20020823
Says Sergeant Stryker to Wes Dabney:
"We didn't put a gun to [the US Army's] head and force you to buy a clay pigeon. Yeah, we got the A-10 and it's your best friend."
Uhh, no, USAF didn't put the gun to the Army's head. Congress did, in 1947 (Sarge, check your Course 6 materials). They made it against the law for the Army to fly fixed-wing aircraft. The Air Force doesn't want to fly them, either, they aren't glamorous enough. Warthogs will see combat only when the AF is dragged to do so, kicking and screaming. That's why some of them are available in the States to be demonstrated as a next-generation platform for fighting forest fires. So the Army is compelled to try to shoehorn vulnerable helicopters into air support, a role for which they aren't well suited. Helicopters are too easy to bring down; the Army's investments in armor, stealth, and survivability chase diminishing returns, hence "clay pigeon."
The Sarge continues:
"Perhaps your Generals could do some of that General shit and acquire some A-10's of your own. The Air Force has been claiming for years that we don't need them anymore, so maybe your guys can put the squeeze on somebody and get them from us."That would require an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947, to allow the Army to fly fixed-wing for close air support.
I don't claim that idea as my own (maybe I should, read the comments on Wes's post), but I would support it, if only for the value of countering the hubris of the zipper-suited sun gods.
My Frequent Traveler Pack of metallic cards bearing the Bill of Rights is waiting for me to get back Stateside, begging me to drop them ostentatiously into the gray plastic buckets of DIA's security screening lines.
As Glenn would put it, "advantage: Fusilier Pundit!"
20020815
If you've come here from Sergeant Stryker's Daily Briefing, thank you for following the comments and for visiting.
Please see my post here, and then go to Kim du Toit's reply to it, and be sure to follow the link in his post to Chuck Hawks.
20020813
This article describing the Jacksonian political orientation has disturbed the wildlife in my little watershed of the blogosphere. I admit that it has given me fresh insight into my own personal politics and those of people I know. A source of tension in my own beliefs is now explained in a way that I can act on it. Please go read the article and come back.
First the reservations: I stopped watching professional wrestling at age 13 or so, when WIIC-TV stopped running it on Saturday afternoons, decades before the steroids and the stage lighting. Nor have I named an automobile General Lee. And the comparison between NRA-card-carrying Jacksonians and ACLU-card-carrying Jeffersonians seems to ignore Jefferson's passionate insistence upon an armed populace, and today's growing suspicion among gun-owners of the War on Drugs.
There will be more on this, which will have to wait, but just a thought for now: US military institutions are formally apolitical, and stringently so because of our cherished subordination of the military to the civil power. A formal political movement among the uniformed services would be cause for alarm, and is literally illegal.
But every person has his politics, whether he is aware of them or not, and the job of the military ("war," if you ask a Jacksonian) is the continuation of politics by other means. One hypothetical would have mostly Jacksonian enlisted men serving under mostly Jeffersonian commanders, who take orders from mostly Hamiltonian chiefs of staff following policies written by Wilsonian civilians. That is a too-convenient explanation for our experience in Vietnam.
The stresses of armed conflict (and training for conflict), just like the stresses of study at university, can alter one's politics, if they are not already fully formed. This stress and introspection will forge an orientation or a tradition into an articulable and defensible ideology. Would it be preferable on the one hand for our officer promotion system, for example, to profess to be apolitical, but inadvertently, unconsciously groom disproportionate numbers of, say Wilsonians---or on the other hand, to recognize and understand the diversity, where diversity really would matter? Which would be healthier for the military itself and the country at large?
20020810
The Committee of Safety of Massachusetts was a governing body formed to regulate the general Militia in 1774. To put this Militia in good working order (as the verb "regulate" was meant in English of that time), the Committee determined that the Militia needed to be armed with a long gun of the type in common use by the legitimate army of the time---the English Army.
The Committee of Safety directed local manufacture of a long arm that was identical to the Short Land Musket (New Pattern) carried by the English regulars. The Committee clearly intended the militiamen to be armed competitively to the regulars, whether the fight would be side-by-side, or toe-to-toe. Note well, it had a bayonet. A big one.
The original Committee of Safety musket was smoothbore, not rifled. Its range and accuracy were intentionally traded away for an arm that was cheaper and easier to manufacture, and faster to reload, because those specifications agreed with how armies of that day fought. Rifles existed then, and were common among the colonists, but hadn't been adopted broadly by any military at that time.
American militiamen, once our Independence was declared and rebellion was open, shifted away from smoothbore muskets to rifles as their doctrine and tactics evolved from attrition to maneuver. They needed the accuracy and range to use tactics that reduced the exposure of their own forces to fire. Our militiamen traded up from their smoothbore, giving up high volume of fire and commonality with the regulars, to a more-expensive smaller-caliber hunting gun that offered greater range and finer accuracy, but demanded more of its shooter in skill and planning.
