This should come as no surprise...

So...while running the old blog roads this morning I came across this at Blackfive's joint.

Read it. And the first things that popped in my mind were: (a) Welcome to the true nature of Democracy and (b) You have to have your Bullshit meter's adjusted when you start down the road to liberty and freedom for all.

What in the hell am I talking about? Easy...our Main Stream Media, our Political Candidates, Health Industry, our wonderful Corporate Culture, our Ethnic Cultures, our Educational System, Government, and yes...even our Religions all have a healthy set of BS streaming out constantly in attempt to influence the masses. Part of that whole Bill of Rights stuff is that people will spout off anything they want to…yeah yeah…I know there are limits. And if they have any sort of evidence (valid or not) they will say it, print it, carve it, or if they have to resort to crude telepathic attempts.

So in short, any countries that may be experiencing "regime change", a change of government to democracy (or a republic which is what we have here in America), or any country thinking about doing the previous mentioned things...should be warned to stop believing everything you read, hear, or see. It is a necessary defense mechanism…one could even say critical.

A democracy (uh my bad...a republic) comes at a terrible price to its citizens. They have to be smart enough to be a party to their own government and pay attention to the world around them or that democracy can and will be used against them. I am not surprised that the Muslim world is having a hard time at this...hell...we still believe the crap we are told and we have been at this a lot longer...

CL

Why I Wouldn't have ordered the "liberation" of Iraq...still

I will keep this brief...even though I could go on for a while. Basically I ran across this when I was out and about. In it Uncle Jimbo let's fly his opinions on the war in Iraq. Many of which quite understandable. I respect those and can accept them as points in his arguments. In response (to no one in particular...just out of my head really) I offer a couple quick reasons why I would have not...and still would not have ordered the "liberation" of Iraq.

A little preface/given if I will...not currently nor have I ever been privy to 100% of the data that our leaders were or are. So that of course colors everything I am about to say. And secondly I believe that the use of home spun propaganda was in good supply in our own media (like we have ever gone to war without having to spin up propaganda to get a basically isolationist American population to sign on for war).

On the question of WMD: There have yet been no substantial WMD intel found in Iraq. That of course means the WMD argument was a bust. I do not believe that the CIA or any other agency had a 100%...or even 50% certainty that there were current (as of 2002) WMD equipment, intel, or plans in Iraq. There were just as many opponents of the Administration's WMD evidence as there were proponents. The experts were lined up on both sides. I believe that before a country goes to war on the WMD line that some proof be available. Turns out there were none. There is none.

The media and propaganda machine not only spun it up...but they attacked anyone (so did the Administration) who had a counter opinion. In the end...no WMD. That of course means that considering the fact that there was a large number of people (and one day if I get time I might just find the sources...but I do have a good memory and remember the debate at the time...hell it was only 3 years ago)...a large number of people who disagreed with the validity of the WMD case, then we should have by all means held up and did a better job. In the course of life when there is as much evidence for as there is against...people should get more evidence one way or the other.

The lack of WMD means there was no imminent threat, which takes us to the next topic.

On the subject of al Qaeda linkage: Every country and intelligence organization has ties or meetings with all kinds of groups and organizations. It is known (and should be common) that the US through the CIA is responsible for the training, equipping, and funding of al Qaeda. We started that monster...and continued to talk and deal with them until not too long ago. There was no clear connection between the Ba'athist Iraqi government and the al Qaeda (name given to a very lose organization by the US by the way) groups in Afghanistan. We know that the little evidence of a meeting was circumstantial at best...and would have required more evidence to even be used in a US court of law...much less on the state of world opinion.

Just like the WMD case, this one was very shaky. And so what if they did have some meetings with Ba'athist Intel Operatives...how does that make the Iraqi government any different the US? Intel organizations do it all the time. If other countries went to war each time a CIA operative was seen talking to some one...we would be at war 24/7 with everyone from Kenya to the French.

In the end there are al Qaeda (and other Islamic Fascist organizations) world wide, talking to all kinds of people. Just saying that there were al Qaeda personnel training in northern Iraq is not enough to call for a full scale invasion. There are probably al Qaeda training camps in Washington State as I write this. Can we expect an invasion from England any time soon? Lord knows the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers only spent 3 or so years training in the US...guess that makes us guilty of supporting terrorist doesn't it?

