Although no religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office or public trust under the United States {U.S. Constitution, Article VI), there is clear expectation all who are elected or appointed to office are bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution {U.S. Constitution, Article VI); However, the U.S. Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president
ArticleI I, Section I states any person before entering office of President, shall take the following oath or affirmation “I do solemnly swear )or affirm) that I will faithful execute the Office of President of the United States, and will do so to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Contrition of the United States.
In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." On July 2, 1862 Congress put into law an oath for every person elected or appointed to any office ... under the Government of the United States ... excepting the President of the United States" to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct.
In 1844 Congress repealed the requirement in the oath pertinent affirming the never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct prior to taking office. Here again an exception should be noted. Although not in the oath TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES Subtitle A--General Military Law PART II—PERSONNEL, CHAPTER 33--ORIGINAL APPOINTMENTS OF REGULAR OFFICERS IN GRADES ABOVE WARRANT OFFICER GRADES, Sec. 532. Qualifications for original appointment as a commissioned officer distinctly and clearly identifies “is of good moral character” as one of five requirements for appointment to the government office and duties of military commission.
Considering the President of the United States appoints all individuals holding a military commission it follows the person doing the appointing be of goo character. Considering the Office of President is the only office having a specific oath or affirmation to the Constitution identified ion the Constitution this gives indication of all elected and appointed offices of government, this is the one office voters should have the most vigilance to ensure they are voting into office a person being of good character.
One needs only to read the Federalist Papers and other document authored by the writers of the U.S. Constitution to understand they believed being of good character was an essential eligibility requirement to hold elected and appointed office.
Consequently being of good character is relevant and critical qualification pertinent to fitness to hold and perform duties of President of the United States.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Obama-Biden Military Intervention Policy Change-2008 VP Debate
During the Thursday October 2, 2008 vice president candidate debate Senator Biden distinctly and clearly expressed desire International Law be changed to allow U.S. Government to have the autonomy to uninvited and against the wishes of another country to cross a countries boarder and conduct military mission within lands of another nation to conduct military operations intervene is situations and circumstances of genocide or when the country is harboring terrorists dangerous to the United States.
His standard for approving such being the world’s place force is: (1) success is certain; (2) The military capability exists; and (3) the mission is Philanthropic, Humanitarian, or limited raid short duration raid or assault..
Yes Obama’s potential war and military operations will able virtuous, noble, just, cheap. and of short duration of months rather than years. Obama’s and Biden’s combat and other military operation will not be unjust, wrong and ill advised like the military operations currently being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The suggested policy change does not hold up under reasoned scrutiny. Changing International Law to allow a powerful nation to take out a target of interest at a point of location in another country as determined by creditable intelligence has none of the state obligation and responsibilities to establish legitimacy of state to act in such a hostile and belligerent manner. Crossing border into territory controlled by another government without permission of that government isn’t innocent passage; it is an act of war or of hostility when the United States uses its arm forces in such a manner to achieve its aims.
There is undisclosed danger of international criminal responsibilities that may be enforced, imposed and prosecuted against the officers, agents and elected office holders of government of the United States authorizing such operations. More importantly each member of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed becomes adversary personnel even if they are lawful combatants. Conducting policing actions in other countries is not the same as conducting law enforcement domestically. The U.S has no jurisdiction to get involved unless invited by another government or sanctioned by UN obligations, other treaties, or President is exercising war powers act authority.
In regards to adversary personnel there are the further complications of The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (often referred to as the International Criminal Court Statute or the Rome Statute). Yes, Senator’s Obama and Biden are certainly displaying their expertise pertinent to conducting military operations and International Laws of Armed conflict.
Somebody need to get Senators Obama and Biden to explain this change they want to implement and how they are going to get out of the Geneva Conventions and other treaties the United States has signed and agreed too.
His standard for approving such being the world’s place force is: (1) success is certain; (2) The military capability exists; and (3) the mission is Philanthropic, Humanitarian, or limited raid short duration raid or assault..
Yes Obama’s potential war and military operations will able virtuous, noble, just, cheap. and of short duration of months rather than years. Obama’s and Biden’s combat and other military operation will not be unjust, wrong and ill advised like the military operations currently being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The suggested policy change does not hold up under reasoned scrutiny. Changing International Law to allow a powerful nation to take out a target of interest at a point of location in another country as determined by creditable intelligence has none of the state obligation and responsibilities to establish legitimacy of state to act in such a hostile and belligerent manner. Crossing border into territory controlled by another government without permission of that government isn’t innocent passage; it is an act of war or of hostility when the United States uses its arm forces in such a manner to achieve its aims.
There is undisclosed danger of international criminal responsibilities that may be enforced, imposed and prosecuted against the officers, agents and elected office holders of government of the United States authorizing such operations. More importantly each member of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed becomes adversary personnel even if they are lawful combatants. Conducting policing actions in other countries is not the same as conducting law enforcement domestically. The U.S has no jurisdiction to get involved unless invited by another government or sanctioned by UN obligations, other treaties, or President is exercising war powers act authority.
In regards to adversary personnel there are the further complications of The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (often referred to as the International Criminal Court Statute or the Rome Statute). Yes, Senator’s Obama and Biden are certainly displaying their expertise pertinent to conducting military operations and International Laws of Armed conflict.
