews who showered her with affection, and now... a mechanical monster sinks its teeth into it like a lion pruning the weak gazelle from the herd.
If you can stomach it, watch here:
Link: sevenload.com
Thanks, Iran. May your birds meet the same fate one day.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Fred Thompson
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, and quite possibly a future presidential candidate, has posted a column over at RedState.com.
Take a peek. It's a good read.
Take a peek. It's a good read.
President Ahmadinejad the Proctologist
We were probed. As surely as a visit to a proctologist, the West was just probed by Iran.
What do I mean?
Iran, under President Ahmadinejad, is trying to achieve an ascendancy. As is classic and time-worn, when trouble brews domestically, focus the populace elsewhere.
President Ahmadinejad would like to achieve his goals of making Iran a super-state in the Middle East. Subduing, and quite possibly annexing, Iraq next door (not the same as our version of quelling the insurgency - his version of subduing means that the West is out of there). Giving Israel ample reason to wonder if there will be a tomorrow for the Jews. Restoring pride and power to Persia.
The West stands in his way. Much like Germany saw the the need to conquer Europe to consolidate control and to facilitate goals of a super-race, and Japan needed the United States pacified to free its access to natural resources for its empire, Iran (Persia) needs the West to back away.
Iran (Persia) could easily close off trade through the Straits of Hormuz. But, they know (or now, may only suspect) that quick military reaction would result. Thirty years of Western embargoes have affected their navy and air force, but luckily, they can still shop at Russia's flea markets, so they are not toothless.
What's important before waging war is having some idea of how your enemy may react. Will they fight back Will they stand by? Will they capitulate? How much fire is in their belly?
So, you probe. You test your enemy. See how they respond to low provocation.
And that's what Iran is doing. Between putting forces in Iraq - where they can formulate dissension AND closely observe Western forces - and the snatch and grab of British sailors and Marines... Iran is studying us.
And they're not disappointed. We have emboldened them with the latest reaction by the Brits. The culture in that part of the world respects strength. And allowing your uniformed personnel to be taken with, at most, stern talk, and quite likely prisoner trades and other rewards for your behavior, doesn't strike fear in the hearts for future operations.
"They" are coming.
Iran has not suddenly rolled over and realized thirty years of chanting "Death to the Great Satan" was a bad idea... they're just becoming more motivated and mobilized.
They are rejoicing in the weakness that is enveloping the West, as the United States' forces are stretched amazingly thin and hampered by strict rules of engagement and lackluster support at home, and its allies are few and far between. They have made sufficient economic inroads with a majority of the big players (Russia, China, Germany, France) to make them think twice about risking their money for a war or sanctions.
So, let's be prepared, and realize what's coming. President Ahmadinejad did not get a wild hare in his head just before Easter for nothing; you do NOT rise to his level in a country (any country, ours included) by being a complete idiot (sorry, liberals).
We were probed. We will be probed again. How will we react next time?
What do I mean?
Iran, under President Ahmadinejad, is trying to achieve an ascendancy. As is classic and time-worn, when trouble brews domestically, focus the populace elsewhere.
President Ahmadinejad would like to achieve his goals of making Iran a super-state in the Middle East. Subduing, and quite possibly annexing, Iraq next door (not the same as our version of quelling the insurgency - his version of subduing means that the West is out of there). Giving Israel ample reason to wonder if there will be a tomorrow for the Jews. Restoring pride and power to Persia.
The West stands in his way. Much like Germany saw the the need to conquer Europe to consolidate control and to facilitate goals of a super-race, and Japan needed the United States pacified to free its access to natural resources for its empire, Iran (Persia) needs the West to back away.
Iran (Persia) could easily close off trade through the Straits of Hormuz. But, they know (or now, may only suspect) that quick military reaction would result. Thirty years of Western embargoes have affected their navy and air force, but luckily, they can still shop at Russia's flea markets, so they are not toothless.
What's important before waging war is having some idea of how your enemy may react. Will they fight back Will they stand by? Will they capitulate? How much fire is in their belly?
So, you probe. You test your enemy. See how they respond to low provocation.
And that's what Iran is doing. Between putting forces in Iraq - where they can formulate dissension AND closely observe Western forces - and the snatch and grab of British sailors and Marines... Iran is studying us.
