Cling to your gun…

You and your AR-15 might be called up in an emergency as the militia, since our purported leaders have let our military strength decline so much. Bring your own ammo. (I know you have lots and lots of it in the basement, in quantities guaranteed to make a liberal quiver in fear and outrage.)

I favor a smaller standing military, with massive reserves and National Guard, possibly universal military service. I do not favor weakness, in any scenario. Weakness invites warfare.

Army Reorganizes Special Operations Authority

Chief lesson of 9-11: technology is terrain.

The USA is shielded from enemies by the vastness of two oceans. Technology creates “hyperlinks” across them. I simply point out that the 9-11 hijackers and other Islamic infiltrators since, showed their passports stamped with visas by our State Department, boarded airliners, and flew over our oceans, using our legal system and the technology of air travel to erase our naval terrain advantage.

It gets worse: the Islamic enemy’s terrain is not the Middle East or North Africa, it’s communication. There is no “front” to secure other than our own borders, seaports and airports. The enemy occupies space at his peril, and is better off to move on, once his butchery attracts enough of our attention. The enemy has proven that he may hit anywhere, from an embassy in Kenya, to a rock concert in Paris, to the Boston Marathon.

Technology is a new dimension of terrain: communicate instantly to erase distance, and use the West’s airliners and legal system to erase topographic barriers.

So, all of that is prelude to this question. How do we Americans change the way we fight, to account for what is literally a new dimension — technology that warps or even erases terrain advantages?

In one acronym-laden article, we learn that the Army is reorganizing to free Special Operations Command from the geographic restraints formerly imposed by the separate geographic worldwide “commands.” In other words, for example, if the CIA reports an increasing threat in Benghazi, must all go through the current geographic Command before we strike? The 4-star general in charge of that part of the world probably thinks so. But, now, the people wanting to strike have to work through the geographic command structure to get not only the green light, but the support necessary.

The obvious advantage is coordination among our forces, and those resources found within a large army command. The obvious disadvantage is that the new terrain — technology — does not remain static. The enemy may move, our information may become quickly dated. Speed: we need speed.

SOCOM — Special Operations Command — is being given new authority to conduct operations independent of the necessity of obtaining the order through the affected geographic command. This is a major change. It may not work. But, when technology changes the way wars are fought, we either adapt to the new terrain dimension, or we die. If it creates other problems, or does not work, then we adapt again. And again.

Because, technology has changed the world we live in, and the way wars are fought. Technology changes so rapidly that it is likely to warp the “terrain” again and again, sometimes by surprise. We don’t want to be surprised.

We should have learned this at Pearl Harbor, and we did not. General Doolittle’s raid even taught the Japanese that technology made their Pacific Ocean barrier permeable, too, but, somehow we forgot the lesson. We overlooked that other enemies arose and saw how the new technology of air travel made long range raids possible, even by motley handfuls of suicidal fanatics.

I’ve written that mobility — that ability to deploy the crushing force necessary, fast, over great distance, anywhere in the world — is the key. You can’t do that when everybody and his grandmother have to hear about it, criticize it, have a piece of it, and give permission. I hope this works, without letting SOCOM “go rogue.”

“I Go Where I Please”–Once Obama’s Gone

“I go where I please,” said Commodore Stephen Decatur, in 1815, when challenged by the Islamic tyrant of that era.

Democrats like to accuse people proposing prudent foreign policy as being “isolationists.” This is a mere conclusory insult, meant to dodge serious thought and debate about the lawful and practical deployment of American power in the world. (No, foolish Democrats, “I go where I please,” does not mean that men get to use the women’s bathroom.)

For example, I view our defense of the world in multiple theaters as illegal under our law if not pursuant to a congressional declaration of war. And, I see such as practically impossible and financially ruinous. Such deployments often betray our armed forces, using them as expendable pawns. I point out at often, that we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for over a decade, with fitful results to show. We remain bound by the NATO treaty to engage in World War III on behalf of peoples who are lackluster about their own national defense — even mocking our right to keep and bear arms in our own defense, while they shun taking up arms themselves, in their own defense, with Russia poised a short combined-arms armored-infantry-air offensive away.

Instead of “isolationism,” I advocate for massive American power exercised in the world as necessary on behalf of Americans. The rest of the countries can look to themselves to defend their citizens and interests.

For example, I believe that the American military should deploy to protect American citizens who travel or do commerce about the world. Hijacking an American owned vessel, or kidnapping Americans on vacation should summon the crushing power of the USA, whether a .338 Lapua magnum bullet in the head, or a cruise missile on the parliament building, or an infantry division dropped from the sky. Whatever it takes, in sufficiently crushing force to do the job — almost with ease. Nations who aid the hijackers and kidnappers should be targets of a declaration of war. “Allies” who choose to be complicit in the attack on America get their own punishment. If Democrat readers here scoff at what I write, then read the story of Leon Klinghoffer for an example. American weakness after his hijacking at sea and murder, encouraged more of the Islamic terrorism we see today.

And, so, yes, the US Navy should already have wrought destruction on Iranian naval patrol vessels. “I go where I please,” is a great motto for the US Navy — now that we are back on track to make America great again.



Not your father’s M-72 LAW

Gun show interview explains the newest M72 FFE (fire from enclosure) IAW (individual awesome weapon). For those not familiar with the M72 LAW it is best explained as a single shot, disposable, Vietnam-era small bazooka. “LAW” stands for “light anti-tank weapon.” A Fort Benning training booklet tried to make the infantryman think he was more than a match against a tank with the M72. Just pop up, pop open the LAW, and pop the tank. Yep.

But, like any other rocket launcher, “backblast” is a problem. All of that rocket energy has to go somewhere, and “back” is that zone. Backblast is rough on guys standing behind the excited infantryman thinking more about the bad guys in front. And, once fired, the gunner is marked by a big cloud of dust and debris.

I’m not sure how NAMMO’s engineers manage to turn this into a fire-from-enclosure weapon, but I’d sure like to take one to the range to try out.