South Carolina For Ron Paul

I am a native son of South Carolina. I am a Christian, a father and an active duty military officer and I support Ron Paul for president. I do not make this claim of support lightly - I have not fully supported any candidate since Ronald Reagan (and I was young then). To be certain I liked the ideas of Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes but each of those elections were different. Different in that enough of the polity was not sufficiently upset to actually accept a solution other than the option offered up by the party bosses. Look at the poll numbers and contribution amounts right now - he traditional base of the Republican party is fractured and confused. Many know that things have gone awry but don not yet know where to turn for solutions.

Ron Paul is the answer, he is the only real conservative in the race. He is the only man that stands true to principles that our South Carolina ancestors would be proud to associate with. He is the only man running that a Christian of true conscious can vote for.

I know that those associated intimately with the party machine fear and disdain Paul - he exists outside of the system. The Republican Party itself supported a recently converted democrat (and liberal) against Dr. Paul in 1996 in a congressional election. This says much more about Ron Paul's commitment to stand firmly on his principles than it does of the wisdom of the party leadership. If you are one of those hard working party loyalist here in SC that believe that Paul is an outsider I ask that you consider what it really means to be a conservative and measure Paul against that - not against silly notions of "electability", pragmatism and loyalty to some notion of corporate fidelity. You know, or should know that at this stage of the game, with Paul's record of donations and support that he is far ahead of where Ronald Reagan was in 1979. Paul is electable, don't believe anything to the contrary.

Folks say Ron Paul is a contrarian - I say he is just principled. Anyone that observes politics knows full well that is ever there is a vote in Congress with only one dissenter - that is Ron Paul. He has been called Dr. No for this very reason - he alone seems to understand or care that the legislation that Congress passes must adhere to the guidelines set forth in the Constitution. No matter how "good" of an idea that comes up, Dr. Paul will not and never has supported any program not specifically authorized in the Constitution. Why is this important? Good ideas and running us broke but more importantly a government that does not follow its highest law is not a legitimate government at all.

Consider this, Ron Paul has

• never voted to raise taxes.
• never voted for an unbalanced budget.
• never voted to raise congressional pay.
• never taken a government-paid junket.
• never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
• voted against regulating the Internet.
• not participated in the lucrative congressional pension program.

What would he do as President?

• let Americans keep more of their own money.
• end the IRS.
• stop the central bankers’ “inflation tax.”
• stop unconstitutional spending leading us to bankruptcy.
• stop the financial dependency on China, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign governments.
• oppose trade deals and groups that threaten American Independence (incl. the UN, GATT, NAFTA, NAU, WTO, CAFTA, ICC).
• protect our privacy and stop the national ID card.
• protect our constitutional rights and end the “Patriot” Act.
• secure our borders and end illegal immigration.
• end “birthright” citizenship for illegal aliens.
• bring our troops home from no-win “police actions.”

This is all we really should want a president to do. We do not need any more men with "good ideas" related to programs they believe will solve all of our problems. Honestly, can any decent, right-thinking person think of anything the government really does efficiently or effectively? If you understand the Constitution and the specific delegated powers and responsibilities our states bestowed upon the federal government can you honestly say that you truly want anyone to propose that the central government do any more? Is anyone that proposes a departure for our law, our Constitution really a conservative or are they rather a progressive (or possibly worse)?

These are weighty issues, Americans have become accustomed to hearing politicians propose sweeping programs to solve problems (real and imagined). Many of us have come to believe this is the role of our federal government - it is simply not so.

The most beautiful thing about Dr. Paul is that he understands that most of the issues that the federal government currently concerns itself with belong at the state or county level. Abortion, education and dozens of other issues that clutter up the national dialogue are items we should be talking about and solving in our states - as the people of the states see fit. That my friends is freedom - that is the federal system that the founders envisioned and that is the notion of states' rights that our ancestors fought to preserve. We dishonor their memory, our own system of laws and future generations when we turn to slick politicians that say they can solve problems from Washington.

