USMC General Cartwright argues for change in military procurement

Posted by:

General James CartwrightIn a refreshing but somewhat rambling presentation, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, USMC General Cartwright, suggests diverting money from high-tech military procurement programs to give our troops the proper combat equipment to fight the “low-end wars” that we are in for the “next five to ten years.”  In an article published in the Army Times, staff editor John Bennett writes that General Cartwright said that “there is nothing out there that tells us we won’t be wrapped up in these conflicts for as far as the eye can see.”  His remarks were at a sponsored forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Echoing a message that seems to be coming from many quarters both inside and outside the Capital beltway, General Cartwright argue that the  US military will be “persistently” wrapped up low-level regional conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq “in different places and at different levels” for the foreseeable future.  Citing Secretary Gates, General Cartwright stated that if the DoD “continues pursuing expensive weapons packed with countless advanced subsystems, it will be able to afford only a handful of each platform.”  Furthermore, he argued that the current economic environment placed a serious constraint on military spending.

Calling for a greater “partnership” with our allies, General Cartwright suggested that the men and women in the field will play a far greater role in these conflicts.  “The question is, how many bomber squadrons do we need versus how many troops expert at stability operations,” said Cartwright.  “We need quantity more than quality.”  If this is, in fact, the new military doctrine of engagement then it seems reasonable to expect that greater attention will be focused on make sure the grunt on the ground has the best equipment possible.  Certainly, this is long overdue given the attention now focused on the poor quality of our body armor and more recently, the failings of the M-4 rifle.

2

M-4 Rifle Not Suitable for Afghan Battlefield

Posted by:

In yet another alarming sign that US troops do not have adequate combat gear, the US Stars and Stripes now reports that the US Army standard-isssue M-4 rifle may not be the best weapon of choice for Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain.   This disclosure comes on the heels of a new Congressional inquiry on body armor procurement and testing procedures.

 

Slobodan Lekic of the Associated Press reports that the “U.S. military’s workhorse rifle (the “M-4″) is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban’s more primitive but longer range weapons.” The M-4 is simply a revamped version of the Viet Nam era M-16 that was designed for close combat. 

Several reports are circulating within military circles, but one recent study by Major Thomas P. Ehrhart strongly suggests that the M-4 as presently configured is not the proper weapon for the Afghan terrain.  Bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet  to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet.

According the AP report, “At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier is better off with the more-rapid firepower of the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of the 7.62 mm bullets. ‘The reason we employ the M-4 is because it’s a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations,’ said Lt. Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.”

While there have been persistent reports of weapons jamming, these new studies strongly suggest that our frontline troops do not have the proper weapons to engage the enemy.  We remain hopeful that our military leaders will take decisive action to quickly remedy this situation rather than wait several months or years for the GAO or IG to issue after-action reports concluding what we already know:  the US military’s 40 year-old M-4 ain’t up to the task!   Indeed, our troops are still waiting for proper body armor after years of stone-walling by our military brass.  Let’s take action and get our troops the equipment they deserve. 

Richard W. May

1

SFTT featured in Greenwich Newspaper

Posted by:

The Greenwich Post featured a front-page article in this week’s edition describing Eilhys England Hackworth’s heroic campaign to help insure that our frontline troops have the best body armor, helmets, combat boots, rifles and sidearms available.  In an article entitled “Col. Hackworth: Soldiers’ Group Notches Victory,” staff writer Chris Davis describes some of the successes that SFTT has achieved to make sure that our brave heroes have the best combat gear possible.   It is a cause worth fightling for and, I am pleased to reprint the article in its entirety.

QUOTE

May is a special month for Eilhys England Hackworth, chairman of the Soldiers for the Truth Foundation (SFTT), which she co-founded in 1997 with her late husband Col. David “Hack” Hackworth.

Col. Hackworth is “America’s most valor decorated soldier,” according to the SFTT Web site.

“This month marks the fifth anniversary of David’s death,” she said at her home in Greenwich recently, “and the fifth anniversary of my promise — my deathbed promise — to him to continue on with our fight to protect America’s front line troops.”

