Frank’s blog

How did Major Hasan slip though the cracks, get a bad OER and still get promoted?  Here's how, the Army board is centralized, only so many officers can be selected for promotion, each person is looked at and scored, once all eligible are scored they are put in a ranking by the points they received, let's say the Army can promote 500 people, this means that the 500 top ranked officers would be promoted.  WRONG!!!! After the line is drawn at 500 affirmitive action is applied,  Let's say for instance persons of middle eastern background are found to be under represented in the top 500, some unlucky officer drops to 501, and the first person of middle eastern descent is brought up into the 500, therefore a substandard officer can be promoted over a performing officer.  I actually know of an underperforming officer in one of my units that had two bad OER's, what was refered to as below center mass (below average), my battalion commander was pretty damned frustrated when she was promoted to Captian and a center mass officer was non-select (basically ending any hope for a career), why did she get picked up? affirmitive action (female and black).  This is not the Army's fault, the Army is a civilian run institution (congress and the executive).  The Army has no choice in this matter. The shame in this is an ineffective officer is going to lead our son's and daughters into war, and it's our fault because we don't want to offend a group, we would rather promote an idiot ineffective leader and brag about how diverse we are.  That way we can all sit in the comfort of our homes and feel good about ourselves, with all the race baiting that is going on is it any wonder? (disagree with the president and your raciast, if a white police officer responds to a dispatch call and arrest a black professor he is profiling and acting stupidly). Ask any officer in the military what it is like to deal with a congressional inquiry.  I can see where concern is more compounded by a president that is reaching out to the muslim world, vilifing us, stating Islam is peaceful, not to jump to conclusions.  The military is simply following the commander in chief's lead (seriously he is the commander of our military and sets the tone for the military leadership).  Major Hasan was charged with pre-meditated murder today, those charges are not enough.  This was clearly an act of radical Islamic idealogy and is the deadlist terriorist attack since 9/11.  I am pretty positive the Major's seniors counseled him on his short comings, they gave him a bad OER, the system worked against them.  Having a mustache in your DA photo puts you at more risk for promotion than a minority having a bad OER if the Army has to meet a quota for diversity.  And the fact is the Army has to meet quota's.. 

The Commnder in Chief fired a General and placed the one he wanted in Afghanistan, 40+K Troops were requested in August by his hand picked man.  It is now almost November and still no decision made.  This month has been the deadlist on record for US troops in that country since the beginning of the war, today the Taliban hit UN quarters in Kabul.  The Commander in Chief's foot dragging is killing soldiers and now US Civilians.  A book almost required for every officer in the military to read and own is the Army Officers Guide,  The Commander in Chief being the highest military officer needs to follow the same guidelines expected of his officers in the field (this is called leadership by example), page 37 of the Army Officer Guide (43rd edition) covers the courage to act. 

Following is an excerpt from this section:  "The officer who is a commander must be the one to order:  FOLLOW ME! OR FIRE! OR GO!  He or she must have the courage to act at the very instant action is needed.  The commander will realize the hazards, the potential losses, and will measure the danger of defeat as well as the fruits of victory.  The is no room here for a Charlie Brown or any other Timid Soul.  Lost would be the brilliant thinker with faint heart who reaches a perfect decision tommorrow on a critical situation, or fleeting opportunity, demanding action today.  These are the situations which separate the best officers from those not quite up to the highest standards.  Now we may put in place the keystone of the conclusions which we have sought to develop in the inquistitive, searching, questioning minds of subordinates, associates, and superior officers who are also rating and reviewing officers.  Without this final quality there may be defeat instead of victory, failure instead of success, despite an officer's integrity and professional competence.  There must be courage to act decivively at the most favorable time, as well as in a sound manner.  We reach the final conclusion which the officer should establish as his or her image:  "When things need doing, this officer gets them done right_and fast!" "

I call on everyone to encourage the Commander in Chief to lead by example and follow those same guidelines as expected of his subordinate officers.  Either send the Troops or end this thing, but quit the foot dragging and make a decision, accepting the results of his actions either negative or positive.  He is putting troops already in the box (that's inside the warzone for civilians) in a terrible positions as indicated by recent developments in the country of Afghanistan and this is unacceptable behavior from a officer and definitetly not up to the high standards we demand of our military officers.