Today's regular soldier carries a third-generation sturmgewehr, black gun, or "conscript weapon," a selective fire carbine with detachable box magazines that feed big stacks of small cartridges, each throwing a light bullet with diminished power. The lower-power cartridges allow the carbine to be smaller, lighter, and easier to control (go look at this post on StrategyPage and scroll down to the 14 July item.) This is the poodle-shooter.
The military tactic that calls for this kind of long arm could sacrifice range (from 1000 meters plus to, say, 300) and power (difficult to quantify without geeking out and starting gunnie arguments, so bear with me) in exchange for reduced weight and size of one round of ammunition, reduced recoil, and the ability to discharge multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger.
Colonel Cooper predicted it, and news from SFTT has confirmed it: the tradeoff towards intermediate-cartridge sturmgewehrs has not yielded the expected results. The light 5.56mm bullet don't deliver the same blow to the target as the older, heavier .30 cals do. American soldiers need to place several bullets of 5.56mm to drop a soldier that would have been felled by one bullet from the World War II calibers. The Soviet tradeoff from big-bottle 7.62mm to intermediate 7.62mm was hardly any better. Having to fire more rounds to achieve the same effect negates the logistical advantages of the intermediate cartridge, actually leaving the soldier worse off, because he may have had the opportunity to fire only one round. So if we have truly awakened and are smelling the coffee, our GIs need to trade up, as Kim du Toit recommends.
The principal reason I write this post is to echo numerous eloquent sentiments in the blogosphere, that the war on terrorism will eventually come to us, directly or indirectly, and affect us as individuals otherwise going about our own business. Each of us must examine our vulnerabilities and take such realistic countermeasures as are within reach, rather than let it catch us fat, dumb, and vaguely dissatisfied.
If you agree with that concept, don't hold your breath waiting for the Congress to put the militia in good order. They are preoccupied with erecting Maginot Lines, and hiring people to maintain them.
So you're on your own. You'll have to fit yourself out, with your own money and on whatever guidance you can collect. What would you get, or have you gotten already? If applicable, what would you get first? Please choose better than Uncle Sugar did the last time around.
Constant across all possible solutions, there are competing schools of thought, represented by tradeoff positions in 3-space:
- money. It must be allocated among capital equipment, versus expendables, versus professional services, such as training and modifications. Prepackaged solutions cost more at small scale, but save on time and commonality.
- time. How much will you invest in practice, skill and planning? How long you will look for that ideal component, and wait a professional to integrate it? Will you learn to build, modify, or fix your own? Will you roll your own cartridges?
- network effects, otherwise known as commonality with friend or foe. Can you, or must you, trade with the guy down the block? Can you use what you steal from the opponent? Will liberated gear compel you to fight the way he did?
Like buying a car or a computer, your kit will express your personality, good, bad and indifferent. It will represent your doctrine (or whether you have one). Will you go for the main battle rifles suggested by Kim duToit? Or a Farnam rifle? Or clean up a WWII turn-bolt rifle, become one with it, brew the perfect round for it and so forth, like a Jedi building his own lightsaber?
Choose your requirements and doctrine realistically, and engineer your system to them. And deduct the costs of your system from your adjusted gross income.
(I've been saving this post for some weeks now, chose to publish now while there is even a shred of currency to it.)
20020808
Nude flight attendants are suggested at Harrumph!. Found via The Fat Guy.
Update: After careful consideration, I must turn the thumb down on this idea. It interferes with the concept of discreetly arming flight attendants, discussed here.
Clueless took his down. Now Bill Quick too. Just as I put mine up.
If comments take the fun out of this blog, they come down.
Update: I read the Clueless post where Mr. Den Beste announced that comments weren't fun anymore, and figured that the shutdown was imminent. Bill Quick too. But damned if the comments aren't back up, or never left, at both blogs.
Since the Webmistress at Spleenville put hers up . . .
B1 d- t- k+ s u f i o x- e- l c+
Generate your own Bloggercode. Follow this link for translators too.
What I'm really waiting for, though, is a personality quiz asking which King of the Hilltm character I am. As long as I come up "Boomhauer."
20020805
Bigwig's idea of songs that are impressed on his memory reminds me of my blessing/curse. A song is constantly playing in my head, and it usually pertains in some way to what is going on in the real world outside the head. If the same song plays over and over, trouble is brewing.
Ain't talkin bout love---Van Halen. When I was turned down for a date one time too many.
Good Times, Bad Times---Led Zeppelin. When I had my apartment to myself again.
That's the way it oughta be---another LZ. Motoring with Steve around Wisconsin in summer, canoeing down the Kickapoo River from Sparta.
Nature's Way---don't know the artist. When the ex announced she was moving out, and I agreed that it was a good idea.
Kissing with Confidence---Will Powers. When I Finally Met Hertm.
Karn Evil Nine---Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Reading about the recently released motion picture, The Exorcist.
William Thomas Quick's post on dissatisfaction with the Beretta 92 as the standard US military sidearm continues a long-running debate over its adoption.