Her mission is to get them the best available basic five critical pieces of combat gear that give them the best chance possible to get home alive and in one piece — helmet, rifle, sidearm, boots and body armor. And Ms. England has the lowdown on them all, thanks, she said, “to years of brainwashing by my husband.” She says the equipment we send our troops into harm’s way with is lethally substandard.

The helmets our troops use in Iraq and Afghanistan, she said, are not up to the technology that exists today. Not only that, she added, they are also “so grotesquely uncomfortable that soldiers tend to not want to wear them.

“To me, as an American citizen,” she said, “it is extremely offensive that our football players have more effective and more comfortable helmets than our front line troops — 18- and 19-year-old kids, out at the tip of the spear, protecting our cushy good life. These kids deserve to come back and enjoy it too.”

The standard issue rifle is “a jammer,” Ms. England said, a variant of the rifle issued in Vietnam. Ask Jessica Lynch, the West Virginia private who was taken prisoner during an ambush in Iraq in 2003. In 2007, she told Congress that her M-16 rifle had jammed and she was never able to fire it.

As for side arms, the bullets that standard issue pistols shoot “can’t stop a determined opponent,” Ms. England said. “People can fire five shots into a determined opponent and they’ll still keep coming at you, perhaps take you down.”

Boots should be appropriate to the mission and the terrain. An infantry army travels on its feet.

“You can do the math,” she said. “If they don’t have the right shoes, they can’t make the distance to do their missions. Clearly you don’t give somebody the same footwear if they’re in the mud somewhere than if they’re in the sand. And that’s what they do. They tried to develop an all-purpose thing. There’s no such animal.”

She said SFTT would be reaching out to Nike to see if it could develop “the right foot stuff.” Then would come the business of swaying the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system to use it, a chore that takes “time and public outcry,” she said.

“It’s not a question of money,” she said. “That’s ridiculous. We pay $400,000 to families for the death of a soldier. And that’s a drop in the bucket compared to taking care of people when they come home missing half their brain or both legs.”

“There’s no way that one organization — or 50 organizations — could raise the money and buy our own equipment and send it to the troops.”

Her strategy is to “take truth to power,” she said. Get senators and congressmen to initiate inquiries.

And as of last week, that strategy has started to pay off with the fifth item of vital gear — body armor. “We’ve accomplished what corporations pay lobbyists billions of dollars to do with just our outreach of who we can go to,” Ms. England said, “because they know we talk the truth.”

Body armor has been an issue with SFTT since day one. SFTT takes credit for bringing the issue under scrutiny by alerting the media, leading to a five-part NBC News investigative report and a pro bono Freedom of Information lawsuit against the Pentagon requesting access to autopsy reports on soldiers who died from chest wounds while wearing body armor that should have protected them. The Pentagon has refused to honor the request and the case is now before a federal judge.

Meanwhile, thanks in no small part to the advocacy and influence of SFTT, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates questioning the DoD’s acquisition, testing and quality assurance of its body armor and armored vehicles and inviting the DoD to the Hill for a briefing.

The letter cites a report from the Defense Department’s own inspector general that found “that body armor that was recorded as having passed testing had actually failed.”

“That’s more than an intellectual accomplishment,” Ms. England said. “It will result, we hope, in a lot coming out that should. Soldiers for the Truth is a little tiny engine that could.”

Ms. England calls herself “a big picture strategist. I created and ran a top 50 marketing and PR agency on Madison Avenue. I ran it for decades until David kidnapped me and demanded that he be my only client and that I help him with protecting the troops.

“I loved my husband so much I would have followed him anywhere. I told him that I thought he was brainwashing me every night: ‘You will help me help the troops,’” she said with a smile, with Hack’s original rifle resting on the mantle above the fireplace in her living room. “Who else would extort on their death bed a promise from their wife who adored him to do this?”

At high noon on Saturday, May 22, friends, family and supporters will gather at Arlington National Cemetery to place wreaths at both the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and at Col. Hackworth’s graveside and launch a year-long celebration of America’s most decorated hero.

UNQUOTE

Soldiers for the Truth is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit and apolitical educational foundation dedicated solely to help bring our troops home alive and in one piece.  If you find our mission compelling, please consider becoming a member or volunteer your efforts to this worthwhile cause.  Let our troops know that you stand behind them.

