|
 |
 Copyright ©2003-2010 Anthony Canales |
|
 Anthony Canales is the President of the San Fernando Valley NRA Member’s Council. He works as a Quality Control Manager in Glendale, California. He is married with one son. The opinions expressed in 'News Briefs' belong solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Rifle Association of America or the NRA Members' Councils of California. |
|
|
Home
12-09-2009
12-18-2008
12-31-2007 |
|
September 26, 2006 " We now have two different sources of information regarding the current international scene. First there is that furnished by the media, and the second is that given to us by returning combat veterans from the Middle Eastern front. The media seem to insist that we are doing it wrong, especially that the current administration is doing it wrong. The men back from the war zone insist that we are doing the best possible job, and that while the battle is not yet over, the situation is well in hand. I prefer to put my faith in the word I get from the troops. I know those people better than I do the journalists...
...It is an uphill struggle, but I wish that we could distinguish more carefully between freedom and liberty. These conditions are not the same, though they are certainly related. Freedom is the absence of restraint- a physical circumstance. Liberty, on the other hand, is a political situation denoting the lawful capability of the citizen to defend himself and his near and dear without interference from the state. Note that the Declaration of Independence forcibly and particularly establishes the blessings of liberty upon ourselves and our posterity. I like to carry a pocket copy of the Declaration, plus the Constitution, in my travels. It is a good thing to have in hand when discussions arise..."
- Comments written by Jeff Cooper, February of 2006
To All, It is clear that there will be much to consider as to Lt. Col. Cooper's legacy over the near future. But given his long term efforts on behalf of firearms rights, perhaps it would be appropriate to have as many members of the Civilian Marksmanship Program as possible join in with their M-1 Garands at their respective gun clubs and timed to when the salute is fired at the graveside. No better (nor voluble) a send-off could be imagined.
In other news:
"Nahnahnahna, Nahnahnahnahna, Hey-Hey, Gooodbye" Update: A report by David Workman of Gunweek.com was picked up at Hawaiireporter.com about a certain change of personnel in the New Orleans Police Department a while back.
It seems that former Police Superintendent Edwin Compass may have been given the old size-14-brogan-to-the-backside ( in other words, he was "let go") over his efforts to disarm last year's survivors of Hurricane Katrina while they tried to cope with the storm's aftermath.
No less a source of this juicy little tidbit appears to be Mayor Ray Nagin, who apparently admitted on a talk show that Compass "...agreed to step down because we were starting to get lawsuits...".
Of course, the NRA was instrumental in the filing of many of the lawsuits that apparently resulted in Chief Compass' dismissal. Given the "sensitivity" that civic leaders normally show to being made party to court action and their attendant costs, perhaps law enforcement executives should be more reticent in treading upon firearms rights in the future. Otherwise, there may just be hell to pay.
Link at:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?3b8ed2ac
Hoof-In-Mouth Outbreak: One gets used to gun-grabbers and their venue-shopping ways when they experience defeat at the hands of citizen-activists here in the Fool's Golden State.
So it is no surprise that one reads, in an article by Jason Tsai, about how the Brady Bunch has taken their Traveling Micro-stamping Medicine Show (Snake Oil at cost, no less) to the great State of New Joisey.
But besides bagging the usual testimonials from law enforcement appointees who have yet to hear about FORMER New Orleans PD Supe Compass, Mr. Tsai landed musings about micro-stamping's magic from an unusual source.
Tsai writes (You won't believe this)-
"...A large number of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns, which can often lead police ' on the wrong path,' said Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America. Yet, with microstamping, he said, ' at least detectives have a path to follow..." (underlining added for emphasis and incredulity)
Nah, say it ain't so. This can't be the same Larry Pratt who has attacked the NRA at every turn for successfully navigating the winding (and windy) travails of the American political system, is it?
How can the Head Honcho In Charge of the group that touts itself as the only "NO COMPROMISE" gun rights group in the land find itself joining forces with the Minions of Registration and Confiscation in their ill-conceived jihad?
Surely Larry must realize that micro-stamping will impose costs, both actual and 'liability-wise", that keep the average person from finding an affordable means of self-defense. Or that micro-stamping will prove a boon to every tort lawyer who has a red dot painted on every law enforcement insurance policy across the Fruited Plain?
It will be interesting over the near future to be able to understand what Mr. Pratt was thinking about over his apparent endorsement of this latest form of 21st Century gun registration. Firearms activists await an exposition of his rationale with baited breath.
Link at:
Calling Rube Goldberg: Patrick Di Justo writes at Popsci.com, the website for Popular Science, about the continue saga of that technological gizmo known as a smart gun.
It seems that the Pocket Protector Crowd over at the New Jersey Institute of Technology feel that they are close to perfecting the "...first commercially viable 'smart gun' " . Based upon off-the-shelf biometric sensors, the system is supposed to be based upon a baseline grip-strength pattern first programmed into the gun by one (and only one) owner upon purchase.
