-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! ARTICLE 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Army Colonels reject choice assignments ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: Add to the Army’s troubles that no beret can fix. There is a clear message here. There are still senior guys around who have character and place their families and integrity above the career and readiness shell games, played by the top brass. It isn’t just the money. Get it? A Washington Times report from 11/01/00. ********************************************************** By Rowan Scarborough The number of senior Army officers declining to assume commands has skyrocketed in the past five years, internal documents show. Only six colonels turned down commands in the 1992-95 period. But since 1996, 171 lieutenant colonels and full colonels have refused commands, according to Army briefing documents obtained by The Washington Times. The surge in "command declinations," as the Army terms them, comes as the service is struggling to bring in a sufficient number of recruits each year. It is also trying to slow an exodus of young captains that threatens to leave billets vacant and shrink the pool of future senior leaders. The numbers are contained in briefing papers prepared for Army Lt. Gen. Timothy Maude, deputy chief of staff for personnel, who delivered the news at an Oct. 19 commanders' conference of two-star generals. Gen. Maude also has briefed Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff. "Officer attrition is continuing at a rate that will not allow full manning of the force structure if loss rates continue at [fiscal year 2000] rate," the documents warn. An Army official at the Pentagon, who asked not to be identified, said Gen. Maude has ordered a study by a personnel think tank at West Point to determine why officers are turning down what are presumed to be plum assignments that enhance careers. The official noted that there are more commands today than in the early 1990s, when the Army was cutting combat divisions. Since then, the Army has reorganized various units, creating more commands. He said the colonels may be rejecting commands for the same reason an increased number of young officers are leaving: too much time away from their families and the offer of good-paying private-sector jobs. "It could be for a variety of reasons," the official said. "It could be for family reasons. Health reasons. People die. That's a factor, too." Army officers say privately they are also upset with combat readiness problems in the form of shortages of equipment and training hours. Two colonels turned down command of an aviation brigade this year, the documents show. Aviation readiness has been hampered by aging equipment and shortages of spare parts. Gen. Maude's briefing comes as Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush accuses the Clinton administration of mishandling the military. He charges that budget cuts, coupled with a record number of peacekeeping and war missions, has created shortfalls in equipment and has forced personnel to quit the armed forces… Turning down a command does not necessarily end an officer's career, but it can hinder chances for promotion as they move to a non-command career path in staff jobs. One chart shows that only one colonel turned down a command in 1992. But starting in 1996, the numbers of declines shot up. In one year alone, 39 lieutenant colonels refused commands. The Army is facing the same problem in the fiscal year that just began one month ago. Already, 33 lieutenant colonels and colonels have said "no" to commands… Aggravating that problem is the fact that those same ranks are electing to retire earlier, the documents show. The average lieutenant colonel is retiring at the 21-year mark, compared with 22 years in 1998. The average full colonel is retiring at 26 years compared with 28 two years ago. The Army official said that trend could stem from the fact there is an increased number of colonels facing a decision whether to retire or take another assignment. "It wasn't an alarming number," the official said. "It's a curious number that we're trying to figure out." The trend in command declinations and earlier retirements is troubling because it is the lieutenant colonels and colonels who run the Army's brigades and battalions, and manage support operations. "These losses hurt Army readiness and rob taxpayers of their investments," said Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and analyst at the Family Research Council. "Historically, it has been rare for an officer to decline command." "This is another indication there is something deeply wrong with the Army officer corps," said Mr. Maginnis. "These career-ending concerns are based on widespread dissatisfaction with peacekeeping, high operational tempo, lack of trust in top leadership and dwindling benefits..." =================================================================== ARTICLE 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cash Payout for Gulf War Vets ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: An interesting report, indicating that other countries are taking their Gulf vets seriously. In light of the latest Pentagon revisions on who was exposed to nerve gas in the Gulf, we need to keep up the pressures to find the truth. I was deployed in many of the areas indicated and don’t have any symptoms (at least that’s what I think), but I know of friends, fellow troops and their families who have not fared as well since the war. I just hope our government will do the best to help its vets and won’t try to cover up for greedy, monetary reasons. Agent Orange has left us a bad legacy. *********************************************************** Copenhagen Post, 18. October 2000 After almost ten years of campaigning, Danish soldiers who were taken ill after the Gulf War are set to receive compensation. In a move that could have repercussions around the world, Denmark is ready to pay compensation to soldiers who became sick after serving in the Gulf War. The move is being seen as an admission of the link between the soldiers’ illness and the time they spent in the war zone, and could provide a boost to thousands of veterans from other countries who claim to have developed so-called Gulf War Syndrome. Speaking to the Copenhagen Post, Head of the Defence Department’s Legal Office Peer Jørgensen confirmed that although an agreement has been reached to pay compensation, no consistent symptoms have yet been defined. "We have finished handling the first thirteen cases in which we have confirmed a link between the soldiers’ stationing and their illness," he commented. "However, we are unable to say that any specific illness exists, or speculate about the causes." Shortly after the end of the 1990-91 Gulf War, around 200 of the 821 Danish troops who took part in the operation began complaining of both mental and physical problems, including stomach pains and insomnia. Claiming that the symptoms could have been caused by exposure to toxic chemicals, veterans pointed to evidence that troops encountered many different chemical agents which, they believe, may have led to delayed side effects. Although the Danish soldiers’ cases were initially dismissed, strong pressure from the armed forces union and a wide-ranging probe into the conditions in the Gulf at the time led to a re-evaluation of the cases. The thirteen approved cases will now be sent on to the National Board of Industrial Injuries, which will determine the level of compensation to be paid. Individual awards are expected to total between DKK 80,000 and 160,000. A total of fifty similar cases are still pending. =========================================================== ARTICLE 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Destroyer May Not Have Fulfilled Security Rules ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: More on the Cole bombing. The question remains: Although wonderful, Joint Chiefs approved operations plans existed, did the crew execute the plan? A typical fallacy of the PowerPoint age: Just because something exists in writing or it briefs well, doesn’t automatically mean it really happens. Too many PP’s believe that you can brief yourself to victory. Excerpts from the New York Times, 11/01/00. *********************************************************** By ELIZABETH BECKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS WASHINGTON, Oct. 31. As the destroyer Cole pulled into Aden, its crew was under orders to follow a secret security plan aimed at avoiding exactly the kind of attack that killed 17 sailors on Oct 12. Among the dozens of required procedures, the crew should have fended off approaching boats, first by issuing a warning in Arabic and, if necessary, firing flares, water hoses and then .50-caliber machine guns. Those requirements, issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, served as the minimum procedures for naval commanders. In the case of the Cole, the commander also had to file a secret plan for protective measures for refueling in Yemen. A Congressional aide who has seen the Cole's plan said it exceeded the Joint Chiefs' guidelines. But in the wake of the attack, senior military officials concede that at least some of the measures outlined by the Joint Chiefs and the Cole's own commander apparently were not followed. In interviews and e-mail messages, several crew members describe a relatively routine atmosphere aboard the ship. And the Cole does not appear to have created an exclusion zone to prevent small boats from approaching. A retired Navy officer who has commanded ships that entered Aden said United States warships generally "establish an exclusion zone of around 200 meters" about 650 feet and “challenge any boat that enters that zone." The retired officer spoke on the condition that he not be identified. A senior Defense Department official cautioned that a Navy investigation, which began the day after the attack, could show that the Cole was following proper high alert procedures. "Force protection is not an exact science but a series of many, many individual judgments," the official said. In a closed session last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, senior military commanders refused to answer lawmakers' questions about whether Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, the captain of the Cole, had followed the more than 50 measures required when a ship sails into a port under the heightened state of threat condition known as "bravo." "I very thoroughly went through a number of items what the captain of the ship should do, then what he elected not to do," said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "At this point there are insufficient facts to begin to formulate any conclusions." Commander Lippold, who has not been available for interviews, was administrative aide to Richard Danzig, the secretary of the Navy, before he took command of the Cole in 1998. A spokesman for Mr. Danzig said Commander Lippold had a reputation for hard work and attention to detail. "He's not the type to cut corners," said the spokesman. Pentagon officials say it will take extensive work by investigators to determine whether security procedures were violated. Actions by the commander and crew members are the focus of two separate investigations that could lead to criminal charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, senior Defense Department officials said. The directive from the Joint Chiefs states specifically that small boats, like the one used to attack the Cole, were a threat. "Water taxis, ferries, bum boats and other harbor craft require special concern, because they can serve as an ideal platform for terrorists," the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote in defining "Shipboard Terrorist Threat Conditions," a copy of which was provided by a United States government official. "Unauthorized craft should be kept away from the ship; authorized craft should be carefully controlled, surveilled and covered," states the Joint Chiefs' current guidelines. The document then describes in detail the security measures required of captains and crew members at each of the four alphabetical threat levels above normal, which increase from alpha, the lowest, to bravo, the level at which the Cole operated in Aden, to charlie and delta, the highest… *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 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