And they're not disappointed. We have emboldened them with the latest reaction by the Brits. The culture in that part of the world respects strength. And allowing your uniformed personnel to be taken with, at most, stern talk, and quite likely prisoner trades and other rewards for your behavior, doesn't strike fear in the hearts for future operations.
"They" are coming.
Iran has not suddenly rolled over and realized thirty years of chanting "Death to the Great Satan" was a bad idea... they're just becoming more motivated and mobilized.
They are rejoicing in the weakness that is enveloping the West, as the United States' forces are stretched amazingly thin and hampered by strict rules of engagement and lackluster support at home, and its allies are few and far between. They have made sufficient economic inroads with a majority of the big players (Russia, China, Germany, France) to make them think twice about risking their money for a war or sanctions.
So, let's be prepared, and realize what's coming. President Ahmadinejad did not get a wild hare in his head just before Easter for nothing; you do NOT rise to his level in a country (any country, ours included) by being a complete idiot (sorry, liberals).
We were probed. We will be probed again. How will we react next time?
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Questions for Her Majesty's Sailors
I've been quiet. Not wanting to say too much while the crisis was going on. But, they have now been released and are back in England.
I first raised some concerns in a chat with a friend last week. She seemed rather shocked by some of my questions and statements, but I tried to show her where I was coming from.
I was surprised about how this all started. Really, a foreign navy takes fifteen sailors and Marines prisoner (* - let's get the lingo right, too... they weren't hostages; what Iran did was an act of war, and thus, the fifteen were Prisoners...) and not a single defensive shot is fired?
Not one?
Iran shows up, says, "You are my prisoner", and the Brits shrug and say, "Ok"?
No one got on the radio and said, "Hey, Captain... there are some Iranians here trying to capture us..."? There's a big FRIGATE over there... surely force could have been brought to bear to protect those sailors.
I can't imagine the betrayal to find out that no one's got your back when another country comes up, points weapons at you, and takes you away.
Something else that bugged me about this... how quickly the Sailors "confessed". This was a big debate between my friend and I.
In the United States, we have the Code of Conduct. Memorized it in Basic training. It's posted everywhere, and we even carry it around with us.
Article 1 is very simply put, and eloquent. It reminds us of what our mission in the military is, and the stakes.
Article 2. This is what I'm talking about above. There were means to resist. The Sailors were armed. Plus, there was that FRIGATE nearby.
Article 3. The reason for this is clear. You don't cease being in the military when captured. You're expected to still resist. And one of the means to resist is to not accept any favors. Accepting such favors is one way that captors can make inroads and begin to "break" you and divide the group.
Article 4. Basically, I won't cooperate. Remember, as a prisoner, you do not have the whole picture. You're separated, and unable to remain a cohesive unit. You must "keep the faith". Each prisoner must do their part and take comfort that all other prisoners should be doing the same thing.
Article 5. Very simple. Keep your mouth shut. (But, SCEagle... what if they are tortured? Or holding a gun to their comrade? See Article 1 and Articles 3 and 4.) You do not have the big picture. And your statements, or "confessions", can easily circumscribe whatever efforts your nation is trying to accomplish.
Article 6. Don't lose faith. Don't lose faith in your God, and in your nation to get you back.
Sure, it's easy to sit here in the comfort of my home and pontificate. *I* wasn't captured. Didn't go through what we didn't see on Iranian TV.
Right.
Being in the military, one has to accept certain terms. Part of it is covered in Article 1. I am prepared to give my life. It doesn't say under what conditions... (Well, if my helicopter is shot down, sure... but, if I'm a prisoner, all bets are off... nope, that's not the way it goes.)
It's not easy... maybe they're threatening to remove fingers of your buddy? Or have one of those big knives held to your friend's neck? Maybe you're not prepared to watch your fellow comrade in arms get raped? Keep in mind, they also have Article 1. Everyone has to stay strong.
Imagine how this would have turned out if one of the sailors had been hurt? Can you imagine the President of Iran getting the word that one of the sailor's had been mutilated or killed? How do you say, "Oh $!@*" in Farsi? He would have realized that a line had been crossed (in addition to the MANY other lines already crossed, but this one would be big and bold) and Iran may soon have wrath raining down on it. No way to cover that up.