Somebody need to get Senators Obama and Biden to explain this change they want to implement and how they are going to get out of the Geneva Conventions and other treaties the United States has signed and agreed too.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3 pertinent to point made in VP debate
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other Officers. And also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
My interpretation is there is intent the Vice President has a direct active participates presence in the political decisions of the Senate. It limits and restrict vote to being the tie breaker vote, but use of President pro tempo indicates a power to preside in the absence of the Vice President. Although duties of President pro tempore are essentially ceremonial, this does not mean the Vice President duties to preside in the Senate limits the Vice President to being a silent unseen officer and member of the Senate.
The Senate shall choose their other Officers. And also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
My interpretation is there is intent the Vice President has a direct active participates presence in the political decisions of the Senate. It limits and restrict vote to being the tie breaker vote, but use of President pro tempo indicates a power to preside in the absence of the Vice President. Although duties of President pro tempore are essentially ceremonial, this does not mean the Vice President duties to preside in the Senate limits the Vice President to being a silent unseen officer and member of the Senate.
The Economic Crisis and the making of the new Imperial Socialist Welfare States of America
The current economic crisis and the concurrent differing philosophies of both the Presidential candidates and the two major political parties bring some attention to the transformation of government that might be coming with generalized promises of change.
Media elites reporting news and teachers and professors in our public and private schools are doing less fair and balanced reporting of the news and less teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic in favor of being strong practitioners of Herd Morality. Buy–in to herd Morality is so strong within American educators and the media elite members of these occupations want so much a government more committed to being a socialist welfare state and extraordinary regulating all aspects of living, sleeping, eating of individuals and the doings of commerce and private enterprise, that they are actually indoctrinating more government regulating, increased government bureaucracy, and extraordinary redistribution of wealth so all have the same standards of living whether all people are fairly contributing and participating in earning wages or not.
Herd morality aims at the removal of everything dangerous to life; it seeks the common security and avoidance of risk, and promises all have guaranteed equal participation in the good life. Herd Morality is the candy politician’s use for buying votes, and it seldom gets any scrutiny pertinent to what the cost will be.
There is seldom any mention of the potential danger of becoming a police state as the state (government) begins getting more and more inherent right to act on behalf of the health, welfare, morals, and safety of their citizens. Care must be taken on the degree of consent given to government encroachment into private life, private business, private banking, and private investments under disguise of social, consumer, environmental, economic, and free market protection programs. For instance are absolute unquestionable imminent domain rights of government to seize private property without question under disguise of urban renewal and economic development good?
When it comes to being governed there is concepts of protecting health and safety, providing collective benefits, and regulating abuses of private power. However the U.S. Constitution clearly intends a government of limits and defined powers and authority. Consequently the U.S. Constitution creates a paradox of limiting growth of power and intrusion into private lives while also leaving much to the risks of human nature to be enticed by politicians gaining office by promising more entitlements and benefits from government.
Politicians without scruples have no hesitation buying votes by promising better or more government entitlements and benefits. The cost to the taxpayer is never given full and open disclosure before the election. The 1964 expansion of Social Security to cover disabilities and other health and safety beyond what it was originally intended is an example of costs of the program expanding and the politicians not minding the store. The current economic crisis is most recent result of elected officer holders putting their gain of personal political power, party political power and wealth ahead of performing duties in the best interests of the nation.
The current economic crisis began with the lack of being of good character of many representatives in the house and senate. The better solution to fix this mess depend on elected members of the House and Senate remaining faithful to the system of government the U.S. Constitution put in place having clear intent to protect individual rights and to limit and restrict government intrusion into nationalizing private enterprise and private business.
The conduct and behavior of several members of the House and Senate certainly-so forced me to fall out of my chair with their focus to point finger and assign blame. The worse act and deed of despicable conduct and behavior was that of Representative Nancy Pelosi who moments before serious matters needing bipartisan agreement and approving vote, gave deliberate speech of her own free will and choice seeming to have direct purpose to sabotage bipartisan passage of the bailout/fix the economy bill. After the vote Representative Barney Frank and Senator John Kerry went on a blitz of interviews of putting all blame for all that is wrong on the Bush administration and Republican party office holders in the house and Senate.
In my opinion these three individual’s give clear example of being of dishonorable character. The failure for causing the current economic crisis resides more within the legislative branch of government than the executive branch. Although it is true the executive branch can advocate domestic policy and regulatory changes and has authority to make necessary rules and regulations to enforce law, it is the Congress that writes law and ultimately approves the law.
The failure of leadership in this financial crisis was and is within the committee and party leadership in Congress. The corruption, greed, and incompetence allowed within financial institutions has a significant contributing cause of action and inaction of Congress to produce governing legislation (statutes, Public Laws, and regulations) having best interest of the nation in mind.
Former Governor Huckabee of Arkansas commented a few days ago "that this might be the first presidential election in history where the winner will demand a recount". It is sad the current economic crisis caused such a comment to a potential serious truth, but it also indicates why this years elections are important and why some politicians have so much fear about voters discovering the truth before they vote.
Media elites reporting news and teachers and professors in our public and private schools are doing less fair and balanced reporting of the news and less teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic in favor of being strong practitioners of Herd Morality. Buy–in to herd Morality is so strong within American educators and the media elite members of these occupations want so much a government more committed to being a socialist welfare state and extraordinary regulating all aspects of living, sleeping, eating of individuals and the doings of commerce and private enterprise, that they are actually indoctrinating more government regulating, increased government bureaucracy, and extraordinary redistribution of wealth so all have the same standards of living whether all people are fairly contributing and participating in earning wages or not.
