Ostracised in Oakland?

Michelle and the Kossacks are in a duel over what looks to be a ligit email from Chaplain Brandon Harding on Marines basically being put in a holding pen en route home from IRQ to Hawaii. Follow the links above for the background - but as of SUN afternoon, I think the letter from the Port Spokes"person" makes the the story ligit to the Kossacks chagrin - so we can get past the "hoax" or "noise reduction" threads; here at least.

Marines and Soldiers Returning from Iraq not allowed into Oakland terminal. On September 27th 204 Marines and soldiers who were returning from Iraq were not allowed into the passenger terminal at Oakland International Airport. Instead they had to deplane about 400 yards away from the terminal where the extra baggage trailers were located. This was the last scheduled stop for fuel and food prior to flying to Hawaii where both were based. The trip started in Kuwait on September 26th with a rigorous search of checked and carry on baggage by US Customs. All baggage was x-rayed with a "backscatter" machine AND each bag was completely emptied and hand searched. After being searched, checked bags were marked and immediately placed in a secure container. Carry on bags were then x rayed again to ensure no contraband items were taken on the plane. While waiting for the bus to the airport, all personnel were in quarantined in a fenced area and were not allowed to leave.

Speaking of the letter, I think the answer is more in the middle. A big fan of Ockham's razor, I think the correct answer is more like a bureaucratic don't-give-a-damnism mixed in with a bit of lack of clue. Nothing dark or full of spittle, just gov'munt in inaction.

I know, you would think six years into this war major hubs and those in charge of contract air would have figured it out. Me, no - I am not THAT much of an optimist when it comes to California liv'n gov'munt Functionnaires (Marilyn Sandifur in this case).

Check out this logic from the Functionnaire Sandifur in Michelle's post that explains why this happened - one that would not have passed muster in every other war - and that only a bureaucrat would love.

The airport received information that the passengers were not TSA-screened at their originating airport and that weapons were on-board the aircraft. Together with our security partners, the airport made a decision to park this aircraft at a remote location on the tarmac. It is the responsibility of the charter airline that its operation is compliant with TSA screening requirements.
...
An analysis of the incident and prior correspondence between OAK’s Airside Operations and the ground handler determined that the airport did not receive clear communication in advance from the charter airline that was hired by the military.

I am out of town starting tomorrow for a convention. If you have any further inquiries about this incident and the way it was handled, Rosemary Barnes who is part of our Public Affairs team would be happy to speak with you. You may also call Joanne Holloway, the acting manager of the Port’s Community and Customer Relations Department.

BTW, did you notice that everyone involved here is, as Skippy would say, "a chick?" Where is the diverse workplace?

Yes, military people leaving Iraq did not have TSA check their goodies (heck, we can't even get the State Dept to do its job), and shocker - the military has weapons! In 2007, late 2007, one would think...

No, I don't think we have anything here but ignorance and bureaucratic sludge. It should be fixed, but I think there is a lot more CYA and finger pointing to be done before we get any traction. Michelle and The Corner will help though. You are not going to get any help from Oakland's Congressman.

I am making the assumption the report is as stated. Being a Navy type, when I come back from deployment with a few hundred or thousand of my closest friends, we never had much problem because it was a Navy base we came back to. That being said, I have had this decade trouble at JFK coming back solo from overseas with my 'lil Beretta.

It resulted in me, a half-dozen TSA guys, their supervisor, and their supervisor's-supervisor all looking at a double locked case, about a half-dozen sheets of paper with all sorts of stamps and official documentation, and me looking at them with a "YMBFKM" look on my face. It was after midnight and I was long without sleep. I think the major problem was that I was not in uniform when I went through. One guy asked about three times, "Why are you wearing civilian clothes?", while looking at my military ID and my orders. In the end, I wore them down with the fact that I was a better bureaucrat than they were - and they blinked. My paperwork is always in order; that and I kept saying (hence all the supervisors), "Who is your supervisor or regional director? Could we please call them?" To this day, I can't believe that happened at JFK of all places. They have to see that all the time...I guess.

Sunday Funnies: Pentagon edition

Fisking Sestak

Oh goodness. Can't help myself. PA-7's finest. (NB: a little bassackwards I know - but my comments are indented-and of course in Courier.)

---

Ending this war is necessary. But how we end it is of even greater importance for both our security and our troops' safety.

By Joe Sestak

There is a bipartisan "way ahead" in Iraq if viewed in terms of progress for America's security and not solely Iraq's, with a strategy that focuses on our national interests in this conflict, not just the interests of Iraqis.

There is air to breathe and water to drink. Could there be a more universally known sentence in politics today? This is the best opening can do? He just lost 70% of his readers with this "random national security sentence" generator output.

Our troops have served our country courageously and brilliantly, but our engagement in Iraq has degraded our security, pushing our Army to the breaking point so that it cannot confront other pressing security concerns at home and abroad.

What, pray tell, is going on right now that is more pressing than killing terrorists and bringing stability to the Middle East?

My military service as a three-star vice admiral

He just can't help himself, can he? Congressman, you, ummmm, are a retired Rear Admiral. Its OK, it is a higher pay grade than most of us will retire with. Get over it. We all understand that you are not a retired Vice Admiral because you were fired and then left Active Duty without enough time to retire as a VADM. A RADM is just fine. Stop embarrassing yourself. We won't think any less of you.

– having led an aircraft carrier battle group in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and served as director of the Navy's anti-terrorism unit – convinces me that an inconclusive, open-ended involvement in Iraq is not in our security interests.

Self-love is very unattractive in an adult. Oh, did you know that Sen. Kerry (D-MA) served in Vietnam?

Ending this war is necessary. But how we end it is of even greater importance for both our security and our troops' safety. These two considerations are the dual catalysts for a bipartisan discussion on this issue.

Breathing air and drinking water again.

First, America's security: our Army will rapidly unravel if redeployment from Iraq does not begin before spring 2008. Today, 40 percent of all US Army equipment is in Iraq; there is no Army unit now at home in a state of readiness able to deploy anywhere another contingency might occur in the world.

That is simply an exaggeration. If 60% of your Army isn't enough to deploy to The Virgin Islands (that is anywhere) - then what have you done to correct tha but propose retreat from the front lines in the Global War?

Second, the safety of our troops: redeployment from Iraq will be lengthy. Moving 160,000 troops and 50,000 civilian contractors and closing bases are logistically challenging, especially in conflict. To ensure our troops' safety, it will take at least a year – probably 15 to 24 months.

So, you believe in time based planning vice conditions (EBAO) based planning? And you have the temerity to say this about Gen Petraeus?

In short, this debate should have been more about measuring American security interests and progress, and not just the Iraqis.

As an example, when General Petraeus was asked about whether the impact of Iraq in the global war on terror would be better by troops in Iraq being used elsewhere, he responded that someone else should be asked about that question. A comprehensive presentation would have not only included General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, but also key individuals involved in our nation's security, such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior State Department officials.

Equally disconcerting was the use of "violence counts," not dissimilar to "body counts" in Vietnam. For example, General Petraeus said 2,500 terrorists have been killed, but when asked whether the number of new terrorists have increased, he responded that the number depended on the intelligence agency he spoke with and it numbered in the thousands. Until we know and can compare trends with "static" violence counts, we would be unable to adequately discern the progress of our military.

...and why we are at it - please tell me what 40% of the Iraqi population (Kurds and Sunni) would think about this thought of yours?

I believe that the way out of Iraq is through diplomacy with Tehran.

The "long pole in the tent" is the closure or turnover of 65 Forward Operating Bases (FOBs). Conservatively, it takes 100 days to close one FOB. It will be important to balance how many to close at one time with calculations about surrounding strife. Kuwait's receiving facilities to clean and package vehicles for customs and shipment back to the United States can handle only 2 to 2½ brigade combat teams (BCTs) at a time, and that there are currently 40 BCT-equivalents in Iraq.

