PC Jihad Doctrine for US Troops at War

Posted by:

In an eye-opening article published by American Thinker, two reporters sadly report that “political correctness” is now being applied to battlefield situations.  In an article which must be read in its entirety, authors Janet Levy and Nidra Poller conclude that “the highest levels of government enforce a policy on the military which effectively prevents consideration of the enemy doctrine of jihad.”

Please note that these two authors clearly have a political viewpoint that is not necessarily shared by SFTT, nevertheless, their comments and analysis do raise an important dilemma on how to motivate and lead troops in combat without offending the enemy.   Found below are some of the more interesting observations which I encourage SFTT readers to read in its entirety:

“At a recent briefing on cyber-terrorism in Washington, D.C., a former Navy SEAL repeatedly apologized for any statements in his lecture that could be misconstrued as anti-Muslim. He carefully qualified every negative reference to Muslims or Islam as excluding the vast majority of “peaceful[,] law-abiding” Muslims. The level of caution displayed by a military officer who had recently returned from a tour in Iraq and had served at a high level of military intelligence was disconcerting. The former SEAL wholeheartedly — perhaps unwittingly — accepted the role of “dhimmi,” an inferior who, under the provisions of Islamic law, does not have the right to self-defense.

“How could a member of an elite division of the U.S. Navy who had withstood arduous military preparation be fearful of merely offending Muslims? How does this mentality influence his effectiveness as a soldier and officer? His action in combat?

“Our citizens at home and our troops on the battlefield are disarmed by a narrative that imposes respect for a political-religious system that seeks their subjugation and death. As we saw with the former SEAL, our troops are taught that they must not openly expose the ideology of Islam, its goals and strategy. They risk their lives not to defeat the enemy and liberate local population, but to facilitate the consolidation of Islamic states governed by shari’ah law. Instead of combating jihad, they empower it!

“The war effort has been repackaged as a combination of Peace Corps, social work, and outreach to the Muslim community. Military personnel, held to strict one-way standards of religious sensitivity, are told that their mission is to build trust in the local population. This self-defeating strategy has gutted the rules of engagement, shackling our soldiers on the battlefield. Instead of fighting to kill, soldiers worry about facing charges and imprisonment for offending, harming, or frightening the enemy. Misplaced vigilance jeopardizes their own safety. Soldiers are punished not for cowardice or fraternizing with the enemy, but for lack of kid-gloves respect. Petty Officer Julio Huertas faced charges for allegedly punching and kicking Iraqi jihadist detainee Ahmed Hashim Abed, accused of the grisly murder of four American contractors whose mutilated corpses were hacked to pieces, burned, and strung up in Fallujah. In normal times, Huertas would have been hailed as a hero for capturing an archenemy. Colonel Alan West (currently running for Congress) was accused of “aggravated assault” for firing a pistol in the air to scare an Iraqi detainee into giving information on planned ambushes of his troops in Tikrit. Instead of being commended for protecting his men, Colonel West was forced into early retirement to avoid court-martial.

“Our troops are in double jeopardy: facing the enemy on the battlefield and the eventual jihadist in their ranks. Federal guarantees of religious freedom and non-discrimination prevent the rejection of Muslim recruits and, as we saw with the Fort Hood jihadi Major Hassan, can protect a Muslim soldier from being discharged for obvious, repeated misconduct. No precautions are taken, despite calls by the likes of U.S.-born Anwar Al-Awlaki pushing Muslim soldiers to kill their comrades. Rather than risk being seen as “Islamophobic,” officers risk the lives of their servicemen and women.

“Military personnel don’t revolt; they follow orders. How long can we expect them to follow orders from a commander in chief who does not honor his obligation to send them into battle under the best conditions? If they were civilians, would they obey orders from such an irresponsible leader? Would policemen risk their lives to maintain law and order if they were hobbled with such rules of engagement?

“The dangers faced by military personnel today stand in sharp contrast to the safe, comfortable living conditions of the general population, cushioned from distant battlefield realities, living in material abundance, and exempt from the draft. Our troops cannot prevail without material and moral support from our nation. But this support is stifled by a lethal narrative that criminalizes war, glorifies underhanded jihad fighting, and embraces subversion on the home front.”

