The First Random Musings of 2011

These are the first random musings of 2011 (and first ones in a while)... they may also be the only random musings of 2011. Strongly considering closing up blog-shop.

I have discovered the joy of cooking steak with onions.

So, someone decided to publish The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, sans the word "nigger." Yes, Roger Ebert's knee-jerk reaction to the news was, well, an overreaction, but he's right. Editing any literature is stupid. And the people who support the idea are stupid. Is the word unfortunate? Absolutely. But do you know what's more unfortunate? People who try to pretend fucked up things didn't happen in history by editing them so nobody else knows they happened. Not only is that information control (something these nit-pickers like to whine about), it's blatant censorship. And censorship is for assholes. Motherfucking assholes. Edit that, bitches.

Hmm... I may have forgotten to mention earlier that I have discovered the joy of cooking at all.

Top Gear, one of the most-watched television series in the world, got in trouble because the hosts decided to dress up as Muslim women for a segment of their Christmas special on the BBC. Obviously, the Muslims who watch the show were "highly offended" because the hosts essentially "mocked" Islam for all of 10 minutes. Never mind the fact that the entire show mocked Christianity (particularly the belief in the Three Magi, who bestowed gifts upon a newborn Jesus), or the fact that the reason for the cross-dressing was to hide from (and mock) authorities from Israel (you know, that Jewish country that Islamic fundamentalists would like to see wiped from the face of the Earth?). No... they cared not about that. Only the 10 minutes that offended them. To them I say, "Go fuck yourselves."

By the way, if you've never cooked a rib eye steak in cilantro, you should try it.

The San Diego Chargers didn't make the playoffs. Argh.

I have recently discovered that the "lime" tree in my backyard is actually a lemon tree. Oops.

What's the point of being declassified if all the government wants to do is reclassify what they agreed to declassify?

Had eel for the first time ever. Loved it.

I'm slowly discovering that "I'm too competitive" is actually a euphemism for "I'm a sore loser." Got news for you: true competitors play until they win. They don't give up when they lose.

There might be a new country in Africa next month. The southern portion of Sudan just voted on a referendum to secede from the country. A little known fact about me is that I'm a geography freak... that includes both physical and political geography. The concept of a new country is something I find pretty friggin' awesome. One of these days I'm going to figure out how many new nations were formed in my lifetime... but I'll save that for the bucket list.

If Secretary of Defense Gates was truly concerned with military efficiency and cost-effectiveness, he'd push harder for the Marine Corps to be absorbed by the Army.

Whiny hags crack me up. And, before you ask, I've been known to crack myself up.

Actually, I've decided. Closing up blog-shop.

Mountain Warfare: An American Oversight

As a superpower with global reach and concerns, our military is trained, equipped, and prepared to go anywhere anytime the need arises. Almost. While we are no doubt prepared for desert-based conflicts and have increased our urban warfare capabilities exponentially since the 1990s, we lack a particular capability that is particularly important today, given our involvement in Afghanistan: mountain warfare.

Wait, what?

Yes, you read that right. Our mountain warfare infrastructure leaves something to be desired. Simply put, we have no units that maintain an at-ready status to deploy to mountainous territories. And this is despite having a "mountain division" on active Army rolls.

Not unsurprisingly, a third-party analysis of American mountain warfare capabilities revealed a serious lack of immediacy in the United States Army and United States Marine Corps' mountain readiness. The analysis was written by an officer in the Pakistani Army back in 2004, and seems to have gone unnoticed by American military planners of then and now.

Strangely, the US military maintains three very effective "mountain warfare" schools, two run by the Army and one by the Marine Corps. Unfortunately, each of these schools maintain emphases on mountaineering, rather than the physical action of combat in mountainous terrain. Sure, the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center conducts a field exercise of sorts, but little of it entails running operations of any significant longevity, and almost completely ignores the problems of resupply and heavy logistics. Critics could even easily claim that the field exercise is barely more than a simple game of laser tag. And no combat units are stationed at the post (Pickel Meadow, California).

Of the two Army mountain warfare courses, one, the Northern Warfare Training Center at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, is more dedicated to cold weather operations (obviously) and conducts their mountaineering training near the Black Rapids Glacier. The other, the Army's formal Mountain Warfare School, is located in Jericho, Vermont, amid the foothills of the Green Mountains. Again, neither post maintains an active mountain warfare unit.

Which brings us to the Army's vaunted (sort of) 10th Mountain Division. Inactive since 1958 (when it was a simple infantry division), it was reactivated in 1985 due to Reagan's insistence on having an alpine division. Ironically, some genius in the Army think-tank decided to garrison the division at Fort Drum, New York. A nice, flat strip of acreage located a whopping 200 feet above sea level. You know, the perfect elevation to keep soldiers acclimated to fighting in high elevations. Worse still, the post is located roughly 80 miles from the highest peaks of the Adirondacks, which include Mount Marcy (approximately 5300 feet) and Algonquin Peak (approximately 5100 feet). While these peaks certainly make for excellent training, once again, no combat units are permanently stationed at those elevations.

Historically, the 10th Mountain Division formed and trained for World War II at Camp Hale, Colorado, almost 9,000 feet above sea level. Located within the Camp's borders was Copper Mountain, whose peak sits at over 12,000 feet. An ideal location to train and breed mountain soldiers, undoubtedly. Unfortunately, Hale is no longer an active military post, so the current Army lacks its option.

Still, Colorado does lay claim to another prominent Army fort, Fort Carson, which rests nicely at about 6,000 feet. Nearby are Cheyenne Mountain (about 9,500 feet) and Pike's Peak (over 14,000 feet). Yet another ideal location to train and breed mountain soldiers.

But, guess what? The division the Army maintains at Carson is not a mountain warfare division, but an armored division: the 4th Infantry Division (armored by MTOE - modified table of organization and equipment). Because, you know, tankers need to be acclimated to drive through hazardous mountain ranges.

The end result is that no unit deploying to the mountain regions of Afghanistan, or anywhere else, is pre-acclimated to the altitudes necessary to operate effectively. Yes, the men and women of our armed forces do a wonderful job of toughing things out until their lungs and muscles adjust to the lower temperatures and levels of oxygen, but why should they have to?

Honestly, does that make any logical sense to anybody? Why make things harder on our soldiers and marines than they are already are?

If someone in the Pentagon would think about for it for more than brief moment, they'd come up with the easy solution: switch the locations of the 4th ID and the 10th Mountain. Hell, other than shipping a few vehicles back and forth, all it would require are a few flag changes and soldiers switching out their uniform patches. And, let's be fair, the opening of a new mountain warfare school. But one that actually teaches the "warfare" part.

Think the Department of Defense can handle that?

In Defense of... Obama?

Anybody who knows me knows that I'm no big fan of Barack Obama. I didn't vote last year (due to circumstances sort of beyond my control... long story), but even if I had, I wouldn't have voted for him. Neither would I have voted for McCain (I'm really not a Sarah Palin fan), but that's not the point.

So what is the point? Well, I'll get there in a minute, but let's get some ranting out of the way first.

Obama, for the most part, hasn't done anything that has really pissed me off yet. Sure, he hasn't done anything that has made me jump for joy, but the only thing I'm vehemently against him on is that ridiculous proposal that we should renew diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Bad idea. Iran? Yes. Cuba? Yes. The Taliban? Um... no.

And, yeah, I'm a bit upset about his campaign promises that he will increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, seeing as how "his" proposed increases were already passed and were scheduled to be completed in 2010 (they're, in fact, almost completed now). Anyway, not a big deal, but I feel this particular issue was handled a bit disengenously.

Anyway, on to the point.

This past week, Obama has come under fire for something he said during an appearance on Jay Leno, as well as his demeanor during an interview on 60 Minutes. You all probably know this by now, but while on Leno, Obama compared his bowling ability to that of bowlers in the Special Olympics. In other words, he sucks. And while on 60 Minutes, Obama seemed to have a lackadaisical, even humorous, attitude towards the current shit state of the US economy.

I happened to have watched both appearances by our President, and you know what? Neither incident was anything to get all uppity over (I was going to write "form a lynch-party over," but given how a certain group of cry-babies likes to play the race card over said statement, despite the fact that almost everybody these days uses it as a mere synonym for "get pissed at," I'll avoid the term).

We've all used the comparison to retards (oops, sorry... "special people") to describe a lack of proficiency or aptitude in something, and it was easy to see that Obama was merely being genuine in implying that he sucked at bowling. Or, at the very least, acknowledging that Leno was implying that he sucked. There was no offense behind his words, and I'm glad he used the term... it helps "de-roboticize" the image he's formed (either purposefully or inadvertently) for himself over the past few months.

And then there was 60 Minutes. You could tell he was a bit nervous, and it's not too far a stretch to assume that he's a person who likes keeping tense atmospheres as light as possible (maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). I get that way sometimes, and most people who aren't pious zealots or recluses get that way sometimes. He very well may have been "punch drunk" (kudos for Steve Kroft for calling him out on it, regardless of the incident's purported "controversy"), but who gives a shit? How is laughing at an economic crisis any different than a cop laughing about a mutilated body at a crime scene? It's not, and both are undoubtedly necessary forms of stress relief.

Look, I'm of the opinion that Obama will probably not go down in history as one of our truly great Presidents, but he's (so far) doing just fine. I'll rag on him when he gets some intern fellatio, but not for speaking like an everyday person. And neither should you.

You want something to be hot and bothered about? Try those assholes in Oakland who were reportedly taunting cops as another cop lay dying.

A Two-War Military

We are, without doubt, on the cusp of yet another "brave, new world." The global environment seems to be changing at a faster pace than with the post-World War II independence movements. New safe harbors are popping up, as are new dangerous waters. And, as we approach the adolescent years of the 21st Century, an old superpower is once again flexing its arms, and an ancient superpower is waking from its centuries-long slumber.

On top of all that, terrorism has taken on a new life. No longer dedicated regional acts of violence, terrorism has walked on the world's stage as a superpower unto itself. And American needs to be prepared.

The old saying goes that, "to secure peace is to prepare for war," and it remains as accurate today as it was when it was coined. American needs to be ready to fight wars on two fronts. Only these are not the fronts of western and eastern, or Pacific and Atlantic. These are the fronts of conventional and unconventional warfare.

America has oft made the mistake of downsizing her military when things "seemed safe," usually after the conclusion of a large or protracted war. And, every single time she's done that, she's had to remobilize. Every single time. Bar none.

I assure you, that pattern will not change.

The danger here is that we might make the mistake of downsizing while currently engaged in combat zones. Yes, one can argue that downsizing now would be an effective way of forcing ourselves out of the conflicts we are in, but, regardless of politics, that would be a serious mistake.

Terrorism isn't going anywhere. Trust me, it's not. As long as people somewhere, anywhere, disagree with other people, terrorism and guerrilla warfare will exist. Somewhat thankfully, our government and our military realize this, and our armed forces are transitioning themselves to fight such wars (what the Pentagon painstakingly refers to as "long wars"). This is fine, for we need that capability.

However, we're placing too much emphasis on the so-called "long wars." And we're doing so at the expense of our ability to fight conventional ones.

Russia is clearly staring NATO in the face, waiting for NATO to blink. China is clearly preparing itself to do the very same thing. And what's our response? To downsize.

Already, the Navy has canceled its admittedly ambitious 21st Century destroyer program, and the Army is cutting funding for its Future Combat Systems. Of the FCS, the portions of it that aren't getting the axe are primarily geared for, you guessed it, "long war" operations.

Most people don't seem to realize exactly how small our military has become. Yes, for a number of years, it was probably too big, but no longer. In the 1980s, the military was nearly 600 ships and over 30 combat divisions (including reserve forces). Today, the Navy stands at just over 200 combat ships, and 18 combat divisions (10 active, 8 national guard). Simply put, we don't have enough manpower to do anything.

Both the Russian and Chinese navies are growing, with each indicating that they are constructing new aircraft carriers to support blue water operations. Already, both the Russian and Chinese armies outnumber ours by an alarmingly disproportionate amount. And we're not talking combined, mind you. Including organized reserves, each outnumbers us on their own.

The solution is obvious, though expensive. Cut the fat out of the programs that have obvious fat, but don't further shrink America's military. In fact, grow it. This can be partially funded by doing away with the independent Air Force as well as taking the Marine Corps away from the Navy. The rest can be funded by slicing the fat from those programs that need it.

