Serendipitous? Yes it is. Eagle1 brings us back to the famous battle of John Paul Jones 9/23/1779 in his Sunday Ship History series.From Wikipedia some details of John Paul Jones’ life:

John Paul Jones (July 6, 1747–July 18, 1792) was America’s first well-known naval hero in the American Revolutionary War.

John Paul Jones was born John Paul in 1747, on the estate of Arbigland in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright on the southern coast of Scotland. John Paul’s father was a gardener at Arbigland, and his mother was a member of Clan MacDuff.

John Paul adopted the alias John Jones when he fled to his brother’s home in Fredericksburg, Virginia in 1773 to avoid the hangman’s noose in Tobago after an incident when he was accused of murdering a sailor under his command. He began using the name John Paul Jones as his brother suggested during the start of the American Revolution.

Though his naval career never rose above the rank of Captain in the Continental Navy after his victory over the Serapis with the frigate Bonhomme Richard, John Paul Jones remains the first genuine American Naval hero, and a highly regarded battle commander. His later service in the Russian Navy as an admiral showed the mark of genius that enabled him to defeat the Serapis.

Jones simply was not as good a politician as he was a naval commander, in an era where politics determined promotion, both in America and abroad. Though he was originally buried in Paris, after spending his last years abroad, he was ultimately reinterred at the United States Naval Academy, a fitting homecoming for the “Father of the American Navy.”

The famous battle with the HMS Serapis is covered by Eagle1.

Other notes of interest about John Paul Jones. After the Revolution, he left the US for France and ended up being commissioned in the Russian Navy as an Admiral. He then had the opportunity to take on an early fight against the Ottoman Empire:

[…]
As a rear admiral aboard the 24-gun flagship Vladimir, he took part in the naval campaign in the Liman (an arm of the Black Sea, into which flow the Southern Bug and Dnieper rivers) against the Turks. Jones successfully repulsed Ottoman forces from the area,
[…]

Through a series of unfortunate events of internal Russian Navy politics, he was released from service there. Retuning to France, he died there July 18th, 1792. Buried in Paris, his graveyard was later sold and then left untended. His body was found in 1905, having been searched for by the US Ambassador to France, Horace Porter for six years. John Paul Jones remains were carried to the US aboard USS BROOKLYN (CA-3) escorted to the US by three other cruisers, and met by seven battleships as they neared the coast of the US. In 1913, his remains were placed in the Chapel at Annapolis, in a ceremony presided over by President Theodore Roosevelt.

Five ships have been named in honor of John Paul Jones:

• USS PAUL JONES, a sidewheel steamer commissioned in 1862
• USS PAUL JONES (DD-10), a . Commissioned in 1902, she saw duty in the Pacific Fleet and in the Atlantic running convoys in the Western Atlantic. Once caught in a raging storm in January 1918, she almost was lost, but made her way yo drop anchor off Bermuda and made repairs. She was decommissioned in 1919.
• USS PAUL JONES (DD-230), a CLEMSON Class destroyer commissioned in 1920. Initially assigned to the Asiatic Fleet, she was in the Java Sea when the Japanese opened WWII. Escaping after several battles with Japanese forces, she transferred to the Atlantic Fleet as was assigned to convoy duties. She won two battle stars for her WWII service and was decommissioned in 1945.

• USS JOHN PAUL JONES (DD-953), a FOREST SHERMAN Class destroyer. Commissioned in May, 1955, she served in the Atlantic Fleet and had the distinction of recovering Virgil Grissom and John Young after their aborted Gemini IIIflight of two orbits vs the three planned. DD-932 was later converted to a DDG, and redesignated DDG-32 in 1967. Decommissioned in 1982.

