-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ARTICLE 01 - Going Soft in the Head: Beret Day at Last ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- By J. David Galland You could almost hear the fanfare of trumpets and bells as the announcement went forth across the U.S. Army, Europe Command late last week. "The day has come that we have all waited for!" proclaimed V Corps Command Sergeant-Major Kenneth O. Preston from corps headquarters in Heidelberg, Germany. Now, for those unfamiliar with USAREUR and V Corps, this is an outfit literally drenched in the major milestones of 20th century history, spanning more than a half-century from the shores of Normandy in 1944, to the fall of the Iron Curtain 45 years later, and on through the decade of risky peacekeeping missions of the 1990s. For those who may have forgotten, V Corps boasts the legendary fighting power of "The Big Red 1" (1st Infantry Division) and the Army's premier forward-deployed heavy tank division, "Old Ironsides" (1st Armored Division), both fine warrior units. And they are bolstered by with numerous, independent combat support and combat service support brigades, as well as a German armored division. So what makes this the day for which we have waited so long? A day in which an entire corps of U. S. Army soldiers numbering about sixty thousand quivers with such exuberant anticipation? What is it that would cause so many soldiers, of all the career fields, of all ranks and backgrounds to literally squirm in their boots with such bubbling enthusiasm? War and peace? A technological revolution in military affairs? Capture of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants? Nothing so insignificant! Our new hats have arrived. The U.S. Army, Europe Command - nearly a year after our comrades in CONUS - is finally going to don the controversial Army black beret. It seems so long ago, but it was only last spring that USAREUR fired off short-notice taskings left and right. Forget the looming threat of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, or dangerous peacekeeping missions in the back alleys of the Balkans. There was no time to lose with the critically important mission of determining the head size of every single Army soldier in Europe. Military historians in the future no doubt will write thick volumes of the logistical victory, how thousands of head sizes were determined, compiled, collated, submitted and ultimately recorded at various levels of USAREUR command. Remember Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower's "race to the Rhine" River in 1945? That cannot come close to the Army's audacious campaign for all soldiers in Europe to don the new black beret on the occasion of the Army's 226th birthday on June 14, 2001. Pretty catchy, eh? Plans were made, operations orders written, more taskings leveled, a sense of electrified, command-imposed pride shot through the ranks. Some units even planned mass formations and parades for the occasion. A new chapter in esteemed military tradition was imminent. The big day rapidly drew near. Oops. Then we missed the deadline. Something went wrong, seriously wrong! USAREUR did not get the new hats in time after all. Stunned generals and supply clerks asked, How could this have happened? The formations were canceled, the spreadsheets with the head sizes were pigeon-holed, the jubilation and all the anticipation melted away like a bowl of ice cream on an El Paso sidewalk; the flavor was lost forever. But why? Here investigative reporting comes to the aid of military history. The issue of the Army beret was professionally and accurately reported by many sources, in particular Pentagon correspondent Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times. His nose for news smelled something foul, and he was not off the mark: The U. S. taxpayers got bilked to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars when military procurement officials circumvented the law and the rules and awarded the production contracts to some headgear sweatshop in communist China. To further muddy the waters on this whole issue, the Chinese at that juncture got rather possessive about one of our EP-3 Aries reconnaissance aircraft, which they detained for 10 days after a Chinese fighter collided with the Navy aircraft and it was forced to land in their country. The resulting surge of patriotism led our virtuous elected officials to declaim, This Chinese beret contract is not going to stand! So we improvised, raiding the 75th Ranger Regiment supply room of its small inventory of black berets (they don't need them anymore, thanks to the bold command decision to order Rangers to wear mud-brown colors). Slowly but surely, the hats trickled out into the wider ranks of the U.S. Army. Who can forget the high-spirited new-hat donning formations that were held in Korea? Gen. Thomas A. Schwartz led, from the front, thousands of soldiers in putting on the new uniform accoutrement. Photos of this event rank right up there with the year's most historically significant Army happenings, and proved to be a morale-boosting event from Camp Bonifas on the Korean DMZ to every Army post back home in the U.S. of A. Today, CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks seems to be everywhere with his slick black beret and his desert BDU fatigues, and this bold new image in no small way sent the al Qaeda terrorists running for cover in the Hindu Kush. Never mind that somewhere in a warehouse at a secure, undisclosed location, lie hundreds of thousands of dollars of Chinese-made black berets that will never adorn nor taint the heads of America's soldiers. But all that is history. Now, the hats we will wear are safely made in Canada, which is better than being made in China. After all, Canada hasn't bunged up any of our reconnaissance aircraft, have they? They do produce some fine maple syrup and maple sugar candy. But we must return to USAREUR and the common soldier serving in Europe, where a new leadership vision has dictated that the long-awaited "day of the beret" shall come to pass uncomplicated by ceremonies, grand parades or passings in review. So let's raise our hats, if not our glasses, on Feb. 11, when we soldiers of the European Command quietly enter a new era with our politically-correct headgear firmly and belatedly affixed to our uniform-length haircuts. The West is safe. J. David Galland, Deputy Editor of DefenseWatch, is the pen name of a career U.S. Army senior Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in Germany. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Table of Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ARTICLE 02 - Poor Military Weapons Training a Threat to All ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- By John M. Szelog Two weeks ago, a California National Guardsman shot himself when he went to withdraw the pistol from his holster at the end of a security watch shift at San Francisco International Airport. Based on the details in the report, determining the cause of the Dec. 28 incident was simple: He had his finger on the trigger when he was removing the pistol, gave it a good tug along the way, and - bang - he shot himself in the hip, and the bullet exited his buttocks. Now to my prime question: What does this have to do with the U.S. military being a menace to society? Since I personally know the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard best, I will cite these two service branches as my example. The Air Force has this idea that support personnel don't need to be well-trained in the use of weapons. Part of that idea stems from the popular notion that the Army and the Marines will protect us if the USAF Security Police can't handle the situation (tell that to anybody in the Army or Marines, and you'll get a puzzled look, or maybe a laugh in return.) Money, as usual, is the biggest factor, exacerbated by two other trends: the overall military force drawdowns, and the combined attitude of Air Force leaders towards their own personnel, and of many personnel towards being required to carry and use weapons. Normally, many Air Force people would have a hard time remembering the difference between the muzzle and the butt of a rifle, let alone how to safely handle the weapon. In peacetime, this doesn't present a problem, because who needs rifles when we have the Security Police? But this gets sticky when you throw in deployments to overseas locations where there aren't a lot of reliable or friendly military units around, or the current use of military personnel as domestic security forces. When a unit arrives at an overseas site, all of a sudden there is a need for a lot of people to carry weapons to guard aircraft, equipment and the airfield itself - but the higher-ups are stuck. There aren't enough Security Police to do the job, so commanders are forced to issue support personnel rifles and pistols, even though very few of them are actually proficient in handling their weapons safely and effectively. The logical compromise between the two unacceptable extremes - either having nobody trained at all, or having the entire Air Force armed to the teeth - is to encourage personnel to volunteer for weapons proficiency. But this is where the other problem - an attitude problem - comes into play. (The Army and Marine Corps get around this attitude problem, in part, by requiring everyone to stay trained and proficient.) Many Air Force people will tell you to your face that they didn't join the service to carry a rifle. They'll also tell you that unless the Air Force orders them to carry a rifle, they will refuse to do so. That's not all: Not only do they not want to carry a weapon, but they get very jittery and suspicious when somebody else volunteers to carry a weapon, or even wants to get fully-trained and qualified in case the need ever arises. The logic of this attitude, if you can call it logic, goes like this: If you don't think about situations where you might need a weapon, then those situations won't happen. Likewise, somebody else carrying a weapon is an invitation for a situation where you will need to use a weapon, so don't let anybody else carry a weapon. >From a distance, it's difficult to assign blame in the San Francisco incident, although an honest investigation will most likely find flaws in the Guardsman's training that does not fall solely on the individual soldier. But, had that Guardsman been properly trained, he would have known that you never put your finger on the trigger unless you are prepared to shoot. Apply this situation to the other services to a greater or lesser extent, and you begin to see how the military can become a menace, not only to itself, but also to the country it is supposed to protect. Inadequate training, and a lack of interest by military personnel, creates a greater risk of dangerous mistakes with loaded weapons. With part-time National Guard personnel on armed patrol in the nation's airports, and thousands of other reservists called up to active duty for the war against terrorism, it is not a reach to ask: How long before there will be a serious or even deadly incident that directly stems from insufficient weapons training? For a related article, see Article 07 - Feedback: Raise Army Priority for Marksmanship, by William Sauerwein Editor's Note: We wish to welcome John M. Szelog to the roster of DefenseWatch Contributing Editors. He is a staff sergeant in the California Air National Guard where he is an electronic warfare systems technician. In civilian life, Szelog works as a Senior Science and Technology Associate/Electronics, at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Szelog served on active duty for 6� years, including a total of three years in Korea, and worked for almost five years in support of the U-2 program. His interests include military history, intelligence, strategy, tactics and equipment. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Table of Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ARTICLE 03 - Shrinking Aerospace Industry Threatens Aircraft Fleet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- By Paul Connors Flanked by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the military service chiefs at a Pentagon ceremony, President George W. Bush on Jan. 10 signed this year's defense appropriation authorization, which funds the operations of the U.S. armed forces and the added burden of the war against terrorism for the current fiscal year. The ceremony came at a critical moment for the U.S. military. With active combat in Afghanistan winding down after nearly three months, it is imperative that the Bush administration and Pentagon leaders address the long-overlooked issue of our growing military obsolescence. Prior to 9/11, the U.S. armed forces were in need of major financial resuscitation. From substandard housing and junior enlisted troops on food stamps to lack of range time for infantrymen, tankers and cannoneers, the services were becoming a hollow shell of what they had been just ten years earlier. In addition to the various social engineering debacles endured by military professionals, the drawdown in weapons and systems procurements that began under President Bush's father and were accelerated under the Clinton regime have contributed to a fighting organization seriously depleted in capability. The state of U.S. tactical aviation is one good example. To be sure, the expenditures in ordnance by Navy and Air Force fighters and bombers in Afghanistan all but ensure that those stockpiles will be rebuilt. But an equally serious issue concerns the materiel condition of the aircraft that delivered those munitions - their current state of readiness and repair. At this time, the average Air Force fighter is over 15 years of age. That figure worsens if the F-16 statistics are removed from the equation. F-15Cs and the F-15E Strike Eagle are no longer manufactured for the United States Air Force. Early model F-16s, especially those used by various Air National Guard air defense units, have shown exceptionally high levels of wear and tear, metal fatigue and systems problems that have compelled the Air Force to declare almost all F-16As as unworthy for combat. Obviously, these aircraft will need to be replaced. Several weeks ago, the Air Force announced that it planned to retire up to one-third of the B-1B bomber force as a cost-savings measure. The bomb wings selected to lose those aircraft both happen to be in the Air National Guard. The Air Force and the Air National Guard have not publicly announced what mission these two wings will receive should they retire their currently assigned aircraft. And yet, the Air Force will maintain two wings of B-52H bombers as the service's primary long-range bomber; those aircraft are now almost all 40 years old. The Air Force selected the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor as the replacement fighter for the F-15 Eagle and most of the F-16s in its inventory. However, the first operational F-22 squadron will not be available for combat service until at least 2008. More and more of the fatigue plagued F-15s and F-16s will have to be retired before their replacements arrive for service. Last fall, the Defense Department announced that Lockheed Martin's design for the Joint Strike Fighter had been selected in the winner-takes-all competition with Boeing. That announcement made Lockheed Martin the nation's primary builder of fighter aircraft. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps will all have their own version of the fighter and Britain's Royal Air Force and Royal Navy will also procure versions of the airplane. The competition means that Lockheed Martin stands to reap a windfall of at least 3,500 to 4,000 airframes. Several large systems subcontractors will also do well with this program. British aerospace and electronic companies will also benefit as they seek input on equipment systems for the RAF and Royal Navy versions of the aircraft. But the net result will be that Boeing, which acquired McDonnell Douglas in 1997, will probably leave the fighter building business and a once large and diverse American aerospace industry will see further reduction and consolidation. The Defense Department, in what its leaders see as an attempt to control costs, has further reduced manufacturing infrastructure and has placed itself in the position of having to deal with a sole-source supplier of fighter aircraft. This is a position no buyer wants to find himself in (i.e. dealing with the only game in town). While there was widespread neglect of defense procurement under President Clinton, there is no excuse for the destruction of defense manufacturing capabilities and expertise based on simple cost considerations. In less than 10 years, the federal government has allowed defense industry mergers that diminished competition, while weakening our ability to field superior fighter aircraft. If you doubt this claim, look what happened to Grumman Aerospace after it merged with Northrop. How about McDonnell-Douglas after its acquisition by Boeing? While it is true that both Grumman and McDonnell-Douglas both found themselves competing for a shrinking portion of the defense pie, and then realized they couldn't compete alone, the companies they merged with have not been able to sustain their presence in the military aircraft business either. The DoD announcement that Lockheed Martin will be the lead contractor for the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter means that Boeing will almost certainly leave the fighter aircraft business. The U.S. government has made its choice and capabilities will be lost. Foreign buyers of U.S. military aircraft will also have fewer choices. Private venture developments of fighter aircraft in the U.S. have shown notoriously poor results for the companies that offered their designs. The last attempt by Northrop, with its F-20 Tigershark, was a dismal failure. Northrop offered the aircraft as a less expensive, more reliable alternative to the then new General Dynamics F-16. The U.S. Air Force declined to even consider the Northrop proposal and not one foreign government purchased the airplane for their air forces. The reason was simple, foreign countries did not want aircraft that weren't part of the American inventory. Recent procurement decisions, as well as well as equipment retirement announcements, leave the U.S. military woefully short of equipment and will do nothing but cost America its technological lead as fewer and fewer companies maintain their expertise in airframe manufacture, electronic warfare and systems integration. The decisions made on high could well have disastrous consequences as we further consolidate the defense industrial base. The waste in defense procurement is no longer about $900 hammers; it's about the incredibly stupid and short-sighted decisions made by politicians, administration officials and uniformed acquisition officers. And the Air Force isn't alone in all this. Defense industry consolidation also affects naval shipbuilding, the production and delivery of Army artillery and the selection of future battlefield small arms. The net result will be that the real losers will be America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. They're at the pointed end of the spear and they're the ones who will live or die because some faceless bureaucrat made a decision based purely on cost. Paul Connors is DefenseWatch Air Force Editor. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] *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! Write to same address to be off 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