Hey, the 2-star (ret.) is now USCENTCOM's J4 M&T guy. Cool and all - but why do I smell a bit of hypocracy?

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.

"I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said.

Redeployment is the most vulnerable of military operations, particularly because this one will be down a single road, leading from Iraq to Kuwait – "Road Tampa." Such vulnerability is why, in 1993, after "Blackhawk Down" in Somalia, it took six months to extract our 6,300 troops safely, and only then after inserting another 19,000 to protect their redeployment.

Read: "redeployment" as "retreat under fire." That is what he is talking about. Call it a ham sandwich if you want - but there it is.

And what of Iraqi stability in the aftermath of our redeployment, which affects the region and thus our security? Because a redeployment of troops will take a long time, we can have a bipartisan approach to Iraq's security. To do this, the Democratic leadership must turn from pure opposition to this war and an immediate withdrawal, and begin to help author a comprehensive regional security plan that accepts the necessity of a deliberate redeployment. In turn, the Republican leadership must accept that the US government must also work diplomatically with Iran and Syria during this deliberate redeployment.

AKA "self-directed defeat."

While these two countries are currently involved destructively in this war, according to our intelligence community, these nations want stability in Iraq after our departure and, therefore, can play a constructive role.

Syria. Iran. Constructive. Discuss amongst yourselves.

I have consistently argued that a planned end to our military engagement in Iraq is necessary, and that such a "date certain" deadline will force Iraqi leaders to assume responsibility,

The enemy gets a vote Shipmate - what "Effect" will a "date certain" or "goal" have on them and their planning?

providing Iran and Syria the incentive to prevent violence

How will they "prevent?" What history do they have to tell you that? What control do you have to make that happen? What do you do if they don't?

otherwise caused by our departure.

Our troops could either return home or deploy to areas (such as Afghanistan) where terrorists pose a threat to our security,

Are there terrorists in Iraq that will threaten our security?

while others remain at our existing bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and on aircraft carrier and amphibious groups, to ensure our interests in the region (as we did prior to invading Iraq).

By doing what? After our retreat and credibility thrown away, what fool in that region of the world would in their right mind count on the USA for anything or put anything on the line for such an unreliable ally we would have proven to be?

Because our Army must either start a lengthy redeployment or risk unraveling, we have the catalysts for a bipartisan agreement to end this war with a stable Iraq, if we also work with Iran and Syria to meet this goal. However, this opportunity for a bipartisan congressional approach – to convince the president to use diplomacy to bring about a stable accommodation in Iraq once our troops redeploy – will undoubtedly require an initial redeployment deadline that is a "goal" instead of a "date certain."

Therefore, despite my continuing belief that a "date certain" is the best leverage to change Iraqis' and regional nations' behavior, when faced with the otherwise assured consequences of a partisan stalemate on resolving the tragic misadventure in Iraq, this compromise is needed for America's security.

---

I don't know Congressman; it sounds to me like you are trying to fudge some to give yourself a chance to ride the tide of battle if it goes the other way. As was always the plan, as the security situation improves and Iraqi forces take over, we will go home but by bit. It is going to happen; however if you want to get on board, you have to move away from "date certain" and your thoughts from Meet the Press last spring. Being that you use the same Security Risk (Sandy Berger) that Sen. Clinton (D-NY) does - perhaps you are also trying to get on the same page as she is without giving your supporters whiplash. Ah, ha. I think we may have it there.

Well hey, it just isn't me - even some of your supporters are starting to see your head-fake from even a little while ago.

Via atrios, Pennsylvania Democrat and ertswhile Netroots favorite Joe Sestak has caved in on Iraq:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) . . . said Democratic leaders should set aside their demands for immediate withdrawal "and begin to help author a comprehensive regional security plan that accepts the necessity for a deliberate redeployment."

. . . Sestak has been among those Democrats who think that setting a "date certain" for withdrawal is the best way to force Iraqis to assume more responsibility.

But he now believes the length of time needed to redeploy, and the potential for the entire Army to "unravel" unless troops are redeployed, require a compromise.

Good bargaining there Admiral. So are we going to support primarying Sestak? The Netroots/activist strategy on Iraq in 2007 has been an abject failure.

...and they are coming after you.

Congressman Sestak, we are all allowed to change our minds as facts on the ground change - but it is the how and why that matters. If I may be so bold as to offer some advice, be humble. Be your own man. Stop telling everyone that you were once a Navy Admiral; Vice, Rear of otherwise. And stop chewing up young men and woment who are trying to do a good job for you.

One last shot - check out the picture on the right from your site.

1. You are a Shoe; what is it with the Aviator jacket? Where is the Shoe pride?

2. Pointing Left. Very nice. Stop making it so easy out there for those who may or may not send money to your campaign.

Hat tip DadManly via MTH.

3,000 mile Blue Falcon Lawfare

UPDATE: Charges dropped!

---

I know enough about investigations to know you don't know what you don't know - that being said, I have also seen a few investigations in my day, and this just doesn't make sense. The good folks are all over this at BLACKFIVE, here is the summary;

The cases of CPT Dave Staffel and MSG Troy Anderson seem very strange and the circumstances that led to their being charged with murder even stranger.

They are charged for the shooting of an Afghani male who had been identified and vetted by ODA 374 as a High Value Target and leader of a local terrorist cell. He was shot by MSG Anderson from approx. 100 yards on order from CPT Staffel. Both agreed they had positive identification (PID) of Nawab Buntangyar, and their Rules of Engagement (ROE) allowed them to use lethal force once they had PID of enemy forces or combatants. This standard was met and the hammer dropped.

The problem is the hammer was then dropped on these two gentlemen for this action seemingly in accordance with ROE. That is where the strangeness comes in. The ROE for detachments operating in the field is classified, but today I spoke with CPT Staffel's lawyer, Mr. Mike Waple. He has seen the ROE and was able to confirm that the standard in place was PID of a known enemy combatant. There is no argument about whether they got the right guy or whether they identified him properly. Mr. Waple states that it is "absolutely astonishing that charges were brought".

Some time after the event individuals either Afghani or American "raised red flags" about the incident and LTG Kearney ordered a 15-6 investigation to see if anything untoward had happened. This was conducted by an Air Force Colonel Pahana and he concluded that he saw no clear crime, and according to Mr. Waple, "That it was reasonable for ODA 374 to conclude that Nawab was a threat to the province and specifically an upcoming Medical Assistance mission they were going to conduct"

Because accusation had been made that possible violations of the Laws of Land Warfare had occurred, COL Pahana requested that Army CID conduct a criminal investigation to make a final determination. This investigation was conducted and the result was that CID concluded no violations of ROE or the Laws of Land Warfare were committed, they included a legal opinion from JAG concurring in this assessment. So then no problem for the two soldiers right?

Wrong, enter LTG Kearney. He was Commander of Special Ops Command- Central and he had final say on the disposition of this investigation and the lives of these two men. Against the judgment of two investigations he commissioned, he decided that murder charges were warranted.

We owe it to give our soldiers the benefit of the doubt - we have to. If not, people in combat will hesitate. You hesitate and then you die. It reminded me of a quote from Neil Prakash you can read on page 180 of The Blog of War coincidentally by BLACKFIVE actual,

"Sir, I don't know if this is such a good idea, SGT P said. "Remember what a stink they made about Baqubah." My gunner was doing his job of looking out for his lieutenant.

I was getting frustrated, I started worrying about getting in trouble and being solely responsible for destroying a mosque for no good reason.

"Dammit, but we saw those dudes just running across the road with AKs."

