No Minister

Archive for the ‘Military’ Category

“There is providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America”

That famous quote is from the creator of the German nation, Bismarck, and it was uttered back in the 19th century.

Since then there have been more than a few situations which have proved that the USA does seem like a lucky country.

The disasters that have hit the nation in the last twenty years, starting with the 9/11 attacks, passing through the GFC and now the Covid mess, have certainly been damaging to the fabric of America. But perhaps worse has been the incredible decline in the quality of education at all levels, with the metastatic spread of hideous ideas like Critical Theory (and all it’s mutations) into the non-academic world: even sport has been politicised as the 1960’s Counter Culture New Left’s motto of “everything is political” has become an everyday truth.

As Abraham Lincoln once opined:

“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia…could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years.

No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”

Leaving aside that last point for another post and looking instead at the “approach of danger” from the outside world the obvious threat is the rising power of China. A decade ago it was an economic threat, but China’s behaviour in the last few years has turned it into a geo-political / military one. There has also been increased trumpeting by the Chinese themselves about “The Chinese 21st Century” and so forth. Clearly they’re feeling their oats.

This feeling in China was much bolstered by Biden’s recent rout in Afghanistan. Former WSJ Brett Stephens (and committed Never-Trumper) summed it up well in a superb essay, The Post-Pax-Americana World:

Our incompetence matched our fecklessness, and our fecklessness matched our untrustworthiness. To say this is how great powers fall would be an insult to the great powers of the past, which fell under greater strain, for weightier reasons

First, our Afghan fiasco is forcing traditional American allies to reassess the wisdom of their reliance on Washington. This is not just a matter of our tattered credibility (more about which below). It’s also one of capability and competence. It’s difficult to think of any aspect of the Afghan withdrawal, beginning with Biden’s judgment, predictions, and execution, that might inspire a geopolitical opponent to respect, much less fear, the American president as a canny global statesman.

Second, the fiasco is an invitation to our adversaries to view the remainder of the Biden administration as neither a nuisance nor a threat, but rather as a possibly unique three-year window of strategic opportunity. . . .

The real goal is to dislodge America, firmly and for good, as the dominant power in global affairs.

Others were more harsh, with Mark Steyn headlining one column as Dead Superpower Walking. Again, there are internal US issues that may play a larger role than the foreign policy issues that Stephens and others are writing about.

Even before recent events the USA had – typical of its history – been slow to respond to China. President Obama talked of a “pivot” to the Pacific but it never amounted to much. President Trump went active on things like military posture and readiness with a peer in mind, plus pressure on economic, diplomatic and other pressure points:

In late 2020, then-President Donald Trump signed a law that bans the trading of securities in foreign companies whose audit working papers can’t be inspected by U.S. regulators for three years in a row. 

U.S. securities regulators have started a countdown that will force many Chinese companies to leave American stock exchanges, after a long impasse between Washington and Beijing over access to the companies’ audit records.

The action will accelerate the decoupling of the world’s two largest economies and affect investors that own securities in more than 200 U.S.-listed Chinese companies with a combined market value of roughly $2 trillion.

Under President Biden there has been the dramatic announcement of the new AUKUS pact, complete with Australia getting nuclear submarines as part of the deal.

But there have also been a series of recent events inside China that give hope to those of us who prefer a Pax Americana in the 21st century, and unlike the hopes and dreams of the last thirty years, these changes have decidedly not been in a more liberal direction. It began with large companies and their CEO’s:

With market-trembling new rules and investigations, Beijing’s crackdown on its most prominent companies has seeped into nearly every aspect of modern life, wiping billions of dollars from Chinese and Hong Kong-listed stocks and bamboozling investment sages.

From after-school tutoring to music streaming apps, and shopping to bike-sharing, stellar firms have been hit as Beijing tightens the leash on corporations, citing national security and antitrust concerns.

In 2020 Jake Ma, the founder and multi-billionaire founder of online trading giant Alibaba, was basically sent to a golfing gulag, forced out of public life. At the same time the CCP suspended the blockbuster IPO of China’s Ant Group ($36 billion wiped). But this has also begun to spread into other aspects of Chinese life, with the once famous actress Zhao Wei (also a director and billionaire businesswoman) basically wiped from the Chinese Internet, just one of a number of crackdowns to bring the entertainment industry in check and curb the influence of celebrities and the ‘fandom culture’”.

But it was this news reported by the China Media Project (H/T Instapundit), that really caught my attention. A random Red Chinese blogging peon, Li Guangman, put up his reaction to all this:

This change will wash away all the dust, and the capital market will no longer be a paradise for capitalists to grow rich overnight,” he writes. “The cultural market will no longer be a paradise for effeminate stars, and the press will no longer be a place for the worship of Western culture.” The author’s next line reeks of Maoist nostalgia: “The red has returned, the heroes have returned, and the grit and valor have returned.”

Well big whoop you might say. In itself, the “intellectual” orgasms of an obscure Maoist diehard blogger mean nothing more than a blazing-eyed Chris Trotter eruption or a over-vigorous Martyn Bradbury wank here in NZ. Even in China, a Maoist dickhead like Li is in the minority. We’ve got them here in the West as well.

What does mean something is how the Xi regime reacted to this little blog, which suddenly went viral:

But this post, though attributed to Li’s own public account, “Li Guangman Freezing Point Commentary”, was shared on the websites of eight major Party-state media on August 29, and on scores of commercial sites, all with the same headline: “Everyone Can Sense That a Profound Change is Underway!”

In the social media comment sections this week, the concern has been palpable. “A movement has begun,” one user commented underneath a Weibo post on the Li Guangman article. “They’re blowing a wind to see what fish they can stir up,” said another. A third comment was more portentous: “History is being repeated,” it said

It certainly is. One of the critical triggers of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution was the publication of dazibao (“big character poster”) on May 25, 1966, by Nie Yuanzi, a student at Beijing University. The poster denounced professors, administrators and others for their supposed embrace of Western bourgeois values and lack of revolutionary spirit. The actual revolution was started by Mao just three months later.

The last few years of Xi Jinping’s rule have shown increasingly Maoist tendencies across a range of areas, of which all this is merely the latest. Welcome to Xi’s Cultural Revolution 2.0.