Herd morality aims at the removal of everything dangerous to life; it seeks the common security and avoidance of risk, and promises all have guaranteed equal participation in the good life. Herd Morality is the candy politician’s use for buying votes, and it seldom gets any scrutiny pertinent to what the cost will be.
There is seldom any mention of the potential danger of becoming a police state as the state (government) begins getting more and more inherent right to act on behalf of the health, welfare, morals, and safety of their citizens. Care must be taken on the degree of consent given to government encroachment into private life, private business, private banking, and private investments under disguise of social, consumer, environmental, economic, and free market protection programs. For instance are absolute unquestionable imminent domain rights of government to seize private property without question under disguise of urban renewal and economic development good?
When it comes to being governed there is concepts of protecting health and safety, providing collective benefits, and regulating abuses of private power. However the U.S. Constitution clearly intends a government of limits and defined powers and authority. Consequently the U.S. Constitution creates a paradox of limiting growth of power and intrusion into private lives while also leaving much to the risks of human nature to be enticed by politicians gaining office by promising more entitlements and benefits from government.
Politicians without scruples have no hesitation buying votes by promising better or more government entitlements and benefits. The cost to the taxpayer is never given full and open disclosure before the election. The 1964 expansion of Social Security to cover disabilities and other health and safety beyond what it was originally intended is an example of costs of the program expanding and the politicians not minding the store. The current economic crisis is most recent result of elected officer holders putting their gain of personal political power, party political power and wealth ahead of performing duties in the best interests of the nation.
The current economic crisis began with the lack of being of good character of many representatives in the house and senate. The better solution to fix this mess depend on elected members of the House and Senate remaining faithful to the system of government the U.S. Constitution put in place having clear intent to protect individual rights and to limit and restrict government intrusion into nationalizing private enterprise and private business.
The conduct and behavior of several members of the House and Senate certainly-so forced me to fall out of my chair with their focus to point finger and assign blame. The worse act and deed of despicable conduct and behavior was that of Representative Nancy Pelosi who moments before serious matters needing bipartisan agreement and approving vote, gave deliberate speech of her own free will and choice seeming to have direct purpose to sabotage bipartisan passage of the bailout/fix the economy bill. After the vote Representative Barney Frank and Senator John Kerry went on a blitz of interviews of putting all blame for all that is wrong on the Bush administration and Republican party office holders in the house and Senate.
In my opinion these three individual’s give clear example of being of dishonorable character. The failure for causing the current economic crisis resides more within the legislative branch of government than the executive branch. Although it is true the executive branch can advocate domestic policy and regulatory changes and has authority to make necessary rules and regulations to enforce law, it is the Congress that writes law and ultimately approves the law.
The failure of leadership in this financial crisis was and is within the committee and party leadership in Congress. The corruption, greed, and incompetence allowed within financial institutions has a significant contributing cause of action and inaction of Congress to produce governing legislation (statutes, Public Laws, and regulations) having best interest of the nation in mind.
Former Governor Huckabee of Arkansas commented a few days ago "that this might be the first presidential election in history where the winner will demand a recount". It is sad the current economic crisis caused such a comment to a potential serious truth, but it also indicates why this years elections are important and why some politicians have so much fear about voters discovering the truth before they vote.
The Economic Crisis-Failed Leading-and mixed thoughts
The leadership failure was and is in the Congress. Elected and appointed officers of government and elected representatives of government being of good conduct and putting the best interests of running government and the nation ahead of party politics and personal advancement of gaining stronger political power and taking advantage of position of elected office to gain wealth. The current economic crisis is a result of too many representatives in the house and senate not responding to the value of the people who elected them but rather giving stronger allegiance to party and their own self interest to further their political career, political influence for their personal gain. The problem begins with the lack of being of good character of many representatives in the house and senate and the better solution to fix this mess depend on elected members of the House and Senate remaining faithful to the system of government the U.S. Constitution put in place that protects individual rights and limits government intrusion into nationalizing private enterprise and private business.
Government 101 is three branches of government. The Legislative and Executive (2 of 3) branches have direct influence and oversight of economy, banking, commerce, trade and all the activities that cause employer worker relations to flourish and profits and losses from investments possible.
The first bill considered by the first Congress was a bill to raise revenue to pay the expenses of the Government. Thus first act of Congress after signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787 concerned taxes.
On July 21, 1789, member of the House of representative, James Madison, proposed amendments of the Constitution securing to the citizens guarantees comprehended in the first ten (10) amendments more familiarly known as the Bill of Rights. So closely connected to being part of the original U.S. Constitution many people presume they were signed concurrently with the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. However, the first ten amendments passed Congress on September 25, 1789, were subsequently ratified by eleven states on December 15, 1791 and Secretary Jefferson announced the adoption on March 1, 1792.
Pertinent to the current economic crisis is the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are very applicable as the solution will result in changes in regulatory oversight and dangers of government encroachments of Congress
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the security of the people in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Scrutiny of the Federalist Papers and other writings of the time disclose the fourth amendment resulted from concerns the government shouldn’t have power to invade privacy through use of general search warrants.
The Ninth Amendment clearly indicates the Federal Constitution is but a delegation of powers to include implied powers not specifically identified, but that the people also retain many rights which are not enumerated, and the Government has no power to interfere with these rights. This certainly identifies a primary purpose for why a Judicial Branch to include Supreme Court exists. It’s purpose is to determine the demarcation between implied powers of government and the not enumerated rights of the people when implied power of government and rights of the people get into conflict of needing decision if government has the power or not.