"Sir, I know what you're seeing. I see it too. I just don't want to see you fry, that's all." He felt my frustration. He had a good point. If I did nothing, then there was no way I couldn't in trouble. But if I called for indirect, I could either kill some bad guys, or destroy a mosque for some bad press.

Inside me, I felt like this was a bad idea now. I started thinking that I was going to hang. But there was a part of me that didn't want to buckle on my own convictions. I couldn't back down now. Maybe it was pride. That's a bad reason to ever make a decision, but I felt like it was worth frying. I knew what I saw."

They went ahead with the Fires .... and ...

"You haven't heard? They think they got Omar Hadid with that fire mission. The military intelligence and psychological operations guys went through there and think maybe 50 to 70 bad guys were killed in that indirect attack. And from the looks of the intelligence, it looks like there were a lot of key leaders in there."

Three times in my career I have made a decision that I thought would end my career - but I made it at a tactically precise moment in time where it was the right decision knowing what was known at the time - and it was a decision, career be damned, I knew I could live with. You know what, the men I worked for had my back. Good men, good leaders.

I did not fry because my leaders gave me the benefit of the doubt. In my turn, twice I have had junior personnel's decisions come to my level for a call like what I went through and, following the example of those who showed me, gave them the benefit of the doubt as well. They were as direct and honest with me about the reasons they made the split moment call that they did, as I hope I was when I was on the other side of the carpet a few years before.

Having a GOFO blow off the recommendation of two investigations to NOT give the man on the front line the benefit of the doubt is just strange.

Good people in tough situations that demand sudden action make calls that may not look perfect in hindsight or thorough, detailed deliberative study. Intentional stupidity or wrong doing is one thing - but that is not the case more often than not. I thought we knew that in the military - but perhaps I am wrong.

Col. Hunt put it, perhaps, in a better way,

Our generals are betraying our soldiers … again

Sorry, but I have to get your attention on this one. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States Army — not the much maligned “LIBERAL PRESS” or BILL CLINTON or the LIBERALS IN CONGRESS — NO, the UNITED STATES MILITARY is prosecuting its soldiers for doing their jobs.
...
Our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them. The Marines have actually prosecuted a Marine for shooting a terrorist too many times and the Army — well, the Army has the Pat Tillman tragedy, the Abu Graib disaster and many more to answer for, and now these courts martial.
...
These poor excuse for officers do not deserve the soldiers they dare claim they lead. We as a nation had better go out and find us another Marshall, who at the beginning of World War II fired hundreds of senior officers because they were not cutting it. We need him today, as many of our senior officers are way overdue for a one-way trip to the woodshed.

The Geek Force

Hey, we all need a target audience. We can't all recruit from the same pool. Cool stuff and all ...but....


Hat tip Jawa.

Blogg'n coming to the workplace?

Luckily, the commenters here are of a, ahem, much better quality - though I think I see Skippy in here......

....and B2 as well...

Fullbore Friday

Sometimes for FbF, I like to find the obscure and forgotten. This will do. It does answer the question though; if the French battle the French and the French lose, does anyone win? Well, it can be argued that the French won and the British/Free French lost, maybe that is why the Battle of Dakar is one of the least known Battleship duels. Let' set the scene.

The strategic importance of Dakar (Senegal) in the British eyes can not be underestimated. It would be a base much more useful than Freetown to protect the convoys circumnavigating Africa from England to the Middle-East. At that time, the Free French were successful rallying parts of the French colonial empire, like in Nouméa and New Caledonia or Camerun.

In Dakar though, Governor Boisson refused flatly any rallying offer by the De Gaulle and did not shy away from a confrontation with the Royal Navy. The fightings lasted for three days and the losses were high on both sides. De Gaulle's failure was not only military, but above all political. The British doubted that he was the right card to be played to rally the French on their side. It is the lowest point of his career as liberator of France.

You can quickly see why you don't hear much from it. Anglo-Saxons can't call it a victory, and the Francophones, well, outside the French Navy - in polite company ....

The British fleet, consisting of the battleships HMS Resolution and Barham, the carrier Ark Royal, three county class cruisers – the HMAS Australia, HMS Cumberland, and HMS Devonshire – and one light cruiser, the HMS Delhi, as well as ten destroyers and eight thousand soldiers in troop transports began the attack. Defending were the Vichy France forces, including the Richelieu, two cruisers, four destroyers, and three submarines. However the damage from the previous battle with the HMS Hermes had left the Richelieu little more than a floating weapons platform. The Vichy France cruiser Gloire was en route to the battle, but intercepted by the HMAS Australia.

In the ensuing battle the Allied forces were driven off, with the Richelieu scoring a hit on the HMS Barham, and the Resolution torpedoes by a sub. Two of the cruisers also received some damage. In return the Vichy France forces lost only one destroyer and two of their subs. Two of the Richelieu’s guns were damaged and wouldn’t set out again until April 1941.

Now, I want to fall down a rabbit hole. The RICHELIEU has an interesting history that takes her all the way to the Vietnam Conflict - but I want to spend some time now with the HMS BARHAM. She was sunk 25 NOV 41 by U-331 Skippered by Kapitänleutnant Hans-Diedr Freiherr von Tiesenhausen. He eventually became a citizen of Canada and passed away in 2000 (story here).

An artist, here is what he saw out of his periscope - and here is his tale of that day,

The U-331, commanded by von Tiesenhausen was one of the Type VIIs who made its harrowing entry into the Mediterranean. Having dropped off a German commando party at Libya on November 17 (which was to blow up a British military train), the U-331 was patrolling submerged on the morning of November 25 near the British base at Alexandria, Egypt. Having been alerted by the sounds of heavy screws, the U-331 chased down on its bearing. Soon, the U-331 surfaced to periscope depth and spotted a procession of three British battleships flanked by eight destroyers. The battleships were the Queen Elizabeth, Barham and Valiant.

A heart stopping sight, von Tiesenhausen carefully threaded between two destroyers and eased his boat to the first battleship in line, the Queen Elizabeth. But she had just passed by and he was forced to target the second battleship in line, the HMS Barham. At 410 yards, the behemoth size of the battleship had completely filled his periscope lens. He could not identify what ship it was, just that it was a British battleship. He fired all four torpedoes, and immediately the U-331 popped to the surface, having just released four tons of weight from the boat. The third battleship in line, the HMS Valiant was just 150 yards away, spotted the boat and immediately signaled the Barham and altered course to ram.

Aboard the U-331, von Tiesenhausen ordered for a crash dive. The boat’s helmsman hurriedly flooded the ballast tanks and flanked the engines at full speed ahead. As the huge ship, the HMS Valiant bore down on them, finally at the last moment, the U-331 slid beneath the waves and the battleship passed harmlessly overhead.

In the meantime, the HMS Barham swerved to avoid the incoming torpedoes. One torpedo missed, but three others found its target on her broadside. Three explosions were heard – one, two, three - and one or more of the torpedoes hit near a magazine. A fourth thunderous explosion resulted, probably the magazine going up, disintegrating the Barham, taking 862 men with her in three minutes.

That is why von Tiesenhausen didn't like talking about his war. All in all though - what a cruise.

Mr. T's Haircut goes to war

Frequent commenter 'Mr. T's Haircut" is about to head out to the 'Stan. Lucky for us, we're going to hear back from him on a regular basis. Here's the opening salvo.

A Haircut goes to war (again).

I stumbled upon the blog sceen as a late bloomer. I think I have been participating on this fine site for a few months now. I have found this blog to be like a pub. A warm place to converse with like minded souls in solving the problems of our time, or at least complain about em.

I am going to be headed IA in the spring to Afghanistan. Phib has asked me to post from time to time so with your permission and indulgence, I will pass on my observations as I train up and after I deploy.

