From a Old Jarhead Marine Who's "Damn Tired"

[Warph]

From the Old Jarhead Marine:

Glenn Beck on Obama -- Brilliant!! http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=23924603&topic_id=24584158
Bob, I read your blog daily. Thanks for all the work you do of sorting out what is worth reading. Don't know how you feel about Glenn Beck, but this video monolog is brilliant. I am also sending this to about 50 other Gyrenes, but figured you have a bigger distribution list. All need to see this. Whether you are a Beck fan or not, this is well worth the 20 minutes it takes to watch this video. Not only is it extremely informative and entertaining, it is also downright funny. I guarantee this will be a classic. If I were the GOP, I would buy the rights to this and air it every day until the election. Seriously, do yourself a favor and take the time to watch and enjoy this.

[Diane Amberg]

  About Robert Hall    You are correct, I hit the wrong year! I meant Feb. 2009...Gettin' old!  The rest stands. I had no problem at all with what he wrote. I just Googled him for more information, hence the question about his being an "Association Executive"  for several unrelated organizations. I just don't know what that is. Thought one of you might know. I'm not saying anything bad about him, I just wondered.

[Ross]

  About Robert Hall    You are correct, I hit the wrong year! I meant Feb. 2009...Gettin' old!  The rest stands. I had no problem at all with what he wrote. I just Googled him for more information, hence the question about his being an "Association Executive"  for several unrelated organizations. I just don't know what that is. Thought one of you might know. I'm not saying anything bad about him, I just wondered.

Diane you could have googled "Association Executive".
But that's okay, I did it for you.


Association executive Occupations Directs and coordinates activities of professional or trade association in accordance with established policies to further achievement of goals, objectives, and standards of profession or association: Directs research surveys, compilation, and analysis of factors, such as average income, benefits, standards, and common problems of profession, for presentation to association committees for action. Confers with officers to ensure that membership roster is current and complete and that members receive equal treatment regarding services and information provided by Board. Directs or participates in preparation of educational and informative materials for presentation to membership or public in newsletters, magazines, news releases, or on radio or television. Provides information and technical assistance to members, clients of members, or public, relating to business operations. Represents association in negotiations with representatives of government, business, labor, and other organizations, and holds news conferences, delivers speeches, and appears before legislative bodies to present association's viewpoints and encourage acceptance of goals and objectives. Oversees finances of Board of Directors, including preparation of long range forecast and monthly and annual budget reports. Plans, develops, and implements new programs and ideas, and confers with committee leaders to evaluate services and recommend methods to promote and increase membership involvement. Directs and coordinates association functions, such as conventions, exhibits, or local or regional workshops, to present membership with committee proposals on goals or objectives, familiarize membership or public with new technology or products, and increase public acceptance of membership objectives. Prepares and updates procedural manual. May conduct investigations on members' professional ethics, competence, or conduct, or financial responsibility of members to enforce quasi-legal standards of membership. May visit members' businesses to maintain goodwill, to encourage greater participation in organization activities, and to offer assistance to businesses experiencing reverses. 

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/ASSOCIATION+EXECUTIVE?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=ASSOCIATION+EXECUTIVE&sa=Search#906

[Warph]

Bitter Harvest
By Oliver North
8/17/2012

WASHINGTON -- In December 2009, our commander in chief went to West Point and proclaimed that he would withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by 2014. Since then, he has proudly emphasized that "We are on a course to end this war responsibly." Now U.S. and NATO troops and loyal Afghan soldiers and police officers are reaping the bitter harvest of the seeds that Barack Obama planted with those words.

Over the last 10 days, in five separate incidents, seven American military personnel were killed in what used to be called "green on blue attacks" -- where Afghan soldiers or police have assaulted their U.S. and NATO counterparts. Thus far this year, 37 coalition troops and civilians have been killed in 29 incidents of what the Pentagon now calls "insider attacks." According to figures released by the NATO command in Kabul, there were 11 such events in all last year, resulting in 20 deaths.

