Shutdown Theater Day 8

The Shutdown Theater of Fascism continues.


From Ace

“Gestapo” is their word, not mine.

Vaillancourt was one of thousands of people who found themselves in a national park as the federal government shutdown went into effect on Oct. 1. For many hours her tour group, which included senior citizen visitors from Japan, Australia, Canada and the United States, were locked in a Yellowstone National Park hotel under armed guard.The tourists were treated harshly by armed park employees, she said, so much so that some of the foreign tourists with limited English skills thought they were under arrest.

The bus stopped along a road when a large herd of bison passed nearby, and seniors filed out to take photos. Almost immediately, an armed ranger came by and ordered them to get back in, saying they couldn’t “recreate.” The tour guide, who had paid a $300 fee the day before to bring the group into the park, argued that the seniors weren’t “recreating,” just taking photos.

“She responded and said, ‘Sir, you are recreating,’ and her tone became very aggressive,” Vaillancourt said.

The seniors quickly filed back onboard and the bus went to the Old Faithful Inn, the park’s premier lodge located adjacent to the park’s most famous site, Old Faithful geyser. That was as close as they could get to the famous site —barricades were erected around Old Faithful, and the seniors were locked inside the hotel, where armed rangers stayed at the door.

Continue reading Yellowstone Park Rangers Use “Gestapo” Tactics to Harrass Seniors on Tour Bus.

And this from the Washington Times, also via Ace

California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Times, that read in part: “The President made it clear that there should be no disruption in pay and allowances for the men and women serving in uniform and their families. Contrary to this assertion … the Department of Defense, through careless legal interpretation, is now mistakenly denying payments of Death Gratuity and other benefits to the families of those who make the ultimate sacrifice. Since DoD has determined that it cannot provide this benefit, I am at a loss about why DoD did not take a more active role in notifying Congress and insisting that changes in law occur immediately.”
Republicans in Congress announced they’re drafting legislation to immediately restore the payment to families and hope it could be put to a vote as early as Wednesday.

This is America?


Leadership: Generals, PC, and Strategy

English: Senior American military officials of...

English: Senior American military officials of World War II. Seated are (from left to right) Gens. , George S. Patton, , Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, , and ; standing are (from left to right) Gens. Ralph F. Stearley, , , , and . colon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let’s start with Blackfive and a critique of the Army’s leadership.

“The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.” – Sun Tzu, 6th Century B.C.

LTC Daniel L. Davis, in a piece that he authored for the Armed Forces Journal (link: subscription needed), goes after a decade long track record of wasted resources and gigantic judgement lapses and is calling for a purge like GEN Marshall did in order to win WWII. The Washington Times’ “Inside the Ring” picks up on it:

“The U.S. Army’s generals, as a group, have lost the ability to effectively function at the high level required of those upon whom we place the responsibility for safeguarding our nation,” Army Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis stated in an article published online by Armed Forces Journal.

In Col. Davis‘ view, senior leaders have produced a 20-year record of organizational, acquisitional and strategic failures.
To compound the problem, the Army is preparing to reorganize the service into smaller and less-capable forces, as threats become more unpredictable and adversaries more dangerous.

Col. Davis said the purge of generals should be similar to what occurred 70 years ago when Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall found an officer corps ill-suited for winning World War II. He forced scores of generals into retirement…”

Read more:


– See more at:

BLACKFIVE: Armed Forces Journal Author (Army LTC): “Purge the Generals!”.

And along the same lines but having to do with more parts

A Cheaper, Stronger Army

Recently, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel held a somber press conference at the Pentagon in which he discussed the results of the Strategic Choices Management Review he ordered several months prior. In light of shrinking budgets, he said the so-called SCMR offered two choices: bad and worse. The ‘bad’ was reduced capacity; the ‘worse,’ reduced capability. In the former the Army would fall from its 2010 high of 570,000 to as low as 380,000 and in the latter the U.S. military “could find its equipment and weapons systems…less effective against more technologically advanced adversaries.” Fortunately, even in this era of constrained budgets, these two dire options are not the only ones available: there is a way to reform and reorganize the U.S. military within the constraints of smaller budgets that not only doesn’t put national security at risk, but actually increases combat power, especially that of the army.

It seems counterintuitive to suggest that the U.S. could produce a smaller force while increasing its fighting strength. Yet for the reasons outlined in this article that is precisely what we argue. In order to facilitate the most effective and efficient Department of Defense, we contend it is beneficial to first revise the National Military Strategy. This revision will more effectively support the president’s overall National Security Strategy. Reorienting the DoD into a set of forces that are actually joint in execution will strengthen the American military and thus enhance overall national security.

In support of the president’s four strategic objectives, we recommend a complimentary four-point military strategy:

· defend the American homeland, vital national interests, and friendly nations;

· maintain open access to the global lines of communication in the domains of air, land, sea, space and cyber;

· prevent any state, or combinations of states (or nonstate actors) from dominating by force of arms the European-Asian land mass or allied nations;

· support peaceful relations between nations and foster greater understanding among international militaries.