For the record, I vote to go back to the .45, or try the .40 S&W. NATO standardization here is less important than for service-rifle cartridges. To observe the Geneva prohibitions against expanding bullets, heed Jeff Cooper's recommendation for the jacketed truncated-cone design.
For those who oppose changing pistols or calibers because of the cost, allow me to offer this fiscally responsible solution:
Let commissioned officers buy their own, and give NCOs an allowance toward theirs. Give them a list, however short or long the DoD wants to make it, of models which are allowed (better yet, which models are prohibited). Whatever sidearm they pick must use Uncle Sam's chosen caliber and loading. Allow them to deduct the cost of purchase, modification, and accessories on their Federal income taxes. Require them to qualify with it every 60 days, or they can't wear it or deploy with it. Require them to wear it once a week, including designated PT runs, reveilles, and retreats.
What is reliable and what is not will get sorted out quickly and communicated efficiently through the ranks. Fitting the sidearm to the hand of the user becomes the user's responsibility, facilitated by a free market---if the Beretta doesn't fit the hand of the 5'0" 95-pound female, she has several single-stack alternatives.
Objections along the lines of "but you'll put an eye out" will not be entertained.
20020801
The hot tub was completed and filled today. A wooden frame encloses a space about 8 by 6 feet, 1 foot deep, with a ledge one feet wide surrounding that, and about 2 feet deeper still. This space is lined with a 20 by 20 foot panel of rubberized vinyl from a discarded fuel bladder.
Add chlorine to about 25 ppm. Wait until the sun goes down and toss in a lightstick for mood lighting. Inspect for solifugids prior to stepping in. Ahhhh.
20020730
. . . in the War on Terrorism, asks Glenn Reynolds, as he comments on a post at Cooped-up.
Rather, what would Sam Kinison do?
How about loading up in a Suburban with Saudi plates and an emblem from the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, trolling the malls for a mutawa, and, gasping for breath, inviting him to help you bust up the wet T-shirt contest at the Sheraton "cuz we need all the hands we can get." Once he's inside the vehicle, overpower him and get him started immediately on his new diet of lots of Ecstasy. Then deliver on the promise of the wet T-shirts---for several days---and return him safely where you found him. Replace his horsewhip with a sex toy.
Find another mall. Repeat.
Correction: Thanks to Instapundit's readers and Kinison fans for catching my spelling error; please accept my apologies.
20020726
It's safe to say that Britney Spears or Boyz'n the Hood (sp?), or their promoters, will not be doing time because somebody popped Ecstasy at one of their concerts. Maybe this is another front in the entertainment industry's campaign to make nice with the bluenoses after Frank Zappa spoke truth to Tipper Gore.
Send a file-swapping raver to jail, protect the industry's big acts, get an anti-drug feather in the industry's cap. Win-win-win!
In spite of the nom de blog I've chosen, other things interest me apart from the ozony tang of burnt smokeless propellant.
For instance, Blogger pointed me to dissatisfaction, which led to bitterness, and anger, associated with the dating scene. Let me submit that dating, courting, finding someone to share your time and happiness with, is an acquired skill set. Some people seem to be born with it, others must teach themselves assiduously, others never quite get the knack. Of these last, some manage to find happiness with a significant other anyway, but statistically the prospects are not good, unless there is some milieu, such as work, church, or some shared intense experience to draw people together who otherwise could not give each other the time of day.
Some (male and female) develop the courting skills to such a fine edge that they put their objects at a disadvantage, and toy with them for amusement in itself, rather than employ dating/courting/NotDatingTM as the means to a wholesome and logical end---finding companionship.
There are wonderful observations about the human condition in these blogs, along with some truly disturbing cries of pain and confusion, some of which I've expressed myself years ago, some very alien, and some self-inflicted.
Something I've thought for years: we need charm schools for men (this is not an invitation for women to suggest curricula, by the way). Unfortunately, such schools would represent the sharing of carefully- (and expensively-)developed competitive trade secrets. There is no incentive for a roué to disclose his technique except in return for another, as if in a guild. This is the main reason dispirited young men who lack these skills conclude that good guys finish last.
20020725
20020724
I once took a long business trip in Latin America, touring customers with the LA business manager. After taking a bus over Los Caracoles, we had a long stop in Mendoza, Argentina, where the friend of our representative there invited us to dine with the entire family. To honor their guests, the father brought out a bottle of wine that was earmarked for such occasions, bought on the year that his first child, a daughter, was born. She was in her teens at this event.
As a redneck Gringo with one year of high-school Spanish, I had difficulty staying with the conversations. But the idea of setting aside a few bottles of wine, to commemorate milestones in a child's upbringing, stuck with me. The story of el patalana stuck with me too.
Our first child enters first grade. Our second is a kindergartner. The boy won't be in school for another year.
Any suggestions?
For some reason, all blogs where a blogchalk is posted show a placeholder for the graphic instead of the graphic itself. The graphic is 800-odd pixels long, which buggers up the tables upon which blogs depend. Spleenville (thanks for the blogroll, Andrea) is now about two miles wide and I have to use the horizontal scroll bar to read it.

