| Monthly Archives | [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1) the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2) in the public domain, with free use granted for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.
Original content copyright © 2006 - 2008 by the respective authors. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
Ahhh, so much I could say, but so little time.
It's almost sad to think I might not get much more use out of this:

Wired has a good review here.
There were many factors, many potential straws that broke etc. but I think this was the ongoing irritant. (Or maybe this, he said jokingly).
The shot across the bow was fired weeks ago.
But now that I think about it, perhaps with that potential "USAF-friendly" SECDEF in the wings I'll get a bit more mileage from that image after all...
For all but the resolutely sightless, it is now obvious that air combat determines the outcome in modern war. In the early hours of March 20, the salvo aimed at [Saddam Hussein] himself was preceded by nearly a month of air attacks in and around Baghdad -- to say nothing of a decade or so of bombing in connection with enforcing the no-fly zones.Cha ching!
<...>
Because of this aerial preparation, Iraq's air defenses stayed mostly silent and our aircraft were able to begin reducing opposing ground forces immediately. Army and Marine Corps formations, judged by "experts" to be much too small for the job, captured Baghdad in just 22 days, and with comparatively light casualties. Not only did coalition air power systematically disorganize Iraq's ground forces, it did so at small cost.
Update: Here's the New York Times coverage of USAF incompetence that led to the firings. And we already know the official USAF position on the New York Times:
"Basically," said Maj. Henry Schott of the command’s plans and requirements section, "if it’s a place like The New York Times, an established, reputable media outlet, then it’s fairly cut and dry that that’s a good source, an authorized source."And yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
Strong medicine, well needed. I hope those involved with Navy shipbuilding follow.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Secretary Michael W. Wynne were forced to resign Thursday during hastily arranged meetings with their Pentagon bosses.Slow, but on target.Moseley was summoned to an early morning meeting with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to discuss a report on the Air Force’s problems handling nuclear weapons. The report, by Navy Adm. Kirkland Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion, convinced Defense Secretary Robert Gates that senior officials should be held accountable.
Moseley resigned in response.
MARINE ACQUITTED IN HADITHA CASE
CAMP PENDLETON, California (AP) -- A military jury acquitted a Marine intelligence officer Wednesday of charges that he tried to help cover up the killings of 24 Iraqis, including women and children.Cheers erupted as the seven-officer panel cleared 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson, who was the first of three Marines to be tried in the biggest U.S. criminal case involving Iraqi deaths linked to the war.
The judge, Maj. Brian E. Kasprzyk, admonished those in court, telling them: "There will be no more of that."
The verdict came five hours after deliberations began.
Grayson, who maintained he did nothing wrong, was not at the scene of the killings on November 19, 2005, in Haditha, Iraq. He was accused of telling a sergeant to delete photographs of the dead from a digital camera and laptop computer.
Grayson was acquitted of two counts of making false official statements, two counts of trying to fraudulently separate from service, and one count of attempt to deceive by making false statements.
Phillips: [Esquire magazine writer] Tom Barnett made it appear that you were the only man standing between the president and a war with Iran. Is that true?Gosh, I wonder what he meant by that?Fallon: I don't believe for a second President Bush wants a war with Iran.
This will certainly big big news, I'm sure. And it will undoubtedly put a stop to any future references to that Esquire story (and the subsequent Fallon was forced out coverage) as factual.