3 Dutch Marines captured by Libyan forces

Three Dutch marines were captured by forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi during a rescue attempt of two European workers and are being held by Libyan authorities for five days, a Defense Ministry spokesman said Thursday.
...
The three were surrounded by armed men on Sunday after landing near Sirte in a Lynx helicopter from the navy ship HMS Tromp, which was anchored off the Libyan coast to help evacuations from the conflict-torn country, spokesman Otte Beeksma told The Associated Press.

Dutch officials are in "intensive negotiations" with Gadhafi's government to secure the marines' release, he said.
...
Prime Minister Mark Rutte said news of the men's capture was kept quiet to assist talks on their release. Dutch daily De Telegraaf first reported their capture in its Thursday edition.

"These are situations that benefit from total secrecy because then you can carry out discussions in peace to ensure these people get home safely," he told national broadcaster NOS.

"It is terrible for the crew of the Lynx helicopter," Rutte said. "Everything is being done to make sure the crew gets home."

If I am reading this correctly, were these three helo aircrew, or were they taken after they disembarked their helo? Did they have mechanical problems? Strange, I didn't think that the Korps Mariniers had their own helos - I thought they were all in the Koninklijke Marine.

MARSOF perhaps? We'll find out later perhaps - but it is interesting. Would three US Marines allow themselves to be taken prisoner? ROE? Lots of questions ... lots of ugly.

---

UPDATE: Because in that part of the world Americans are not seen as Dutch and the other way around --- and our traditions perhaps --- when a US helo crew goes down and are surrounded by hostile forces, I think this is the more likely outcome.

BTW Navy helo types, bring enough ammo or just "2 in the pouch, one in the M9"?

Hosea 8:7

For they sow the wind And they reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads; It yields no grain. Should it yield, strangers would swallow it up.

The findings of a Fleet Forces Command investigation into the controversial XO Movie Night videos made and broadcast aboard the carrier Enterprise from 2005 to 2007 will be announced Thursday afternoon.

The command announced that Adm. John Harvey will meet with reporters at Naval Station Norfolk beginning at 4 p.m. Thursday to “announce the actions being taken to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.”
...
The Fleet Forces investigation looked into “all aspects” of the production of the videos, made from October 2005 to December 2007, to include the actions of senior officers who knew of the videos and what they did or didn’t do about them, the command said.

The targets of the investigation have not been named.
...
If Honors’ written statement to investigators is correct, at least one other admiral could be in that group: the former commander of Strike Force Training Atlantic during Honors’ tour as Enterprise XO, Rear Adm. Richard O’Hanlon, who stepped down Feb. 25 as commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic.

In addition, a source close to the investigation told Navy Times that the probe widened to include much lower-ranking officers ... This group includes the staff judge advocates, public affairs officers and chaplains who were assigned to Enterprise from 2005 to 2007, and possibly others.

Diversity Thursday

You know I like books and every Christmas recommend with the help of others books to buy for family and friends. As a Navy at war, one would hope that the Navy would recommend books that would inform the warfighter and help him understand their place in the war and a perspective on where others like him have executed their duties. But hey, that's just me.

The Navy has other ideas what Sailors should read in their "extra" time. Who am I to judge?

I'm not sure - but if you have to give out gifts to people you really don't like, this may work for you.

Attitudes Aren't Free Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the Us Armed Forces, is a collection of essays (and a few speeches), most written for this volume, on the themes of religious expression, homosexuality, gender, race, and ethics in the military. The contributors include activists, military members, academics, and other experts.

Attitudes Aren’t Free does not promote one view on these contentious issues but rather allows the writers to advocate for their diverse positions with thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments. This volume offers a framework for critical thought and candid discussions about important social policy issues in the military.

FORWARD
Men and women in the uniforms of our armed services share many things in common, but none more important than their love of country and pride of being an American Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine. Although we may wear different insignia, perform different jobs, and observe different customs, when it comes to the job of defending our nation, the diversity of our missions becomes a fundamental source of our great power.

Make no mistake, diversity is a hallmark of the modern US armed forces, not just in terms of our mission elements, but also within the composition of every unit. However, the journey to get where we are today didn’t happen overnight, and reflecting back on our history, we overcame many challenges along the way. If we’ve learned anything about warfare from our earliest experiences back in 1776, end strengths, budget allocations, or technological innovation is never enough to fully maximize our military capabilities in war or peace.

