Richard Disney

The U.S. Army Rangers deserve much more praise and attention than they get from American society and media. Rangers are the Army’s primary raiders. Raids are one of the most dangerous missions there is. Rangers Lead the Way!

Article follows:

By Mike Manhatton

SAVANNAH, GA (WTOC) - We very rarely hear about United States Army Rangers. But our nation and our world, would be a very different, and likely a much more dangerous place without them.

The 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment is based at Hunter Army Airfield and just recently changed commanders. We offer a WTOC Military Salute to the man who’s lead them through years of the war on terror, Col. Lee Rudacille.

The very public ceremony, in the middle of Forsyth Park, is a rare chance to see some 800 of our finest soldiers marching to honor one of their own, and a time-tested military tradition. The change of command, symbolized by Col. Lee Rudacille handing the colors over to incoming commander, Lt. Col. Brian Mennes.

A time to remember and honor Col. Rudacille’s leadership. Col. Richard Clarke knows all about leading Rangers. He’s the current commander of the entire Ranger Regiment. He’s also served in the unit based at Hunter.

Col. Clarke reminded the gathering of the hard work Col. Rudacille and his Rangers have taken in the global war on terror. “For the past two years, enduring three combat deployments, Lee has ably lead this battalion through some of the toughest parts of the fight,” said Col. Clarke.

Tough isn’t a strong enough word for it. Col. Rudacille obviously can’t talk about the details, but did sum up the missions for his Rangers. “Over the course of 1,000 raids, they captured or killed over 3,000 insurgents,” said Col. Rudacille. “You have forever changed the fight against extremism.

“Col. Clarke pointed out just how challenging that can be. “While deployed all night, every night, they went on literally thousands of raids, by helicopter, by vehicle, by foot and in some cases on boat assault,” said Col. Clarke. “Yes, Rangers were doing boat assault, against the world’s most valuable, dangerous and elusive targets, in the worst areas, under the most threatening and demanding operational conditions.

“Col. Rudacille bid farewell with honors for his soldiers. “The credit for this battalions achievements belongs to the Rangers in the field, who not only entered the arena time and time again, and emerged victorious,” said Col. Rudacille. “May God bless, continue to bless, this great battalion, our Army, and our nation. Rangers lead the way!”

WTOC, Savannah, Georgia, news, weather and sports | Military Salute: Col. Lee Rudacille

Tags: rangers, u.s. army, col clarke, col rudacille, honor, change of command, hunter army airfield, military, war on terror, raid

When reading this British news article, I detected some angst from the author that a weapon designed to obliterate terrorists actually works. Also down further in the article, there is a sense that the author would like to see a weapon that is more humane.

War is an ugly thing, it is even uglier when wars are lengthened by “humanitarians”  who make war “humane” enough to endure for longer periods. What is so controversial about a missile that kills the enemy? Wars are virtually impossible to fight let alone win when large segments of a population cringe at killing the enemy.

Article follows:

From Times Online by Michael Smith

British forces in Afghanistan have used one of the world’s most deadly and controversial missiles to fight the Taliban.

Apache attack helicopters have fired the thermobaric weapons against fighters in buildings and caves, to create a pressure wave which sucks the air out of victims, shreds their internal organs and crushes their bodies.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted to the use of the weapons, condemned by human rights groups as “brutal”, on several occasions, including against a cave complex.

The use of the Hellfire AGM-114N weapons has been deemed so successful they will now be fired from RAF Reaper unmanned drones controlled by “pilots” at Creech air force base in Nevada, an MoD spokesman added.

Thermobaric weapons, or vacuum bombs, were first combat-tested by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and their use by Russia against civilians in Chechnya in the 1990s was condemned worldwide.

The secret decision to buy the Hellfire AGM-114N missiles was made earlier this year following problems attacking Taliban fortified positions.

British Apache pilots complained that standard Hellfire antitank missiles were going straight through buildings and out of the other side. Even when they did explode, there were limited casualties among the Taliban inside, particularly when a building contained a number of rooms.

American Apache pilots overcame the problem in Iraq with the thermobaric Hellfire.The weapons are so controversial that MoD weapons and legal experts spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without breaking international law.

Eventually, they decided to get round the ethical problems by redefining the weapons.“We no longer accept the term thermobaric [for the AGM-114N] as there is no internationally agreed definition,” said an MoD spokesman. “We call it an enhanced blast weapon.”

The redefinition has allowed British forces to use the weapons legally, but is undermined by the publicity of their manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, which markets them as thermobaric.

When the American military bought them in 2005, President George W Bush said: “There are going to be some awfully surprised terrorists when the thermobaric Hellfire comes knocking.”Despite the Bush rhetoric, it is unlikely anyone targeted by the missile would know much about it. The laser-guided missile has a warhead packed with fluorinated aluminium powder surrounding a small charge.