Richard W. May

1

Chairman Towns Opens Inquiry into Quality of Troops’ Body Armor and Vehicle Safety

Posted by:

In an important new development Edolphus “Ed” Towns (D-NY), Chairman of the Committee for Oversight and Government Reform asks  Defense Secretary Robert Gates for explanations about the management of the Department of Defense’s (“DoD”) troop armor procurement and testing programs.  What follows is a reprint of the release:

The inquiry follows a DoD Inspector General (“IG”) report issued recently that identified problems with the Army’s body and vehicle armor testing process.  Since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, DOoD has consistently struggled to deploy safe and reliable body armor to troops on the front line, and the IG has issued several reports outlining the challenges to DOD’s armor procurement policies and potential solutions. Chairman Towns, an Army veteran, is committed to ensuring the safety of our troops.

“For almost a decade, our troops have sacrificed life and limb to defend our nation.  At the same time, DoD has repeatedly struggled to manage its programs and testing related to protective armor, including body armor,” said Chairman Towns.  “If we are going to continue sending troops into harms way, we must know that DoD is doing all it can to provide effective and save body armor and armored vehicles.”

A January 2009 DoD IG report identified problems with the U.S. Army’s testing processes. The IG found, among other things, that testing of some body armor was not consistently conducted in accordance with contract requirements—and that body armor that was recorded as having passed testing had actually failed. A separate review of body armor testing by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) the Army did not follow established testing protocols, did not maintain certain internal controls, and recommended an independent assessment of armor test results.

The letter from Chairman Towns to Secretary Gates is the latest in a series of inquiries from the House Oversight Committee into Federal procurement and waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.  In the letter to Gates, Chairman Towns requested that DoD brief the House Oversight Committee on the Department’s efforts to ensure that our troops have effective and safe body armor and armored vehicles, as expeditiously as possible.

Specifically, the Chairman requested an overview of key ongoing armored vehicle and body armor acquisition programs of the Services, including the Army’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle program (MRAP); contractors involved in the maintenance or procurement of body armor or armored vehicles; and field experience with the effectiveness of protective armor, including body armor, along with any analysis comparing experience in the field with the results of laboratory testing.

“I am aware that DoD has made some progress addressing past problems with the body and vehicle armor provided to our armed services,” said Chairman Towns.  “However, I want to make sure DoD’s progress continues.  There is nothing more important than providing our troops with the best protection possible.”

SFTT Editor Comment:  We applaud Chairman Towns, Congressman Jim Webb and other Congressional leaders for their perseverance in helping to insure that our troops have the best protective gear possible.  Nevertheless, it is  reprehensible that our military leaders have taken little action over the past several years to deal with the disturbing issues raised in the March, 2008 IG report and the October, 2009 GAO Study.  The unreliability of body armor presently issued to our troops, shoddy test procedures and cozy relationships between military “testers” and armament suppliers have been well documented. It is disgraceful and does not reflect well on our military leadership who are entrusted to field an army with the best combat gear possible.  By letting our troops down, we let our country down.

When will the “true” military leaders emerge to make sure our troops have the best protective gear possible?  Studies are useful, but concerted action now would save lives and prevent traumatic injury.    We implore Secretary Gates to clean up the mess in our military procurement process.  We realize that billions of dollars are at stake, but so are the lives of the young men and women serving in harm’s way.  Let’s get our priorities straight.

2

Body Armor Reports by National Research Council

Posted by:

On November 20, 2009, Secretary John McHugh formally announced that the National Research Council would perform an independent evaluation of the US Army’s body armor test procedures.  The announcement by Secretary McHugh followed a month of Pentagon-spin by military wordsmiths intent on undermining the devastating findings of the General Accountability Office (“GAO”) in their Report to Congressional Requesters, entitled “Independent Expert Assessment of Army Body Armor Test Results and Procedures Needed Before Fielding.