Just take a look at the recent Republican debates. Folks accuse Ron Paul of being out of step with the party. This is not true, he is on a completely different frequency than the other six candidates and this is obvious. It is impossible to debate with someone when you do not agree on fundamental issues. Paul holds that the very premise of the Federal government doing anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution is wrong and should be stopped immediately. The other want to tweak the system just a bit. That is a fundamental divide - such a gulf that you cannot even agree enough to argue. Paul is not out of step with he party - some within the party (many in fact) have lost touch with traditional conservatism.

Google Ron Paul, visit his campaign site, read my other Ron Paul posts - whatever and however you do it inform yourself about the man. He is electable, he is the only conservative in the race and he is the best hop we have at the national level of restoring the Republic.

North Korean Nuclear Test

Nuclear Test in North Korea that I predicted would occur (the opinions of the talking heads notwithstanding)

Technorati tags: "North Korea", "nuclear test"

The Problem of Centralization

Max Boot - Los Angeles Times: "Among the more surrealistic moments of my travels was pausing at a base near Baqubah - a far-from-pacified Iraqi city that was Abu Musab Zarqawi's last base of operations - to enjoy a fresh-brewed iced latte at a Green Beans coffee shop. It hit the spot, but when I later told a Marine captain about the experience, he took away some of my enjoyment by asking, 'I wonder how many men had to die to get those coffee beans to Baqubah?'.... Most of our resources aren't going to fight terrorists but to maintain a smattering of mini-Americas in the Middle East. As one Special Forces officer pungently put it to me: "The only function that thousands of people are performing out here is to turn food into [excrement]."

I have never read anything by Max Boot before. I read the article above because it was included as part of the opinion section of the Army's Early Bird news. Sometimes I am amazed when the Army includes some of the truth in the news it provides in that service. Whatever may or may not be wrong with Boot and his neoconservatism he was right on the mark with this article.

Now his purpose in making these observations is vastly different than the conclusions I will draw from them. I will merely use the facts he presents to highlight a larger problem. The picture that Boot paints is of a military machine that is centralized, non-adaptive and heavily reliant on doing what it is good at. In this case that is building a large organizational structure with enormous logistical trains and well organized bases. Essentially the military is doing nothing more in Iraq than painting rocks.

During my last tour in Iraq I became convinced that that the last sentence quoted above was aboslutley correct. My team would roll into various FOB's and see all sorts of silly nonsense and people that served no purpose but to just breathe air. Of the 130 thousand or so coalition troops (mostly American) 70-90% of them did (and do) nothing to actually take the fight to the enemy. The differential in the 70-90% mark depends upon just how much weight and utility one attaches to staff sections at the division level and below. There is a lot of duplicitous effort there, personally I would place the effective number at 20%; that being nothing more than 26,000 troops actually outside the wire really making a difference.

Now, if the cause was just, the political will in place and if the military was really capable of transformation I am convinced that if I were in charge I could win the fight in Iraq. Heck, I would not even need anything more than the 130 thousand troops already on the ground. Of course there are two caveats to that. First, of those 130 thousand troops very few of them would be drinking lattes or eating Burger King inside concetina wired FOB's, they would be trigger pullers, engineers and civil affairs types out working in the country - outside the wire. Second, if I were to win that fight the outcome would look very different than what the neoconservatives have in mind as the ideal victory. But enough of that, my point is something different entirely.

What I took from Boot's observation is a microcosmic statement of all that is really wrong with centralization in the first place. Centralization breeds inefficiency, the greater the centralization the greater the inefficiency. Centralizers simply refuse to admit this. Sure it is easier to buy in bulk if you standardize your supply chain. It is easier to move equipment that is standardized. Reports make more sense at higher levels when the data collected is exactly the same and conceivably it is possible to standardize training across an organization to develop like individuals across the spectrum of a large organization.

