Air Force Voices

Remembering Desert One

Tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of Desert One. 

No Angst Zone has an excellent post with related links to VFW Magazine, Airman Magazine, and this from the AP wire.  Here is an excerpt from No Angst Zone:

The tragedy at Desert One was a watershed moment in the history of U.S. special operations. This was the turning point that led to the creation of 160th SOAR, USSOCOM, and numerous other reforms that paved the way for eventual success in Desert Storm and even bigger success in the current GWOT.

So, Army Rangers and Delta, Navy and Marine helicopter crews, and Air Force Combat Controllers and Herk crews, thank you for having the guts to try. Despite having inadequate equpiment, poor planning, and a pick-up team, you still undertook the mission and proved to the world, that even in a time of national malaise, the spirit of the American fighting man would never be broken, no matter how high the odds and how risky the endeavor.

Air Force Voices joins No Angst Zone among many others in remembering Desert One and thanking these brave men and women.

Also, a big thanks and a salute to those sacrifice and serve in our Nation's Special Forces...who undertake the most dangerous missions in the interest of freedom.

Slow Blogging This Week

Blogging will be slow this week...I am currently TDY to multiple places as part of specialized studies.  Finding time in between meetings and plane flights will be a bit challenging.   Still, there are lots of good stories to write about.  Stay tuned.

Pledge of Allegiance: PC-Style

Political "correctness" is showing its funny side again.

Valerie Richardson of the Washington Times writes about the latest caper in the political correctness saga (HT: Michelle Malkin).  Here is an excerpt:

DENVER -- The students in Vincent Pulciani's seventh-grade class were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week when they heard the voice over the intercom say something they'd never heard before, at least not during the Pledge.

Instead of "one nation, under God," the voice said, "one nation, under your belief system."

The bewildered students at Everitt Middle School in Wheat Ridge never even got to "indivisible," according to Vincent's mother, Christina Pulciani-Johnson.

Margo Lucero, the eighth-grade guidance counselor at the school, substituted the phrase "under your belief system" as she led the recitation of the Pledge on Wednesday.

After irate phone calls poured in from parents, Principal Kathleen Norton, who normally leads the Pledge but was out of the building at the time, apologized to students Thursday and sent home letters of apology yesterday.

Michelle Malkin also links to two other posts well worth mentioning.

First, this reply by Billy Jones of View for the Foothills made me laugh (sort of).  Here is an excerpt:

In any event, I was nonetheless inspired to question why rooting out one traditional value (God) didn't require utterly unrooting all of the timeworn, outmoded values within the Pledge. So I composed the following more PC and modern version which will properly inculcate our children into the glories of moral relativism in America...

"I pledge [allegiance] some occasional recognition
to the [Flag] symbols of oppression
of the [United States] diverse indigenous peoples of [America] the landmass referred to by oppressive European conquistadors as "America"
and to the [Republic] totalitarian theocracy for which it stands,
[one nation,] a Balkanized patchwork of cultures,
[under God,] under each individuals' personal belief system
[indivisible,] divided into innumerable unique communities of culture,
[with liberty and justice for all.] where some are more equal than others.

Second, these comments by Joe Gandelman of the Moderate Voice also made me laugh:

Well, then, why stop there? Why not redesign the American flag so that the stars have many different colors, to provide more diversity?

You do NOT call them "letters of apology." That will hurt counselor's fragile self esteem and not be nurturing enough. They are sending out "letters of enhanced knowledge expansion and conscience transformational change."

It should not be called a "PLEDGE" of "ALLEGIANCE." It is a "free choice affirmative empowerment decision" of "voluntary solidarity."

The above is all funny satire (though there are people who actually believe this stuff).  It goes even deeper.

Is this what is actually being taught in our university and halls of academia?  What university/school did this counselor go to? 

The state of academia is truly sad...time to start questioning academia's credentials and take a serious look at what passes for education these days.