The Tenth Amendment is vitally important in preserving the powers of the States and the people against encroachment by Congress.
Regarding the current crisis it is Congress that has the power to determine how much the power of government needs to encroach into private business, private banking, and private investments. Care needs to be taken on the degree of encroachment as too much encroachment (grab of power) will result in the involvement of the judicial branch of government as there are Constitutional concerns if the power grab is extraordinary or excessive.
Consider the original Bush plan, it seems to me intent was to avoid extraordinary or excessive encroachment of government power. Either case the Congress controls the budget and the monies and the problem will take several fiscal years to fix and thus it was and is Congress having the ultimate decision making authority to approve or disapprove the spending plan as future budgets are not even yet drafted.
Congress, yes it is the actions and inaction of Congress that contributed most to causing this crisis. Yes--corruption, greed, incompetence and negligence on Wall Street is the most visible cause, but when the cat is away the mice will play very appropriately describes what Congress’s responsibility in this mess is.
Congress needs to act and it needs to do so in a unified cooperating bipartisan as the solution is not quick and requires more than one Band-Aid at one point and time. The problem requires a dressing that needs to be changed as the problem gets fixed. This is why certain politicians with their blame and point the finger speeches of hatred and got to keep my power speeches has me considerably upset. They can disagree and fight for change, but the nation doesn’t need the Democrats must be in power or the Republicans must be in power, it needs elected official working together in the best interest of the Nation. There is also very clearly a few elected officials who lack the education, experience, and common sense to even be there productively contributing to the solution, and quite frankly are more valued members of idiots-and-fools-are-us rather than of the House and Senate.
The law making power and the approval determining power of where revenue collected to run the government goes is the Congress. The power to make laws (to regulate, write and approve public laws/statutes) cannot be delegated by Congress to the top executive officer government (The president) any other elected or appointed officer of an executive department or administrative office. But Congress can vest in executive officers the power to make necessary rules and regulations to enforce law. Consequently there are limits on how much money the President and executive departments can divert from intended budgeted appropriations without getting some sort of consent from the Congress. The President can only make rules and regulations within intent of already established Constitutional and Federal Law.
The failure of leadership in this financial crisis is within the committee and party leadership in Congress. Time to let your representatives know it’s is time for them to honestly earn their paycheck by doing the work of government in the best interest of the nation rather than for their personal benefit or political party’s benefit.
Government 101 is three branches of government. The Legislative and Executive (2 of 3) branches have direct influence and oversight of economy, banking, commerce, trade and all the activities that cause employer worker relations to flourish and profits and losses from investments possible.
The first bill considered by the first Congress was a bill to raise revenue to pay the expenses of the Government. Thus first act of Congress after signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787 concerned taxes.
On July 21, 1789, member of the House of representative, James Madison, proposed amendments of the Constitution securing to the citizens guarantees comprehended in the first ten (10) amendments more familiarly known as the Bill of Rights. So closely connected to being part of the original U.S. Constitution many people presume they were signed concurrently with the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. However, the first ten amendments passed Congress on September 25, 1789, were subsequently ratified by eleven states on December 15, 1791 and Secretary Jefferson announced the adoption on March 1, 1792.
Pertinent to the current economic crisis is the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are very applicable as the solution will result in changes in regulatory oversight and dangers of government encroachments of Congress
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the security of the people in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Scrutiny of the Federalist Papers and other writings of the time disclose the fourth amendment resulted from concerns the government shouldn’t have power to invade privacy through use of general search warrants.
The Ninth Amendment clearly indicates the Federal Constitution is but a delegation of powers to include implied powers not specifically identified, but that the people also retain many rights which are not enumerated, and the Government has no power to interfere with these rights. This certainly identifies a primary purpose for why a Judicial Branch to include Supreme Court exists. It’s purpose is to determine the demarcation between implied powers of government and the not enumerated rights of the people when implied power of government and rights of the people get into conflict of needing decision if government has the power or not.
The Tenth Amendment is vitally important in preserving the powers of the States and the people against encroachment by Congress.
Regarding the current crisis it is Congress that has the power to determine how much the power of government needs to encroach into private business, private banking, and private investments. Care needs to be taken on the degree of encroachment as too much encroachment (grab of power) will result in the involvement of the judicial branch of government as there are Constitutional concerns if the power grab is extraordinary or excessive.
Consider the original Bush plan, it seems to me intent was to avoid extraordinary or excessive encroachment of government power. Either case the Congress controls the budget and the monies and the problem will take several fiscal years to fix and thus it was and is Congress having the ultimate decision making authority to approve or disapprove the spending plan as future budgets are not even yet drafted.
Congress, yes it is the actions and inaction of Congress that contributed most to causing this crisis. Yes--corruption, greed, incompetence and negligence on Wall Street is the most visible cause, but when the cat is away the mice will play very appropriately describes what Congress’s responsibility in this mess is.
Congress needs to act and it needs to do so in a unified cooperating bipartisan as the solution is not quick and requires more than one Band-Aid at one point and time. The problem requires a dressing that needs to be changed as the problem gets fixed. This is why certain politicians with their blame and point the finger speeches of hatred and got to keep my power speeches has me considerably upset. They can disagree and fight for change, but the nation doesn’t need the Democrats must be in power or the Republicans must be in power, it needs elected official working together in the best interest of the Nation. There is also very clearly a few elected officials who lack the education, experience, and common sense to even be there productively contributing to the solution, and quite frankly are more valued members of idiots-and-fools-are-us rather than of the House and Senate.
