Today’s soldier, airman and sailor (fine, and marine) carries around not only their weapon and ammunition, but provisions, body armor and all sorts of other sundries not dreamed of in past wars.  Much is designed to ensure both success and survivability on the battlefield.  But like soldiers through the ages, they like to have diversions and distractions through reading material during the “down” times.

Enter the eReader and digital books.  The beauty of these devices is they can hold hundreds of books at weight that at most tips the scale at 1.5 pounds.  This is quite attractive for the warfighter already hauling tens of pounds of gear.

An organization has formed to provide eReaders/eBooks to troops.  Their vision is:

to build the nation’s leading non-profit organization dedicated to providing e-books and e-book technology to military personnel who are deployed overseas defending our country.

and by doing this they hope to support the men and women who serve our country, putting their lives on the line daily.

I have used this then to spurred some discussion on Twitter about the survivability of these devices in the field.  Which would hold up better, an iPad or a Kindle?

Some of the considerations have included:

• Susceptibility of the screen to cracking/breaking
• Dust/Sand damage
• Battery life
• Ability to purchase/install books

One person on Twitter, @nutzareus, has commented on his experience in the field and noted that regardless what you use you must use an OtterBox to protect your device.  He commented that he used the OtterBox Defender Case for iPhone 3G, 3GS when he was in the field.

Other contributors to the discussion include:

@dpowensj, @obsidianspider, @iPeat

So what other things should be considered?  What do YOU recommend for our soldiers?  Please, share your thoughts.

One would expect to read that Boeing lost the contract despite being the better aircraft.  That, somehow, the AF overlooked key performance characteristics of the aircraft.  That, perhaps, politics came in to play to select an inferior product.  But no.

According to the NYT, in the article titled “In Tanker Bid, It Was Boeing vs. Bold Ideas” from March 10th, Boeing (and its supporters in Congress) are instead making the nationalistic arguments about job loss and a loss of a national asset.

The company and its allies in Washington have already made a number of arguments. Among them are that too many American jobs are being lost overseas, and that sensitive military contracts should not be in the hands of a foreign company.

The debate about the impact on American jobs is a murky one, because large manufacturing projects typically involve operations in many parts of the world, regardless of which company has a contract.

Yes, the debate is murky, but not simply because of the potential loss of American jobs.  (Let’s ignore, for the moment, that Northrup-Grumman is an American company and that reports are the aircraft will have final assembly in the US making this a Washington State job loss, not a US one.)  This comes down, unfortunately, to politics over policy.

As the NYT also writes

 On Capitol Hill, the blow to Boeing has set off a protectionist furor among many lawmakers. And on the campaign trail, the Democratic candidates for president, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, suggest that the Boeing loss reflects other Bush administration policies that have resulted in jobs moving offshore.

But the hot rhetoric could sound overly nationalistic, and even hypocritical, once the real implications for jobs and national security become clear. Boeing, for example, would have made many of its own tanker parts overseas, and some experts say that claims of job losses to a foreign company seem exaggerated.

For now, though, the pro-Boeing, pro-America talk is showing no signs of letting up.

“We really have to wake up the country,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington State, where Boeing is a significant employer. “We are at risk of losing a major part of our aerospace industry to the Europeans forever.”

Representative Todd Tiahrt, Republican of Kansas, said: “It’s outsourcing our national security. An American tanker should be built by an American company with American workers.” Boeing would have done some of its tanker assembly in Kansas.

So we have National Democrats  on the stage arguing that this is another “Bush screw-up.”  And yet this is the same set of politicians who strongly argue we are fighting a war we shouldn’t have started, with troops ill-equipped to meet this challenges of the new battlefield.  Are they blind to the fact that it is just this sort of politics that has led to the failures to properly equip our troops?  Oversight of weapons system acquisitions that places a priority on location of sub-assembly manufacture over capability. (The B-1B aircraft had parts manufactured in nearly all of the 435 Congressional districts.)  As far back ask 1990 researchers and critics have argued that politicians have focused more on maintaining their districts at the expense of national interest.  According to Kennth Mayer, in his 1993 Public Administration Review article entitled “Policy Disputes as a Source of Administrative Controls: Congressional Micromanagement of the Department of Defense”

