Magical Mystery Tour

Although we have a strong nostalgic streak,
we are a hard people who no less than the ancient Romans
entertain ourselves with a steady diet of throat slitting
and torture images that can only work
to pound the tenderness out of us 
--Try a Little Tenderness, Gordon Marino 

They offer me neither food nor drink -- 
intellectual nor spiritual consolation...
[Conservatism] leads nowhere; it satisfies no ideal;
it conforms to no intellectual standard, it is not safe,
or calculated to preserve from the spoilers

that degree of civilization which we have already attained. 

--On the Conservative Party, John Maynard Keynes 
_____________________

The first article ever presented on RangerAgainstWar was titled, "Terrorism -- Is It Warfare?" (first published in Military Police, 1985).  Because the question has never been answered definitively, the United States has been fighting in two countries for over a decade.  23 years later, the question is still in play.

The latest iteration occurs in context of the President ordering drone strikes against U.S. citizens for suspicion of terrorist activities.  Let's go back to the start and talk about the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the document being used as the justification for the recent drone killings.  The AUMF is NOT a declaration of war but rather a feeble effort to apply the logic and standards of war to the activity of terrorism by creating a nether zone between criminality and warfare.

But terrorism is not warfare; terrorism is a criminal activity and therefore, a law enforcement concern.  Congress may authorize whatever is on their agenda, but they may not alter the reality and definitions of what constitutes war. As terrorism is criminal behavior and not war, the President has no constitutional authority to apply the concepts of warfare to justify his assassination program.  Assassination is not a mete response to criminal behavior.

The President may or may not have the constitutional authority to use deadly force to counter a threat, but there is no law allowing him to act as judge, jury and executioner.  The President may order the military to use force in a legitimate manner, but may not order them (or the CIA or the FBI) to authorize extrajudicial deadly force missions.

There are no provisions in our U.S. code for preemptive executions.  We do not field adjudicate even miscreants like the spree shooters of late.  Though these defectives are just as heinous as terrorists, we still respect their right to Due Process.

How have we come to accept a death sentence sans trial as being appropriate for anyone? Why has the concept of "burden of proof" disappeared?  Why do we trust career intelligence analysts to give a "thumbs down" on someone's life?  Ditto sleazy CIA directors or political appointees?

If terrorism is warfare, then the Geneva Conventions would apply, and the terrorists would no longer be criminals, but would this re-definition be either smart or logical?  Assuming that terrorism = warfare (remember: it ISN'T!):

• Why do we kill in war?  Wartime killing is not limitless and does have parameters. Killing -- and each individual death -- should lead to victory; the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) cannot even define victory.

• Why do we have and abide by the Geneva Conventions?

• Wars without ends are a fool's gambit.

If terrorism is NOT warfare, then the U.S. actions vis-a-vis terrorists are criminal; if terrorism IS warfare, then our actions violate every principle of war that was ever taught to Ranger in any service school. Killing sans clearly defined goals is a greater criminality than is terrorism; minimally, it is indistinguishable from it.

While we cannot control the actions of terrorists, we should hold our leaders to civilized standards of conduct.  Killing to no purpose is not a building block of civilization.

The Green Reaper, II

[continued from 7.2.12 --]

Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf?
Big, bad wolf? Big, bad wolf?
Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf?
Tra-la-la-la-la
--Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?
___________________

Snipers will play a prominent role as the military reshapes itself into a more agile force after Iraq and Afghanistan. In a new strategy unveiled in January, the Pentagon said it planned on building a smaller, more expeditionary military force and would expand America's capabilities to train indigenous forces over the next several years.

The ability to shoot is not coincident with the ability to teach. Snipers at the PFC level are not qualified instructors. It is doubtful that E5 and 6 level can execute instructor duty for training indigenous forces.

In recent years, snipers have been armed with handheld ballistic computers that calculate the effects of air pressure and other atmospherics on a bullet's trajectory. Optics and rifles have also improved accuracy. The Marine Corps assembles its own bolt-action sniper rifles to exacting standards here at Quantico.

We in Marksmanship have been building sniper bolt guns since at least 1965. Army Marksmanship units developed the XM21 Sniper System. None of today's activities vary from the historic footprint.

Typically, a well-equipped sniper in World War II could be expected to hit a human target with a single shot at about 600 yards in favorable conditions and during daylight. Today, snipers can typically hit targets at twice that range — from more than half a mile away — and at night, said Bryan Litz, a ballistics expert at Berger Bullets who has done military contract work.

