Letters

     Send comments to:  editorG2mil@Gmail.com   We have space for most, but not all comments.  Let us know if you want us to include your organization and e-mail address.  Some letters may end up as content elsewhere in G2mil.  Avoid political comments, this is a weapons, warfare, and tactics website.

Profiting in Iraq

I plan to check out a copy of "War is a Racket" and read it before the end of the year.  I just learned that businessmen tried to recruit Smedley Butler to overthrow the government. He blew the whistle on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Someone named Lee Brimmicombe-Wood liked the movie Aliens (in which future U.S. Marines battle monsters) so much that he wrote a book titled "Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual." It features science fiction weapons and spacecraft. Page 6 has an unofficial hymn:

We will curse our country's leaders,
Cross the stars, on land and sea;
First to fight the distant corporate wars,
Spill our blood for a sheaf of green;
We will do or die, we ask not why,
'Cuz we're COLONIAL MARINES

Page 7 has an anecdote from a Colonial Marine officer:

"I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't been there. We dropped screaming into Cristobal, capturing the spaceport and shield colony and spreading out into the countryside. By nightfall we held half the continent out to the gulf stream. We all felt so studly with our armor and firepower. Psyops broadcast to everyone that Hetos was a schmuck and a crook and that we were there to nail his ass, like we were no more than some simple shamus come around the block to slap the cuffs on a persistent offender. We had some tiny contingents of Panamanians and Argentines with us to wave the UA flag and yell at anyone who'd listen that this was a joint op, legally enacted under the provisions of the Washington Treaty. A lot of people bought that one, just like they bought Space Command's estimate of 254 locals dead. Meanwhile, the cadavers of five hundred colonial militiamen and over fifteen hundred civilians were being bulldozed by the USCM engineers into mass graves and seeded with vicious bacterias designed to turn them into pools of goo.

"Nobody at home gave a damn. No one even asked who was accountable. Media coverage was limited to the four Marines who came home in boxes draped with Old Glory, and some form-letter UAAC announcement about the 'restoration of public order.' Meanwhile, the AmArc corporate suits who'd rode shotgun on the assault quietly secured the wellheads and then ordered us to bust the worker's strike with CS gas and baton rounds. We complied.

"Three months after the mission, AmArc announced a record share dividend. On that day I resigned my commission."

I thought you might find the excerpts interesting. Maybe you might recognize real events on which the scenario is based.

                                                                                                      Phil Park

Ed: Americans are upset that over 2000 GIs have died in Iraq, and the Bush administration argues that is acceptable.  However, another 1000 GIs will die in Iraq over the next year and another 5000 maimed.  When will it end?

Billions in Cash Missing in Iraq

This is great!  Some of those conservatives are starting to count the money the Bushies spent in Iraq, and oh lordy!  Lots and lots of money is gone, and nobody knows where!
 http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

                                                                                                              Max

Ed: The Americans were not that stupid, I doubt the Iraqis stole that money.  Like this tale from that article:

 "In one notorious incident in April 2004, $1.5 billion in cash that had just been delivered by three Blackhawk helicopters was handed over to a courier in Erbil, in the Kurdish region, never to be seen again. Afterwards, no one was able to recall the courier’s name or provide a good description of him."

That is an obvious lie since $1.5 billion in cash would require several trucks to haul.  I can see it now, an American contractor says:  "Sorry boss, I gave $1.5 billion in cash to some Kurd but I didn't get his name or look at his face.  By the way, I need to quit my job and return home for urgent business."

There is also no accounting for money from Iraqi oil exports.

New US Base in Paraguay

I find very useful and of course educating your publication, even Latin America has had little relevance in the past for the US (backyard); now is becoming more and more important considering new actors on stage (e.g . Venezuela, Chavez, Brasil).

It is a shame what is happening in Iraq, but I must say it may be also a possibility to face if US decides to invade any country of South America from Paraguayan base (Estigarribia Base), given certain conditions.  Could you elaborate and provide a broader perspective on this new chess set for this region.

                                                                                                   Julio Gonzales

Ed: It is all about helping US oil companies.  A book published last year, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," sheds much light on the frequent invasions of poor nations by the US military.  It describes how huge multi-national corporations take control of nations through the World Bank and IMF. Leaders of target nations are corrupted by private "consultants" with bribes to accept huge loans for overpriced economic development projects constructed by major American contractors. These loans must be repaid with interest, so higher taxes or deep cuts in social services are required. 

If bribery fails or loans are not repaid, elections are rigged, riots instigated, or a coup is organized by bribing lower level officials. If these fail, the jackals from the CIA arrive and leaders begin to die. If that proves impossible, they fall back on the traditional method and send in the Marines.  Venezuela is a current target; Chavez won't play ball.  He's wasting money helping the poor rather than buying American weapons like the good Saudis do.  He is also demanding a greater share of oil profits from American oil companies in his nation, so Americans are told this popular elected President is a "dictator" and a "danger."