We need "long war" capability. That is clear. But we also need conventional capability, for at least as long as Russia and China remain possible enemies. For those critics who feel China poses little threat, please inform me exactly why they're expanding their military at a rate rivaled in the past 100 years by only the mobilization efforts of World War II.

Let's not be stupid, here. Let's secure peace.

Unfortunately, to do that, we must prepare for war.

Every Man a Rifleman

There's the Army. There's the Marine Corps. On paper, almost 100% identical in tactics, strategy, logistics, and mission. Sure, the Marine Corps is dictated by one more sentence regarding its ability to be "directly controlled by the President" (which is, so sad to say, mere lip service) and the word "amphibious" is replaced by "airborne" when pertaining to the Army, but you get the point.

Ideally, these services are identical, save for method of deployment and primary objectives. Practically, however, these services are as different as two land-based military branches run by the same government can be.

For those who aren't familiar with my (highly-researched) opinions, let me back up a tad... I believe the United States Marine Corps should not fall under the umbrella of the Department of the Navy, but should in fact belong to the Department of the Army. Basic and intermediate trainings of both the Army and Marine Corps should be identical and, in fact, shared. Their recruiting and logistics systems should be combined. Long story short: the Army and the Marine Corps should be a single branch of service.

Regarding this, however, the theoretical philosophical basis of the Marine Corps is far, far better than the theoretical philosophical basis of the Army (which, as far as I can tell, doesn't have one). In the Marine Corps: "every man a rifleman." This translates to every Marine (male or female) being fundamentally and undeniably a member of Marine infantry, regardless of a Marine's listed job title. While this may make little difference on the actual modern battlefield, given the current dynamic of military strategy and logistics, it does make quite a bit of difference in the day-to-day workplace of a military branch. Yes, most Marines will admit that the "every man a rifleman" is more slogan than reality, but the very fact that the slogan exists is probably effective enough.

In the Army there is a definitive differential between a combat soldier and a support soldier. Not only in training, but in professional attitude. The support soldier exists for one reason and one reason only: to support the combat soldier. There is no need for an admin or finance clerk, or a legal assistant, or a mechanic, or a cook, save for supporting the infantryman (or woman) and his kin. That's all, nothing else.

And therein lies the problem. Support soldiers tend to feel that they run the Army (which, in point of fact, they basically do) and there is a bit of a prejudice against the actual reason for an army's existence, which is the aforementioned combat soldier. These support soldiers live in air conditioning, are usually less physically-fit than combat soldiers, do not train as hard for field operations, and basically treat their role in the Armed Forces as a typical 9 to 5 job (yes, there are exceptions, but everybody knows what I'm talking about). I will go so far as to claim that these "support specialists" are not even true soldiers.

And this needs to be fixed. And quickly.

The Marines do it. All Marines undergo basic combat courses on a semi-regular basis. And I'm not talking about little field exercises or what the Army refers to as "Sergeant's Time." I'm talking full-on schools designed to keep all Marines combat-ready. The clerk, the cook, the air conditioner mechanic. All of them. Why? Well, because in the Marine Corps, "every man a rifleman."

Philosophically, it's perfect for an armed service. EVERYONE should expect to fight, kill, and die, regardless of what their "day job" is. The Marines beat it into their recruits from day one. The Army? Not so much. In fact... not at all.

Almost immediately, the Army separates its combat soldiers from its support soldiers by way of a training system referred to as OSUT or "One-Station Unit Training." Basically, specific combat arms MOS' go to combined boot camp and specialty schools that only that particular MOS goes to. Logistically and financially, OSUT is almost undoubtedly the preferred method of training. However, practically, OSUT is likely the very reason for the attitude split so painfully evident in the ranks of the Army.

The solution is simple. Get rid of OSUT and go back to "everbody" boot camps and combat arm AITs. Require non-combat specialities to attend a combat training course similar to the USMC's MCT (Marine Combat Training) course. Optionally, bring back the specialist ranks for those support soldiers who are not "combat qualified." However it gets done, put the Army back into the hands of the people who should run it: the combatants.

Every Soldier Infantry. How's that sound?

Ask the Question

I'm bored and I've received a couple of complaints pertaining to the fact that I haven't written anything here in a while, so I am.

Basically, this is for the people who know me. It's a test to see how well they know me. I'm going to write my answer to a question, and it's your job to figure out what the question was. Post your guesses below. The winner gets... well... I'll think of something.

1. "Teenagers, losers, and old people with nothing better to do."

2. "Not using turn signals."

3. "None of the above. Ask me again in four years."

4. "Road to Perdition."

5. "Gordon Ramsay, any day of the week."

6. "Monica Bellucci."

7. "The Air Force and the Marine Corps."

8. "He's an idiot, and single-handedly ruined my childhood. Well, no... Drew Barrymore might have helped a little."

9. "It's fiction. Don't believe the hype."

In Defense of Military Perspectives

Those of you who read me regularly (a shocking thought, I know) know full and well my view concerning the administrative wastefulness in maintaining a Navy-based Marine Corps and a separate Air Force. These views are well-researched, are based upon a study actually conducted by an Air Force Major, and are, undebatably, fact.

Sure, that the concept would ultimately benefit our military's effectiveness is highly opinionated, but that the concept would cheapen the cost of our military and lessen the burden on taxpayers (and allow for a larger military) is, once again, undebatably fact.

I receive a lot of feedback from a lot of people, many of them current and former servicemembers, concerning my highly controversial views. I can honestly say that none of their counterarguments hold any physical, fiscal, or operational weight. While that may sound a bit arrogant on my part, and probably a bit ignorant, it is true. Every counterargument I hear or read boils down to one thing: tradition.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, tradition is a wonderful thing to have (especially in the military) and we should do everything in our power to preserve it, but it should never, ever, get in the way of our adaptability. Ironically, the military seems to agree with most of my points and principles, except they hide my proposals by creating even more-bureaucratic "joint commands" instead of eliminated the fluff that requires the creation of such commands.

Going back to feedback, as I was in the Army for a total of nine years, I am often (if not always) accused of approaching my proposed military restructuring from an Army-centric perspective. I am writing this to show that this is not the case.

