Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts

18 May 2016

"Sir, what do we do?!"


During the early summer of 2006, I was in a seven vehicle convoy just north of Baghdad, Iraq. I had only been in country for a short time. I was riding in the passenger seat (or "truck commander" seat) in the second vehicle. Our Humvee was modified to carry electronic countermeasures equipment, and as a result, we had no .50 cal gunner (similar to the Humvee on the right in the picture above). It was just me and a young Army soldier driver.

As we passed through northern Baghdad, I noticed a flash in my side view mirror. We soon realized that an IED had gone off behind our vehicle and in front of the third vehicle. A quick comms check revealed that, thankfully, no one was injured. A quick inspection found only minor damage to the vehicle. Nonetheless, we stopped to investigate.

The lead Humvee sped off to the right to investigate a taxi that was driving away from the scene.

"Sir, what do we do?!" My young driver and I realized at the same time our now-awkward situation. The normal procedure under these circumstances was for the lead and trail vehicles to drive 400-500 meters and set up a cordon. This would allow the other teams to investigate while providing standoff distance for approaching vehicles. Since the first vehicle followed the taxi, we were now the lead vehicle, but without the powerful Browning machine gun to support us. Keep in mind that I'm a Navy officer; a naval flight officer trained in electronic countermeasures. I had two weeks of "Army" training. I was not intended to be involved in ground combat. Nonetheless, here I was.

I immediately explained to the driver to move and set up the cordon. He drove us half a kilometer forward, blocked the road, and then disembarked so we could provide some measure of support. It was not ideal, but it worked. For a few tense minutes, our only method to project power was M-16s or M-4s--hardly the kind of weapon you would want to deter another vehicle. Fortunately, another Humvee came forward and eventually relieved us.

At that point, we returned back to the scene of the IED. I then followed the lead Humvee to where they had stopped the taxi. One soldier seized a few cell phones, which I held while another soldier swiped the hands of the taxi driver and his passengers with a chemical swab to detect explosives. Then, one of the cell phones rang. Iraqis had been using cell phones to detonate IEDs, but this was just the cell phone. Still, it spooked me.

As we were wrapping up the roadside stop, I heard the unmistakable rat-tat-tat-tat of an automatic machine gun. In that instant I immediately realized two things: first, you don't have explain the sound of an AK-47 to someone under fire. Second, you don't have to teach a Navy guy how to hit the deck. I did so immediately. After absorbing a face full of sand and dirt, we soon realized that the sporadic AK-47 fire was not aimed directly at us. Most likely, it was spray-and-pray fire designed to unnerve us. It was working. We soon hurried back to our vehicles and were on our way.

The Army unit I was with was near the end of their rotation, soon to head home. To them, this was just another day outside the wire. Fortunately, no one was injured. As far as I know, the incident was never written up (such a write-up would be required for a combat action badge or similar award). Yet I remember the incident as if it happened yesterday.

23 October 2014

If my experience is typical, the VA is failing our veterans in the most basic way

I receive VA disability payments because I was diagnosed with moderate to severe sleep apnea while I was in the Navy. My payment is a fixed amount which is adjusted (slightly) based on dependents. In my case, a dependent adds about $40 a month to the payment I receive.

When our son Michael was born in 2009, I contacted the VA to add him as a dependent because I would be entitled to this additional $40 per month. Knowing that the VA processes are glacially slow, I more or less forgot about it after I filed it. Unfortunately, at some point, this seems to have gotten lost (of course).

About two and a half years ago, I realized that my original claim had disappeared and was nowhere in the system. So I filed another claim. Using the VA's eBenefits website, I could actually track this claim. The VA estimated that my claim would be adjudicated within a few months. Well, those few months came and went.

Yesterday, I received a letter that the VA had made a decision on the claim that I filed over two years ago. I also received a deposit for the difference between the amount I should have been receiving and what I actually received. The claim was retroactive, but only to August 1, 2012 (presumably, the date that the VA originally processed my second claim), not to Michael's original birthday in 2009.

To be sure, this was not a difficult claim to resolve. It's a simple matter of showing that 1) Michael exists; and 2) he is my dependent. It should not take over two years to resolve.

This anecdote wasn't a crisis for me. Although I feel old, I am still (relatively) young and generally in good health. I am fortunate to receive disability payments but do not need to rely on them. I can file another claim and wait two more years. Or I can decide that it's not worth the time and effort. But what about the less well off? Do our aging veterans have 2 years (or more) to wait for the VA to resolve their claims? Can they afford to forgo the entitlements they earned while waiting for a decision?

Whether they were drafted or chose to serve, the men and women who fought for our country deserve better.

