Wednesday, August 19, 2009

One team, one love

Everyone here should know about SoldiersAngles - if not, head on over to Michael Yon's website and see how the right people can make the right thing happen in the right way.

...and do not underestimate how much this means to the British people; those who find out about it.
While at Regensburg hospital with his mom […] right after she arrived here, I told her about some of this. She broke down and couldn't believe "all of those people would do all that for my son."
Mom.

USS HARTFORD incident

Just another underway period.
Tuesday 8

Left Laguire Venezuela at about four o'clock and made six knots all night. Had to stand two sea watches, 8 -12, 4 - 8.

Wednesday 9

Had the four to 8 watch this morning and we were all sent to the doctor and examined this afternoon.

Thursday 10

Worked tonight about two hours from ten to twelve trying to anchor. Arrived at Port of Spain, Trinidad about 9.30 p.m. Was half tired to death.

Friday 11

Got up at 7.00, was detailed as side cleaner and worked all the fore noon and most of the after noon. Got woman tatooed on my right arm.

Saturday 12

Got up 5.00 and scrubbed sides. Had some tatooing done on my right arm a bird, and a heart and dagger.

Sunday 13
Got up and got inspected & went to church. Had liberty today and went all over port of Spain Trinidad and got back at five o'clock. Had inspection today.

Monday 14

Got up at five and did my work. Sat around with Davis (?) In the head almost all the afternoon.

Tuesday 15

Got up and did my work then Arthur and I went up in the head and I shook dice for a cent a shake and then he and I and two others played poker

Wednesday 16

Got up at 6.00 and did my work, worked almost all the forenoon. And shook dice all the afternoon.

Thursday 17

Left Trinidad today at one o'clock for three day sail drill then Ho for Barbadoes and liberty.
Huh? Looks a little strange?

Well, it is amazing the neat stuff you can find out there. In 1901, two Sailors deserted from the USS HARTFORD following a liberty period in Barbados. One of the guys kept a diary that takes you all the way from the period before to when he makes it back to the USA.


The page I found it at is here, but you can read almost an entire transcription on the Ebay page here. There is some funny stuff there, well worth the read.
The journal begins in the first week of January, 1901, aboard the Buffalo. They are transferred to the Hartford and we start sensing what is coming. On January 20 Evans sells his sea boots and other gear he won't be needing. Comes landfall in Barbadoes, Evans and Connelly are paid off and they go on liberty. They buy civilian clothes and sleep on the beach. Their only further contact with the ship was when they were nearly scooped up by four policemen and a party of officers from the Hartford. They are hidden by blacks who have taken them in, but they start starving because their new friends are too poor to sustain them. We start off with Connelly and Evans, than more men are dropped into the narrative with no indication of how they arrived. We have slightly edited a few salty phrases, not so much for the reader, but to pass eBay's decency muster. There is much, much more to the journal than we present here.

Retro Wednesday

Remember, if you have pictures from the 1945 to 1955 timeframe that you think would work for Retro Wednesday, send them in. I only have three more weeks until the well goes dry. The next three weeks come via AT1.

Right after the Korean war ... F9F's making the turn at the break to land at Radford Field as NAS Cubi Point, The ship in the background is the USS Boxer, CV-21, tied up at NS Subic Bay.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

The intercontinental screwdriver

I almost didn't want to blog on this article by Rajiv Chandrasekaran (RC), but after reading RC's article a second time though, there are some things that I just cannot let stand.

First things first. I was a fan of ADM Mullen for only the first few months as CNO, but my confidence in him has done nothing but go south from there. The reasons are as clear as the cost overruns we have in shipbuilding, to what happened at Annapolis during his tenure, to the gallons of ball-sweat produced by the NWU and a few other items in between. The one thing that he has never been held to account for is the fact that he was an obstacle to the progress we made in Iraq in '07 - not a helper. Except for a few mentions in an article or two - he has received a complete pass.

With that said, let's look at a few pull quotes.
Gates and Mullen had been having doubts about McKiernan since the beginning of the year. They regarded him as too languid, too old-school and too removed from Washington. He lacked the charisma and political savvy that Gen. David H. Petraeus brought to the Iraq war.

McKiernan's answers that day were the tipping point for Mullen. Soon after, he discussed the matter with Gates, who had come to the same conclusion.

