Tag: US military

I hope there is more to this story that we don’t know about because there is no way this guy should be punished the way he is for enforcing appropriate dining out conduct:

The Army is moving to discharge a decorated combat pilot who intervened to stop two lesbian officers from showing what he considered inappropriate affection on the dance floor during a full-dress formal ball at Fort Drum, New York, in 2012.

Lt. Col. Christopher Downey, who was once assigned to the White House and completed tours in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, ended up being convicted administratively of assaulting a soldier trying to videotape the kissing and grabbing. Col. Downey’s attorney, Richard Thompson, says his client merely pushed down the camera to prevent photos and video that could end up on social media.

Mr. Thompson said Col. Downey’s commanding officer also convicted him of violating the directive that ended the ban on gays openly serving in the military.

“It’s political correctness run wild,” Mr. Thompson said. “Military rules do not apply to lesbian officers because of political correctness.” (Washington Times)

You can read more at the link, but to me it is amazing how many careers I have seen ruined by dining outs.

It looks like the rent to own companies who base their business model on receiving high interest payments from servicemembers will need to comply with new rules capping interest at 36%:

Defense Department officials have proposed sweeping new rules that would limit the amount of interest that could be charged to service members and their spouses on most forms of credit — including credit cards.

The new rules “would reduce predatory lending practices, significantly expand the protections provided to service members, close loopholes in current rules, and help to ensure military families receive the important consumer protections they deserve,” defense officials said Sept. 26.

The Military Lending Act of 2006 was designed to cap loan interest rates for service members at a 36 percent annual percentage rate, and Congress gave DoD broad authority to define the types of loans covered under the law, with the exception of real estate loans and purchase-money loans such as vehicle loans.

In its basic concept, the move was unprecedented on a national scale for any other segment of the population. But when DoD wrote up its regulations implementing the law in 2007, it limited the types of credit covered to payday loans, car title loans and refund anticipation loans — a decision that has been routinely criticized by consumer advocates in the years since.

The new proposed rules would expand the types of credit covered to include those that are subject to the Truth in Lending Act, except for loans secured by real estate or other property, such as a loan to purchase a vehicle. Certain fees must be included in calculating the annual percentage rate. (Army Times)

You can read more at the link, but prevention by educating servicemembers on these high interest schemes should be part of the solution as well.

A recent poll shows that the U.S. public is strongly supportive of the U.S. military’s Asia pivot:

New analysis of the Chicago Council survey results on Asian issues by Dina Smeltz and Craig Kafura shows that over three-fifths of Americans now express support for the U.S. rebalance to Asia and that American favorability toward its two closest American allies in the region, Japan and South Korea, have reached their highest levels since the poll was started. Sixty-two percent of Americans recognize that Japan is one of America’s top ten trading partners and 64 percent support a long-term U.S. military presence in South Korea. (Defense One)

Though a high percentage of the public supports troops in Korea, less people have a favorable opinion of South Korea compared to Japan:

Analysis of the Chicago Council poll results for Japan by Michael Green of CSIS underscores the high level of trust among Americans toward Japan, rating Japan fourth globally in favorability (at 62 out of 100) behind only Canada (79), Great Britain (74), and Germany (65). …………

My review of the Chicago Council poll results for Korea shows a growing gap in American favorability toward South Korea (55 out of 100) versus North Korea, which at 23 out of 100 scored the lowest favorability among nations included in the poll.

You can read more at the link.

Is this a microcosm of what could happen if the US military was to drop its physical standards for women in the Infantry just to appease the feminists?:

The Secret Service has been under fire for failing to stop an armed man from jumping the White House fence and running through the president’s home, and some critics have begun asking if political correctness is partly to blame for the extent of the security breach.

As the New York Times reported on Monday, the jumper, Omar Gonzalez, “overpower[ed] a female Secret Service agent inside the North Portico entrance” of the White House and then ran past the stairway to the presidential living quarters and into the East Room where he was finally tackled by an off-duty agent. Without explanation, the Times deleted the word “female” from the opening paragraph of its story (the Washington Post similarly edited the word “female” out of its story).