Critics argue that these interventions result in inefficiency because they are not based on any “rational” conception of overall defense strategy. Members are accused of examining the defense budget “in terms of how it promotes their own electoral prospects” instead of on the basis of national interest (Lindsay 1990, p. 7). Members are accused of attacking the Pentagon to create publicity, or even to achieve influence within Congress. DoD argues that the pork barrel incentive drives many congressional interventions, as members use their power over the budget to deliver programs and contracts to constituents (OSD, 1990, p. 19). Critics claim that the result is a defense budget choked with regulations and bloated with pork.

So why bring this up?  Because at this point in time, with our nation at war, politicians on both sides of the aisle are positioning for their constituents rather than for the security of our nation.    There are significant questions that could be asked, and perhaps should be asked.  Questions that would cut to the heart of issue of the adequacy of the aircraft to meet our military’s requirements.  But these seem to get lost in the rush to score points with the electorate.

Perhaps Congress would best serve the nation if they asked these questions:

1. What criteria did you use when evaluating one aircraft design over the other?
2. What impact will the larger aircraft (a “widebody” by designation) have on ramp space?
3. Will their be a reduction in “MOG” (or, “Maximum on Ground” ) due to the larger aircraft size?
4. Does a reduced MOG reduce the numbers of combat and airlift aircraft that can be co-located?
5. Will this aircraft type/size necessitate a change in the infra-structure to support it? (fueling stanchions, parking plans, hangars and doors, etc?)

These questions are external to the capabilities of the aircraft itself, but address the important aspects of total operating costs, and impact on mission operations.
¹ Boeing manufactured the veteran KC-135 aircraft (a 707 variant.) That aircraft first production aircraft saw service in 1957 and KC-135s are still flying today. The new tanker is intended to replace this aging airframe.

*As many of you know, part of my “history” includes working on weapon systems’ acquisitions.  I worked

So why do I bring this up today? What takes me back to this well one more time? Well, having visited him today, I was surprised to see what seemed like real reporting. (Hey, he has a journalism degree–it could happen!) I saw no citations, no links, and it wasn’t simply a cut and paste job. He wrote a rather lengthy piece about a new battlefield robot, Binky.

The remote-controlled, plush mechanical champion, called “Binky”, is soft on the exterior, but contains a titanium-alloy endoskeletal frame, making it tough enough for the battlefield.

It was an interesting piece. And it turns out, a fabricated piece. Oh not completely out of whole cloth mind you. It’s based on a real story from the New Scientist Magazine website. In that story they write about a robot that honestly will rescue fallen soldiers. And it does have a cutsie name–it’s called BEAR.

A remote-controlled robot that will rescue injured or abducted soldiers, without putting the lives of their comrades at risk, is being developed for the US army. The 1.8-metre-tall Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot (Bear) will be able to travel over bumpy terrain and squeeze through doorways while carrying an injured soldier in its arms.

That’s alright. I realize it was his attempt at humor. And perhaps even in some way satire. I would have liked him to have given something of a hat tip to the Magazine though. The closest he came was referring to “News Scientist” when he wrote:

Binky, an acronym for Battleready Industrial Neo-Kevlar Yeoman, is part of the Pentagon’s next-generation “Mechanical Myrmidons”, destined for Afghanistan and Iraq, according to News Scientist.

I am beginning to feel the fool. All this time I was thinking this “New Patriot” was writing serious pieces expressing honest opinions about politics, the war in Iraq, and President Bush. Apparently I misunderstood. He is really writing fanciful stories about what the news could have said, but didn’t. That does explain why it seemed to me he was misquoting sources. He wasn’t. He was writing comedy. True satire. Making stuff up! (UNC must be SO proud of him! His skills at fabricating news are about ready for Prime Time. You hear that, New York Times? Stephen Colbert?)

So, let’s go over the stories that he recently covered that apparently he “didn’t quite mean.”