• USS JOHN PAUL JONES (DDG-53), the third ship of the AEGIS Class ARELIGH BURKE guided missile destroyers. Commissioned 12/18/1993, she was the first of the class to be assigned to the Pacific Fleet. Another early distinction for the JPJ was to be assigned as the shock test platform for the class. USS JOHN PAUL JONES (DDG-53) was one of the US Navy’s “first responders.” The picture is of a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile on 10/8/2001 from JPJ headed for Afghanistan.

Here’s a link to the USS John Paul Jones Association, which includes history for all of the ships named for the famous Naval hero.

As the toll of US troops lost in the GWoT nears 3800, the AP is counting down the next few deaths.

For a moment, extract yourself from the steely eyed glare at that one metric and consider this:

Traffic deaths should top news
By Peter J. Woolley – Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The nonstory of 2006 was also the nonstory of 2005. It is a nonstory every year going back decades. Yet the number of people who die in car crashes in the United States is staggering, even if it is absent from the agenda of most public officials and largely ignored by the public.

When all is said and done and the ball begins to drop on New Year’s Eve, 44,000 people, give or take several hundred, will have died in auto accidents this year. To put that number in perspective, consider that:

• At the 2006 casualty rate of 800 soldiers per year, the United States would have to be in Iraq for more than 50 years to equal just one year of automobile deaths back home.

• In any five-year period, the total number of traffic deaths in the United States equals or exceeds the number of people who died in the horrific South Asian tsunami in December 2004. U.S. traffic deaths amount to the equivalent of two tsunamis every 10 years.

• According to the National Safety Council, your chance of dying in an automobile crash is one in 84 over your lifetime. But your chances of winning the Mega Millions lottery are just one in 175 million.

• If you laid out side by side 8-by-10 photos of all those killed in crashes this year, the pictures would stretch more than five miles.

• If you made a yearbook containing the photos of those killed this year, putting 12 photos on each page, it would have 3,500 pages. If you wanted to limit your traffic-death yearbook to a manageable 400 pages, you’d either have to squeeze more than 100 photos onto each page or issue an eight-volume set.

Can you hear me now? Automobile deaths are the leading cause of death for children, for teen-agers and in fact for all people from age 3 to 33. Yet this annual tragedy is not a cause celebre.

Opinion leaders largely ignore the ubiquitous massacre. No marches, walkathons, commemorative stamps or fund-raising drives are organized. It is not brought up in the State of the Union address. It is rarely the subject of public affairs shows. Statistics aren’t updated daily in major newspapers or broadcasts.

Gruesome crashes are reported just one at a time, each as if it might never happen again. Little attention is paid to the aftermath: safety measures taken or not taken, the workings or non-workings of the justice system. These avoidable deaths, as well as more than 2 million nonfatal dismemberments, disfigurements and other injuries that go along with them, have become part of the fabric of everyday life in the United States.

Elected officeholders naturally take the path of least resistance. They are well aware that significantly reducing deaths on the roads requires radical solutions in the form of regulation, investment and enforcement. Roads need to be made safer, for example, by extending guardrails and medians to every mile of busy highways. Speeding and aggressive driving need to be much more rigorously controlled. Trucks need to be separated from automobiles wherever possible. And cars need to be built slower and stronger.

But every solution is readily opposed by someone: manufacturers, industrial unions, truckers, consumers, taxpayers — though all are potential victims themselves. The public is not to blame. It is hemmed in on every side by mind-numbing advertising and shouted stories of the moment. Apparently no medium is willing to bludgeon people — as they need to be — with statistics and trends on the dangers facing them every time they set out in their automobiles.

Only if there is a public outcry will this situation get the attention due it. Only when people fully realize the absurd and avoidable costs of the dangers that stalk them on the road — and then demand governmental action in the form of forceful intervention and strict regulation — will this become the story of the year, as it should be.

— Peter J. Woolley is a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University and executive director of PublicMind, a public opinion research group there.

Kinda puts some things into perspective, don’t you think?