When I began my research, it was to support a spinning-off of the Airborne into its own branch of the military. An "Airborne Corps" of the Army, much in the same way the Marine Corps is of the Navy. A self-sufficient fighting force that is only related to its parent unit by way of funding and a shared medium.

My original proposal called for an Airborne Corps with its own close air support assets (like the Marine Corps has) and its own airlift (Army paratroopers currently rely on the Air Force for well over 90% of their jumps). In addition, it would have its own armor assets and logistics structure.

Now, this looked all fine and dandy on paper, and in a fictional short-story or two, but once I got into the budgetary portion of my research, it became clear that such a concept would be entirely cost-prohibitive. It became clear so quickly, that I didn't even bother to continue my research.

So, being a paratrooper and all, I decided to look into the feasibility of an Air Force-run Airborne Corps. After all, why not? Two options quickly set themselves apart from all of the other Air Force-Airborne options: 1) The Air Force would have to build its own infantry administration and operation systems, or 2) the Air Force would simply rely on the Army to train its paratroopers, and then feed them into the Air Force chain-of-command.

The first point would have been, quite obviously, too expensive (seems to be a pattern, doesn't it?) The second would have been, just as obviously, quite redundant.

And then it all came together. A Navy-Marine Corps is redundant, and a separate Air Force hobbles the Army's need for its own air superiority, airlift, and close air support. And, sorry, there's no way you can argue that, save for "tradition" (a point, by the way, which only weakly applies to the Air Force).

Which led to my current line of research, which only convinces me more and more every day that the Marine Corps should realign under the Department of the Army, and Air Force assets should be absorbed by the Army and the Navy.

My point? I started on this route in the exact opposite direction that I am almost always accused of taking. Army-centric? No, not by a long shot.

Airborne-centric? Oh, Hell yeah.

Want to read more? Check here:

An Army of More Than One

Everyone who has been in the military knows of the utter chaos involved in running a unit, much less a full-scale operation. Hell, most people who haven't been in the military have heard the stories, as well. There's even a popular saying attributed to several foreign generals (none of whom probably actually said it): "War is chaos. The reason the Americans are so good at it is because they practice chaos every day."

Okay, so maybe that's a good thing... in war games and training, anyway, but not at the administrative level. Regardless of the ground-floor operational intent and execution, any institution's administration should be clean and efficient. And the Army (and military in general) is not.

While there are several balls of wax and cans of worms I can get into, today I'm going to concentrate on one: the Army's various missions separated among its capabilities. What are its capabilities, you might ask? Well, I'll tell you: armored warfare, light infantry warfare, and airborne warfare (and, if I get my way, amphibious warfare). It's more than just an "Army of One," it's a multifaceted organization that should emphasize its multiple faces.

In the current system, soldiers, regardless of their qualifications, are often levied and transferred (usually involuntarily) to other duty stations. This results in soldiers, who for the last few years have been airborne or light, being sent to armored and mechanized units. What's the big deal? Well, it forces that soldier, who has been trained and indoctrinated in a particular style of warfare, to be re-trained and re-indoctrinated into a new one. While I agree that one should always know as much about related and opposing operations as possible, I disagree in that one should be arbitrarily pulled from their "areas of expertise."

The solution is simple: keep those aligned soldiers in their alignments. In other words, if a soldier is airborne, leave him in the airborne. If he must transfer, transfer him to another airborne unit. The same goes for armored and mechanized soldiers: leave them mechanized. Should the Marine Corps be absorbed into the Army, leave the Marines as Marines. Light infantry is a bit more of a mess, but leave light, well, light. Perhaps even separate the light category into air assault and non-air assault (or even mountain).

This will ultimately create better trained and prepared units, will leave soldiers familiar with the quirks and nuances of their peers with their peers, and will decrease the pressure on the Army's administration system by getting rid of a hack levy and PCS (Permanent Change of Station) system.

Of course, should a soldier want to change his or her specialty and/or duty station, then by all means, afford him or her the opportunity. I also understand that several vacated higher positions in particular units will have to be filled by pulling a qualified soldier from another specialty and/or location.

Just knock off the unnecessary mixing and matching, okay?

An Overview of Restructuring the Military

I admit it, this isn't really a true blog, but as I've entered a new phase in my military-based research, I've decided to link all of my military blogs in one blog for easy access (and for those of you who might still be interested).

There is, undoubtedly, more to follow, including the Department of Defense's ridiculous propensity to preserve General and Admiral slots while pretending to streamline the actual force structure.

Anyway, here they are:

The Army Corps of... Marines?

Army Musings

The Military Draft: No So Random Thoughts

United States Marine Corps, Department of the Army

The United States Air Force: a Parasite Organization

Marine Corps versus Army: the Rank Problem

For those of you who might prefer a summary, basically:

1) The US Air Force should be split among the Army and the Navy, with close air support, tactical bombing, airlift, and air superiority assets going to the Army, and strategic air going to the Navy.
2) The US Marine Corps should realign under the Army.
3) The military in general should eliminate at least three enlisted and three officer ranks, and should reevaluate the necessity of the warrant officer system.
4) The military in general should eliminate as many flag positions as possible, thereby truly streamlining the command structure and increasing the efficiency of its administration system.

And there you have it.

Marine Corps versus Army: the Rank Problem

Given the current flow of information from the Department of Defense, one might assume that there aren't enough ranks in the military to properly control and command our armed forces. After all, while already having nine enlisted grades, there are often reports of the services trying to approve a tenth grade, to be reserved for the top enlisted man (or woman) in a particular service. On top of that, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps are inundated with an oft-confusing "warrant officer" system that is, to be quite honest, redundant and pragmatically unnecessary.

Both of these quirky little facts, combined with an officer system that contains up to eleven ranks (ten in peacetime), and what we actually have is a system that is too large, overwrought, and bad for business. Particularly when it comes to discipline.

While the majority of what I'm going to rant about concerns the enlisted ranks, let's go ahead and gloss over the officer system.

Eleven ranks. With the exception of the Navy, the rank structure for officers proceeds like this:

1. Second Lieutenant
2. First Lieutenant
3. Captain
4. Major
5. Lieutenant Colonel
6. Colonel
7. Brigadier General
8. Major General
9. Lieutenant General
10. General
11. General of the Army (Air Force - the USMC has no equivalent).