• The war in Iraq is lost. Apparently not. If my “new” understanding of his writings are correct, this is meant to show how we are really “winning.”
• Neo-cons want to limit freedoms. Now see, he really didn’t mean that. By actually writing what he did, he is trying to point out that conservatives don’t censor. Hey, if they did, could he actually write that stuff?
• Problems with firing the Attorneys? Naw, he was writing satire again, pointing out how this is so like what the Clintons did with their firings. Remember those?

So, in the words of America’s great President, Ronald Reagan, “There you go again…”

Obviously, Congress needs to play politics. It’s what they do. But they need to stop playing politics with the lives, and the livelihood of the Men and Women who (the case of servicemembers) are putting their lives at risk to defend our freedoms. I encourage all of you to let your representatives know that you support our troops! Tell Congress that it’s their turn to “step up” and behave responsibly.

I had to respond, since some of them are funny (but he actually believes them to be true) and some just factually, and historically, wrong.

My reply is listed below.

Let me cut to the bottom line here: One should not cast one party as being “corrupt” when your house is made of very brittle glass.

================

Fleshy wrote:

” Sorry you found the list skewed and inflammatory. I’d be… well… I’d be amused more than anything else… to listen to you try to defend or refute any of the issues on that list? Go ahead… defend Foley, Haggard, Rumsfeld, DeLay, Abramoff, Taft, Frist, Burns, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Gibbons… need I go on?”

Actually, I wouldn’t need to refute most of them. Just publish a list of names on the Dem side that are just as guilty. It’s interesting. Apparently Democrats are able to either imagine themselves pristine, or else excuse their own failing because they never claimed to be anything otherwise.

But honestly, if you think a vote for a Republican is a vote of “hate (of) the military” then I would ask how many years of service you put in… And why you would think that John Kerry is somehow now to be seen as a Republican.

But if you wish… here we go:

1. ACLU–rarely seen as a conservative organization, has been opposed to any and all censorship over the years. As you may recall, stories about whether these sorts of things should be publicly available have been around for many many years (read, at least 30) and typically it’s the ACLU that defends a person’s right to speak, even in publishing these sorts of things (There was a funny episode from Barney Miller in the 70s with this very issue.)

2. “Stay the course” Hmmm… and the alternative is? I believe I DO support Bush’s view that we can’t just pull out and leave Iraq to implode. And I believe we need a to get out when the goals are met, and not when a date/time is met.

3. So, you think the President KNEW the pastor was doing this at the time? Now THAT would be quite a story! Are you suggesting that conservatives need to actually conduct an in-depth check into the sex lives of all their advisors? Hmmmm… Is that what the Democrats do?

4. Cover our ass with a Child Predator? (are you sure this doesn’t fit more with item 3?) Hmmm… last time I checked, FOLEY was gone, and Studds stayed in for another 13 years. Remember, Studds actually had SEX with a minor, and was left in office, while Foley only exchanged emails and IMs. (THE POINT: Dems are just as guilty…)

5. Hate the military? Give me a f’ing break. Talk to a military member or 500 before going to THIS one…

6. “Say literally anything“–like this list? Again, lying isn’t uniquely Republican. And distorting the facts with witty (or not so witty) sound bites seems to be your favorite style…

7. Beat up a questioner? For example, arresting a protester who voices an opposing view to the President at a rally? Oh wait–that was Clinton’s Secret Service that did that…

8. “Laws are for Other people” hmmm… Isn’t that the logic that got that senator from NJ elected when Torricelli had to withdraw? I commented on this on my blog back in 2004–pointing out that the Dems actually argued that some things are TOO IMPORTANT for rules… I wrote: “If you remember the US elections in 2002, the Democratic Candidate for the US Senate seat for New Jersey withdrew from the race inside the window allowed by law to find a replacement candidate. Simple enough. In fact, one would think more simple a decision than sporting rules–just abide by the law. But that was too obvious a solution. Somewhere in our convoluted world, we decided that the “law” was too constricting. The Democrats went to court, not to challenge an illegal action by their opponent, but rather to seek justification for their desire to break the law.”