The problem with all of this centralization is that is it truly is the antithesis of the natural human state. Sure we are social creatures; we enjoy belonging to a group. When that group becomes to large the constraints on individuality become too great.

In the case of the Army as a microcosm of what is wrong with centralization and standardization the Army's own Strategic Studies Institute published a study by Dr. Leonard Wong in 2000 that highlighted several critical data points. For all of the investment in time and resources devoted to scientific management systems and information technology the Army has lost something significant, that being primarily the capacity to develop innovative leaders. Many of the young captains serving today will advance in rank to become highly ineffective generals. In 2004 Wong published another article that dealt with the dilemma that the Army faces with many of these captains that have gone to war, operated independently to a large degree and exercises innovation because they had to and then return to an Army that stifles them and shuts them down.

There are two things relevant I think to take from Wong's 2000 article. First, his discussion of the Millennial generation is telling. He describes them as a generation that has been raised to do what they are told and accept authority. He uses the example of school uniforms and other changes in the public education system as causes of this. I accept his observation of the generation of youngsters that have and will come of age on or around the turn of the century. I am also very concerned that possibly their acceptance to authority and love of state is not accidental. The government has very possibly grew a generation of drones, incapable and unwilling to resist the final assault on liberty here at home.

Second, Wong reinforces my position that centralization is simply bad when taken too far. Standardization in many areas is ok, it is efficient. Standardization and centralization across the board is inefficient and ineffective. Wong makes as strong case for that equation in his disection of the Army.

This also applies to everything the Federal government does; education, law enforcement, social systems, disaster relief etc, etc. This is why it is important to allow for things like states' rights. This is why the North American Union is a bad idea; it is why the UN is worthless. Consolidation and centralization lead to mediocrity. In Iraq the legions of the empire busy themselves 'painting rocks' because that is what they are good at, that is what centralization has reduced them too. Do we really need any more centralization in the rest of our lives?

Iraq; Army; centralization

Strained US Army relaxes new officer requirements

Reuters AlertNet - Strained US Army relaxes new officer requirements: "The U.S. Army, facing recruiting woes and a reorganized force, will relax requirements for new officers, welcoming older candidates and allowing more tolerance of past minor crimes, officials said on Thursday"

I mentioned the other day that this entire recruiting thing would have a long-term and significant impact on the quality of the Army. So now minor criminals can join the ranks of the morally decrepit officer corps.

Why is this important? Officers are the leaders of the force. The army already suffers under the strains of affirmative action programs forced upon it in recruiting. We do not recruit the best and brightest if quotas are not met and have not for some years.

Already the organizational culture dismisses men of real character and conviction. It is the officer appointed by Congress that is supposed to be the last bulwark between right and wrong. It is the officer that through their moral courage ought to be standing for what is right.

Without such men the Army becomes nothing more than a tool that politicians might use as they will to wage war no matter how immoral or wrong. It is a weak officer corps that allows prisoner abuses, and violation of the Laws of War as well as common human decent behavior.

Oh yeah, this is big. Turn the leadership into a bunch of moral cowards, fill it with folks that have already demonstrated wrong behavior and you have the recipe for an Army that would march in any direction and fight anyone.

A republic is ought to be restrained by separation of powers in the federal government, sovereignty in the composite states so that nullification might occur and a solid, dedicated and morally incorruptible officer corps leading the armed forces. Such a Republic could never engage in blatant wrong because too many people would have the ability to say "no".

We have lost the sovereignty of the states so nullification is not longer a practical option. Separation of powers is an illusion as evidenced by Bush making war without a Congressional declaration. Now the last straw, the officer corps is being weakened beyond repair. Very soon, as this new crop of criminals rises to real leadership positions the Army will be lead by thugs willing to apply force anywhere, anytime one the mere orders of a man in the White House without regard to the Constitution or moral right.