In combination with the standing powers given the executive and legislative branches of our government in the Constitution, this strategy provides great flexibility in ensuring the defense and security of the United States. There is a notable characteristic of this strategy, however, that distinguishes it from the current version: it does not advocate using military power to compel other peoples, races or religions to conform to Western views and governing structures.

To better advance American prosperity in the future, we must jettison the flawed notion that our nation’s security interests can be achieved by carrying out lengthy military occupations of foreign lands and attempting to transform their cultures into something palatable to Western tastes.

We contend the United States should respond with emphatic, even vicious military action when conditions warrant. But for the benefit of our nation and in pursuit of a more peaceful international order, we believe it is time to rebalance the application of military force to more closely align with American values and demonstrate appropriate strategic restraint. That means having a strategy that accepts war as a last resort and not a policy option of first choice. Such a reorientation is not a retreat from world affairs, but rather a return to the values and strengths that made us a great nation.

Continue Reading A Cheaper, Stronger Army, Hat tip to A Cheaper, Stronger Army? | Notes On Liberty.

I can hear some of my readers now saying that I’ve never commanded the infantry in battle. You’re right, I haven’t but I have run jobs for the last 35 years some small and some pretty large and complex. What I’ve learned is three fold.

  1. A lot more is promised than accomplished.
  2. A lot more gets done when nobody care who gets the credit. and this

3. The Mission must be defined and paramount to everything

One thing that troubles me is that it appears the Army and Marine Corps believe they will forever be a constabulary force fighting guerrilla or counter-insurgency (whatever the catchphrase of the week is) operations. The problem is two fold.

  1. Our record fighting these sucks. i think it’s because we don’t fight to win, especially on the operational level but there may well be other reasons as well.
  2. It looks to me like a conventional heavy division can do an OK job of counter-insurgency but, if we configure for counter-insurgency, what do we do for a heavy division? I think the reason we haven’t fought a state on state war lately is because we are powerful enough to deter it. I think that’s resources well spent.

From what I see in open sources, I think Colonel Davis has a point, but there is a piece missing. General Marshal was selected by General Fox Connor, anybody seen him running around lately.

And while we’re in the neighborhood. I don’t completely agree with the author here but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t think and talk about it.

Oh Help. Oh Help. Oh Help. Disordered Ramblings on Martial Prowess.

 The world´s most magnificent budget got run out of Nam …The same  highly-trained martial codpiece got run out of Lebanon with 241 Marines dead,  run out of Mogadishu by teenagers with armed pickup trucks, performed a comedy  routine trying to rescue hostages in Tehran, lost in Iraq, and works diligently  at losing in Afghanistan. Not too much bang for the buck, I´d say, or for the  doe either.

Meantime China is doing exactly the same thing to the uSSA that it did to the old USSR. — jtl, 419

By Fred Reed via Fred on Everything

As a student  of abnormal psychology, or psychology that ought to be abnormal but lamentably  is not, I´m listening to PJ O´Rourke´s Peace  Kills,  on American foreign policy. I  enjoy exploring  the isolation wards of the human asylum. It is like  visiting remote Pacific islands to see the savages gnashing their teeth and  waving the obsidian swords of dimwit ideology: O´Rourke, Rachel Madow,  Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Al and Jesse, and the garbage plains of feminism.   From  this I derive a pleasant sense of the hopelessness of man.

I think PJ  needs his head examined, as regards military policy anyway, which is pretty much  the only foreign policy we have.

If I may  digress slightly: In defense of O´Rourke I will say that he is known as an  amiable drunk, and in fact so describes himself. This is to be commended. In a  PC world, it shows independence of spirit. Further, a man who relies on  sobriety to be able to think is an intellectual weakling. The condition is overrated. Should PJ one day  lurch through the door of Tom´s Bar, I´ll buy. I do not refuse fellowship  merely because its possessor´s politics will likely lead to mass murder,  re-runs of Oprah, and local destsruction of the solar system. Tom has some  tables large enough for two to fit beneath.

Like so many  of our parlor ferocities at National Reivew (PJ is not one of these, being an actual overseas correspondent), he  believes that America is an international Charles Atlas, a motingator,  astonishous, gleaming military monster such as the world has never seen (and  didn´t ask to, but never mind). This is because he equates military expenditure  with martial capacity. He refers proudly to the size of the military budget. He doesn´t seem to realize that in matters of size an implant may be involved.

He doesn´t  understand the American military—that it is in the position of one of those  toothy late-Cretaceous humongo-lizards, Tyrano-whatsit or something, uneasily  eyeing a thin film of ice forming on the home swamp. “Something is happening,”  thinks the big fellow. “I wonder what? Will I like it? Can  dinosaurs wear sweaters?”

In the case  of Orourkasaurus oenophagus, I am taxonomically puzzled. There were two types  of dinosaur, the saurischians and the ornithiscians. It has to do with their  pelvises, which mercifully we will not contemplate in the case of PJ. (I told you this would be disordered.) He seems  to be a hybrid, perhaps due to a decline in morals in the later stages of  extinction. We see the same thing in the US. His instincts are saurian, which  is normal in foreign policy as usually practiced, but he is cerebrally  ornithiscian. So is the Pentagon, which is why this matters.

See, you  gotta understand the ice on the swamp, and what it means. When you need a  sweater, you need a sweater, and not some other thing. The Pentagon has the  wrong things. It is glorious and glitters and has many buttons and screens. It  is just the wrong military.

Keep reading at Oh Help. Oh Help. Oh Help. Disordered Ramblings on Martial Prowess..

And back to Blackfive for some more wisdom you won’t find in civilian life other than here and a few other web sites

No one cares what the hell you do in your bedroom.

More news in the Daily Outrage Department.  Evidently, in the US Air Force, you may be REQUIRED to render an opinion when your commander asks you a question regarding this issue and how you feel about it.  WARNING:  This is testable and there is a wrong answer.

“She said, ‘Sgt. Monk, I need to know if you can, as my first sergeant, if you can see discrimination if somebody says that they don’t agree with homosexual marriage,’” he said. “I refused to answer the question.”

Monk said to answer would have put him in a legal predicament.

“And as a matter of conscience I could not answer the question the way the commander wanted me to,” he said.

At that point, Monk said that perhaps it would be best if he went on leave. The commander agreed.

“I was essentially fired for not validating my commander’s position on having an opinion about homosexual marriage,” he said.

Top two reasons Deebow doesn’t care about gay marriage:  (1–That ain’t the definition of the word, but if you want to say “BLUE” means both “BLUE” and “RED” well then get down with your bad self, it won’t be me who looks like a fool, I know what the definition of marriage is, and it ain’t gonna affect the one I am in and (2–At this point, I am willing to concede the point only so the entire gay community, including the military gay community will SHHHHUUUUUTTTT  THHHEEEEE  FUUU**&*^%^%&*&%$( UUUUUUUUPPPPP ABOUT IT! […]

But those that are in their military and are investing more in their identity as “GAY” instead putting the emphasis on “FIGHTER PILOT”, “COMMANDER” or “FIRST SERGEANT” need to get out.  We can’t use you, there too much important work to be done for the country to worry about what someone might think about what you like to do with others in the dark.  The country needs you worrying about flight hours, maintaining security of nuclear weapons, dropping bombs on bad dudes and maintaining aircraft. –

– See more at:

Yes, Yes, at least a thousand times Yes. And it’s damned good advice for the rest of us as well. STFU

One caveat, if you know me, you know that I consider the American soldier and his small unit leaders to be the best the world has ever seen, he deserves far better leadership than we have been giving him.

Let’s start thinking and talking about these things

ps I promise we will get back to Clausewitz soon

Bookworm Room » Chuck Hagel — a litmus test for Republican weakness and stupidity

Pointy-haired Boss

Pointy-haired Boss (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yes, Yes, and Yes. I have nothing to add to what is said here.

Hagel’s been confirmed.  As Sean Hannity keeps saying, “Elections have consequences.”

The Democrats did what Republicans never do, which is to march in lockstep formation behind their leader even when he chose as Secretary of Defense a man with an IQ that doesn’t exceed the double digits, and a management history that proves his role model was the Pointy Haired Boss from the Dilbert cartoons.

We shouldn’t be surprised.  The Democrats’ world outlook is collectivist, and they behave collectively.  They have given their fealty to Obama.  If he ordered them to drink Jim JonesKool-Aid, jump off a cliff, or retire from politics en masse, they would obey.  It doesn’t speak well of them that they subordinate their Creator-given gifts to party politics,  but it does make them effective.

And then we have Republicans.

Herding cats

The problem with Republicans is that they’re individualists.  Trying to get them to work together, even when pulling apart means sure death, is about as easy as herding cats.  What’s worse is that they’re not cool, sophisticated, self-assured cats.  Instead, they’re the dumb cats that John Hawkins describes:

Can you teach a cat to sit? To roll over? To come when it’s called? No, because cats are stupid. Granted, dogs are stupid, too, but they’re probably on the same level as your two-year old. A cat is closer in intelligence to a geranium — if a geranium had claws and a certain feral cunning it could use to track, torment, and kill smaller plants for its own amusement.

Hawkins had his tongue firmly in cheek when he wrote that.  As for me, when I apply those words to the flailing Republicans in Washington, my tongue is nowhere near my cheek.  Republican politicians are dumb.  Really, really dumb.

Continue reading Bookworm Room » Chuck Hagel — a litmus test for Republican weakness and stupidity.

%d bloggers like this: