« September 2009 | Main | November 2009 »
Well I have been volunteering for Scott Brown at his campaign headquarters in Needham for several days now. I will not discuss anything tactical or overheard, but it is fun so far.
If you want to volunteer come on in to:
200 Reservoir Street in Needham, not to far from Rusty's Garage and Hemlock Gorge.
Although no one can tell Amherst, Massachsuetts that inviting former detainees from Gitmo is not allowed, I am not sure why they are going through such effort. All one has to do to understand the futility of town meetings trying to change policy is look at Wendall, Massachusetts when the town voted to legalize marijuana. It seems to me that did not change anything.
Good luck Amherst, I hope you get what you are looking for.
By the way, today is the annivesary of the Bombing in Beirut. So today I shall remember Michael Devlin of Westwood, Massachusetts. I attended High School in that town when he died. I was able to meet his mom once when my friends the Feeney's sold thier house in Sherborn about six months later.
Semper Fi
The Brown Campaign was able to raise $169, 000 in the month of September, so he has a great chance to keep rolling. Burr, the other Republican in the race dropped out and has given his support to Scott.
Senator Brown announced yesterday that 17.9 million was awarded to community based homlessness programs in Massachusetts. This is badly needed, as many know there are homeless families living in churchs right now because of the housing crisis in that state.
I usually do not link but this one is interesting.
Another reason I advocate moving the Guard to Homeland Security is because of Guantanamo Bay. In 2004, as I have mentioned before the Massachsuetts and New Jersey National Guard were used to guard the facilities to hold prisoners from the Global War on Terror.
If the National Guard had the added layer of the a seperate Secretary to back them, guardsmen would not have been wasted on these style of operations. I agree once they are activated they must comply with what the Joint Chiefs orders them to to do. What I am advocating is allowing another person to be in that decision making process.
In June 2004 the Inspector General Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Deskis issued this statement to the troops stationed at Gitmo.
By LTC Anthony Deskis
Having a successful inspector general experience requires
several steps:
•
Give the chain of command a chance to solve the problem.
The chain of command can solve most problems. A soldier’s
chaplain, congressman, or local IG can help on occasions,
but they must ultimately work with the chain of command.
If you have not informed the chain of command
about your issue and given them a chance to work it,
in most cases, the IG will simply refer you back to your
chain of command. The IG is a kind of "court of last resort." If
other remedies are available, use them first. If the proper
system and/or the chain of command is not able to solve
the problem, then the IG is probably appropriate.
•
Level with the IG from the beginning because the IG
will soon find out the “rest of the story.”
The IG and soldier waste a lot of time and effort when the
IG only knows half of the story. Very often, soldiers only
present the information that they feel is in their favor. The
IG can only take action when they have all of the facts about
a situation – the good, the bad, and the ugly. Save us both
some time and provide all of the facts, even the ones that
you do not agree with or like.
•
An IG is not a commander. An IG can only recommend,
not order. Some soldiers get upset when nothing seems to happen
as a result of their complaint. Keep in mind that the IG can
advise a commander but cannot order action. Regulations
obligate commanders to take action when standards are broken,
or when a soldier has not been afforded due process. But
if a commander has the authority to make the decision, and
the decision does not violate a written procedural, legal, or
ethical standard, the commander’s choice may stand.
I must disclose that Colonel Deskis and I served in the same command, the 8th Battalion 40th Armor out of Fort Huachuca around the same time. but I have no recollection of the man. So I am not sure we ever met.
This may seem cut and dry to others, but moving the Guard to Homeland Security would have prevented any involvement in what would be politically unpopular back in thier home states.
I do not want to close the border at this very moment, but I want to know that we can when we have to. I believe at this time we could not do that in the case of an epidemic or true emergency. The group that would best be positioned to handle this would be the Homeland Security and the National Guard. By placing the Army and Air National Guard in Homeland Security it could focus on budgeting for the event we need to close or regulate the border with Mexico.
The same practices that are used to find narcotics in the southwest would apply, not using local units but formations from other areas of the country. This prevents illegal markets from forming and the locals would not be able to infiltrate the intelligence gathering efforts of the Guardsmen. During my time on federal duty at Twentynine Palms the Army was used for counter narcotics operations around 29 and the Marines were sent to Texas for the above explained reasons.
This would not really affect the ability of the Army and Air Guard to be the primary back up formations for the federal parent organizations, it would actually add very needed skills and training.
Having been in the finance industry in several different capacities myself over the years I always look for a specific ability in any individual. That is the ability to clearly and logically explain and define what they are trying to present. I does not have to be all the time, but when it is really needed.
I saw what I think was the best breakdown of the current banking crisis in terms that the non industry person can understend and digest. The individual was able to not only address but explain, much harder than one thinks. That person was Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, a democrat.
