Stephen Guy Hardin's HARDIN REPUBLIC

 

The Latest...!

Just the Headlines

Page Two...

The Op-Ed Page

The Foreign Desk

The Blogasphere

Vid Clips

Stephen Guy Hardin

If Being A Conservative..

Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum

Newt Gingrich

Dr. Ron Paul

Ronald Reagan LIVE

The Republicans

The Libertarians

The TEA Party

Marco Rubio

The Politics of Race

The Obama Follies

The Soros Files

The Georgia Patriot

Carol Lord

Eugenia's Notes of Praise

Glen A. Amos

John Stossel

News Links

Politics and the Military

General ordering probe into report of mind tricks

AP
US, Pakistan commanders in 'candid' talks on war AFP/File – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, seen herein January 2011, and Pakistan's army chief …

By PAULINE JELINEK and LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Pauline Jelinek And Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press – Thu Feb 24, 1:01 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is ordering an investigation into charges that an army unit trained in psychological operations was improperly told to manipulate American senators to get more money and troops for the war.

A senator allegedly targeted said Thursday that he's confident there will be a review of the facts, but played down the idea that he was manipulated.

The staff of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, head of the effort to train Afghan security forces, ordered the information operations unit to compile profiles, voting records and other information on visiting lawmakers to leverage in a campaign to get more assistance, said a story Thursday on Rolling Stone's website. It says the campaign also improperly targeted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and others.

Caldwell's office denied that the command used information operations cell to influence distinguished visitors. But a press statement from Kabul said that the commander of forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus would order a probe "based on the information" in the article.

But the episode underscores how murky the dividing line can be between information operations and public affairs officers — one the Pentagon has wrestled with in recent years as it struggled to win the hearts and minds of populations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said Thursday that the probe will look at the actions taken by Caldwell and his staff and determine whether they were inappropriate or illegal.That distinction, he said, depends on the circumstances.

"It just depends on what it is they are doing. It's the actions not just the assignment," said Lapan. "It all depends on how the information is used. There is no blanket prohibition against having that information provided."

As an example, he said an information operations officer could be asked to look up someone's biography online. He added that Petraeus will announce who the investigating officer will be, but said it does not necessarily have to be someone of the same or higher rank than Caldwell.

The military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" believed their mission on arriving in Afghanistan in November 2009 was to assess the effects of U.S. propaganda on the Taliban and local Afghan population, Rolling Stone said, quoting Lt. Col. Michael Holmes, whom it identified as the leader of the five-man team.

Holmes said they resisted the order to compile information on congressional delegations that were visiting there and think of what information "to plant inside their heads." He said they were subjected to retaliation for resisting.

"My job in psy-ops is to play with people's heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," Holmes is quoted as saying. "When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you're crossing a line."

Those singled out in the campaign included Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Al Franken, D-Minn., and Carl Levin, D-Mich. Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., of the House Appropriations Committee; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts, the story said, without identifying the international figures by name.

Levin pointed out Thursday that he has long been in favor of building up Afghan forces.

"For years, I have strongly and repeatedly advocated for building up Afghan military capability because I believe only the Afghans can truly secure their nation's future," Levin said in a statement. "I have never needed any convincing on this point. Quite the opposite, my efforts have been aimed at convincing others of the need for larger, more capable Afghan security forces, and that we and NATO should send more trainers to Afghanistan, rather than more combat troops."


Military Caught in Middle of Political Brawl Over Social Issues

Published September 20, 2010 FoxNews.com

 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, left, talks with the committee's ranking Republican Sen. John McCain on Capitol Hill Aug. 3. (AP Photo)

The U.S. military is being muddied in the trench as Democrats and Republicans fight a tug-of-war over social issues timed weeks before Election Day. 

What should have been a routine budget bill for the Pentagon is now a political cauldron brimming with proposed policy changes over abortion, gay rights and illegal immigration. Senate Democrats have folded, or attempted to fold, all those issues into a single defense package, leading to accusations that the Senate is needlessly politicizing its annual obligation to fund the military. 

As the parties hurl political hand grenades at one another, stuck in the crossfire is the military itself.

Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said Congress will avoid a Pentagon shutdown, as it always does, by passing a resolution to continue funding defense at current levels. 

But he expressed concern about the "attachments" to the authorization bill. 

"The United States military does not exist to serve as a control group for social experiments," Davis said. 

The defense bill has become a flashpoint at the intersection of three distinct debates in the culture wars. 

The package includes a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, a change in policy which the VFW opposes. Top military officials including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen support an eventual repeal but want Congress to wait until the Pentagon finishes its review. 

The bill also includes a repeal of the law barring abortions at U.S. military hospitals overseas, which even some pro-choice advocates have a problem with if it means federal funding for abortion services.

Lastly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to propose an amendment for the so-called DREAM Act, which would give some young illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they go to college or join the military. 

Democratic leaders are pushing these changes but question whether they have the votes and acknowledge the entire package probably won't come up for a verdict until after the November election. 

"I don't know whether we have the votes or not," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday -- ahead of a scheduled vote Tuesday to open debate. 

Despite the bleak prospects for any substantive movement on the bill and its controversial components, it has touched off a firestorm of finger-pointing in Washington, with interests representing each side of one of the three social issues accusing somebody of stonewalling. 

The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, took out a full-page newspaper ad last week calling for Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." The group this week accused "anti-equality senators led by John McCain" of threatening to filibuster. 

Gay Republican groups also in favor of the repeal put the blame in Reid's corner. 

GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia accused Reid of jeopardizing the "don't ask don't tell" vote by allowing language on immigration and abortion. 

"Harry Reid should stop using gay soldiers as political pawns in a cynical attempt to win votes for his re-election and keep his liberal special interests happy," LaSalvia said in a written statement Monday. 

Conservatives have accused Reid of needlessly politicizing the debate, particularly with the addition of a DREAM Act vote. Senate Republicans on Monday said the majority leader was at the same time limiting debate on the bill and other amendments. 

"The Senate has traditionally considered the defense legislation for a week or more, allowing for robust debate and careful consideration of scores of amendments. This year, the majority leader has indicated his intent to limit debate and block all amendments to the bill except three that he has personally handpicked," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement. 

"In doing so, he is ignoring the clear wishes of the American people and demonstrating that Washington remains deeply out of touch with everyday Americans," he said.

One conservative military group, while weighing in heavily against a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal, accused Reid of putting the military on the chopping block. 

"Sen. Reid's addition of these controversial, non-germane measures demonstrates his pursuit of political agendas and election-year politics at the expense of our military men and women," The Center for Military Readiness said in a memo Monday. 

The defense bill is one of the top orders of business on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the remainder of the campaign season. 

Reid needs 60 votes Tuesday to start debate. If he reaches that, he would still need to corral 60 votes on any amendment that is filibustered. And then he would need 60 votes again to shut down a filibuster preventing final passage, before moving onto the final vote.


High seas segregation

The Navy is listing dangerously in politically correct water

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

-

The Washington Times

6:41 p.m., Friday, July 30, 2010

MugshotAdm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, wants China to explain its intentions for its military buildup.

 


The
Navy wants to judge sailors by the color of their skin, not the content of their seamanship.

The latest national security leak is a shocking e-mail from a Navy admiral on "Diversity Accountability." The message, sent to a list of other flag officers, notes that "a change in focus of this year's diversity brief is the desire to identify our key performers (by name) and provide insight on each of them." Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, who apparently originated this order, "is interested in who are the diverse officers with high potential and what is the plan for their career progression. He may ask what is being done within to ensure they are considered for key follow on billets within the Navy."

The message specifies, "This list must be held very closely but will provide ready reference to ensure we are carefully monitoring and supporting the careers of the best and the brightest the Navy has to offer." That is, the best and the brightest provided a sailor is one of the euphemistically "diverse." If you are a white male, it might be time to set sail and seek opportunities elsewhere.

In practice, the Navy will be creating a list of privileged "diverse" officers who will enjoy special benefits and career mentoring not available to people of the wrong race, as well as a virtual guarantee of fast-track access to the highest reaches of command. Fifty-six years after the Supreme Court struck down the concept of "separate but equal" treatment of races, the U.S. Navy is erecting a wall of segregation between what will amount to two parallel promotion systems: one for the "diverse" and another for the monotone. If this isn't illegal, it should be.

How this dual-track system will be implemented is difficult to discern. Will officers doing fitness reports on those on the list be made aware of their subordinates' privileged status? Will the people on the list have knowledge that the system is looking out for them? If they get a poor fitness report, will they have special means of getting a second look? Will there be repercussions for reviewing officers who did not know they were supposed to just keep the list members on the fast track no matter what? The devil will be lurking in these details.

This type of backward, 20th-century, overtly racial thinking has no place in 21st-century post-racial America. The Navy leadership apparently believes the way to promote racial harmony is by engaging in blatant, invidious discrimination. In practice, however, this system will, in fact, relegate "diverse" sailors to a form of second-class status. Any nonwhite male sailor who - through intelligence, initiative and drive - builds a stellar career will simply be seen as just another special case, just one of "the Listers." Those sailors may achieve rank, but they will have to work twice as hard to command respect.

In the contemporary naval bureaucracy, this type of politically correct nonsense has run out of control like a loose cannon on deck. The Naval Academy lists racial diversity as the "highest personnel priority," apparently even over the mission of educating future Navy leaders for warfare on the high seas. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made achieving diversity a "strategic imperative" when he was chief of naval operations. Call us old-fashioned seadogs, but we'd prefer that the Navy's top priority be fighting and winning our nation's wars rather than engaging in social experimentation.

The suggested list of privileged officers is due Monday. The message states that the reporting requirement will not be put into the secretary of the Navy's TV4 Taskers tracking system "due to the sensitive nature of the by name list." No doubt, once the secret list leaks, as it surely will, there will be as much discomfort for the people on the list as for those not on it, especially those unfortunates who met the diversity requirement but for some reason did not make the cut. Maybe they can sue, charging discrimination. Either way, the Navy Department has run aground.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC


THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE OWNER ... At least that's what my lawyer told me, but he was drinking pretty heavily at the time so...


COPYRIGHT HARDIN REPUBLIC, LLC  2009, 2010, 2011, 2012.  All Rights Reserved.

Web Hosting powered by Network Solutions®

We Are the RIGHT and We Will WIN!