Terrorist Strategy is Failing

If you have been listening to the MSM/DNC, you would be inclined to think the terrorists were winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and that American troops should quickly withdraw.  More importantly, you would believe the Administration was terribly wrong for bringing real freedom to the Iraqi people and use these MSM/DNC distortions to prove your point. 

However, the terrorist strategy is failing.  Ralph Peters (yes, he's the anti-Air Force dude), has an excellent column in today's New York Post that details this failure. 

All military members can agree on this column, plus, there are plenty of accounts published each day on Mudville Gazette that confirm Ralph Peter's point of view.  Here is an excerpt:

Terrorist and insurgent activity is down by half, free elections succeeded and a multi-ethnic government has been formed in Baghdad. The enemies of the new Iraq have failed to achieve a single one of their goals. They must be shocked and embittered.

Not one extremist strategy worked. The Coalition couldn't be dislodged, voting couldn't be stopped and the terrorists have had to watch supportive regimes in the neighborhood totter. All that our enemies have left is the dwindling hope that they can outlast America — that we'll succumb to impatience, our greatest national weakness...

...With national elections looming, the extremists went on a rampage, pulling out all the stops to derail the voting. Politicians, professors, doctors, teachers, policemen and security-force recruits were murdered in cold blood — en masse, whenever possible.

It was a desperate, foolish tactic to employ against Iraqis. Blinded by rage, the terrorists and insurgents proved more naive by far than Western generals. In a clan and tribal society, the murder of one innocent schoolteacher or municipal worker makes you hundreds of enemies. Iraq's "occupiers" looked pretty good in comparison...

...Iraq may prove to be the defeat that destroyed the allure of terrorism for hundreds of millions of discontented Muslims. Terrorists won't disappear, but the spotlight of Iraq has revealed them as savage, indiscriminate, blasphemous and, worst of all, incapable.

Read the entire column...lots of great news to report.

Protect the First Amendment

Our Constitution used to be enough to guarantee basic rights to all American citizens.  Yet, it seems federal regulations, if not explicitly denounced by law, can overrule the Constitution.

Mike Krempasky at RedState has some very good news to report.  Here is an excerpt:

First, in the House - HR 1606, introduced by Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling can not only boast a few co-sponsors - the better news is this - Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan has become the first bipartisan cosponsor of the legislation. As you can imagine, getting leaders from both sides of the aisle on a bill early is key.

But frankly, I have to say - the news in the Senate is the real gem. S 678, introduced by Minority Leader Harry Reid, has been waiting for a Republican to step up - and one has. And of all the Members that provide...um, political balance for Senator Reid - how about RedState favorite Dr. Tom Coburn? (his cosponsorship is not listed in Thomas yet, but Coburn's office has already contacted Reid's.)

Perhaps our Senators and Congressional Representatives need a little encouragement.

There is an online petition sponsored by DownsizeDC that Air Force Voices highly recommends.  The petition encourages Members of Congress to co-sponsor and sign the bills and is a call to all patriots sworn to defend the Constitution.  This is not a partisan issue...it is a fundamental American issue.

I got involved.  Here were my personal comments:

The Honorable ___________
United States Senate
___ Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-

The Honorable ___________
United States Senate
_____ Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-

The Honorable ________
United States House of Representatives
_____ Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515-

Freedom of speech is an important part of everyday life in America.  America has always cherished this right since its inception. 

It can be said that the United States of America was the first country ever to be argued into existence...men like Paine, Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson (among others) started making their case for independence long before the shooting started.  As a result, the First Amendment stands as a monument to their efforts. 

Many Americans have died defending the First Amendment as well as other rights guaranteed in our Constitution.  I believe deeply in these rights and honor the sacrifices made by these brave Americans.

Yet, it seems the Constitution no longer guarantees basic rights afforded to all Americans.  Incredibly, regulations carry the force of law if they are not explicitly denounced by law.  Hence, passage of this bill honors the sacrifices of those who serve to defend the Constitution and further guarantees freedom of speech for all Americans.