Snipers are not the only ones who can kill a target at 1,200 yards. At the Infantry Battalion level the Army has numerous ways to kill people at that distance.

"They're a small niche that can really wreak havoc on the enemy," said Clarke Lethin, a retired Marine officer who was on the staff of the unit that conducted the negotiations in Fallujah. "Our snipers were very effective when we were trying to bring terrorists to the table."

Now for the muddled thinking -- earlier in the piece, the foe was insurgents; now, it is terrorists. What were the opposition forces in Fallujah -- insurgents, enemy or terrorists? Just one year after the Marine's fight in Fallujah, these very same men were carrying rifles and were paid, trained and equipped by United States. From pond scum to the Great Hadji Hope of U.S. strategic dreams in one year.

Students in the Army's five-week course learn complex formulas designed to predict how a bullet's trajectory will be changed slightly by the atmosphere. When firing long distances, wind variations and barometric pressure can knock a bullet off course. Bullets travel faster at high altitudes where there is less resistance in the thin air.

In the 1960's and 70's, soldiers reporting for sniper training were experts before they reported for duty.

"You're going to need to read his body language" ... "[T]hat Marine on the ground observing through those optics is going to be able to make out somebody who seems nervous or seems out of place."

We are training soldiers to recognize and kill people who are nervous or seem out of place. However, in a climate of suspicion and anxiety, how do some tics add up to a death sentence? Are soldiers now going to go through psychoanalytic training to become proficient in reading body language?

Since the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) commenced we have been fed a steady ration of how everything has changed since the events of 9-11-01, and everything we throw at the threats are new and improved. But this claim does not hold up under scrutiny.

In the Old Infantry trophy rifle matches fired with the service rifle, targets were shot at 400, 500 and 600 yards and were fired over iron sights. Back then, everyone qualified at 200, 300, 500 and 600 yards. We no longer train our soldiers that intensely or extensively.

There was a scene in the documentary "Generation Kill" in which an enemy fighter was seen at 175 yards distant. The Platoon leader then called for the sniper who then unloaded all of his gear and proceeded to shoot the enemy into paradise.

This was achieved while the rest of the platoon looked on dumbly when any one of them could have done the same thing with his M-4. This was a historically correct and instructive scene; the sniper was superfluous.

Exotic, but superfluous all the same.

SS Division Nordland

Tell Me Lies, tell me sweet little lies
Oh no no, you can't disguise
--Tell Me Lies, Fleetwood Mac

You can put lipstick on a pig,
but it's still a pig
___________________

The recent murders in Norway are insane, but they are also acts of criminality in its purest sense.

The murders were premeditated and also fit the definition of terrorism as the shooter wanted to reach a target beyond his immediate victims. Shooter Anders Breivik believed he was at war, and even labelled his murder victims as unfortunate collateral damage in his war scenario. His attorney says Mr. Breivik is nuts.

The cows have come home to roost (thank you, Latka) when Mr. Breivik states that he thinks he is "in a war", for he resembles no one so much as the entity known as the United States in his belief. You can call terrorism "war", but that doesn't make it so:

"This whole case has indicated that he's insane," Lippestad told reporters in Oslo, saying Breivik believes he is leading an anti-Muslim revolution to overturn Western governments and that the victims from his downtown Oslo bombing and Utoya Island shooting rampage were casualties of war.

"He says he is sorry that he had to do this, but it was necessary to start a revolution in the Western world," Lippestad said. "He believes he is in a war" (Suspect in Norway attacks 'believes he is in a war,' lawyer says).

Since the opening salvo of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) we at RangerAgainstWar have said that terrorism or the reaction to terrorism is not equated to warfare. TERRORISM ≠ WAR.

Terrorism, whether on the idyllic Norwegian island of Utoeya or the World Trade Center is simply an act of craven criminality. Terrorism is not warfare, yet we have a right-wing crazy in Norway who believes that it IS warfare; we call him INSANE, while the entire foreign and military policy of the U.S. government is based upon Mr. Breivik's logic.

George W. Bush's presidency was predicated upon his being a "wartime president", with Obama gladly following in his footsteps. Why is Breivik insane, while GWB or Obama are considered steady as rocks?

If a lie is told often enough and loudly enough, somebody is bound to believe the message. A bad German said that when promoting a bad war.