The fate of an Army

"Officials said Wednesday that although the Army will not release its numbers until Friday, it fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits in May. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the target was lowered by 1,350" from The Washington Post

This is the fourth month in a row the recruiting goal has been missed.

Prior to four years ago I dedicated a lot of my energy and thoughts to how the course of the Army ought to be corrected. There are many worrisome difficulties that the uninitiated simply cannot see. The massive drawdown of the early 90's served only to accentuate these problems. I recall a lot of good folks leaving and I suffered trough the many bad that stayed.

The Army, and military, in general are far outside of the moral, ethical, quality and organizational position it really ought to hold. All the chatter of transformation is nothing more than mere talk and some shifting of assets. Nobody has seriously addressed the real difficulties; an overgrown and incompetent officer corps that current exists in a higher proportion to troops than at any time previous, an incompetent NCO corps more concerned with achieving rank and privileges than leading and training soldiers, a decay of solid values based upon true American ideals.

Oh yes, I could go on. Back in the late 1990's several strong voices began to emerge and shout the truth. For a time I thought that an army organized and rooted in principles might emerge. Alas, all of those fine men left the service, before retirement (they gave up).

I stopped long ago with real concerns for transforming the military. I serve and do the best I can for the soldiers in my charge (many fine and brave souls). I have come to know without a doubt that the Army is but a reflection of the nation, government and people that it serves. I should expect it to be no better.

I can say only this. The problems lurking just under the surface that were so obvious to honest men in the late 1990's have not gone away. The failure to recruit and the necessary change in policies to keep adequate numbers will only serve to make things much worse in the long-term.

If the neo-conservatives fear China so much they ought to consider fundemental changes before they truly go off and pull the tail of a dragon.


A Republic worthy of defense requires soldiers dedicated to principles upon which the Republic stands. The only occurrence in US history when we have realized this unique combination of principled men and right organization was in the period 1830-1860. Since that time the US government has been served progressively by a "professional" army that looks more and more like a mercenary army.

Of course it might rightly be argued that a Republic that has abandoned its roots to become a Democracy, makes war on other nations based upon lies and false beliefs, allows the murder of millions of innocents within its borders, and denies God his rightful place does not qualify as an entity worthy of defense in any event.

I have said more than I intended, for to me these issues do not matter so much any more. Change must occur but it must happen in culture and values of society in general if ever the military is to truly be righted.

'If Only the Führer Knew…'

While I sit and wait for things here to begin again...dare not do anything with an election afoot...I found this by Micheal Peirce:

In 1944 the young German fighters in the panzer divisions knew perfectly well that fighting under the guns of the Allied fleet in Normandy was madness. On the Ost Front they were equally aware that the order to "hold at all costs" was grinding their elite units into dust and robbing them of their unquestioned advantage, tactical flexibility. However, their faith in Adolf Hitler remained undiminished – they blamed these suicidal orders on the high command, on the regular army generals, and repeated this slogan to each other, "If only the Führer knew…"

American conservatives are much like that. They are quite aware that the United States government is working actively against the best interests of the people of this country. The failure to defend our borders, the draconian and unconstitutional assault on our God-given right of self defense, the mass murders of the unborn, the transformation of the public school system into left wing indoctrination centers – conservatives are aware of these things. But there exists this huge disconnect – constantly one hears the same mantra, "Don’t worry, the adults are in charge now."

If they had but eyes to see they would see that it wasn’t liberals who recently announced a plan to send fifteen billion extorted dollars to Africa, ostensibly to fight the AIDS epidemic that is depopulating a continent. It wasn’t the liberals who declared, "Islam is a religion of peace," ignoring history and common sense. It wasn’t the liberals who tried to sneak through a general amnesty for illegal aliens and who failed to take any action whatsoever to protect the unborn or the Second Amendment. And it is certainly not Al Gore who has dreamed up this horrific plan of attack against a third-rate country in the Middle East, claiming that we will not forget 911, an action in which Iraq had no part.