A recent quote from the Commander in Chief to the marines:  "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary," Obama said. "And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt."

Where is the backup?

One last thought from some mothers of our soldiers:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hoslLoEvZE

Although I have only a BS in Liberal Arts as a degree, I was only one course away from having a degree in American History, my focus was American Military history.  I was an A student in my history courses with an overall GPA of 3.93, so I know somewhat what I'm talking about (the only thing I didn't gain was the socialistic doctrine and beliefs that our colleges and educational institutions ram down students throats).  Without a bunch of citations and a formal paper I'm going to offer some highlights, I can almost pick any war we have been involved in and support this view.  We won the Revolutionary war because the British focused on the cities and could not control the rural and small town areas.  They would go out into the countryside and fight and no sooner then they left we would reoccupy the areas.  Then in gueralla type attacks would hit the British.  Over and over again in my courses I learned the following to be true...If you don't hold the ground you will lose whether or not you have the ability to win the battle.  One must occupy with sufficient forces and hold the ground.  Where am I going with this?  I'm disturbed....really disturbed, like bad dream disturbed over developments this last weekend and since January and statements not made public to my knowlege until this weekend.  The following is an article about this weekends tragic event, I have added comments in red and highlighted points in bold.  

(AP) — Hundreds of insurgents armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistan border, killing eight U.S. soldiers and capturing more than 20 Afghan security troops in the deadliest assault against U.S. forces in more than a year, military officials said Sunday.

The fierce gunbattle, which erupted at dawn Saturday in the Kamdesh district of mountainous Nuristan province and raged throughout the day, is likely to fuel the debate in Washington over the direction of the troubled eight-year war.

It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American soldiers were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province. we have since pulled out of that outpost and let the Taliban return, I am now left wondering how many more outposts we have pulled out of.  These are outposts our sons gave blood for, I know my son donated some in this same area.  My heart is heavy because some gave their sons to hold this ground.  I can only hope that as we have abandoned these outposts the we have destroyed the infastructure that allows for military use. 

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, plans to shift U.S. troops away from remote outposts that are difficult to defend and move them into more heavily populated areas as part of his new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians.

U.S. troops used artillery, helicopter gunships and airstrikes Saturday to repel the attackers, inflicting "heavy enemy casualties," according to a NATO statement. Fighting persisted in the area Sunday, U.S. and Afghan officials said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. NATO spokesman Brig. Gen. Eric Tremblay said the assailants included a mix of "tribal militias," Taliban and fighters loyal to Sirajudin Haqqani, an al-Qaida-linked militant based in sanctuaries in the tribal areas of Pakistan near the Afghan border.

Afghan authorities said the hostile force included fighters who had been driven out of the Swat Valley of neighboring Pakistan after a Pakistani military offensive there last spring.

"This was a complex attack in a difficult area," U.S. Col. Randy George, the area commander, said in a statement. "Both the U.S. and Afghan soldiers fought bravely together."

Details of the attack remained unclear Sunday and there were conflicting reports of Afghan losses due to poor communications in the area, located just 20 miles (30 kilometers) from the Pakistani border and about 150 miles (230 kilometers) from Kabul.

A NATO statement said the attacks were launched from a mosque and a nearby village on opposite sides of a hill, which included the two outposts — one mostly American position on the summit and another mostly Afghan police garrison on a lower slope.

NATO said eight Americans and two Afghan security troopers were killed.

An Afghan military official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of security issues, said three Afghan soldiers and one policeman had been killed in two days of fighting. He also said at least seven Afghan army soldiers were missing and feared captured.

In addition, provincial police chief Mohammad Qasim Jangulbagh said 15 Afghan policemen had been captured, including the local police chief and his deputy. Jangulbagh estimated that about 300 militants took part in the attack.

"Kamdesh is one of the most dangerous areas of Nuristan province," he said, noting that the area is across the border from parts of Pakistan where al-Qaida-linked militants operate.

Jangulbagh said that after Pakistani forces drove militants from most of the Swat Valley five months ago, militants "received orders to come to Nuristan and destabilize the situation."

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said militants overran both outposts, but U.S. spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias said U.S. troops were holding the outposts Sunday. She also said a roadside bomb killed a U.S. service member southwest of Kabul on Saturday, bringing the U.S. death toll for the month to 15.