I have also been recruited (or press ganged, not sure) by the John the Armorer over at the Castle to replace Joe as “the Man in the ‘Stan” Correspondent. Unlike most of the Salamanders constituents, the folks at the Castle are pretty land centric and can use some sea salt in their salad. I will pass on my observations as an “Individual Augmentee” supporting the good fight as I join the sister service, the Army, as a “Fleet of One”.

Cheers.

MTH

Great thing about the 'Stan - BEER. NATO is running the place afterall.

The power of Petraeus

Behold;

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Is crow halal?

Cross posted at MilBlogs.

Democrat '08 shipbuilding plan

Perhaps something like this, but at least it has a gun.

But are there gays next door?

Being that President Ahneedadinnerjacket told us that there are no gays in Iran - I wonder what he thinks about Afghanistan? From the excellent Dutch Documentary "09:11 Zulu," check out minute the stuff starting at 2:38 - but enjoy the Dutch doing the work the most of the Continentals won't do.
And no, that isn't that unusual in AFG.

DPRK or one of my banned commenters?

Any Cold War flunky will like this! It got me right.

You sycophantic stooge, we will resolutely smash your desperate war moves!

Stupid is as stupid does

I know one thing, I can think of a lot of things I would like to do for my Sailor's housing challenges with $600,000. But to spend that much on something that you cannot see except from a computer if you actively look for it is just the height of mindless folly.

The U.S. Navy has decided to spend as much as $600,000 for landscaping and architectural modifications to obscure the fact that one its building complexes looks like a swastika from the air.

The four L-shaped buildings, constructed in the late 1960s, are part of the amphibious base at Coronado and serve as barracks for Seabees.

From the ground and from inside nearby buildings, the controversial shape cannot be seen. Nor are there any civilian or military landing patterns that provide such a view to airline passengers.

But once people began looking at satellite images from Google Earth, they started commenting about on blogs and websites about how much the buildings resembled the symbol used by the Nazis.

When contacted by a Missouri-based radio talk-show host last year, Navy officials gave no indication they would make changes.

But early this year, the issue was quietly taken up by Morris Casuto, the Anti-Defamation League's regional director in San Diego, and U.S. Rep. Susan Davis (D-San Diego).

As a result, in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the Navy has budgeted up to $600,000 for changes in walkways, "camouflage" landscaping and rooftop photovoltaic cells.
...
Navy officials say the shape of the buildings, designed by local architect John Mock, was not noted until after the groundbreaking in 1967 -- and since it was not visible from the ground, a decision was made not to make any changes.

I will admit it looks bad if you make the effort to look at it, but all the hyper-sensitive people involved in this should of ashamed at themselves. Have they shown that much interest in the housing problems of actual serving servicemembers? Actual wounded veterans? Do they expect others (aka taxpayers) to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to address every invented slight?

I don't know who is more stupid, the architectural review personnel in the 1960's who approved the construction, or those who made this worthy of Congressional Action in the 21st Century. The only smart people I see are those who after the ground was broken the and discovered the mistake decided that a military at war has more important things to spend its money on something no one would see (oops).

BTW, if you want to find real Nazi architecture hidden hither and yon, go here.

Hat tip Mike.

America's kept bigots

I'm sorry Sen. Kennedy, I just must listen harder to the Diversity Bullies - after I finish gay-bashing the nearest "minority" female I can find. After all, I am in the military, it's just my nature.

Via Byron York at The Corner,

On the Senate floor just a few minutes ago, Kennedy said a hate crimes amendment should be attached to the defense authorization bill because members of the U.S. military commit a significant number of hate crimes.

"This amendment will strengthen the defense authorization act by protecting those who volunteer to serve in the military," Kennedy said. "The vast majority of our soldiers serve with honor and distinction…but sadly, our military bases are not immune from the violence that comes with hatred."

Kennedy listed the recent case of some soldiers who allegedly tried to sell military equipment to an FBI agent whom they believed was a white supremacist; the December 2006 case of a Coast Guard officer who posted on a white supremacist website; and a December 1995 case in which two paratroopers took part in a racially motivated double murder. "These examples clearly demonstrate the relevance of this amendment to the military," Kennedy said. Kennedy suggested that the alleged problem might be getting worse, citing a Southern Poverty Law Center report that extremists are joining the military, putting it, in Kennedy's words, "at a higher risk of hate-motivated violence."

I am quite happy with my Fairies, thank you

Aggressive, atheist, moral relativism on full display.

I am not even going to comment too much on some of the least accurate, persuasive, or factual critiques he has of religious history and meaning, no, I am more humored by the inability of a mind seeped in the broth of the Left from speaking the obvious.

In 2007, not all religions are the same WRT their ability to exist in a pluralistic Western society. Not to see and say that by a well educated and intelligent individual is simply intellectual cowardice. If he thinks otherwise, I suggest he take his views to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for a tour.

In AC Grayling you have a perfect example of the standard issue smug atheist. Take a look at his mug - condescension is all over his face; as is vanity, pride, and probably a little envy. The condition of his soul is a different matter - but instead let's discuss the condition of his logic from his bit from March of this year, Believers are Away With the Fairies.

But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain.

Followers of Islam were the first to push forward: protests against Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in 1989 were an early indication of what has since become an insistent Islamic presence in the public square.

Not willing to be left behind, other faiths have followed suit. In 2004 Sikhs closed a play in Birmingham, Hindus complained about Christmas stamps Christianising an Indian theme and, in 2005, evangelical Christians protested against Jerry Springer: The Opera.

Are all three equal? BTW, "protest" Salman Rushdie? No, they wanted him dead.

Requests for extra protections in law, and alternatively for exemptions from the law, to cater for religious sensitivities soon followed these developments: criminalising offensive remarks about religion, and allowing faith-based organisations to be exempt from legislation outlawing discriminatory practices, are the main examples.

I don't think in the UK right now Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sihks and Muslims are the same in this regard. Why won't he say so? Hmmmm.

In the US, the religious Right numbers about 35 million. Recent polls show that about 30 million Americans define themselves as having no religious commitment.

But whereas the religious Right is a formidable body whose constituent churches and movements have salaried administrators, vast funds, television and radio outlets, and paid Washington lobbyists, America's non-religious folk are simply unconnected individuals.

Oh come on! Pacifica Radio, NPR, MTV, ... do I need to go on? ACLU, AFSCS, Planet Smoothie...give me a break.

There are two main reasons for the hardening of responses by non-religious folk.

One is that any increase in the influence of religious bodies in society threatens the de facto secular arrangement that allows all views and none to coexist. History has shown that in societies where one religious outlook becomes dominant, an uneasy situation ensues for other outlooks; at the extreme, religious control of society can degenerate into Taliban-like rule.

Where has that happened in the West in the last 500 years? Not under the Cross. Not under the Star of David. No, but aggressive atheists from Nazis to Communists have killed hundreds of millions.

Religious peace did not come straight away, but eventually it arrived, and most of Europe for most of the years since 1700 has been free of religiously motivated strife.

Yes, by Christians. What ideology and religion has not? Yep. Say it...say it... never mind. He who is blind cannot see.

A nice reply to the article is here, though it doesn't mention the "I" word or the "M" word - as a Christian I should recognize that it is the correct response.