17 August 2014

There are no winners, reconsidered

My last post received a lot of reaction, mostly negative. Friends who I know and trust told me my comparison between Gaza and Ferguson was "ridiculous" and "tone deaf."

I don't regret making the comparison. I do regret that the comparison became the focus of the post. When readers rejected the comparison, my thesis fell flat. That's unfortunate, because I don't think anyone who read the post and rejected my comparison would actually disagree with my thesis. Here it is again, without any reference to Gaza or Ferguson:
People who use innocent civilians to shield violent behavior are cowards...They use the very presence of innocent civilians to blanket their lawlessness. [T]the response is likely to be indiscriminate enough to catch innocent people in the fray. When that happens, we all lose.
I scarcely believe that anyone would disagree with this (do you disagree? If so, please, let me know). Evaluate this statement without my comparison. Then tell me what you think.

I chose Gaza because the conflict is fresh in people's minds, but that obviously backfired. Expecting resistance about my comparison, I tried to allay those concerns:
I'm not suggesting that a violent protester in Ferguson is the same as a Hamas terrorist. As far as we know, the violence done by protesters in Ferguson has not killed anyone. The violence in Gaza is on another scale.
Obviously, that wasn't enough. I'll agree with you that my comparison was absurd. The conflict in Gaza is different by orders of a magnitude from the rioting in Ferguson. I'll go further--I understand if you think no comparison between the two is valid. But that's beside the point. Why I regret the comparison is because my post wasn't about Gaza or Ferguson. The title of my post, There are no winners, is directly in reference to innocent civilians. I intentionally used the word innocent eight times because innocent people are suffering the consequences. Police departments are responding to irregular tactics with force and militarization. Journalists are being arrested and tear-gassed in Ferguson. The police are training sniper rifles on unarmed civilians. The police fired tear-gas on people standing in their own yards.

These are just the immediate results in Ferguson, but we have seen other results from the over-militarization of police forces: a flash bang thrown into the crib of a two-year old boy; SWAT teams invading the wrong homes; Occupy protesters were pepper sprayed as they sat on the ground. Sleepy small towns are acquiring armored vehicles. The capabilities that the feds had at Ruby Ridge or Waco two decades ago are now in the hands of police departments all over the country. Check out Radley Balko's work at the Washington Post  or his book Rise of the Warrior Cop for more on this subject.

This problem won't go away. What's happening in Ferguson right now is happening in small bits and pieces in cities and towns all over the country. It's time we faced the issue head on instead of burying our heads in the sand.







14 August 2014

There are no winners

I've been spending a lot of time over the last month or so thinking about the Israel-Gaza conflict. Specifically, I've been wondering how to respond to irregular warfare. When Hamas militants launch rockets from beside a school or hospital, how should Israel respond? Do you expect them to just ignore the threat of rockets? War is a nasty business. No matter how hard they try, Israel's response is unlikely to be considered reasonable or proportionate. If Israel counter-attacks the rocket launch site, they may (and probably will) kill innocent civilians at the hospital or school. Hamas is violating all sorts of international norms here by subjecting their own innocent civilians to the horrible violence of war. Israel, too, seems to have been indiscriminate in some of their attacks. Whether the overreach comes from Hamas or Israel, it is innocent civilians who suffer.

Much can be said about the ongoing violence between protesters and police in and around Ferguson, Missouri. Let's say you have a group of 100 protesters. 95 of these protesters have no violent intent. They're content to wave signs, chant slogans, and yell at the police. But five of those protesters have sinister motives. They're not at the front of the crowd but interspersed among the peaceful protesters. From the perspective of the police, they see rocks, bricks or Molotov cocktails thrown from the crowd. How should the police respond? You can imagine that they're going to try to disperse the demonstration. They may try to break it up and/or respond with teargas. 95 peaceful protesters are going to bear the brunt of the force for the actions of a few bad apples. Whether the overreach comes from the few violent protesters or the police, it is innocent civilians who suffer.

A few obvious points here:

I'm not suggesting that a violent protester in Ferguson is the same as a Hamas terrorist. As far as we know, the violence done by protesters in Ferguson has not killed anyone. The violence in Gaza is on another scale. The analogy here is not a moral equivalence between terrorists and violent protesters but that the irregular tactics are essentially the same.

Neither am I defending the police's tactics. I'm not sure there is a "right way" to do things. I'm no expert, so someone else with actual law enforcement experience can surely weigh in on why I am completely wrong about this. But if I were in a position of authority, I'd regroup and refocus on doing a better job of identifying the few individuals who are instigating violence. If they're already doing this, it's not coming across in any of the news articles I've been reading. Then again, maybe that's the point: finding the few bad apples in Ferguson may be as difficult as finding the few Hamas terrorists among the larger groups of innocent Gaza civilians. 

People who use innocent civilians to shield violent behavior are cowards, whether they are Gaza terrorists or rabble-rousing rock throwers on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri. They use the very presence of innocent civilians to blanket their lawlessness. When Israel responds, or when the police respond, the response is likely to be indiscriminate enough to catch innocent people in the fray. When that happens, we all lose.

26 February 2014

Law in Plain English: United States v. Apel

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

Dennis Apel. Photo from Paul Wellman,
Santa Barbara Independent.
SCOTUSblogUnited States v. Apel

Argument: Dec 4 2013 (Aud.)

Background: Dennis Apel is a frequent protester at the front gate of  Vandenberg Air Force Base. He was as subject to a pre-existing order barring him from the base, and was convicted of trespassing under 18 U.S.C. § 1382. After his conviction, the Ninth Circuit ruled in another case that a stretch of highway running through the base was subject to an easement "granted to the State of California, which later relinquished it to the County of Santa Barbara," and as a result the federal government lacked the exclusive right of possession of the area on which the trespass allegedly occurred. Therefore, a trespassing conviction under § 1382 was not valid. In a per curiam decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed Apel's conviction.

Issue: The question before the Court is whether 18 U.S.C. § 1382, which prohibits a person from reentering a military installation after a commanding officer has ordered him not to reenter, may be enforced on a portion of a military installation that is subject to a public roadway easement.

Holding: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that for purposes of § 1382, a military installation emcompasses the commanding officer's area of responsibility; and here, it includes Vandenberg's highways and protest area. As a result, the Ninth Circuit's decision was vacated and Apel's conviction would be reinstated.

The painted green line marks the boundary for peaceful
protest activity, according to Vandenberg Air Force Base.

09 November 2013

Veterans Day speech (2007)

This is a speech I gave on Veterans Day in 2007.

Thank you very much.

I'd like to begin today's remarks with a true story that you may have heard about an Army captain from Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

The captain was approaching the post medical facility when she noticed a veteran walking toward her. The old soldier, stooped over and walking slowly, appeared to be about 80 years old. The captain barely gave the veteran a second glance because coming up immediately behind him was a full colonel. When it was time to render her salute to the colonel, the old veteran was only a few paces from the captain. 

"Good morning, Sir," the captain said, saluting sharply. The veteran immediately came to life, totally transformed by the captain's greeting. Thinking the salute was intended for him, the veteran straightened up, returned her salute and exclaimed with vigor, "Good morning, Captain."

Meanwhile, the colonel was in the process of returning the salute when he realized what was going on. The colonel stopped in mid-salute, remained silent, exchanged glances with the captain, and continued on his way unobserved by the veteran.

This story illustrates the importance of Veterans Day, when the nation pauses to salute all those who have served and those who continue to serve in uniform. It honors those who have served on active, Reserve or Guard duty, and those who served during times of peace as well as war. This day honors those who served two years, or an entire career.

World War I – known at the time as “The Great War” - officially ended when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, in the Palace of Versailles outside the town of Versailles, France. However, fighting ceased seven months earlier when an armistice, or temporary cessation of hostilities, between the Allied nations and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. For that reason, November 11, 1918, is generally regarded as the end of “the war to end all wars.”

In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words:
To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…
Veterans Day is the day set aside to thank and honor ALL those who served honorably in the military - in wartime or peacetime.  In fact, Veterans Day is largely intended to thank LIVING veterans for their service, to acknowledge that their contributions to our national security are appreciated, and to underscore the fact that all those who served - not only those who died - have sacrificed and done their duty.  As we see in the story of the old veteran, even a small amount of recognition can go a long way.

Today we recognize some 25 million living veterans who have worn the uniform of the United States of America.  These men and women took an oath to defend our shores, an oath they upheld with honor.  

Two years ago, President Bush also recognized that
...on Veterans Day, we also remember the troops who left America's shores but did not live to be thanked as veterans. On this Veterans Day, we honor the courage of those who were lost in the current struggle. We think of the families who lost a loved one; we pray for their comfort. And we remember the men and women in uniform whose fate is still undetermined -- our prisoners of war and those missing in action. America must never forget their courage...
It is especially significant that we meet here when our nation is at war: daily, American lives are lost paying that ultimate sacrifice.  In Iraq, the insurgency continues to battle not only our troops, but the Iraqi people yearning for just a taste of the freedom we enjoy.  In Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden continues to evade our troops, and American troops there are paying a price as well.

It is right that we as a nation should continue to ask questions.  Is this war worth the price?  For that answer, we must travel back to the earliest days of American independence.  First, we should ask, “What did we seek?”

The answer, of course, was independence from the tyranny of George III.  Our history classes taught us the causes:  oppressive taxation, taxation without representation, We all remember the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and Paul Revere’s ride.