How this system deals with owners who develop arthritis over their lifespan, or those who lose a percentage of hand strength to carpal tunnel syndrome while slaving over a hot QWERTY board day in and day out, has yet to be explained.
But what the Eggheads of Joisey have yet to demonstrate to investors is how commercially viable is a handgun that firearms buyers will know with absolute certainty is also a firearm that can be "turned off" with technology owned solely by a government (Unless the NJIT boys have EMP hardened their design, which should do wonders for the retail price).
In fact, demand for such a firearm, in a land which counts Thomas Jefferson among it's Founding Fathers, is probably limited to the hapless foot-soldiers-cum-guinea-pigs of Garden State law enforcement.
In any case, it may just be a long way to go before the NJIT smart gun is seen at the SHOT Show in Vegas. Current results show a failure to go "bang" 1 out of every 100 trigger pulls in the test range. Given that the designers are looking for a failure rate of 1 out of 10,000 trigger pulls, and have yet to immerse the circuitry in Hoppe's Number 9, it may just be that the smart gun boondoggle will remain just that. Stay tuned.
Link at:
Doomed To Repeat: Aficionadoes of the History Channel will find comments by retired Colonel Paul X. Hammes (USMC), in relation to leaked snippets of a classified National Intelligence Report ("NIE") discussed at a partisan hearing run by Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, most interesting.
In an article by David Espo of (Al) AP, Espo writes of Hammes' prepared comments-
"...Hammes said in his prepared remarks that not providing the best equipment was a ' serious moral failure on the part of our leadership '.
The United States ' did not ask our soldiers to invade France in 1944 with the same armor they trained on in 1941. Why are we asking our soldiers and Marines to use the same armor we found was insufficient in 2003?, ' he asked.
Hammes was responsible for establishing bases for the Iraqi armed forces. He served in Iraq in 2004 and is now Marine Senior Military Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University..."
Now, Col. Hammes' comments may more than just get JCS Chief (and fellow Marine) General Peter Pace in a little hot water with the Commander in Chief (The National Defense University is under the direction of Chief of Staff Pace).
No, Col. Hammes may just face the wrath of military and political historians nationwide over his confusing statements regarding armor and readiness levels in World War II.
For starters, if Colonel Hammes is referring to armored vehicles when he means armor of the 1941,1944, and 2003 time periods, he would most likely be referring to the differences between the M-3, M-4, M1-A2 tanks used in those periods.
The M-3, first deployed in mid-1941, was considered a transition design to give the Army something more substantial to use than the previous M-2 design (Fans of the Bogart movie "Sahara" will get a view of what the M-3 was like).
But the M-3 was used by both the British and the Americans in combat in North Africa, and as such was not relegated to a training role. Deficiencies that appeared in earlier variants of the M-3, such as riveting in lieu of welding and radio location (corrected after combat exposure), apparently did not put the M-3 design totally out of class with German or Russian designs until 1943 (Wikipedia cites the introduction of high pressure guns on the Eastern Front, as well as the deployment of Panther tanks, as a reason for it finally be pulled for obsolescence.).
The M-3's successor, the M-4, in of itself was "co-deployed" with the M-3 in North Africa (Both were used in Operation Torch, the American Landings in French North Africa, as well as by the British against Rommel at El Alamein in October of 1942. M-4 development history indicates that American doctrine counted on combined arms tactics to deal with heavier German tanks such as the Panther and the fabled Tiger, rather than the M-4 as predominantly configured on D-Day be able to go "head-to-head" with the fabled German tanks. In other words, the Generals In Charge did not think it "important" as to whether a Sherman could defeat a Panther tank in a one-on-one situation (This after Kursk, no less).
Anecdotes from history also indicate great dismay among British and American crews when they faced off against German "88's", the fabled multi-purpose artillery piece mentioned in William Manchester's "The Arms of Krupp". Between anti-tank artillery and more substantial German armor, it took a significant modification of the post-D-Day M-4 tank (and modified with the experiences of Normandy in hand) before American medium tanks had improved the M-4's tank-on-tank survivability to a big "Mebbe".
One will thus have to do research among the remaining veterans of the World War II generation as to whether they "blamed" FDR's administration for a failure in moral leadership for failing to provide better armor in time for Normandy.
If anything, the history of American armored deployment in the 1941-1944 time period possibly demonstrates more of the moral and intellectual failure of certain military strategists to quickly modify pre-war doctrine in light of the quickening of the technological pace of the war (Unescorted daylight strategic bombing being a case in point) and other experiences derived from "contact with the enemy" (An example of this later point is the ignoring of the reports by Claire Chennault on Japanese fighter performance in China prior to Pearl Harbor. One wonders what could have happened in the Phillipines in 1942 if MacArthur had been given more "up-to-date" intelligence on Japanese aircraft capabilities before December 7.).