MESA VERDE's crew owes beer to SAN ANTONIO

Big time,

2. SENIOR MEMBER COMMENTS:
A. PCU MESA VERDE, THE 3RD HULL IN THE SAN ANTONIO SHIP CLASS, WAS A CLEAN AND READY TO INSPECT SHIP. THE BUILDER ACHIEVED 100 PERCENT SPACE COMPLETION STATUS (943 OF 943 COMPARTMENTS AND 166 OF 166 TANK/VOIDS COMPLETED). PER REF A, THE SHIP MET NEW CONSTRUCTION PRE-REQUISITES TO CONDUCT AN AT. ALL UNDERWAY DEMOS WERE EXECUTED SAFELY. THE STEERING AND QUICK REVERSAL ASTERN TO AHEAD DEMOS WERE DEGRADED DUE TO MATERIAL ISSUES, ALL OF WHICH ARE ADDRESSED IN THE DEMO SECTION OF THIS REPORT. THE FULL POWER RUN WAS TERMINATED TWICE BECAUSE OF CASUALTIES TO NR 1A MPDE (FAILED FUEL OIL PUMP NR 2 CYLINDER AND SUBSEQUENT LOAD SHARING ADJUSTMENTS). REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED, TIMED RESTARTS INITIATED, AND A SUCCESSFUL 4 HOUR FULL POWER RUN WAS OBSERVED BY THE BOARD.

Nothing sweat and money can't buy.

It's OK CNO, I can't keep it tucked in either

We really need a better uniform for formal type events when a civilian would wear a cote (or coat for you picky types) and tie. What you wear really does tell a lot about what type of person you are.

WASHINGTON (Sept. 25, 2007) - Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Mike Mullen and Rear Adm. Alan Baker, Deputy Chief of Navy Chaplains, commission Ensign Asif Balbale in the Chaplain Corps as his wife looks on. Upon completion of Navy Chaplain School, Balbale will become the third Muslim chaplain in the U.S. Navy. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley.

Geeze, when I received my Commission, only a soon-to-be-retired 1120 CAPT was there.

Hat tip Paul.

Pulling the pirate problem "out of the box"

NB:Lex got me to thinking, "Hey, didn't I post on this..." Actually, I did, but it was stuck in Draft back in JUN!!! Buttonology could always be my weak spot. Well, time to bring it out now.

---

Both here and at The Castle Argghhh!!!, Eagle1, MilBlogs, The Commissar, the subject of the pirates of Somalia has gained a lot of interest - and a wide variety of ideas. One of John's readers and blogger himself, HeartlessLibertarian, in the comments section over at Argghhh!!! brought out an oldie but a goodie that is worth taking out of the locker and checking out.

The only legal issue I could think of is whether of not Letters of Marque have fallen out of favor with the international law crowd.

Because the Constitution still says Congress has the power to issue them.

We are told to think "out of the box," so why not look at it. When you look at The Constitution, in Article 1 we find,

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Letters of Marque. Now there is something out of the history books. It is more than "I will fight your pirates with my pirates" - no something more. Consider it "outsourcing" - doing jobs the US Navy can't or won't do. Maybe we could get some help from our friends South of the Border...

Anyway, back to the serious work. If you have not seen a Letter of Marque, go here for a collection of them. Below is an American one from 1812.

Letter of Marque carried by Captain Millin of the American privateer Prince of Neufchatel during the War of 1812.
James Madison, President of the United States of America,
To all who shall see these presents, Greeting:

BE IT KNOWN, That in pursuance of an act of congress, passed on the 26th day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have Commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Brig called the Prince Neufchatel of the burden of three hundred & Nineteen tons, or thereabouts, owned by John Ordronaux & Peter E. Trevall of the City & State of New York and Joseph Beylle of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania Mounting eighteen carriage guns, and navigated by one hundred & twenty nine men, hereby authorizing Nicholas Millin captain, and William Stetson lieutenant of the said Brig and the other officers and crew thereof, to subdue, seize, and take any armed or unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions, and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns, and appertenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, together with all the british persons and others who shall be found acting on board, to bring within some port of the United States; and also to retake any vessel, goods, and effects of the people of the United States, which may have been captured by any British armed vessel, in order that proceedings may be had concerning such capture or recapture in due form of law, and as to right and justice shall appertain. The said Nicholas Millin is further authorized to detain, seize, and take all vessels and effects, to whomsoever belonging, which shall be liabel thereto according to the law of nations and the rights of the United States as a power at war, and to bring the same within some port of the United States, in order that due proceedings may be had thereon. This commission to continue in force during the pleasure of the president of the United States for the time being.

GIVEN under my hand and seal of the United States of America, at the City of Washington, the twelfth day of December in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and fourteen and of the independence of the said states the thirty ninth.

BY THE PRESIDENT James Madison
Jas. Monroe, Secretary of State.

Not that I am saying we should do this, but what if we had such a version put together for Blackwater? $1 million for a pirate skiff, and $50 million for a mother ship? Just a thought. I am sure some lawyer type could modify the Letter of Marque to match the 21st Century. I don't think Blackwater would have any trouble finding crewmembers either. I doubt they would go the Q-ship idea though. I see a more pro-active pirate hunting by them.

Don't laugh - fun to think about if nothing else, and who knows; it might be better than what we are doing now, which is nothing.

---

PS: Speaking of things that you find boarding your craft that cost you lots of time and money and generally make a mess - look at the boarding party that has hoisted itself over at Chap's place.

Army doing the Navy's job ...

Hey, that guy rows like some goober from Yale....

Description of the action from BLACKFIVE.

Pilots from 1-3 Attack Aviation (Operation Marne Torch II) spotted a boat with three suspected insurgents aboard. You'll see two of the suspects jump from the boat while the third rows furiously to get away from the Apache and then starts dumping some of the gear into the Tigris. Not long after, the third suspect jumps and tries to hide under some trees along a bank on the Tigris River. The Apache gets a close up of the gear in the boat, gets the okay to fire it up, shoots 60 rounds, and then watch the secondary explosions. This occurred on September 19th.

Diversity Bullies: the cognitive disconnect

Though an imperfect work, I ask you to consider reading Christopher Caldwell's article from this August, "Diversity is not Black and White."

Now, I want you to hear what years in isolated, sycophantic academia can do to one's writing style; you can read it here - but it is so good I want to quote in whole a letter to the editor to the Financial Times in response to Caldwell's prose. It shows what can happen when you live in a world where no one ever challenges your opinions - or you never listen - or both.

Sir,
One of the fallacies governing Christopher Caldwell's attack on the principle that diversity has social value ("Diversity is not black and white", August 11/12) is the notion that diversity is necessarily antithetical to Robert Putnam's concept of "social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness". This presumes that in an age of globalisation it is still possible to found national identity on a relatively homogenous culture. The US has long experienced the contradiction between a singular ideology of what it is to be an "American" and the lived experience of people in an increasingly heterogeneous society.

For the UK and western Europe such experience is relatively more recent. Before the second world war and especially during the suburban building boom of the postwar years, the kind of anxiety expressed by Mr Caldwell led the Federal Housing Authority to legally sanction restrictive or protective covenants that controlled diversity in suburban housing and, indirectly in public education. The long-term destructive social and economic effects of such policy and the infamous practice of "redlining" districts occupied by racial minorities, are still felt in the US.

Mr Caldwell also claims there is no correlation between intellectual diversity and racial diversity, and that colleges and universities that are committed to the latter are compromising the former. Again, I would suggest one cannot be an advocate of globalisation and at the same time deny that ethnic and intellectual diversity areinextricably interrelated.

Colleges and universities that do not recognise this will produce inferior knowledge based on older paradigms that will, in the long run, be detrimental to the social networks such educational institutions are supposed to serve. Educational institutions committed to ethnic or racial diversity demonstrate a clearer understanding of today's world than does Mr Caldwell. To say, as Mr Caldwell does, that "diversity is an ideology" is itself the expression of an ideology that is out of touch with the social network that is, for better or worse, today's globalised economy.

