Gig Em'
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
God Made a Farmer - Texas Aggie Version
Giving new meaning to Farmers Fight! God made a Farmer - Texas Aggie Version
Monday, February 11, 2013
Out of the Box Thinking on reducing Military Spending without Reducing the Military's Effectiveness
Written by Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVE
Starting down a steep hill is the time to step on the brakes. The Department of Defense is at the lip of one of those hills. There are brakes to allow a smooth descent if there is only the will to apply them.
Some effects of the Defense descent are already appearing. The deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman to the Persian Gulf was cancelled. That halves the country’s military presence in that important and volatile part of the Middle East from two carrier groups to one.
As dark as that picture may be, the darkest night can be breached with the flip of a light switch. Now is the time to look for a switch.
One area of concern is a looming reduction in personnel. That could be the switch or impetus for some long needed reforms or realignments.
Personnel costs are among the smaller parts of the defense budget. Most of the dollars go for planes, ships, tanks, and the maintenance of that hardware and the large installations to house them.
Although personnel costs are not major players among defense dollars, the personnel front might be the place to start operating with a smaller budget.
Usually, personnel reductions start with eliminating large blocks or units from the rolls. Only identified positions or units are dropped from the rolls. Those elements can be reconstituted if there is a serious military emergency.
A better solution might be to implement the consolidation anticipated with the creation of the Department of Defense. Theoretically, the National Security Act of 1947 was to reform the military establishment under a single authority. The only real effect, however, was to impose one more layer of bureaucracy.
Consider, for example, legal services for the military. There are seven legal offices in the Pentagon. Each of the three services has a three star Judge Advocate General with a large stable of military and civilian lawyers plus a general counsel with a substantial office. These six offices are topped off with the office of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
To a certain extent, the seven offices are considering the same types of legal issues. Those functions could be performed more efficiently by consolidating all of them under a Judge Advocate General of the armed forces. Have all the military lawyers in a new colored uniform and have the JAG provide all legal services for the Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Secretary of Defense.
Such a consolidation could establish a precedent for real reorganization. The same duplication of services is found in all the combat service branches. Why is there a need for three or more Surgeons General, Adjutant Generals, Chiefs of Engineers, etc? Put them all in “purple” uniforms and have them report to only one headquarters of their specialty in the Pentagon.
A move in this direction may already be under way. Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), one of the major military medical facilities, no longer exists. It is now the San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC) at Fort Sam Houston and is the training hospital or facility for all American military medical personnel.
The personnel at SAMMC still wear Army, Air Force, or Navy uniforms. Does the color of the uniform matter when a bullet wound is being treated?
There is also consolidation of management and maintenance operations in cities or areas where posts, facilities, or operations of two or more military forces are located.
So here’s the perspective.
The consolidations and elimination of duplicitous services or operations mentioned here could absorb some pending cuts in the defense budget. Those savings, however, can go only so far.
What would happen, though, if that consolidation began to metastasize like cancer cells? What if there were only a Defense Force of the United States with all the personnel wearing one uniform style?
Not only would the one force concept eliminate a number of high cost general officer slots with their wedges of support personnel, it could result in substantial procurement savings.
For example, after the retirement of some hard headed old timers, competition for aircraft configurations to meet the proclivities of three different services could disappear. There might be acceptance of one fighter or fighter/bomber type that could operate off both land and carriers.
Converting to one defense force might be a cost saving maneuver that would still keep the country safe. If it did not work, a reversal of course is always possible.
Let’s try it.
IN PERSPECTIVE
Starting down a steep hill is the time to step on the brakes. The Department of Defense is at the lip of one of those hills. There are brakes to allow a smooth descent if there is only the will to apply them.
Some effects of the Defense descent are already appearing. The deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman to the Persian Gulf was cancelled. That halves the country’s military presence in that important and volatile part of the Middle East from two carrier groups to one.
As dark as that picture may be, the darkest night can be breached with the flip of a light switch. Now is the time to look for a switch.
One area of concern is a looming reduction in personnel. That could be the switch or impetus for some long needed reforms or realignments.
Personnel costs are among the smaller parts of the defense budget. Most of the dollars go for planes, ships, tanks, and the maintenance of that hardware and the large installations to house them.
Although personnel costs are not major players among defense dollars, the personnel front might be the place to start operating with a smaller budget.
Usually, personnel reductions start with eliminating large blocks or units from the rolls. Only identified positions or units are dropped from the rolls. Those elements can be reconstituted if there is a serious military emergency.
A better solution might be to implement the consolidation anticipated with the creation of the Department of Defense. Theoretically, the National Security Act of 1947 was to reform the military establishment under a single authority. The only real effect, however, was to impose one more layer of bureaucracy.
Consider, for example, legal services for the military. There are seven legal offices in the Pentagon. Each of the three services has a three star Judge Advocate General with a large stable of military and civilian lawyers plus a general counsel with a substantial office. These six offices are topped off with the office of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
To a certain extent, the seven offices are considering the same types of legal issues. Those functions could be performed more efficiently by consolidating all of them under a Judge Advocate General of the armed forces. Have all the military lawyers in a new colored uniform and have the JAG provide all legal services for the Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Secretary of Defense.
Such a consolidation could establish a precedent for real reorganization. The same duplication of services is found in all the combat service branches. Why is there a need for three or more Surgeons General, Adjutant Generals, Chiefs of Engineers, etc? Put them all in “purple” uniforms and have them report to only one headquarters of their specialty in the Pentagon.
A move in this direction may already be under way. Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), one of the major military medical facilities, no longer exists. It is now the San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC) at Fort Sam Houston and is the training hospital or facility for all American military medical personnel.
The personnel at SAMMC still wear Army, Air Force, or Navy uniforms. Does the color of the uniform matter when a bullet wound is being treated?
There is also consolidation of management and maintenance operations in cities or areas where posts, facilities, or operations of two or more military forces are located.
So here’s the perspective.
The consolidations and elimination of duplicitous services or operations mentioned here could absorb some pending cuts in the defense budget. Those savings, however, can go only so far.
What would happen, though, if that consolidation began to metastasize like cancer cells? What if there were only a Defense Force of the United States with all the personnel wearing one uniform style?
Not only would the one force concept eliminate a number of high cost general officer slots with their wedges of support personnel, it could result in substantial procurement savings.
For example, after the retirement of some hard headed old timers, competition for aircraft configurations to meet the proclivities of three different services could disappear. There might be acceptance of one fighter or fighter/bomber type that could operate off both land and carriers.
Converting to one defense force might be a cost saving maneuver that would still keep the country safe. If it did not work, a reversal of course is always possible.
Let’s try it.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Now this is funny, and scary
Allegedly from a California newspaper! This could not be real . . . or could it!
Monday, February 4, 2013
IN PERSPECTIVE - Two Steps Forward, One Back for the Department of Defense
Bill Neinst
IN PERSPECTIVE
Two steps forward, one back. Those are the current dance steps of the Department of Defense.
The first hesitant step into the 21st Century was eliminating the restrictions on gays serving openly in the military services. Every suggestion to do this earlier was met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The same shibboleths of the destruction of morale and unit cohesion were raised this time, but not as vociferously as before. If any of the predictions of disastrous results from allowing military gays to come out of the closet occurred, they have not received wide publicity.
The opponents of this policy have their heads in the sand. Unknown thousands of gays have served in the military with distinction, particularly during the many years of the draft. One of those is Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard, U. S. Army (Retired) of Austin. General Richard is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College.
He is a recipient of the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Bronze Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Meritorious Service Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster. His service must not have been too disruptive of morale and discipline.
While stationed in Germany in 1970, I was the legal counsel for a major facing an administrative discharge without honor because of a lieutenant’s claim that he was the object of a homosexual advance by the major. I saved the major’s career with evidence and argument on the homosexual or gay panic defense.
I did not keep track of the major afterward. He had an outstanding record before this accusation, and I assume that he continued to serve with honor and effectiveness.
Those opposed to gays serving in the military might benefit from a bit of study of the use of gays in the Ancient Greek armies. According to Plato and other philosophers of that age, many Greek military units were formed around homosexual unions. They fought with vigor and passion.
The next step in the Pentagon waltz was integrating females into combat units. Here comes the gnashing of teeth again. According to the old timers, women just cannot handle the rigors of combat.
Those making that argument should have a talk with Tammy Duckworth. This lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard lost both of her legs while piloting a helicopter in combat in iraq. She now serves illinois as one of its Representatives in the U.S. Congress.
Maybe they should discuss their views with the families of the 152 female service members who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. If that would be too difficult, maybe visits with Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch, the two female soldiers captured by Iraqi Army units, would shed a little light on their views.
Females are already serving on the front lines of combat, because those front lines are every cross roads in the countries where we have troops. The days of trench warfare and infantry division pitted against infantry division are long past and probably never will return. So, any female who can shoulder the rigors of today’s combat paraphernalia should be given the chance to go for the Combat infantryman’s Badge and all the glory and promotions that come with it.
Now for the step back. If the Senate confirms the nomination of Chuck Hegel to be Secretary of Defense, the nation’s defense posture will be slammed back to pre WWII days. Only Congress will be able to avoid such a disaster.
Hegel’s performance before the Senate committee last week was so abysmal that either he or the President should withdraw his nomination.
The only person other than Obama and Hegel who may think this is the right man for the job is Robert McNamara. The so called whiz kid of the Johnson administration is considered by many to be the worst Secretary of Defense ever. Accordingly, McNamara must be rooting for Hegel to take his place so that he can move up a notch in the ratings.
Defense is facing substantial cuts in manpower and materiel. Leon Panetta, who is leaving the defense post, says these cuts pose a serious threat to the country’s safety. So this is not the time for a politician who does not even know his President’s position on Iran to take the defense reigns.
So here’s the perspective.
The military is finally catching up with reality in personnel matters. What a shame that it may be pushed backward by an incompetent manager.
A lot more than fancy dance steps will be required to keep us out of this quick sand.
IN PERSPECTIVE
Two steps forward, one back. Those are the current dance steps of the Department of Defense.
The first hesitant step into the 21st Century was eliminating the restrictions on gays serving openly in the military services. Every suggestion to do this earlier was met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The same shibboleths of the destruction of morale and unit cohesion were raised this time, but not as vociferously as before. If any of the predictions of disastrous results from allowing military gays to come out of the closet occurred, they have not received wide publicity.
The opponents of this policy have their heads in the sand. Unknown thousands of gays have served in the military with distinction, particularly during the many years of the draft. One of those is Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard, U. S. Army (Retired) of Austin. General Richard is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College.
He is a recipient of the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Bronze Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Meritorious Service Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster. His service must not have been too disruptive of morale and discipline.
While stationed in Germany in 1970, I was the legal counsel for a major facing an administrative discharge without honor because of a lieutenant’s claim that he was the object of a homosexual advance by the major. I saved the major’s career with evidence and argument on the homosexual or gay panic defense.
I did not keep track of the major afterward. He had an outstanding record before this accusation, and I assume that he continued to serve with honor and effectiveness.
Those opposed to gays serving in the military might benefit from a bit of study of the use of gays in the Ancient Greek armies. According to Plato and other philosophers of that age, many Greek military units were formed around homosexual unions. They fought with vigor and passion.
The next step in the Pentagon waltz was integrating females into combat units. Here comes the gnashing of teeth again. According to the old timers, women just cannot handle the rigors of combat.
Those making that argument should have a talk with Tammy Duckworth. This lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard lost both of her legs while piloting a helicopter in combat in iraq. She now serves illinois as one of its Representatives in the U.S. Congress.
Maybe they should discuss their views with the families of the 152 female service members who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. If that would be too difficult, maybe visits with Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch, the two female soldiers captured by Iraqi Army units, would shed a little light on their views.
Females are already serving on the front lines of combat, because those front lines are every cross roads in the countries where we have troops. The days of trench warfare and infantry division pitted against infantry division are long past and probably never will return. So, any female who can shoulder the rigors of today’s combat paraphernalia should be given the chance to go for the Combat infantryman’s Badge and all the glory and promotions that come with it.
Now for the step back. If the Senate confirms the nomination of Chuck Hegel to be Secretary of Defense, the nation’s defense posture will be slammed back to pre WWII days. Only Congress will be able to avoid such a disaster.
Hegel’s performance before the Senate committee last week was so abysmal that either he or the President should withdraw his nomination.
The only person other than Obama and Hegel who may think this is the right man for the job is Robert McNamara. The so called whiz kid of the Johnson administration is considered by many to be the worst Secretary of Defense ever. Accordingly, McNamara must be rooting for Hegel to take his place so that he can move up a notch in the ratings.
Defense is facing substantial cuts in manpower and materiel. Leon Panetta, who is leaving the defense post, says these cuts pose a serious threat to the country’s safety. So this is not the time for a politician who does not even know his President’s position on Iran to take the defense reigns.
So here’s the perspective.
The military is finally catching up with reality in personnel matters. What a shame that it may be pushed backward by an incompetent manager.
A lot more than fancy dance steps will be required to keep us out of this quick sand.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Obama's Queeg Moment
Exceptional piece this morning from the American Spectator site by HAL G. P Colebatch! Enjoy
Marc
Marc
His Queeg Moment
A perspective on our president from Down Under.
In Herman Wouk’s classic World War II novel, The Caine Mutiny, there is a moment when a group of the ship’s officers are getting away from the increasingly eccentric Captain Queeq by relaxing ashore.
Suddenly the malcontent Lieutenant Keefer asks the others: “Does it occur to you that Captain Queeg may be insane?
In fact Queeg is not insane, at least not at that time. He is simply grappling, more and more disastrously, with a job too big for him. Come the crisis of a typhoon, he becomes paralyzed and nearly sinks the ship by failing to give the obvious orders. At the subsequent court-martial he appears quite normal until he breaks down under the pressure of cross-examination. Before this, the officers have searched the regulations for guidance, but the regulations refer only to a captain who is clearly and unmistakably insane, not one who is merely guilty of eccentricity and bad judgment. At a lower level of responsibility, Queeg might have performed adequately, but with Keefer’s question, the remaining respect for Queeg’s office has gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)