As Josef Goebels and Adolf Hitler were well aware, a big lie works best. I’m astounded when "conservatives" call me a wimp and a communist because I refuse to face up to the imagined threat posed by Sadaam Hussein. Well guys, it wasn’t Sadaam Hussein who used tanks to kill Americans in Waco! You can take this to the bank – I’m against their wars of aggression, their war on some drugs, and their attack on our right to own weapons – how this is un-American eludes me. I’ve got George Washington and all the founders on my side. None of whom were wimps or communists!

Of course, I’m often reminded that this business of a Constitutional Republic was decided on the battlefield, in the "late unpleasantness" as they daintily refer to the destruction of the South by government mercenaries. Then why do we pretend to honor the history of this very same Constitutional Republic?

Y'all just stop and think about it...or not I suppose.

My beef with the Air Force

In my last screed I began expressing my disdain for the United States Air Force and the influence it holds on military strategy, policy and direction. I am sure that my opinions will offend some, especially those that collect paychecks from the Air force or wore a blue uniform at some point in the past. I am not positive that this will be the case however. In the last week I have had interesting conversations with some current Air Force personnel and a couple civilian contractors that were formerly in the Air Force. Each of these individuals agrees in principle with my general assessment of the weaknesses in the Air Force.

Also I would like to point out that it is unfair to take my views of the deficiencies in the Air Force as the reason and cause of all the maladies that face the military in general. The fact is that all the services have succumbed to one degree or another to the weakening forces of political machinations and correctness. My point is that the Air Force has resisted least, embarked on its own path of wrong actions separate from political pressure and embraced whole-heartedly all that is wrong with current military thought. The fact that the other services are forced by law to not only tolerate but work with the Air Force is not at all helpful if the real fighting services ever might hope to reestablish a system of discipline and quality required in times of dire need.

At the core of the problem with the Air Force is a flawed theory. The idea that air power alone can win or even significantly influence the outcome of warfare has been proven over and over to be false.

In the 1920’s forward thinking flyers fought for this concept. The need for an ability to conduct air operations in support of tactical operations was obviously required. It was not a concept that air power thinkers pondered often. During WWII the tactics and techniques needed to conduct combined arms operations were lacking and nonexistent in the US. We had spent our resources and efforts thinking about a massive bomber force that could pound potential enemies into submission.

During the war we were forced to develop the ability to support ground operations with tactical air support on the “fly”. Doubtless countless American lives were lost as a result of the arrogance of air power thinkers. Even in the face of the necessity of tactical support the leadership of the Air Corps insisted on the need and relevance of a roust bomber command.

What was the result of the massive strategic bombing efforts over Germany and Japan? Militarily they were negligible. The fact is that German industry actually benefited from the bombing campaign. Older, less efficient German factories were destroyed and the Germans proceeded to build more efficient production facilities underground. German production increased during each year of the war despite massive day and night bombing campaigns.

The cost in human lives that resulted from this folly is not at all negligible. First there is the opportunity cost of resources spent. How many American lives might have been spared and how much sooner the war might have been ended if these resources were instead allocated to tactical air-land battles will never be known. There is also the cost of the crews of bomber command. Proportionally bomber command took a higher percentage of casualties than did front-line infantry units. Finally there is the moral issue of the bombs that were dropped on German civilian populations. WWII was a good and just war; the actions of the Air Corps as they fire bombed civilians was immoral and contrary to all formerly established rules of just war. That drunken murderous bastard Sherman would have been happy to call himself a commander of a bomber wing in WWII.

History would view air power in its’ proper light were the atomic bomb not developed. This of course nullified any real discussion of the fallacy of strategic air power as a primary weapon of war. We never really discussed why were wasted so many resources on the strategic bomber wings. Instead we created an independent Air Force, gave them the bomb and rested our hopes for national security on men that were willing to drop horrendous weapons of mass destruction on civilians. This very trait disqualifies such a person from the ranks of great military men of history. Military traditions of the true officer class in the west have always held civilian populations and cities as illegitimate targets. We abandoned all of that when we empowered men that would be murderers with rank, position and power to influence military thought.