What's the problem, you might ask? Well, for starters, this rank system is designed to deal with an armed force based on a regimental system. A system that we quit using nearly a century ago. But to spell it out, let's take a look at the "natural progression," shall we?

In the Army and Marine Corps, units commanded by officers progress as such:

1. Platoons - commanded by Second Lieutenants
2. Companies (or their "regimental equivalent" - basically, whether it's cavalry, artillery, or infantry) - commanded by Captains
3. Battalions - commanded by Lieutenant Colonels
4. Brigades - commanded by Colonels, or, depending on the make-up, Brigadier Generals (which is where the name "Brigadier" originated)
5. Divisions - commanded by Major Generals
6. Corps - commanded by Lieutenant Generals
7. Armies - commanded by Generals

There are more above armies, but unless another true world war breaks out, they're not likely to be used ever again. Indeed, even the "basis unit" has shifted downward to brigades, rather than divisions.

Anyway, take a look at that unit/officer chart. Where are, for instance, the natural positions for First Lieutenants and Majors? I understand that I'm asking you to infer a lot on your own, and I will probably follow this up with another article explaining the inherent problem with those ommissions, but just bear with me.

From that chart alone, and without any other justification, we have two officer ranks too many. More evidence, including some implied above, would also suggest that colonels should shift down to battalions, leaving brigadier generals in their natural position of commanding brigades, allowing the lieutenant colonel rank to also be ommitted.

Ugh... on to the enlisted ranks.

Here are the Army/Marine Corps ranks for enlisted:

1. Private / Private
2. Private / Private First Class
3. Private First Class / Lance Corporal
4. Corporal (Specialist) / Corporal
5. Sergeant / Sergeant
6. Staff Sergeant / Staff Sergeant
7. Sergeant First Class / Gunnery Sergeant
8. Master Sergeant / Master Sergeant
9. Sergeant Major / Sergeant Major

Those soldiers and Marines reading this will know there are some variations to some of these ranks, but, again, bear with me.

Okay... nine ranks... and for what?

To put this in perspective, let's look at the basic infantry squads in both the Army and Marine Corps.

In the Army, the basic infantry squad is a nine-man unit, with a squad leader and two teams consisting of a team leader, grenadier, automatic rifleman, and rifleman each.

The squad is commanded by a Staff Sergeant (E-6), while the teams are commanded by Sergeants (E-5). The remaining six soldiers are a mix of Privates (E-1 or E-2), Privates First Class (E-3), Specialists (E-4), or Corporals (also E-4).

So, basically, the building-block unit of the Army has three Non-Commissioned Officers, and six other enlisted. A 1:2 ratio. Keep in mind, the non-NCOs can consist of all E-1s or all E-4s, or any variation in-between and thereof.

Where's the rank structure? Where's the top-down? How fucking stupid is that? Six separate grades for nine people?

The Marine Corps' setup is, undeniably, far more logical. A basic Marine Corps infantry squad is thirteen men, with a squad leader and three teams consisting of a team leader, an automatic rifleman, an assistant automatic rifleman, and a rifleman each.

The MC squad is commanded by a Sergeant (E-5), while the teams are commanded by Corporals (E-4). The remaining nine soldiers are a mix of Privates (E-1), Privates First Class (E-2), or Lance Corporals (E-3).

Though still a bit of a muddled mess, there is far more of a semblance of a proper rank structure in the Marine Corps squad than is found in the Army squad.

However, in both systems, we have revealed at least two too many enlisted grades at the squad level.

Here is how it should progress:

1. Privates - in charge of nothing
2. Corporals - in charge of fire teams
3. Sergeants - in charge of squads
4. Staff/Gunnery Sergeants - Platoon Sergeants
5. Master Sergeants - Company First Sergeants, etc.
6. Sergeant Majors - Senior Battalion(+) enlisted.

An elimination of three enlisted ranks, a streamlining of the enlisted chain-of-command, an increase in respect for the lower enlisted ranks, and a true merit-based promotion system.

Counter-arguments against doing such a thing (besides the totally irrelevant and inane "tradition" argument) will probably focus on the ability to promote soldiers to increase their wages. While I'm always for making more money, do we really want soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen shooting for promotions ONLY because the next rank pays more? Fuck no, we don't. We want sergeants who WANT to be sergeants, because they WANT the power and responsibility that comes with it... not because they want another $200 or $300 a month. And regardless, that problem is so easily fixed, I'm going to point out how in the next paragraph.

The Army and Marine Corps' pay and promotion system is already heavily computerized, and separating pay grade from rank would be as simple as modifying the computer software. Hell, in that aspect, the military could create as many pay grades as it deems necessary, all while leaving the rank structure streamlined, intact, and with a clear chain-of-command. It's high-time we start streamlining things and bringing back respect for our ranks.

(Yes, I'm just glossing the surface, and, yes, I realize this post is a little chaotic, but hopefully your eyes are opening a little bit. Feel free to hammer me with questions and arguments.)

Things Hollywood Should Get Right, but Doesn’t

It's no secret that Hollywood films and television shows get a lot of facts wrong. Every film-going or TV-watching professional in the world has likely seen his or her profession represented on the screen and winced at something that just doesn't "happen that way."

Usually, writers, directors, and producers try to claim that facts are fudged or sacrificed in the name of "good drama." However, there are just as many writers, directors, and producers who claim that reality is good drama, putting those other lazy, less-talented-than-they-should-be filmmakers to shame.

Regardless, there are several things that are rampant in film and television that said filmmakers almost always get wrong, and with no reason for it. If you can honestly tell me that the following mistakes add to the drama, then I'll shut up... but you won't be able to.

1. Smokers don't normally "whoosh" their exhales. Maybe once in a while, but not every time Diane Lane or someone else lights up. Smokers also inhale their smoke. If a part requires smoking, teach the ass how to smoke.

2. Sergeants Major in the Army and Marine Corps are never referred to as just "Sergeant." And actors playing Colonels referring to Sergeants Major as "Sergeant" should know better.

3. I mentioned this a few entries ago, but the term "soldier" refers to one branch of the military: the Army. So the next time The Rock plays a Marine Sergeant, he shouldn't be calling his men "soldiers."