Until now, the Pentagon and NATO command in Kabul have maintained that these "sporadic incidents" were usually the consequence of "personal grievances" and "related to people getting into arguments." In March, after an insider attack that killed two British commandos, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the assaults by individuals wearing Afghan police or military uniforms weren't part of "any kind of broad pattern of activity." That perception has been altered by events on the ground in Afghanistan.

On Tuesday, following two attacks perpetrated by Afghan nationals that resulted in six Marines killed and two wounded, U.S. Gen. James Amos, Marine Corps commandant, took the unusual step of issuing guidance to all U.S. Marine leaders. Amos, it should be recalled by my media colleagues, co-authored the "Counterinsurgency Manual" with Gen. David Petraeus; it was used as the guidebook for the fight in Afghanistan. In his letter dated Aug. 14, 2012, Amos notes that the recent assaults "were carefully crafted to drive a wedge between us and our Afghan partners." Importantly, he also warned his Marines: "More of these types of spectacular attacks can be expected..."

A day after the Amos message went out, Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged at least partial reality in a Pentagon press conference. They now say the Taliban is "resorting to these kinds of attacks to create havoc." But in that same press conference, Panetta, perhaps forgetting this is not a conventional war, claimed that "the Taliban has not been able to regain any territory lost..."

During the Q and A with reporters, Dempsey announced new measures to ameliorate the threat: the formation of a Joint Casualty Assessment Team -- JCAT -- to evaluate every aspect of each attack, increased counterintelligence "expertise" and a "conference" of "one-stars and above" to develop "thoughts about what more we might do."

Unfortunately, the Pentagon's fixes won't fix the problem of increasing insider attacks. We currently have 84,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan. The Obama administration insists on dropping that number to 68,000 before the presidential election in November -- while simultaneously growing Afghan National Security Forces from 332,000 to more than 350,000. That's mission impossible.

The JCAT idea might have been a good one back in 2007, when NATO first began to tally insider attacks. Any study the JCAT produces now will be good for the history books but unlikely to stop the carnage over the next 12 months.

Improved intelligence on those entering, and counterintelligence about those already in the Afghan police and military services, would be a great idea. But institutional arrogance in U.S. intelligence agencies mandates a reliance on signals intelligence, SIGINT, not human intelligence, HUMINT, that would actually be effective in screening out and detecting Taliban infiltrators.

And if the Pentagon brass wants to know what needs to be done to mitigate the risk of these attacks, they ought to forget about a conference of generals and solicit ideas from the lieutenants and captains in the field who are living, fighting and dying beside loyal Afghan counterparts.

Finally, in what can only be a total lack of situational awareness, there is Panetta's assessment that insider attacks are designed to "create havoc" and his comment that success is measured by keeping the Taliban from regaining "any territory lost."

The radical Islamists in Afghan police and military garb who kill Americans don't care about territory. And havoc is simply a subsidiary effect -- collateral damage -- of an insider attack. The perpetrators of these assaults on American and NATO personnel have but one goal: killing an infidel.

Obama planted the seeds for all this when he publicly announced a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. His deadline is fertile ground for jihadis who know that their "window of opportunity" for murder is closing. We should expect the bitter harvest of "green on blue attacks" to produce a bumper crop of American casualties -- unless we hire a new commander in chief who knows how to fight a war and win.

[Warph]

  About Robert Hall    You are correct, I hit the wrong year! I meant Feb. 2009...Gettin' old!  The rest stands. I had no problem at all with what he wrote. I just Googled him for more information, hence the question about his being an "Association Executive"  for several unrelated organizations. I just don't know what that is. Thought one of you might know. I'm not saying anything bad about him, I just wondered.

Diane, I know what you mean about getting old.   Bob Hall wrote, "I'm Tired" in 2009... he just added some UPDATES to it later.  As to "association executive," Ross pretty well covered that. 

[jarhead]

In response to a rash of Afghan soldiers and policemen turning their weapons on coalition troops, US and NATO forces are ordered to carry loaded weapons at all times while on base.



Warph,,The above is the new order, today, over the Affie cops shooting our soldiers and Marines. What I want to know is why in the hell haven't they been allowed to carry loaded weapons on base before? Last I heard it IS a combat zone !