Don E. Wayne,
Chair,
Department of Literature,
University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA 92093, US

A picture to die for

While cruising around the Syrian Desert via GoogleEarth (because everyone now days thinks they are an Intel Weenie) near Dayr az-Zwar (N34 30.1 E040 38.3) looking for something that looked like a place you would store nuke material Israel would want to hit (I didn't find it, though I did find something else that almost made me think I got lucky. Check it out here; on a main road you can take all the way to the major ports; strictly storage not connected to any obvious industry; heavily secured with dual fencing; large area with what looks like some underground storage to the North; lots of both hard and soft storage areas; not connected to the nearby canal; obvious heavy truck traffic - heck, probably just date and oil storage, but it was fun to look at - still, TWO sets of gates to get in and surrounded by a berm?) I started thinking of all the Cold War intel reports that so many N2/J2 types invested so much time in - and the quality of photos we get over the web anywhere that two generations ago people literally killed and died for.

Anyway, for a Navy Officer of a certain age there is a strange word that means something ominous; Severodvinsk.

Off the White Sea; to me she always represented some dark, cold abyss that monsters lay in wait to haunt the open seas. Go there now to look at where we are in 2007. Still plenty of monsters, but not that scary.

Spend some time cruising around the harbor (heck, some people are really in to it) - but let's look at N64 34.9/E039 48.7 a bit. There they are.


On the left you have the last of the Kiev class Carriers, the Admiral Gorshkov (nee Baku), being refurbished into the INS Vikramaditya. On the right - he11 on wheels herself - a Typhoon. See the ducted prop there? What people wouldn't have given to have seen that up close 25 years ago (though I am sure we did anyway).

Anyway, lets get back to the Baku. Back in the day, how about this lineup?

• 6 × twin SS-N-12 Sandbox SSM launchers (12 missiles).
• 24 × 8-cell SA-N-9 vertical SAM launchers (192 missiles).
• 2 × 100 mm guns
• 8 × AK-630 30 mm CIWS.
• 10 × 533 mm torpedo tubes.
• 2 × RBU-6000 anti-submarine rocket launchers.
• 12 Yak-38M fighter aircraft.
• 20 Kamov Ka-25 or Kamov Ka-27 helicopters.

The SS-N-12 still give me the shivers. The Soviets didn't leave much to chance, did they?

The P-500 Bazalt (Russian: П-500 «Базальт»; English: basalt) is a liquid-fueled, rocket powered, supersonic cruise missile used by the Soviet Navy. Developed by OKB-52 MAP (later NPO Mashinostroyeniye). Its GRAU designation is 4K80^[1]. And its NATO reporting name is SS-N-12 Sandbox. It entered service in 1973 to replace the SS-N-3 Shaddock. The P-500 Bazalt had a 550 km range and a payload of 1,000 kg, which allows it to carry a 350 kT nuclear or a 950kg semi-armor-piercing high explosive warhead (currently only the conventional version remains in service). The P-500 Bazalt uses active radar homing for terminal guidance, and can receive mid-course corrections by the Tupolev Tu-95D, the Kamov Ka-25B and the Kamov Ka-27B.

The P-500 Bazalt was first deployed in 1975 on the Soviet aircraft carrier Kiev, and was later added to both the Echo II class submarine and the Juliett class submarine. A version of the P-500 Bazalt with improved guidance and engines is used on the Slava class cruiser.

The P-700 Granit (NATO reporting name SS-N-19 Shipwreck) was partially based on the SS-N-12, but with a turbojet engine and a significantly modified airframe. The avionics, however, are very close

A bit more modern approach from the Indians.

8 CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS.
16 MiG-29K, HAL Tejas, or Sea Harrier.
6 Ka-31 'Helix'.

The look is radically different as well. The beauty and the beast; past and present; fading Empire - and rising Power.

---

UPDATE: Wretchard over at The Belmont Club is looking too.

In he11, this is on a loop

From your next President (odds on);



From FoxNews (quite nice Wallace interview) - more context.

Want a clean ship in the yards?

Read about the fire last week on the USS Leyte Gulf? 5 guys went to the hospital. From one of my spies you can see the reason why.

Well, what happens when you combine a floor buffer (& stripping pad) with lacquer thinner in an enclosed space with no ventilation? Yep, FAE. More pictures here.

Byron, over to you.

Bad logo of the month

The Chinese really need to watch more British television - they just aren't that up on YouKnowWho from the looks of it.

Hat tip Pat's Blog.

Where was this 5-years ago?

Click the link for more detail - but this really should have been reprinted awhile ago - especially considering the lack of things we had prior to going in. The "Religion of Peace and don't show them the bottom of your foot or they will kill you" lectures just didn't help all that much.



Just a few quotes; the first one would have been nice to know up and down the Chain of Command.

“You aren’t going to Iraq to change the Iraqis. Just the opposite. We are fighting this war to preserve the principle of ‘live and let live.’ “

“Don’t stare at anyone who is praying, above all do not make fun of him. Respect his religion as he will respect yours.”

“Bread to the Moslems is holy. Don’t throw scraps of it about or let it fall on the ground.”

“Don’t eat pork or pork products in front of Moslems.”

“Talk Arabic if you can to the people. No matter how badly you do it, they will like it.”

“Be generous with your cigarettes.”

And this quote is for Skippy.

“To repeat—don’t make a pass at any Moslem woman or there will be trouble. Anyway, it won’t get you anywhere. Prostitutes do not walk the streets but live in special quarters of the cities.”

Good 'ole Lt. Col. Nagl kind of wraps up my thoughts.

As Nagl—who has spent quite a bit of time in Iraq, not to mention helped write the Army’s new counterinsurgency manual and the already-classic guerrilla warfare study Learn to Eat Soup with a Knife—writes in his introduction, a lot of the material contained in this booklet would have been, well, nice to know beforehand. Time after time Nagl points to nuggets of advice in the 60-plus-year-old booklet and affirms that they are absolutely still applicable today. But most likely the book was forgotten in some cavernous archive that nobody in the Pentagon bothered to search; being too busy following Rumsfeld’s neo-con dictums.

Nagl writes, “It is a sad fact of history that armies all but invariably forget the lessons of prior campaigns and have to relearn them from scratch when war begins again, at the cost of too many soldiers’ and civilian lives.” He is most likely correct, but that doesn’t make such tragically stupid mistakes any easier to bear when they happen.

Sunday Funnies

LT Black, call your office.

The German Problem

Their military gets it,

SPIEGEL ONLINE: From the outside, it often looks as if the aggressive waging of this war is further enflaming the insurgency.

Kasdorf: I repeat: Pulling out of OEF would not be helpful. It bothers the Americans when Europeans accuse them of waging the war in a brutal fashion. If there were no OEF, the insurgency would gain strength in the country and they would consider themselves unopposed here, which could also threaten ISAF'sISAF we don't have the forces to go after the extremists alone. At the same time, fighting terror is not our mandate.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Germans have announced that they will get more involved with building up the security forces. At the same time, however, they absolutely refuse to send their soldiers into the contested south. But international instructors working with the Afghan national army regularly go with their battalions on military missions even after the training is finished. Is that an irresolvable dilemma?

Kasdorf: The limitations that the Germans have placed upon themselves are not regarded as optimal here. If a country takes over reconstruction responsibilities, its teams can, in an emergency, be replaced by reserve units if the Afghans go into battle. That's what we're really talking about here. When all the countries on a mission go into conflict areas and then a few of them say that they're only going to do something very specific, it becomes difficult. We must realize that the rest of Afghanistan, including the north, will only be safe when we have succeeded in the east and south. success. Here at

The German people however,

SPIEGEL: The controversy in Germany is focused on the counterterrorismOEF). As part of this operation, there have repeatedly been air attacks that have often claimed civilian lives, which only help to reinforce the Taliban's propaganda.

