-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! DEFENDING AMERICA Newsletter, 2000-03-01-B ========================================================== ARTICLE 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Big Picture -- 5,500 U.N. Troops to Be Deployed to Congo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Troops, brace yourselves! Remember my recent article " More Peacekeeping to come, next Stop Congo?" Well, here we go! Richard Holbrooke and Madeleine Albright are scheming to save the African continent from itself during this important election year. Of course, the US "would only provide logistics and communications troops, not ground troops." Wonder if the "logies" and "comms" folks can stay airborne 24 hrs a day? Maybe Albright ought to accept the position of President for the Czech Republic, as recently rumored. *********************************************************************** UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ The Security Council approved a U.S.-drafted plan to send a 5,500-strong observer force into the Congo to monitor a fragile cease-fire and lay the groundwork for a possible full-fledged U.N. peacekeeping operation. Deployment, however, would be phased in and conditioned on security guarantees for the troops _ a difficult task considering that fighting has continued in violation of the cease-fire. The United States has said it won't deploy any ground troops in the Congo, but would help with logistics and communications. "The Security Council has taken a critical step to help the Congo come to a peace that its people so desperately need," U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke told the council today. Several ambassadors cautioned that the United Nations wasn't going into Congo to enforce a peace and stressed they would only deploy an actual peacekeeping mission if the Africans show a commitment to ending the war. "The situation is so complicated that it would not only be naive but dangerous to rely on its settlement by external forces, even if these are United Nations forces," Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov warned. The resolution authorizes a force of up to 5,537 personnel to be deployed to the Congo, where a rebellion launched in August 1998 has drawn in a half-dozen African nations in what U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has called Africa's first world war. The core of the force would be 500 military observers who would monitor a cease-fire agreement signed last summer by the warring sides in Lusaka, Zambia. Congo is backed by Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia, while the rebels who took up arms to oust President Laurent Kabila from power are supported by Rwanda and Uganda. The remaining 5,037 U.N. troops would provide the cease-fire monitors with security and logistical support as they work with military officers from the warring sides to separate and redeploy the various forces in Congo _ a country one quarter the size of the United States. Today's unanimous vote culminated growing council attention and willingness to take on difficult peacekeeping operations in Africa, highlighted by Holbrooke's month-long focus on the continent in January. Namibian Ambassador Martin Andjaba referred to the momentum from last month's Africa meetings in urging the council stay committed to peace on the continent even after the observers are deployed. "Over the years, the U.N. has brought peace to so many countries including my own," Andjaba said. "Expectations of the suffering masses in the (Congo) for peace in their country are therefore high and rightly so. We should not let them down." Deputy British Ambassador Stewart Eldon, however, stressed that full deployment of the U.N. force wasn't automatic and that the situation in the Kivu region of eastern Congo, where fighting has recently occurred "does not look promising." "The fighting must stop now," he said. "International humanitarian law must be respected." While some details held up final agreement on the resolution, the key elements of the draft were finalized days ago, including permission for the U.N. troops to use force to protect themselves and civilians "under imminent threat of physical violence" if an infantry battalion is deployed nearby. The council also agreed that Secretary-General Kofi Annan could increase the number of observers if necessary, but only if the overall force stayed under the 5,537 ceiling. The resolution says deployment of a full-fledged peacekeeping force would depend on progress by the various factions in implementing the cease-fire agreement, which both sides have been accused of violating. At a one-day summit meeting in Lusaka on Wednesday, the presidents of Congo, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe _ and Angola's defense minister _ acknowledged the violations and recommitted themselves to the cease-fire agreement. They nevertheless urged deployment of a full-fledged peacekeeping force with a robust mandate. While the cease-fire agreement calls for such a force, diplomats in New York have said prospects for deployment in the near future are dim since fighting has continued. * NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 <U.S.C.> Section 107, this material is * distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a * prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and * educational purposes only. ========================================================== ARTICLE 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Grange Gets Only One Star In Retirement ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First "frocked, then f…." The Army seems to be holding a grudge when it comes to the warriors. Here it is once more: when the Army thinks you are causing bad press, they try to deglamorize you with any means available. And I was ticked that they downgraded a retirement Legion of Merit to a Meritorious Service Medal. Soon the bureaucrats will have the Army to themselves. I wonder who will be pulling the triggers? >From the European "Stars and Stripes," 26 February 2000. ************************************************************************ By Jon R. Anderson David L. Grange, until recently the commander of the 1st Infantry Division, has been told he cannot retire as a two-star general. Because of a technicality in Army policy, Grange has instead been officially retired as a brigadier general, despite serving 2* years as a major general. One of the Army's most celebrated officers with a career that ranged from fighting as a Ranger in Vietnam to commanding of the super-secret Delta Force during the 1991 War with Iraq, Grange decided to call it quits after being offered a desk job at the Pentagon. Twice wounded in combat and the recipient of three silver stars, Grange said publicly that it was time to spend time with his family. Although he downplays such comments, many of his former staff believe he was deeply hurt that he was not offered his third star. During his tenure, the Army recognized his division as one of the most highly trained units in the service. Preparing for possible war with Yugoslavia, 1st Infantry Division tanks put more miles on their tracks than any other division in the Army and then quickly transitioned to peacekeeping duties in Kosovo. Army rules require that all officers above the rank of major spend at least three years serving in their grade before they can retire with that rank. Otherwise, they're demoted one pay grade. Waivers, however, are granted and Grange said he thought he was a good candidate. "Not only did I have two and