The fighting occurred in a region where towering mountains and dense pine forests have long served as a staging area for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters who move freely across the Pakistani frontier.

The region was a key staging area for Arab militants who fought alongside Afghan warriors during the U.S.-backed war against the Soviets in the 1980s and is one of the few parts of South Asia where Muslims follow the hardline Wahhabi sect of Islam.

The weekend fighting was reminiscent of the July 2008 battle of Wanat when an estimated 200 militants stormed an outpost defended by about 70 U.S. and Afghan soldiers, nearly overrunning the position.

Last week, Army Gen. David Petraeus ordered a new investigation into the Wanat fighting due to allegations of mismanagement by senior commanders.

The Wanat fighting convinced U.S. commanders that they should move Western forces away from remote areas where foreigners are unwelcome to more populated parts of the country, closing outposts such as the ones attacked Saturday.  we are not welcome because they are Taliban or harboring Taliban, we must take the fight to the enemy, pulling back into population areas is only defensive, only defending ourselves and the heavy population areas will not win the war it will only succede in prolonging it.

However, the governor of Nuristan, Jamaludin Badar, complained that more — not fewer — Western troops should be sent to the area to stop infiltration from Pakistan.

"We had concerns about security in Kamdesh and we have already asked for extra forces," he told The Associated Press. "If there are fewer security forces, this sort of thing will happen again."

He also complained about a lack of coordination between international forces and Afghans.

___

Associated Press Writers Rahim Faiez and Lori Hinnant in Kabul and Noor Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report.

End of Article

We are giving back ground that we have given blood to gain and pulling back into more populated areas, this will only allow the Taliban to re-populate and operate in the rural areas gving them a place to plan and stage attacks.  We should not have given any areas back, instead we should saturate it with forces and hold the ground and actually provide the civilians with security, this can not be done from sitting in only the populated areas, like any country ours included the populated areas are only a small part of the overall land mass.  When the countryside cannot be controlled the population areas will be lost by hit and run tactics of the same type we used to sustain us during the revolutionary war.  This attack was done from a village and mosque, but we will protect these people.  These villages are harboring the Taliban. We need to stay moral in this, but we also need to do what is necessary to rid these villages of opposing forces. We were tougher on our on countrymen during the civil war (read about Vicksburg, the Union Army laid seige to the city to the point they were eating their pets until the confederate forces gave up and surrendered).

When I deployed to Desert Storm I remember my father in law telling me on a high speed visit off their truck to be careful and I remember responding with a statement that I didn't have anything to worry about because the leadership in the military and the commander in chief were strong and compentent (something to that effect).  I'm not sure in the case of Afghanistan that this is true.

In my opinion 40K troops are not enough, we should saturate this country with forces and march to the coast Sherman style (but with morals) and win this thing.  Our commanders should be candid with what they feel they need to acomplish the mission and our Commander in Chief since he lacks the experiance (hard to gain as a lawyer for ACORN and community organizer) needs to follow the advice of those who know how to fight and win and he needs to set strategic objectives and supply our forces with the resources needed to accomplish them.  One General asked for more troops and was fired, the new General was told to pocket his request for awhile even though he felt he needed more troops, he must be careful with his candor or he too will live a shortened career.  This is not a good environment to be a leader in, one where you can't speak in your area of expertise for fear of reprisal, but given the responsibiltity of the safety of our men and women. 

I'm going to have increasing sleepless nights for a long while, time to break out the brandy again (excellent sleep aide).

And by the way, shame on the main stream press for only now mentioning July 08's event, even Fox let us down on that one.  I didn't sleep for three days during that event.