Now – Thucydides Trap’s aside – this is actually good news for the USA and the West in general. If the Chinese Communist imbeciles want to reverse the flow of history back to the good old days of Mao, that actually means a reversal of prosperity and eventually economic power, followed by military power. Not to mention the loss of free-thinking minds in all areas of Chinese life, which may result in a military that looks a lot like the Japanese circa 1931-1945; powerful, dangerous, but ultimately doomed.

America may once again luck out, thanks – once again – to the fanatical stupidity of its enemies.

Written by Tom Hunter

October 3, 2021 at 1:24 pm

Generational Toxicity

Over on the Bowalley Road blog Chris Trotter has really been letting the words flow wildly in relation to the news of the AUKUS pact that has been announced, with two articles in one week on the subject.

They’re the usual combination of themes one would expect from his Lefty age group: pro-China, anti-US, anti-nuclear, fears of a new Cold War, fears of NZ getting sucked back into another “Anglo Saxon Imperialist” world and so forth.

But it was actually this passage that intrigued me:

It is also quite possible that, by 2023, the United States will be embroiled in domestic strife bordering on civil-war. 

Followed by a lot of ignorant guff about the USA and the Republican Party. Now I’m not averse to the arguments about a possible second Civil War in the USA: it’s increasingly being discussed in non-fringe circles on both the American Left and Right. Even in popular culture I saw the “comedian” Sarah Silverman talking the other day about the nation splitting up because Democrat and Republican voters increasingly cannot stand dealing with eachother.

But there’s another aspect of this that should be taken account of: the growing war between the generations. Specifically between the Baby Boomers and … every other generation: Gen-X, Millennials and Gen-Z. Admittedly this more of a US thing than elsewhere: I don’t think NZ Baby Boomers ever fitted the label of being the “Me Generation” after Tom Wolfe’s famous 1976 article.

I’ve already covered some of this in two posts, Ok Boomer and Hand over the $35 trillion, you old fart, but a recent article by a Baby Boomer in the New York Post should be more of an eye-opener for Boomers, Millennials’ extreme hatred for Baby Boomers is totally unjustified:

Baby boomers who cried “Don’t Trust Anyone Over 30” during the Vietnam War should be scared to death of millennials. Because, at least among the Twitterati, they hate us — they really, really hate us.

Last week I took a beating from younger readers over an essay I wrote lamenting the decline of the “power lunch.” Although it only partly blamed the phenomenon on millennial habits — e.g., preferring avocado and kale to beef and baked potatoes — hundreds of thousands on Twitter either posted or retweeted such insults as “Old man yells at lunch table” (I’m 69), “What’s it like to be an antique?” and “We’re the ones doing the actual lunches while you’re having three-martini lunches.”

Millennials (and to some extent their Gen-X and Gen-Z brethren) hate their elders with a ferocity never before seen in our culture.

Generation gaps will always be with us. Historian Marc Wortman found a generational split over sending young men off to war way back in 1941. But unlike those of us who came of age in the 1960s-early 1970s, who merely disapproved of our elders’ “colonialist” wars and shag rugs, millennials (born between 1980-1994) can’t stand the air we boomers breathe.

Young hippies outdoors.

To some extent? This guy should go to some of the chat areas of Reddit and other non-FaceTwit Social Media.

He’ll quickly discover that Gen-Z are right up there on bringing the hate and Gen-X even more so given their proximity in time. Few things piss off X’rs more than being pegged as Boomers by being born in the 1960’s, as if we remember Woodstock and “Free Love”.

Unfortunately the article then delves into the reasons why and thus demonstrates even more how Boomers just don’t get it.

But if they spent more time studying actual history, which can’t easily be found on iPhones, they’d know that boomers were, and remain, the most socially and environmentally conscious generation America ever has ever known.

FFS. He thinks this is because of Greta Thunderhead and her influence on 16 year olds re Climate Charge.

Oh no, dear fellow, there’s a lot more to it than that. There’s only one sentence where he alludes to just one thing stemming from that wonderful “socially conscious” generation:

Maybe too much so — our universities’ overwhelmingly “progressive” agendas originated in the 1960s and have become more dominant ever since.

That’s because the Boomers who were the radical students of the late 60’s/early 70’s now dominate those universities as professors and administrators, and are hard at work teaching the next generations the same stuff, without any opposing arguments or ideas.

Being “the most socially and environmentally conscious generation America ever has ever known” isn’t an excuse or a defense, it’s an unwitting confession of guilt.

What this guy and the millions of Boomers like him miss is that this shite has now spread into every other part of the USA: the MSM, entertainment, government, bureaucracies and even corporates and the military.

I know of no American member of the younger generations who thinks that Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid will be there for them in their dotage of the late 21st century. Or a military that can actually win a war either. Not to mention housing costs, energy costs, career progression, jobs in general or the chance of getting married and raising a family because it’s so bloody expensive in more ways than just dollars.

What he also misses is that these younger generations, or at least a good chunk of them, might be objecting to having had these institutions trashed by the ideas of a generation that aggressively devalued the traditional things on which they rested, even as there are members of Gen-X/Millennial that have learned from their forebears and joined in with the trashing, as this guy points out:

As a college professor for over 35 years, I’ve gotten to know three generations of students: Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980), the Millennials (1981-1996), and now Gen Z (1997-2012). And because I teach rhetoric, I’ve read thousands of their papers, providing substantial insight into the way they think.

In general, however, I found that Millennials presented unique challenges. They were, as a group, the most entitled, judgmental, and arrogant of all the students I’ve taught, often basing an inflated sense of self-importance on scanty evidence.

Essentially, they are the “participation trophy” generation, the unwitting victims of countless artificial “self-esteem building” experiments by the education establishment, not to mention their own parents.

Ouch. But there is hope:

There is another generation of bright young people — Gen Z — following right on their heels and therein may lie our temporal salvation.

In comparison to their Millennial predecessors, my Gen Z students tend to be more open-minded, more interested in facts and logic, more inclined to question the status quo…

That partially explains the Fuck Joe Biden chants that have swept across college football stadiums in the last few weeks and even spread to the Yankees-Mets game in NYC of all places.

They also take a more nuanced view of history and are inherently distrustful of ideologues on either side. 

Let’s hope so, and that inheritances will add up to avoiding a different type of American Civil War.

Written by Tom Hunter

September 21, 2021 at 1:09 pm

Australian Submarine Strategy

Richard Fernandez is one of the very interesting writers over on the PJ Media site, focusing on matters of foreign policy, military and science in general. He also writes for a number of other publications.

The recent announcement of the AUKUS partnership saw him reaching into the past to grab an article that he wrote in 2013 but never published, Strategy and Submarines. It takes a detailed look not just at what Australia wanted to do with submarines but what they might have to do, as well as the technology itself.

Once the purpose is determined, then the correct tools can be chosen for the job. Thus, every acquisition must be viewed in the context of “what is it for”. Unless the ends are defined, nothing can be said about the proposed means. Buying naval vessels is a means to an end. The determination of ends is usually called strategy.  Unfortunately, the goals of Australian naval strategy are sometimes presented as a laundry list.

He points out that the problem with laundry lists is you cannot tell which is most important. There’s also the fact that global security changed rapidly, as he shows with links to Defence White Papers from 1976 (India, China and Japan pose no future security issue), and 2000 where, in the wake of the collapse of the USSR things looked comfortable and it was possible to imagine that Australia could go it alone.

What to do now (2013):

The choice of ends has a very definite effect upon the means. To defend Australia against powerful opponents “without relying on help from the combat forces of any other country” logically implies the adoption of the naval strategy of the weaker power.

Which is how they ended up with Collins Class submarines and then the deal for the French DIesel-Electric boats. They’re quiet boats but smaller and slower than the American SSN’s, which puts them at odds with the supposed new goals of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN):

But the lack of a definite strategic choice has given the submarine requirements a Jekyll and Hyde character. On the one hand, the conventional Collins-class boats are the stereotypical weapon of the weaker power, the 21st century equivalent of the submarine and naval mine, combining the mobility of a World War II sub with the quietness of a hole in the ocean. On the other hand, many of the envisioned RAN missions implicitly require cooperation with the United States and hence governed by the strategy of the dominant power.

There’s some very interesting stuff on the history of mines and other such “weaker power” stuff, including the WWII aerial mining of Japan which “In terms of damage per unit of cost, surpassed strategic bombing and the United States submarine campaign.” It was called Operation Starvation, which potential horror should be contrasted against military invasions and atomic bombs.

There’s a lot of detailed analysis of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarines which, as good as they can be, run into problems when they are detected, as well as other issues:

AIP units often generate only as much power as a family sedan so that even banks of four produce 300 kw compared to the 30,000 kw of a Virginia class SSN. With that small output, the subs are limited to creeping along at about 2 or 3 knots.

That may be of little consequence in European scenarios, where submarines must only transit a short way to station before turning off their diesels and activating the AIP. But slow speed and the small hull sizes of European off-the-shelf subs are a bane for countries like Australia and Israel, which must send their subs great distances in what are essentially modified European coastal submarines.

The detection scenario can’t be dismissed as technology improves. The article goes into some detail about robotic submarines (unmanned underwater vehicles or UUVs) ) and how advanced they had become even by 2011. Small, cheap and plentiful they present a strong potential threat to small, stealthy submarines that just sit around in shallow waters waiting for targets. UUVs also will be networked together to form a sensor net across oceans, rather like the static SOSUS net the US used in the Atlantic during the Cold War, except this one is mobile.

Some versions called an Autonomous Undersea Vehicles (AUV and also dubbed “gliders”) are specifically designed to track conventional, stealthy submarines.

Liberdade class flying wings are autonomous underwater gliders developed by the US Navy Office of Naval Research which use a blended wing body hullform to achieve hydrodynamic efficiency. It is an experimental class whose models were originally intended to track quiet diesel electric submarines in littoral waters, move at 1–3 knots and remain on station for up to six months.

You can see why the Aussies started to have second thoughts about their $93 billion French purchase, even aside from all the production problems. There’s also another aspect of the future to be considered:

Given the increasing number of complex computerised systems being operated by modern submarines, another important concept is a submarine’s ‘hotel load.’ As SSGs are limited by the power stored in their batteries (which can only be recharged by surfacing), they strictly ration power among their systems.

SSNs are capable of generating and sustaining a much greater power output while submerged due to their nuclear reactor. This power output allows SSNs to carry a greater number of far more powerful sensors and systems (which increase sensor range and awareness), greatly increasing the flexibility, stealth and usefulness of SSNs.

As he puts it himself, his old analysis actually indicates how Australia has made this decision now. Although he didn’t make that forecast he pointed out the strategic thinking needed to make the decision, and it looks the Aussies went through that same process.

We had deep and grave concerns that the capability being delivered by the Attack-class submarine was not going to meet our strategic interests and we had made very clear that we would be making a decision based on our strategic national interest. – Scott Morrison

Written by Tom Hunter

September 21, 2021 at 8:24 am

This is why Generals don’t do Foreign Policy

The other day I did a post on General Milley’s breach of the US military chain of command and interference in US foreign policy in the waning days of the Trump Administration, Seven Days in January: why General Milley must resign.

Because of the incredibly toxic politicisation of every aspect of life in the USA, this breach has been condemned only by retired military officers and the Republican Party. The Democrats apparently see no problem with something that they have always supposedly been in terror of for decades – the military ignoring or going outside the civilian chain of command.

President “Softserve” Biden apparently has no issue with Milley, presumably because he can’t imagine a situation where a Milley might pull the same stunt on him. Biden is completely fine with his constitutional powers being usurped. If Milley sought to substitute his judgment for that of Trump, what stops him from doing the same thing with Biden? Yet, Biden professes not to care, which shows Biden’s incompetence, yet again.

But aside from the seriously bad constitutional problems raised by all this inside the USA, there’s also the fact that Milley’s intervention may be having unintentional consequences in foreign policy, even aside from the weakness that Biden has exhibited with the Afghanistan rout.

