-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! ARTICLE 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U.S. Intelligence Analyst Quits Over Cole Attack ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: There is a bit of good news in this story. The analyst showed a trait that isn't very common among many government employees: CHARACTER. What should concern all of us is that the senior guys aren't listening to the little man or that they just don't have the ability to sort through the amount of information they demand. *********************************************************** By Tabassum Zakaria WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Defense intelligence analyst resigned the day after a bomb ripped into a U.S. warship in Yemen because he believed higher-ups had not given enough weight to analysis that could have warned of a potential attack, a U.S. senator said on Wednesday. ``His resignation was due to significant analytical differences with his management,'' Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, said quoting from a letter the analyst sent to Vice Adm. Thomas Wilson, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). DIA officials at the Pentagon privately confirmed a mid-level analyst quit after the attack in Aden, which killed 17 sailors and left a gaping hole in the USS Cole. But the agency denied it suppressed any intelligence before the blast. The analyst, who was not publicly identified, worked in the DIA's counter-terrorism analysis office and was an expert in Middle East and Gulf issues, Roberts told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. The referred to a defense intelligence assessment dated in June, Roberts said. ``He indicates his analysis could have played a critical role in DIA's ability to predict and warn of a potential terrorist attack against U.S. interests,'' he said. ``He is very troubled by the many indicators contained in the analysis that suggests two or three other major acts of terrorism could potentially occur in the coming weeks or months,'' Roberts said. U.S. officials have said the United States received no specific threat of an imminent attack in Aden against a U.S. warship before the guided missile destroyer USS Cole was crippled on Oct. 12 in an apparent suicide bombing. The Defense intelligence analyst resigned on Oct. 13 and sent his letter of resignation on Oct. 14, Roberts said.... The revelation of the analyst's resignation added to questions raised over whether the United States should have had an inkling about the attack in a region known for being inhabited by anti-Western militant groups. =========================================================== ARTICLE 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The BERET - Reader Reactions ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: Whoooaaah!!! You would have thought that the Cole incident and international terrorism would have dominated our communications last week - wrong! It was the beret that had everyone hot -- about 300 responses. Now LISTEN General Shinseki: Most of our grunts believe that the idea of a beret for everyone is plain STUPID. Here is how the spectrum of responses breaks down -- it clearly shows a generational gap. Most of our WWII, Korea and Vietnam veterans want to keep things the way they are: Only Special Forces, Rangers, and Airborne troops would wear berets (30%). Our readers from the end of the Vietnam era to those currently serving prefer a beret, but in specific branch identifying colors, similar to what our NATO allies are doing (65%). Only 5% like the idea for a black beret for everyone. *********************************************************** A. An Open Letter to General Shinseki ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By Tig Dupre Dear General Shinseki, I read with interest about your decision to change the Army headgear to berets. While I am certain your advisors have told you this is a "good thing to do," I question the reasoning behind the action. For many years, a beret, either in black, maroon, or Rifle Green, was the coveted headgear for soldiers who wanted to be more than they thought they could be. Now, everyone is going to be "special." When everyone is special, no one is. Sure, the British Army wears berets and distinctive unit insignia in all their units. They have been doing this for many years. Other nations' forces have berets for special units only, or berets for all in uniform. Their military services pretty much started and have continued that way. Sir, it's not the headgear. It's not the pay (although that could always stand some adjustment). It's not the style of uniform (or lack of style). It's not even the really long hours with very little thanks or other reward. It's the leadership. From the top down, it's the leadership. Better to do away with the "zero-defects" mentality and "Death by PowerPoint" than to change the headgear in an effort to raise morale. Soldiers want tough, realistic training, doing what they came into the Army to do. Soldiers want to respect themselves and be respected for what they can do, not what they wear. Even among the special units, the beret is the mark of someone who tries a little harder, works a little longer, is a little better. Seeing someone else wearing a beret has the effect of making that soldier who doesn't have one, want to go EARN one. Distinction has to be earned, it cannot be bestowed. Sir, I urge you to re-consider your decision. ----------------------------------------------------------- B. A Marine's View ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By Matt M., Marine SNCO When I was a young Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune my unit would travel to Fort Bragg twice a year for a 3 week regimental exercise. Being Marines, we would naturally tend to look down at any soldiers we might encounter EXCEPT for those wearing black or green berets. We spotted overweight females wearing maroon berets so needless to say we weren't too impressed. We knew that those soldiers who wore black or green were the best soldiers the Army had so they commanded our utmost respect. I really feel sorry for the Rangers and Green Berets whose dedication and sacrifice is not appreciated by such weak, insecure, politically correct leaders. ----------------------------------------------------------- C. A Beret for Combat Troops ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As a former active duty and reserve Tanker (14 years) I have always believed that ALL combat MOS troops are the elite and should look and be treated that way. Tanking in the field as well as in the motor pool is a filthy and almost always thankless business. I always thought it ironic that in dress formations here we were dressed like pencil pushers in dress shoes and garrison caps. What about bloused pants w/Tanker boots and the old brown beret for us earth pigs? What the hell is wrong with a combat tanker badge and a combat engineer badge? UP. FIRE. ON THE WAY!! SGT Shaun Kenny ----------------------------------------------------------- D. Berets NOT for Everyone ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By Steve Dalahunty I saw your article and the one about "Berets for Everyone". Many foreign military organizations wear berets for various parts of their military, not just the elite units. Most tankers in foreign countries wear a black beret. So our use of that beret for the Rangers is odd. I myself have seen photos of the Blackhorse Regiment in Vietnam with some of the members wearing black berets. Maroon is the international realm of the Airborne. I believe that all members of the British Army wear a beret of some sort, male/female, combat arms or support. A beret is not the award you get by being in an elite unit or graduating from a school like SFQ or Ranger or Airborne. If that was true I could wear a maroon beret even though I am in a leg infantry unit. The thing that sets the Ranger units apart is their Ranger Tab and their unit crest and the unit itself, should not really be the beret. They don't wear that beret in combat. Personally I think we should reserve the black beret for the Cav and Armor. Keep the green beret for SF, maybe for all special operations (of which the Rangers are a part). Then choose another color for the rest of the Army, or maybe just the Infantry. A beret is not a quick fix for our military. Remember when the Canadians tried to get all their military (army, navy, air force, etc) to wear the same uniform? That failed miserably. So I agree with your observations in that area, that the beret idea might just be politics. We do have some reorganization of Infantry (of which I am a member) such as the light blue shoulder cord. I am light infantry and years ago I remember some talk about a beret for us, but nothing came about. If we do get berets, we will wear them with pride. That guy who wrote the article about "Berets for Everyone" is just silly. Trying to claim that our chairman of the joint chiefs wants berets so he can wear one is just idiotic. ----------------------------------------------------------- E. It's just a Stupid Piece of Headgear ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By Michael F. Captain, U.S. Army First, it's just a stupid piece of headgear. While I sympathize with those who earned their berets through a right of passage, let's try to keep that in mind. So far as I know they are not going to issue Transportation tabs or Truck wings...it'll be okay gentlemen. Second, let's not forget that the first U.S. soldiers to wear the "coveted" black berets were the tankers of World War II. In fact, American cavalry units were wearing black berets well into the 1980s. So it's not as if current beret holders have had a monopoly on the military beret. Things change...and they always will. Here's the bottom line - and it will piss some off. I agree with the decision, in theory. We as an Army have had the most slovenly-looking headgear in the free world for years - our BDU caps are only a step above those colorful ones the Air Force support guys wear or what you get in the Wal-Mart hunting aisle next to the duck whistles and orange vests. And the overseas cap? That's where all of those "would you like fries with that" jokes originated. If I had been making the decision I would also gone with the beret as the standard headgear, but would have opted for a standard issue brown beret for regular Army troops. Alas, the Chief sees it differently...but he does have a Ph.D. from Duke, so we know he's smarter than 99% of us. I'll end where I began. It's a piece of headgear...let's all pick up and move on with our lives. =========================================================== ARTICLE 