But in a larger sense, the Revolutionary War was a battle of ideas.  A major disagreement over the most basic philosophies of government.  This disagreement was ultimately codified in our most cherished historical document, the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
This truly was a revolutionary idea.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:  “freedom”.  And of course, it was not free.  Some 25,000 men lost their lives for the cause of freedom.  The cost of freedom is the blood of patriots.  It was Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration, who said, “the tree of liberty must constantly be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  Those 25,000 men made the ultimate sacrifice, demonstrating the fundamental price of freedom.

Some 87 years later, we learned that lesson again in our nation’s most trying experience, the Civil War.  Fathers, sons, brothers, families, paid that sacrifice.  Lincoln’s closing words at Gettysburg say it much clearer than I could impart to you:
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Over 15 million American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines served on the battlefields of Europe during two World Wars and in the Pacific during World War II.

Later, millions more served in Korea and Vietnam.  Our remembrance of those who served there, particularly in Vietnam, should not be tainted by the memories of protest but by the honor of their service.

September 11, 2001 brought the war to our doorstep.  Now, the fight was not on a distant continent, but our own backyard.  It is wise to remember Sir Winston Churchill’s words of sixty plus years ago, when we knew the price of freedom was not cheap: “Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.”

This was not rocket science; Churchill simply repeated what we have learned over two centuries-plus of history.

We’ve already demonstrated that freedom is the underlying cause of our crusade.  So we return to our fundamental question: “Is this war worth the price?”  In a larger sense, “Should we continue to spread our freedom across the globe?”

James Kushiner answers:
…what sort of freedom is being spread? Americans have championed the freedom of a people to determine their own course of both national and local community life, rather than have it dictated to them either by a tyrant or by a small ruling elite that suppresses the aspirations of the citizenry. The tyrant is the privileged man of power, while true patriots are the community of citizens seeking freedom within the context of guaranteed God-given rights natural to man: among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the freedom for which the Greatest Generation fought and died.
And I would submit to you that all of our generations have proudly worn the uniform for that same freedom. President Kennedy challenged our nation: “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.”

Our generations of servicemen and servicewomen answered that call, protecting our shores with pride and serving the nation honorably.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I challenge you today to make a difference in a veteran’s life today just as the salute did to the old veteran in the story I opened my remarks with.  Whether the veteran is a parent or grandparent, brother or sister, friend or neighbor, or even a complete stranger, two simple words will mean more to them than anything else you can say: those two words, of course, are THANK YOU.

Let me close with the words Ronald Reagan used when he left office in January 1989, when he spoke about America as a “shining city upon a hill”:
The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
So I ask what Reagan did back then:  “And how stands the city on this Veterans Day?”

“After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”

Thank you very much, may God bless our soldiers currently in the fight around the globe, our living veterans, our fallen brethren, and the United States of America.

25 October 2013

Today in military history: just a ho-hum day...

1415 – The army of Henry V of England defeats the French at the Battle of Agincourt (h/t Kris Reid).


1812 – War of 1812: The American frigate, USS United States, commanded by Stephen Decatur, captures the British frigate HMS Macedonian.


1854 – The Battle of Balaklava during the Crimean War (Charge of the Light Brigade).

1944 – Battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in history, takes place in and around the Philippines between the Imperial Japanese Navy and the U.S. Third and U.S. Seventh Fleets.


1962 – Cuban missile crisis: Adlai Stevenson shows photos at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council proving that Soviet missiles are installed in Cuba.


1983 – Operation Urgent Fury: The United States and its Caribbean allies invade Grenada, six days after Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and several of his supporters are executed in a coup d'état.

10 October 2013

168 years ago today...

...the United States Naval Academy (then known as the Naval School) was established at Annapolis on the grounds of the former U.S. Army post Fort Severn. The school opened on 10 October with 50 midshipmen students and seven professors.

U.S. Naval Academy in 1853

11 September 2013

Multimedia: Free Syrian Army Caputures SA-2 Surface To Air Missile Site

Although it's unclear if this site was recently active, or abandoned. The SA-2 is a very old SAM system (first introduced in 1957!), although they are still out there--mostly old Soviet-bloc nations. We did see a few in Iraq! For more information, see here.
At the 1:04 mark, you can see the Fan Song target engagement radar:
Compare:

09 September 2013

Video: Free Syrian Army SA-8 Gecko Take Down SAA Aircraft

Well, maybe. Difficult to tell from the video screen if that was a live shootdown. For more about the SA-8, see here.

Video: FSA Syrian Rebels Shoot down Syrian Army Helicopter with an SA-7

Well, maybe not quite. It looks to me like the helicopter deploys flares as countermeasures. Difficult to tell, but I don't think the helicopter was shot down. For more about the SA-7, see here.