Your favorable action on this matter is a call to duty. Again, please co-sponsor and pass the Online Freedom of Speech Act.

Signed,

Air Force Voices

I encourage you to participate and sign the petition.  See previous posts for more information.

ADSCAM Update

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin went on Canadian television to plea with Canadian citizens to allow him to stay in power for eight more months as new allegations of corruption swirl around him and the Liberal Party.

The Globe and Mail has the story.  Here is an excerpt (HT: Captain's Quarters)

Prime Minister Paul Martin offered to call an election within 30 days of the final report from the Gomery commission, in an extraordinary prime-time address to Canadians Thursday night.

He made the speech in an effort to stem the damage the sponsorship scandal has caused the Liberal party and to appeal directly to Canadians.

"I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission's final report and recommendations. Let [Mr. Justice John] Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say," Mr. Martin said from the desk in his office, in a taped televised address in both French and English.

Mr. Martin said he takes responsibility for the actions of his party and is prepared to let Canadians judge his response to this test of his leadership.

Here is what Captain Ed has to say (hyperlinks added):

I predict that this plea will do more damage than good for the Liberals, especially in light of their parliamentary actions this week. Martin and his party appear to be grasping at every last straw to remain in power, regardless of how it looks or what effect it has on democratic processes. Asking for the justice system to work before having voters make their decisions on the day that they find out the Liberals gave away judgeships for political favors is somewhat akin to murdering your parents and asking for mercy as a poor orphan. It not only looks terribly cynical, but it insults the intelligence of the audience.

Air Force Voices agrees.  This is simply an attempt to buy enough time for some other scandal or national emergency to take the place of the current scandal.  Americans saw this tactic during the Clinton-Lewinsky saga.  What remains to be seen is if the Canadian citizens will buy it.

Note: Air Force Voices is following this story as part of a research project on weblogs and their power to shape public opinion.  While the paper was turned in earlier this week, there is a strong possibilitiy of writing an update prior to publication (assuming the paper is worthy of an "A"). 

There are many strategic implications here in terms of effects-based operations and information operations.  If not for blogs, particularly Captain's Quarters, where would this story be today? 

Real Superstars

This is worth re-reading (HT: Spouse Corner).  Ben Stein wrote his final bi-weekly column called "Monday Night At Morton's" and dedicated his final column to some real superstars. 

Morton's is a famous chain of steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from around the globe.  Ben Stein would write about the many Hollywood stars he would see at Morton's and what they would say to him during dinner.

It is well worth your time to re-read Ben Stein's last column.  Here is an excerpt:

Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails. They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer.

A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.

A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.

A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.

The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.

We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.

I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.

There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament. The policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive. The orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery. The teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children. The kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.

Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse.

Now you have my idea of a real hero.

The rest of Ben Stein's final column is equally as good. 

Air Force Voices concurs with Ben Steins words.  Sometimes it is good to be reminded that there are Americans who appreciate the efforts of men and women sacrificing and serving worldwide.  We need more stories like this.

Letters to the Editor re: Ralph Peters

The New York Post received a number of letters regarding Ralph Peters article last week (see previous post). 

I checked the NY Post yesterday and saw only what they had posted in Wednesday's edition.  In the interest of time and space I elected not to post these letters. 

The following letters were published in Monday's New York Post and are very good responses...they speak for themselves.  I was especially moved by the letter from Nicole Das, an Air Force veteran and widow.  Here are the letters (HT: Aim Points):

New York Post letters to the editor: Responses to Apr 13 "Clashing Military Cultures"

BY: Letters to the Editor, New York Post
04/20/2005

I am an Air Force veteran and a widow who lost my husband over the skies of Iraq while we were both deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Ralph Peter's venomous article ("Clashing Military Cultures," Opinion, April 13) incorrectly stated, "Not a single Air Force fighter pilot has lost his life in combat in Iraq."

Lest we forget, Capt. Eric Das and his crewmate, Lt. Col. Bill Watkins were killed in action April 7, 2003.