As for personnel carriers, with the exception of certain light tanks, tank destroyers, and a limited number of half-tracks and other like vehicles used to carry artillery and mortars, American forces did not utilize any vehicles comparable to today's M-2 Bradley fighting vehicles, "up-armored" HUMV's, or even the venerable M-113. In essence, many American personnel went ashore onto Normandy only armored in their G.I.-issue shirts (One of this poster's favorite lines from the movie "To Hell And Back". ). In that case, many American personnel were clearly no better off in 1944 than they were in 1941, and Professor/Col. Hammes would thus appear to be in error in his comments to Senator Dorgan and the Jurassic Press present in the room.
Other historical examples of "supply deficiency" that could meet Col. Hammes' definition of moral failure, but could also be considered a rational risk based upon the knowledge known at the time, include the Battle of Midway and the initial phases of action on Guadalcanal involving Marine forces. Samuel Eliot Morrison, in his book "The Two-Ocean War- A Short History of the United States Navy in the Second World War", notes the following on preparations for Operation Watchtower-
"...Preparations were so hasty and the forces available so lean that the officers concerned nicknamed this Operation SHOE- STRING. And won on a shoestring it was, since the main Allied effort at the time was directed to Operation TORCH in North Africa..."
Perhaps Col. Hammes, USMC-Ret., has not heard of Guadalcanal? Or perhaps Col. Hammes has not heard of those battles were material and support was not as much a problem, but where substantial casualties were incurred despite these advantages? Places such as Tarawa, Peleilu, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa? (One kind of wonders what the heck it is they do teach at National Defense University.).
As to any insinuation of the insufficiency of the M1-A2 during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Hammes may have some "clarifyin' " to do. After all, other than the advent of AT-14 Kornet missiles in some Iraqi hands, as well as certain instances of the use of duplex RPG rounds, the story of the M1-A2 is largely cited as one battlefield dominance. Improvements outside of being able to defeat modern shaped charges, or the magical ability to withstand a 1000 lb IED planted in the road, one is hard put to think of the M1-A2 as inadequate.
Of course, many of the technical details of this discussion are moot if, instead of armored vehicles, Colonel Hammes means body armor along the lines of how certain non-Combat Arms, Reserve and Guard units did not have up-to-date, or even any, personal body armor capable of defeating intermediate velocity small arms fire. (By way of comparison, and other than among certain bomber crews who were issued cumbersome "flak" vests, American personnel were not issued personal body armor throughout action in the ETO during World War II.).
This last, perhaps, is an interesting question as to how politics and funding works within what some have called "The Five-Sided Puzzle Palace". It is not unusual for states to not have their Guard unit's "Tables of Organization" up to Regular force standards. (Whether there is an expectation that such equipment is to come from Regular force budgets, or simply a lack of care as to how Federal monies are spent within the states for their respective Guard units, is yet to be determined).
Yet it certainly could be considered a "down-mark" on any one commander's fitness report and evaluation if a unit under their command was not ready for combat. Whether deficient Guard units went into combat in Iraq without being ready, after years of being considered "ready", is also not addressed by Col. Hammes' statement to the partisan panel. But it is not out of the realm of imagination for certain military units, after years of Clintonian parsimony and meddling, to be less than ready when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hit. Perhaps Col. Hammes could address this issue of "baseline" readiness in his next appearance before any other panels, partisan or not, before he attacks any perceived moral failures among leaders in the future.
It is clear, in the years since the 2003 operation in Iraq, that a number of things good and bad have happened.
Libya has essentially "turned and coughed" on a substantially advanced WMD program that included chemical weapons and relatively good progress on nuclear warheads.
Afghanistan has improved, though one wonders if recent violence is more the traditional kind of tribal conflict, rather than a truly resurgent Taliban.
The Pakistani sphere of influence appears to have been reduced, both by direct suasion and a judicious use of relations with the Indian government (realpolitik can have it's uses on occasion).
While Iran is newly resurgent (they seem to be going for the gold in an attempt to lead the New Millenial Caliphate), a resurgent Shia movement in Southwest Asia is probably giving the existing Sunni governments in the region a collective case of the "heebeejeebees" as well as increase said opponents to the (Greek) concept of democracy desire to have American security guarantees maintained.
Current deployments in Iraq are limiting American capabilities in dealing with Egypt, Syria, and North Korea.
But perhaps the one positive that can be debated is not that more jihadis are being inspired by an American presence in Iraq (Osama used the excuse of the American presence in Saudi Arabia before that, and terrorist groups in general are using the pretext of US support of Israel in any case) to foment terror against US interests and personnel. Rather, the "Mother of All Meeting Engagements" is being conducted on foreign soil at an operational tempo that asymmetrically-oriented, low-intensity conflict-style terrorism is hard put to maintain as long as the US is capable of (The political will to continue on is another matter.). As long as the American people listen more to the troops that have been there (and done that) than certain small-minded functionaries, the chances for positive change in a contentious region of the world are as good as any other great undertaking that Americans have succeeded with in the past.
Links at: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4211717.html http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm3med.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_tank http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/index.htm http://www.ndu.edu/info/about_ndu.cfm
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales SFVMC-NRA
Copyright 2006 Anthony Canales All rights reserved. |
|