First of all, here’s Milley’s telephone counterpart in those now-infamous calls, senior General Li Zuocheng, making himself very clear back in May of this year:

Li Zuocheng, chief of the Joint Staff Department and member of the Central Military Commission told Beijing’s Great Hall of the People: ‘If the possibility for peaceful reunification is lost, the people’s armed forces will, with the whole nation, including the people of Taiwan, take all necessary steps to resolutely smash any separatist plots or actions.’

Then on September 9 came this from the editor of China’s state-run media Global Times:

The latest came just the other day from a senior Chinese government official.

Milley’s phonecall should be put into the perspective of this speech he made in 2015:

Perhaps in 2015 I would have agreed with Milley, but they obviously view themselves as the enemy of the USA, otherwise we would not be seeing flexing shit like this. “Friends” don’t address each other the way they are talking to other nations and threatening them, including obviously now the USA.

The theory of deterrence applies not just in the realm of nuclear warfare, but to conventional warfare. Right now, between Biden and his incompetent and deluded Administration, including obviously the senior levels of the Pentagon and intelligence services, China is not being deterred.

They might well fail in a military adventure against Taiwan or in the South China Sea. But stopping them from trying in the first place is perhaps more important, and simply announcing something like the new AUKUS pact, which will not become practicable for perhaps five years, is not be enough.

On that note I did appreciate this pushback. Nice to see there are still Navy boys with a spine.

Written by Tom Hunter

September 19, 2021 at 6:00 am

Posted in China, Military, US Politics, USA

Tagged with

The skills of ordinary men

I recently read two articles that actually cover some of the same ground, even though their topics could not be more different.

The first is from 2003, Electric Heroes, and it’s written by a lawyer looking back at one of his early cases where a woman sued an American power company over the death of her husband, who was a linemen.

They clambered up narrow steel ladders and then inched across four-inch-wide “angle-iron” girders made slippery with rain or morning dew, and when they reached out, they touched either the open sky or heavy steel cables whose purpose was to carry enough electricity to power the nation’s fourth largest city.

Because they were so well trained, they were able to work safely, routinely, under conditions that would terrify you or me.

The writer points out that these men (in those days they were all men) were also very careful, which made the case a little strange since this particular linemen had fallen 120 feet to his death or possibly had jumped. Not even his workmates could figure out what had gone wrong.

As the young workhorse lawyer gathering two years of information for the trial, he got to know these men very well.

They had a strong sense of duty, and they had a natural dignity that was boundless.  They were modest men, but they had quiet pride by the mile.  Amongst each other, they were very, very funny.  They cussed a lot, and after work they’d go out together for a beer, or to hunt or play poker or catch an Astros game.  And they stuck up for one another.  You’d think twice about crossing any one of them.

They took the case seriously from the beginning because one of their own had died in their midst, for reasons they couldn’t quite explain or grasp, and they were being accused of having caused his death by their indifference. 

In the end the case was settled out of court and the jury dismissed. The young lawyer had become so bonded with these men that he was incandescent with rage at what he felt his senior lawyers had done to them: as much as admitting that they had been indifferent to their workmate, their friend. But the young partner took him to lunch and, as he saw in hindsight, helped him grow up a bit:

“In the greater scheme of life, are you really furious that Mrs X is getting the fairly modest amount of money that will be left to her after her lawyers’ fees and expenses are extracted?  She’s not getting a huge windfall.  Our client can afford it.  It all goes into the rate-base, and ultimately it will be paid in tiny, tiny increments by all the families for whom Mr X helped keep the lights on during his twelve years with the company. Can you not see the justice in that result, even if it wasn’t the harsh and total victory you were gunning for?”

The second article is very recent and is written by a Captain Charlie Anderson of the Minnesota National Guard, describing their recent expedition to Kabul to extract American and Afghan civilians before the Taliban took over: A few good ‘Bastards’.

It’s a fascinating look at those events from a soldier’s view, but it’s also a good look at a component of the US military that’s often overlooked or disparaged, The National Guard. They’re part-time soldiers although equipped with the same stuff as the regular forces including, in this case, Bradley’s and Abrams tanks. Having said that I was surprised a few years ago to find out from a mate in the NZDF that the Hawaiian Air National Guard flies F-22’s!

But what shows here is that the training is also right up with the regular forces:

We’d practiced and trained for the past two years. The task force did a combat training rotation exercise at Fort Hood, Texas in 2019 and executed a successful rotation (the first post-Covid) at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California in 2020. While drilling at Camp Ripley, Minnesota we completed numerous tabletop exercises and worked the Military Decision Making Process repeatedly until it became muscle memory.

We had executed multiple iterations of gunnery tables and were continuing ongoing missions in Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. We were confident that as the CENTCOM Regional Response Force we’d be poised and prepared to project military power wherever it was needed to accomplish tactical and strategic goals.

When the time came to move out they were ready to go and got to Kabul promptly. Even so such units still endure scepticism from the regulars:

One captain I met from their brigade intelligence section told me he was under the impression that a senator had pulled some strings and got us deployed from Minnesota. When I told him about our task force and that we were already in the Middle East, postured for such a crisis event, he was speechless. Initially, there was an air of distrust, but we proved ourselves worthy partners, dispelling the myth about the perceived capability gap between the active duty and guard/reserve components. 

It was this paragraph that caught my attention in relation to the first article, as the commander of the unit, Lt. Col. Jake Helgestad, described:

He underscored the life skills the National Guard brought to the 82nd Airborne. “We provided capabilities to the fight beyond trigger-pullers that 1/82 never would’ve been able to — engineers, plumbers, electricians, welders, mechanics, heavy machinery operators – we enabled advanced operations that directly impacted the military’s ability to get people out.” 

No need to call up the US Army Corp of Engineers to build barricades and reinforce walls when you’ve got a bunch of people who do that in their everyday lives.

The article is lengthy but well written and packed with a lot of coal-face detail about what they dealt with in a horrific and rapidly deteriorating situation. Well worth your reading time.

Written by Tom Hunter

September 18, 2021 at 9:54 am

Seven Days in January: why General Milley must resign.

General Curtis LeMay

After the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 it became known that the famous WWII bomber pilot, General Curtis LeMay, and then US Air Force Chief of Staff, had had a very serious disagreement with President Kennedy. LeMay’s approach was that Cuba had to be bombed and the Soviet nuclear missiles taken out. The USSR would not go nuclear because they knew how badly they were outmatched in nuclear arms.