The law making power and the approval determining power of where revenue collected to run the government goes is the Congress. The power to make laws (to regulate, write and approve public laws/statutes) cannot be delegated by Congress to the top executive officer government (The president) any other elected or appointed officer of an executive department or administrative office. But Congress can vest in executive officers the power to make necessary rules and regulations to enforce law. Consequently there are limits on how much money the President and executive departments can divert from intended budgeted appropriations without getting some sort of consent from the Congress. The President can only make rules and regulations within intent of already established Constitutional and Federal Law.
The failure of leadership in this financial crisis is within the committee and party leadership in Congress. Time to let your representatives know it’s is time for them to honestly earn their paycheck by doing the work of government in the best interest of the nation rather than for their personal benefit or political party’s benefit.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Robert Farley, PhD, assistant professor, Patterson School o f Diplomacy and International Commerce has written much about the military. Abolish the Air Force is a title of one of his published scholastic writings where he presents reasons why the United States Air Force lacks usefulness to remain a separate military department.
There is significant misunderstanding of military departments as war-fighting organizations. The military departments do not fight wars. The departments provide war-fighting assets organized, trained and equipped as units to the combatant commanders. The operational (or war fighting) chain of command resides in the power and authority of the President of the United States and subsequently delegated down through the Secretary of Defense, the Combatant Commanders and then to the unit commanders assigned to them in the region they are responsible for.
The Department Chief of Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff are not in the operational chain of command, in fact they have no command appointment or command authority and neither can they appoint themselves to command. When units of the Army, Navy, Air Force mobilize and deploy to conduct military operations, they mobilize and deploy as armed forces of the United States and not as a military department or service. Consequently to suggest the Air Forces missions can be folded into the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps without loss in national power and significant cost saving will result is deceptive because all units of each department (component) do fold into unity of command under the operational combat chain of command.
The combatant chain of command flows directly from the President, to Secretary of Defense to the combatant commander, to the component commanders, to the unit commanders to the commissioned, warrant, and NCO in charge of the smaller tactical elements of the unit. The Department of the Air Force is functional and lacking in authority and responsibility for conducting military operations.
The Department of the Air Force concerns itself with organizing, training, and equipping units to provide a designated capability when needed. Whether there is or isn’t a Department of the Air Force, somebody has to be doing something to ensure units are organized, trained, equipped and ready to do what they are expected to do. More importantly units still need to be commanded by persons having competence and expertise in the employment of air power. Consequently there is minimal cost savings for arguing the abolishing of a Military Department having functional responsibilities that will not go away no matter how those functional responsibilities are realigned.
This attractiveness of mixed utilization of air power absorbed completely into the Army and Navy will unlikely correct unsatisfactory performance and deficiencies of air power that are primarily result from political actions of government and not from combat command and control authority and actions. In an active combat zone or during other than war military operations the mixed joint operation utilization is there. Doing away with the Department of the Air Force would not improve efficiency and effectiveness of command and control. It would not change employment tactics but capabilities not directly supporting Army maneuver on the battlefield would certainly take lesser of an importance when budget decisions have to be made.
With current fight on the battlefield lacking interdiction, counter air, and strategic attack the merits to do away with the Air Force are very attractive. An attractiveness that will immediately disappear the moment any conflict happens with a significant regional power or several less significant aligned regional powers. There is much usefulness in having redundant subordinate headquarter command and control dispersed to control maneuver and employment of units and their smaller tactical elements. It prevents task saturation overwhelming a single headquarters with too much concurrent and consecutive crisis response and management. Having a Department of the Air Force ensures there is air power expertise involved in the command and control of air power assets at each level of the operational chain of command.
Concerns of the Air Force going out of business is directly or indirectly disclosed in comments made by many top uniformed Air Force Leaders and even the Secretary of the Air Force. U.S Army Secretary Pete Geren’s response, when asked about Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne’s recent comments that USAF is “going out of business,” included the “USAF does suffer from a very real disadvantage in the budget battle due to a perception it has little contribution to combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because they are not in the fight to the degree that the Army is leaves the Air Force “disadvantaged in the competition for funds.” Regarding questions pertinent to tactical airlift the Honorable Geren stated “the Army Owns "Last Tactical Mile."
Certainly-so the debate of the Air Force’s executive agent approach and desire to manage DoD’s medium- to high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) programs certainly indicate the extent of role and mission identity conflicts. However, the simplest essence of identity confusion is disclosed by Retired US Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe and former vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking at the first public presentation for the Global Air Chiefs Conference. He suggested airmen lack a voice in the national security matters because “Airmen are looked at as technicians. … In many ways we are our own worst enemy. We don’t want to leave the cockpit.” This is certainly true and while not unique to the Air Force the reduction in need for combatants having fighting combat skills and increased need to sustain a higher aptitude force structure trained in primarily mechanical, technical, and management occupations causes a distinct difference from the Army, Marines, and to some lesser extent the Navy. The other distinction is most of the fighters are rated commissioned aircrew having minimal command and lead of units into battle duties and responsibilities.