4. The disconnected signal on a telephone takes a protracted amount of time to occur. It doesn't happen right away, even if someone is trying to break into your house.

5. Casting obvious bimbos like Tara Reid and Denise Richards as scientists convinces nobody in the audience and results in chuckles every time one of them tries to pronounce "DNA" or "nuclear."

6. When firing a gun, most people, if not all, aim with the eye that's on the same side of the hand they're holding the trigger with. That's certainly how it's taught.

7. No matter how good lip-syncing is done, it never looks like real singing. That's because singers actually breathe, use their vocal chords, and do other realistic things that actors should learn before they try to "fake real life."

8. A proper American hand-salute would be nice from time to time.

9. The current fashion to use "hand-held camera" for everything, because filmmakers claim that it makes the audience "feel like they're really there." Um, no... at best, it makes the audience feel more like they're watching a documentary. I don't recall the world ever bouncing up and down so fast whenever I sprinted short distances.

10. Clint Eastwood should be President. Have a nice day.

The United States Air Force: a Parasite Organization

Before I get started on my well-researched rant, I just want to state that I don't think the men and women of the USAF are jerks, pansies, or parasites. Far from. They are as good as any other member of our armed forces, ready when we need them, willing when we ask them, and able when we send them.

But...

The USAF itself is a large waste of money.

First point: simply analyze our air power in our various armed forces. The Army has the largest "air presence" of any service. The Navy has their own air superiority, airlift, and strike capabilities. The Marine Corps has their own airlift, strike, and close air-support capabilities. The Air Force has all of that, plus strategic air. All this means that the people of the United States are essentially paying for four air forces, each with overlapping and oft-conflicting roles. Um... why? Politics, "tradition," and politics.

Second point: While the Navy and Marine Corps absolutely need their own air support (whether inherent to their services or provided by the air force), so does the Army. So why did the DoD arbitrarily decide that the Department of the Navy get to keep its aviation assets, while the Department of the Army did not? Politics, "tradition," and politics.

Given the current nature of DoD organization and budget, it's clear that the government wants to spend as little as possible on how the military is structured and operated. In a natural progression, DoD should streamline commands, eliminate flag positions, and put asset control in as few pots as possible (notice I wrote asset control, not the assets themselves). Which, obviously, would lead to the Army and Navy controlling their own air support. Well, like I said, the Navy does it, why not the Army?

Simply put, the United States Air Force would run much more efficiently should it "devolve" back into the Army Air Force. Army commanders would have their own air superiority, airlift, and close air support aircraft to use on pertinent missions, instead of having to ask and coordinate with the USAF. I mean, why does the USAF control tactical airlift, anyway? They don't need it for themselves on a large scale. But guess who does? That's right, the Army.

It's also common knowledge that the USAF (the institution, mind you, not its individual pilots) doesn't really care about its legally mandated CAS (close air support) mission. Why? Well, because they don't need it for themselves. But guess who does?

Anyway, this can of worms can be opened much wider, but the bottom line is that the USAF should either assume control of ALL air assets in the DoD (which still leaves the problem of "asking" and coordinating), or should collapse itself back into the Army, with the Air Force's United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) component (formerly known as Strategic Air Command - SAC) shifting entirely to Navy control.

This would cut many middlemen out, streamline top-down command and communications, and allow for closer operational training between the various arms.

I know a whole hell of a lot of people will disagree with me, but can you really give me any advantages that can trump saving money? Other than "tradition" and politics, of course.

One Win, Two Loss-Inspired Pointless Musings

The Chargers certainly looked better this game, even though they still lost. Run offense and run defense are still no-shows.

Has Hollywood lost the ability to film actually passenger airplanes for movies? Or do producers and directors really think that expensive computer-generated images convince the audiences that they're seeing a real airplane?

Can you guess the big missing piece of the Chargers defense? He wore 59, and his name is Donnie Edwards. Despite the presence of Jamal Williams and Marlon McCree, there is no true leader on the Chargers defense. Williams seems more of the engine type, not the driver, and McCree hasn't been a Charger long enough. I say sign Junior Seau back from the Patriots and let him groom someone for two years.

Why isn't Jordanna Brewster in more movies?

Anybody else notice that Donnie Wahlberg is a better actor than Mark Wahlberg? Not that Mark Wahlberg sucks, but Donnie is just better.

I'm getting a lot of "an Army Marine Corps is a bad idea" messages, but to this date, not one single person has offered a specific, legitimate reason why. Many offer no reasons at all.

I love the movie Munich. Love it. That being stated, the ending was rather odd, and Spielberg did history and his film's protagonist a great disservice by not depicting the misidentified Arab that was killed by the Mossad operation in real life.

I haven't seen a film in a theater for weeks. I'm having withdrawals.

I ran out of Nicorette gum. I'm having withdrawals.

I haven't had a drop of alcohol in weeks. I'm not having withdrawals.

Vote Clint Eastwood in '08.

United States Marine Corps, Department of the Army

A year or so ago, I posted a blog that incensed a few Marines. In it, I basically posited that the United States Marine Corps was a waste of money as long as it remained in the Department of the Navy. (You can read it here.)

Today, I restate that fact (not opinion, mind you... fact): maintaining the USMC outside of the Department of the Army is a huge waste of money. Again, what we have is essentially two raised armies, each with their own training and logistics systems. That alone drives the cost of maintaining 13 active-duty divisions much, much higher than it would be otherwise.

Anyway, I'm not going to fully reiterate the original blog now, but I am going to point out some oft-skewed and sometimes hard to find facts (not opinions, mind you... facts) concerning the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army.

1. In World War I, when the United States Army's 2nd Infantry Division was formed, it was partially comprised of a Marine brigade. On top of that, two of the 2nd Infantry Division's commanders during that war were Marine officers: Major General John Lejeune (for whom Camp Lejeune is named) and Major General Charles Doyen.

Score one for an Army/Marine combination.

2. In World War II, when the Marine Corps was finally authorized permanent divisions (they wound up raising six for the war, and currently maintain three active duty and one reserve division), they used the Army division as their blueprint.

Score two for an Army/Marine combination.