When Kennedy instead took the option of putting a “quarantine” around the island and negotiating with the Soviets to pull the missiles, LeMay and many other military men were livid.

The outrage was so strong that many Leftists of all shades, with Cold War paranoia rampant and what they believed was the militarisation of the USA, felt that a military coup was now a distinct possibility. So deep was this feeling that key people in Hollywood made a famous conspiracy theory movie about it, with Kennedy’s knowledge and approval.

Welcome to real life in 2021.

The first inkling of something weird came with this report on January 8.

The reaction on the US Right was a mixture of outrage at Pelosi’s relentlessly partisan bullshit and concern at the degree to which she had inserted herself into the chain of command. Pelosi was effectively trying to foment a coup against the legally elected president of the U.S. and interfere with his constitutional powers, when she had no right or ability to do so.

The idea that Trump, the first President since Eisenhower not to launch a war, would suddenly launch a nuclear attack on China seemed, and is, trumped up political insanity. Pelosi may have actually believed this or it may have been yet another of her endless political attacks resulting from her intense partisan hatred of the GOP combined with an ever more personal hatred of Trump. Either way it was a nonsense.

Still, the story did not go anywhere. People shrugged it off as just another crazy Beltway story to go with many others in those days.

Then, in July, a book was published by Washington Post reporters Phil Rucker and Carol Leonnig, “I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year” that carried more details. The authors wrote that Milley and his deputies feared that people close to Trump would advise him to take rash military action such as launching an armed strike, quickly withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan or deploying troops in a way that was related to the election results.

“They may try” but won’t succeed, Milley told his deputies about a possible coup, according to the book. “You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.”

Milley declined to comment and Trump haughtily dismissed the claims. Again the story vanished into the ether in about 48 hours. Even the NYT’s Chris Caldwell stated bluntly that “General Milley had no direct evidence of a coup plot”. No he didn’t and of course all this vaunted intelligence that supposedly had Milley preparing for a coup, showed no preparation at all for the “insurrection” of January 6, which raises the question of whether it was just all in his head.

Caldwell titled his piece “What if There Wasn’t a Coup Plot, General Milley?” and put forward this warning:

While some might greet such comments with relief, General Milley’s musings should give us pause. Americans have not usually looked to the military for help in regulating their civilian politics. And there is something grandiose about General Milley’s conception of his place in government. He told aides that a ‘retired military buddy’ had called him on election night to say, ‘You represent the stability of this republic.’ If there was not a coup underway, then General Milley’s comments may be cause more for worry than for relief. Were we really that close to a coup?

For all Mr. Trump’s admiration of military officers, they wound up especially disinclined to accommodate his disorderly governing style

We might be grateful for that. But our gratitude should not extend to giving military leaders any kind of role in judging civilian ones.”

I think Caldwell gives Milley too much credit. I’d already seen enough of the man during his “White rage” Congressional testimony in June to conclude that he was a mediocrity as a political thinker and a drama queen besides. The Afghanistan debacle reinforced that in spades. In fact the degree of “intelligence” and “military preparation” in that situation reminded me very much of Milley in late January.

But in the last few days the biggest blockbuster of them all has come out. A book by the famous Watergate journalist Bob Woodward, which revealed even more details, including claims that Milley had conducted direct phone conversations with his Chinese counterpart because of his fears about Trump:

“In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the PLA, that the U.S. would not strike, according to a new book by Bob Woodward & Robert Costa.”

This report claims Milley pledged to alert his CCP counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, quoting Milley as saying: “General Li, you & I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

I held back from writing a post simply because I don’t trust Woodward, who has coasted on his Watergate reputation while seeming to invent “quotes” and other “facts” that support his reporting, none worse than his completely implausible claims decades ago about a deathbed confession by former CIA director Bill Casey. Also this could have been reported months ago but Woodward waited until there was a book to sell, so he’s likely adding a lot of spin to help flog it and make money.

That said, he is right much more often than wrong. Woodward seems to use the tactic of the late Robert Novak, who gave people the choice of being sources for his reporting or the target of that reporting – which also leads me to think that the source of this story is fucking Milley himself.

I wanted to see what Milley’s response would be. His denial finally came a couple of days ago from his spokesman Col. Dave Butler. Or was it a denial?

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regularly communicates with Chiefs of Defense across the world, including with China and Russia

These conversations remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict…”

His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability…”

Yada, yada, yada. All this did was fan the flames. Here’s the thing with denials. It’s typically useful when giving one to actually deny the thing you are being accused of. This statement doesn’t do that. Instead there’s a bunch of qualifiers and weasel words that any political spin merchant would be proud of.

What we don’t see is any reassurance that he followed the proper chain of command by notifying the president of his actions. Milley also does not deny what Woodward says he told the Chinese. In other words, this denial isn’t a denial at all. Rather, it’s confirmation that he did do what he was accused of.

The key point here is not what exactly was said or not said. It’s the fact of the calls themselves.

Milley claims that he was assuring the Chinese understood our national security interests. But those are not his interests to dictate. A US president is elected to be the civilian head of the military and to lead the nation’s foreign policy. Milley was not elected and he had no right to do what he did, exactly as Caldwelll warned.

In trying to cover for him the Axios media site reported that there were actually two calls from Milley – one on October 30 and one on Jan. 8, the first with 15 people on the line. Supposedly the former was a follow-up to a communication made to the Chinese by Secretary of Defence Mark Esper, because of Pentagon concerns in October that the Chinese were getting bad intelligence about our intentions. However, once again there’s no report that Trump was told about any of this. And the same rule applies to Esper as to Milley:  it isn’t the responsibility of the Secretary of Defence to conduct foreign policy.

But there’s also another problem here. If this report is accurate, they lose their excuse about this being about the election and the fears arising from Jan. 6. But the bigger problem is that Esper wasn’t even Secretary of Defence on Jan. 8 since he was fired in November 2020 and replaced by Christopher Miller. So whose authority was Milley operating under? It wasn’t from Trump or Esper. Miller has since jumped into the story:

Former acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who led the Pentagon from the period after the 2020 election through Inauguration Day, said that he “did not and would not ever authorize” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley to have “secret” calls with his Chinese counterpart, describing the allegations as a “disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination,” and calling on him to resign “immediately.”

