Category Archives: military news

military news, national news, political news

Take care in defining 'combat veteran'

It didn’t take Joni Ernst long to make a name for herself in the U.S. Senate.

The Iowa Republican is now defending her military record in which she defines herself as a “combat veteran.”

I would caution her to speak very carefully when using such terminology.

At issue is her service in an Iowa National Guard transportation company in Iraq and Kuwait in 2003 and 2004. She calls herself a “combat veteran” even though she didn’t face enemy fire during her deployment in the Middle East.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/joni-ernst-says-she-earned-the-right-to-call-herself-a-combat-veteran-despite-never-seeing-combat/

Sen. Ernst defends her record, saying that because she drew hazardous duty pay while deployed, she has earned the right to call herself a combat vet.

“I am very proud of my service and by law I am defined as a combat veteran,” Ernst said. “I have never once claimed that I have a Combat Action Badge. I have never claimed that I have a Purple Heart. What I have claimed is that I have served in a combat zone.”

Technically, she is correct. But it is a technicality that can be misconstrued. She needs to be careful how she uses such language in the future.

I understand where she’s coming from. I, too, served in a war zone for a time. The Vietnam War was raging when I arrived in-country in the spring of 1969. I received hazardous duty pay while serving as a U.S. Army aircraft mechanic and later as a flight operations specialist at the I Corps Tactical Operations Center in Da Nang.

Do I refer to myself as a “combat veteran”? No. I didn’t see direct combat — except for having to run for cover while the Viet Cong lobbed mortars into our position on occasion.

Sen. Ernst is rightfully proud of her service in Iraq and Kuwait, as I am of my service many years ago during another armed conflict.

But be careful, senator, when using terms such as “combat vet,” especially around those who’ve actually seen the real thing.

 

medical news, military news, national news

Vets get long-needed help from government

It can be stated clearly: Tom Coburn’s greatest public service accomplishment occurred the day he retired from the U.S. Senate.

The Oklahoma Republican — for reasons that remain a mystery to many observers — continually blocked legislation aimed at helping returning veterans cope with post-traumatic stress disorder that tragically led to suicide.

Coburn is gone from the Senate. So, what did his former colleagues do? They approved a bill — in a 99-0 vote! — that seeks to improve suicide prevention efforts at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was a stunning display of bipartisan cooperation on an issue that clearly should transcend partisan differences.

As the New York Times noted in an editorial: “The bill calls for regular independent evaluations of the V.A.’s suicide prevention and mental health programs to ensure the most effective approaches are used in its hospitals and clinics. Other provisions include a pilot program to match returning veterans with colleagues whom they can confide in about mental health concerns, and a website to make it easier for veterans and their families to find help. Another provision would help psychiatrists who work for the V.A. repay medical school debt, which could ease the chronic shortage of mental health professionals.”

And yet … Sen. Coburn — using the Senate’s procedural trickery that allows a single senator to block legislation at will — kept this legislation from getting a vote on the floor of the upper congressional chamber.

What’s more, Tom Coburn’s other profession — besides blocking legislation in the Senate — is as a physician. It’s astonishing, therefore, that he would take such an obstructionist view on this issue.

The Senate has turned an important corner and America’s veterans are better served as a result.

 

military news, national news

So much for 'trust'

My trick knee is throbbing once again.

This time it’s telling me NBC News anchor Brian Williams has some more explaining to do about a made-up story that got him some seriously happy — and falsely premised — publicity over the weekend.

You see, it turns that Williams erred in recounting a story that he had been aboard a Chinook helicopter that had been hit by enemy rocket fire in Iraq in 2003. He had befriended an Army command sergeant major, Tim Terpak, who — according to Williams — had provided cover for the anchorman and other passengers aboard the downed helicopter.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/nbc-s-brian-williams-recants-iraq-story-after-soldiers-protest-1.327792

Williams and Terpak went to a New York Rangers hockey game the other evening and both of them stood and accepted the crowd’s applause as the public address announcer revealed the story about Terpak’s heroism in protecting the passengers and crew, which allegedly included Williams.

It now turns out Williams wasn’t there.

This is a serious smirch on Williams’s reputation as a veteran TV journalist who trades on the “trust” he has built with the viewers of his nightly newscast.

Williams has recanted the story, apologized and said he “misremembered” the events of that day. He actually had arrived about 60 minutes after the chopper was shot down.

Misremembered? For a dozen years?

The anchorman came clean only after other soldiers who were there protested, telling others they had no memory of Williams being present when Terpak — who’s since retired from the Army — engineered the getaway of those aboard the Chinook.

“I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams said. “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”

Neither does anyone else.

 

International news, military news

Condemnations pouring out over latest ISIL atrocity

President Obama called it “heinous.” Secretary of State John Kerry called it “barbaric.” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called it a “cruel and despicable act of terrorism.”

The object of this worldwide scorn once again is the Islamic State, which reportedly beheaded a captured Japanese journalist supposedly in “retaliation” for Japan’s assistance in the international fight against these terrorist monsters.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/231381-kerry-isis-killing-of-journalist-barbaric

Kenji Goto was murdered because Japan has been sending food and medical supplies to assist the international coalition and to lend aid to those who are suffering from the violence in Iraq and Syria, where ISIL is conducting its reign of terror and destruction.