Mullen traveled to Kabul in April to confront McKiernan. The chairman hoped the commander would opt to save face and retire, but he refused. Not only had he not disobeyed orders, he believed he was doing what Gates and Mullen wanted.

You're going to have to fire me, he told Mullen.
McKiernan was the architect of the operations that are going on right now in Afghanistan. There was nothing old-school he was trying to do after taking over from Gen. McNeill.

Shape, clear, hold, and build? That is all McKiernan. The comprehensive and integrated approach? McKiernan. Trying to get European NATO to turn into the wind? McKiernan and Craddock.

The fact that it wasn't well known in the Pentagon, if RC's reporting is correct, just demonstrates how far removed those in DC were from Afghanistan and the operations there.

McKiernan was first and foremost the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan - that is the NATO head of all forces in Afghanistan. His chain-of-command went through Brussels, not Tampa-Washington. He didn't get responsibility C2-wise all USA forces until late '08 (that belonged to the USA 2-star in charge of the eastern part of AFG, HQ'd in Bagram), and didn't even have a half-functioning USA staff until well into 2QCY09. That is a fact. The "new" structure that created the new 3-star USA command is new and post-McKiernan; but that is C2-long-term structural changes, not what is being done on the ground.

I think that RC does not understand that timeline and that fact is smearing onto his reporting of CJCS and SECDEF because I simply cannot believe that they were not up to speed on that ..... unless the long-knives of the Army of the Potomac were not briefing them correctly.
In February, with a new administration in power, Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, giving McKiernan much -- but not all -- of what he wanted. He planned to send most of the new forces to the south, where Taliban attacks were becoming increasingly frequent and potent.
President Obama did nothing but give the final approval to the plan that was in development for the better part of a year under President Bush. The fact that RC and others continue to mis-report this is starting to give me the impression that it is intentional. This is a fact.
In Washington, doubts about McKiernan were growing among Gates and Mullen and their staffs. McKiernan's plan to integrate civilian and military resources, which Gates had asked him to draw up, did not impress many who read it in the Pentagon. Once again, they faulted McKiernan's perceived deference to NATO. What the document needed, they thought, was sharp thinking from the U.S. military, not a casserole of inputs from a dozen allies.
That plan was mostly written by the US military and is the plan being executed now. At this moment there are changes being made, as it should be, by the new commander in Kabul. These things take 6-mo to a year to effect on the ground. Another fact. In 6 months you will see the operational and strategic change from Gen. McChrystal. Everything you see right now is McKiernan.

As for the NATO smear - the USA gave AFG to NATO in '06. The multi-national stink was forced on McKiernan as most of his staff was non-USA -- again, not by his choice. To grow the USA staffing levels was McKiernan's idea --- one that only started growing fruit the month or so before he was fired.
The day before he left Kabul, McKiernan spoke to several hundred U.S. and NATO troops assembled in the courtyard in front of his office. "I don't want to leave," he told them. "There's work still to be done here. . . . But I'm a soldier and I live in a democracy and I work for political leaders, and when my political leaders tell me it's time to go, I must go."

The line of soldiers waiting to shake his hand continued for 90 minutes.
...and it would go on longer if it could because those who served for/with him know that the public reasons for his firing being said in open source were not reflected on the ground. Also, I know of no person who has worked for/with him that has anything bad to say about his performance professionally or personally.

RCs article has some good in it - but it is not the full and clear, spin-free story.

Somewhere out there is a smart 2LT or ENS (or maybe a 9th Grader) that in a decade or so will be sent on the taxpayer dime to get a PhD in history. He/she will do the digging and interviewing to get the full story. There will be a book on it.

Let me bet you Sid's new sailboat on something --- ADM Mullen will not come out smelling well.

I am sure ADM Mullen is doing the best he can. Sometimes though, people are just wrong. ADM Mullen was wrong about the Iraqi surge, and in this case he is wrong about McKiernan. Also rest assured, if he is sitting down with RC, you are getting just ADM Mullen's side of the story. It doesn't sound like McKiernan sad down with RC.

Classy on his part ... but that leaves the story for others.

Always remember, people are people. In a way, it reads that ADM Mullen did not understand GEN McKiernan because he was not "of DC." By that, we can assume that ADM Mullen is "of DC." That as well should flesh out some of the background here and the quotes.

Is that good or bad? Opinions differ. What I do know though is when a person is "of DC," you need to read carefully, and evaluate critically.
McChrystal's relationship with Mullen has resulted in a flow of personnel that eluded McKiernan. The chairman told McChrystal he could poach whomever he needed from the Joint Staff -- a list that now extends to about two dozen senior officers, including some of the military's best-regarded colonels.
My question to the Chairman - why didn't you give that service to McKiernan? As CJCS, isn't that your job ... through the COCOM (GEN Petraeus)? What stopped you from doing the same for McKiernan that you now offer to McChrystal? That quote above is d@mning to Mullen and the entire Joint Staff if it is even 51% accurate.

Let me leave you with a quote of truth.
The war in Afghanistan, he (McKiernan) said, "will not be decided by any one leader -- military or civilian -- from any one nation."
Yes, Uncle Sam is taking back the keys - but to turn the key we need the help of the international community.

Constantly spitting in the eye of our allies will soon leave us alone. Alone we will not win. Next year we will watch the Dutch and Canadians leave; who will follow?

While we are patting ourselves on the back?

Yes, college ranking are not everything and vary a lot depending on your criteria ... but .... did you see the Forbes 2009 list?

West Point:
---- #1 (yes, of all colleges)
Unites States Air Force Academy:
---- #7
United States Naval Academy:
---- #30

From the 2008 rankings:
  • West Point rose from #6 to #1.
  • USAFA #16 to #7.
  • USNA #36 to #30.
The trend is there.

Do we have our priorities right? If not, why? What is causing such a difference between these three schools with roughly the same mission, size, and student pool?

You can review the methodology here.

Monday, August 17, 2009

The End of Suffering ....

There is more here than the core of what Laura A. Munson wrote about late last month in the NYT.
I’d committed to “The End of Suffering.” I’d finally managed to exile the voices in my head that told me my personal happiness was only as good as my outward success, rooted in things that were often outside my control. I’d seen the insanity of that equation and decided to take responsibility for my own happiness. And I mean all of it.
What in your life is making you suffer? Is your suffering really externally forced on you - or internally determined?

Family, love, career, or finances? I think her overview has an angle of all of them
.
When life’s knocked us around. And our childhood myths reveal themselves to be just that. The truth feels like the biggest sucker-punch of them all: it’s not a spouse or land or a job or money that brings us happiness. Those achievements, those relationships, can enhance our happiness, yes, but happiness has to start from within. Relying on any other equation can be lethal.
To get the full picture though, you need to read it all.

I think Laura has it figured out. Nice.

Hat tip Mrs. Salamander.

I wasted my youth


OK everyone - think back to when you were 16. What was the first thing on your mind? (Skippy, no reason to share, this is a family blog).

Well, I don't know about you - but I feel totally inadequate and worthless now; all thanks to uber-mench Zac Sunderland.

From the LATimes;
Toby Sunderland declared Thursday "Zac Day" in honor of his older brother -- and that it was.

Hundreds of admirers could not wait for Zac Sunderland, 17, to guide his 36-foot vessel into Marina del Rey on Thursday morning, completing a 13-month quest to become the youngest person to sail around the world alone.

So they formed a conspicuous armada that included skiffs, sailboats and yachts, and greeted the mariner offshore. There were lifeguard boats, police boats and news helicopters, which buzzed in a light fog that gave way to sunshine as the shaggy-haired adventurer rounded the breakwater.

Once ashore -- Sunderland's first steps as a figure of sailing lore -- he looked the way he generally has when reaching port: casual, as though he'd just returned from a Sunday cruise.

This despite the magnitude of what he'd accomplished: Fewer than 250 people have sailed solo around the world, according to the American Sailing Assn., whereas more than 300 people climbed Mt. Everest just this year.

Hundreds of people had lined the waterfront at Fisherman's Village. They clapped their hands and shouted, "You did it!" and at one point broke into a chorus of "God Bless America."

To be sure, if sailing is a pastime purely for the wealthy, that was not evident on this historic morning.

Sunderland, who departed Marina del Rey when he was 16 on June 14, 2008, not only broke a record held by Australia's Jesse Martin, who was 18 when he finished in 1999. He became the first person to solo-circumnavigate the planet before turning 18 -- a mark he'll never relinquish.
And yes Anne, he is home schooled.

BZ Zac.

Check out his blog here.