When it hits the target, the charge disperses the aluminium powder throughout the target building. The cloud then ignites, causing a massive secondary blast that tears throughout any enclosed space.

The blast creates a vacuum which draws air and debris back in, creating pressure of up to 430lb per sq in. The more heavily the building is protected, the more concentrated the blast.

Click here to read entire article Army ‘vacuum’ missile hits Taliban - Times Online

Tags: vacuummissile, thermobaric missile, enhanced blast weapon, george bush, british army, ministry of defence, taliban

This article is most surprising to me in that it reveals rarely heard words when referencing a piece of military or naval equipment…”delivered eight months ahead of schedule and $54 million under budget.”

Article follows:

GROTON, Connecticut (AP) — The Navy’s newest attack submarine, the New Hampshire, was christened Saturday, delivered eight months ahead of schedule and $54 million under budget.

The New Hampshire will begin sea trials this summer and be delivered to the Navy in October.

The New Hampshire will begin sea trials this summer and be delivered to the Navy in October.The New Hampshire was christened by the widow of a pilot killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“I believe I’m looking at heroes,” said Cheryl McGuinness of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, looking at the ship’s crew. “You all are my heroes.

“Thomas McGuinness was co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, which was flown into the World Trade Center’s north tower.

Navy officials, members of Congress and shipyard workers were among the thousands who gathered to celebrate the christening of the 7,800-ton, 337-foot nuclear-powered submarine, which will have a crew of 134.

“She’s a living, breathing soul who will provide a home to her crew,” said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Connecticut.

The submarine, built by General Dynamic’s Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, is the third Navy vessel to carry the name of the Granite State.

“Now it’s time for this New Hampshire to continue the seafaring legacy of the ships before,” said Adm. Kirkland Donald, director of naval reactors. “We’ll soon depend on this crew to take this submarine into harm’s way.

“The submarine is scheduled to begin sea trials this summer and is expected to be delivered to the Navy in October, in a ceremony at the Naval shipyard in Kittery, Maine.

Navy’s newest submarine christened - CNN.com

Tags: u.s.navy, submarine, new hampshire, under budget, ahead of schedule

Some more encouraging news about conditions in Iraq from The Economist. I read The Economist off and on. For some reason I find myself buying The Economist in airports while I am traveling.

I didn’t remember The Economist justifying war with Iraq in 2003, yet in the article below, that earlier article is referenced. This article made me want to dig a little deeper.

I am posting this article to be one of the few places publishing good news from Iraq and also to show how far we have come since 2003.

Article follows:

Jun 12th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Its people are still suffering monstrously, but Iraq is doing far better than it was only a few months ago.

AFTER all the blood and blunders, people are right to be skeptical when good news is announced from Iraq. Yet it is now plain that over the past several months, while Americans have been distracted by their presidential primaries, many things in Iraq have at long last started to go right.This improvement goes beyond the fall in killing that followed General David Petraeus’s “surge”. Iraq’s government has gained in stature and confidence.

Thanks to soaring oil prices it is flush with money. It is standing up to Iraq’s assorted militias and asserting its independence from both America and Iran. The overlapping wars—Sunni against American, Sunni against Shia and Shia against Shia—that harrowed Iraq after the invasion of 2003 have abated. The country no longer looks in imminent danger of flying apart or falling into everlasting anarchy. In September 2007 this newspaper supported the surge not because we had faith in Iraq but only in the desperate hope that the surge might stop what was already a bloodbath from becoming even worse (see article). The situation now is different: Iraq is still a mess, but something approaching a normal future for its people is beginning to look achievable.

The guns begin to fall silent
As General Petraeus himself admits, and our briefing this week argues, the change is fragile, and reversible (see article). But it is real. Only a few months ago, Iraq was in the grip not only of a fierce anti-American insurgency but also of a dense tangle of sectarian wars, which America seemed powerless to stop. Those who thought it was just making matters worse by staying on could point to the bloody facts on the ground as evidence. But now it is time to look again. Each of those overlapping conflicts has lately begun to peter out.

A few Sunnis, motivated by Islam or simple resentment of foreign military occupation, continue to attack American forces. But many Sunni tribes, repelled by the atrocities committed by their former and often foreign allies in al-Qaeda, have joined the so-called Sunni awakening, the Sahwa, and crossed over to America’s side. At the same time, Sunnis and Shias have stopped killing each other in the vast numbers that followed the blowing up of a Shia shrine in early 2006. General Petraeus’s surge is only one reason for this. Another reason, less flattering to the Americans, is that after last year’s frenzied ethnic cleansing fewer neighbourhoods are still mixed. But it is also the case that a lot of Iraqis, having waded briefly into the horror of indiscriminate sectarian slaughter, have for the present made a conscious decision to step back.