Schneiderhan: It is, of course, regrettable when there are casualties among innocent civilians, and we must do everything in our power to prevent this from happening. But we must distinguish between cause and effect. The cause is that the terrorists are attacking us, thereby forcing our troops to defend themselves. Furthermore, our enemies are civilians who wear no uniforms or national emblems. They deliberately misuse innocent people as shields in order to bring our soldiers into disrepute. And they are pleased to see that hardly anyone mentions the victims of their vicious attacks.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, many in Germany are critical of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Schneiderhan: That's too simplistic. I am much more concerned that the terrorists are misusing public opinion for their purposes and are thereby gaining the upper hand.

SPIEGEL: Opinion polls show that the tactic is working. The majority of Germans want German forces to withdraw from Afghanistan. Many members of parliament plan to vote this fall for an extension of the NATO mandate for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), but not for Germany's continued participation in the counterterrorism operation.

Schneiderhan: From a military point of view, OEF continues to be necessary. The terrorists are still trying to maintain strongholds in Afghanistan and in the regions along the border with Pakistan. They want to use force to prevent Afghanistan from being stabilized. The mandate for fighting terrorism is the OEF mandate. The idea behind the ISAF mission is different. However, the more successful the counterterrorism operation is, the safer and more successful ISAF will be. And the more successful ISAF is, the less we'll need the counterterrorism mission.

SPIEGEL: Would our allies understand a decision to withdraw from OEF?

Schneiderhan: For Germany, Operation Enduring Freedom has a lot to do with international solidarity. In my opinion, a withdrawal would be a catastrophe in terms of our alliances.

Kasdorf is Major Gen. Bruno Kasdorf from the ISAF headquarters in Kabul, the highest-ranking German officer at ISAF. Schneiderhan is General Wolfgang Schneiderhan, 60, Germany's highest-ranking officer in the Bundeswehr (German Army). Both these men are some of the best professional soldiers you will find - but they serve politicians who with their media friends have ill informed the German people - a German people who have grown custom to have others defend them.

What Century are you importing?

Multi-Culti in Bradford, UK. What happens when a Muslim converts to Christianity in 21st Century Britain?

Hat tip LGF.

RIVRON 1, call your office

Everyone who wants a half-dozen of these, raise your hand!

Patria has received an order from the Finnish Navy for a concept study con-cerning a combination of Patria Nemo mortar system and WATERCAT M12, developed by Marine Alutech Oy.

The project targets a possible prototype testing and serial production after the concept study. This project aims to create a new, mobile fire support system with high firepower for the coastal jaeger battalions enhancing their performance in coastal protection. The concept is believed to raise also wide interna-tional interest as a new mortar system application.

Patria Nemo mortar system represents Patria's own product development as part of the 120 mm mortar system product family. Patria Nemo is a single-barrel, unmanned turret system for indirect fire support, but due to its direct fire capability, it can also be used for self-defence. The light and compact turret is possible to be mounted on vessel, light tracked platform aw well as on 6x6 and 8x8 wheeled vehicles.

Say hi to an old friend

Scott and Turkey Head from Scott's Conservative N&C are back blogg'n - well at least Scott is.

You Old Salt Salamander readers will remember them - Scott was a friend to this blog way back in the day. He and TH had to do something for awhile, but they are back. Like an old Shipmate you have not seen for a long time - you can pick up like it was just last week if you make the effort.

Stop by and visit them to say, "Welcome back!"

The fundamentals of running aground

Often, the best way to salvage something from the wreckage of an otherwise stellar career cut short by a bad day at sea is to look at what went wrong - and by example hope younger officers will learn.

I have nothing one way or another to say about CDR McClure, but some of the things that happened that day on her ship should be looked at with a clear, learning eye.

Lost situational awareness, sloppy navigation and faulty navigational gear caused the destroyer Arleigh Burke to run aground at high speed while en route to port May 15, according to a mishap report obtained Wednesday by Navy Times.

The incident, which cost the ship’s captain, Cmdr. E.J. McClure, her command, caused no more damage than some paint scraped off the hull. No sailors were injured and no damage estimates were included in the report.

The details.

The mishap occurred while the ship was traveling at 25 knots about three miles northeast of Cape Henry Light, near the entry to the Chesapeake Bay on the way into Norfolk. The ship remained stuck in the sand for an hour after the grounding.

One factor that could have contributed to the mishap was a spot award of the Navy Achievement Medal to a crew member in the pilot house. The ceremony lasted two minutes and the ship ran aground 14 minutes later. The report states that the ceremony was not included in the navigation brief and “adversely impacted” McClure’s situational awareness.
...
The mishap report identifies several things that went wrong on the afternoon of May 15 and requests an investigation of the command’s claim that its Navigation Sensor System Interface and the Battle Force Tactical Training system were not reliable. The ship’s navigator had so lost faith in the electronics that he previously wrote a “point paper on the ship’s NAVSSI issues and forwarded it to the CO,” the report states.
...
According to the report’s timeline, there were points during the trip when the ship’s crew did not know exactly where they were. Two minutes before the accident, the report says, McClure and her navigator disagreed over which buoy they were seeing.

The ship was also going too fast for local restricted waters, according to the report. Once the ship completed its Engineering Operations Certification in the Virginia Capes area earlier in the day, McClure and the navigator “realized they were behind schedule” to meet the local pilot off Norfolk. A person unidentified in the report “had previously explained to the CO that there was no rush to get in. That person had the authority to change the pilot pickup time and not to worry about arriving” at the set location by 6 p.m.

At the time of the grounding, the ship was going 25 knots, according to the report, “despite briefed 18-knot transit due to perceived pressure to ensure on-time arrival.”

Navigation inconsistencies are cited throughout the report, and some information on the ship’s location was not available to investigators, such as radar tapes that had been recycled too much to be useful, and the Combat Information Center shipping log that “contained no information.”

It is that 2-minutes prior "Ummmm, where are we..." conversation that gets me in the gut. The frag pattern is rather large.

The executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. Allen Hobbs, and two other officers were administratively disciplined by strike group commander Rear Adm. Dan Holloway on July 3. They remain with the ship.

Capt. Larry Tindal, commodore of Destroyer Squadron 2, was on board at the time of the mishap. The report says Tindal “failed to recognize the risk associated with conducting an awards ceremony on the bridge during a restricted waters transit with excessive speed.”

Tindal remains commodore after a nonjudicial “meeting” with Holloway earlier this summer.

In addition to McClure, Hobbs and Tindal, the “opinions” section of the report also identifies failures by the officer of the deck, the navigator, navigation plotter, navigation log keepers on the bridge and in the combat information center, piloting officer, CIC watch officer, conning officer and the junior officer of the watch.

Ungh. I think the HTs came through OK though....

---

UPDATE: I usually try not to get too technical here, but there is a very good Shoefest going on over at SailorBob on the subject (thanks for the plug PoopDeck1). Ming posted a message from early AUG that VADM Etnyre put out that is worth reading - and doesn't get too far in the weeds - so even the general audience can glean some good things. First sentence of paragraph 6 should be chiseled above the head right off the bridge. In whole.