Japan’s hands are tied in this fight, given that its government is sworn by the treaty it signed at the end of World War II that prohibits it from deploying armed forces overseas. Japan maintains a stout military for national defense purposes only. And that’s an understandable caveat that the Allies placed on Japan, given its own history of ruthlessness and, um, barbarism during WWII.

However, none of that excuses for an instant the fate that apparently befell Kenji Goto and Huruna Yakawa — who was beheaded earlier.

All of this insane ghoulishness only requires that we maintain the fight against these monstrous agents of evil.

ISIL’s appetite for barbarism stretches one’s ability to describe it in strong enough language. Heinous, despicable, barbaric, cruel? Yes, all of those are true, but they don’t go far enough. I’m at a loss to find the appropriate description to hang on these monsters.

They need to die. A painful and excruciating death would suit many of us just fine.

 

entertainment news, military news, national news

Mrs. Obama defends 'Sniper'

Michelle Obama has taken a stand in support of a controversial film about a heart-wrenching subject.

Good for her.

She came to the defense this week of “American Sniper,” the film about the late Navy SEAL sharpshooter Chris Kyle, saying the film deals squarely with the emotional heartache felt by combat veterans and their families.

First lady defends ‘American Sniper’

Mrs. Obama didn’t go after some of the critics of the film directly, although she well could have done so; perhaps she should have done so. But whatever her intention, she made a salient point about the film’s theme and the emotions it has brought to those who have seen it.

She said: “I felt that, more often than not, this film touches on many of the emotions and experiences that I’ve heard firsthand from military families over these past few years.”

Indeed, she and Jill Biden, the vice president’s wife, have made the care of veterans and their families a hallmark of their tenure during the Obama administration and both of these women deserve to be applauded for the attention they have given to this important matter.

As for the criticism of the film — notably by filmmaker Michael Moore — much of it has bordered on the ridiculous. Moore, of course, referred to snipers as “cowards.” He knows nothing of which he spoke on this matter, but his comments got considerable play anyway — I suppose because of his celebrity status and his previous tangles with political conservatives over an array of other issues.

I believe the first lady has put the film in its proper perspective and that should stand as a more credible assessment of a gripping story of triumph, struggle and immense emotional heartache.

 

military news

Another hero leaves this world

Edward Saylor was a hero. The real thing.

He was one of just four survivors of one of the most daring military acts of all time. He took part in the famous Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in April, 1942.

Lt. Col. Saylor was 94 when he died this week at his home in Sumner, Wash.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/1-of-4-remaining-world-war-ii-doolittle-raiders-dies-at-94/ar-AA8KsWN

There just are three men left who served on that mission. It was bold, brash and fraught with peril.

The Japanese had attacked U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor just four months earlier. President Roosevelt and the Pentagon brass were reeling as the Japanese were marching through Asia and the Pacific. They needed to do something — anything — to rattle the enemy. So they came up with a plan.

Why not load some U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 bombers aboard an aircraft carrier — the USS Hornet — strip them down to just the fuel and the bombs they need, teach the pilots how to launch a land-based bomber off a floating carrier deck and then have that squadron of planes drop its ordnance on targets in Japan? Lt. Col. James Doolittle would command the raid.

Edward Saylor served as a flight engineer-gunner aboard one of those planes.

He completed the mission at great risk, completed 28 more years in the Air Force before retiring and lived a long and happy life.

He received the Medal of Honor for his supreme bravery.

Sadly, he is just one more of a diminishing number of The Greatest Generation who went off to war to defeat tyranny. Of the 16 million or so men and women who served in World War II, fewer than 2 million are left. They are dying at a rapid rate daily.

Those of us who came up after them owe these men and women everything.

Rest in peace, Lt. Col. Saylor.

Thank you.

 

military news, national news

Back to the 'cowards' tweet, please

Michael Moore has been taking grief lately over a tweet he put out in which he called military snipers “cowards.”

I’ve commented on it here. Others have, too. Now, though, the filmmaker is fighting back, accusing his critics of “making sh*** up about me.”

I am beginning to think many on both sides of this argument are seeking to change the subject.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/michael-moore-defends-record-on-vets-telling-fox-news-quit-making-sht-up-about-me/

Moore’s tweet was in response to the film “American Sniper,” in which Bradley Cooper portrays the late Chris Kyle in a gripping story about Kyle’s emotional struggles while serving as a Navy SEAL sharpshooter in Iraq.

The criticism has been ferocious, mainly from conservative media outlets. For the record, I do not consider myself a fan or follower of most of the conservative media talking heads. I tilt the other direction. However, I found Moore’s comments about the so-called cowardice of snipers to be highly offensive.

Moore’s comment on snipers being cowards had nothing to do with the nation’s war policy in Iraq. Moore, though, is seeking to turn that argument back on his critics, some of whom have called him “un-American” for his opinions, I guess, about snipers and about his general world view.