In fact, this particular point of yours seems to be one that is more readly “owned” by the Dems than the Republicans, but if you would prefer, I would call this one a draw…

9. Pay their mistresses to be quiet? Hmmm… is this a Kennedy reference? Gary Hart? (Remember the good ship “Monkey Business?”) Again–not uniquely Republican, but if you insist…

10. And since in this one, you actually ended it with “in your life” perhaps I should appeal to age… and remind you all of Jim Wright… Tip O’Neill, Ted Kennedy… John Glenn and the Keating 5… I think the Dems in the 70s and 80s are quite corrupt… and hypocrital… (and given the large number of viable Democrats running on largely Conservative platforms, like Ford Jr… one has to wonder if there is a new style of Hypocrisy on the horizon!)

I did find it interesting that your list of names supporting your points are mostly gone or outgoing Republicans. They misbehave–they are gone. My list of examples includes people that are left to remain in office, despite transgression after transgression.

Perhaps I can sum this up best by saying When Republicans are bad, they are gone… when Democrats are bad, they are re-elected. Perhaps it’s just because we expected more from Republicans, and never deluded ourselves about the ethics or morality of the Democrats.

“I had my doubts,” he said. “But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won’t betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.”

And apparently, he also made it clear that there existed conditions upon which he would or would not engage in combat.

In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.

These do not appear to me to be statements from a man who, at the time of commissioning, accepted his office “without mental reservation.”
4. Actions have consequences. I can understand, and even admire, someone who stands up for what they believe and are willing to pay the cost. Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood the repercussions of his actions. Our founding fathers understood the possible repercussions of their actions. “Give me liberty, or give me death” was not a jingoistic attempt at PR by Patrick Henry, it was a recognition of the demise that awaited him upon failure. A courageous man accepts the consequences.
5. Military Officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial. The Lt, and his lawyer, seem to think that his remarks about the President are a First Amendment issue, and that the Lt was exercising his right to free speech, when he spoke out against the Commander in Chief. In fact, the lawyer is quoted as saying “‘What’s going to happen is there’s going to be a major First Amendment litigation, which I think they’re really crazy to invite,’ Seitz said.” Alas, this shows that the counsel sought by the Lt is unfamiliar with the military justice system. There are protections established for the military, but the nature of military service requires a different way of understanding and acting with regards to the US Constitution. In fact according to Findlaw.com the Supreme Court has recognized that “while constitutional guarantees apply, ‘the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.’1455.” Perhaps the Lt should hire a military lawyer?
The US Army has done the right thing. They have refused to let one Lieutenant interpret national and international law, and told him that he cannot sit as judge and jury over the actions of this government. To do that would overstep his bounds as an officer in the US Military.

Today seemed like as good a day as any to write about something that has been slowly gnawing, nay, chewing at me, for a while. It seems appropriate today, on the 5th of July, the day following another successful return to flight for the Shuttle program.

Many (whom I now call “bashists”–those whose rage against President Bush is so great they see no good in his actions, bashing all that he says or does; a response to calling supporters “apologists” but I digress…) Many have called for a timeline for the removal of US forces from Iraq. Most of Congress have seen the error in such an action, although the Bush detractors have taken it upon themselves to continually argue that there “is no plan.” The notion that there is no plan is humorous, since not only has there been a plan, the general outline of the plan has been around since our war against Saddam began. I am sure you, kind reader, recall that the President talked about rebuilding Iraq, re-establishing a government with free and open elections, and ensuring that the new government would be strong enough to survive. That has been the plan all along.

That leads me to this conclusion: We should stop debating the red herring of “time lines” and start discussing “event lines.” It seems clear to me that we will withdraw our troops upon satisfactory completion of certain events. We can develop estimates of when those events will occur, and those estimates may be rooted in optimism, pessimism or realism, but they remain estimates. It seems to me that in many areas of life we live on “event lines” rather than time-lines.

• College. One graduates from college upon successfully completing the requirements for the degree.
  
• High School. Again, when the requirements are completed (although some seem to argue that holding kids to standards is somehow demeaning.)
  
• Marriage. When one finds a mate (although the sitcom “Friends” had their gang with “Back ups” in case they reach the timeline before the event-line.)