Since WWII a high degree of education and literacy in the being required to posses a baccalaureate has become more important than being of good moral character and being physically qualified for active service for all the military departments. This combined with baccalaureate becoming equated with craftsman qualification to service or operate complex equipment or in the service sector providing ability to supervise or manage complex programs and operations has diluted the role of commission in the Air Force more than any other military department.
The day-to-day duty role of the typical commissioned officer in the Air Force has become indistinguishable from the enlisted and NCO technicians/specialists. The distinguisher in most instances is not performance or command duties and responsibilities but only possession of superior rank and higher pay. If there is any reason for doing away of the Air Force as a military department it is the abundance of technicians and lack of warriors.
The justification for the Air Force however is task saturation and expertise of applying air power. Unfortunately, it will take a significant regional conflict to demonstrate rapid developing multiple crisis and rapid change requires redundant and separate Headquarters command and control to prevent task situation. An overwhelmed commander managing too many air and ground actions is bound to overlook something that needs an immediate response or lacks the expertise of knowing what assets can and cannot do. This is why airpower expertise and a separate military department are needed.
There is significant misunderstanding of military departments as war-fighting organizations. The military departments do not fight wars. The departments provide war-fighting assets organized, trained and equipped as units to the combatant commanders. The operational (or war fighting) chain of command resides in the power and authority of the President of the United States and subsequently delegated down through the Secretary of Defense, the Combatant Commanders and then to the unit commanders assigned to them in the region they are responsible for.
The Department Chief of Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff are not in the operational chain of command, in fact they have no command appointment or command authority and neither can they appoint themselves to command. When units of the Army, Navy, Air Force mobilize and deploy to conduct military operations, they mobilize and deploy as armed forces of the United States and not as a military department or service. Consequently to suggest the Air Forces missions can be folded into the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps without loss in national power and significant cost saving will result is deceptive because all units of each department (component) do fold into unity of command under the operational combat chain of command.
The combatant chain of command flows directly from the President, to Secretary of Defense to the combatant commander, to the component commanders, to the unit commanders to the commissioned, warrant, and NCO in charge of the smaller tactical elements of the unit. The Department of the Air Force is functional and lacking in authority and responsibility for conducting military operations.
The Department of the Air Force concerns itself with organizing, training, and equipping units to provide a designated capability when needed. Whether there is or isn’t a Department of the Air Force, somebody has to be doing something to ensure units are organized, trained, equipped and ready to do what they are expected to do. More importantly units still need to be commanded by persons having competence and expertise in the employment of air power. Consequently there is minimal cost savings for arguing the abolishing of a Military Department having functional responsibilities that will not go away no matter how those functional responsibilities are realigned.
This attractiveness of mixed utilization of air power absorbed completely into the Army and Navy will unlikely correct unsatisfactory performance and deficiencies of air power that are primarily result from political actions of government and not from combat command and control authority and actions. In an active combat zone or during other than war military operations the mixed joint operation utilization is there. Doing away with the Department of the Air Force would not improve efficiency and effectiveness of command and control. It would not change employment tactics but capabilities not directly supporting Army maneuver on the battlefield would certainly take lesser of an importance when budget decisions have to be made.
With current fight on the battlefield lacking interdiction, counter air, and strategic attack the merits to do away with the Air Force are very attractive. An attractiveness that will immediately disappear the moment any conflict happens with a significant regional power or several less significant aligned regional powers. There is much usefulness in having redundant subordinate headquarter command and control dispersed to control maneuver and employment of units and their smaller tactical elements. It prevents task saturation overwhelming a single headquarters with too much concurrent and consecutive crisis response and management. Having a Department of the Air Force ensures there is air power expertise involved in the command and control of air power assets at each level of the operational chain of command.
Concerns of the Air Force going out of business is directly or indirectly disclosed in comments made by many top uniformed Air Force Leaders and even the Secretary of the Air Force. U.S Army Secretary Pete Geren’s response, when asked about Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne’s recent comments that USAF is “going out of business,” included the “USAF does suffer from a very real disadvantage in the budget battle due to a perception it has little contribution to combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because they are not in the fight to the degree that the Army is leaves the Air Force “disadvantaged in the competition for funds.” Regarding questions pertinent to tactical airlift the Honorable Geren stated “the Army Owns "Last Tactical Mile."
Certainly-so the debate of the Air Force’s executive agent approach and desire to manage DoD’s medium- to high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) programs certainly indicate the extent of role and mission identity conflicts. However, the simplest essence of identity confusion is disclosed by Retired US Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe and former vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking at the first public presentation for the Global Air Chiefs Conference. He suggested airmen lack a voice in the national security matters because “Airmen are looked at as technicians. … In many ways we are our own worst enemy. We don’t want to leave the cockpit.” This is certainly true and while not unique to the Air Force the reduction in need for combatants having fighting combat skills and increased need to sustain a higher aptitude force structure trained in primarily mechanical, technical, and management occupations causes a distinct difference from the Army, Marines, and to some lesser extent the Navy. The other distinction is most of the fighters are rated commissioned aircrew having minimal command and lead of units into battle duties and responsibilities.
Since WWII a high degree of education and literacy in the being required to posses a baccalaureate has become more important than being of good moral character and being physically qualified for active service for all the military departments. This combined with baccalaureate becoming equated with craftsman qualification to service or operate complex equipment or in the service sector providing ability to supervise or manage complex programs and operations has diluted the role of commission in the Air Force more than any other military department.