Thanks to the efforts of Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and others, Congressional leaders were not side-tracked and continued to insist that the Department of Defense address the issues raised in the GAO report.    “In his October 22 letter to Secretary Gates, Senator Webb noted a disturbing lack of consensus between the GAO and the Department of Defense Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) in their evaluations of Army body armor testing.  ‘Continued controversy over the reliability of new body armor can undermine public confidence,’ Senator Webb wrote. ‘Ultimately, those who rely on this armor for protection may also question its performance.'”   Senator Webb is too kind, I had suggested that a general recall of body armor might be in order if this had been an automobile with defective brakes.  Where is the outrage?

Senior Investigative Reporter and Editor for SFTT, Roger Charles has written extensively on the 110-page GAO report.   Mr. Charles sadly concludes that despite shoddy test procedures against protocol test standards that are more than 30 years old,  the US Army (fully supported by the Department of Defense) selected the option that increased risk to the Soldier, while decreasing risk/cost to the contractors!

The National Research Council (“NRC”) has now released two reports in response to Secretary McHugh’s request to evaluate the US Army Test Procedures.  The Phase I NRC report on body armor was issued on December 30, 2009,  In this initial phase, the NRC committee evalutated to following subjects:

  • “The committee will comment on the validity of using laser profilometry/laser interferometry techniques to determine the contours of an indent made by a ballistic test in a non-transparent clay material at the level of precision established in the Army’s procedures for testing personal body armor. If laser profilometry/laser interferometry is not a valid method, the committee will consider whether a digital caliper can be used instead to collect valid data.
  • The committee will also provide interim observations regarding the column-drop performance test described by the Army for assessing the part-to-part consistency of a clay body used in testing body armor.”

The Phase II NRC report on body armor test procedures was released on April 22, 2010 and contains 19 specific recommendations to improve the integrity of body armor test procedures.   The report was issued on behalf of the committee by MG (ret) Larry G. Lehowicz to J. Michael Gilmore, Director, Operational Test & Evaluation for the DOD.

In the Phase II NRC Body Armor report (p. 11)  recommends that the “Army’s medical and testing communities should be adequately funded to expedite the research necessary both to quantify the medical results of blunt force trauma on tissue and to use those results as the updated mathematical underpinnings of the back face deformation (BFD) body armor testing methodology.

“Regardless of the current imperfect correlation between existing medical data and the BFD approach, the committee believes that the current methodology for testing body armor should be continued, mainly because this approach has allowed the Army to send body armor with adequate survivability characteristics to soldiers in combat. Importantly, the committee was informed earlier by the Program Executive Office–Soldier that no soldier deaths are known to be attributable to a failure of the issued ceramic body armor.”

While it is certainly reassuring that body armor reliability and testing integrity will be improved by the application of modern technology applied in a consistent manner, I find it surprising that the US Army has decided to withhold critical field data from the NRC to determine to determine the effectiveness of currently approved body armor.  Is it true that “no soldier deaths are known to be attributable to a failure of the issued ceramic body armor?”  Indeed, the New York Times reports that the US Army has autopsy reports that confirm that defective body armor has contributed to the death of our troops.

What is the truth?  The NRC is quite right in asking to examine US Army and Marine Corps autopsy records to further determine the level of protection afforded by our frontline troops.  Why is the US Army deliberately withholding this information?  The US Army, our Congressional leaders, the American public and, most importantly, our troops deserve  the comprehensive report that was promised them when Secretary McHugh requested the intervention of the NRC.  Anything less is reprehensible.  

There is still time for the NRC to insist on receiving autopsy data from the US Army.  For the NRC report to have any level of credibility, the inclusion of actual battlefield data based on autopsy studies is essential to determine the effectiveness of current body armor.  

Richard W. May

0

Colonel David Hackworth 5th Anniversary Celebration

Posted by:

SFTT Chair Eilhys England Hackworth Announces 5th Anniversary Celebration

Colonel David “Hack” Hackworth, my dear late husband, died in my arms five years ago this month. As of May 1st, to celebrate Hack’s unique life and legacy, Soldiers For The Truth is launching a year-long 5th Anniversary Celebration  to honor his lifelong dedication to America’s frontline troops.