The first "confession" came very quickly. And supposedly, all fifteen confessed. Shame on them.
I hope that all of Her Majesty's armed forces are not as weak, though I fear they are. There have been so many cutbacks, and reductions... they're a shadow of what they once were. Note, it was United States Navy carriers that were doing exercises off the coast of Iran, not the Royal Navy.
Still surprised the HMS Cornwall didn't intervene and allowed her Sailors and Marines to be captured. Without a shot.
There are a lot of questions that need to be asked now that the prisoners are home. Judging by how quickly they gave in to the Iranians, we should have our answers by Monday.
I first raised some concerns in a chat with a friend last week. She seemed rather shocked by some of my questions and statements, but I tried to show her where I was coming from.
I was surprised about how this all started. Really, a foreign navy takes fifteen sailors and Marines prisoner (* - let's get the lingo right, too... they weren't hostages; what Iran did was an act of war, and thus, the fifteen were Prisoners...) and not a single defensive shot is fired?
Not one?
Iran shows up, says, "You are my prisoner", and the Brits shrug and say, "Ok"?
No one got on the radio and said, "Hey, Captain... there are some Iranians here trying to capture us..."? There's a big FRIGATE over there... surely force could have been brought to bear to protect those sailors.
I can't imagine the betrayal to find out that no one's got your back when another country comes up, points weapons at you, and takes you away.
Something else that bugged me about this... how quickly the Sailors "confessed". This was a big debate between my friend and I.
In the United States, we have the Code of Conduct. Memorized it in Basic training. It's posted everywhere, and we even carry it around with us.
Article I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
Article III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Article IV
Should I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
Article 1 is very simply put, and eloquent. It reminds us of what our mission in the military is, and the stakes.
Article 2. This is what I'm talking about above. There were means to resist. The Sailors were armed. Plus, there was that FRIGATE nearby.
Article 3. The reason for this is clear. You don't cease being in the military when captured. You're expected to still resist. And one of the means to resist is to not accept any favors. Accepting such favors is one way that captors can make inroads and begin to "break" you and divide the group.
Article 4. Basically, I won't cooperate. Remember, as a prisoner, you do not have the whole picture. You're separated, and unable to remain a cohesive unit. You must "keep the faith". Each prisoner must do their part and take comfort that all other prisoners should be doing the same thing.
Article 5. Very simple. Keep your mouth shut. (But, SCEagle... what if they are tortured? Or holding a gun to their comrade? See Article 1 and Articles 3 and 4.) You do not have the big picture. And your statements, or "confessions", can easily circumscribe whatever efforts your nation is trying to accomplish.
Article 6. Don't lose faith. Don't lose faith in your God, and in your nation to get you back.
Sure, it's easy to sit here in the comfort of my home and pontificate. *I* wasn't captured. Didn't go through what we didn't see on Iranian TV.
Right.
Being in the military, one has to accept certain terms. Part of it is covered in Article 1. I am prepared to give my life. It doesn't say under what conditions... (Well, if my helicopter is shot down, sure... but, if I'm a prisoner, all bets are off... nope, that's not the way it goes.)
It's not easy... maybe they're threatening to remove fingers of your buddy? Or have one of those big knives held to your friend's neck? Maybe you're not prepared to watch your fellow comrade in arms get raped? Keep in mind, they also have Article 1. Everyone has to stay strong.
Imagine how this would have turned out if one of the sailors had been hurt? Can you imagine the President of Iran getting the word that one of the sailor's had been mutilated or killed? How do you say, "Oh $!@*" in Farsi? He would have realized that a line had been crossed (in addition to the MANY other lines already crossed, but this one would be big and bold) and Iran may soon have wrath raining down on it. No way to cover that up.
The first "confession" came very quickly. And supposedly, all fifteen confessed. Shame on them.
I hope that all of Her Majesty's armed forces are not as weak, though I fear they are. There have been so many cutbacks, and reductions... they're a shadow of what they once were. Note, it was United States Navy carriers that were doing exercises off the coast of Iran, not the Royal Navy.
Still surprised the HMS Cornwall didn't intervene and allowed her Sailors and Marines to be captured. Without a shot.
There are a lot of questions that need to be asked now that the prisoners are home. Judging by how quickly they gave in to the Iranians, we should have our answers by Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