The authors have put out other things from their perch together at the USAFA. Nice guys I'm sure - but really. What a strange world they live in.

You can buy it on amazon.com if you want for a few shekels, or just go here and get it for free.

As the friend said who sent this to me wrote; to be fair, it's on the supplemental list, not required of all hands. The thing is, someone wrote a book on the subject of diversity in the U.S. military, which means someone thought people would buy it. By placing this on the reading list, we just encouraged the authors to do a sequel....

Ungh. Impacting morale ... my morale.

The war comes to Frankfurt

The amazing thing is that this has not happened sooner.

Two men including a US soldier have been shot dead at Frankfurt airport, German media reported.

The gunman, believed to be from Kosovo, opened fire on a bus containing US troops in front of Terminal 2.

The bus driver and a soldier were killed, according to the German news channel N-TV. Two others, thought to be soldiers, were seriously hurt.

The shooting happened at 3.20pm local time. "It all appears to have taken place on the bus," said a police spokesman, Jürgen Linker. It was too early to discuss the gunman's possible motives, he said.

The US Army Europe said it had no immediate information on the incident but was looking into it.

I can hear my Serbian friends right now; "That is Albanian for 'you're welcome.' "

Keeping an Eye on the Long Game: Part XXXV

Rand is,

An exhaustive study of Chinese military sources reveals that a future Chinese air force campaign would, under most likely scenarios, seriously test the United States and its allies in a conflict, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

The study, "Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth: Chinese Air Force Employment Concepts in the 21st Century," finds that China poses a serious threat if it implements the concepts described in its military publications in combination with the new capabilities it is acquiring — such as its recently unveiled stealth fighter.

"Just 10 years ago China's air force was an antiquated service equipped almost exclusively with weapons based on 1950s-era Soviet designs and operated by personnel with questionable training," said Roger Cliff, the study's lead author and a China specialist at RAND. "Today, it appears to be on its way to becoming a modern, highly capable air force for decades to come."

Don't poo poo; ponder. Where did they get this idea?

Citing research gleaned from Chinese military sources, the authors find that Chinese military analysts are focusing on developing specific, practical concepts for its air forces. For example, recognizing the superiority of potential adversaries, such as the United States, in air-to-air combat, Chinese military publications emphasize attacking an enemy air force on the ground before it can take off.

We've warned about these facts both here and on Midrats.

Other key findings:

* If the United States intervenes in a conflict between mainland China and Taiwan, it should expect attacks on its forces and facilities in the western Pacific, including those in Japan.
* U.S. forces should expect their information systems to be subjected to network intrusions or denial-of-service attacks.
* During a conflict with China, the U.S. armed forces should prepare to deal with electronic jamming on a scale larger than it has seen in any conflict since the end of the Cold War.

Varsity football folks. Get moving. History won't wait.

A no-fly zone in Libya?

Hey, someone should blog about that.

Whodathunk - I did over at USNIBlog.

The United States Naval Institute & the Junior Officer

As my readers know, though I do take guest posts now and then - they are rare. They are rare for a reason. They have to be on something that someone else can opine better than I can. Ahem.

Well, here is a guest post worthy of your time and outlines well one of the major issues we are looking at WRT the USNI Mission Statement.

Below is a guest post from LCDR Benjamin “BJ” Armstrong, USN. He is an active duty naval helicopter pilot who is currently serving as an MH-60S Detachment Officer-in-Charge. He is a USNI member whose articles have appeared in Proceedings, Naval History and the USNI Blog. He has been a panelist on USNI panels at the 2010 Joint Warfighting Conference as well as the 2010 USNI Naval History Conference. BJ, over to you.

In 2007 I was sitting in the Navy Lodge in Key West with my father when I learned that my first article for Proceedings had been accepted. Taking a break from our fly fishing, and getting ready for a night on Duval Street, I checked my e-mail and discovered an exciting acceptance note from then editor Bob Timberg for my “Nobody asked me but…” op-ed entitled “Who Needs Warfighting Secrets From the Boardroom?” We celebrated that night (not that we weren’t about to anyway).