6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gilligan's Island in Ft. Sill ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: While the Army struggles with readiness and the Commander of the Artillery School laments that he doesn't have the resources to focus on killing targets, the Commander of IIIrd Corps Artillery conducts "Love Boat" tours to familiarize commanders and senior NCOs with Post facilities and political correctness. I agree with the writer - as soon as the good Colonel pins on his stars on 1 November, we have another perfumed prince. We all ought to ask for a free tour, just for kicks and grins. *********************************************************** Here is another example of the out of touch leadership of today's Army. By order of the IIId Corps Artillery Commander, COL (P) Bourn, all Commanders, Command Sergeants Major, and First Sergeants (wives were "highly encouraged" to attend) have to go on a three hour bus tour of the post. The purpose is to familiarize with the agencies that are available to support our soldiers and family members. Of course any worthwhile Noncommissioned Officer already knows what's available because that's been a part of our job for ages. The tour starts with a briefing in which you are shown an introductory video of our IIId Corps Artillery Commander and his wife in "Hawaiian" attire. They are in a yellow rubber raft with an ocean background and music. He gives a welcome and invites you to go on a Three Hour Tour (as in Gilligan's Island). After the video, the briefer, an unfortunate Captain tells you to refer to the bus you're on as the cruise ship. He then instructs you that the signal to get on the bus would be a blast from the air horn. He actually has one of those little cans of compressed air with a horn on it. You then board the bus to go to the first agency. In the middle of the route they station some poor lieutenants at an intersection and spray the bus windows with super soaker water guns, thereby giving you the effect of ocean spray. You stop at ACS and get the standard brief that ACS has been giving for a hundred years and then leave for the next agency. At the next location, they have soldiers with cutouts of dolphins on sticks and they run by the bus, moving them up and down by the windows so you can pretend that you saw dolphins out of the cruise ship portholes. After this you receive two more briefings from agencies and the whole agonizing event comes to an end. During the course of three hours you wasted you really reflect on the money it cost to rent the bus and also the man-hours of all the key leaders involved. Not to mention the crap that our junior officers and soldiers have do to support this bullshit. This event has been repeated five more times for Commander's and Senior NCO's in the Corps Artillery. On 1 November, COL (P) Bourn pins on his stars. I am sure we can look forward to years of outstanding leadership and great ideas to keep our soldiers occupied. =============================================================== ARTICLE 7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Army: Save Small Group Instructions! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: More important than the beret issue for the quality of future junior leaders. Overwhelmingly, our readers responded to make small group instructions preservation objective #1 for the Army. Key is to keep experienced leaders in the teaching positions. I know the number crunchers want to fill all Division's above 100% to comply with the Chief's latest orders but our soldiers will ultimately pay the price for the shortcut. I hope General Shinseki gets the message... *********************************************************** A. By a concerned Infantry Officer Only a fool would not support the small group method. I have been to a lot of Army schools, so many that not all of them can be listed on my ORB. Infantry Officer Advanced Course (IOAC) was the best school I have been to, and that includes, Scout Platoon Leader Course, Sapper Leader Course, Joint Firepower Control Course, Ranger School and Pathfinder School, among the more mundane such as IOBC and Airborne. What made the school outstanding was the chance to interact, learn, listen, discuss, debate, and argue about tactics and leadership with peers from different units, branches and backgrounds in a small group (14-16) setting under the mentorship and tutelage of a superb senior Captain. And do it over a protracted period of time with time for study, reflection and thinking and with no "competition" for favor from the chain of command. At IOAC, you got to see who knew what they were talking about and who just looked the part. Probably the most objective period of service I have had. Personality came second to raw competence. And you could not hide in the small group. You had to perform. I correspond more with my former SGI than I do with all of my former commanders combined. I became friends with guys I would probably have never met and I got re-acquainted with guys I had not seen in years. I came out of IOAC very confident in my ability to command a company in peace and war. To remove the small group method from the Career Courses, would be a travesty. Talk to those guys that go to Career Courses that still have a majority of instruction from the platform. They are woefully ill-prepared in