Our first event will be a public wreath ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery planned for May 22 to honor Hack’s legacy.  I will be joined by Soldiers For The Truth board members and distinguished guests as we first honor him at his gravesite and then present a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This event is open to the public and I hope you consider joining SFTT as we commemorate Hack’s life and his many contributions to America’s greatest treasure, its fighting men and women.

More immediately, in conjunction with introducing our newly-reconstructed website (www.SFTT.org) the Foundation is kicking off our tribute year with the appointment of Richard May, Director, Communications and LTC (R) Jaime Martinez, Director, Hackworth Legacy.

Richard (“Rick”) W. May, who served in Military Intelligence at the Pentagon from 1969 to 1971, joins us after an extensive career in international banking; he presently both runs several internet businesses and has joined his wife Sheila in Therese Saint Clair, a stationery store located in Greenwich, CT.  A self-taught computer-technology specialist, Rick has already leveraged his extensive business acumen and computer-tech skills to manage a host of communications across the digital spectrum including—fortunately for SFTT—ramrodding our site reconstruction as a volunteer. “It is an honor and a privilege to continue on with my ‘service’ to SFTT.  Supporting the brave young men and women who defend our freedoms,” Rick told me, “is an easily acquired addiction.”

LTC (R) Jaime Martinez is joining SFTT after recently retiring from 25 years of service in the Army as a career Infantryman.

While SFTT has captured the attention of the Beltway military procurement community and the US Congress and engaged with them in the urgent need for improving the equipment issued to our often-embattled frontline troops, we still have a long way to go to get our warriors the right stuff to make it home alive and in one piece.

So we’re also launching our first membership drive. First, because our wonderful pro bono lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis have re-written our by-laws to allow for members. At last you can officially support SFTT’s noble efforts either by joining up – or, of course, otherwise contributing to our critical cause. Only by standing together can we ensure that America’s sons and daughters, those brave heroes who daily risk their lives on forgotten and desolate battlefields, have a better shot at returning safely to their beloved country.

Other 5th Anniversary events already scheduled include our presenting former Senator and SFTT close advisor Bob Kerrey with our SUPPORT THE TROOPS WITH MORE THAN LIP SERVICE AWARD this October 15th and on Sunday November 14th we’ll be hosting our annual Veterans Day Rock & Roll Party (Vietnam era music in honor of the vets from that sad war—where we’ll also celebrate Hack’s November 11th birthday!) at the Second Congregation Church of Greenwich.

Hope to see you all everywhere.

Eilhys England Hackworth

SFTT Chair

2

Body Armor: Open Letter to General Conway

Posted by:

April 21, 2009

Commandant of the Marine Corps

General James T. Conway

Headquarters USMC

2 Navy Annex (CMC)

Washington, D.C.  20380-1775

Dear General,

I would like to thank for your response to my letter dated 03-28-08, as well, as the time you took out of your demanding schedule. I know you and I are the same in many ways as acknowledged in your letter, but yet very different. The Command you lead and the Stars you wear are one of great responsibilities. The tasks that are put before you from day to day are not easy ones, but you have within you a Drive and Conviction to push forward no matter what, that’s why you are there.

I, in my life, do not lead a Command, but I do have a Drive and Conviction for the Troops of all branches, and my sons. When I started writing these letters back in 2006 it has never been my intent to dishonor any branch in our military or to be a thorn in anybody’s side. It has always been my outlook in life that one person can make a difference and I live by that rule. The objective here is to protect ALL the Troops with the very best Body Armor.

The first objective was to get NASA involved and this is not to say, just to kick it around and talk about it at meetings. When my wife and I went to Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico Va. in 2007 to meet with Brigadier General Brogan’s staff. I gave my concerns, thoughts and ideas, which included NASA. I was told they had never contacted NASA on this issue but were going to do it as a result of this meeting, which I thought to be a positive response.  The purpose is, to form and make One Department within NASA solely for R&D for Body Armor ONLY, and nothing else. The second is the technology of liquid body armor by Dr. Norman Wagner, to be used in the making of the soft body armor as well as the helmets. The third is to get the President, the Senate, and Congress to fund such a project which I have found to be like climbing Mount Everest, backwards, but I still have not given up on this concept, nor will I ever.