The conflict between Shias and Shias has died down too. In the past few weeks Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has belied a reputation for weakness by sending the army to take control of the port city of Basra and the Baghdad slum known as Sadr City, both strongholds until then of the powerful militia run by Muqtada al-Sadr, a vehemently anti-American Shia cleric. The fact that Mr Sadr considered it wise not to resist suggests not only that the army is now strong enough to out-face private militias but also that the state has acquired far greater political legitimacy, in Shia minds at least.

Needless to say, these conflicts could resume. The Sunnis fighting on America’s side today could direct their fire back towards the Americans and Shias tomorrow if not enough room is made for them in the new, Shia-dominated order. On the Shia side, it is not clear whether Mr Sadr has given up violence for good. And his is not the only political movement to have a private army. Sunnis, Shias and Kurds alike still see their respective militias as a hedge against an uncertain future.

To that extent, Iraq is still far from normality. But if the calm survives, politics will at least have a chance. Mr Maliki’s next job is therefore to go ahead with the provincial elections due before the end of the year. A good showing by the Sunnis, too few of whom voted in 2005, could bring them back into the political mainstream, enabling them to wield serious power in their own provinces at least. The elections can also provide a useful alternative path to power for the Sadrists, if they really have given up violence and decide to take part.

George Bush meanwhile has a further part to play, which consists mainly of not doing things that might tempt him.

Click here to read entire article.

Tags: iraq, war, military, george bush, improving, getting better, iran, general petraus, u.s. army

Had a slow down in posting as I have been out of the country for the past week. Here is a video to get rockin’ again. A railgun is one that uses electrical magnets to propel a projectile. The fire behind the projectile is air bursting into flame because of the projectile’s increadible velocity. Enjoy.

This video produced in 1952 uses less animation and more live action to show how electrical power and freedom are linked. This video shows how many advances in technology that were achieved during the life of a 75 year old man in 1952. A “house of the future” is shown from a 1952 perspective and I find it very interesting. My favorite quote is, “We are not a nation of destroyers. We are a nation of builders!” That is a true statement. Unfortunately there are many Americans born and raised who would ridicule this video and deny its point of view. If you love America, you will love this video.

If you don’t love America, this video will make you arrogantly laugh or get angry. Detractors of the United States want the U.S. weak and “wussified”.

One of the main goals of Environmental Collectivists is to shut down the motor of the world through ignorance and paranoia about the environment. To shut down the motor of the world the United States must be weak. For those who think the United States is bad or repressive, consider this: Millions of people would not risk their lives to get into the U.S. illegally if it were as bad as U.S. detractors say it is.

Hat Tip: Internet Archive

This blast from the past is a newsreel from Universal Studios produced in March 1945 during very heavy fighting as American forces entered Cologne (Koln) and crossed the Rhine River on the Bridge at Remagen soon before it collapsed under fire. Also shown are meetings leading up to the formation of the United Nations in San Francisco and relief efforts for civilians ravaged by war. Notice the very different tone of the war coverage from that we hear today. Even though thousands of U.S. troops were dying and being wounded, the focus is continually on victory and not how many of our troops died that day. Enemy troops are regarded as such and even ridiculed as shown by the narrator’s comment, “…one “superman” gets his.”

I actually visited Cologne and Remagen (the bridge was not rebuilt) multiple times while I lived in Germany. It is sobering to see how “WW2″ style wars are fought. The entire city of Cologne is shown in rubble except for the Cathedral which was intentionally spared by Allied bombing. Because fighting “WW2” style was so brutal, the Nazi Germans, Fascist Italians and Imperial Japanese were all defeated in less than five years. We should learn a lesson from that and not “wuss out” about the war we are fighting now.

On this, the final day of 2007, it is good to reflect on the year that has passed. Learn from the mistakes and savor the accomplishments. I think it is better to “lean forward in the foxhole” and project what needs to be done in the coming year. This is a good opportunity to hit the metaphorical reset button, regain ideological foundations and focus on goals and milestones for 2008.

This will be a big year, not only because of the Presidential Elections but because we are at a critical point in our Long War against the Islamic Jihadists. We have seen how not taking this war seriously can create large setbacks. We saw the effects of a less than full effort in Iraq juxtaposed with what happens when determined leadership and adequate force is applied to defeat Islamic Jihadists in Iraq. I hope the same mistakes are not allowed to create setbacks in Afghanistan and now Pakistan before we take appropriate action with appropriate force. As my Brigade Commander used to say, “Hope is not a method.” Only consistent action and force will defeat an enemy.

Let us be clear, this IS a world war. I have said since 2001 that we need to fight this war “World War 2 Style”, which means fighting a total war to defeat Jihadist forces world wide with all the brutal kinetic efficiency the United States can muster. Fighting brutally and aggressively will continue the deterrence that we have enjoyed since World War 2 but are now losing. By fighting from the beginning in a somewhat “half-assed” manner we have put our troops and even our homeland at greater risk.

So called Progressives are fond of looking for “root causes” to social and global problems. In the case of most challenges we face in the world and at home today, the root cause is Collectivism. Collectivism is the ideology that the rights of the group or the state supersede the rights of the Individual. Even though Collectivism should have been relegated to the dustbin of history after its demonstrable historical failure culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is making a resurgence in countries like the United States which were founded on individual rights.

Islamic Jihadists, Communists, Fascists, Socialists and Progressives are all Collectivists in that they all want to subordinate individual liberty to advance the power and influence of The Group or The State. All of the Collectivists listed above want to limit or eliminate freedom of choice for individuals and replace it by what they bill as freedom from choice. As demonstrated by past performance, Collectivists do not think that individuals can be trusted with their own property. Virtually every case of oppression or corruption can be seen at its root to be groups or governments inflicting Collectivism upon individuals through force or threatened force.

As a resolution for the New Year I will re-double my efforts to advance Individualism by criticizing, cajoling and lampooning Collectivism in all its forms. I don’t think it a stretch to be confident that my fellow Conservabloggers will commit to the same.

In his very relevant and thought provoking article “A Pack, Not a Herd“, Glen Harlan Reynolds gives examples of a trend in the United States of individuals and regular citizens accomplishing things that law enforcement and government agencies have been unable to do.

Reflecting on the actions by common citizens on 9/11 in New York City when the emergency and law enforcement agencies were shut down in large part shows that motivated Americans can take positive action in times of crisis. There has been a trend in the U.S. through the 20th century of government agencies putting more and more power in the hands of police and bureaucrats while impeding more and more individual liberties as though the citizenry couldn’t be trusted to act responsibly. We have seen the development of an arrogance of power held by the very agencies which were created to serve the people. This development is not surprising, but it remains disappointing in a country which was founded on the rights of the individual over the State. Historically, governments have never voluntarily lessened their grip on power.

With the threat of terrorism and other horrific acts growing in the United States, an armed and alert populace of citizens is the only guarantee of order and safety. A few of my European friends wonder how a civilized society could allow private citizens to purchase and carry firearms. I ask them how a civilized society of citizens and not subjects, could possibly prohibit the private ownership of firearms. I use the most longstanding armed society in the middle of Europe as an example of how armed citizens keep the peace even in the most violent times of war. Europeans become befuddled when it is pointed out to them that Switzerland has virtually every household armed with fully automatic weapons. Many times one can see an assault rifle mounted on the underside of car trunk lids if one looks closely. One friend of mine in Switzerland who is a career school teacher has a fully automatic assault rifle and because of the large size of his house, is also mandated by the government to have a fully stocked shelter in his basement and an additional crew served machine gun. Even the Nazis didn’t invade Switzerland! Despite the ubiquitous ownership of firearms, Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

I urge law enforcement and government agencies to take a lesson from America’s history of self reliance. The only way to deter and combat random acts of terror and crime is to have a vigilant and able citizenry. For too long has the trend in the United States been for the government to gradually treat citizens more and more like subjects of the realm. Historically, free men carry arms, while serfs and slaves do not. As Reynolds mentions in his article, “…if you deputize a nation, doesn’t that make the official deputies just a little bit less special? The problem with this mindset is that it’s all about bureaucratic turf, and not about getting the job done.”

Another poignant observation by Reynolds is, “Regardless of whether or not the D.C. snipers count as “terrorists” under your particular definition (they do under mine, but the authorities seem to be shooting for a much narrower standard) there seems little question that in coming weeks, months, and years we’re going to be dealing with a lot of fast-moving, dispersed threats of the sort that bureaucracies don’t handle very well. (Every domestic-terrorism victory so far, from Flight 93 to bringing down the LAX shooter to spotting the D.C. killers was accomplished by non-law-enforcement individuals, after all). Rather than creating new bureaucracies, we need to be looking at ways of promoting fast-moving, dispersed responses, responses that will involve members of the public as a pack, not a herd. Even if doing so reduces the career satisfaction of shepherds.”

Most significant change occurs when a crisis situation demands it for survival. In the coming century, the United States will have to return to its individualistic roots and deputize its citizenry so that government of the people, for the people, by the people will not parish from the earth.

Hat Tip: American Thinker

We in the United States can only hope. Reality is just starting to create a barely audible wake up call to European populations and their leadership. Europeans are beginning to realize that they have much more to fear from a nuclear Iran than does the United States. In the Age of Terrorism however, nuclear proliferation can mean a nuke in a shipping container delivered to any ocean port in the world without even being able to tell which country instigated the attack.

I really like the reasoned perspective found at The American Thinker and I read it often. I highly recommend you read their latest article.