I did not agree with all she had to say, but her assesment of firing of certain individuals was dead on. She even made the Lincoln and his generals during the Civil War reference and it was completely the correct analogy.
It seems that the issue everyone is interested in is why move the National Guard to Homeland Security? So I am going to do a series of essays on my experience and why I believe it would improve the defense structure of the United States.
I have served in all three components of the defense structure, four years active duty in the Marine Corps, one year in the federal Army Reserve and 6 years in National Guard, Massachusetts and Vermont. All of them were in the same capacity, in armor or cavalry, I have a baseline to draw from in my observations on all of them.
First let me clarify that many functions that were formally handled by the reserve components have been handed over to civilian contractors during the course of the Global War on Terror. This has turned out to be far more effective system than was previously thought it would be. So much of my arguments will take that into account, because it really has changed so much of how the military functions today.
I hope that this will help people make informed decisions in regard to our national defense and the budget spending associated with it.
Now that I have written that I endorse Scott Brown several issues must be clarified in regards to my actions. He in no way supports or endorses my ideas as far as I know. That Senator Brown is a member of the same National Guard formation that I was, and I never met him while I was in, I explained that this was not the reason I support him. Congressman Ed Markey was also part of that formation for at least six years that I know of, and I have never thrown any show of support his way.
Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman were both adamant supporters of the National Guard. TR stated all he knew about politics he learned in the New York Militia. I would concur that in my youth as a member of the Massachusetts National Guard, I as well got a crash course in local politics. All one had to do was pay attention to what was going on and you would quickly see that it was a very political organization.
This country really has been through major cultural and social change over the last several decades, and the majority of civil governments efforts have been in this regard. Race, sexual orientation an abortion to name a few. Even if you disagree with these issues they have become the laws, and it is not very likely this will be reversed. So now that the majority of these issue have been tackled I have advocated tightening up the current appendages government already has.
One issue I discussed was putting the National Guard in Homeland Security as opposed to the Defense Department, using the precedent established by the Coast Guard and how it moves to and from both. This would allow a more effective use of the Guard’s assets in civil infrastructure. Read this to mean that disaster that happened in New Orleans would be much more effectively handled under this system than under the old way.
I must disclose that the General who is the primary advisor to the Joint Chiefs from the National Guard is a person that served in the command element of the 110th Cavalry at the same time that I was in that formation in the mid 1990s. I have never met this person, that I know of, and have no connection to him at all.
There are no secret plots going on, so even though I am a member of the Yankee Division Veterans Association, that group does not endorse political candidates. I initiated this discussion with the head of the Cape Cod Chapter the other day, and informed him that I do not mix my membership in that group with politics.
Just as the defense and homeland security structures are changing, so will the nature of fraternal veterans groups that are smaller unit specific organizations, but they should never be actively involved in political endorsement because that is the realm of the lobbying groups of the larger veterans organizations such as the VFW and the like. So I may be a member of the YDVA, I do not speak on its behalf when I write in this format, and in the event I were to have an elected position in that group it would be appropriate that I disclose on the basis of whom I am representing, myself or the organization.
None of this, change that is, is new, in a society where people join and leave non profit groups all the time this has essentially always been the accepted protocol.
Now that Scott Brown has thown his hat into the Senate race in the Bay State I have chosen to support him. The question then must arise why should I care?
We were both in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, but that is really not the reason. When asked by his assistant, who happens to be a National Lancer and a field grade officer in the Guard what it was that I am looking for, I replied that I am seeking nothing.
Scott came from very little, he had no silver spoon in his mouth. He used the National Guard system to the maximum benefit. Scott's mother was on welfare, and when the opportunity for advancement and a better life was presented by the Guard he took it. To this day he states that it was one of the best things he ever did. He represents someone that chose to improve his life, and I think that is something many in the Bay State could use as an example.
His voting has been pro veteran, pro business and and anti sex offender. His devotion to public service has been exceptional, and again I think we could use more leaders like him.
Scott represents hope to the struggling middle class in Massachusetts, a group that has taken serious hits lately. He is not a celebrity or professional athlete, he is someone that carved out his own nitch in this world with a little assitance from the government. He understands what it is to be left out and to reach for opportunity when it arises. Scott Brown has lead in his life as he has in government positions, by example. The United States Senate could use more of this humilty and determination he presents.
One of the great things of the last decade or so is that almost everyone has a voice now and Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat covers this in detail.But with the ability to mouth off should also come the responsibility of stepping up to the plate and telling people who you are.
Howie Carr is not for everyone, I have enjoyed his show over the years, but I realize he has no negative agendas. He is doing politics in the way it was orginally intended prior to television, as entertainment. Recently someone has demanded a boycott of his show, yet the refuse to identify who they are, this irresponsible.
