Apple Crisp or Dutch Apple Pie?
These two desserts look to be pretty much the same thing. And, to the person standing there watching you make these two after dinner delights, it sure looks like you used the same ingredients, mixed the batter, rolled the dough, prepared the apples, you know, the same steps. But, there are subtle nuances that can be found, if one actually takes the time and has the experience, in making these two classic desserts.
The Main Stream Media thinks they understand how the US Military gets troops ready for battle. These are the same scum that miss some glaringly obvious nuances and truly “forked us” in regards to Vietnam.
In this last Sunday’s San Francisco “Comical” (SF Chronicle to those of you that respect this friggin’ rag!), Anna Badkhen, the person that typed the piece of fiction to which I refer, says that the US Military has “cut corners” to get personnel into the field. She asserts that shorter training times and lack of equipment have hurt readiness. One of the choice paragraphs that exposes her lack of understanding follows:
“Soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division had so little time between deployments to Iraq they had to cram more than a year’s worth of training into four months.”
At first blush, one could say, sure, this amount of training time seems a bit too short for someone to go into an operational theater, not to mention the field where every move one makes has consequences. Some of us would say that there are very plausible reasons to have just such a training period. I will hold that assessment until my conclusion. My true intent at the outset is to show just how off the mark these “writers” are when it comes to understanding US Military training and deployment policies, procedures, and ultimately goals and objectives that are more strategic in nature. Or, more appropriately, just what these twits are really up to as they mask their true colors.
The “writer” continues:
“Some had only a few days to learn how to fire their new rifles before they deployed to Iraq - for the third time - last month.”
Now, let’s really look at this statement closely. This is the third time that this particular team, or team member that she spoke with, has been to the battlefield. They had weapons then, obviously, yet this time they have a new weapon. Is the weapon in question such a tectonic departure from their current weapon for their MOS? And I am assuming these individuals are only in the US Army (1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry), what if it were a US Marine or US Air Force Security Forces person? C’mon, is this reporterette honestly trying to make me swallow this swill, hook, line and sinker?! Are all the “SF Comical” readers truly that lost that they do not understand weapons training and in-combat experience?
Am I the only one awake, left reading this tripe, and barely able to hold down my breakfast? Well, this gets better, really! Chew on this one:
“And some soldiers were assigned to the brigade so late that they had no time to train in the United States at all. Instead of the yearlong training recommended prior to deployment, they prepared for war during the two weeks they spent in Kuwait, en route to Anbar, Iraq’s deadliest province.”
Again, members of this brigade are on their THIRD ROTATION! Or, am I just missing something she seems to understand as being crucial to the whole picture? Onward:
“As the Pentagon prepares to boost troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 people, such logistical and training hurdles are emblematic of the struggles besieging a military strained by unexpectedly long and grueling commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I’m trying really hard to stay calm here … really …
You’d think that, based upon the above, we are talking about shortened training time with new weapons, right? Oh no, this little barb sticks out, in a big way:
“After the Cold War, U.S. military [her use of case, not mine] policy - pushed hard by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s policy of “transformation” - relied too much on cutting-edge technology and air power and too little on boots on the ground, and further undercut spending on equipment that would protect large ground forces, critics charge.”
Why do these pinheads always dodge the bullet and say, “critics charge” or “military analysts conclude”? Why isn’t this reporterette making an assertion herself? C’mon have some “gravitas” and make the call yourself! Hiding behind faceless, and often out of context, assertions that are based on several factors, not the one under discussion. But, I digress … these friggin’ chicken-livered, candy-assed, oops … sorry … onward …
Obviously, this writer has no information from which to posit an intelligent conclusion. Just 20 minutes of research on 5th Generation Warfare, and she’d be relatively up to speed on modernization and the efforts being put forth by the US Military - beyond boots on the ground. The only reason that the casualty rate is SO FRIGGIN’ LOW YOU MORON is due to these new, modern, and all encompassing changes to improve the net effective force strength and battlefield control infrastructure.
As to my statement above where I said I’d add a conclusion, well, here goes. Reporters like this Anna Badkhen, in pieces like her 4th of February 2007 piece, “Corners Cut in Rush to Add Troops”, really shows just how lost these people are today. I am struck by the obvious lack of military experience that pervades our printed and video media reports. To just take one point to task, shorter training times are not necessarily bad during war - in fact, they are quite often the smartest decision. By using real world examples (ie on the job training - the hallmark of the US Military!), while riskier, provides training that far surpasses anything you get using fake rounds and a confidence course! And, when you are already skilled with one rifle, how hard is it to get qual’d on a newer one? I know folks that would be splittin’ targets after about 10 minutes of mini-instruction on a new rifle!!! Once you’ve got the sight, feel, weight, balance, and correction for drift, any rifle is just damn deadly - to our enemy. So, THREE WEEKS TO LEARN A NEW RIFLE!?!?!?
Sheesh!
What’s holding us back is stories, and I truly use the word story in reference to this reporter’s piece, and uninformed perspectives that cloud the overall effectiveness of the US Military. We wouldn’t have such a strong insurgency if it weren’t for the cut-N-run crowd and these twits that are very much the lesser of any species trying to grasp what warfare and the US Military are all about.
Anyway, we’re way beyond Apple Crisp and more into apple sauce … what a mess!
If you have the Sunday Comical from 4 February, 2007, maybe you need some bird cage liner?
TAGS: Fix4RSO, Milblog, Military, 5GW, Generational+Warfare, Media, War+On+Terror, SF+Chronicle, Idiots
February 9th, 2007 at 6:51
I read something (somewhere…maybe it was Lileks) recently where the writer said every newsroom needs a “military desk” or at the very least, a journalist who had served in the military. That’s a pretty good idea. OTOH, with the prevalence of milblogs these days, it wouldn’t be beyond the pale to hire a milblogger to serve as a military consultant. Chief duties would be to “fact-check” articles like these before publication. A fairly simple way to avoid screwing your credibility.
On the other, other hand…This person obviously had/has an agenda. And that agenda wouldn’t be well served by writing truthfully.
Finally…I saw this article quoted to Gen. Pace by some numb-nutted Senator when he and Gates were testifying before the Senate Armed Services committee last week. The senator was questioning whther or not the military was preparing troops adequately for combat and used the Chron article as his source. Gen. Pace begged off, claiming he hadn’t seen the article…
February 9th, 2007 at 7:09
In regards to the “reporter” - what a clueless twit.
In regards to every newsroom needing a military desk - why can’t the individual reporters actually, you know, like, “research” their information through milblogs themselves?
Twits.
February 10th, 2007 at 16:54
No freaking way. Having a ‘military desk’ - staffed by prior military people - might result in the MSM actually doing positive stories on our military….and we can’t have that now, can we?