R 071832Z AUG 07
FM COMNAVSURFOR SAN DIEGO CA//N00//
TO ALNAVSURFOR
INFO CNO WASHINGTON DC//N84/N86//
COMUSFLTFORCOM NORFOLK VA//N37//
COMNAVSURFLANT NORFOLK VA
COMNAVSURFLANT NORFOLK VA
PEO IWS WASHINGTON DC//1/2/6//
PEO IWS WASHINGTON DC//1/2/6//
COMSPAWARSYSCOM SAN DIEGO CA//PMW170//
NMAWC CORPUS CHRISTI TX
COMNAVSEASYSCOM WASHINGTON DC//N53C//
COMNAVSEASYSCOM WASHINGTON DC//N53C//
SPAWARSYSCEN CHARLESTON SC//34/34B/34D/342/343/345// USNA ANNAPOLIS MD
CENSURFCOMBATSYS DAHLGREN VA//00// SWOSCOLCOM NEWPORT RI//N72//
COMSPAWARSYSCOM SAN DIEGO CA//PMW170// COMAFLOATRAGRU ATLANTIC NORFOLK
VA COMAFLOATRAGRU MAYPORT FL COMAFLOATRAGRUPAC SAN DIEGO CA
COMAFLOATRAGRUMIDPAC PEARL HARBOR HI COMAFLOATRAGRUMIDPAC PEARL HARBOR
HI COMAFLOATRAGRUWESTPAC YOKOSUKA JA AFLOATRAGRUPACNORWEST EVERETT WA
COMDDGRON NORFOLK VA COMFFGRON MAYPORT FL COMLHDRON NORFOLK VA
COMLSDLPDRON SAN DIEGO CA COMNAVSURFOR SAN DIEGO CA//N7// COMNAVSURFOR
SAN DIEGO CA//N7//
BT
UNCLAS //N02300//
MSGID/GENADMIN/COMNAVSURFOR/3626//
SUBJ/SURFACE NAVIGATION LESSONS LEARNED AND BEST PRACTICES//
REF/A/DOC/CNAF-CNSF/24FEB2005//
AMPN/REF A IS COMNAVAIRFORINST-COMNAVSURFORINST 3530.4A (NAVDORM).//
POC/xxxxxxx/LT/CNSF/FORCE NAVIGATOR/TEL: 619-437-xxxx/
EMAIL: MICHELLE.xxxx(AT)NAVY.MIL//
RMKS/1. SAFE NAVIGATION REQUIRES THE FUSION OF DATA FROM SHIPBOARD NAVIGATIONAL EQUIPMENT AND APPLICATION OF BOTH ELECTRONIC AND VISUAL DATA BY KNOWLEDGEABLE SAILORS TO BUILD THE MOST ACCURATE NAVPLOT. A RECENT SHIP GROUNDING LESSON LEARNED WAS UNDERSTANDING THE CORRECT ALIGNMENT OF NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT AND FAILURE TO USE PROPER NAVIGATION PROCEDURES.

2. PROPER EQUIPMENT SETUP IS A PREREQUISITE TO GETTING ACCURATE INFORMATION. SPECIFICALLY, FAILURE TO SET UP THE WSN-7 FOR AT-SEA OPERATION IAW CSOSS AND INCORRECT SELECTION OF POSITION SOURCE AT THE COMDAC DISPLAY ON THE BRIDGE BEGAN AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF ERRORS THAT ULTIMATELY RAN THE SHIP AGROUND. PRIOR TO GETTING UNDERWAY, THE WSN-7 WAS INCORRECTLY LEFT IN DOCKSIDE CONFIGURATION - MANUAL VELOCITY (VMAN) EQUAL TO 0.0 KTS AND AUTOMATIC DAMPING (AUTOD). THE SHIP SHOULD HAVE ENABLED THE WSN-7 VELOCITY REFERENCE TO VGPS (GPS) OR VSYN (RODMETER; VGPS IS PREFERRED) MODE. BECAUSE THE WSN-7 WAS IN VMAN MODE WITH A SPEED INPUT OF ZERO WHILE THE SHIP WAS ACTUALLY NAVIGATING AT MORE THAN 15 KNOTS IN RESTRICTED WATERS, THE SYSTEM COULD NOT ACCURATELY APPLY THE CALCULATED VELOCITIES, WHICH ARE USED TO GENERATE UPDATED ESTIMATED POSITIONS (EP). ONCE THE EP SEPARATED FROM THE GPS FIX POSITION THE INS BEGAN REJECTING GPS INPUTS. BECAUSE OF POOR OPERATOR KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR DISPLAY SYSTEMS, THE SHIP WAS RELYING SOLELY ON WHAT THEY THOUGHT TO BE GPS INPUTS TO FIX SHIP'S POSITION AND NEITHER NAVIGATION TEAM RECOGNIZED THEY WERE PLOTTING COMPROMISED INS POSITIONS.

3. AS THE SHIP PROGRESSED DOWN ITS TRACK, WSN-7 POSITION ERROR GREW TO MORE THAN 4000 YARDS IN A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 30 MINUTES. THIS WAS NOT DUE TO ANY WSN EQUIPMENT FAILURE; THIS WAS THE NORMAL RESULT OF NOT PROPERLY ALIGNING THE WSN, WHICH IS WHY ADHERENCE TO CSOSS IS SO IMPORTANT.

4. ALL SHIPS MAY USE GPS AS THEIR PRIMARY FIX SOURCE IN ALL WATERS. HOWEVER, IN RESTRICTED AND PILOTING WATERS THE NAVIGATION TEAM MUST DETERMINE SHIP'S POSITION BY OTHER MEANS AT NO GREATER THAN EVERY THIRD FIX INTERVAL. NO ONE FIX SOURCE SHOULD BE SOLELY RELIED UPON. SHOULD GPS FIGURE OF MERIT (FOM) OR ESTIMATED POSITION ERROR (EPE) FALL OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE ACCURACY LIMITS THE SHIP'S NAV TEAM WILL SHIFT TO AN ALTERNATE FIX SOURCE AS THE PRIMARY FIX SOURCE.
ACCEPTABLE FIX ACCURACY (READ IN TWO COLUMNS):
AREA FIX ACCURACY/GPS FOM
RESTRICTED WATERS 50 YARDS/FOM 2
PILOTING WATERS 100 YARDS/FOM 4
COASTAL WATERS 500 YARDS/FOM 6
OPEN OCEAN 1500 YARDS/FOM 7
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, ALL SHIPS WILL LOG GPS FOM FOR ALL FIXES WHEN
GPS IS THE PRIMARY FIX SOURCE. GPS FOM WILL BE LOGGED IN THE STANDARD BEARING BOOK OR SHIPS POSITION LOG AS APPROPRIATE. THIS CHANGE WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT REVISION TO THE NAVDORM.

5. ONLY SHIPS CERTIFIED TO NAVIGATE USING ECDIS-N MAY USE ECDIS-N AS THE PRIMARY NAV PLOT. SHIPS MUST MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS TO BE CERTIFIED ECDIS-N: HAVE OPNAV-APPROVED SOFTWARE/ HARDWARE CONFIGURATION INSTALLED, SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE ECDIS-N NAVCERT, HAVE REQUIRED NUMBER OF VMS OPERATOR GRADUATES ONBOARD, SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE CREW CERTIFICATION, AND BE APPROVED TO NAVIGATE USING ECDIS-N BY TYCOM. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS TOOLS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED FOR USE AS THE PRIMARY NAVIGATION PLOT. SHIPS NOT AUTHORIZED TO NAVIGATE USING ECDIS-N MAY USE POSITION DATA FROM ELECTRONIC SOURCES, BUT THE PRIMARY NAV PLOT MUST REMAIN ON PAPER CHARTS - ACCEPTABLE FIX SOURCES ARE GPS(PPS), VISUAL, AND RADAR. STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH REF A, THE NAVDORM, IS NOT NEGOTIABLE. DESPITE THE WSN-7 POSITION ERRORS, THIS GROUNDING COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED HAD THE NAV TEAM SIMPLY ADHERED TO BASIC NAVIGATION STANDARDS.

6. SEAMANSHIP AND NAVIGATION ARE CORE COMPETENCIES. THESE LESSONS LEARNED ARE WORTH REPEATING AND CAREFUL REVIEW ON EACH SHIP IN THE FORCE. VADM ETNYRE SENDS.//

BT
#0000
NNNN