Few details have been reported about how precisely Gonzalez overpowered the female agent, but it’s certainly possible that the Secret Service’s disparate physical strength requirements for men and women may be endangering the life of the president.  [The Weekly Standard]

You can read more at the link, but I do find it interesting how the mainstream media has kept the fact that the overpowered agent was female quiet.  First of all we do not know how Gonzalez overpowered the agent which could mean the lower physical standards were immaterial.  If she was overpowered simply because Gonzalez was stronger then her then we would never hear about it anyway.  However, I have repeatedly advocated for women to be given the opportunity to serve in the Infantry just like they should be able to protect the President if they can meet the same current standards that men have to meet.  If the feminists were able to get lower standards for women that protect the President then how long will it be before they demand lower standards to get women into the Infantry as well?

A US Army general was forced to retire at a reduced rank due to a sexual assault accusation:

A general fired in March 2013 after allegations he sexually assaulted a female civilian adviser said that while he denies the charges, he “accepts the responsibility for becoming intoxicated that evening” and that “due process was followed.”

Then-Maj. Gen. Ralph O. Baker was relieved of his post as head of Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa after the investigation, a copy of which was provided recently to The Washington Post via a request under the Freedom of Information Act and served as the basis of an Oct. 1 report. The Army did not respond by press time to a subsequent Army Times request for the investigation.

The Post, citing military documents, outlined the accuser’s account of an alleged July 22, 2012, incident in the back of an SUV headed to Camp Lemmonier, Djibouti, after a private party. She said Baker, who’d been drinking, put his hand between her legs. She said she fought off the alleged advances and reported the incident to the Defense Department inspector general the following January, according to the Post, after feeling too embarrassed to notify any other passengers in the vehicle. (Army Times)

You can read more at the link, but here are some quick thoughts. First of all the accusation did not bring criminal charges likely because it was another one of those he said she said cases especially since she told no one in the car of what she claims happened to her. Secondly the term sexual assault has been furthered cheapened. Having someone put their hand up your thigh is inappropriate, but should it be equated with violent rape? Thirdly why is this general drinking and fraternizing with subordinates on a deployment?  I am willing to bet that is the real reason for his relief since there was no evidence of the inappropriate contact in the vehicle by the General.  With that all said good riddance to this General because the Army does not need senior leaders that think they are still reliving their frat house fraternity days.

This author makes a good point that the Pentagon has a creditability problem in regards to complaining about unscrupulous lenders praying on military servicemembers:

Would an E-6 careerist nearing retirement accept a $30,000 car loan if forced to pay back a total of $390,000 in principal and interest?
Would an E-7 accept a $30,000 loan to make a down payment on a home or to wipe out credit card debt if the lifetime cost of that decision were $386,000 in lost retired pay?
The answer to both questions, regrettably, is: You bet.
Hundreds of career servicemembers every month make a comparable choice while in their 15th year of service. That’s when, in return for an immediate cash bonus of $30,000, they make an irrevocable decision to opt out of “High-3” retirement and accept the less generous “Redux” plan.
The loan shark here is the federal government, the same Congress and Department of Defense that like to get tough with payday lenders outside of military bases who prey on young or naïve enlisted members. Meanwhile, they offer their own rotten deal, which every year gets a little worse, say economists at the defense think tank CNA. (Stars and Stripes)

You can read more at the link.