Even more time-critical events have an “event line” associated with them. Most noteable is the Shuttle launch. Yes, the shuttle has a “countdown” and they have the “launch windows” but those timelines are event constrained. There exists a long sequence of events that must occur before a Space Shuttle (Space Transportation System) can be launched. When those events are not reached, but can be overcome quickly, NASA puts a “Hold” on the countdown. If it seems to NASA that they cannot satisfy the event requirement, they then “scrub” the mission and reschedule the launch. The satisfactory completion of the mission is more important than meeting an arbitrary timeline. Of course, when meeting a timeline becomes more important than meeting the “event line” we see catastrophic results.

So let’s learn our lessons from the hard-earned lessons from NASA. We cannot simply set a “date certain” for the withdrawal of troops in something as complex as the situation in Iraq. Pick on this administration all you want (Rage on, you Bashists) but it is prudent to trust your military leaders on the ground. It is wise to see that a sequence of events has occurred. It is foolishiness to say pick a date, and point to that as success.

“Among the terrorist threats we are confronting, the risk of a MANPADS attack on a commercial airliner is an extremely serious concern. So too, however, are threats from other types of weapons and tactics that might be utilized by those intent on harming our nation by attacking our aviation system. Therefore, it is critically important in confronting all of these threats that we be guided by the best intelligence and law enforcement information available. With this information, we can apply a systematic risk management program to determine how to best marshal available resources.”

The article outlines the case for MANPADS protection, but also lists a series of questions that must be addressed before any real action can be taken to protect civil travel from such threats. The questions are listed at the end of the article, and I encourage all of you to go read them. They are thoughtful and I believe useful in helping to frame a realistic debate on the benefits, approaches, and effectiveness of MANPADS defense. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the threats to our commercial air system. How much do you think we should spend on systems like these? Are you willing to pay more for your airline ticket for this level of safety? And what is your answer to the liability question?

Enjoy!

“Among the troops, a flood of desertions (thanks in no small part to the efforts of GI Rights Online) is indicative of the growing unpopularity of the occupation — fully 72% of American troops in Iraq support ending it this year.”

Here we go. “flood of desertions” this blogger claims. This particular blog reminds me of some of the worst writings I have seen in class. Students will do anything to get a point across in their papers, and will cite things that don’t actually argue what the student portrays it to be arguing. Unfortunately, I have actually seen articles submitted by academics for peer reviewed journals, where the authors misrepresent the argument put forward in a cited work.

This is a classic point in case. According to this blog, one would think that we are losing soldiers, sailors, airman and marines at a phenomenal rate–perhaps even greater than ever before. Wow! I was surprised enough to go check his source. Much to my surprise I saw in the graphic the heading “Desertions drop.” Hhmmmmm flood? The article goes on to point out that desertions have continued to drop since 9/11/01, and in fact “Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.”

Two points strike me here. First, the numbers are not only lower than they were in 2001, but they are also lower than they were in 2000–while that “other guy” was still in the White House! Second, most desertions happen stateside, are early in an enlistment, and more often than not are based on personal issues (failure to adapt to the military lifestyle, personal issues back home) than they are a protesting of a war the nation was engaged in at the time of the enlistment!

In the same blog entry, further down, the blogger makes the rather simple mistake of referring to election fraud in the 2004 election, when the article again and again states it was the 2002 election. Why is this a big deal, and not just a simple error? Because we are all told by the left how corrupt the ’04 election was, but not the ’02 one.

So here we are. This blogger has become so blinded by his political ideology that either he can no longer read things carefully, or he chooses to distort the sources.

I had actually commented on his blog, providing a correction, but it seems that, while he shows that comments are allowed, but moderated, he actually doesn’t put comments up for view. Hmmmm… I must admit, because of the errors on this one page, and how easy it is for someone to quickly check the facts by actually reading the sources cited, I found myself wondering if this blogger is actually a conservative make a veiled attempt at making liberals look stupid. Hey, it’s either that, or…

So students, learn a valuable lesson. Before you cite something, read it. Make sure that the document you cite actually buttresses the argument you are using it to make, or at least that you represent their argument accurately.

The Prof