Over the years of writing to the political machine in Washington, it has been disappointing at times, but not enough to prevent me from continuing with my writing. I have found that some are disconnected with the needs of the Military and their families on the issue of Body Armor in particular.  There are some that have no idea what anguish, pain and many sleepless nights the families endure when their loved ones are deployed. But yet, they still sit on committees in which they hold the power to make a difference, and yet, they do not act, or act quickly enough when called upon.

I have found that the subject of the military with most people in general, have no idea on what anguish truly means, and don’t care. Unless you walk in our shoes, can you truly understand what our Troops and their Military families go through and the great scarifies they make every day for this great nation.

  When we have designs, redesigns and recall’s of Body Armor for several years, without making any great strides in the area of weight and protection, this is why I do, what I do, and why the families are so concerned! Have I set the bar too high for Washington on what I ask of them? I think not! This request is not one that can’t be quickly reached; we must move more rapidly and think outside the box on this one!

I truly understand the willingness of our military leaders to unfailingly fight for the best, but my concerns are not so much with the military but with the committees that tie the hands of the military on so many issues. I realize that I have made no friends, in Washington. Some may even hate me for the writing of these letters to the military and Washington, but that’s alright. If I can make a difference and save one life, then I can look in the mirror and say it was a good day and it was all worth it, no matter what people think of me! As my 1st Sergeant always said, “Respect is not given, it is Earned”, and the Troops have earned my respect many times over, past and present.

I will continue the push forward on my requests, as so many lives are on the line, so bare with me on my letters, e-mails and phone calls; I do this on behalf of all the TROOPS.

I look forward to hearing from you again and thank you for your time and Godspeed to you General, and maybe someday our paths will cross.

Americans never quit.

General Douglas Macarthur

US WWII general & war hero (1880 – 1964)

Sincerely,

Michael J. F. Bucca Sr.

Hanover, Massachusetts 

“Veteran and Father of a proud Marine”

SFTT Editor’s Note:   This is an open letter from Michael Bucca, a “veteran and father of a proud Marine,” to General James T. Conway, Commondant of the Marine Corps.   While Mr. Bucca’s suggestions to engage NASA do not necessarily represent the position of SFTT, we do agree that seeking better protective gear and combat equipment for our frontline troops should become a National Priority.   Let’s raise our voices to support these brave young men and women who defend our freedoms.   Join SFTT and add your voice to Mr. Bucca’s to get our frontline troops the best available combat equipment.

0

Colonel Hackworth Wreath Ceremony and Graveside Memorial

Posted by:

Colonel David H. Hackworth (U.S. Army, Retired)

Graveside Memorial and Wreath Ceremony

Arlington National Cemetery

May 22, 2010

May 4th marked the fifth anniversary of the passing of Colonel David “Hack” Hackworth.  His legacy will be honored at a gravesite memorial, 2:00 p.m., May 22, 2010.  Following the gravesite memorial at 3:15 p.m., family and members of the Soldiers For The Truth Foundation  will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery to honor the fallen.

This event is open to the public and we cordially invite you to join us as we commemorate Hack’s life and legacy—his steadfast commitment to protecting America’s greatest treasure, its fighting men and women. Your support of the same issues Hack fought for over the years is a testimony to his legacy and vital to SFTT’s continuing his noble mission.

Since his passing, SFTT has continued to carry the torch and keep the public and our leaders focused on the critical need to provide the best-available equipment to our troops while also working to correct training and leadership shortfalls.  Your joining us helps strengthen our determination to keep all Hack stood for alive.

Sequence of Events

2:00               Gravesite Memorial (Section 37, Grave 417A)

2:45                Walk to Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

3:00               Changing of the Guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

3:15                Public Wreath Ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

Useful Resources

Arlington National Cemetery by Google Maps

Colonel David H. Hackworth Gravesite Information

2

Body Armor and the NASA Connection

Posted by:

April 29, 2010

President Barack H. Obama II

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

President Barack H. Obama II:

Dear Mr. President,

I know what you’re thinking, it’s him again! Well, I’d like to say it wasn’t, however. The issue is Body Armor Design or should I say the lack of its advancement of lighter and better ballistics.

I have reached out many times to two Administrations of, Presidents, Senators, Congressmen and Military etc. and continue to hit a brick wall on the creation and establishment of one department within NASA. I believe this concept could be a straightforward one with the help of you, Mr. President, Secretary Robert M. Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen. With this partnership, you can make all of this happen.

Mr. President, you had once stated that “If someone has a better idea, I’m listening”. Well the concept is simple, to have NASA solely dedicated one department (assemble one) for the R&D of Body Armor, nothing more and nothing less than that. This would be their ONLY task to do at NASA and nothing else. It will not work by having meeting’s or studies with NASA, or forming committees on top of committees.

I will continue to reach out to you and your Administration on this issue. When you believe in something as strongly as I do, you press on no matter what, as you well know Mr. President. I realize you are a very busy man, and that there is never a good time for such a request. I feel that I must reach out for your help on my request. I’m hoping that you concur and push this forward. In closing, I am not a man of power or influence; however I’m a man of determination and conviction for all our troops.

I look forward to hearing from all of you, and thank you all for your time.

The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.

Abraham Lincoln

16th president of US (1809 – 1865)

Sincerely,

Michael J. F. Bucca Sr.

Hanover, Massachusetts

“Veteran and Father of a proud Marine”

Editor’s Note: We appreciate Mr. Bucca for sharing his letter to President Obama with SFTT. His letter reflects the views of many concerned parents  whose sons and daughters are serving in harm’s way.  SFTT and its members and volunteers pledge ourselves to continue our campaigns to make sure our troops have the best protective gear and combat equipment available.

0

Iran and the Straits of Hormuz

Posted by:

The following article was published  April 24th on  Crosshairs – Military Matters in Review at www.milmat.net by Fred Edwards.  I have recently “discovered” Mr. Edwards and believe that he supplies much needed context and insightful analysis of military matters.  This recent article by Mr. Edwards focuses on a possible military response by Iran in the event they are threatened or attacked.   The analysis is sobering.

“On the final day of its three-day war games in the Straits of Hormuz, Iran reportedly stopped and boarded a French and an Italian vessel. On April 24, Iranian state media announced that naval forces from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) boarded the vessels and inspected them to see if they were complying with environmental regulations. Finding no violations, they let the two vessels continue.

In a report the same date, Stratfor, a company that collects and analyzes worldwide political, economic and military intelligence, wrote that if the incident happened, it was a signal from Iran that it was willing to disrupt traffic in the Straits in case it was attacked. The Straits carry some 40 percent of the international oil supply, and Iran routinely threatens to halt shipping there if it is attacked. They could do it only temporarily, Joint Chiefs vice chair Marine Gen. James Cartwright told the Senate Armed Services Committee April 14.

Does such brinkmanship smacks of strategic insanity? Not necessarily. Maybe Iran is warning the United States and its friends that, if they attacked, Iran would create an international financial crisis by closing the Straits even though the shutdown would mean that Iran itself would stop its own oil exports, and imports of almost everything it needs. In other words, Tehran is saying, “Hey, if you try to destroy me, I’ll destroy myself, but I’ll take you all down with me, along with the global financial system.”

But Iran also might be playing the sly fox. As the United States debates about placing sanctions against Iran to pressure it from continuing its nuclear program, the sly fox may simply be saying, “If you think you can hurt me with sanctions, at any time I decide you are squeezing too hard, I’ll just close down the Straits for a few months. Now there’s a sanction for you that will stick.”

The last time Tehran played a similar sort of brinkmanship was on March 23, 2007, when Iranian military forces seized seven British marines and eight sailors. The Brits were aboard two inflatable patrol boats in the northern Persian gulf, boarding merchant vessels, and Iranian officials claimed they were trespassing in Iran’s territorial waters. Before releasing them, the Iranians put them on public display where some “confessed” and apologized for entering Iranian waters.

This time the chips are on the table — or perhaps in the Straits of Hormuz: Iran failed to meet the December deadline for nuclear talks; the United States is deciding which sanctions to apply; and Iran is saying America wouldn’t dare.”

This is certainly high-stakes poker in a troubling part of the world and argues for caution and vigilance.

Richard W. May

1
Page 52 of 57 «...2030405051525354...»