Content by Yahuti
Posted at 7:11pm on Nov. 16, 2007 Ron, Ron the NEO-CON
By Yahuti
I know it is Friday, and we all want to 'boogy on' to wherever we boogy on Fridays. But friends, before you close the cover on the week, don't move until you have treasted yourselves to this post by Ron Silver's weblog Silver Bullet:
(By the way. What is the secret to converting these massive URLs into a single word or phrase as done by you accomplished bloggers?0
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronsilver/2007/11/15/neocon_extreme_moder...
Posted in Hollywood — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:53am on Dec. 31, 2006 RedStaters, be advised that Jeff Emanuel . . .
By Yahuti
our honorable colleague and collaborator here at R/S got his innings in today with an article in the Washington Times - the national capital's ONLY non fiction daily newspaper, entitled: "Honorable Americans, every one"
Well done, Jeff; and very well spoken, as ususal.
Jeff's aricle can be found . . . here . . .
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061228-090910-8123r.htm
Posted in Archived — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:29pm on Dec. 23, 2006 RedStaters
By Yahuti
I take this opportunity to wish every one of you - each and every one of you, your families and friends - a very Merry Christmas and a most Happy, Prosperous and Safe New Year - with many more to come.
With more than two years interaction with you lot here on R/S just about all my non-familial Christmas expectations have been fulfilled, if for no other reason than that the experience has never been burdened by a dull moment.
Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:12pm on Nov. 7, 2006 Army Times Editorial Calls for Rumsfeld 'To Go.'
By Yahuti
"This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President. to face the hard, brusing truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go."
Not about the elections! Who the hell are the editors trying to kid?
The Navy and Air Force Times are expected to follow suit with this unprecedented, unsolicited and totally unwarrented piece of advice to the Commander-in-Chief. If this is the case then the publishers of these three Military-oriented newspapers have betrayed the trust of their uniformed readers, their families and all others upon whose largesses these rags have build their reputations (and business). Any of these three papers containing this or similar content should be immediately and severley censured and their special status within the DoD reviewed and revised.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:31pm on Jun. 5, 2006 Put The Uniforms Back In Charge
By Yahuti
I have been submerged in research for the past several months. Two writing projects I have underway (one fiction, the other not) each took curious twists and pulled me in the same general direction. They each brought me to the same research topic: The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.
Research notwithstanding, I simply loath and detest the outcome of that legislation twenty years after its enactment; and have to say that I and many of my generation of military officers saw it coming. Goldwater-Nichols is one of the prime motivators behind my retirement, and many others. I simply could not see myself in the military under a system and regime that seemed all too easy to predict twenty-odd years ago. Suffice it to say, most (if not all, and more) of our most dire predictions concerning G-N have become realities.
So why would I burden RedState and its collaborators with such historical mundacities in the form of a Diary?
Simple. The G-N Act realigned responsibilities and authorities within and between the Department of Defense and its staffs and agencies (and now - Commands); within the Military Departments between the Service Secretaries and their staffs and Service Chiefs and their Staffs; and between and amongst them all. I have always been convinced and remain convinced that within the DOD alone, the effects of the G-N Act would easily support scores of doctoral dissertations. Anybody on RS aware of any related dissertations? I'd like to read them.
Apart from strictly the DOD, the G-N Act subtly but significantly realigned and re-weighted many of the basic relationships between the DOD and all other Executive Departments and Agencies. I will leave that new set of relationships for scholars of another time.
For now, and for RedStaters with an interest, background and predilection for such arcane topics, let me share a few of the least desirable aspects of G-N. Each lends themselves to research and, especially to fiction - since much of the alteration in relationships would make good fiction if they weren't such poor reality. All of them, in my opinion, have produced unpredicted and unwanted effects upon the nation's current abilities, methods, means and directions in waging war and surviving peace.
Here are some of my general conclusions. I would appreciate any and all of your comments and reactions to them (Streiff, Nick Danger [wherever you are] and others among you - you know who you are - might as well lock and load).
Before Goldwater-Nichols spilled the night soil twenty years ago:
- The Secretary of Defense was simply a Cabinet Officer and did not conduct himself as the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of all America's military forces. Neither the Secretary of Defense nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff functioned as if they were in the military operational chain of command. They advised the Commander-in-Chief and supported and assisted the respective Military Departments in the conduct (and planning and preparation for war). Secretaries of Defense did not fire, nor did they select Service Secretaries and service Military Chiefs.
- Many of the authorities and responsibilities for Intelligence Operations, Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Procurement, once the preserve of the individual military departments and their staffs, were siphoned up from the military departments into the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) where once only oversight was exercised. Along with these responsibilities and authorities went the 3-star proponents from the military departments who are now deputies to 'suits' filing nominative positions in the OSD - rather than being a principal staff proponent for those activities for his service chief and department secretary.
- Like it or not, agree on not, many (many, many) of the Intelligence Community's professional (from analysts to collection, counterintelligence, security, etc.) positions throughout the community (yes, the dreaded CIA as well) were filed by military active duty personnel. Also, the three individual Military Department Intelligence Organizations from their respective staffs down through the field provided some (if not most) of the best intelligence products (HUMINT significantly - and field support for the dreaded NSA) throughout the intelligence community. While the FBI was engrossed in white collar crime, the military conducted most and some of the best counterintelligence and counter-espionage, counter terror (and related) operations in the world. While the CIA was concerned with 'national technical means of collection' the military was running agents all over the world. Those days are gone. The military's intelligence activities are focused now mainly upon tactical issues. Almost every intelligence activity beyond that has been siphoned up among the 'suites' in OSD - where there has traditionally been little (if any) capability to perform the functions.
- Special Operations, once mainly United States Army Special Forces is now a multilayered, multiservice ménage, encrusted by two additional layers of general officers, centralized at the Joint-level (that means OSD) and directed mainly from Tampa by a 4-star command which controls most of the purse strings and all of the politics.
There are more, many more effects of the G-N Act twenty years after enactment, and depending upon ones view they are either desirable or not. My conclusions toss up here for the RedState red meat eaters are simple: The G-N Act did little for the defense of this country but enlarge the power and authority of the Department and Defense (thus, the Secretary of Defense) at the expense of the Military Departments mainly to the detriment of all those functions performed well and historically by the military departments to manage their respective business and prepare for the nation to fight wars and manage the peace.
Don't look to professional military people to support my conclusions. Most of their careers have been performed under the G-N regime. They don't know any better because they don't know any different. That might provide some insight into why the United States could crush the Iraqi military in days, but are still not able to manage the peace; and, especially to eradicate a cult of barbarians whose sole mission is to slaughter innocents by the hundreds, not with small arms or artillery fire - but by ambush. Want to know why the U.S. was able to win the war in Iraq and mismanage the peace? Look to the twenty-year effects of Goldwater - Nichols.
This nation doesn't need to rush into a radical redesign of our military and its war fighting capabilities and systems so much as it very badly needs to first revisit and repair the civilian/political/bureaucratic blanket that smothers it. American 'uniforms' would have knocked the socks off Hussein in Iraq or in Kuwait or most any other tin-pot wowser almost anywhere on earth without the 'suits' getting in the way.
If the 'suits' had not gotten in the way it is almost a certainty the 'uniforms' would have Iraq's so-called insurgency well in hand by now. Why? Because they would have had the responsibility and authority to plan for that aspect of the campaign - and not overlooked it. The U.S. military is supposed to be subordinate to our national political leadership. It is and always will be. But the G-N Act took things way too far by inserting civilians into military planning and operational processes simply by usurping the respective authorities and responsibilities from the military departments.
Here's a thought: Cut the Office of the Secretary of Defense in half, perform a restructuring of all Defense Agencies, convert all of those positions to military slots and give them to the war fighters. Revisit and rewrite the Goldwater-Nichols Act and return the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to their presidential advisory capacity. Allow the war fighters to once again assume responsibilities for waging war and securing peace, and not to simply take the heat for the failure of either.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:14pm on May 3, 2006 Moussaoui Gets Life for Role in Sept. 11
By Yahuti
P'tew . . .
Any country incapable of killing those intending to destroy it, and it's citizens - will one day succumb to them.
Moussaoui's jury be damned; and may they and their issue live to regret this despicable, weak decision; and the open-handed slap in the face to 911 victems and their families and loved ones.
The message to the world and all terrorists in it is unmistakeable: Kill as many Americans as you like, at home and at work, and it will cost you little.
I am ashamed!
I no longer fear for this country. I believe it is beyond saving.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:43pm on Jan. 30, 2006 What Motivated Kerry? Really?
By Yahuti
Earlier today a couple of old Grand School chums and I were discussing Kerry's motivation to 'yodel in' (one of the best lines describing the event) a call to arms from Switzerland.
We all know that on its face, his efforts seemed futile from the beginning. Indeed, this afternoon the vote for cloture finally ended the drama.
So, is Kerry really as politically dense as this move makes him appear? Is he simply naive? Is there some greater, darker plot hatching up his sleeve?
The stupid and naive ideas got the larger number of votes in our group. But, we hit upon and discussed another possible reason for his antics; one seemingly not considered publicly.
I put the idea before RedState for ideas and commentary. Where better way to shake the mold off the sails? Here it is:
Kerry's (and Kennedy quickly in support) actions seemed not to benefit anyone but the Republicans, Alito and George Bush. We can see no benefit to any Democrat from Kerry's bugle to the charge.