Grow, Grow, Grow

Your article is right on the money.  The push for additional Active Duty soldiers in light of Iraq and Afghanistan is fundamentally flawed as the Army once again mismanages it's rotations and assignments.  A pundit once said that the military tends to think at it's speed of engagement - a pointed reference to the speed of an Abrams tank versus an F-16, and the sad fact of the inertia in Army systemic reasoning.  It's always been about protecting flags.  You need so many companies to produce a battalion, so many battalions etc etc and then one has an hierarchy that establishes so many one, two, three and four star slots.  The institution fights fiercely to defend it's inbedded capacity, regardless of need.  It's helped wonderfully by Congressional self interest.  The BUR was suppose to cut through all of this, as well as BRAC.  Having worked both of those processes, the internal 'adjustments' to need to accommodate the Services parochial interests are worthy of Roman Senatorial maneuverings.  Keep up the good work.  You're on the right track.

                                                                                            WH

Well, you certainly didn't let any vacation soften your ideas. Very interesting issue, and I didn't see a single typo.

The WTC article was VERY interesting. Was this a Tonkin Gulf/Pearl Harbor incident for the US government to exploit? Can we locate anybody from those WTC security organizations? My own comment is that placing cutting charges with the precision and numbers required would need either a long lead time with a few people or a lot of people in a short time.

Then what happened to the other planes (PA/Pentagon) and why? Part of the larger plan for war? I really doubt there's footage of the PA impact. I read that cameras looking at the Pentagon were all confiscated and removed very quickly. And the hole in the Pentagon seems quite small. Are there "Zapruder/Applegate" videos around to check out the reality of what actually happened to what was said?
                                                                                                                     Larry

As an engineer I am not impressed by the arguments in this article.  The arguments are mostly based on the author's impressions, like the fire didn't seem very hot, without any kind of data to back it up.  And some claims are just wacky, like the holes in the buildings were too small for the planes that supposedly hit them.  If those flights didn't hit the building, then what happened to them?  Or that the "hot spots" that persisted for months could only have been produced by explosives.  Heat is mostly a function of the amount of material burned, and explosive charges are small compared to the volumes of material that were burning in that fire.

It just makes no sense.

                                                                                                            Geoff Bainbridge

I think all agree that it was odd that neither building fell to one side, they both imploded very neatly, just like with a controlled demolition, after most everyone was allowed to vacate.  I don't believe the US government would do such a thing.  However, all the Israeli businesses at the WTC closed down anI think all agree that it was odd that neither building fell to one side, they both imploded very neatly, just like with a controlled demolition, after most everyone was allowed to vacate.  I don't believe the US government would do such a thing.  However, all the Israeli businesses at the WTC closed down and moved prior to 9-11.  Maybe that was just because of the terror threat.  Anyway, the whole thing worked too perfectly for a bunch of crazed Saudis to pull off by themselves.  Perhaps Al Qaeda is just a Mossad front?  I dug up this old G2 Gem:

September 2002 - 9-11 Hijackers trained by the US Navy?

Ed:  I had planned to write a detailed analysis, but then decided it was pointless, it is over.  No one in the media understood this story and the reporting was horrible.  First, Rumsfeld claimed they put 33 major bases on the BRAC list, but the official list of US military installations in September 2002 shows 56 major bases and none appeared on the BRAC list.  This is because they used "replacement value" to measure a base's size.  So some mothballed bases with a few dozen caretakers/security guards were on the list and counted as major bases.  In addition, a couple weeks before the list was to released, Rumsfeld announced it wouldn't be that big.  This implies that when the White House looked at the list, some deals were made.  The GAO review even noted two bases already approved by the Pentagon were pulled the last week, Ed:  I had planned to write a detailed analysis, but then decided it was pointless, it is over.  No one in the media understood this story and the reporting was horrible.  First, Rumsfeld claimed they put 33 major bases on the BRAC list, but the official list of US military installations in September 2002 shows 56 major bases and none appeared on the BRAC list.  This is because they used "replacement value" to measure a base's size.  So some mothballed bases with a few dozen caretakers/security guards were on the list and counted as major bases.  In addition, a couple weeks before the list was to released, Rumsfeld announced it wouldn't be that big.  This implies that when the White House looked at the list, some deals were made.  The GAO review even noted two bases already approved by the Pentagon were pulled the last week, Carlisle Barracks and NPS Monterrey.

The Bush administration deserves some credit for pushing through these minor closings as they were strongly opposed by communists in the US Congress.  On the other hand, Bush appointed the commissioners, so either they all played along, or their communist leanings prompted them to remove bases like New London and Portsmouth from the list simply as jobs programs.  They didn't really justify any military value, nor did they choose other bases.  The Navy submarine force has fallen in half since the last BRAC, yet they closed no sub base.

Big government types argued the dumb logic that nothing should be closed because "something" may happen and we will need it.  That assumes the US military can never open a new base if it needs one, as though Congress will oppose a new military base.  The only activities which need to be preserved "just in case" are naval weapons stations, since communities would become upset if the Navy ever wanted to store ordnance near a coastal community, which is why the Navy kept Seal Beach in the middle of ritzy Orange county.  The other irreplaceable bases are large test ranges, because once civilians move into an area it will be difficult to get them out even in time of war.

Ban Sports Competition - Go one step further

Go one step further…or rather bypass it entirely by unifying the services into a single organization from beginning to end.  Remove the services entirely.  Create a single organization that doesn’t require the long bureaucratic tale of liaison officers, competing politicians, competing flag officers, competing budgets, competing redundant force structures.  Don’t stop a football game…throw the Hail Mary and win the entire game.