comparison. ----------------------------------------------------------- B. By Army Captain Matt Reddell Just a note to tell you that it is imperative to maintain small group instruction in both the Advance and Basic Courses. I spent 36 months as the Senior Team Chief, Armor Officer Basic Course - and small group, where one NCO is the primary trainer, coach, and mentor to four Lieutenants, is essential. The problem arises when, due to manning shortfalls, those NCOs are E-5s and not E-6s and have never been Tank or Bradley Commanders in MTOE units - instead they have only been gunners in MTOE units and/or come from TDA assignments where they are not responsible for maneuvering those pieces of equipment. Then, the effect of NCOs teaching young officers is severely watered down. The paradigm of small group instruction has many more benefits than it does pitfalls, and when properly resourced, is the best means of instruction. As for the Advance Course (CCC), here again, small group is imperative. My SGI, was a two-time Infantry Commander with over 32 months of MTOE command time. Moreover, he served as an Infantry Company/Team O/C on the Cobra Team at the NTC. At the time, FY '97, every Advance Course SGI at Fort Knox had the same background. The value of both Command and Observer/Controller time was best described by my SGI who stated that "it was not until he became an O/C that he realized how little he really knew about the combined arms profession - 30 rotations at a major training center can teach you a lot about doing your job the right way." However, this experience requirement began to change while I was serving in the sister squadron/AOB Division - with fewer O/Cs coming to the Advance Course and that experience base eroding. ----------------------------------------------------------- C. By an Army Engineer Officer Small Group Instruction and the Engineer Captain's Career Course. As a recent graduate of the US Army Engineer Captains Career Course and the CAS3 I think the small group model needs to stay. The number one bad idea in the Army is the elimination of small groups in both the Officer Advanced and Basic Courses. Why? These schools serve as the backbone for 1/3 of the Company grade officer professional development (Unit professional development programs and individual professional development being the other 2/3.) 1) Lets look at the time that we spend training our Engineer company grade officers: Engineer Basic Course is roughly 4-5 months. The Engineer Advanced Course: roughly 6 months (not including CAS3), and shrinking. This course at one time was 9 months, and then it shrunk to almost 7. This training is the backbone of an officers' first 12 YEARS on active duty. In the meantime, TRADOC has increased the required corps training (i.e. EO, COO, BASIC mathematics and BASIC English writing skills, etc.) A move is afoot at the Engineer School to set up classrooms as VTCs, which will lack the ability for students to ask the instructor questions during the lecture. Why? There is a shortage of instructors to meet the teaching demand. 2) A unit's professional development is hindered by the reduction of pin-on time from 2LT to 1LT. A bad move in my opinion, as you just cut out 6 months out of the maturation process from LT to CPT. A former Armor Battalion S3 told me "What we are doing to our lieutenants is criminal. We are not giving them an opportunity to learn and train their soldiers." This coupled with the large number of LTs being commissioned today leaves young officers in the combat arms 6-18 months of TOTAL platoon leader time. Long gone are the days when officers would benefit of 2 to 3 years of platoon leader time. 3) Personal professional development requirements are about to increase dramatically if some in the schoolhouse get their way. During my classes AAR, small group instructors recommended that some of the mandatory training become pre-attendance, correspondence course requirements. With increased OPTEMPO in the TO&E units, there is little time for any in depth, dedicated, long-term personal professional development programs. We may learn a lesson from the German Wehrmacht. At Marquette University, in the Military History class, the civilian instructor I had praised the German armed forces for refusing to shorten the NCO development program regardless of the overall strategic situation and circumstances. The result was the development of well-trained soldiers and NCOs up until the end of the Second World War. *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 ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! ****************************************************************************** ******************* A vote for Bush or Gore is a vote to continue Clinton policies! A vote for Buchanan is a vote to continue America! Therefore a vote for Gore or Bush is a wasted vote for America! Don't waste your vote! Vote for Patrick Buchanan! Today, candor compels us to admit that our vaunted two-party system is a snare and a delusion, a fraud upon the nation. Our two parties have become nothing but two wings of the same bird of prey... Patrick Buchanan <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions 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, CTRLgives 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== 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
