-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! ***************************************************************** SOLDIERS FOR THE TRUTH "DEFENDING AMERICA NEWSLETTER" 29 March 2000 "When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen." General George Washington, New York Legislature, 1775 Soldiers For The Truth Foundation, PO Box 63840, Colorado Springs, CO 80962-3840 HTTP://WWW.SFTT.ORG ***************************************************************** TABLE OF CONTENTS SITREP Hack's Column: Article 1 -- The High Flyers Article 2 -- "From my position - on the way!" Why Casualty Avoidance is Job One Big Picture: Article 3 - A Chief's Response Article 4 -- One Year After the Air War Article 5 -- AUSA Warns Secretary of Defense About Danger of Shortfalls in Army Budget "VOICE OF THE GRUNT" Article 6 -- A Chief's Response Article 7 -- TRICARE - other options Article 8 - Flying CEO's control the Stick Article 9 -- Hardware or Harder Wear? Special Topic: Article 10 -- 2000 Retired Military Personnel Handbook available Medal of Honor: Article 11 -- *WALMSLEY, JOHN S., JR, Korea 1951 G.I Humor: Article 12 -- Murphy's Laws of Combat =============================================================== SITREP: This week's main topics: US Military in casualty avoidance mode; Hack attack on Clinton's Airline; Kosovo assessment one year after the air war; and reader responses to hot button issues. The mailing seems to have improved. We are still working on getting some of you back into the net. Bear with us. SFTT in the News! In addition to getting a mention in USA today on 20 March on the Y2K medal topic, I also represented SFTT in an MSNBC interview covering the same issue on 27 March. The "establishment" spokesman, MG (ret.) Atkinson stated in the interview that the Army had so far only issued a limited number of Y2K "victory" medals. A success for USA Today and SFTT in our mission to keep the Pentagon honest! SFTT status. Success is slow but imminent! I opened an account for us in Colorado Springs. Currently we have funding for about 90 days. Next step is an interactive website for support donations to keep the operation humming for the year. We will make an official announcement in the next two weeks to get started on the breakout operation. We can't do it without beans, bullets and fuel, Volunteers. We are beginning to organize our Volunteer branch. Our new volunteer recruiter is a battle proven navy personnel wizard. In just one week, he has performed miracles. His name is Rob Hamm. Here is how to contact him: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SFTT Website. Please check out our updates, i.e. objectives, mission statement, etc. If you didn't get the complete newsletter, you can find it archived on the website. http://www.sftt.org/updates/000329.htm HACK's Books Hack is still selling his books through his website. If you desire a personally autographed copy of About Face, Hazardous Duty or Price of Honor you can get it directly form "Mr. Infantry" -- www.hackworth.com. A great Easter present!!! Until next week let' s make contact - break through -- and exploit! R.W. Zimmermann President SFTT [EMAIL PROTECTED] =============================================================== ARTICLE 1 - Defending America ~~~~~~~~~~~~ The High Flyers ~~~~~~~~~~~~ By David H. Hackworth Beautiful Guam didn't sink last week. But there were so many U.S. military aircraft at Andersen Air Force Base that the Pacific islanders and military folks stationed there thought the island just might go down like the Titanic. No, this giant Air Force armada wasn't there for contingency purposes because of all the anti-American rhetoric blasting out of communist China. Nor to move U.S. combat troops to South Korea to reinforce our garrison in that land of never-ending conflict. Their mission was solely to support Bill Clinton's diplomatic and goodwill trip to southern Asia. An Air Force officer stationed on Guam says, "I saw more C-5A and C-17 aircraft here than I've ever seen in one place in my entire 15-year career." The air fleet at Guam is but a portion of the total aircraft tasked to support the president and his humongous entourage of security and communications people and the various strap handlers who made up the most bloated traveling circus an American commander in chief has ever had. On this safari to the Taj Mahal and points east, even Clinton has outdone Clinton. The officer says, "This boondoggle will cost the Air Force alone over $50 million and limit its ability to execute its regular operational missions. There are 354 scheduled airlift sorties to support this White House mission -- enough to transport two Army divisions with all their stuff anywhere on planet Earth." When Clinton travels, he moves with a cast of thousands. A lifetime government employee who's never signed a payroll check except on the back, he clearly likes to do things big if he isn't personally picking up the tab. A conservative estimate is that his globe-trotting recklessness in the past eight years has cost the taxpayers pretty close to a cool billion bucks and along the way ripped the guts out of the Air Force air-transport fleet to boot. Since Desert Storm, the fleet has flown its wings off on military operations all over the world in support of the Pentagon's nonstop Robo-Globo-Cop and Meals On Wheels lunacy. The air fleet is badly strained, and many veteran flyboys and girls say it's broken from trying to do too much with too little for too long. Most of the aircraft are old and worn. The magnificent crews who fly and maintain these old dogs are equally burned out. But as long as American citizens don't scream bloody murder, members of Congress -- who, by the way, very much enjoy Air Force VIP aircraft carting them around the world on their many junkets -- certainly won't do their due diligence. Hopefully, the Air Force brass will rebel and ask Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who has a penchant for zipping around in plush military jets himself, to tell "Traveling Bill" to knock it off. Whoever sounds off first, citizens or brass, it's time we got rid of the flying spectacle that's stealing dollars from spare parts, taking funds away from war training and wasting bucks that could be used to get low-rankers off food stamps. Bill's other half, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has the Air Force travel bug as well. For months, Hill's been whipping back and forth from Washington, D.C., to New York state one to five times a week via Air Force VIP Gulfstream jet. Aircraft-running expenses for one round trip is $5,096, not including costs for air and maintenance crews, a reinforced squad of Secret Service troops and an Air Force security sergeant with a bomb-sniffing dog. For sure, the first lady's entitled to use military aircraft. But her travel these days seems mainly about working the system to get Candidate Clinton and supporters to New York for her shot at the U.S. Senate. Several Air Force generals are having a hard time biting their tongues over her blatant abuse of military air assets and the attendant waste of tax dollars. My spies tell me it might not be long before a general roars, "Enough already. Take the Delta Shuttle for your political stuff and let the 89th Airlift Wing do its assigned job." Congress needs to have a hard look at the high-flying Clintons and ground them before the people clip the wings of both the lawmakers and the Clintons in November. *** http://www.hackworth.com is the address of David Hackworth's home page. Instructions for subscription to this list are at the end of this message. Send mail to P.O. Box 5210, Greenwich, CT 06831. � 2000 David H. Hackworth Distributed by King Features Syndicate Inc. ================================================== ARTICLE 2 - "From my Position" -- On the way!" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why Casualty Avoidance is Job One ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 03/27/00 By R. W. Zimmermann I am stunned by the uproar caused by Tom Bowman's 22 March Baltimore Sun article on the US military's obsession with casualty avoidance. No one seems to realize that we have cultivated "this avoidance" mindset for over two decades. It is fact that today's military has almost completely exorcised the warrior ethos and is overemphasizing cover-up safety and risk avoidance doctrine. As a consequence, it will find it difficult to accomplish future ground combat missions. Who is to blame for the avoidance craze? Senator John McCain names the Clinton administration, while academicians invoke the aftershock of the disastrous Somalia mission. I disagree with all of them, although I am just a retired "dirt" tanker. The truth is that the military and the Army have had an obsession with safety and force protection since the end of Vietnam. Many of the officers of the Vietnam era who later rose to key leadership positions in the eighties are responsible for the casualty paranoia. During my early career as a platoon leader in the early eighties, it was constantly hammered into me that the quickest career ender would be a training accident or a drunk driving offense. Sadly enough, tactical incompetence didn't get you relieved. The full-scale force protection campaign in the Army began with General John Wickham who was on a crusade to stop alcohol use and who tried turn all clubs into family/fitness facilities. Our main focus shifted from tactical proficiency to accident prevention, seatbelt enforcement, bar-fight prevention, VD prevention, to avoidance of harsh language. Most of the avoidance statistics became "gradable events" during the quarterly training briefing spectacles, invented by Training and Doctrine Commander General Carl Vuono. As usual, the next leader generation "one-upped" the previous one and policies got tougher over time. When the 3rd Armored Division deployed for Desert Storm, we took along a civilian safety representative who ensured that combat zero ranges adhered to European Command safety standards in the middle of the open desert. Soldiers had to be "re-certified" on their weapons to "prevent" embarrassing investigations in case of accidental weapons discharges. Even the VII Corps intent statement for the attack on Iraqi forces stressed to "minimize casualties." In the mid-nineties the casualty avoidance doctrine got even tighter. Prior to training at the National Training Center (NTC), I remember three brigade commanders issue their definitions of successful training -- " you can lose every battle, as long as no one gets hurt!" Today, lengthy risk assessments are part of every mission. Every operations order features a highly detailed safety paragraph, more important than its combat mission instructions. The briefing craze has made our soldiers afraid to use some of their sophisticated gear and of training under adverse conditions. During a recent NTC train-up exercise, the 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division on Ft. Carson cancelled training for a half inch of snow! A quick recovery doesn't seem in the cards. In his latest risk management memorandum, the commander of III Corps instructed his subordinates on how to handle every conceivable accident. The memo details, if a soldier dies in an off-post traffic accident, his entire chain of command, from