[Warph]

In response to a rash of Afghan soldiers and policemen turning their weapons on coalition troops, US and NATO forces are ordered to carry loaded weapons at all times while on base.

Warph,,The above is the new order, today, over the Affie cops shooting our soldiers and Marines. What I want to know is why in the hell haven't they been allowed to carry loaded weapons on base before? Last I heard it IS a combat zone !

Right... there has always been alot of shit about this.  We had to deal with the same kind of institutional stupidity in Vietnam.  At one point in early 1969, following a series of accidental shootings, grunts couldn't carry their weapons with a round chambered, even when on combat operations.  And I was told that applied to night operations deep in Indian Country.

I remember a company briefing as we were preparing to set up for the night several klicks from our base camp, where we were told by the company commander that as our men set up the defensive perimeter, we were to make sure they had no rounds chambered and to make sure they understood they were not to fire their weapons without clearance from the company TOC.  Being a new AF intel 2nd looie, my job was to reconnoiter chopper LZs.  Anyway I was in disbelief.  I asked that army captain, 'Sir, you mean even if we receive fire from in close or our trip-flares start going off?"  When he replied in the affirmative, that it was a new Field Force reg, I rolled my eyes which got me a quick ass-chewing and nipped any further protests in the bud.  

Upon being dismissed, several of us had our own quick briefings and then went back to our positions and had our troops build shelved parapets in front of every fighting position.  We then pooled our grenades and lined them up with the pens slightly crimped.  The unofficial RoE for that night were if Charlie set off a trip-flare, toss a grenade out.  We had no friendly units on any of our flanks and we knew damned well we didn't have time to wait for clearance from the TOC if the VC got in close enough to trip a booby trap.  And, we rationalized, nothing had been said at the briefing about grenades.  Fortunately, that night and the next were uneventful, and the ridiculous order from Field Force HQ was rescinded within 72 hours.  However, we were periodically, and always temporarily, burdened with such idiocy when some staff genius back at Field Force got a similar brain-fart.

And yes, we made absolutely certain all those grenade pins were splayed wide again first thing each morning that ridiculous rule was in force. Tragically, that captain's TOC was overrun one night a few months later when VC got inside his perimeter in a very similar situation.  Several troopers in his command element were killed or badly wounded.  I never did find out if that f**kup was the result of some similar form of that foolish rule.

The real tragedy is that good troops die because of stupid rules imposed by military bureaucrats. And it will always be.

[jarhead]

Warph,
I was in Nam in early 69 but thankfully in our AO, it was a free fire zone. I don't know of anyone who didn't stand lines,LP's and OP's, ambushes or even patrols that didn't have their selector switch on at least "semi auto" and some "full auto"---with a finger on the trigger. Even back at our rear area, LZ Stud (Vandergrift Combat Base) the safeties were on but a round was ALWAYS in the chamber. I guess we were the lucky ones.
The frags (grenades ) were another story. In May we manned a hill named LZ Catapult (hill 477 ) for almost a month ( the longest we ever had a "home" ), running ambushes and endless patrols off it. It was a less than 3 clicks from the DMZ. It got be an every night occurrence you would hear" Surfs up" meaning someone from 1st plt was throwing a frag. My plt,, 2nd, was "mail call" and 3rd herd was "chocolate cake". any of them meant get your head down. A good friend in 1st plt called Greenie threw a frag every night during his watch, which resulted into everyone scrambling for a hole and 100 % alert until they figured out we were not being attacked. The skipper passed the word to the platoon commanders that no one, with out exception, would throw a grenade with-out clearing it with their squad leader. That same very night we heard "surfs up" and ol Greenie threw a frag. His excuse was a "gook" was in the wire and he damn sure didn't have time to try to find his sleeping sqd ldr, in the dark, to get permission. The skipper gave up !!
To this day at our reunions Greenie still catches a lot of flak over his grenade throwing. I think he was either trying to stay awake or just got lonely. Now why didn't I do the same thing ?  OK, maybe I did---but how was I supposed to know a rat chewing on  a c-rat can sounded the same as a sapper in the wire?