Tracked back @:  <a href=”http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/09/22/open-trackback-saturday-3/trackback/”>SteelJaw Scribe</a>

For those in uniform during the Cold War, I ask a rhetorical question: Did you ever wonder how the Soviets planned to attack Europe?

No more do you have to lay awake at night and guess: Historian Petr Lunak found the paperwork…

From the UK Telegraph:

Soviet plan for WW3 nuclear attack unearthed

By Henry Samuel in Paris
Last Updated: 4:24pm BST 20/09/2007

Chilling Soviet plans to launch massive nuclear strikes in Europe followed by a ground offensive in Germany and southern France have been unearthed by a Nato historian.

According to scenarios drafted in 1964, Warsaw Pact forces planned to use 131 tactical nuclear missiles and bombs to sideline NATO armaments and destroy Western Europe’s political and communications centres, in the event of an “imperialist” strike.

In an alarming insight into the “Doctor Strangelove” mindset of Soviet strategists, the Czechoslovak People’s Army, CSLA, was then expected to immediately march over deadly radioactive landscape and invade Nuremburg, Stuttgart and Munich, then bastions of West Germany.

On the ninth day the troops would take Lyon, south eastern France.

Soviet reinforcements would then continue the offensive towards the Pyrenees in the west.

[…]

When was this the plan? For a while:

[…]
According to Mr Lunak, the plan was still an option until 1986, three years before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It was shelved by Vaclav Havel in 1990 when he was elected Czech president.
[…]

Rest easy jow, knowing we won that war.

H/T: Little Green Footballs commenter NJDhockeyfan

Batteries released. Post your trackbacks here!

On this past Monday, I told some of the story of Gustavus Conyngham in Monday Maritime Matters. left a comment, telling the woeful tale of a finely tuned mind in a Tactical Action Officer course deciding to act upon “hostile intent.” Not in those words, exactly, but that’s what he said he did, and, for risking a mock courts martial, he was relegated to the DDG-2 CF ADAMS Class mock up in Taylor Hall for the rest of the exercise.

I, too, have some stories about war games, decision making and injecting a little frivolity into an otherwise serious place. I will tell pieces of each week for several Wednesday Ropeyarns, just to provide material.

At the Naval War College for Command and Staff (aka the “junior course”), there were three
trimesters” of study. I took them in the order of Strategy and Policy, followed by Maritime Operations, and finally taking Defense Decision Making in the final trimester of study. In the Maritime Operations session, we were required to plan and execute a virtual maritime operation at the end of the studies. Along the way, I, and one other officer, and “Electric” EA-6B Naval Flight Officer named Eddy, were the only students of the junior course who had actually been present at the Operations in the Vicinity of Libya from Jan to May, 1986. Much of the course material, as we in the military are wont to do, reactively had adopted that real world operation as a foundation for the study of “Jointness.” Given the most jointed we got were the FB-111s flying from bases in England over the Atlantic (Thanks, France!), we pretty much had a Navy only show going, but, Eddy and I had “real world, hands on time.” I dissected and retold of my involvement in “A Journey Into History” series (link to Part I) , in case you didn’t catch the posts last year.

Anyhow, the odd thing, was Eddy and I consistently had some of the lowest grades in the class, with our section having a faculty member who was a P-3 Naval Flight Officer, an O-6, as he thought we didn’t fully comprehend the answers we gave to questions, coz they didn’t mimic the “party line” about jointness, with a bias to always make sure the Naval person was the top of the heap. I was the one SWO in the room, with lots of F-14 back seaters and helo guys getting re-tooled for upward mobility outside of their professional fields, as they didn’t have slots with their community anymore. We had a Coastie and a Defense Mapping guy, and then a two USAF and a few Marines.