The sacrifices of all services — whether Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard or Coalition — should be recognized and remembered.

Our forces were on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam and World War II calling in air support.

We are on the same team. We fight and die together.

Peters denigrated the Air Force, which has taken care of me and my family during our darkest days.

He breeds in-fighting among the ranks and wears a facade as champion for Marine causes.

As the daughter of a Marine helicopter pilot from Vietnam, as an Air Force veteran and a widow, I am deeply offended by the ignorance Peters displayed toward the families of the fallen.

And why? Is it because of some baffling agenda?

So far, American military forces have seen 1,544 in Iraq and 173 in Afghanistan make the ultimate sacrifice.

Our branch of service doesn't much matter.

We are in a family of service that has seen tragic loss.

The loss is tremendous, no matter what the total number.

Nicole Das

Alexandria, Va.

**********************************************************************************

I am writing from Iraq, in regard to a column written by Ralph Peters.

I would say I am curious about the rationale behind such a venomous diatribe, but that would lend it credibility.

Whatever Peters thinks of the F/A-22, to indict an entire service as "morally bankrupt," because its view on what it requires to fight differs from his, is disgusting.

Marine aircrew have flown for years in their "aging jets and ancient helicopters" under the blanket of air superiority that's provided, in part, by the "fighter-jock Air Force."

They don't steal money from the Marines. They state their needs, and we taxpayers cough it up.

As a Marine aviator on my third combat tour, I can find the general Air Force attitude a little un-martial — to say the least.

But I will never question their patriotism, valor or professionalism as aviators.

Peters should keep his acidic rants and cliché "go Marines" chants to himself.

Capt. Jeffrey Bauer

U.S. Marine Corps

Anbar Province, Iraq 

**********************************************************************************

Peters' venom against the Air Force could hurt the Marines by portraying them as a bunch of gripers (being equipped with old and decrepit equipment).

President Truman became so exasperated by complaining Marine brass, he lost his temper and dubbed the officers the "Police Force for the Navy."

The military is a team, and all the services need the support of one another.

Anthony Lembo
Mastic Beach

Ralph Peters sure did open a can of worms (as Major Mike points out).  Maybe that was his intent all along.  If it was, then putting institutional bias ahead of one's professional reputation to spark interservice "debate" or settle an old score is truly unfortunate and sad to see. 

One thing is certain, we should no longer be protecting our "rice bowls" and learn to work and fight as a joint team.  At least that is what everybody keeps preaching. 

Noting the rank of the writers above leaves me with some hope for this vision.  Perhaps we will truly see real jointness in a generation or two.  Until then...

Why Blogging is Important

There are a number of reasons why military military members are increasingly turning the blogosphere to learn and report events.

My personal reasons for starting this blog was to understand the impact this new media has on shaping public opinion.  I was tired of seeing inaccuracies reported in the MSM/DNC and was equally fed up during the 2004 Presidential campaign. 

Anyone reading the Air Force Voices archives can clearly see how I feel about the MSM/DNC and why I believe attempts at regulating freedom of speech via the FEC or the FCC "Fairness" Doctrine must be rejected at every opportunity.

I am not alone in believing this way or taking action to counter rumors and misinformation in the MSM/DNC.

Greyhawk has another great post that clearly spells out why milbloggers have an obsession with reporting accurate information.  Here is an excerpt:

All of this by way of explanation for the frustration most military folks experience when seeing bad reporting from the front. Was it agenda driven? Was it just sloppy work? Is truth being stretched for the benefit of a 'better story'? The answer may provide insight, but that's secondary to the basic fact that the information is wrong.

Still with me? Great. Recall now that I said at the start this motivation isn't exclusive to military bloggers and perhaps not even completely universal among us, but I think this is something close enough to common thread running through all milblogs - whether they're simply recounting life as it really is at camp or on patrol, or whether they're choosing to dismantle the latest slanted media reports on the war.