Author’s Comment:  Clearly, our troops are under great stress and this new “moralistic” mind-set only makes their mission more complex and life-threatening.  I do not subscribe to many of the arguments and implicit suggestions of authors Levy and Poller; however, ambiguity in combat leads to the loss of lives.   Asking our troops to operate in a theater of war and expect them to behave like Peace Corps volunteers is simply absurd.   The military mission needs to be clarified – both for the troops in the field and the American public.   Don’t ask our young men and women in uniform to become the victims of political, social and religious debate that is best hashed out in college dorm rooms.  Keep the mission simple or these brave heroes will be coming home in a casket.   If we can’t keep the mission simple, bring the troops home now!

Richard W. May

1

Army Tests 2,000 “Potentially Cracked” Ceramic Body Armor Plates: Where Are Results?

Posted by:

Buried inside the devastating Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s) October 2009 report on the Pentagon’s inability to demonstrate “overall reliability and repeatability” in body armor tests is this intriguing statement:

“Testing was halted for other high-priority tests involving 2,000 plates from Iraq that were identified as potentially cracked by nondestructive testing performed by the Army.” [Footnote 14, page 12,  GAO-10-119 Warfighter Support.]

Whoa . . . these are the very same ceramic protective plates that the Pentagon claims have never failed. Never.  Never  ever! Not a single time.  Not once in the past eight and one half years of combat in Afghanistan; not once in the past seven years of combat in Iraq.

By the way, this is the same GAO report that led to more than $121 million of ceramic plates being withheld from issuance to our frontline troops due to testing flaws that resulted in these plates not being certifiable as meeting the government’s performance specifications.

So, what gives?

Here’s just a bit of the back story on this battlefield miracle that sees no US grunt getting shot at (and hit) while wearing a ceramic protective plate before it develops cracks.  Bear with me while we examine the tortured logic behind the Pentagon’s incredible claim of “no failures” by going through the sequence of events leading to the discovery of “potentially cracked” plates.

STEP ONE:

Action:  Protective plate issued to trooper.

Status of ceramic protective plate:  100% pristine, perfect condition (no cracks, according to Army and DoD).   [Editor’s Note: Each plate is issued with “HANDLE WITH CARE” stenciled on the strike face. “HANDLE WITH CARE” for gear to be issued to frontline infantry?  If any reader knows of another item of personal gear issued to frontline troops with a similar label, please contact the SFTT Editor.]

STEP TWO:

Action:  Troops wear plates in combat operations until plates are selected for X-ray tests.

Status of ceramic protective plate:  Unknown percentage of plates develop cracks, in spite of “HANDLE WITH CARE” warning.

STEP THREE:

Action:  Nondestructive X-ray examination by Mobile X-ray system.

Status of ceramic protective plate:  X-ray system detects cracks in plates not detectable by visual inspection.  [Editor’s Note: Percentage of all plates X-rayed that were designated “potentially cracked” is unknown.]

STEP FOUR:

Action:  “Potentially cracked” plates pulled from use and 2,000 sent back to US for “priority tests.”

Status of ceramic protective plate:  Unknown percentage of “potentially cracked” plates failed tests.

STEP FIVE:

Action:  Pentagon and Army press offices continue to claim “zero failures” for ceramic ballistic plates.

Status of ceramic protective plate:  Frontline troops continue to wear plates that are not “potentially cracked” until discovered to be so by X-ray system.

Yep.  The Pentagon and the Army would have the mothers and fathers of America’s Grunts believe that every plate with cracks is magically detected by X-raying before ever receiving an enemy shot.

Anyone interested in this issue might query your elected representative and ask them to obtain the results of the “high- priority tests” of 2,000 “potentially cracked” plates as cited in the October 2009 GAO report.  Sound Off now and make sure that our troops have the best protective gear and combat equipment available.

Roger Charles

Senior Investigative Reportor and Editor SFTT

2

M4 rifle faults in Afghanistan prompts debate

Posted by:

Bob Owens, a Blogger for Pajamas Media, writes a very interesting article on the recently discredited M4 carbine now used by US troops in Afghanistan.  In an article entitled: Fox News Gets It Wrong: M4 Rifle Works Fine; the Problem Is the Cartridge, Mr. Owens argues persuasively that the problem is not with the M4 which he characterizes as being “long in the tooth,” but in the relatively weak 5.56mm caliber bullet used in this weapon. 

Mr. Owens goes on to suggest that “the 6.8 SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) was designed explicitly to overcome the shortcomings of the 5.56 cartridge. Just as importantly, it was specifically designed to work with the Army’s existing M4 rifles. It outclasses the AK-47s cartridge in every measurable way.”  Now I am not a ballistics or weapon’s specialist – in fact, the most lethal weapons in my arsenal are a knife and fork – but clearly something is amiss with the weapon and/or cartridge currently being used by our troops deployed in Afghanistan.  This was confirmed in a detailed US Army study on the effectiveness of the M4 by Maj. Thomas Ehrhart.

Mr. Owens then goes on to say that “the story that Fox News missed is a simple one: why hasn’t the Army begun upgrading it’s 5.56 M4 rifles to the more powerful 6.8 SPC cartridge? It offers superior performance at every range, with less recoil and weight than the heavier and older M14. No doubt there will be logistical hurdles to overcome in making such a transition during a time of war, and such transitions aren’t inexpensive, but they require almost no retraining and provide our soldiers with a distinct edge over their enemies.

Our media should be asking generals to explain why our soldiers are still using weapons in a caliber that was known to be suboptimal in many situations nearly half a century agoOur soldiers should have the best tools to complete their mission.”

Indeed, this is the question that SFTT, our troops and many concerned families have been asking our military leaders and those entrusted with providing our troops with the “best tools to complete their mission” and come home alive and in one piece.   Is it because we don’t want to undermine the complex trade and military supply agreements with other NATO countries to produce a “NATO-standard” weapon with “NATO-standard” cartridges?  I hope someone has the answers, because our military leaders don’t seem to know and, perhaps, don’t even care.

Richard W. May

0

Congressman Carney and defective military helmets

Posted by:

Congressman Chris Carney (D-PA) has rightfully asked that defective military helmets now produced by UNICOR or Federal Prison Industries (“FPI”) be turned over to private enterprise.  In yet another stunning indictment of a thoroughly incompetent, ineffective and some might argue corrupt military procurement system, the Department of Justice recently launched an investigation into the recall of 44,000 military helmets which failed to meet required military test procedures.   The contract was awarded to ArmorSource LLC, who in turned subcontracted the work to Federal Prison Industries. 

According to a Pennsylvannia Politics news release,  the Army apparently awarded Federal Prison Industries a contract to produce 600,000 Advanced Combat Helmets in 2007, more than half of the Army’s needs.  “This contract was awarded on a non-competitive basis to FPI pursuant to a provision in the U.S. procurement regulations that gives FPI the first right of refusal on contracts with the U.S. government.”

The article goes on state that in 2008 “FPI was awarded another ballistic helmet contract, this time for the delivery of 100,000 Lightweight Helmets for the U.S. Marine Corps. This represented 100 percent of the Marine Corps needs and effectively shut out private industry from supplying this product. Congressman Carney’s office has learned that under both of those contracts, Federal Prison Industries has failed to pass first article testing, the process to ensure the equipment meets specifications. Both contracts are now more than 18 months past due without a single acceptable helmet being delivered. And based upon information received from the U.S. Department of Justice, FPI’s production of helmets is under investigation.”

SFTT has not yet been able to confirm the allegations detailed by Congressman Carney’s office, but certainly the broad scale of this investigation is disturbing, but hardly surprising given the lax supervision and controls in our military procurement process.   It would be most interesting to know who the beneficial owners are of ArmorSource LLC and whether they have the “right” to subcontract work to third parties under US military contract awards.

Also, I understand that Congressman Carney believes that there are least two well-qualified firms in Pennsylvannia able to step in to produce the military helmets.   Since the private sector has proved to be as equally incomptent and negligent as FPI in producing combat equipment to specifications, I am hopeful that that “reliable” testing and vetting occur before any new contracts are awarded.  I am sure that Congressman Carney would place our National interests ahead of any parochial interests to insure that our young men and women have the best combat gear possible.

Richard W. May

0

M2 Heavy Machine Gun Fails Troops in Afghanistan: More on DoDIG Report

Posted by:

As readers of SFTT News are aware, I had previously reported on the blithering incompetence demonstrated by the US Army and DoD in the procurement of spare parts for the M2 Heavy Machine Gun that is essential to the survival of our troops in Afghanistan.   “Blithering incompetence” are my words, but reading the Department of Defense Inspector General (“DoDIG”) on the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) handling of critical spare parts for the M2, my words seem mild compared to the outrageous and indefensible behavior of those entrusted to make sure that our frontline troops have the proper combat equipment and protective gear. 

The DoDIG essentially informs  the Secretary of Defense that after eight years of combat in Afghanistan and seven years of combat in Iraq, the bureaucrats in the DLA do not have a minimally-acceptable process that gets our frontline troops the right spare parts for their M2’s in a timely fashion.

In fact, the DoDIG tested 21 different spare parts and one 98-piece spare part kit, all of which are designated “critical application items,” which are defined thusly:  “A critical application item is one that is essential to the preservation of life in emergencies or essential to end-item or system performance, the failure of which would adversely affect the accomplishment of a military operation.”   Here is the “good” news from the DoDIG report:  “At least 7,100 items did not conform with quality standards for 24 of the 103 contracts, including parts that:

  •  contractors manufactured incorrectly,
  • did not meet specific quality standards, and
  • contained inadequate phosphate surface coating to prevent corrosion

Many readers will recall previous DoDIG and GAO reports documented how the Army acquisition bureaucrats had subverted the First Article Testing process to ensure substandard body armor was issued to our frontline troop, and these readers will not be surprised that in this investigation report, DODIG found the responsible DOD agency:   “. . . did not include a first article test requirement in 79 of the 103 contracts we reviewed. For 21 of the 79 contracts, contractors ultimately provided parts that did not conform to contract specifications. If [DoD] had included appropriate quality assurance provisions in these contracts, such as a first article testing requirement, it could have identified contractor deficiencies at an earlier date.”

The DoGIG also noted that a DLA office had “performed 20 product verification tests on items associated with the M2 contracts we sampled. Contractors failed 14 of the 20 tests . . .”  So, contractors failed 70% of tests of their “products,” products designated as “critical application items” essential to our frontline troops having fully functioning M2’s.  No one pays a penalty; contractors get paid for shoddy work; bureaucrats get paid for showing up. Business as usual in today’s Military Industrial Congressional Complex.

There’s a lot more to digest in this DODIG report, but let’s end with these two findings:

“. . . did not always use appropriate and effective contracting quality assurance procedures to ensure that contractors provided M2 machine gun parts that conformed to contract specifications. This increased the risk for the warfighter, who had to wait for critical M2 gun parts.” [Duh!!]

“. . .contracting officials were not holding contractors accountable for late deliveries of critical application M2 gun parts. Monetary compensation for nonperformance is a key element DSCC can use to hold contractors accountable for complying with contract delivery terms.”

If by chance, you share SFTT’s outrage at this egregious negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of those who sole responsibility is to support America’s great frontline troops, you might want to ask your elected representative how many thousands of dollars went to DLA last year for “superior performance” bonuses?  I recall the outrage at bonuses being awarded to executives of AIG and Merril Lynch after the bail-out.   Shame on the DLA and those officials who continue to condone this serial dereliction of duty and blind incompetence in our military procurement process.  Our troops deserve better. 

Last point, the Army shares in the “joy” of this report due to its documented failures in making DLA aware of this situation with sufficient “emphasis,” and for the flaws in both technical data packages and overhaul projects for the M2.  The sad truth is that no one involved demonstrated even a minimal concern about getting critical spare parts to those whose very survival might well depend on getting them in a timely manner, i.e., before their next firefight.

Roger Charlges

Senior Investigative Report and SFTT Editor

4

Wreath Ceremony in Arlington Cemetery for Col. David Hackworth

Posted by:

On May 22nd, Eilhys England Hackworth, the widow of Col. David Hackworth celebrated his legacy with a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. Found below is a video of the wreath ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown.

As we approach Memorial Day, we give thanks to the many who have sacrificed their lives to keep this country free.

2

More on Military Helmet Recall

Posted by:

We had previously reported that the US Army had recalled 44,000 military helmets that failed to meet the required government mandated test standards.  The manufacturer, ArmorSource in Hebron, Ohio, is now under investigation by the Department of Justice.  To determine if you have been issued a defective helmet, please consult the guide below that was furnished by Stars and Stripes:

Defective Helmet Checklist

In an interesting, but by no means surprising development, the Stars and Stripes reports that these defective military helmets had actually been subcontracted to UNICOR, the Federal Prison Industries.  A spokesperson for UNICOR indicates that production has been suspended.  Apparently, a new investigation has been instituted to determine how many other military contracts have been awarded to the Federal Prison Industries.

3

44,000 Military Helmets Recalled

Posted by:

Just when you thought it couldn’t get much worse, it has now been reported that the US Army has recalled 44,000 helmets which failed to meet US Army testing standards.  In an article reported in Yahoo news, helmets manufactured by ArmorSource in Hebron, Ohio currently issued to troops serving in Afghanistan were recalled following an investigation by the US Justice Department.

According to Brigadier General Pete Fuller, who is quoted in the article, the helmets were issued to American troops in 2007, including soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Says General Fuller, “We don’t know where they (helmets) are. So they could be on some soldier’s head in either Iraq or Afghanistan. They could also be anywhere else in the world.”

ArmorSource, claiming to have been surprised by the investigation, has issued a one-page statement on their website claiming they will cooperate with the investigation into the defective military helmets.

General Fuller indicated that  ArmorSource manufactured 102,000 helmets under a 2006 contract at a cost of $250 a piece. Of that number, 44,000 were distributed to troops and have been recalled, while 55,000 are still in storage and the military refused to accept the remaining 3,000.

In yet another glaring indictment of the DoD military procurement process, it is worth recapping the current ongoing investigations:

  • body armor currently worn by our frontline troops failed to meet minimum test protocols as reported by the GAO and IG and is currently being investigated by the Committee for Government Oversight and Reform;
  • the standard issue M4 carbine is not effective for combat in Afghanistan according to US Army sources;
  • the DoD Inspector General has reported on serious deficiencies in the supply of spare parts for the M2 heavy machine gun deemed essential for combat in Afghanistan.

As Roger Charles, Editor of SFTT, has reported “the shoddy procurement process within the DoD only confirms that the problems indentified by SFTT are truly systemic and not unique to body armor.”

If we would accord our brave heroes the same level of oversight that we pay to defective brake pedals, most of our troops would probably be in a stateside repair shop since the combat equipment we are providing them seems best suited for paintball warfare.  Where is the outrage?

Richard W. May

1

M-14, AK-47 seem better than M4

Posted by:

The recent disclosures that the standard issue M4 may not be the best military carbine for US troops in Afghanistan has prompted considerable debate both within and outside the military community.  I recently visited the Fox News Site which currently has 58 comments to an article which compared the AK-47 to the M4.

Now I am not a gunsmith and have little intelligent commentary to add to the debate, but I was struck by the knowledge and articulate views of the readers who weighed in on the subject.    I am hesitant to reprint the Fox photograph of the two weapons, since one astute reader (panadox177) pointed out that the M4 (weapon shown below)  is actually a picture of the “semiautomatic civilian AR-15 with a flat top upper and a 16″ barrel, instead of the correct 14.5″ barrel found on a real M4.”  Happy to receive any feedback on this observation:

AK-47 and M4 (below)

With the recent DoD Inspector General report detailing the problems of sourcing spare parts for the M2 Heavy Machine Gun, our troops now seem to woefully under-armed on the Afghan battlefield.  Clearly, the M4’s lack of lethal effectiveness over 300 meters as documented by Maj. Thomas Ehrhart is a most pressing issue, but “fixable” according to most of the experts who commented on the Fox report.

I was, however, amused that one commenter suggested bringing back the M-14 (the weapon I fired in Basic Training) which was eventually phased out in favor of the M-16 (essentially an early version of the now modified M4) for Viet Nam.  I still remember the training officers telling us to “keep your weapon clean and well oiled” since it had a proclivity to jam (sound familiar?).    I seem to recall that the Viet Cong were using the trusty AK-47 which didn’t jam and still seems to work after 60 years of warfare.  We can put a man on the moon, but have difficulty building a serviceable and effective military carbine.  Go figure!

Richard W. May

2
Page 53 of 59 «...3040505152535455...»