Eddy and I didn’t have to think a lot sometimes, because of the basis that formed the questions. We had seen the practical application of the process for this very “case study.” Frustrated, yes, and it was fun messing with an O-6 who had been in the classroom too long. One time, I was asked to go the chalkboard and layout the operational command structure. I had the first few boxes drawn when I heard from the back “That’s not in accordance with doctrine.” I turned and looked back at the Captain and said: “That’s how Admiral Jeremiah did it” and went back to drawing the organizational relationships for the provided force structure. No further comments came my way…On the other hand, Paul the resident Supply Officer, being a smart man, but with no operational background, could spit out what doctrine said. Not because he was a stooge of the system, but it was all he had to go on. He got the best grades in Maritime Ops…go figure.

Major Danny Troutman, a helo driving Marine and one of the smartest people I ever met, was assigned to as the Chief of Staff for the upcoming war game. The plan was one person would hold that position for both the planning and the execution parts of the war game. Everyone else would get shuffled. The operation: A non-combatant evacuation from Pakistan of American citizens. My job for planning: Operations Officer. I got to head up drafting the plan for the ops for approval. I asked Danny why me, I was getting the lowest grades. Response: They wanted it done right….

Next week: Going to virtual war at Naval War College

Put your coke/coffe/tea/bottled non-spring water down. That goes for adult beverages, too.

Lex comments on Moving AOCS from Pensacola,FL to Newport, RI. Yeah, “your point?” you ask? Readers respond with some short and hilarious recollections about their time in AOCS. This one from PeterGunn (no relation to Peter rabbit…I think):

PeterGunn // Sep 17, 2007 at 7:57 pm

I can still remember many things about AOCS. Running on the beach in combat boots in August, poopy suits, Gunnery Sergeant Bodine, being “encouraged” by the DI’s stick on the O-Course, even being evacuated in the face of Hurricane Camille and watching Neil Armstrong land on the moon on the Batt III TV. It’s hard to believe, but my experience in AOCS was in 1969, almost 40 years ago.

One of the most humiliating experiences, at the time, seems funny now: RLP’s are frequent and nasty, room-locker-personnel inspections. During one such RLP, I was in my assigned room with my 3 room-mates, each of us assigned to our own task of preparation (if one person did the same thing for all four of us, folded skivvys and polished brass would be the same for all four… a good thing.

My job was the wall locker (closet for civilians). We had two and I made certain all buttons were buttoned, zippers zipped, and everything hanging straight and in the perfect center of their hangers. We had a DI who carried a cane and he would announce himself by banging it on the door frame of each room. We could, therefore, judge how far down the passage-way he was from our room = how much time we had to get “wired up”.

This particular day, he was at the far end… giving us ample time, or so we all thought. To our surprise and my sheer terror, our door slammed open as he banged his cane. The door swung open, trapping me in the wall locker! DI Armstrong commenced to swear and tear my room-mates apart verbally, demanding to know my whereabouts. After many loud outbursts and too much time for me, standing in the closet at attention, the DI opened the door.
Ready for the inevitable tirade and obligatory PT in the sandpit, I said, “going up, sergeant?”

And then it did begin…

And don’t miss the SnakeEater telling Lex how to spell, or some commenters trying to unravel a mystery, or how the rank of Master General came to be in the USMC.

Disclaimer: If you haven’t served, it really may not seem funny at all. It may even sound juvenile or plain old stupid, and may leave you wondering what kind of meds are these people on?

Enjoy!

Captain Gustavas Conyngham
From Wikipedia:

A privateer was a private warship authorized by a country’s government by letters of marque to attack foreign shipping. Strictly, a privateer was only entitled to attack enemy vessels during wartime. However, states often encouraged attacks on opposing powers while at peace, or on neutral vessels during time of war, blurring the line between privateering and piracy.