Here is an article about the trial of a dirtbag drill sergeant that was sentenced to 20 years in prison for forcing trainees to have sex with him. What I found of interest is another example of why these cases are hard to prosecute:

A medic Sanchez deployed with to Afghanistan accused Sanchez of forcing her to have sex with him while they waited to get evacuated from a combat outpost.
She testified that she didn’t fight back and didn’t report the incident until months later, when she faced repercussions for assaulting a military policeman while drunk in Alaska where she was based.
She mentioned three other men in the military who had assaulted her, but those claims didn’t result in charges. She said the relationship with those men had been consensual at one point.
Pressed for more details about the alleged incident involving Sanchez, the woman testified that she had memory loss from being exposed to three roadside bombs.
“I don’t remember step by step” of how it happened, she told Judge Nance from the stand. (Stars and Stripes)

It is a good thing the prosecution had plenty of other witnesses because if this soldier was the star witness he probably would have gotten off.

I guess joining the military is another one of those jobs that Americans supposedly won’t do:

A small number of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally will have an opportunity to join the military for the first time in decades under a new Defense Department policy unveiled Thursday.

The new rules will expand an existing program allowing recruiters to target foreign nationals with high-demand skills, mostly rare foreign language expertise or specialized health care training.

For the first time, the program — known as Military Accessions Vital to National Interest, or MAVNI — will be open to immigrants without a proper visa if they came to the U.S. with their parents before age 16. More specifically, they must be approved under a 2012 Obama administration policy known as Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, or DACA.

The new DoD policy may be the first phase of a broader governmentwide effort to ease pressure on immigrants and create new paths to citizenship. President Obama, frustrated with the failure of Congress to pass any substantial immigration reform, has vowed to aggressively use his presidential authority to change the way immigration policies are carried out. (Military Times)

You can read more at the link, but I am sure this is just a coincidence that this was announced shortly before an election.

I have not discussed the Andrew Tahmooressi case here on the ROK Drop because of how little information there is out there about it. The usual suspects have been using it to bash the Obama administration, but now people need to seriously consider if he intentionally drove into Mexico with those weapons:

If the judge throws the case out on technical grounds, we’ll probably never know for sure whether Tahmooressi was telling the truth when he claimed that he crossed the border by accident after making a wrong turn out of a parking lot in San Ysidro.

But if the trial goes on, that question will be very much at issue. To find Tahmooressi guilty, the judge will have to determine that he intended to break the law by bringing military-style weapons and ammunition into Mexico, which has strict anti-gun laws.

In May, sources showed the arrest video to a reporter for Tijuana’s fearless weekly magazine Zeta.

In a story headlined “Ex-Marine did not enter Mexico by mistake,” Ines Garcia Ramos reported that around 10:30 p.m. on March 31, as Tahmooressi began to drive into Mexico, border officers who noticed a mattress and other large items in his truck waved him over to an inspection area, where his weapons were discovered during a search. Contrary to his assertion that he stopped to ask how to return to the U.S., she wrote, he appeared to be driving away from the border. (After his guns were discovered, he called 911, telling an American operator he had crossed the border “by accident … and they’re trying to take my guns from me.”) (LA Times)

You can read more at the link, but before Tahmooressi drove into Mexico he walked across the border earlier in the day and checked into a hotel. So if he had no intention of driving into Mexico then why did he check into a hotel and then go back to get his truck?

Odierno must get frustrated by members of Congress complaining to him about Army cuts when they are the ones responsible for it:

Fiscal 2016 is the breaking point,” Odierno said, warning it would bring “a significant degradation of readiness.”
Complicating matters is an unusual burden on Army headquarters units, Odierno said. Each one has been cut by about 25 percent, and yet he is sending them to Iraq, to Europe and to Africa to help with coordinating the Ebola response, as well as maintaining the normal rotations in Afghanistan and South Korea.
Enough is enough, he said, and the Army’s tasks aren’t going to get any easier. “I’m not seeing, in ‘16, peace breaking out all over the world.”
Defense advocates on Capitol Hill hope voices like Odierno’s, as well as the enduring crises in Europe and the Middle East, put sequestration back on Congress’ priority list. The world has shown that it’s too dangerous for Congress to permit sequestration to return, as it would under current law, hawks argue. (Politico)

You can read more at the link, but I agree with Odierno that the government needs to figure out a security strategy for the military then properly fund and resource the military to carry out.