squad leader to battalion commander, must report to the respective post commander within seven days. The chain of command must elaborate on the circumstances surrounding the accident, holiday safety briefings conducted, lessons learned, and corrective measures. As a former commander, I am not advocating that we unnecessarily expose troops to dangers but breeding fear and danger avoidance isn't going to make us winners in a future ground war. What we need is a cultural change: Put operationally experienced senior operator leaders, not paper killers in charge of large formations. Keep junior leaders in their tactical jobs longer and allow them to take initiative and calculated risk. Stop safety briefing the troops into fearing their own equipment, but DRILL the troops on their equipment and under all conditions to build maximum proficiency and confidence. Hold individuals and not only the chain of command responsible for off-post incidents. Remember that we have an all-volunteer force that must be tougher, more proficient, and better prepared to face the risks of short notice ground combat. Senior leaders must show the guts to tell our people that they should expect casualties during deployments and combat. Politicians are responsible that our troops risk life and limb only in support of defined national interests. I think Tom Bowman was on the right track but to achieve a cultural change requires more than just getting rid of the guy in the White House and exorcising the ghost of Somalia. Zimm � R.W. Zimmermann, LandserUSA President SFTT [EMAIL PROTECTED] ============================================================== ARTICLE 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cost Of War: A New Accounting Strategy: Many are critical, as minimizing casualties rather than completing the mission at whatever cost, becomes the first priority. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: Excellent piece that started an important discussion. Are body bags becoming America's strategic center of gravity? Tom Bowman is on the right track but we have been breeding risk and casualty avoidance quite a bit longer than the experts contend. Some of the senior experts now working for the think tanks might have helped perpetuate the thinking while in uniform in the eighties and nineties. *********************************************************************** Baltimore Sun, March 22, 2000 By Tom Bowman, Sun National Staff WASHINGTON -- Just back from Bosnia, a U.S. Army lieutenant stood before a class of West Point cadets last year for a lesson on clear, cold reality. "I tell my men every day there is nothing there worth one of them dying for," the lieutenant told the would-be junior officers. "Because minimizing -- really prohibiting -- casualties is the top-priority mission I have been given by my battalion commander." The blunt talk contradicted what the cadets had been studying: minimize casualties, yet complete the mission. Now they were being told that protecting their troops was the mission. The next generation of Army officers came face-to-face with the new, topsy-turvy world of the U.S. military. This cautious approach to combat and peacekeeping operations -- "casualty aversion" -- is a growing trend that is not only jeopardizing the success of missions where U.S. troops are involved, such as Bosnia and Kosovo, but also corroding the military ethos of self-sacrifice and protection of noncombatants, say active-duty officers and military analysts. "Sometimes soldiers are obligated to take risks to get the mission done," explains Maj. Tony Pfaff, a philosophy instructor at West Point, who described the cadet scene in a study he co-wrote in December, "Army Professionalism, the Military Ethic and Officership in the 21st Century." Without risk, he argues, soldiers become "hard-working technicians, not soldiers anymore." He and others say that military leaders and politicians fear a public reaction against the spilling of American blood. But polls show Americans will support deadly military operations, as long as the reasons are clearly explained and the United States sees it through to completion. Firsthand Experience Pfaff saw firsthand this no-casualty emphasis as an infantry officer in Macedonia in 1994. He recalls that missions could be canceled because of extreme weather, lest hypothermia or other difficult conditions injure the troops. If protecting U.S. troops becomes the mission, Pfaff and others ask, how can America train soldiers to fight and win the nation's wars? It is one of the reasons, they say, that young officers are abandoning the profession of arms in droves. Ordering soldiers to avoid firefights is akin to telling firefighters to stay away from burning buildings, he says. "What effect does that have on the future George Pattons of the world?" asks retired Army Col. Joseph J. Collins, who co-wrote a study for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "It's hard to be a risk-taker when you've been brought up with people telling you that force protection is the mission." Retired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Edward "Shy" Meyer, a legendary officer who helped rebuild the force after the Vietnam War, says he is "very concerned" by casualty aversion and is pressing for further study on its effects. Sen. John McCain, who risked his life flying combat missions in Vietnam, faults President Clinton for ruling out in advance any use of American ground forces in Kosovo and for requiring U.S. planes to fly 15,000 feet above Kosovo to avoid Serbian artillery fire "because his pollsters told him about the heat he would take" in the event of American casualties. "Unfortunately, when you fly around 15,000 feet, your bombs dropped more inaccurately, so they killed innocent civilians," McCain says, adding that taking greater care of soldiers than those they are sent to protect made Kosovo "one of the more immoral conflicts in history." NATO military officers suspected casualty aversion last month when Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, told Gen. Wesley K. Clark to avoid sending U.S. troops from their sector to hot spots such as Mitrovica, where Serbs and ethnic Albanians have been rioting. Pentagon officials are also balking at sending more U.S. troops into Kosovo to patrol the increasingly tense border between Kosovo and Serbia. The U.S. definition for the mission, says one NATO military officer, "is nobody gets hurt and we get on home as soon as possible." A senior Defense Department official strongly disputes talk that fear of casualties is driving U.S. policy in Kosovo. He says Shelton believed that sending U.S. troops to other parts of Kosovo would stretch forces too thin in the American sector, which has more incidents of violence than the area around Mitrovica. The official also said that U.S. pilots flew safely at 15,000 feet and bombed their targets accurately with precision-guided weapons, and that the Pentagon found no evidence that flying three miles above the battlefield produced more civilian deaths. He says that the decision not to use ground troops last year was spurred more by the alliance, rather than a reluctance by the United States: "We could not get NATO consensus to do that." Nevertheless, a number of military analysts say Kosovo was the first war designed to avoid casualties, a logical progression from Somalia, the genesis of casualty aversion. When 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in Somalia in October 1993, and their bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Congress was apoplectic. "Four days later President Clinton announced the end of U.S. involvement in the operation, ostensibly because of the country's averse reaction to the casualties," according to the West Point study written by Pfaff and two other professors, Don M. Snider and Maj. John A. Nagl. They argue that public aversion to casualties is a myth. "In fact, the American public is quite willing to accept casualties," they wrote, as long as it is persuaded that the mission is in the national interest and that political leaders will see it to a "successful conclusion." Kosovo Supported Steven G. Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, agrees. He designed a poll last spring that asked what the response should be if 50 Americans were killed in a Kosovo battle. Twenty percent said U.S. troops should be immediately withdrawn, 35 percent favored reinforcing the soldiers, and 21 percent picked "stay the course." Asked what response they preferred if 250 Americans were killed but the Serbs were forced out of Kosovo and the ethnic Albanians returned, 60 percent favored using ground troops. Other polls found similar responses, says Kull. Collins, the retired Army officer, acknowledges that in the post-Cold War world, it can be more difficult for political leaders to convince a wary public. "Today troops are often deployed on kind-of-important or strictly humanitarian missions," he says. Still, the West Point study found that President Bush was able to garner political and public support for the 1991 Persian Gulf war, despite the prospect of thousands of casualties. The Clinton administration's "unwillingness or inability" to find such support for Somalia or Kosovo left its policies "hostage to the public's recoiling from the loss of American soldiers' lives," the researchers said. ============================================================== ARTICLE 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One Year After the Air War ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: Our observer raises important questions one year after the so-called victory in Kosovo. Was it another "manufactured" propaganda war? How extensive was the so-called "Holocaust" in Kosovo? When and how do we declare mission success and come home? ************************************************************************ A. GALLAND SFTT Forward, 24 Mar 2000 A year ago today, the NATO initiated an 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia to "save Kosovo." Now, Kosovo is in chaos. The tensions between ethnic Albanians and Serbs that have led to bloodshed in the past are higher than ever. There's no exit strategy in sight for 37,000 United Nations soldiers. NATO, so eager to drop bombs last year, has now lost all interest in Kosovo. Murder, arson and all other violent crimes occur on daily with no accountability. The only police force consists of approximately 2,500 U. N. civilian officers, many of them retired cops, working with one hand tied behind their back and little understanding of local conditions and historical knowledge. If you want to know what the misery of life under global government will be like some day, check out Kosovo. "Split by the River Ibar, endless spirals of concertina wire and French KFOR troops, the divided city of Mitrovica has become a metaphor for the hatred and violence of the province," so reported the London Telegraph. Northern Mitrovica, the Serbian enclave protected by the universally despised French military, is as hopeless as it gets. People live in overcrowded apartment blocks festooned with graffiti -- anti-NATO, anti-Albanian, anti-everything. With no work available, they wander the streets like the lost or sit in cafes for hours in a drunken state." The U. N. is hoping that September's elections will correct things and make its dream of a multi-ethnic Kosovo a reality, keep dreaming! Many Serbs however, don't want to have anything to do with the vote because they fear it will legitimize the independence of the province. The West is so desperate to make this plan work that diplomats have even held clandestine meetings and talks with Serb President Slobodan Milosevic, who is an indicted war criminal, to try to persuade the Serbs to participate in talks. All this would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic, if so many human lives weren't at stake, if so many had not already been killed for no apparent reason. We must recall how this U.S. / NATO war on Serbia got started in the first place. It began with NATO and the Clinton administration lying about Serbian atrocities in Kosovo. They deliberately and provocatively whipped up frenzy about violence and genocide that just did not exist. Indeed, as few as 2,108 people were actually killed in Kosovo over a period of many months leading up to and including the period of heavy bombardment of Serbia by NATO forces. Even one death is tragic. Yet, some cumulative perspective is necessary. There were not hundreds of thousands of dead in Kosovo, as some reports suggested. Nor was it tens of thousands. Remember what Clinton said! When he compared the atrocities in Kosovo to the Holocaust, he said "is not war in the traditional sense". "Imagine what would happen if we and our allies instead decided just to look the other way as these people were massacred on NATO's doorstep." While Clinton certainly has blood on his hands for ordering the air war to proceed, he is not alone. Most of the establishment press went along for the ride with all the pre-war and post-war propaganda from government. Most members of Congress participated in the charade, too. The biggest lesson is that the transfer of power to unaccountable global authorities is wrong, dangerous, illegal, ill-advised, and impractical. Who is going to keep things in check? How do people have their say? What's will prevent a small elite group of power brokers from making war in the future, as they clearly did in Kosovo? The people of the Balkans are still living with these questions. Kosovo is not in the headlines every day, but that doesn't mean all is well. In fact, usually the worst human rights abuses occur far from the lights of the television cameras. Most Americans remain oblivious to the death and destruction their tax dollars have brought on the people of Serbia. They remain oblivious to the crises we perpetuated in the Balkans. They remain blissfully ignorant to the continuing violence and the hopelessness of imposing long-term solutions on the region through the application of military force. There is no peace in Kosovo. There is no peace in Bosnia. There is no peace in Serbia. There is no peace in Montenegro. Does anybody care? =============================================================== ARTICLE 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AUSA Warns Secretary of Defense About Danger of Shortfalls in Army Budget ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: AUSA warns of the "death spiral" and insists the Army need s more money for a "transformation." I don't think we need more money to create a second Marine Corps but a force that complements our Marines' quick-strike capabilities. While the association worries much about acquiring new tools and toys, let's hope they won't forget the changes that attract good young men into the combat arms. ************************************************************************ SOURCE: Association of the United States Army ARLINGTON, Va., March 14 The president of the Association of the United States Army warned in a letter to the Secretary of Defense that the Army "should not be shortchanged and made to forage internally for money to fulfill its role as directed by the Administration that then refuses to fund it adequately." Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, a former Army chief of staff and president of the 100,000-member association, said in the March 8 letter that AUSA "will work tirelessly to increase the nation's commitment to defense and the Army's share of the defense budget. "At the exact time when the Army is taking a bold step known as Transformation, encouraged by senior Administration officials, it faces the reality of a 1.7 percent decline in buying power." Adding, "inexplicably the budget does not support the recently directed action" to transform the Army into a more strategically responsive force. He said this again means that "Army leaders struggle to balance near-term readiness and modernization," accounts that have decreased by 40 percent. Modernization accounts pay for research, development and the buying of new equipment. At the same time, Sullivan said, "Ominous reports indicate that the Army may radically slash procurement of its centerpiece program -- the Comanche helicopter -- to bankroll Transformation. Moreover, it cannot accomplish the Transformation on the backs of its soldiers -- by cutting readiness or quality of life programs." Sullivan said his "fears deepen that a perilous death spiral controls the future." He also cited chronic under-funding of the full-time manning needs of the Army National Guard and United States Army Reserve. Copies of the letter were also sent to President William Clinton; Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and Rep. Floyd Spence, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. =============================================================== **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