Privateers were an accepted part of naval warfare from the 16th to the 19th centuries, authorised by all significant naval powers. The costs of commissioning privateers was borne by investors hoping to gain a significant return from prize money earned from enemy merchants.
[…]

Captain Gustavas Conyngham was born in Ireland in 1744. He came to America with his father and settled in Philadelphia, PA before the Revolutionary War. He became a successful privateer captain. From the CONYNGHAM Association page:

[…]
In 1777, the merchant ship he commanded, CHARMING PEGGY, was seized and interned in Europe. He then sought and obtained a Captain’s Commission in the Continental Navy. Operating primarily in British waters, Captain Conyngham proved to be one of the most successful and audacious naval officers in the American Revolution.

His first naval command was the 100-ton cutter SURPRISE whose mission was attacking British shipping in the English Channel. After taking numerous prizes, he was given command of the cutter REVENGE which was larger and faster than SURPRISE. He continued to harass British shipping, taking more than 60 prizes in 18 months. Each ship captured was sent into a friendly port and the cargo disposed of in the interest of the revolutionary cause. Historians indicate that the proceeds from these prizes contributed materially to the operations of Benjamin Franklin and his American mission in France.

British influence finally forced the closure of French and Spanish ports to him, so he set sail for the West Indies where he convoyed American shipping in addition to continuing his task of capturing enemy merchant ships.

In 1779, Captain Conyngham returned to Philadelphia, but on his next cruise he was captured and taken prisoner as a privateer. He was interned first in New York and then in London, from where he escaped only to be recaptured while returning to America in 1780. Again, he escaped and was in France, preparing to cruise against the British, when the war ended.

Captain Conyngham returned to the merchant service and commanded the armed brig MARIA during the Quasi-War with France. Later, as a member of the common council of Philadelphia, he assisted in the defense of the city during the War of 1812. Captain Conyngham died on 27 March, 1819 and is buried in St. Peter’s Churchyard in Philadelphia.

Showing how the logistical needs of your enemy can handsomely fund your resistance obviously became a specialty for Captain Conyngham. Consider his first voyage on a 100 ton vessel, harassing British shipping right under the noses of His Royal Majesty’s finest ships and crews. Guts. Lots of them. Oh, and “Prize crews” come from your own hands on deck and ship’s officers…leaving you and the prize ships underhanded. Yet, it appears he made due somehow, probably had frequent port call credits built up in France and our eastern seaboard….

For his daring exploits and contribution to our Nation’s first war, three ships have been named for Gustavas Conyngham:

DD-58A Tucker Class Destroyer, the first USS CONYNGHAM was commissioned in January, 1916 and saw action in WWI, protecting shipping and conducting anti-submarine duties. Decommissioned in 1922.

DD-371The second USS CONYNGHAM was also a destroyer, this time of the Mahan Class. Commissioned 4 November, 1936, patrolled in the Atlantic and Med, then was sent to the Pacific Fleet. She was in Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. She became a veteran of many famous battles, being assigned aircraft carrier screening duties. Present at Midway, the Battle of Santa Cruz and Gadalcanal. Later in WWII, CONYNGHAM escorted battleships during the invasions in the Marina Islands and was also in the action in the Philippines off Leyte Gulf.She was used as a test target for “Operation Crossroads” at Bikini Atoll in 1946 and was later sunk in 1948.

DDG-17The third USS CONYNGHAM was a guided missile destroyer of the Charles F. Adams Class. Commissioned 13 June, 1963. Making 15 Med deployments, she spent her career in the Atlantic Fleet. Present to help evacuated Americans from Cypress in 1964 and 1974, she also was present in the Med for the Yom-Kippur War in 1973 and helped evacuate Beruit in 1976. She was at Grenada in 1983, and later did numerous drug interdiction patrols.In 1987, USS CONYNGHAM was the second ship to arrive after the USS STARK (FFG-31) was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles. CONYNGHAM remained nearby, providing men and supplies to help the damage control efforts to save STARK. I discussed some of my remembrances of that day in this post, which, was found by the then Executive Officer of CONYNGHAM, who left a comment.USS CONYNGHAM (DDG-17) was decommissioned 20 October, 1990, and later sold for scrap.

I sailed in company with USS CONYNGHAM (DDG-17), and my neighbor across the hall at my first apartment, ENS Tom Brubaker, was an officer aboard her. They certainly were a can do ship, with a hard charging captain. From my vantage point on the “fat ship,” I recalled them departing our starbaord side, having just taken three rigs (two fuel, one stores) and within 20 minutes announcing they were ready to take the VERTREP (helicopter delivered vertical replenishment) deliveries. It looked like an ant’s nest of frenzied activity over there, but they had the “git ‘er done” mentality working for them, long before we had heard of Larry the Cable Guy. We often commiserated together about the cost of such a reputation on the crew, but he lived and went on to a career as a civil engineer for the Navy, and I believe he ended up with the SEABEEs. We sailed on a deployment to the Med in 1978, which had both our ships in the Med when the Shah of Iran was overthrown. The USS CONYNGHAM (DDG-17) was also discussed in my post about breakaway music last year.

Before you head of to read this post and scramble to set your recorders, drop by Sunday Ship History covering the strategic surprise landing at Inchon, Korea this week in 1950 by Eagle1!

I caught the show before, but I saw last night it will be on again, Friday, Sept 21st @ 10PM (EDT) on the Science Channel.

The “Build It Bigger” series has an episode “Super Fast Warship” where Danny Forrester goes aboard the USS DONALD COOK (DDG-75)” on sea trials and gets the big nickel tour. He tours the 5″ magazines and loads powders and projectiles in the gun’s hoist. They do “PAC” (pre-action calibration fires) for the 5″/62 cal and the Mk 15 CIWS mounts, as well as showing helo ops and vertical launch missile video. Danny also crawls inside one of the LM-2500 Gas Turbine modules, and fires “air slugs” for the MK 32 triple tube Mk-46/50 torpedo mounts. In addition to this and taking a ride in the RHIB in the ocean off the coast of Maine, the host also goes into the yards of Bath Iron Works (Where America Builds destroyers!) and show some of the processes used to take raw materials and produce an incredibly advanced and complex warship in 4 years.Worth a watch. Some great detail shots and superb discussions of fabricating major parts, then putting them together with some of the biggest cranes in the world.Oh, yes, you can go to the Discovery Channel show listings and set it up for en email reminder, too!

Update 09/15/2007: Welcome, LIzards and thanks to Charles for his most excellent forums and open threads! Browse around a bit, if you have any interest in naval hisotry and current events…

Back to your regularly scheduled blog post.

I think it’s nothing more than shear jealousy, pettiness and hoping people will forget how low their ratings are.

My evidence? Well, first consider the current political environment, with the Democrats having had control of Congress since January this year. From CBS Polls “High Hopes for New congress” story:

[…]
Sixty-eight percent of those polled said they had optimistic feelings about the 110th Congress, which will be led by Democrats for the first time in 12 years. Just 25 percent said they were pessimistic.

Nearly half expect that this Congress will accomplish more than usual over the next two years.
[…]

By June, they had rated lowest in confidence of major American institutions (19%). That’s one of the parts of the explanation, but the coupling with the fact from the same Gallup Poll that the Military rated highest of the institution (69%), I believe puts the story in context.By verbally assaulting the top military commander in the war, they get to take a swipe the “the Military” in general, complete with the cameras and sound endless blathering bites, for the record.As reported on 9/5/2007, the Gallup data shows people are frustrated with the inaction from Congress:

Congress is returning from its summer recess at a time when the public is highly dissatisfied with the job it is doing. Last month, Congress’ approval rating was 18% — matching the lowest Gallup has measured since it first asked the question in 1974. To gain more insight as to why Americans are so displeased with Congress, an Aug. 23-26, 2007, Gallup Panel survey asked Americans to explain in their own words why they hold the view they do about Congress.

The poll results make clear that Americans who disapprove of the job Congress is doing are frustrated with perceived inaction — either in general or in regards to specific issues such as the Iraq war, illegal immigration, or serving the needs of the people. There is also a widely held perception that there is too much bickering and party politics in Congress.
[…]

I’m not sure why Gallup characterized some of the respondents answers as “perceived,” for it does appear not much, except real bickering has happened. We still don’t even have a Defense Authorization Bill, which was to have been done even before the IraqiAmerican Congress took their vacation in August.

You’d think, wouldn’t you, that people so hell bent on using polls before deciding what to say at any given moment might take the time to mentally digest what this one tells them…and maybe, consider getting to work and stopping the bickering…

Now, add some fuel to the fire: While Democrats from Congress were posturing for the “We have a staked goat, and you’re it” tactics of the hearings, the American people (using Gallup Poll data) said they have confidence in General Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as reported on September 10th:

As Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, prepares to testify before Congress on the situation in Iraq, it is unclear to what extent his report will change American minds on the war. A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that while a majority of Americans are confident in Petraeus’ recommendations about what to do next in Iraq, most expect that rather than being an objective assessment of the situation in Iraq, the report will be biased to reflect what the Bush administration wants the public to believe. Only about one-third of Americans say the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq is making the situation there better, and most continue to favor a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

Trust in Petraeus

According to the Sept. 7-8 poll, the public has more trust in Petraeus’ recommendations for what to do next in Iraq than it does in other key leaders involved in developing U.S. policy toward Iraq. Sixty-three percent of Americans say they have a great deal (27%) or a fair amount (36%) of confidence in Petraeus’ recommendations. Fifty-eight percent have confidence in what the “Joint Chiefs of Staff and other military leaders at the Pentagon” would recommend.

Americans have far less trust in political leaders than in military leaders when it comes to Iraq policy.
[…]

Think about it: If you’re stupid, you get send to fight a war in Iraq, but the man who made this egregious statement (oh, yes, he served in Vietnam), is part of an institution the people have almost no confidence in, and the ones who are fighting the war, wearing a uniform are trusted by more than a simple majority of the populace, to plan a course for the current conflict. My, my, my. I would hope this would make jfk stay awake at night, trying to figure out if Al Gore can help him get his remarks stricken from the Internet.

Did they do it consciously? I’m beginning to think they didn’t. Had they brought this approach up in a strategic planning session, that someone would have spoken up and said what a stupid move it would be because of the massive backlash from the people. But, as I’ve commented on before, this very type of behavior is never questioned, for the Democrat Party leadership is effectively devoid of anyone with any significant military service time, and schooling in sure matters.

I believe both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as the most likely front runners for the Presidency have lost votes they were counting on. While many Americans don’t like the war, I’m not certain they will consider voting in vindictive, petty politicians, who take pleasure, for their personal power gain, to say to the world “I don’t trust my military to speak truth” in so many words.

On the other hand, General Petraeus’ calm demeanor is the outcome of being a man who has seen combat. Words from these people cannot harm him. I thought of the talk of two WWII armor officers, who served under Patton, one in particular, who talked about being the the MSM after the War and having people threaten them. They laughed, knowing full well words were no threat to their lives…I cast General Petraeus in the same role now, as that newspaper editor was in in the 50s and 60s.

The Democrats made a big mis-step these past two weeks. Not only did they appear foolish, they have provided a lot of working material to Republican strategists.

Tracked back @: SteelJaw Scribe

The Soviets, and their parred down left overs, the Russians, have a bad habit of copying “stuff” we design, test and produce. Side Note: We’re not above doing a little ourselves, but that can be a whole series of posts unto itself….

So, we made the “Mother of All Bombs,” the Massive Ordnance Air Burst bomb in 1993. weighing in at 21,000 lbs, it is 6K lbs heavier than the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter” used since the Vietnam War. The weapon relies upon it’s “FAE” (fuel air explosive) characteristics to make a point when it detonates.So, the Russians, after a decade and a few years, have managed to make what they call the “Father of All Bombs.”

Russia’s military yesterday announced that it had successfully tested a lethal new air-delivered bomb, which it described as the world’s most powerful non-nuclear weapon.

In what appears to be the Kremlin’s latest display of military might, officials said Moscow had developed a new thermobaric bomb to add to its already potent nuclear arsenal.

Russia’s state-run Channel One television said the new ordnance – dubbed the Father of all Bombs – is four times more powerful than the US’s Mother of all Bombs.
[…]

According to the article, the FOAB is delivered by the TU-160 “Blackjack” strategic bomber (oh, BTW, a knock off of the B-1 Lancer), reported to have a payload 88,220 lbs, which, would square with the “four times” as big claim….The Guardian, where I found this report, can’t manage to stick to reporting, but has to blame this new weapons on President Bush’s plan to locate ABM systems in Europe:

[…]
The development of this latest device appears to be another response to the Bush administration’s plans to site elements of its missile defence system in central Europe. Mr Putin has denounced the plan, arguing that it upsets Europe’s strategic balance, and has vowed to respond.
[…]

My comment: What buffons! Weaponry such as this didn’t begin their development on June 7th (or 8th, if you want to to think the leadership slept on the decision to order the development), 2007. Besides, from a tactical standpoint, you wouldn’t need an “almost a nuke” to render ABM sites combat ineffective. No, the Russians made it, because they want to have a “big bang” in their pocket, and can say with a straight face, “nope, that’s sure not a nuke we got here, boys!” at the negotiation table.

Anyhow, We’re gonna have to make a bigger bomber if we’re gonna compete in the “who can make the Grand-Pappy” of all bombs race…

Update 09/14/2007: Major John (USAF) of OpFor sez we got a bomb with more bang than the new one the Russians built…and oh, yea, it goes deep and then goes “BOOM!” The Russian FOAB isn’t a penetrator…ya’ll paying attention Iran?

Certainly these days try a mental capacity. Between the anniversary of 9/11 and the reports to Congress…I’m digging deep for something to write about…

My first trip to the wonderful garden spot of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to spend some time with my soon to be new friends from Fleet Training Group was sometime in late 1977. Still a wet behind the ears Ensign at the time, I had several months of “Mac-inizing” to my credit and junior officer upbringing, so some basic philosophical foundations were already solidifying.

I was the Combat Information Center Officer (CICO), and therefore played a major part of the daily details of the events. Between being the RADAR Navigation Piloting Officer for entering and exiting port and anchorage, the “war” that virtually happened around our fine vessel was recorded, evaluated and disseminated from my little domain of CIC. Much of the pretend world, fondly called “scenarios” for us big boys playing, had to be acquiesced to by myself and my crew, and a little ad-libbing had to be inserted at times, just so there was a bit of consistency in the reporting of the things that most likely would have occurred in the real world, had we been i a real shoot ’em up.

I recall a Coast Guardsman, an RD1 by rate (equivalent to the now Operations Specialist (OS) rating in the Navy), was assigned as the chief observer for our world. There was something, and I’m not sure what, that caused me to have to “make some s— up” for the story to hold together, and I guess I, having had a number of long, hard days already, decided to make it good, much to the exasperation of the RD1, USCG in our midst (the master of our grades for the Division), and he requested a meeting with me on the weather deck, outside of CIC.

I think it was a compliment, but he didn’t have that sort of look on his face when he said: “You know what your problem is, Ensign? You play too real!” I actually had visions of if I could toss his short little form clear of the kingpost for the STREAM rig, leaving only the impact with the water about 40 feet below to leave any marks…for I was a little upset, not fully appreciating I was being accused of getting into the game more throughly than the instructors themselves.

Must have been the rapid fire questions to force him to fill in the blanks to keep things going….

Chief Mac and I laughed about it all later.