I won’t go there. He’s entitled to express his opinion. My own notion is that he messed when he expressed this particular opinion about this particular man doing with this particular duty.

As is often the case with these controversies, someone in the public eye puts something out there that others find offensive and then tries to cover his tracks by changing the subject, or trying to broaden the argument to include elements that really have no bearing on the misstatement made in the first place.

 

International news, military news

ISIS or Yemen? U.S. effort is getting stretched

U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry says the United States is stretched too thin in its war against terrorists.

The Clarendon Republican says U.S. efforts have turned away from Yemen while fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

What to do?

Thornberry: ISIS war leaves fewer resources for Yemen

If I read my congressman’s thoughts correctly, I believe he’s saying we need to spend more money on defense needs. He’s saying it without really, um, saying it.

This conundrum defines pretty clearly to me why this war on terror may never end. You turn away from enemy and another surfaces in another region of the world — not that we’ve really turned away from any of our enemies. Near as I can tell, our forces still are conducting robust strikes and raids on suspected terror targets.

“We don’t have the (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) ISR that we used to have, so when you got to move it to Iraq and Syria, you leave Yemen less covered than it used to be because you have to make choices, and it increases the danger to the country,” he said.

I got that part, Mr. Chairman. So what happens if and when we concentrate on Yemen — a known terrorist breeding ground — and the Islamic State takes further advantage as we look the other way in fighting this on-going anti-terror war?

Do you get where Thornberry is talking about spending more money on defense matters to wage a multi-front war on international terror?

I doubt we can afford it.

According to The Hill: “The administration has implemented a ‘light footprint’ counterterrorism approach in Yemen that relies heavily on drones for surveillance of terrorist threats and for striking targets in the country.”

Here is where the drones can do the same kind of work as manned aircraft. Turn them loose on those suspected targets and deliver enough firepower to send those we don’t kill scurrying for cover.

Therein, though, lies the difficulty in continuing to wage this global anti-terror war. It’s a war like we’ve never fought. President Bush all but declared war on the terrorists after 9/11. It was the right call for the time. President Obama has continued to pursue that war at virtually the same pace as his immediate predecessor.

There are those, though, who insist the Pentagon is being whittled down to dangerous levels. I don’t buy it. We’re still spending hundreds of billions of dollars on new weapons and we’re deploying them throughout these terror hot spots.

I will argue that we still have plenty of assets to deploy against these forces of evil. We just need to fine-tune how we deploy them — and have them deliver maximum punishment.

entertainment news, military news

'Sniper' wasn't about reasons for war

Zack Beauchamp has written on Vox.com that the film “American Sniper” whitewashes the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, suggesting that it was in response to the 9/11 attacks.

Well …

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7641189/american-sniper-history

I think I’ll chime in with one more comment about the film. Then I’ll let it rest.

“American Sniper” is the story of one young man, Chris Kyle, and deployment through four tours of duty during the Iraq War. He was a Navy SEAL sniper, and he reportedly set some kind of kill record for U.S. military personnel while doing his duty.

The film tells the most riveting story possible about Kyle’s emotional struggles with being away from his young family, the post-traumatic stress he suffered and the extreme danger to which he was exposed during all those tours of duty.

I sat through the film and never once considered whether it told the complete story of the Iraq War and put the policy decisions under any kind of microscope. I do not believe that was director/producer Clint Eastwood’s intention. I believe Eastwood wanted to tell Chris Kyle’s story as accurately and completely as possible and from what I’ve read from those who knew Kyle the best — including his wife Taya — Eastwood accomplished his goal.

Zack Beauchamp’s assertion about the historical inaccuracy of “American Sniper” misses the essential point of the film.

One young man did his duty, placed himself in harm’s way, came home, and sought to return to a normal life as a husband and father.

Then his life ended in tragedy.

That was the story I saw.

 

entertainment news, military news

'American Sniper' glorifies nothing

What’s with all the chatter about whether a powerful film “glorifies” an American warrior doing his duty in the most hostile environment imaginable?

Critics have contended the film “American Sniper” romanticizes the exploits of the late Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL sniper whose struggles with post traumatic stress are chronicled in one of the most powerful bits of movie-making in years.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/american-sniper-generates-off-screen-controversy/story?id=28342832

Kyle served four tours of duty in Iraq and recorded more “kills” than any sniper in U.S. military history.

I watched the film over the weekend in a packed Amarillo movie theater. At the end of the film, about the only sound coming from the departing audience were the sniffles of those who were crying.

I do not get the criticism.

“American Sniper” does not glorify what Kyle was ordered to do on the battlefield. As for whether Kyle and his teammates were “heroes,” well, yes they are. War produces heroic acts. From my standpoint, anyone who puts himself in harm’s way, exposing himself to possible death at the hands of an enemy combatant is a hero — and that standing needs zero glorification from a film to make it so.

I didn’t see any glory in what Kyle did. I saw a young man struggling with his emotions; he was torn between his devotion to the men with whom he served and the young family who were at home, waiting for his safe return.

What I saw on that film screen was the story of war in all its brutality.