SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (431244)6/10/2011 9:24:17 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran3 Recommendations  Respond to of 794110
 
Thanks for that post, Uncle West.

Nice to know that this thread is still visited by those who use their minds to think before challenging their hands to write or their mouths to move..



To: unclewest who wrote (431244)6/10/2011 10:05:08 PM
From: LindyBill1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794110
 
What I want to avoid is posters taking a "God said so," position and backing it up with a bible verse.

I understand that a lot of people quite sincerely believe that the minute the sperm hits the egg, it's a human being. Others take my position, that it is human when it can survive outside the womb without extraordinary measures being taken. Which is generally after the first trimester.

So when people here who start from these opposite positions start a conversation on the subject of abortion, it's useless. They are working from different premises and will never agree.

This is why it is too bad that we had "Rowe vs Wade." This should have been a political decision, hammered out in legislative bodies.



To: unclewest who wrote (431244)6/11/2011 7:34:05 AM
From: steve harris1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794110
 
I was trying to make the point that on some topics, the moderator doesn't want any discussion of an opposing view.

Just as you were cut off from posting using the Bible, I have been cut off in the past from posting any prolife opinions after the topic of abortion comes up.

I posted examples of where it's alright to trash the Bible though to make my point; I wasn't referring to your abortion position, whatever it may be.

I'm on the same page you are, I saw your followup post.

Message 27428992



To: unclewest who wrote (431244)6/12/2011 10:55:35 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 794110
 
"Money Has Its Limitations
June 12, 2011: While people are critical to the success of special operations (commandos and such), money helps a lot. Since 2001, SOCOM (the American Special Operations Command) has gotten a lot more money. Annual SOCOM spending has gone from $2.6 billion in 2001 to $9.8 billion this year), but not a lot more people have been added. Since September 11, 2001, SOCOM has nearly doubled its size, to a current strength of 60,000 troops. This includes many support specialists, as well as the Special Forces, Rangers, SEALs and Marine Corps and Air Force operators. Currently, 10,000 of these commando type troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sounds good, doesn't it? But there's a major problem brewing; burnout. While most of the increased money has gone to buying better equipment, replacing worn out stuff and providing better training, getting new people has been much more difficult.

Not surprisingly, 60 percent of SOCOMs current troops signed up after September 11, 2001. But an increasing number are leaving the military, despite reenlistment bonuses of up to $150,000. The problem here is overwork. While the number of SOCOM personnel has doubled, the number overseas at any time has quadrupled. Many SOCOM personnel are spending more than half their time overseas, usually in a combat zone. There, Special Forces troops take the lead in intelligence gathering and capturing or killing key terrorists. It's mentally and physically exhausting work. Unlike past wars, these troops can remain in touch with families back home, for better or worse. While it's been a long war, most SOCOM operators realize that it could easily go on for another decade. Thus SOCOM has learned to say "no" more often, otherwise the expansion will go into reverse as many more exhausted operators leave the service.

Trying to recruit replacements is a solution that won't work. The U.S. Army's effort to recruit another 2,300 operators (as members of the Special Forces are called) has been a hard slog. Qualified candidates are out there, but it's hard to convince them to endure the additional effort, stress and danger to become a Special Forces operator (or a SEAL, Ranger, Pararescue Jumper). Even with higher pay ($10,000 or more additional a year) and high reenlistment bonuses (adding about $10,000 more a year), it's hard to find the men who can meet the high standards, and are willing to put up with the large amount of time spent overseas.

Recruiting and training more operators is a time consuming process, as it takes about three years to get a Special Forces recruit up to a basic level of competence. It takes another few years in the field before such men are ready for anything serious. At least half of those recruited, are lost (quit, wash out) before they reach their full capability. Recruiting to expand the number of operators began right after September 11, 2001. Soon, SOCOM was told to increase its strength by 43 percent, and do it by 2013.

Casualties are less of an issue that you might think, for such dangerous work. SOCOM casualties have been lower than in infantry or marine units. The big issue has always been overwork. Combat operations wear troops out. Elite men like SOCOM operators can handle more than your average infantryman, but they have their limits as well. Moreover, most Special Forces operators are married and have families. Being away from the wife and kids for extended periods often causes more stress. Keep the operators out there for too long at a time and you'll lose them to resignations, retirement or, rarely, combat fatigue. It's not just the equipment that is being worn out.

Because the Special Forces troops are the product of an exacting screening and training process, they are in big demand by intelligence agencies as well. Special Forces operators who retired or quit in the last decade have been sought out and offered opportunities to get back in the business. If not with one of the five active duty groups, then with training operations, or to work with the intelligence agencies.

Most Americans tend to forget that the U.S. Special Forces are a unique organization in military, and intelligence, history. No other nation has anything like the Special Forces, and never has. While other nations have some operators skilled in understanding foreign cultures, the idea of training thousands of troops to very high standards, then having them study foreign languages and cultures, is unique to the Special Forces. The war on terror is the kind of war Special Forces are perfectly suited to dealing with. But now that this unique kind of war is under way, we find that those soldiers uniquely suited to fighting it are in short supply. This is largely because Special Forces set high standards, and has resisted all attempts to lower those standards. One hard lesson the Special Forces has learned in the past sixty years is that lowering standards just increases the chances of failure, and getting your people killed.

Meanwhile, the SOCOM program to expand its Special Forces units has slogged forward. By 2013, the Special Forces will have 300 ODAs (Operational Detachment A, or "A" Teams), compared to the 180 they had on September 11, 2001. The army would like to add more ODAs to the two reserve Special Forces Groups (the 19th and 20th), which would increase the number of A Teams to 420, but money has not yet been provided for that.

In the past two years, SOCOM has been shifting forces from Iraq (where it had 5,500 personnel three years ago) to Afghanistan (where it had 3,000 troops three years ago). The ratio is now being reversed, with 7,000 in Afghanistan and under 3,000 in Iraq. Most American allies have moved all their commando forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, where they not only do what they were trained for, but also train Afghans for special operations tasks. This has already been done in Iraq, where it worked quite well. The SOCOM troops in Iraq and Afghanistan account for about 80 percent of American special operations forces overseas. The rest are in places like Colombia, the Philippines and Djibouti (adjacent to Somalia)."

strategypage.com



To: unclewest who wrote (431244)7/3/2011 8:34:48 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794110
 
"Special Forces Goes Coed
July 3, 2011: Earlier this year, the U.S. Army Special Forces began recruiting women for the first time. The women were needed for "Cultural Support Teams" (CST) for use in Afghanistan. There, it has been found that, if you send in female troops to an area, you are much more likely to get useful information from Afghan women. This was a technique that was developed, and worked, in Iraq. The U.S. Marine Corps pioneered the use of these all-woman CSTs.

The Special Forces does it differently, by using the same selection and training routines (in abbreviated format) for the women as they do for the men. Thus the Special Forces Assessment for CST volunteers is nine days, rather than 24 for the men. About half the volunteers do not pass this, a bit higher than the third of male volunteers who don't make it. That's probably because Special Forces recruits mostly infantry and other troops in combat jobs (where there is constant training to prepare you for the stress and physical demands of combat). The year-long Special Forces basic training has been cut to six weeks for CST members. That's because the women are not expected to do a lot of the training and combat operations the male operators must be prepared for. For the women, selection is mainly concerned with intelligence and adaptability. The CSTs, after all, specialize in intelligence work and forming relationships with Afghan women. But the women do get a lot of weapons and special skill (like roping down from a helicopter) training during those six weeks.

So far this year, 30 CST operators have been sent to Afghanistan and their performance has been outstanding. Special Forces commanders want more CST troops, and want them fast. As word gets around about the success of the program, more women will volunteer. The actual work of each team (of 3-6 women, attacked to a twelve man ODA or "A Team") is providing health care to women and children, collecting intelligence and participating in raids (where they can more easily search women for weapons and other contraband).

Meanwhile, the traditional Special Forces training has gone through a lot of changes since September 11, 2001. These new developments have mostly occurred in the basic training, which is called the SFQC (Special Forces Qualification Course). This is the year long process by which highly qualified infantrymen are turned into Special Forces operators. The major changes are that the trainees go through as part of a detachment (an "A Team"), and get much more realistic training for the specific part of the world they are going to (usually Iraq or Afghanistan). Trainees now get their first language training in the SFQC. Previously, you went to language school after SFQC. Many still do, but they already have some working knowledge of the language. The CST women also get language training, and are encouraged to improve their Pustun and Dari (the two major languages in Afghanistan) when they get to their assignments. Not much encouragement is needed, as better language skills is a key to success for these operators.

Meanwhile, the standard Special Forces tactical training has become much more realistic, and loud, in the last decade. Before 2005, trainees fired only about a hundred rounds of live ammo during SFQC, now they fire nearly 4,000 rounds. There's much more tactical training. Much greater use is made of computer simulators and wargames. Most of this stuff didn't exist before 2001. The sims provide more training, more realistically, and in less time. There's more training on cultures, and how to play cultural quirks. The CST trainees benefit from all these changes.

Currently there are five active duty Special Forces Groups. Each special forces group has a small headquarters unit and three Special Forces battalions. Each Special Forces battalion has a small headquarters (known as a C detachment), three operational companies and one support company. Each operational company has six "A Teams" (officially known as ODAs, or Operational Detachment Alpha) of twelve men. Total strength of a Special Forces company is 83 men. The company headquarters is called a B Team. Total strength of a Special Forces Group is about 1200 troops, when at full strength. An additional five battalions are being added to the current force of fifteen battalions.

There have long been rumors of some women being assigned to some SOCOM (Special Operations Command) units, like Delta Force. In the last century, hundreds of women were trained and deployed for espionage assignments in enemy territory. Most of this was during World War II. The female operators were a big success. Some countries continued this practice after World War II, usually in secret. Since most people expect all commandos to be male, having a female operator or two available can be a big advantage. The CST program is out in the open, and may lead to permanent jobs for women in Special Forces field operations"

strategypage.com



To: unclewest who wrote (431244)7/17/2011 12:18:23 AM
From: LindyBill2 Recommendations  Respond to of 794110
 
You KNEW this was coming.

Same-Sex Marriage Faces Military Limits
By JAMES DAO
NEW YORK TIMES

With the military's ban on openly gay troops expected to end this fall, advocates for gay and lesbian service members are already looking ahead to the next battle: winning equal benefits for same-sex married couples.

Under current law, particularly the Defense of Marriage Act, the Pentagon is prohibited from giving federally financed benefits to same-sex married couples. In the military, those benefits include base housing and allowances for off-base housing, health insurance, certain death benefits, legal counseling and access to base commissaries and other stores.

No one knows how many same-sex married couples are currently in the military, since existing policy, known as "don't ask, don't tell," prohibits openly gay people from serving. The number, however, is thought to be small, perhaps in the hundreds.

But with the final repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in the coming months — and with the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in New York and the possibility of other states' following suit — many advocates expect the number of gay and lesbian married couples in the military to rise significantly.

As those numbers grow, unequal treatment of same-sex married couples will become a source of resentment and poor morale, advocates for gay troops assert.

"What's pretty obvious is that there is going to be a collision soon between an open and integrated military and a federal law that prevents what I consider unit cohesion," said Rick Jacobs, chairman and founder of the Courage Campaign, an advocacy group for gay men and lesbians in the military. "You will have different people treated very differently."

But Elaine Donnelly, whose policy organization, the Center for Military Readiness, is opposed to ending the ban on openly gay troops, said extending equal benefits to same-sex couples would be not just costly but also offensive to some heterosexual couples. "These are things Congress should have considered last year before they voted to repeal the policy," said Ms. Donnelly, the center's president.

Eileen Lainez, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon, said the department was studying whether smaller benefits, like free legal services, could be extended to same-sex spouses. But she said there would be "no change" in eligibility for major benefits like housing and health care when "don't ask, don't tell" goes away.

"The Defense of Marriage Act and the existing definition of 'dependent' in some laws prohibit extension of many military benefits to same-sex couples," she said.

With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, advocates for gays in the military said the courts might be their best venue for equalizing benefits. "It may take some time," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for gay and lesbian troops.

Unequal benefits for same-sex married couples is one of several thorny issues facing the Pentagon as it enters the final phase of repealing "don't ask, don't tell," which has been policy since 1993. Among other issues likely to arise in the coming months are how the Pentagon will handle harassment complaints from gay or lesbian troops and whether it will allow openly transgender people to serve.

For months, the armed services have been using PowerPoint presentations to prepare troops at all levels for dealing with openly gay colleagues.

One scenario in a Marine Corps training presentation, for instance, asks how an officer should respond if he or she spots a gay military couple in civilian clothes kissing in the food court of a mall. (The answer: a "sexual-orientation neutral" response that treats the gay couple the same as a heterosexual couple.)

Most troops have now received such training, and last week the chiefs of the armed services sent progress reports on repeal to Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta. He and President Obama, as well as Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will use those assessments to determine whether the military is able to repeal the ban without losing its effectiveness. Once that certification is sent to Congress, the ban will be lifted after 60 days.

One currently serving Army officer who married her same-sex partner in Massachusetts said the end of the ban would provide a huge emotional release, allowing her for the first time to talk to her fellow soldiers about her wife and two children.

But she also considers it unfair that her wife will be unable to receive health or dental care on her base, buy life insurance subsidized by the military or shop at the base commissary, grocery store and gas station, where goods are typically cheaper.

Their family, however, will be eligible for base housing because they have dependent children. But same-sex married couples without children will probably not get such housing, experts say.

"I want to be like everyone else," the officer said. "I don't think my family should be entitled to anything less than the people I've served with here and overseas."

Mr. Sarvis said that in addition to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, another law governing military benefits also contains language that prohibits extension of benefits to same-sex spouses. That means that even if the Defense of Marriage Act, which is being challenged in federal courts, is struck down, Congress will still have to amend another law to allow equal benefits for same-sex married couples.

That process, he said, could take years. But he predicted that military commanders would support the change.

"I don't think that commanders are going to be comfortable with this inequity," he said. "Commanders historically have taken great pride that all of their service members are treated the same with respect to basic pay and benefits."

The Obama administration has said it will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court and issued a brief recently saying it considered the law unconstitutional.

Kristen Kavanaugh, a 2002 graduate of the Naval Academy, said she served in the Marine Corps for five years before voluntarily deciding to leave the military because she no longer wanted to lie about being a lesbian. She received an honorable discharge and is now attending graduate school at the University of Southern California.

Ms. Kavanaugh, 31, said she was considering rejoining the military so that she could counsel troops with post-traumatic stress disorder and other deployment-related problems. But she is also planning on marrying her partner — and the ability to receive equal benefits may determine whether she joins up again.

"I'm 75 percent there for joining," she said. "It will come down to the benefit issues. That's important to my partner."

"

nytimes.com