In a statement to Fox News, Miller said that the United States Armed Forces, from its inception, has “operated under the inviolable principle of civilian control of the military.”

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest-ranking military officer whose sole role is providing military-specific advice to the president, and by law is prohibited from exercising executive authority to command forces,” Miller said. “The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense, not through the Chairman.”

That last point will probably come as a surprise to many, who just assume all senior military are the same. They’re not and they have very circumscribed roles. The CJCS is not permitted to tell senior military officials that no action should be taken without him being involved.

Retired Army Colonel Douglas McGregor, made that point explicit in a TV interview:

“[The CJCS] has no statutory authority over operational forces of any kind. That means that he is not in a position to order anyone in the armed forces to say or do anything. Can’t do it. He is preeminently the senior military advisor to the president. That’s what he is.”So in theory, before he would make such a phone call, he would discuss the subject of the phone call with the president, the Commander in Chief. He certainly would not do something without coordinating with the National Security Advisor and the Secretary of State because this is beyond defense, this is foreign policy statement he is making.”

What Milley did in conjunction with Pelosi is the biggest breakdown of US constitutional order in modern history. This is a general essentially declaring himself a military dictator (without using the words), calling up foreign adversaries to let them know he had their back and would sell out his own country to give them information. And for what? There is no evidence Donald Trump was going to order an attack on China. Rather, Milley’s actions were driven by his delusional god complex (something hinted at by the NYT’s Caldwell months ago).

But even if you assume Trump was going to do something dangerous, Milley’s obligation would be to refuse the order, resign, and notify Congress. It would not be for him to make secret calls to the Chinese to let them know he’s going to feed them information.

And to have the two most senior Democrats – Pelosi and Schumer (with whom Milley also talked) – be so involved with this means they were committing the very thing of which they accused Trump; a coup.

As is often the case with the Left, their fears have proven to be their desires projected on to their enemies.

As for Milley, a large group of retired Generals and Admirals had already signed a letter demanding that he resign. Some went further and explained why a Court-Martial would be more appropriate. And that was over the Afghanistan rout.

This is far worse than that. He needs to resign or be made to resign right now. Biden won’t do it of course but there are other courses of action.

Written by Tom Hunter

September 17, 2021 at 11:03 am

Listen to The Greenies and The Frogs Squeal

Australia has ditched its ridiculous contract with a French company for the construction of a fleet of obsolete diesel submarines, ready for service after the next war is lost. In a ground breaking decision, American designed NUCLEAR submarines will be built in Adelaide.

Australia will acquire at least eight nuclear-powered submarines in a once-in-a-generation decision that will deliver the nation unprecedented strike capability and require a significant boost to Defence spending.

The new nuclear boats will be delivered under a historic Defence technology partnership between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom – called AUKUS – to meet rising Chinese strategic threats.

The submarines will cost more than the estimated $90 billion price tag for the now-cancelled French-designed Attack-class submarines.

Australian greenies are screaming.

French boat builders are moaning.

New Zealand is ignored. China can have the place.

Written by adolffinkensen

September 16, 2021 at 1:11 pm

Posted in Australia, Military

Tagged with , ,

Jobs for the boys

That satirical movie poster was from 2014 when Obama traded five Taliban terrorists locked up in Guantanamo for a US soldier who had deserted from his unit, then did a hideous press conference where it became obvious where Private Bergdahl’s “patriotism” had come from. His father was invited by Obama and in addition to looking and sounding like he had decided to join the Taliban himself, he used the opportunity to shit all over the US.

It’s interesting to walk down this particular memory lane and realise that despite being much smarter and not senile, Obama and his team had more than a few cluster fucks of their own that seem little different from those that Biden is having. Obama’s clowns never shifted off their backsides to look into the details of Bergdahl, his capture, his dingbat father or much else before they decided to go for the dog and pony show at the Whitehouse seven years ago.

The full details of the men released can be found here. The following is my quick synopsis of three of them:

Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban army chief of staff): Fazl is wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites in 1998.

Mullah Norullah Noori (senior Taliban military commander): Like Fazl, Noori is wanted by the United Nations for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims.

Abdul Haq Wasiq (Taliban deputy minister of intelligence): Wasiq arranged for al Qaeda members to provide crucial intelligence training prior to 9/11. The training was headed by Hamza Zubayr, an al Qaeda instructor who was killed during the same September 2002 raid that netted Ramzi Binalshibh, the point man for the 9/11 operation.

Under the traditional rules of war all five of them should have been shot at dawn on the Afghan battlefields, but I guess this way some future US President might at least drone their ass at some point in time.

Alternatively they could have been processed through a military tribunal but for Obama’s delusional desire to put them through US civil courts. Yet another failure of competence as his own party rose up against him when he tried to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York.

Well guess what sports fans? They’re back in power. As in real power. As in being part of the Cabinet of the new Taliban government of Afghanistan.

  • Mullah Norullah Nori (Acting Minister of Borders and Tribal Affairs)
  • Mohammed Fazl (Defense Deputy Minister)
  • Khairullah Khairkhwa (Acting Minister of Information and Culture)
  • Abdul Haq Wasiq (Acting Director of Intelligence)

So the last guy got his old job back. Pretty typical of a politician who knows where all the bodies are buried.

Written by Tom Hunter

September 9, 2021 at 1:00 pm

The Smartest Guy in the Room

There was a documentary movie made some years ago about an infamous US company: Enron, The Smartest Guys in the Room. It was how they actually referred to themselves and it did not end well for them in the early 2000’s when they went bankrupt as their fraudulent and corrupt practices finally caught up with them.

Fortune named them “America’s Most Innovative Company” for six consecutive years.

I was reminded of this today as I read the following article by Peggy Noonan, who is quite the traditional journalist plugged into all the Washington D.C. networks. She’s of The Ruling Class, with all that that implies. Initially famous as the primary speechwriter and Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, she later supported Obama, and her comments about the sort of GOP voters attracted to Sarah Palin have lived long in the memories of other Republicans. Needless to say she hated Trump.

The WSJ has put her article up outside the paywall for once, but in case they change their mind I’m putting up the full text.

August changed things; it wasn’t just a bad month. It left a lingering, still head-shaking sense of “This isn’t how we do things.”

We don’t make up withdrawal dates that will have symbolism for photo-ops with the flinty, determined president looking flinty and determined on the 20th anniversary of 9/11; we don’t time epic strategic decisions around showbiz exigencies. We wait for the summer fighting season to pass; we withdraw in the winter when Taliban warriors are shivering in their caves. We don’t leave our major air base in the middle of the night—in the middle of the night—without even telling the Afghan military. We don’t leave our weapons behind so 20-year-old enemies can don them for military playacting and drive up and down with the guns and helmets. We don’t fail to tell our allies exactly what we’re doing and how we’re doing it—they followed us there and paid a price for it. We don’t see signs of an overwhelming enemy advance and treat it merely as a perception problem, as opposed to a reality problem. You don’t get the U.S. military out before the U.S. citizens and our friends. Who will protect them if you do that?

The president’s people think this will all just go away and are understandably trying to change the subject. But the essence of the story will linger. Its reverberations will play out for years. There are Americans and American friends behind Taliban lines. The stories will roll out in infuriating, sometimes heartbreaking ways.

The damage to the president is different and deeper than his people think, because it hit at his reputational core, at how people understand him. His supporters have long seen him as soft-natured, moderate—a sentimental man famous for feeling and showing empathy. But nothing about this fiasco suggested kindliness or an interest in the feelings of others. It feels less like a blunder than the exposure of a seamy side.

Does he listen to anyone? Does he have any people of independent weight and stature around him, or are they merely staffers who approach him with gratitude and deference?

His reputational core was only built and enabled by decades of the likes of Noonan bolstering it and refusing to call him out as the Piece-Of-Shit dullard he is.

If he’d had the decency to die a few years ago like Ted Kennedy there would have been – eventually, once it was safe politically for Democrats – some truths leaked out, although Biden’s Kennedy-style behaviour with woman would not have risen to the level of a movie like Chappaquiddick. There’s certainly no shortage of factual, historical stories that paint an opposite picture to someone who is capable of “feeling and showing empathy.

But Noonan points to other stuff that lessor people have also noticed: that there is more than one incompetent in the room.

What happened with U.S. military leadership? There’s been a stature shift there, too. Did they warn the president not to leave Bagram Air Base? Did they warn that the whole exit strategy was flawed, unrealistic? If the president was warned and rejected the advice why didn’t a general care enough to step down—either in advance to stop the debacle, or afterward to protest it?

Did they just go with the flow? Did they think the president’s mind couldn’t be changed so what the heck, implement the plan on schedule and hope for the best? President Biden’s relations with the Pentagon have been cool at best for a long time; maybe some generals were thinking: I can improve future relations by giving the president more than he asks for. He wants out by 9/11, I’ll give him out by the Fourth of July. It is important to find out what dynamics were in play. Because it’s pretty obvious something went wrong there.

The enlisted men and women of the U.S. military are the most respected professionals in America. They can break your heart with their greatness, as they did at Hamid Karzai International Airport when 13 of them gave their lives to help desperate people escape. But the top brass? Something’s wrong there, something that August revealed. They are all so media-savvy, so smooth and sound-bitey after a generation at war, and in some new way they too seem obsessed with perceptions and how things play, as opposed to reality and how things are.

Well at least they’ve fired somebody, unfortunately he’s only a Lt. Colonel, and his sin was asking his bosses to take responsibility for their fuckups.

There has been a lot of talk about Mr. Biden and what drove his single-minded insistence on leaving on his timetable. Axios recently mentioned the 2010 Rolling Stone article in which Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff made brutal fun of Biden. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in his 2014 memoir that President Obama told him, “Joe is over the top about this.” Mr. Obama himself, in his presidential memoir, wrote of Mr. Biden warning him the military was trying to “jam” him, “trying to box in a new president.”

People have been rereading George Packer’s great 2019 book on the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, “Our Man” (great not only as history but as literature). Holbrooke met with Vice President Biden one day during the first Obama term and they argued about Afghanistan. Mr. Biden dismissed Holbrooke’s arguments for protecting Afghan women’s rights as “bullshit.” Their discussion was, according to Holbrooke’s diary, “quite extraordinary.” Mr. Biden said Holbrooke didn’t understand politics, that the Democrats could lose the presidency in 2012 in part because of Afghanistan, that we have to get out as we did from Vietnam.

There was politics in President Biden’s decision, and frustration. Mr. Biden had spent years in Afghanistan meetings, in the Senate during the Bush years, and later in the White House as vice president. He would have seen up close more than his share of military spin—contradictory information, no one with a sustainable strategic plan, and plenty of that old military tradition, CYA.

Afghanistan was emotional for him, for personal reasons. This would be connected to his son’s service in Iraq, and the worry a parent feels and the questions a parent asks. And maybe the things Beau Biden told him about his tour.

For those people who thought that Biden was going to be better for foreign relations and US alliances there is no excuse for their stupidity and ignorance, given that both the Holbrooke material was out, as well the decade-old memoir of former Bush-Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates where he gently pointed out that Biden had been wrong on almost every major foreign policy and national security issue for forty years.

Soon it will be fifty years. But it’s the next bit that made me laugh.

And I suspect there was plenty of ego in it, of sheer vanity. A longtime friend of his once told me Mr. Biden’s weakness is that he always thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. I asked if the rooms are usually small, and the friend didn’t bristle, he laughed.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


Of course. There’s more than a few politicians like that, both active and retired.

I suspect Mr. Biden was thinking he was going to be the guy who finally cut through, who stopped the nonsense, admitted reality, who wasn’t like the others driven by fear of looking weak or incompetent. He was going to look with eyes made cool by experience and do what needed doing—cut this cord, end this thing, not another American dead.