This is all by way of explanation to the non-military reader. It's why I might seem a bit harsh on reporters who publish stories about soldier blogs from Iraq without said story including one of the hundreds of examples of such. Likewise I'll demonstrate little tolerance to those who refer to every failed insurgent attack as 'increasingly sophisticated'. (If each such claim were true the terrorists would by now be firing weapons with their pinky fingers extended and die while delivering Shakespearean soliloquies.) Will these specific inaccuracies get people killed? Probably not. The second example - an opinion masquerading as fact - has potential to erode public support of the war, the first is simply not right. But both flip my bullshit detector to the "on" position.

Does it matter? Who knows. The pack of lies the media foisted on the world under the banner of "Abu Ghraib" certainly has and will, and the unraveling of those lies here isn't widely known. The forces of history aren't shaped by what I write here, but I do think the milbloggers as a group have had some impact on the tone of the coverage of this war. I have seen overall improvement in that media coverage - be that due to post-Iraqi election reality, a "truce" declared for a period in-between American elections, or just a downturn in overall coverage I can't say.

But I do wonder how Vietnam might have ended if soldiers been able to blog back then...

I often wonder the same thing.  One thing I strongly believe, milbloggers have and continue to play a major role in winning at the strategic and tactical levels of war.  More articles and research needs to be published in order to fully understand their impact.  At the very least, military news sources could start linking to these milblogs more and stop paying homage to the MSM/DNC. 

Finally, it still baffles me why certain Major Commands are still blocking these sites. 

Leadership

Leadership is about courage.  Sometimes this courage requires making tough choices and learning to live by those choices.  Being a commander requires having the courage to make tough choices and holding people accountable. 

Major Mike has a great post that relates a personal story.  While Major Mike's post is aimed at Senator waffling over use of the filibuster, these personal accounts are extremely instructive for anyone wanting to learn about leadership.  I am sure there are many stories like Major Mike's out there.

In a related sense...

All too often, there are many "senior officers" who are in leadership positions as a reward for being somebody's office-boy (the Air Force calls them exec Officers or Military Assistants) rather than demonstrating true leadership which can only be earned with the troops. 

Sure, there are some good officers who happen to be Military Assistants and such...it seems that most have no real leadership experiences dealing with troops.  The fast track bypasses lengthy leadership tours or is full of sheltered positions that don't require the kind of tough decision-making necessary to prepare for future challenges.  If these folks did have good leadership experiences, why do they no longer practice it?  It is all about preserving the career and ducking the tough choices.

Worse, these office-boys typically end up with a couple stars on their shoulders and get placed in higher positions of responsibility.  This leads to lots of frustration.  How many times has a staff package sat on someone's desk before it get reshuffled back through the staff for "one more look?"  I saw this time and again during my Pentagon tour.

My point is the same as Major Mike's...leadership requires courage.

UPDATE:  Wow!  Greyhawk links to a similar post and has comments that mirror the sentiment I was trying to express.  Here is an excerpt:

The reality could be that yesterday's junior troops were as open to change as today's, but that somewhere along the line their path of least resistance (or in some cases, the fast track) was to become as much like their bosses as possible. This key to success goes back many generations, thus a certain corporate stagnation sets in.

The sorts of innovators who take such organizations forward are generally frowned upon by that network of folks who are busy emulating their bosses. This is not unique to the military. But in the corporate world such individuals often escape from those sorts of situations and create successful start-ups that knock the industry on it's collective ear. The military folks with those characteristics often a) suppress the creative spark and get with the program or b) seek greener pastures elsewhere in the civilian world - but obviously not by starting their own competitve Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.

Speaking of competitive military, historically a big war would erupt every generation or so, and the 'peace time' commanders would normally find their careers ending rapidly thereafter as their shortcomings became apparent in the early failures of the campaign - see the Civil War and WWII for examples. But in today's world there is no opposing force capable of defeating the US military. This will keep the process going (or not going, if you prefer), and keep the powers-that-be entrenched.