3. Also in World War II, as the Marine Corps continued to develop and perfect amphibious assault operations (influenced by British ideas and equipment), they relied on the Army to develop and perfect amphibious resupply operations. This was accomplished by the Army in the form of the Army's Amphibious Training Center and the Engineer Amphibian Brigades (later, Engineer Special Brigades). The doctrines formulated by the ATC and EABs serve as the basis for modern USMC resupply doctrine.

Score three for an Army/Marine combination.

4. Following World War II, the Marine Corps slowly reorganized into Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEFs). The three active MEFs in the Marine Corps are organized as such: a ground division, an aircraft wing, and a logistics group. This is identical to the overall organization of the Army in World War II, when the Army consisted of Army Ground Forces, Army Air Forces, and Army Service Forces.

Score four for an Army/Marine combination.

5. The only reason the Marine Corps exists as a Navy organization is due to the fact that, during the American Revolution, General George Washington didn't want to deplete his manpower reserves by supplying marines from the Army.

I'd say score five, but that point was more for trivia value than supporting my argument.

As of this writing, I have only heard one solid argument for maintaining the Marine Corps in the Department of the Navy. The argument is that the Department of the Navy isn't subject to the Army's thinking that "smaller is better," and can maintain as many Marine Divisions as it so chooses.

Among the other arguments I've heard: the Marines have a different mission (not entirely true); the Marines are organized to fight a different kind of war (not true); the Marines need to be trained and supplied by the organization that supports them during war (true, but the Marines are much more a land-based service today than they ever were); the Marines have more difficult and more effective training (arguably true, but the Army needs to address their own training problems anyway, so this is essentially moot); the Marines are an "expeditionary" force (true, but so is the Army).

There have been other arguments, ranging from the completely defeatist ("that's just stupid") to the downright moronic ("where would we put the Marine barracks?").

By the way, there's an irony to the sole solid argument I mentioned earlier: I came up with it myself.

Vote for Clint Eastwood, who'd probably like us to save money in our military establishment.

Insignificant Things I Wish I Could Change Anyway

There are many, many things about the world I wish I could change. War, famine, disease, deforestation, etc. But all of these are really important aspects of our world that probably most, if not all, of us wish we could change. And, since I'm in a light-hearted mood this fine evening (despite my Chargers getting spanked last night), I decided to talk about tiny, insignificant things that really make no worldy difference to anyone... and how I stay up at night wishing I could change them.

1. Chrysler being owned by a non-American company. That's just wrong to me somehow.

2. The Brewers being in the National League in Major League Baseball - seriously, why does the NL have 16 teams (two divisions with 5 teams and one division with 6) and the AL have 14 (two divisions with 5 teams and one division with 4). DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO ANYONE?

3. The 11th Airborne Division being inactive. We need a bigger army anyway, so bring it back. I mean, how much better is an airborne division called "The Angels" than an airborne division called "All-American?"

4. Japanese characters in Hollywood movies portrayed by Koreans and Chinese. It's not that I don't mind when actors play races that they are not, it's just that I know Hollywood just thinks nobody notices.

5. The NFL Cardinals being in Arizona; the Colts being in Indianapolis; the Rams being in St. Louis; the Texans being in Houston. I say move the Cardinals back to St. Louis so the football team and baseball teams match; move the Colts back to Baltimore since that area actually has horse races; move the Rams back to Los Angeles; move the Texans to San Antonio and bring back the Houston Oilers; move the Ravens to somewhere in Virginia (to keep with the Edgar Allan Poe motif); give Indianapolis and Phoenix new expansion teams.

6. The Marines being a part of the Navy and not a part of the Army. It's stupid, it's expensive, and it's stupid. Tradition be damned.

7. American cars driving on the right side of the road. Wouldn't it be much safer if we could park on the side of the road and open the driver's-side door without worrying about getting hit by oncoming traffic?

8. The Bible referring to me as God and not by my proper name. This one REALLY pisses me off. And not mentioning my prowess in the haystack when I boned Mary. Believe me, there was no virgin about it.

9. The Clippers being in Los Angeles. Move them back to San Diego and put an NHL expansion team there, as well.

The Military Draft: Not So Random Thoughts

This past weekend I happened to read a well-thought article by a former Marine concerning the reinstitution of the draft (it was either in Rolling Stone or Newsweek, I can't recall which). The Marine's thesis was basically that until the haves join the have-nots in the military, corporate and political America will not properly support our men and women in arms.

While there's a definite degree of logic to his argument, I would have to disagree on his theory that a draft would ultimately be good for the Armed Forces. It would not.

Already, especially in the so-called "easy" services (basically, everyone but the Marine Corps), there is a huge dearth of discipline and more than a little lack of proper training. Not only that, there is more than a little lack of motivation, even within the ranks. And this, my friends, is in a military that is already "all-volunteer."

Can you imagine what would happen should we start forcing people into the military?

Look at it this way: our military, specifically the Army, is already far too small. In fact, given my hypothetical leanings (albeit supported by some tried and true experts), the United States Army is AT LEAST two divisions too small (that's roughly 30,000 to 40,000 people, depending on how one counts). I would go ahead and state that the Army is more likely five divisions too small, given what we're trying to do in the world.

Currently, the Active Army consists of less than a half-a-million soldiers. Drafting personnel simply to bring it to the strength that it should be would require (by my count) at least 75,000. In the end, that would be more than 1 in 10 people forced into the military.

1 in 10.

Sure, some of those (most even, maybe) would just grin-and-bear it and serve their time, but some of those would fight it the entire two or three years the military makes them wear a uniform.

Imagine the headaches NCOs and officers already have with the shit-bag soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen already in service. Now compound that with people that didn't even volunteer for the shit they're going to have to put up with.

Now imagine that those people are the sons and daughters of high-ranking politicians, or rich businessmen, and the military (and government itself) is likely to have a few lawsuits on hand. And Heaven forbid if one of those draftees is killed in combat. Oh, shit, what a shitty shit-storm.

Of course, the government can always do the Vietnam route and draft the "less fortunate," but the end result will be the same, what with the ACLU and other so-called "liberal social" organizations running rampant.

No, what we need to do is restructure the military (again, I know) to streamline personnel and save money. In addition, we need to slowly rebuild the base active services to be about 15 to 20% larger than they are today. Reagan managed to do it without a draft, so what's the problem now?

Hah... don't get me started on bratty American youth who feel that they deserve privilege in this country, and don't have to earn it.

Anyway, there's more to this than I have the time or the will to write in a single blog, but feel free to ask the tough questions and/or tear me a new asshole.

Vote for Clint Eastwood (a volunteer in the Army).

"Life is Perception" and Other Pointless Musings

Life is perception. That's as probably as vague and cliché a statement as can be made. But, everyone knows it's true.

Take what's going on in current events right now. The whole Pope debacle. Perception in the Muslim world suggests that the Pope is the religious leader of the West. Reality is that he, while certainly powerful, is not. Only the Roman Catholics view him as their sacred pontiff. Other sects of Catholicism have their own popes, and most Christian denominations don't recognize the pope as their religious figurehead at all (they're called Protestants, people). But... the Muslims tend to think that the Pope speaks for the Western world, so now we're in a state of anxiety waiting for something bad to happen somewhere. Perception.

Here's a more personal example. I wrote a nice, heartfelt letter to a girl that I've liked for quite some time. Unfortunately, she doesn't know me all that well, and as such, thinks I'm quite perverted. Hell, she's probably filling out the paperwork for a restraining order. Perception. Somehow I knew that was going to happen, so I let a close friend read the letter. She said it was one of the sweetest things she'd ever read, but was quick to point out that she knew me well enough that she knew where I was coming from. So, I'm perceived by my friend as a sweetheart, while the girl I want perceives me as a psycho. Perception.

Other Pointless Musings:

The San Diego Padres dropped a thriller last night. Somehow they allowed the Dodgers to hit four back-to-back homeruns in the ninth inning.

If Ford and GM merge, all those idiots with the pissing Calvin stickers are going to be upset.

It's important to recognize that both Christianity and Islam started off as very violent religious philosophies. I think that Christianity has the benefit of being tempered by more "protestant" denominations, allowing moderate Christian beliefs to proliferate. We're seeing some of this "protestant" moderation in Islam (think Indonesia, etc.), but nowhere near enough for the two to truly co-exist peacefully yet.

The Army destroys pride in itself every time they authorize a new award. It's called "elitism," and the military needs it. Egalitarianism in the military leads to complacency.

The San Diego Chargers will take the AFC West, convincingly, this year.

The Marine Corps should be a part of the Army, not the Navy. The Air Force should not exist.

Liberals and conservatives are important forces in evolving governments. However, moderates should run government, as liberals and conservatives in power tend to be dangerous.

Watching movies in a movie theater is better than watching in a home theater. Yes, there are pros and cons to both, but movies are movies, and the screen should be measured in feet, not inches.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is turning out to be a pretty good governor. Donald Rumsfeld, whatever you think of him, needs to go away. John Kerry would have sucked just as bad as Bush.

Wilmington, North Carolina, is a nice place to live. Too bad the film industry sucks ass there.

Revenge is not necessarily a bad thing, although it usually is.

Cheerleaders have the best stomachs known to mankind.

China is either about to take over the world, or send the world spiraling into another global depression.

Perception is subjective. Communication is propaganda. Education is disinformation. Experience is everything.

The Army Corps of... Marines?

Like most former military, I follow our "wars" quite closely. While I'm not going to get into the politics of the matter, I'm definitely going to harp on the cost.

Seriously, what are we thinking? Can we possibly come up with a less efficient model with which to not only fight a war, but to run a military in general?

A few years ago, a Pentagon brain decided to analyze the current makeup of the US Armed Forces. His name was David Dyche and his conclusions in 1990 showed that, not only was the military wasting money on what everyone already knew that the military was wasting money on, but that the military was wasting money simply by existing in its current model. Through careful research and modeling, he figured that our current military was NOT the traditional "3 Branches + 1 Corps" that everyone thinks it is, but in reality is "two armies, two transportation forces, and four air forces." In other words, one huge waste of money (for those of you that are interested in Dyche's report, it is available online - keep in mind that I do NOT agree with Dyche's recommendations 100%, though his points are no less valid).

Now, I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of his entire report, but I am going to comment on the Army/Marine Corps conundrum.

Essentially, what we have with a Navy-run Marine Corps is a SECOND ARMY. One that has a separate training system, a separate supply system, and a separate command structure. Is there a physical need for this? Absolutely not.

Traditionalists (including many former and current soldiers, airborne, and marines) will argue the necessity of a separate Marine Corps, but in all honesty, that is nothing but an old-school mentality stuck in a status quo world. A non-Army Marine Corps is simply nothing but a waste of time and money. Many of these traditionalists will argue that the role of the Marine Corps is different than that of the Army. While there is some (but very little) truth to that statement, their roles are no more different than say, that of the Army Infantry compared to the Army Airborne. And, despite the fact that some countries do, we certainly don't have a separate Airborne Corps, do we?

Realize that I'm not advocating the disappearance of Marine Corps traditions from the Army... absolutely not. Even as a former paratrooper, I recognize that no service takes more pride in themselves than the USMC. I think that allowing Marine Corps divisions to retain their distinctive headgear (similar to Airborne units wearing maroon berets) and their traditional histories is a good, and advantageous, idea. I would also suggest that the Army adopt the Marine Corps system of "Private-Private First Class-Lance Corporal" and maintain "Gunnery Sergeant" as a Marine Division honorific.

But, I AM advocating that paying for what is essentially a second Army is a waste. Joint Operations is getting to the point that the Army would be more than capable of cooperatively running an MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) with the Navy, as well as the Navy cooperatively transporting and deploying the Army.

This would save SO MUCH MONEY, it would make you sick to actually figure out how much. There are other advantages, as well, but I lack the time and the proper means to discuss them effectively here. The bonus? There is simply not one disadvantage, other than window-dressing, to collapsing the Marine Corps into the Army. Not one. Not a single one.

Before I conclude my point, I'm well aware that many of you will bring up Marine Corps aviation and how the Marines have dedicated air support. I AM a proponent of this, but this is related to the fact that I'm also a proponent of eliminating the Air Force as we currently know it. However, as this is not the point of this blog, I'm not going to cover any of that here.

So... like I implied, the only problem is getting past the institutionalized fuckers that don't really give a shit about saving this country valuable defense dollars, but care far more about what their uniform looks like.