half years as a major general, but I had worn that rank for four years," Grange told Stars and Stripes when reached by phone for comment. In a practice called "frocking," officers are routinely told to pin on their new rank after being selected by a promotion board, but before the often-slow process of actually being promoted takes place. While they don't get paid at their new rank, they usually work in jobs commensurate with their upcoming promotion. Such was the case with Grange. Before taking over the reins of the 1st Infantry Division in Germany on Aug. 4, 1997, he served as director for Army Operations, Readiness and Mobilization at the Pentagon, another two-star job. Grange was highly popular with both troops and officers. That, however, had no bearing on the Pentagon's decision to turn down his request for a waiver to policy. "I was disappointed. I know it was my decision to retire, but I thought especially with the jobs I had I should have gotten a waiver," said Grange, who now works a top executive for the McCormick Foundation, a Chicago-based think tank. An Army spokesman said waivers can only be granted for a limited number of officers per year. "We're limited to 2 percent at each pay grade," said the official, who asked not to be named. For major general waivers, that comes out to less than two per year. Criteria for waivers, he said, are based on whether the officer had to retire early because either there was no job to put him or some family hardship - or other issue outside of his control - forced him to take off his uniform early. Ultimately, however, the decision for all general officer waivers rests with Army secretary Louis Caldera with a recommendation from Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki. "They all know before they ever drop their paperwork [for retirement] what the chief will recommend on their waiver," said the spokesman. Grange said that's true, but he's not giving up yet. "I've got to fight this. I don't even care if it's for pay. It's about the honor of retiring with the rank of a division commander, not about money," said Grange. "This is a pride thing for me." And by all accounts, he has a ground swell of support back at the muddy boots level. News of Grange's situation already is circulating within 1st Infantry Division, still in Kosovo, and among many of his former soldiers in other units. "I am not a guru on general officer management, but I am a strong supporter one of the best infantry officer the Army has every produced," said Staff Sgt. Greg Binford, who served under Grange in the 1st Infantry Division and now works at the 143rd Ordnance Battalion at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Ma. "Everyone is shocked and very disappointed," said one officer still in the 1st Infantry. "This is a black stain on the Army in how it defines loyalty." ========================================================== ARTICLE 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ARMY - Some still doing it right? Maybe NOT! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reader response to LTC Morrison's claim that all is well with training and morale in Kuwait. *********************************************************************** By Brad S. I read the propaganda speech from LTC Doug Morrison about the great things were doing in Kuwait and was slightly amused for two reasons. One, I've been to Kuwait and participated in this "mission" first hand. Two, I've served under LTC Doug Morrison and witnessed his leadership style first hand. I'll start with Kuwait. Morrison is correct in stating that they are doing "great, realistic, live training everyday." The opportunities to do great mechanized warfare training in the Kuwaiti desert are limitless as long as you are resourced for the duration of the 4 month task force rotation and as long as the CTF (Coalition Task Force honchos) stays out of the way...but that is where the pros of this operation stop. The justification to keep a battalion task force in constant rotations in Kuwait is laughable. Did we not learn from Desert Storm what a joke the Iraqi military really is? From a pure military science point of view, the pre-positioned equipment at Camp Doha there can be manned, up and running in short notice if needs be. The Iraqi ground threat is negligible and would be destroyed by American Air Expeditionary Forces (ala: highway of death) before they trekked 10 miles into Kuwaiti territory. The Intrinsic Action task force and the American troop presence at Camp Doha is a waste of taxpayer money and needlessly keeps troops deployed on a hardship overseas tour while increasing unit operations tempos. Additionally to have one division conduct NTC rotations and Kuwait rotations simultaneously is another reason why the Army is losing so many people. If you want to justify a task force presence in Kuwait, it would be better to conduct a NTC in Kuwait with a full Brigade for a 60day rotation than to piece meal the division out on these missions and strain it's resources. This would give the units more maneuver terrain to train on, decrease OPTEMPO, increase the units' warfighting focus and save the taxpayer money. Of course the Army might freak out if a unit didn't have the world class OPFOR to fight in Kuwait and an Army of OC's to watch your every move. Secondly LTC Doug Morrison is good at making speeches, good at wanting to do the right thing but bad at DOING the right thing. Morrison was my TF "Co-Commander" during a NTC rotation. This abortion of a task force the combination of two aviation units: a GSAB UH-60 company and a Kiowa Warrior Troop from the DIV CAV Squadron to be co-commanded by both battalion commanders organic to the subordinate companies. Additionally, both battalion staffs were sent out with the commanders and don't forget that GSABs and Kiowa Warriors normally operate from the opposite ends of the battlefield. With unity of command out the window and the shotgun marriage of two units task organized who should not be together the writing was on the wall. It was evident during the train-up that everybody was confused and didn't know who was in charge. I approached "Co-Commander" Morrison and stated such to which he replied that it would be taken care of...it wasn't. Morale was pathetic, even the lowest private knew the task organization was wrong. Still, we drove on...like a hammer beating a square peg into a round hole. I brought it up to three full bird COLs and their staffs via e-mail, thereby really raising hell and being told the famous mantra to "watch my lane." I was basically told by an O5 that they knew everything was fucked up but sometimes you just have to stop fighting and go with it. The CG allegedly wanted this task organization and everybody just lined up and said, "Yes sir, can do sir, right away sir." I was disheartened with the caliber of Morrison's (and others) leadership. Our task force rotation to the NTC was one of the worst the OCs could remember. I didn't relish the fact that many of my peers and subordinates came up to me and said, "You were so right." Few senior leaders will put their careers on the line to do what is right. They will back down before fighting a good fight. This is exactly what happened with the requests for tanks that were denied in Somalia and the Task Force Hawk (Were Combat Ready!) debacle. The parents of the soldiers we lead could give a rat's ass about your career while your making decisions that could affect the lives of their children. ========================================================= **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