Thus at the very core of its’ existence and creation the Air Force was lead and formed by men that held views and moral viewpoints contrary to the rules that have for centuries (with rare and notable exceptions) restricted and controlled military leaders. The influence that this corrupt thought process has exerted on the military establishment as a whole has not been insignificant. The fact that Congress in its’ finite wisdom decided in the 1980’s to force the other services to accept and incorporate the Air Force to a greater degree only served to cement the corrupting influence.


Beyond the corrupt beginnings the Air Force there are numerous other peculiarities specific to those blue weenies. As a rule they accept and embrace business school principles as principles that are directly applicable to military thought. This is of course not at all true. I am always humored when I see some business type with Sun Tzu on his desk. The applicability of management principles to leadership is likewise as absurd on a practical level. To be certain some of the ideas are useful and all good leaders need management skills. The problem with the Air Force is that they make managers of all the folks that ought to be leaders. They have developed a culture of managers instead of leaders.

I am constantly amused and then angered as I encounter Air Force folks here on their arduous three month tours. They show up with their stupid ideas, take up space, stir the proverbial pot and then get on a plane and go home.

I suppose that I could go on and on but time is limited. Suffice it to say that if the US intends to retain the empire it has embarked on creating then the armies of the empire need serious realignment for the asynchronous conflicts to come.

I read in the London Daily Telegraph a quote form a young man that represents the “barbarians at the gate of Pax Americana”

Struggling to lift a Kalashnikov, a 12-year-old with the Mahdi army militia said he could do anything in battle except fly a helicopter.
"Last night I fired a rocket-propelled grenade against a tank," he said. "The Americans are weak. They fight for money and status and squeal like pigs when they die. We will kill the unbelievers because faith is the most powerful weapon."

No matter what you may think of the principles behind this young man’s belief you cannot deny that his beliefs engender a passion unfound in our system. The bravery that I have seen here are things we simply cannot replicate large scale. Men die, fighters can be killed but real principles will not go away. The business model, moral-deficient way of waging war for no other reason than you were told to is not the sort of thing that endures and wins.


If the military of a nation is supposed to reflect the society from which it is drawn then I suppose the corruption and weakness that is the Air Force is a just and good representation of America. If the borders of the empire do not hold in the coming years then historians will have ample fodder to dissect the cracks in the armor. The march of time has a very unique way of correcting flaws that mere men are too weak to see. The Air Force, the ideals and values it sprang from and the weakness of manly virtue it represents are but one of the numerous viruses that the empires suffers.

I am merely an observer of the slow death of a giant.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Vegitus Redux

Life has again slowed for a brief respite; my mind has again turned to observations and ponderings of the world that surrounds me.

My thoughts most recently have turned to the utterly screwed up the structure and organization of the United States military.

Don’t take me wrong, I am not contending that in the present circumstance of the world that the US Military is incapable of effectively dealing with any foe the national policy makers desire to engage. Far from it, technological and logistical superiority do now and shall for the immediate future remain the elements that ensure supremacy in almost all conceivable conflicts.

Having said that the structure of the military is far from perfect; to the contrary we are very much like the society and culture that supports and maintains the force. That is to say, corrupt on many levels; afflicted with bureaucracy, political correctness, ineptness, selfish careerism and general disarray. The most powerful giant that now roams the Earth is in many ways a very sick beast.

Vegitus wrote eloquently to the Roman Emperor of the maladies that afflicted what was then the most powerful beast roaming the world. The Roman Army easily won every battle that it fought for years after it began the decline and demise akin to and apace with the moral, economic and political demise of the Empire in general. Ultimately winning mere battles was neither enough to win campaigns and influence the face of the world into the image desired by Rome nor was it enough to save the empire.