The day-to-day duty role of the typical commissioned officer in the Air Force has become indistinguishable from the enlisted and NCO technicians/specialists. The distinguisher in most instances is not performance or command duties and responsibilities but only possession of superior rank and higher pay. If there is any reason for doing away of the Air Force as a military department it is the abundance of technicians and lack of warriors.
The justification for the Air Force however is task saturation and expertise of applying air power. Unfortunately, it will take a significant regional conflict to demonstrate rapid developing multiple crisis and rapid change requires redundant and separate Headquarters command and control to prevent task situation. An overwhelmed commander managing too many air and ground actions is bound to overlook something that needs an immediate response or lacks the expertise of knowing what assets can and cannot do. This is why airpower expertise and a separate military department are needed.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
SERE Training for all Airmen
Reference: CSAF's Scope highlights SERE training, AMU reorganization, SERE training to be required for all Airmen, and Air Force to increase SERE training for all.
A purpose of SERE training is to give some sound common sense basic knowledge and experience airmen can use when they are cut off, shot down, or otherwise isolated in enemy-controlled territory, when they must make every effort to avoid capture. If captured, SERE training also has a purpose of increasing chances to escape or to otherwise to return home in good physical and mental condition when released or freed from captivity.
The “Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces” makes it clear and distinct how surrender and capture differ. Justification on emotional appeal to herd safety should a member or members of the herd find themselves in a SERE event avoids the larger question is what exactly holds any member of the armed forces to the spirit and intent of the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces” and gives individuals the warrior mettle to attempt to avoid capture, resist and escape if captured? SERE training fails to bring with it other equally important elementary training to have the combat skill of being able to shoot and perform simple small team immediate response to ambush drills so the airmen in a patrol or other military element conduction operations outside the wire has a chance to successfully establish a defendable position or concealed position and avoid capture until reinforcements arrive or recovered by combat rescue forces.
Believing SERE training alone will reduce the potential of captured military personnel exploding into a larger strategic event with global impacts and empty context of battlefield description diminishes how lawful combatants fight on the battlefield or how lawful combatants become isolated and captured.
There have been recent captures exploding into strategic events having global impact such as the March 23, 2007 Iranian naval forces seizure at gunpoint of 15 British sailors and marines who were on a "routine" mission inspecting merchant ships in Iraqi waters, or perhaps March 23, 2003 when an Army convoy due to navigational error took a wrong turn into an ambush and found that most of their weapons malfunctioned.
A study of capture events will show many of these events happened because of bad operational planning, poor operation execution, or rules of engagement put military members into an unable to fight back to win situation, on rare occasion some capture events happened because the military member just gave up when hardship and hazard confronted them. Then of course there is going missing events such as Major Jill Metzger who claims capture and escape but nothing can be verified as to who captured her and why. However, captures explode into a strategic event with global impact because something is being exploited by the enemy or by friendly domestic media wanting to make headlines for profit, to promote an agenda, or to influence public opinion. SERE training would not have prevented any of these captures from becoming strategic events having global consequences.
The rules of evasion, resistance, and escape are limited and controlled in the same way rules of engagement controlling, limiting, and restricting U.S. military operations reflect the intent of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. While there is no dishonor in being captured, successful escape and evasion is rare. Successful escape and evasion after escape is rare because it takes considerable determination, perseverance and a plan. It has additional hazards as once escaped from capture the military member is no longer a lawful combatant so any crimes committed while evading after escape from capture becomes a problem if recaptured by the enemy.
Terrorists typically do not abide by the Geneva Conventions. Current mode of exploitation of anybody they capture is if not immediately brutally mutilated and murdered is video exploitation showing captive held by hooded anonymous guards threatening to decapitate or execute their captive if their demands are not met.
If conduct and behavior once captured by a bunch of terrorist is the concern, I personally subscribe to the advice offered by General Patton who said “nobody won a war by dieing for their country, they won it by making the other poor SOB die for his” and who also said “I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull shit either.”
Trivializing the hazards and hardship of capture to being reduced by SERE training of skinning rabbits, camels, and goats, building shelters, concealment, and overland foot travel is not the most needed training needed to avoid and to survive capture in the typical deployed to military area of operations. I suggest perhaps it would be better to give all Air Force members the basic combat skill of being able to shoot and perform simple small team immediate response to ambush drills so each airman has a chance to successfully fight and avoid capture than to focus only on you will get captured and this is how you will escape and evade. The Air Force needs a culture change from the warriors are the pilots and everybody else is rear element support to all airmen are members of the uniformed armed services of the United States with military obligations to be prepared to fight and defend.
On a tangent, I wonder if concerns “steps outside the wire for a tour of town and gets grabbed” and “"As we've seen recently, the capture of military personnel has the potential of exploding into a larger strategic event with global impacts” is a “tail wagging the dog”.
The went missing misadventures of Major Jill Metzger in Kyrgyzstan while shopping in September 2006 was explained by her as being abducted and subsequently overpowering her captors and running 30-40 miles to freedom. Although her claims are unbelievable and still under investigation she was during the month of July 2007 put on a Temporary Disability Retirement for PTSD resulting from the stress of her capture and escape. SERE training unfortunately can not prevent events that result from lacking character or lacking mental and emotional fitness. Neither should the excuse SERE training is not provided to all airmen be used as the excuse for allowing a cover up.