On the subject of liberation and democracy: This is by far the worst part of this whole ordeal. Not only is it not our place to spread democracy to those that don't ask for it...it is the very thing that has gotten us in the situation we are in now. There are two facts that are lost on our current Administration (and by default the Neo-Con handlers running it). First is the fact that Islamic Fundamentalist believe that all that is western culture and the democratic rule of law are in direct conflict with the Koran...and as such must be stamped out. Second is the fact that we are spreading our culture at a rate equal to the global ration of rabbits having sex.

We are the reason they are fighting us. We are invading their respective territory not only by spreading democracy...but by our corporate culture of greed and excess. There is a KFC across the street from the Sphinx in Cairo. The fact that this is lost on our leaders is beyond me. Spreading Democracy as the cure for Islamic Fascism is like pouring gas on a fire.

And when it comes to "liberating" the people of Iraq from the yoke of oppression at the hands of the Ba'athist Government...all I can say is that I don't think that is a valid reason to risk American lives on the scale that we have. There are an entire world of human rights violations out there. Are we going to go door to door now "liberating" everyone? I think not. It's a good excuse when you need one to change public opinion...but it doesn't hold up under the "hypocrite" meter.

Basically I disagree with the strategy of the Bush Administration in dealing with this threat. Just as with the hammer and screw driver analogy...I think they use the wrong tools. Had the wrong plan. I am proud of our men and women who believe in their hearts, and have sacrificed so much for others...for Iraqi nationals. But in the end I still do not believe that a single American life is worth a thousand Iraqis...and I make no apologies for that. Our men and women in uniform are precious resources that should be spent much wisely.

In my opinion (askew as already stated), a strategic plan that provides the support to those elements in Iraq that want liberation and democracy; that provies emplacement of human intelligence operatives to find the WMD; and quick reaction combat power that can be placed to destroy those found; and the destruction of all known and discovered Islamic Fighter training facilities...all without the massive invasion and foot print of the US...would have been better.

Special Forces are the units of choice for most of that, could have very easily been augmented by the conventional forces as needed. The CIA could have gotten the proof and then that intelligence could have been used to destroy any WMD found. But all of the nation building and back lash from the world and our traditional European allies could have been avoided.

I did do my best to be brief...guess I can stop babbling now.

CL

P.S. Uncle Jimbo's point about "waving the stick" and showing the mullahs and other followers of Islam what they could face is really lost on me. I believe that we neither did that effectively or did it without cost.

Non-lethal Weaponry...the dangers of.

Mr. Van Steenwyk makes a very could tactical point on the concept of Non-lethal Weaponry in combat , on his blog. I feel it is a great understanding of the dangers at the Tactical level. Unfortunately it doesn't speak about an equally important concept...the Strategic level.

For the last decade or so America has been playing the role of World Policeman. That is great I suppose, even though I disagree with it and the policies that created it, but that job comes with some serious dangers. What is dangerous about being the World's Policemen? Simple...it places a very heavy burden on military personnel who's core training is that of destruction...by asking them (nay...commanding them) to be something they are not trained to do.

Currently (in my understanding) in Iraq there are a number of different groups opposed to the American Occupation and eventual (I said it...but the term eventual does not pin-point a time now does it...) Iraqi government and self-determination (and responsibility for internal security). Among those groups of course are Islamic Militants in the form of insurgents, former ba'athist party combatants, and the criminal element. Now without getting into the discussion about criminals and terrorist it is safe to say that not everyone in Iraq is causing violence in the name of some perversion of Islam. Some are just doing what they are doing for different reasons. And it is a very heavy burden to ask troops that are trained for combat to spend their days not knowing if they are going to face "terrorist", actual guerilla insurgents bent on something more political, Islamic fanatics bent on a religious Jihad, a common criminal gang, or something as simple as a father bent on good ol' fashioned vengeance in his dead child's honor.

And what does this have to do with Non-Lethal Weaponry? The point is that you can take Mr. Van Steenwyk's tactical discussion and add that of a more strategic nature when you look at what it means to bring in combat troops to play policemen or peace keeper. On a global level you can not do that effectively with troops who are trained to be lethal weaponry. Yep...I made the comparison that combat arms military personnel are lethal weaponry and that policemen are not. The point is that it is very difficult to be both. Placing and Infantry Company is like placing an assault weapon. Its job is to destroy. Placing a policeman is like placing a bean-bag system. Yes...it hurts...and yes sometimes it can kill...but do not expect it to. And the difference is not nearly that subtle. An Infantry Company will do what ever is expected (or defined as its mission) but it is designed to close and destroy with a truly combatant enemy. A policeman is designed to protect public safety and to deter crime by chasing down and arresting criminals. The two are not the same. And no amount of semantics will make them.

I guess that is really my point. What kind of Strategic message are we sending in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Horn of Africa by sending combat troops to combat what we have told the entire world is a bunch of "terrorist", thugs, and criminals? Are we strategically using Non-lethal or Lethal weaponry? Should we be using a different approach?

CL

P.S. I am in no way trying to take anything away from the superb job that our combat arms units are doing conducting these types of "police" type missions...those known as OTW. But as my 11th Grade drafting teacher tried to instill in my class "You don't use a screw driver to drive in a nail...you use a hammer".

Yeah...it's baseball season again.

No...not talking about major league baseball...I think everyone knows how I really feel deep down inside about those over paid "expletive deleted". No...I am talking about Little League...Dixie Youth...you know...real baseball.

Real baseball? Yep...it only counts if (a) you are not getting paid for it and (b) it is a hobby of the young. Yes, I understand the word "young" is subjective. Such is life.

On to business. My son started this season of baseball on a pretty good team. Okay to be fair it's his second team for the year. The first one really didn't work out...not enough kids...not enough representation from the age brackets...yadda yadda. Fast forward to team 2.

This makes his 4th year playing baseball. And yes...he has finally started catching the ball...and even though we are wrestling with that inevitable "scared of the ball" bit...we are dealing. He is hitting (sometimes) and staying in the batter's box (all the time). But that is not the point. The point of this little exhaling of thought is really two points.

First point (for those keeping score) is that there should be a game/sport exam that all parents, grand parents, and friends of the family should have to take in order to sit in the stands and watch/cheer-on their little loved one as they play a sport or game. Why such a drastic thought you ask? Simple...there is this old guy (yes...I said old...he's grand parent age...at least mid-50's...but more importantly he looks old) who won't stop throwing suggestions from his never ending baseball ignorance bag. His comments prove minute by minute, ney...second by second that he has no idea what the rules, tactics, strategies, or governing principles are of baseball. Yet he continues to open his mouth and speak. Not advocating that someone should shut him up...just advocating that he be forced to take a test to be there in the first place.

See the problem is that these kids are trying to learn a game. One that will provide years of wonderful lessons about humans and their stupid hang ups. It is a good thing to play organized sports. But these kids don't need grandpa yelling at them to do things that are in clear violation of the rules, strategies, and principles of the game (yes...I said that a second time...I know how to keep score too). It is pretty counter productive to those lessons to have someone they are supposed to trust screaming at them about what their next move should be. Not to mention the fact that it annoys the crap out of me. And my previous attempts (count them...4) to find some where to sit where this grand father won't be within my ear shot have all fallen upon the alter of failure.

The moral of the story? If you don't know how to play a game (and just saying you played in elementary school doesn't count) then do everyone including your little baseball gnome a favor and keep your mouth shut. A good rule of thumb is that if you were hit by the ball once and stopped playing...you should stay quiet. If you were the last kid picked to play in the neighborhood...yeah...keep quiet. And if you never played before...then perhaps you should just shut up too. Just some helpful hints that will make your little baseball player's experience and the other parents, grand parents, and friends of the families time better at the old baseball diamond.

Second issue (yes...I am getting to the last point...but if you are already tired of reading...you can take a break when ever you feel like it...no one will notice) is that this is supposed to be a time of learning. Learning the game. That means letting the kids play. It doesn't men trying to win. Let me say this one more time...sure it's great if they do win...but it is not the point. Okay...we can all agree around 13 or 14 years old they should know the game and play to win...all the time. But at 8 or 9 it's about learning skills. Nothing really bothers me more about my son's (and by definition our) baseball experience now than the insanity of trying to win a game being played by kids who can barely hit the ball, throw the ball, or catch the ball. Now is the time to learn how to do those things in a fun and exciting environment, not try to win non-existing championships that will be forgotten by the time school starts again.

So here are my top five things that coaches of kids under 13 should not do:
1. Do not teach kids to call time out in T-Ball. It's a cheese ball tactic that they can't use after T-Ball. It teaches them nothing but the ability to exploit-for-the-win with a rule designed around their age bracket. It does not teach them how to play the game.
2. Do not teach kids to have that home-run up swing in T-Ball. All it does is set them up for failure when some other little kid is pitching at them. Sure they will have that I-Just-Shot-Up-Today's-Steroid-Dose swing...but they won't hit anything and will learn some pretty bad habits.
3. Take a couple practices where you actually teach/drill the what ifs. If this happens...do this. If there are two runners on...2 outs...the play is at 1st base. Simple. That is baseball. Don't coach a game unless you can teach the kids how to play it. They need to know what to do with the ball…themselves, not the I'm-Going-To-Look-At-My-Daddy-For-The-Answer game plan.
4. Do not put the same kids at the same positions all the time. Let every player play every position. Kids are not specializing at a position at 10 years old. And since you shouldn't be worried about winning...who cares if the little kid at Short Stop can actually get a grounder and make that A-Rod throw to 1st base. He needs to see the game from every where.

...and lastly

Number 5. Never...ever...ever...put a kid on the mound to pitch if he can't do it. I don't mean if he is a normal 9 year old learning to pitch. I mean...100 pitches later and he still hasn't put a strike over the plate. All that does is set the kid up for failure. And like last-night's game he gets the wonderful feeling of walking every batter he sees for 45 minutes. Not good for a kid...not good at all. In fact one should not be surprised when he spends the rest of the game crying at 3rd base...

Just some random baseball related rants.

CL

The attack of the 1st Bn, 3rd Anal Regiment has overtaken me

...I have surrendered. My valiant defense at the ramparts didn't even last 12 hours...before the white flag was raised. Not only did I organize the minor linkings I have on the right --> but I also put them in alphabetical order.

I am so ashamed...I wonder if my therapist is availabe today...

CL

The difference a proper noun can make.

So...once again this will be a small (promise) off the cuff little missive about something that bugs me every time I see it. So...without further a dew or gilding of the lily...

Basically I read a lot about the US Military. And as such I come across the phrase a good number of times each walk-a-bout that I do: "...soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines". Now...as you can see the word "Marines" is capitalized...as a proper noun. As it should. Marines are special...they place themselves in the line of fire and danger constantly...both at war and in training. They deserve the respect afforded to them by the use of a proper noun. And of course Marines are a certain group of people...and as such fall in that line of proper nounage (I know…it’s not a real word…but I grew up in the 80’s…cut me some slack.

What is a proper noun you ask? Well boys and girls a proper noun is a noun which names a specific person place or thing. And of course there in lies our little over sight.

See...Marines are a specific type of service man/woman. And as such get the proper noun afforded that specific-ness. But Soldiers, Airmen, or Sailors are no less specific. They are and can be defined by that title alone. And of course if there are any other follow on titles...they should be applied.

So basically I am saying that any time Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, or Marines are written about...all four of those titles should be capitalized. All the time...regardless of what the writing is about.

I have nothing against Marines...I feel just like Blackfive on that subject :

"Many of my Marine friends are surprised by my satisfaction that we will have a Marine as Chairman. It might have to do with my Airborne career more than anything else. The Army's Airborne (Paratroopers) and the Marine Corps have a lot in common. The Marines mostly are light infantry who attack from the sea - with the Navy delivering and supporting them. The Airborne are light infantry that attack from the sky - with the Air Force delivering and supporting them.

Once both hit the ground, they are essentially dependent on light weapons, their physical prowess and speed, and their ability to think on their feet and adapt to the situation.

The Airborne and the Marines know that all hell will break loose upon landing. The Paratroopers depend upon the tenet of LGOPs. "Little Groups of Paratroopers" - because every combat jump is a mess (paratroopers can be scattered during a drop in good weather over North Carolina) - who band together on the drop zone, regardless of unit or function, and achieve an objective. 'All the way!'"

Couldn't have said it better...

Essentially the members of the Armed Services all deserve our respect...and should all be spoken of equally with that respect. A Soldier, an Airman, a Sailor, and a Marine are all specific types of people. Specific citizens in this country of ours. And with that specific-ness should come the respect of a proper name...for all of them.

CL

Some minor link updating on the right...

For those interested (and we all know everyone is...even if they say theiy're not), I have just now updated the section called "My Sort of Daily Reads". What else do you expect me to do while I wait for a few odd mailboxes to be moved from a tempory mail server to the final resting place of clustery goodness? See...I knew you see it my way.

Yes...you'll find a lot more milblogs or blogs by currently deployed Soldiers and Marines than anyone else. Why? Not sure. Call it this insane need to keep up on things as they are where the boots hit the ground. Might be this gnawing emotional baggage I have for not being on the wall with them...but that is a discussion for another time and place...one I am really not ready to talk about. Wrote a song about it that I won't let any one hear either...so don't think that you're special or anything. Somethings I just don't talk much about...I know...strange for those that know me.

Anyway...back on point...I have this over whelmingly anal need to alphabetize and categorize that section...which I am sure I will eventually capitulate to.

Anyway...hop a link or two...I read them as I can...I get something out of them and I am sure everyone else will come back with something of value for the journey.

CL

Why must it always be left or right...liberal or conservative?

No research...no links...nothing of the sort. Mainly because I have this nagging in the back of my head that is forcing me to get this out fast before it becomes the initial cell structure that can lead to brain cancer.

What the hell am I babbling about? Simple...if I read or hear or see one more person, persons, or organization utter the words "Liberal", "Left", "Right", or "Conservative" again I think I might do something rash that may place me in a small cell with a guy named Bubba...and we are going to have to find out if I really can control my little world.

I really don't know how to explain that tingling in the back of my head as the hair on my neck raises up...slowly pressing outward into that little world around me...each time I hear this crap. I just want to go out and be violent. That same sort of way I get when I hear bag pipes...not pretty.

I don't understand what is wrong with this country. We are so split on everything it makes my head hurt. Every thing has been drawn down to a "Us vs. Them" political thing. We don't even know what we are arguing about...just that we aren't them...so we have to oppose it. And the facts are folks that everything is up for partisan debate. Nothing seems so logical...so common sense...so secure that we can just agree on it cause it's the right thing to do. That statement alone would probably bring forth the dreaded filibuster. Which is got to be the dumbest, counter productive thing in the world.

There is no solution at the end of this...nothing earth shattering. Just a normal American guy who is tired of the nonsense. It's self serving thing...like the perfect super conductor...the perfect electric motor...it feeds off of itself and never stops. And more importantly it solves nothing.

So I ask you...why bother? If anyone in TV land reading this is a Democrat...do me a favor...really sit down and look at each issues with an open mind...express yourself not as a member of some political cult...but as a citizen of this country. And for the rest of you...who by the laws of the two party system...have to be Republicans...how about you do the same. Maybe if we all stop take steps to the left or the right...and instead just freaking walk forward we can get some crap done around here.

Nope...I don't feel better...I still have this urge to do violence to all those in the blue and red states.

CL

Another half in and out situation...

If you have a moment (a second moment since you are already here reading this...) run by the New York Daily News for a little missive about MSG (Master Sergeant) Micheal Warren and his issues with his previous employer IBM.

Of course I came across this...at Mustang 23's Assumption of Command ...I think.

Basically the story is pretty cut and dry...Reservist is called up (too many times for old Blue) and IBM trumps up some reason to fire him...and the courts uphold the law(s) that govern that sort of thing.

No...this post is not a "great job" Master Sgt. This is more of a "hmmmm". Of course a law is a law...and anyone around me around the Shiavo days knows that I am 100% in favor of upholding the laws as they are at the time. This is a more of a question about this particular law and set of laws.

Question you say? How can "you" not be in favor of a law that protects a Service Man's (or woman's) civilian job if they are called up to serve or be deployed? That is the problem...I don't really know the answer to that. There are a lot of thoughts, parameters and variables in my head when think about the quintessential part time service man/woman. And there-in-lies the rub. I can't seem to find a answer in my head.

On one hand I believe that men and women who want to serve should serve. And if they can serve part time...they should be able to. That is great...no problems...wait...there is a problem. Or problems rather. Nothing good comes from anything done half in and half out. I am always reminded of Mr. Miyagi (ala Karate Kid) reminding us that if you do something half way you will get squished like a grape. The point is that there are too many people involved...and touched by the part time service men or women. The civilian world is but one.

The problems I see are few I guess...mainly with the concepts of readiness, civilian impact, family impact, etc. Don't get me wrong...members of the Reserves and National Guard are doing great...of course most of them had a 6 month train up before hand. And all of them have faced various issues because of their half in/out situation. Everything from family readiness to pay issues.

I guess I am just asking what is the point of part time? I thought about it once I got out. Sure...the 256th Infantry Brigade (Mech) of the Louisiana National Guard knew I was getting out before I even ETS'd...sure they called. I answered the phone and even went down to the armory here in good old Lake Chuck...but in the end I just didn't see how being a part time Soldier was a good thing. Yeah...there were days at Ft. Bragg where we just sat in the motor pool all day...but for every day I spent in garrison I was training, supporting some one else, deployed, or just off doing something more constructive. Compare that to one weekend a month and two weeks a year and I just couldn't see how anyone could train.

Not to mention the impact it has on your life...you aren't a civilian, but you are not "locked and cocked on the rocks" every morning at 6:30 am for morning PT (Physical Training) either. So essentially you are neither and both at the same time. You can't do your thing, and you have to tell your employer that they don't really have your undivided attention. But then again neither does your Reserve or Guard unit...they only get you a few hours a month. Not much you can do in that time.

How is that fair for either one. Your employer can't count on you strategically...they are not sure where you are going to be or if you are going to be available. Not sure how your service will affect their bottom line...and that is the point...their bottom line. You can't be counted on. I am sure that I am generalizing here...but they are valid points in my head. Employers want to make money, get their goals and missions accomplished...and part time service men and women put serious doubts on that.

And how does that effect your family...they are in and out just as much. In times of peace they just have to put up with you using your vacation time for drill...and working around that weekend a month. In times such as this they can't live cause they don't know if your unit is getting called up or not. At least a full time family knows from day to day what to expect...and they are 100% in the mode of military family. Not the same for part timers.

Ramblings huh? Yeah...that is what I was thinking to. I don't envy part timers...full time was easier I think. I knew what my life was going to be like...100%. I might not have known where I was jumping when the call came at 0-dark-30...but I knew that I was probably going to get that call...and so did my wife. We were all ready for that fact of life...all the time. And I spent every day, of every week training for that call...so that I could do my job at the moment it was called for...not 6 months later...and not after I walked into my boss's office and said I was called up and couldn't come to work for 18 months...and by the way here is the documentation on the $1.5 million dollar network migration project we are in the middle of...hope it all works out for you...see you in a couple years.

Sure...generalities...but I think it is safe to say that that is about right. Who knows I might do some research on it. But for now I think I can answer with certainty now that I am not in favor of the current system...the current Reserve and National Guard setup. On the grounds that anything done half-ass is not being done right...and does more harm than good...and requires more work than it should. And is not really giving any one what they need all the time.

The thought that the current Reserve and National Guard system should be removed entirely has popped in my head. I wonder if we should even have part-timers. If we should even go down that route. Perhaps we should just have the active components...with an additional four year IIR (Individual Ready Reserve) requirment after that. And that IIR commmitment should include the direct assignment to a local handling command that meets 3 times a week to do PT so that everyone can stay in shape. And meet four weekends a year to stay current on weapon and basic skills. And just accept the fact that no matter how you cut it no one in a Reserve or part-time status will be able to deploy and be really usefull without that 6 month train-up time...
CL

P.S. Of course I left out the insane resentment that is found between the Active Components and the Reserve Components/National Guard. Or the training and procedural differences. The different organizations. The different budgets. And the perverse chains of commands...

It's my Firewall's fault.

This is by far one of those "My Big ol' Soap Box" moments if ever there was one. So I figured I would try to share, get it off my head, out of my system...all of those other therapeutic things that maybe will help me find closure. Nah...I am only kidding my self.

Two quick precursors if you will bear them. First...What is a Firewall? Well a firewall is a computer that has two network interface cards and is used to control, filter, isolate...or otherwise protect one network (usually termed Inside) from the dangers and outlaws of another network (termed Outside). Now what makes a firewall great is that you can control traffic. Why it's called a Firewall is beyond me...mainly because I haven't gotten around to researching why we named it that. It has nothing to do with Fire...or a Wall...reminds me of Grape Nuts cereal...no grapes...no nuts. But as usual I digress. A firewall is more like a combination of traffic cop and gatekeeper (and not the gatekeeper from Ghostbusters either...sorry). It allows you to specify who can pass through using what road (actually called a port...but same difference).

The second thing to keep in mind is that in the world of networks...these roads (ports) are vital to the flow of computing traffic. And as such firewalls are often times the only way to control that...or to let those programs and their users (that is you guys out there in TV land) do the things they want to.

So what's the problem? Well...pure and simple. It seems that the first thing any tech support person out in world has to say is to blame my firewall for their program or service not working. And of course it is never my firewall, it always something else. And to be fair it is not "always" their programs problem...sometimes it is something else entirely like a problem Microsoft created or some very aggressive anti-virus platform.

Since everyone is always blaming my firewall for their problems anyway...I figured I would get in the game:

1. Why did the chicken cross the road? Because my firewall was blocking port 81 and the chicken had to go across the street to the internet cafe to read it's email.

2. What is the hold up on getting lasting peace in the Middle East? Well it seems that my firewall is angry for not being included in the peace talks and has blocked all traffic coming from the Gaza Strip so that no one can talk to anyone.

3. How did Bush get elected again...and why did Kerry lose? Simple...my firewall config was changed mysteriously to block all ports that the Kerry campaign was using.

4. Why are gas prices out of hand? Apparently my firewall was blackmailed by OPEC agents and has become a pawn in their evil scheme to control oil prices. I have heard that the photos are pretty damaging to my firewall's reputation.

5. How can I get my kids off of drugs? Don't ask me...ask my firewall...it's its fault that you kid is on crack...not me. It would appear that my firewall recently joined a drug cartel out of Columbia and is working on getting enough money to build that new compund in the fields.

I think you get the point. I could go on...and on...and on with more lame humor but the point remands...I am pretty much sick and tired of some minimum wage level 1 tech at some vendor's tech support line telling me that there is nothing wrong with their product and that there is only one real answer to my problem...it's my firewall...and I should turn it off so that we can double check.

Okay...that really didn't help as much as I thought it did...I guess I will have to break down and call my shrink. Wait...I don't have one anymore...he kicked me out after I spent my entire hour in his office straightening his office wall art and other losely organized items. Of course now all metal objects are with metal objects...but that is besides the point.

CL

P.S. I will have you know that I resisted the urge to include current events in my list of things that my Firewall is responsible for. I just couldn't think of a tactful or tasteful way to blame my firewall for IEDs, the Taliban, al Qeda, the rise of Islamic facist, the Christian Right, Atheist, the Neo Conservative movement, intellectually challenged Liberals (pretty much all of them), armor shortages in Iraq, the irresponsible concept of using a glorified jeep in combat against RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenaades)...on purpose (read HMMWV), Rusmfield's haircut and in ability to listen or be a team player, AIDs, starving children, poverty, cancer, and the most important...why we can't seem to find Bin Laden. But I really tried. I promise.

More on women in combat...

Here is another look at the recent debate of women in combat. And with that I am going to just spill the old beans...my opinion on the subject:

They shouldn't be there. Yep...I said it...women should not be in combat (not that I think anyone should...but I haven't unlocked that whole peace on Earth puzzle yet...but I will definitely let you know when I do). And of course by a little Boolean Algebra...by definition they shouldn't be assigned or attached to any MOS (military occupational specialty) that places them in a deployable unit. Notice I said deployable...that defines the possible actions of the unit by their deployment, not by a category that attempts to define the likelihood of combat.

First off I say that not because I do not think that a woman is capable. The mythical "woman" is indeed capable. There are women who have the ability to do anything a man can (short of those specific physical gender related things that they are not equipped for of course)...I am of course reminded of a platoon mate my wife had to had the highest APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test) score in their basic training company...and this person was a woman (my understanding was that she wasn't too "womanly" in appearance...but I wasn't there). There are women who have acquitted themselves very well in combat so far. But that is not the point. What "superwoman" can do...and what the average woman can do is the point.

A few givens if I may (which threaten to change this from just a debate about women in combat to one that attempts to raise the standard of those in the military). First we must accept that men and women are different...different at the physical level...the way our muscles are built, the way our hormone systems work, adrenaline is used, joints move, etc. Second a standard must be set based on the needs of dismounted infantry combat. That standard should be set in place regardless of age or gender. Next, under no circumstances do I believe that anyone should be allowed to serve if they do not meet those standards (male or female) and regardless of MOS. And lastly...when I use the word "average" I mean just that...the average recruit...not super women...or that 18 year old track star.

Now that the givens are out of the way...the reasons that I do not believe that women should be in combat...or allowed to be in deployable units are simple...and have nothing to do with the "women are to be protected", and "they could be captured and raped...yadda yadda" business. Nor does it have to do with the issues of sex and the wondering hormones of the males. What they have to do with is a "persons" ability to perform 100% of the tasks that are placed before them...or could be placed before them according to mission or just dumb as luck (read we didn't think we were in a bad part of town...where bad guys could shoot us). And the disruption to the entire unit in the face of socially constructed agendas that have no place in the military (but more on that in a bit). Simple right?


Yep. To me it is. The standards must be defined. And as such the "average" must be assessed against that standard. In the movie "GI Jane" (trite and feminine agenda ridden if ever there was an example)...there is this great scene where the instructor is standing there at the door while our little heroine is taking a shower. Banter about her being naked is exchange...and then we get to the meat of the potato(e)...she asks him how he got his Silver Star. His response with the best debate killer...and expander yet heard (and totally missed by the way). He tells her by pulling a 200+ pound man and his equipment from a burning tank. Priceless...that was it...the standard.

Currently there are very few (I do recognize that they are out there) women who could do this...throw a ground man in complete combat gear over their shoulder and carry him to safety. That's it. The standard*.

Second is the concept of social experimentation...you can fix culture over night. And just adding some female latrines (bathrooms for those not subject to 200 years of French based nomenclature the Army has endured since Valley Forge)...changing the uniform...and sensitivity training. And my personal favorite: "From now on we can't curse in any cadence or Jody calls while we run up and down Ardennes St."

The Military is not a place for such experiments. It has job and a culture it's own. One that does not move at the same rate of change as the world around it. And as such you can't just toss in women into combat MOSs or deployable units and mix them around. You end up with things that you really don't want...pregnancy, prostitution, rape, sexual harassment. And you can't just wave the hand and say it (a)doesn't happen or (b)you can command it to stop.

Quick story...as I was ETS’ing (Estimated Time of Separation...the act of leaving military service) I was moved to PAC (personnel) for a few months. In that time my battalion went to JRTC (Joint Readiness Training Center) where I did all kinds of things that will wait cause they are not the point. The point of the story is that all of the units in the Brigade ALOC (not sure if that is the right acronym...but it's basic the Brigades command and supply location in the field)...all the units had to sent people to be on the ORF (Quick Reaction Force)...or a sort of guard for the Brigade. Well the second night we were in the field at JRTC a female and male soldier on the QRF were busted having sex in an empty water buffalo (think big ass water tank on wheels). Yes...they climbed in and were having sex inside of it.

That does not include my wife's stories of the 4 couples (that makes 8 soldiers for those mathematically challenged) who busted in her basic training company...even in the face of being on separate floors.

The gist of those stories is clear...the way we are doing things now is wrong. The social engineering is not working. Mixed units don't work. Separate units don't work. Nothing we are doing is working. And that's even before the first shots are fired or the first rounds of indirect fire are incoming.

The answer to this fiasco (oh...you knew I had one) is that it is decision making time. Either we make the decision that a combat and deployable military mens men only. Extreme? Sure. But it fixes the problem. No women getting pregnant. No prostitution. No units being disrupted. No resentment between male and female standards. Just no women...no problem.

Then there is plan B of course...the full integration of women at all levels. It would start of course with the setting of an equal...non-forgiving standard for all males and females regardless of age. In order to qualify for military service...or maintain service a woman would have to meet that qualification. The next step is the complete integration of women at the lowest level. Showering with me, shitting with men, shaving with me, eating with men, sleeping with me, wear the same uniform as men, get a hair cut like men, carry the same gear as men...just like one of the guys (Aht...don't say it...it is a man's world...get over it...suck it up and drive on). Oh yeah...and a single sexually motivated infraction from anyone would be immediate separation from service.

I like Plan B of course. Once again...no problem. The women who want to serve will. The men who can keep their minds off their penises will. Everyone else will go home. A true zero tolerance policy would ensure that.

Do I think women can do it? Yep. Do I think men can coexist with women in a world where everyone meets the standards...yes...provided a woman pulls her weight.

Of course none of that will happen...but what they hey...I said it...and that is all that counts.

CL

* Yes…did that on a couple occasions. It was one of the most enjoyable morning of PT I had…getting up and putting all of my equipment on…drawing my “pig” (M-60) and having Fireman Carry based relays all morning. Of course I was the biggest guy in my section…so I was guaranteed to only have to pick up someone lighter than me.