One could reasonably argue with a great deal of validity that the most professional and competent military ever in possession of the United States existed in the 1930’s. Small, professional in both the NCO and officer corps, the military of the 1930’s was not only forward thinking and innovative it retained all that was good from centuries of military tradition. WWII and is the greatest testament to the competence of the 1930’s military. To be sure it was not this force that fought and won the war. It was the leadership and leaders that this force developed and produced that won the war.

The most significant difference in the military of today and the 1930’s force is that we simply do not produce the sort of men we did back then. I think this point is basically inarguable and I would challenge anyone to find that caliber of man wearing stars today.

The reasons for this are of course numerous. WWII required a great influx of bodies in all ranks. The small pre-war force could simply not fight a global war. The officer corps grew with the inclusion of men that were not part of the “officer class”. I am not inferring that society should be based on solidified social strata, rather that morals, ethics and principles have historically been housed best is classes of men, the idea that any society can rely on the general populace to provide men of principle and character in great quantities “from the street’ has been proven incorrect.

Following WWII the moral failings of the “citizen officer corps” were addressed through the Dewy Commission and the legislation passed as a result of its’ findings. Instead of insisting that measures were emplaced to ensure that only moral men of true leadership capacity were commissioned congress decided to reduce the authority of commissioned officers in general. Invariably this changed the system of discipline and command that was previously developed over centuries of trial and error. The effects of the mistakes of the post WWII congress are still felt today.

We cannot of course blame all ills on the 1947 congress. Each successive congress has done its’ part to meddle in affairs they do not fully understand. I suppose that it is impossible to expect a gaggle of political creatures to place what is right above what is expedient. In our system we have long ago abandoned any expectation that politicians, have the capacity or desire to really do anything more than make a name for themselves. Sad that we accept this as the truth but it is reality.

We saw the disastrous effects of congress’ meddling in the Korean War. The military was there plagued by discipline problems previously unknown. Of course everyone knows enough about Vietnam and the problems there.

Then of course there was the attempt to create an all-volunteer force without properly funding pay and allowances. We foolishly attempted the feat of maintaining a superpower force to face down the Soviets with underpaid volunteers. Times had changed; the profession had been diminished by years of abuse and mismanagement by the government. The best and the brightest no longer wanted to serve in sufficient numbers. Add to that the fact that the sheer numbers required put a burden on recruiting that could not be met without reducing standards.

For all the talk of the great and wonderful force we have now the reduction in standards of the 1970’s still plague us. We added women to many specialties that they really have no business physically or emotionally tackling. I could go off on that tangent for pages. My views on that matter are solid, supportable and basically inarguable (despite the fire which some may bring to the discussion). The NCO corps, the groups that ought to be the backbone of the force, became weak sisters.

During my entire 19 years in boots I have observed a steady decline in the quality of NCO’s at senior levels. This is I believe a direct result of when they came in and how influenced them early. Bad habits have a way of spreading. Thos fortunate enough to have as chief influences men that were hold-overs from the good habits of the old force “grew-up” right. Unfortunately most of the senior non-coms of today never had the experience of being taught right. Instead they have been developed by a broken system that encourages individual politics and self-preservation. I have come to view anyone wearing E8 or E9 rank as a mere nuisance and best and a real problem at worst. These folks add nothing but another butt in need of a chair and a loud mouth. The rare few that have some worth are hard to find and seldom celebrated by their “peers”. In fact the few that are actually worth a darn are so rare they are peerless.

These are of course just some of the events and pressures that each service has endured. Each service has dealt with these issues in different ways. The United States Marine Corps (Semper Fidelus and God bless the Corps) has been the most stalwart in rejecting the machinations of incompetent political masters. The Navy being a sea service and very tradition bound resisted pretty well until Tail-Hook; after that heads began to roll of those that did not adapt to a "kindler-gentler" Navy. The beheadings of course did not stop with a few "rowdy-boys" the phenomenon spread and continued until the entire leadership was purged of real men. The Army made some effort to resist but the fact that the Army has the largest manpower requirements meant early on that there was little choice but to adjust to the conditions set by Congress.

This of course leaves the Air Force. For reasons that are incomprehensible to me the Air Force has not only embraced the move from practical, proven military tradition and discipline they have in fact innovated and created new methods that the Congress itself was not bright enough to devise. In my humble opinion the Air Force has long ago ceased to be a military service and has become nothing more than a uniformed service. There is a significant difference in the two.


In the mid 1980's Congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act. I am pretty sure that Barry Goldwater was too old by that point to realize the significant negative impact this one act would have. The bottom-line is that all operations that can be joint are by law forced to be joint. This means folks from all the services take part. Never mind that this means incompetent flunkies from the Air Force are now forced by law into every major command. The influence of these non-military folks that merely wear uniforms on the outcome of everyday events is enormous. As I overheard an Army general put it the other day “I have a great deal of suspicion of anyone that comes from a service that is lead by people that believe in business school models and fly around in air conditioned airplanes dropping bombs on unsuspecting people from thousands of feet". I do not believe anyone could put it better.

I can and will elaborate on the deficiencies of the Air Force and their continued participation in any influence and decision making capacity in current and future military operations. In my opinion they ought to be treated as nothing more than people that fly planes from point A to B on order from the military services, period….more on that later when I have more time to vent...I am sure I will anger someone that has or does collect a paycheck from the Air Force. If so, just hold your thoughts until I have time to elaborate and complete my venting, then unload on me as best you might.



Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

National Review: An Army That Drawls: Johnny Reb goes to Iraq, and everywhere else

National Review: An Army That Drawls: Johnny Reb goes to Iraq, and everywhere else: "But there is one area of life where a drawl won't hurt you: the military. It might even help. While the West is known for rugged individualists (save for California, which provides wine, women, and tap dancers), the Midwest for solid citizens, and the Northeast for industrialists, intellectuals, and ethnic sham artists, the South is the land of grunts and generals."

Excellent thought piece. Nearly 45% of the US military is comprised of Southerners. Of this number the majority of those serve in the Army and Marine Corps. I took a look at the Army Green Book last year and while it is hard to use the demographic numbers presented there to fully prove what is a generally held assumption that white Southerners disproportionately prefer combat arms the statistics do support this observation.

You see this most profoundly if you spend some time with one of the Ranger regiments. There the percentage of good ole boys with a collection of various forms of our wonderful dialect prevails. Regular combat arms units also have a higher percentage of Southerners than you ought to expect based upon our composition in the general population.

Why? Some fool might claim it is simply a matter of economics. That is of course not true. Many of the young men that choose to pursue careers as Rangers have the mental aptitude to take on more technical jobs. If it was all about the “poor South” and opportunity more of these folks would seek other military jobs.

Proportionately Southerners that are black often seek combat service and service support jobs in higher percentages. There are of course many black Southerners that serve in combat arms assignments and I am in no way denigrating them. I am simply pondering the cause for the high percentage of Southern whites that seek out and serve in combat arms jobs.

It is of course all about culture. We fear death less than someone raised without a Christian foundation. It is heritage. As a people much of our heritage derives from the Scots that first settled much of the South. This is the stuff that a people are made of and it is not something that easily dies.

I have always enjoyed my time in the military partly because no matter where in this wide world I was stationed I could find grits for breakfast and at least once per week collard greens would be served for supper.

Much has changed; the federal government has tried very hard to rid the officer corps of its Southern bias. This has been partly successful over the last few years with a marked reduction in the overall quality of the corps. You really cannot fit square pegs in round holes but the powers that be still try.

It is interesting to consider that the American Empire is built on the bones of Southerners much like the British Empire was built on the bones of Scots. Basically we are the same people serving a new empire that has the same disdainful view of our culture and liberty.

As Jeff Adams point out in this piece we Southerners are a curious lot!

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid