This is bad on sooo many levels!
-----------------------------------
- Dr. Alex Bielakowski
- As a former US Army reserve officer and a professional military historian, I am frequently astounded and disturbed the level of ignorance in our society in regards to both history and the military. The purpose of this blog is to distribute important articles on the topics of history and the military. Disclaimer: The opinions on this blog are my own (or whomever they are attributed to) and do not represent the opinions of the US Army Command and General Staff College, US Department of Defense, or the US Government.
06 July 2009
Case Of Autistic Marine Brings Recruiting Problems To The Forefront
04 July 2009
27 June 2009
Vietnam POWs Can Explain What 'Torture' Means
I understand COL Thorsness' point, but I think that the use of torture is a short term gain for a long term loss. The French experience in Algeria seems to prove my point.
----------------------------------
National debate about torture continues, but the valuable Vietnam prisoners of war resource goes largely untapped. Most of the POWs held five years or longer were tortured. The Pentagon has never studied our "torture database."
I and many POWs were tortured severely — some to death. Several wrote books. John "Mike" McGrath's book "Prisoner of War: Six Years in Hanoi" includes vivid torture drawings.
In my recent book, "Surviving Hell: A POW's Journey," my editors recommended that I include torture; otherwise younger readers might perceive treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as real torture. There was abuse and humiliation; in Vietnam there was torture.
It's likely we Vietnam POWs would disagree on one definition of torture. Sen. John McCain, George "Bud" Day and I were recently together. Bud, one of the toughest and most tortured POWs, received the Medal of Honor for his heroism as a POW. John thinks waterboarding is torture; Bud and I believe it is harsh treatment, but not torture. Other POWs would have varying opinions.
As one who has been severely tortured over an extended time, my firsthand view is that torture, when used by an expert, can produce useful, truthful information. During torture there is a narrow window-of-truth as pain (often multiple kinds) is increased. If torture continues beyond that point, the person breaks, or dies if he continues resisting.
Each person has a different physical and mental pain threshold. A trained interrogator can identify the exact moment when, if slightly more pain is inflicted, a person can no longer hold out by merely providing name, rank, serial number and date of birth pursuant to the Geneva Convention. At that precise point, the window-of-truth exists, and a person may give useful or truthful information to stop the pain. As slightly more pain is applied, the person loses it. He will say anything he thinks will stop the torture — any lie, story or random words.
This torture window-of-truth is theory to some; it is fact to me. During torture, I had the sickening feeling deep within my soul that maybe I would tell the truth. It is unpleasant, but I can still dredge up the memory of that window-of-truth feeling as the pain intensified.
Our world is not completely good or evil. To proclaim we will never use any form of enhanced interrogation suggests we are naive, and eases our enemies' recruitment of radical terrorists to plot attacks on innocent children, men and women or any infidel. We do not impress radical terrorists like those who slit the throat of Daniel Pearl in 2002 simply because he was Jewish and webcast his dying.
To help define how to obtain information, the Pentagon should tap the Vietnam POW database. They would learn that we developed our own standard and alerted newly captured POWs: "When you can't hold out by simply giving your name, rank, serial number and date of birth, take physical torture until you are right at the edge of losing your ability to be rational. At that point, lie, do, or say whatever you must do to survive. But you first must take physical torture to your limit."
Does use of enhanced interrogation bode badly for future prisoners of war? Not until all nations and all terrorists sign a treaty and abide by the U.S. Army Field Manual — no threats, no raised voice, no physical torture, no nothing. Until then, we are dreaming to think that our do-nothing interrogation policy will protect captured Americans.
Meanwhile, to define torture and formulate the best policies for productive interrogations, I encourage the Pentagon to tap the rich Vietnam POW database.
Medal of Honor recipient Leo Thorsness is a retired Air Force colonel and author of "Surviving Hell: A POW's Journey."
22 June 2009
Cost of a Diverse Naval Academy
If true, then a lawsuit really is necessary!
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce Fleming
The Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced in Annapolis recently that "diversity is the number one priority" at the Naval Academy.
Advertisement The Naval Academy superintendent, Vice Adm. Jeffrey Fowler, echoed him. Everyone understands that "diversity" here means nonwhite skins.
Fowler insisted recently that we needed to have Annapolis graduates who "looked like" the Fleet, where enlisted people are about 42 percent nonwhite, largely African American and Hispanic.
The stunning revelation last week was that the Naval Academy had an incoming class that was "more diverse" than ever before: 35 percent minority.
Sounds good, only this comes with a huge price tag. It's taxpayers who bankroll the military. Yet nobody has asked us if we're willing to pay this price. Instead we're being told there is no price to pay at all. If you believe that, you probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy.
A "diverse" class does not mean the Naval Academy recruits violinists, or older students (they can't be 23 on Induction Day), or gay people (who are thrown out) or foreign students (other than the dozen or so sent by client governments).
It means applicants checked a box on their application that says they are Hispanic, African American, Native American, and now, since my time on the Admissions Board of the Academy, where I've taught for 22 years, Asians.
Midshipmen are admitted by two tracks. White applicants out of high school who are not also athletic recruits typically need grades of A and B and minimum SAT scores of 600 on each part for the Board to vote them "qualified." Athletics and leadership also count.
A vote of "qualified" for a white applicant doesn't mean s/he's coming, only that he or she can compete to win the "slate" of up to 10 nominations that (most typically) a Congress(wo)man draws up. That means that nine "qualified" white applicants are rejected. SAT scores below 600 or C grades almost always produce a vote of "not qualified" for white applicants.
Not so for an applicant who self-identifies as one of the minorities who are our "number one priority." For them, another set of rules apply. Their cases are briefed separately to the board, and SAT scores to the mid-500s with quite a few Cs in classes (and no visible athletics or leadership) typically produce a vote of "qualified" for them, with direct admission to Annapolis. They're in, and are given a pro forma nomination to make it legit.
Minority applicants with scores and grades down to the 300s with Cs and Ds (and no particular leadership or athletics) also come, though after a remedial year at our taxpayer-supported remedial school, the Naval Academy Preparatory School.
By using NAPS as a feeder, we've virtually eliminated all competition for "diverse" candidates: in theory they have to get a C average at NAPS to come to USNA, but this is regularly re-negotiated.
All this is probably unconstitutional. That's what the Supreme Court said about the University of Michigan's two-track admissions in 2003.
Once at Annapolis, "diverse" midshipmen are over-represented in our pre-college classes, in lower-track courses, in mandatory tutoring programs and less challenging majors. Many struggle to master basic concepts. (I teach some of these courses.)
Of course, some minority students are stellar, but they're the exception. Despite being dragged toward the finish line, minorities graduate at about a 10 percent lower rate than the whole class, which of course includes them (so the real split is greater).
Don't want to believe me? Have a lawyer sit in on a year's worth of Admissions Board deliberations. Or better still, pray that one of the stellar white students rejected to give a seat to a "diverse" candidate sues us. That's the only way taxpayers will ever fully understand the price to them of "putting diversity first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The writer is an English professor at the Naval Academy.
20 June 2009
15 June 2009
'Mindless' Basic Training Gets Some Smarts
It only took 5 years...
-----------------------------------
13 June 2009
Russian Military Cuts Leave Soldiers Adrift
A sad situation for an army that was the largest (though arguably second best) in the world 20 years ago!
---------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