I was a Lieutenant and I sent Proceedings my manuscript with the hope that they would be interested because my subject was specific, the Navy’s graduate education policy that provided no funding for my pursuit of a master’s degree in military history but plenty of opportunities to earn a business degree for free. I had personal experience, research, and knowledge of the subject matter. However, it was a subject that in no way advocated for global seapower. It had no direct connection to America’s national security and economic prosperity. Instead, it was a specific professional subject that I thought would contribute to the advancement of our service’s professional, literary, and scientific understanding. I felt that naval officers would better understand their profession through greater historical education than through mastery of lean six sigma business modeling.

Being a part of the professional discussion was inspiring and I have continued to send manuscripts to USNI’s journals. Some have been accepted and published, others have been returned with comment from the Editorial Board or the Editors. Most of them have had a rather narrow focus, which is probably to be expected from a Lieutenant who became a Lieutenant Commander. Some of the subjects have included the use of navy helicopters in counter-terror manhunting (a professional subject), sleep deprivation and safety in the surface fleet (a scientific subject), and honoring the history of the Chief’s Mess (a literary subject). One of the reasons I felt comfortable as a junior officer sending my manuscripts to USNI was because I was aware of what has been termed “the open forum.”

The mission of the Institute made it clear that there was no single point of view that would be accepted. Any article that made a contribution to the discussion, on any professional subject, would be considered for publication.

My personal experience as a USNI author and speaker is part of my concern over the proposed change to the mission of the United States Naval Institute. I did not send my articles to the Lexington Institute, or the Heritage Foundation, or the Center for New American Security. Those organizations are advocates of specific policy. They deal in big ticket subjects of strategy and policy, which is important, but they often ignore tactical, operational, and deckplate questions that help to improve the sea services professionally. The direction that the proposed “new mission” takes the Naval Institute is toward these advocacy organizations and away from being our service’s pre-eminent professional organization, an organization which was founded by a handful of officers who were trying to improve themselves as warriors and leaders.

In the past when I’ve spoken with junior officers, and encouraged them to write for Proceedings, I have emphasized the fact that they can and should start small. I tell them that the Naval Institute is interested in all subjects related to the Sea Services or the maritime environment, a statement backed up by the current mission statement. However, none of that will be true if the Naval Institute becomes an advocacy and lobbying group instead of the pre-eminent professional organization.

If the purpose of the Institute is to “advocate” larger policy solutions I will no longer be able to recommend that junior officers write for the journals. I wonder if I will also be less likely to write for them myself, since my areas of research and experience are not shipbuilding and acquisition or the development of large fleets.

Junior Officers were the lifeblood of the organization in the early decades of the Naval Institute. It is easy for retired senior officers to believe that their experience gives them greater insight than the junior officers who might write for Proceedings. The great research conducted by Editorial Board Member LCDR Claude Berube on the subject of Junior Officer submission and publication in Proceedings suggests otherwise. He has concluded that involvement of JO’s and mid-grade officers has been key to successful innovation in the naval service. He wrote that:

Just as it is important that the wisdom of today’s leadership foster the dialogue and provide guidance for more junior personnel, it is equally important that junior and mid-grade officers and sailors see the Navy, Marine Corps and the world around them, to identify trends, recognize emerging challenges, and to challenge the status quo itself respectfully, logically, and in an articulate and persuasive manner.

In the first 45 years of the publication of Proceedings, Lieutenants and Lieutenant Commanders wrote half of all the articles published and won the majority of prizes in the Institute’s essay contests. Members have already noticed that recent decades have seen a distinct change in those numbers. By changing the mission of the Naval Institute, moving away from the wide net that is cast by the current mission and focusing narrowly on advocacy for global seapower and larger policy issues, the Institute will continue to lose the participation of the sea services’ junior officers. If history is to be our guide, sacrificing these officers in order to gain greater participation of think tankers, academics, politicians and retired senior officers is likely to have a negative impact on the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard’s ability to develop innovative solutions to the challenges of the 21st century.

I find the apparent disregard for the contribution of Junior Officers and Sailors, and movement away from them in the proposed new mission, to be a serious cause for concern. It alone may be reason enough to support the mission as it stands and vote against the change.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.

As a final note - though no one has complained about these posts - I am sure some of you just don't think this is important. I would offer to you that it is - it is critical. If Norman Polmar and Dr. London among the many others think it is important - then you owe it to yourself to ponder. Then ponder again.

---

UPDATE: Steeljaw Scribe has two posts on the subject that I highly recommend. Here and here.