Except John Kerry.
But how he might benefit from his obviously foolish actions is an altogether different thing.
Is Kerry conducting guerilla warfare upon his own Minority leadership? Harry Reid is back-pedalling fast, maybe towards the brink regarding his 'contributions' from the Indian tribes. He failed utterly to launch a credible campaign early on against Alito. Is he vulnerable within his own party - if nowhere else?
Was Kerry attempting to strip the Senate Democratic leadership's 'political cover' with their leftist interest groups (and greatly enhance his own at their expense) by making them commit to a nonsense filibuster vote; or go on record as refuting such a vote?
Is Kerry positioning himself for a leadership position in the Senate in preparation for the next election?
Is it possible he can see himself as either a Minority or a Majority leader in the near future?
If you were Kerry, could you realisitcally see yourself as the Democrats' next presidential candidate; or would you assess a Senate leadership position as the more viable option?
Have we missed the true meaning of Kerry's 'bold stroke'? Have we been nuanced?
What are some of R/S's thoughts on why Kerry launched this inane mission, only to go down to defeate by 70 (+) votes.
My group of old Hoya Grad students (not to be confused with the present bunch) smell a rat, and suspect Kerry has something up his sleeve. I suspect they give him too much credit for nimblemindedness.
What do you think?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:42pm on Jan. 27, 2006 The great warrior and strategist, Jack Murtha
By Yahuti
just declared terrorist actions in Iraq to be a Civil War. He goes so far as to claim that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq.
I've written enough about this military poseur here on RedState and elsewhere. Now it is time for this dolt to be recalled to active duty, courts martialed and stripped of his commission, his rank and his military retirement - then placed in confinement.
He goes beyond simple treason- and steps boldly into both sabotage and subversion of national security/strategy, and the safety of military personnel in a war zone.
This turkey needs to be plucked.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20060127/0943
520685.htm&ewp=ewp_news_1205murtha
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:07pm on Mar. 22, 2005 Very Conflicted on Schiavo.
By Yahuti
Whatever may be one's private opinions about the Terri Schiavo situation (and I certainly have my own), we ought to be thinking about larger issues - beginning now - if it isn't already too late.
Are Terri Shaivo's circumstances worth what appears now to be a new and extremely intrusive government (local, state, federal and legislative, judivial and executive branches) overarching relationship in extremely private family affairs?
My wife and I completed Living Wills and certain other documents addressing circumstances that hopefully never occur. What does this new level of government intrusion mean for the agreements between my wife and I?
In my view the facts that Mr. Schiavo is in another relationship and stands to gain from Terri's demise - are irrelevant to the case. Despicable, maybe - yes. But irrelevant. The opinions that Terri's husband has ulterior motives, that he is not trustworthy, etc. are simply that: Opinions. And, what do those opinions have to do with the legalities attendant to the case? Apparantly, some think that Mr. Shiavo's conduct is sufficient to cast doubt upon his statements that he is exercising Terri's oral intent.
I am not an attorney but I do have questions on the law of this case. Will any of you attorneys please explain:
- Has Terri's husband broken any law?
- Who, under these circumstances, is her legal custodian?
- What is her husband's legal relationship towards Terri vis-a-vis her parents; the courts, the congress, the president?
I am not trying to be argumentative here. I would like to understand these relationships because - now - they will affect all of us in future.
What happens now if I am reduced to a state similar to Teri Schiavo, and my wife enables my Living Will only to have another family member refute it for their own reasons?
As a layman I believe we just witnesed a tectonic shift in both family and medical law; certainly in the relationship between just about every level and form of legal authority in America - and my intimate relationship with my wife. Am I correct? Does every level of American government now have a box office seat to witness my last words to my family - if they choose?
If I am correct, in whole or in part? If so, what does it mean for our conservatism to accept the fact that our positions on Terri Schiavo made us complicit in instituting the most profound government insertion into American private lives - probably in our history as a nation?
Are Americans now collectively at risk of Federal authority hovering over our deathbeds? Looking at this case from my layman's point of view I am finding myself quite conflicted. If my fears are valid, I have to ask myself whether one American's tragic circumstances are worth the overall result.
Was there not another way?
Or, am I being a little too overreactive?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:43pm on Mar. 11, 2005 Old Issue: New Topic
By Yahuti
Straying just a smidgeon from current issues; - Putting aside the issue of treason - I am of the opinion that Lieutenant General James Longstreet was 100% correct in his assessments during the three-day battle of Gettysburg; and that Robert E. Lee was 100% in error in all his major judgemnents at the same place; and monumentally in error several times elsewhere.
Further, I am of the opinion that Robert E. Lee's reputation as a 'great' general was earned before he confronted his first competent Union general - and failed dismally after that event.
That's just my opinion.