History would see what he’d done. It would be his legacy. And for once he’d get his due—he’s not some ice-cream-eating mediocrity, not a mere palate-cleanser after the heavy meal of Trump, not a placeholder while America got its act together. He would finally be seen as what he is—a serious man. Un homme sérieux, as diplomats used to say.

And then, when it turned so bad so quick, his pride and anger shifted in, and the defiant, defensive, self-referential speeches. Do they not see my wisdom?

When you want it bad you get it bad.

This won’t happen, but it would be better for his White House not to scramble away from the subject—Let’s go to the hurricane!—but to inhabit it fully. Concentrate on the new reality of the new Afghanistan, the immediate and larger diplomatic demands, the security needs. Get the Americans out, our friends out, figure out—plan—what you would do and say if, say, next November there is a terror event on U.S. soil, and a group calling itself al Qaeda 2.0 claims responsibility, and within a few days it turns out they launched their adventure from a haven in Afghanistan.

Don’t fix on “perception.” Focus on that ignored thing, reality.

Reality? Screw that. There’s plenty more Democrat and Lefty fantasies to be implemented before January 20, 2025.

Written by Tom Hunter

September 7, 2021 at 6:00 am

Quartered Safe Out Here (updated)

With all the brickbats being thrown at President Biden in recent days over the Afghanistan catastrophe I’d been meaning to write something about the other guilty parties in this gigantic FUBAR.

The Pentagon and Intelligence agencies, or more precisely the people who lead them.

There is obviously a bit of a meltdown going on within the Biden Administration as members of his government, in this case the State Department and the Pentagon, openly contradicted the President over claims he had made in recent press conferences, sometimes just hours after he made them. It’s extraordinary and I cannot recall seeing anything like it.

They’ve also found themselves on the back foot with their previously friendly MSM, with even the likes of the NYT, CNN and MSNBC going at them hard for once (it won’t last). But in this war of words have been sources from the military and intelligence agencies contradicting the claims that Biden was just telling people what they had told him. These sources have made it quite clear that Biden has been lying over the last couple of months about the situation in Afghanistan.

But I’m not so sure that we should believe them any more than we should believe Biden and his team. In a situation like this everybody is covering their backsides, and it’s hard to reconcile some of these arguments with what the military and intelligence people were saying themselves in public not long ago.

“On Bagram, Bagram is not necessary tactically operationally for what we’re gonna try to do here with Afghanistan – consolidate on Kabul, in support of their government.” – General Mark Milley

Now there is evidence that it’s not just outside critics of the Pentagon that have issues with the leadership but also the rank and file.

In an extraordinary video that has gone viral, a US Marine with multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan over a period of 17 years, Lt. Colonel Stuart Scheller, decided to openly risk the loss of his career, pension and who knows what else, by demanding that his own chain of command take responsibility for their failures.

It did not take long for the entirely expected hammer to fall. By 2:30pm that same day, he had been “relieved for cause based on a lack of trust and confidence”. He himself states that that is entirely right and proper.

This is what a hero looks like. This is what Speaking Truth To Power actually is. What courage that took, knowing what it would cost him. He accepted what he knew was coming.

But the followup also shows the deep anger and upset among the Marine Corps and I would bet across the entire US military.

==========================

UPDATE: I completely forgot how this is backed up by a post I made a few days ago, that time quoting an anonymous US Army General Officer known to the Law professor who put his comments up, Afghan Veterans: one American view. His attitude is far harsher than Scheller’s:

DoD must be halved. There are too many flag officers, too many agencies, departments, and directorates.

Let us not forget the intelligence agencies... And when its reorganization is done, if the overall size of the nation’s intelligence apparatus is a quarter of what it is now, that still is too large.

==========================

So Scheller is not alone. They can cashier him, but if they don’t listen to what he is saying, there will be more speaking out and/or they will lose more good people.

Instead it is people like this that need to go. Now.

Back in July I wrote on General Milley’s absurd, ignorant and damaging comments about his own military with the focus that he and his political master, Secretary of Defense Austin, were bringing on uncovering “extremists” and “White Rage” in the ranks. Perhaps if they’d been focusing more on actual military things like planning an orderly withdrawal, this disaster could have been avoided.

At a minimum, if they disagreed with the political decisions they should have resigned. But the US military leadership is now stuffed to the gills with people like this; politicians in all but name who play politics in public.

At the same time the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) has informed active duty and retired service members that they weren’t allowed to criticise Joe Biden or any of the senior government leadership, as The Daily Wire reported.

I don’t recall this happening during Trump’s time, when the air was filled with (safely) retired officers criticising him in very strong, one would say, abusive terms. Even recently the DOD itself acted politically in going after Tucker Carlson on their own website.

As another former combat veteran said, even as he agreed that when he served he would have also relieved Scheller of command for this:

But the standard has changed. The leadership changed it. The rule is now uniformed military can do politics. So I would give him a medal.

I found a partial transcript of what Scheller said:

“People are upset because their senior leaders let them down and none of them are raising their hands and accepting accountability or saying, ‘we messed this up.’

If an O-5 battalion commander has the simplest live fire incident, EO complaint. Boom. Fired. But we have a secretary of defense that testified to Congress in May that the Afghan National Security Forces could withstand the Taliban advance. We have Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs — who the commandant is a member of that — who’s supposed to advise on military policy. We have a Marine combatant commander. All of these people are supposed to advise.

And I’m not saying we’ve got to be in Afghanistan forever, but I am saying: Did any of you throw your rank on the table and say, “Hey, it’s a bad idea to evacuate Bagram Airfield, a strategic airbase, before we evacuate everyone.” Did anyone do that? And when you didn’t think to do that, did anyone raise their hand and say, “We completely messed this up?” [….]

But what I’ll say is, from my position, potentially all those people did die in vain if we don’t have senior leaders that own up and raise their hand and say ‘we did not do this well in the end,’” he said. “Without that we just keep repeating the same mistakes. This amalgamation of the economic/corporate/political/higher-military-ranks are not holding up their end of the bargain.

I want to say this very strongly: I have been fighting for 17 years. I am willing to throw it all away to say to my senior leaders ‘I demand accountability.’”

Written by Tom Hunter

August 29, 2021 at 12:00 pm

Posted in Military, US Politics, USA

Tagged with ,