"As we've seen recently, the capture of military personnel has the potential of exploding into a larger strategic event with global impacts," General Moseley said. "Today's battlefields are non-linear and non-contiguous; their shape and venue change constantly. I worry we've not prepared our Airmen for the world we're operating in."The public indistinct reasons given for SERE training to be given to all members of the Air Force is: (1) capture of military personnel has the potential of exploding into a larger strategic event with global impacts; (2) prepare all Air Force Airmen for the non-linear and non-contiguous battlefields U.S. Armed Forces are operating in; and, (3) because every Airman is in jeopardy of being captured and needs to know how to survive in this situation. Unfortunately, these indistinct reasons fail to address the conditions and circumstances causing the event and more importantly how avoid capture, resist, and escape has changed from what was encountered during past military operations.
In today's ever-changing world, Airmen increasingly find themselves in a non-traditional environment outside the wire. SERE training teaches Airmen principles, techniques and skills to survive in any environment, avoid capture, resist and escape if captured.
“We’ve got to start training the total force,” said Chief Master Sgt. John Myers, the SERE career field manager. “It’s a matter of time before we have the airman transporter or ... clerk or personnelist that steps outside the wire for a tour of town and gets grabbed. We’re a target ... out there.”
A purpose of SERE training is to give some sound common sense basic knowledge and experience airmen can use when they are cut off, shot down, or otherwise isolated in enemy-controlled territory, when they must make every effort to avoid capture. If captured, SERE training also has a purpose of increasing chances to escape or to otherwise to return home in good physical and mental condition when released or freed from captivity.
The “Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces” makes it clear and distinct how surrender and capture differ. Justification on emotional appeal to herd safety should a member or members of the herd find themselves in a SERE event avoids the larger question is what exactly holds any member of the armed forces to the spirit and intent of the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces” and gives individuals the warrior mettle to attempt to avoid capture, resist and escape if captured? SERE training fails to bring with it other equally important elementary training to have the combat skill of being able to shoot and perform simple small team immediate response to ambush drills so the airmen in a patrol or other military element conduction operations outside the wire has a chance to successfully establish a defendable position or concealed position and avoid capture until reinforcements arrive or recovered by combat rescue forces.
Believing SERE training alone will reduce the potential of captured military personnel exploding into a larger strategic event with global impacts and empty context of battlefield description diminishes how lawful combatants fight on the battlefield or how lawful combatants become isolated and captured.
There have been recent captures exploding into strategic events having global impact such as the March 23, 2007 Iranian naval forces seizure at gunpoint of 15 British sailors and marines who were on a "routine" mission inspecting merchant ships in Iraqi waters, or perhaps March 23, 2003 when an Army convoy due to navigational error took a wrong turn into an ambush and found that most of their weapons malfunctioned.
A study of capture events will show many of these events happened because of bad operational planning, poor operation execution, or rules of engagement put military members into an unable to fight back to win situation, on rare occasion some capture events happened because the military member just gave up when hardship and hazard confronted them. Then of course there is going missing events such as Major Jill Metzger who claims capture and escape but nothing can be verified as to who captured her and why. However, captures explode into a strategic event with global impact because something is being exploited by the enemy or by friendly domestic media wanting to make headlines for profit, to promote an agenda, or to influence public opinion. SERE training would not have prevented any of these captures from becoming strategic events having global consequences.
The rules of evasion, resistance, and escape are limited and controlled in the same way rules of engagement controlling, limiting, and restricting U.S. military operations reflect the intent of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. While there is no dishonor in being captured, successful escape and evasion is rare. Successful escape and evasion after escape is rare because it takes considerable determination, perseverance and a plan. It has additional hazards as once escaped from capture the military member is no longer a lawful combatant so any crimes committed while evading after escape from capture becomes a problem if recaptured by the enemy.
Terrorists typically do not abide by the Geneva Conventions. Current mode of exploitation of anybody they capture is if not immediately brutally mutilated and murdered is video exploitation showing captive held by hooded anonymous guards threatening to decapitate or execute their captive if their demands are not met.
If conduct and behavior once captured by a bunch of terrorist is the concern, I personally subscribe to the advice offered by General Patton who said “nobody won a war by dieing for their country, they won it by making the other poor SOB die for his” and who also said “I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull shit either.”
Trivializing the hazards and hardship of capture to being reduced by SERE training of skinning rabbits, camels, and goats, building shelters, concealment, and overland foot travel is not the most needed training needed to avoid and to survive capture in the typical deployed to military area of operations. I suggest perhaps it would be better to give all Air Force members the basic combat skill of being able to shoot and perform simple small team immediate response to ambush drills so each airman has a chance to successfully fight and avoid capture than to focus only on you will get captured and this is how you will escape and evade. The Air Force needs a culture change from the warriors are the pilots and everybody else is rear element support to all airmen are members of the uniformed armed services of the United States with military obligations to be prepared to fight and defend.
On a tangent, I wonder if concerns “steps outside the wire for a tour of town and gets grabbed” and “"As we've seen recently, the capture of military personnel has the potential of exploding into a larger strategic event with global impacts” is a “tail wagging the dog”.
The went missing misadventures of Major Jill Metzger in Kyrgyzstan while shopping in September 2006 was explained by her as being abducted and subsequently overpowering her captors and running 30-40 miles to freedom. Although her claims are unbelievable and still under investigation she was during the month of July 2007 put on a Temporary Disability Retirement for PTSD resulting from the stress of her capture and escape. SERE training unfortunately can not prevent events that result from lacking character or lacking mental and emotional fitness. Neither should the excuse SERE training is not provided to all airmen be used as the excuse for allowing a cover up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)