:

Time to rant again..........over two years ago I talked to Sen Wyden (D) Oregon and his aides about the strategy in Afghanistan and the fact the 24K troops wasn't enough to fight a war considering that we had 35+K troops in Korea to enforce a 50 year ceasefire the year I was there.  They agreed that Afghanistan was not being paid enough attention to and blamed the Bush administrations Iraq policy for draining resources from it and that they believed Afghanistan to be the right war.  Then Sen Barack Obama took the same position.  Within months of taking office now President Obama fired the Afghanistan Commander Gen McKeirnen and replaced him with Gen McCrystel shortly after Gen McKeirnen asked for more troops.  The new general has taken away the close air support as it was used that saved our soldiers lives and went on 60 minutes and stated the increased risk to our men and women is worth it.  The previous use of close air support ensured my son was personnely presented his purple heart instead of the Army presenting it to me at his funeral and allowed him to live and fight another day.  (I personnely say fuck them in every instance that saves one of our lives.....in WWII we bombed German cities to rubble via carpet bombing and never batted an eye, we were of the attitude the civilian population knew what was going on so it was justified, the Afghan population knew Al Quida was being trained on their soil for terror on our soil....and lets not forget we won WWII). We are back to using a strategy that failed in Vietnam of attempting to as President Johnson coined it "win their hearts and minds"  I don't believe sucking Afghanistan dick is going to accomplish winning a war.  Now he has asked for more troops and the whitehouse says it will review it and decide with in 2 weeks once they study what the stratagy for Afghanistan is.  WTF, he has been in office for almost 10 months now and doesn't know what the stratagy is?  God Damn he is the Commander in Chief!!!!!!!!  He doesn't know what his strategy is?  He will trot off to Copenhagen to rally for the Olympics while we have soldiers putting their life on the line daily (casulities every day) while he fucks off and will come to a decision later based on studing what his own strategy is.  Going on the David Letterman show was more important than our soldiers lives?  I think he should of used that time to reflect on what his strategy is for the war in Afghanistan.  I personnely think he should be at the Pentagon discussing whats next?  While the current administration is foot dragging we are losing lives.  I currently have a nephew over there, soon my son will return, many more families have sacrificed their loved ones for in this war.  I don't believe the current administration gives a fuck about Afghanistan, I believe it was just more rehtoric to get elected, if he was serious about the position he took while in the senete he would know what his strategy is by now.  Our men and women deserve it and deserve a decisive commander!!!!!!!!!!!!!    

Now Pelosi says we are un-american, guess it's american if the opposing view kicks the crap out of someone for expresing their views under constitutional  (see previous posts) http://frank002.vox.com/library/post/who-really-is-using-brown-shirt-tactics.html, but if it is their view it is ok, and even pay day laborers to protest http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/08/pelosi-astroturf-healthcare/  hypocrites

Now David Axlerod addresses me as friend, Don't get it, he hasn't sent me a pic of his girl friends titties, that's what my friends do.  Man I'm getting tired of their spam, if we complain and disagree the speaker labels us as un-american, but it is ok to choke up my e-mail with their shit.  And see my previous post, the links are full of shit.

Dear Friend, Anyone that's watched the news in the past few days knows that health insurance reform is a hot topic — and that rumors and scare tactics have only increased as more people engage with the issue. Given a lot of the outrageous claims floating around, it’s time to make sure everyone knows the facts about the security and stability you get with health insurance reform. That’s why we’ve launched a new online resource — WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck — to help you separate fact from fiction and share the truth about health insurance reform. Here's a few of the reality check videos you can find on the site: CEA Chair Christina Romer details how health insurance reform will impact small businesses. Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes tackles a nasty rumor about euthanasia and clearly describes how reform helps families. Matt Flavin, the White House's Director of Veterans and Wounded Warrior Policy, clears the air about Veteran's benefits. Kavita Patel, M.D., a doctor serving in the White House's Office of Public Engagement, explains that health care rationing is happening right now and how reform gives control back to patients and doctors. Bob Kocher, M.D., a doctor serving on the National Economic Council, debunks the myth that health insurance reform will be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. There's more information and a number of online tools you can use to spread the truth among your family, friends and other social networks. Take a look: We knew going into this effort that accomplishing comprehensive health insurance reform wasn't going to be easy. Achieving real change never is. The entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo always use their influence in Washington to try and keep things just as they are. But don't be misled. We know the status quo is unsustainable. If we do nothing, millions more Americans will be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or see their coverage suddenly dropped if they become seriously ill. Out-of-pocket expenses will continue to soar, and more and more families and businesses will be forced to deal with health insurance costs they can’t afford. That's the reality. Americans deserve better. You deserve a health care system that works as well for you as it does for the status quo; one you can depend on — that won't deny you coverage when you need it most or charge you crippling out-of-pocket co-pays. Health insurance reform means guaranteeing the health care security and stability you deserve. President Barack Obama promised he'd bring change to Washington and fix our broken, unsustainable health insurance system. You can help deliver that change. Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck, get the facts and spread the truth. The stakes are just too high to do nothing. Thank you, David David Axelrod Senior Advisor to the President   The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.49/2295 - Release Date: 08/10/09 18:19:00

This link is only half truth,to me the same as lying.  The bill (see previous post http://frank002.vox.com/library/post/health-care-bill-abandons-promises-made-to-veterans.html to read the language) leaves it open for the executive branch to decide at what level you can be taxed depending on your VA category.  It's there in writing, I can read.  They won't deny you care, but leave the option open to tax you for it if you are in the VA system.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/6/?e=10&ref=text5

Pelosi claims conservative protesters are Nazi's, not real, calls them astroturf, the DNC refers to them as right wing extremists, a WA Congressman suggested that they are like Timothy McVeigh, but I have yet to see any reports of them resorting to violence, but the SEIU (associated with the Government funded ACORN organization who is being investigated in numerous states for voter fraud, but yet gets the contract for the upcoming US Census) kicks the shit out of a guy handing out "Don't Tread on Me" bumper stickers. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w&feature=player_embedded

this follows the current administrations justice department dropping charges for voter intimidation by another group

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/30/no-3-at-justice-okd-panther-reversal/?feat=home_cube_position1

Who is being extreme here?  Why aren't Pelosi and others speaking out against this?  Worried about their campain coffers maybe?  Who here is really using brown shirt tactics? These politictions will not speak out against these the tactics used by these groups, but will call someone exercising free speach under the 1st admendment radical.  Can anybody join me in a big hugh "WHAT THE FUCK?"     . 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

Well I say let them explain the difference in what he is saying http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/What-Health-Reform-Means-for-Veterans/ and what is proposed in the bill in the house on health care for vets.  They leave it open for vets to be taxed for their health care through the VA,  feel free to read it for yourself, the full bill and the info stripped out is provided in case someone feels I may be an idiot and took it out of context.  If I'm wrong after you read it explain it to me.  (in my earlier post http://frank002.vox.com/library/post/health-care-bill-abandons-promises-made-to-veterans.html)  Does his above statement on Health Reform mean he will veto the health care bill if the language isn't changed for veterans?  I get the feeling no.  I for one can tell you what government health care means, he is right, if a pill is cheaper than surgery you will get pill instead of surgery, and then you will get a pill to counteract the side affects of the 1st pill, I know, I blew out my shoulder while on active duty and I am service disabled because of it, most of the time use causes pain, when I discussed surgery they said not yet, and prescribed naproxen (Aleve),  The next year doubled the dose and gave me meds so it won't burn a hole in my stomach, the stomach meds are not considered service related (I can't figure out this one) because the effects of the first med is not a service related condition (although it is given for a service related disabling condition) so I pay a copay for the stomach meds.  I will live (in pain), they will save money,  When I decided to use Tri-care for my skin cancer the government rate to the doctor was substantially less then the bill and some of that was passed onto me, when you accept treatment you sign a statement saying anything the insurance doesn't pay you agree to.  The same system is in the health bill as written, once again read it  Feel free to report me please, the email is in the 1st link , I would like a verbal dialog with them, send them my way, I'm itching for it, maybe instead of them responding with spam they will respond with a real answer.  Lets do it over a beer in the rose garden, and not that cheap mass produced shit, invite the press, I want them to explain it in a forum where they answer my questions not submitted approved ones.  The HHS website only allows for contact for pro opinions for Christ sake (and there is talk about re-instituing the fairness doctrine).  I'm not a Limbaugh plant, I'm not a RNC plant,  I'm not even sure what party I belong to anymore.  I personally went to an Austin Tea Party on my own accord, the claims we are plants are BS.  And screw Pelosi, I didn't see swaztikas, racist signs, and I'm not astroturf I'm the real deal, she is insulting.  Forward this to flag@whitehouse.gov feel free.  The only thing they are right about is Facts Are Stubborn Things THEIR FACTS.  I will remind them I have a 1st amendment right to free speech, fought in a war supporting it, served for twenty years supporting it, will exercise it, Some have died to keep it.  I swore the same oath to the Constitution they did, I suggest they read it.