-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! ARTICLE 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gay Man Doesn't Have To Repay Navy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: This isn't "gay bashing" but once again our military isn't following its own policies. I think the government should have recovered its financial investment. After all, a new man must be recruited and trained. Report from the Associated Press. *********************************************************** ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - A former midshipman who resigned from the Naval Academy amid accusations of homosexuality won't have to repay the government for his education, the Navy has ruled. The decision released Tuesday means that Tommie Watkins, 25, will not have to reimburse the Navy the $86,000 that covered his training and tuition, plus interest. Watkins, president of his class and an aspiring Navy pilot, said he was pressured to resign and did so because he feared homophobia would prevent him from receiving a fair trial. After leaving, he acknowledged being gay. Officer trainees who drop out or are expelled during their junior or senior years are required by Pentagon policy to repay the government for their education, either in cash or through enlisted service. The Navy's Board of Correction of Naval Records said last year that he was a victim of ``error and injustice,'' and recommended the academy waive the payment. That decision was overruled in March by Carolyn Becraft, the assistant secretary of the Navy for manpower. Watkins sued, and on Tuesday, the deadline for the Navy to respond, his lawyer got word of the reversal. ``After consultation with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I have decided to give ... Watkins the benefit of the doubt as to the nature and severity of his misconduct as a midshipman,'' Becraft wrote in a Nov. 20 memorandum. Watkins, who works in Miami as the project director for an AIDS and HIV ministry, called the decision ``long overdue and totally justified.'' ``It's kind of ironic, because the Navy says its core values are honor, courage and commitment,'' he said. ``It seems like I had to exhibit those qualities to win this case.'' Officials from the Naval Academy declined to comment on the decision on Wednesday. =========================================================== ARTICLE 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Interim US Army Brigade - Interim at Best! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: A highly informative take on the new medium Interim Brigade concept by a young Armor officer. I can only agree with his assessment that this unit concept is dangerous when not balanced with other, heavier caliber weapon systems and fully capable transport and logistics structures. As a full-blooded tanker, who knows what the old "reach out and touch someone" 120mm Rheinmetall main gun can do, I am worried. I am also concerned about the possible social engineering options this concept opens up. So far, 75% of readers are concerned, vs. 25% of readers who are convinced it's the way of the future. Send me more comments. ********************************************************* By a "Disturbed Tanker" The whole IBCT concept is getting weirder by the day. The Army needs to get lighter, most people won't complain about that. There are new developments happening every day that make me shake my head and wonder. The IBCT is different in many ways from the traditional Brigade, but the most important aspect, other than the equipping, is the structure of this thing. It is a four battalion design, with three infantry battalions and a Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Targeting, and Acquisition Squadron, or RSTA. It's a hopped up ground cavalry squadron with a lot of tactical military intelligence (MI) applications. There are some interesting facets in the RSTA design. There is a separate MI company, which has some Unmanned Aireal Vehicle (UAV) capability, and some Ground Surveillance Radar (GSR) capability. The strange thing about the MI company is that although it is in a cavalry organization, it can be commanded by a woman!!! When this concept was brought to a very high level meeting within the halls of the Pentagon, then LTG Claudia Kennedy was rumored to have asked, " What are the opportunities for women inside this Brigade?" Nice to see that parochialism is much more important than putting a fighting organization together. The RSTA is also unique in that there is no aviation in the squadron, nor is there any artillery. The RSTA, apparently, is designed to go out and find the enemy, report the position, and hope to Christ that they don't come in contact with any sort of enemy. It certainly is difficult to kill a tank with a UAV. The infantry battalions are more traditional, with a 9 person capacity in the vehicle. There is a bastardized Mobile Gun System (MGS) platoon, which originally had four vehicles, but for some reason, was cut down to three. This eliminates any type of maneuver capacity that may be needed by the most heavily armed vehicle in the Brigade. The MGS is going to be an infantry support weapon, not a tank killer. I'm not real sure that it could be a tank killer anyway. The MGS is armed with a M68A1 gun, which, lo and behold, was last seen in the active Army about a decade ago in the M1IP tank. There is a whole lot of the 105mm ammo laying around, but there has been no advance on the ammo technology since the Army went to a 120mm based platform. And then there is the question of armor protection. The armor of the LAV III is designed to stop a 14.5mm, and 152mm artillery airburst. The BMP 2 is armed with a 30mm main gun, and the BMP 3 has a 100mm main gun with a 30mm co-ax. Hope I don't see any of those on the battlefield any time soon. I don't want to think about what a tank will do to a LAV in there is a slug it out fight. There are Javelin missiles in all battalion-sized organizations, but they only have about 2000 meters range at this point. There will also be a LAV anti-tank vehicle, which will be equipped with TOW 2, and possibly LOSAT at some point. There will be an anti-tank company for the entire brigade. Let's talk about urban combat and peacekeeping missions for a second. The LAV III is a fine choice for a peacekeeping vehicle, or so I have been told. According to LTC Dana Pittard, the commander of the RTSA at Ft. Lewis, in the 11 OCT 00 edition of Jane's Defence Weekly, "We've been surprised with the LAV IIIs where they've been stuck out here...there was some gravel that we had problems with. It was in an urban environment. I don't want the Canadians to think that we think that they've got major problems with their vehicles but I've just been surprised that it's not quite as mobile as originally thought. We thought it could go anywhere. And you've got to be very selective with where it goes." The US has been lucky with peacekeeping. The mere threat of massive retaliation has kept our adversaries at bay. But what will happen when we enter a peacekeeping mission in which the enemy isn't as afraid? Most of the officers I talk with have studied the Chechnya situation in depth, and the use of RPG's against armored vehicles is one of the greatest threats. The rebels will fire volleys of 5-7 rounds at armored vehicles, aiming specifically for the commander's hatch and the driver. They have destroyed hundreds of armored vehicles, including T-55, T-62 and T-72 tanks. If these vehicles are being waxed with RPG's, you can just imagine what will happen when a RPG plows into the side of a LAV. The armor force is dying out in the Active Component. When the entire Army heads to the Objective Force starting in 2008, armor officers can serve in the RSTA or the MGS "platoon." There still will be Abrams variants in the AC until 2015, when III Corps will finally become a part of the Objective Force. When that happens, the only battalion size armor unit will be the RSTA. Why does the IBCT bother me? It's not that I'm a tanker, and see my branch dwindling mightily. I can accept the change that is needed. Maybe I will have to branch transfer, it's not a big deal to me. I see an organization which has little anti-armor protection, no supporting fire capability, either by ground or by chopper, or a great deal of mobility. I see a force that is designed for peacekeeping, or at great risk, as a holding force, similar to what the USMC did in Saudi Arabia a decade ago. This is interim, and literally everything about it is interim. The equipment is temporary, the doctrine is temporary (if it exists at all), but the cost of human life is permanent. The Army is spending $6 Billion for 2,200 LAV III vehicles, which won't be in the force past 2012, if the Objective Force comes on line as it should. I think the Army is really hedging it's bets by saying that we will not fight a major war, or a major Army equipped with a mechanized/armor force. =========================================================== ARTICLE 6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Military Absentee Voting ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: Some of the representative feedback I received about Military Absentee Voting. I think several points become clear: 1) The US military did NOT purposely hold back ballots. If they were delayed, it was mainly by lack of education (voting assistants) or postal clerk mistakes. 2.) Most experienced and registered absentee voters reassured me that they had no problems. 3). The ballot tinkering and maneuvering occurred in isolated States, mainly Florida, and primarily because of the closeness of the race. The good thing: Many states are rediscovering the importance of the military absentee voter. ********************************************************* We Did what Was Required ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By a Navy Postal Clerk I work in the Military mail system. As a matter of fact I was the voting officer for my division (we're on a Navy base). I strongly encouraged sailors to apply for absentee ballots and vote. As far as delays in ballots from the states, I've not the slightest clue. I received mine from California at least four weeks prior to Nov 7th. I've not been able to catch all the information necessary to the Florida election. I have heard that votes we're not date stamped, thereby making them invalid! As of late, the base Captain was in our building asking personally if we stamped everything that came through our building (yes). ----------------------------------------------------------- Military Absentee Voting Not An Easy Task ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have been involved in politics and campaigning since I was 13 when I was a small-fry campaign worker. I had been closely following politics, government and elections throughout my teenage years. Politicking ended when I joined the Navy at 18, but I still wanted to be active and vote. I tried to vote in every election in my six years in the Navy, but never received an absentee ballot. For example, in 1992, the command's voting officer couldn't be bothered to get the paper work so I had to try on my own and requested several times for an absentee ballot request form. I never received the request form, let alone the actual ballot. In 1996 I voted in my first presidential election, at 25 years old. For a politically active person such as me, that is a tragedy. Obviously the system does not work as currently set. The question I have is, where did the system let me, and others, down? Was it the command? Was it my state, Colorado? Was it the Navy or the DOD? I was discussing this with a friend who works for Colorado Governor Bill Owens and he asked me to look into what Colorado can do to ensure our service men and women get to vote and will be starting on that project next month. Any help you could offer our service men and women from Colorado would be greatly appreciated. ----------------------------------------------------------- No Problems ~~~~~~~~~~ I've been in since 86 and never had a problem with my absentee ballots from Oregon. Even when I was stationed in Turkey from 89-91 they came on time. Lyle B., USAF *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
