Friday, July 20, 2007

Harsh and Harsher


Dang, Ralph…that’s harsh!

FP: What are your thoughts on Obama wanting to attack Pakistan? That is after all where the terrorists are lurking.

Peters: It's a classic example of the fateful mix of hubris and naivety on Capitol Hill. Mr. Obama has yet to supply any details, so let me help him out: Sure, we can invade Pakistan. Of course, we'll need a draft to round up enough troops. And we'll have to kill, as a minimum, a few hundred thousand Pathan tribesmen and their families, and we'll have to remain as an occupier for many years. Oh, and Pakistan's got nuclear weapons and it's already torn by civil strife. But no worries there for good, old Barak--who was too important to serve in the military himself (military service is just for chumps like me or for those who are, as John Kerry pointed out, so stupid they're stuck in Iraq).

Now, I'm all for targeted air strikes and special ops raids in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan where al Qaeda has been re-grouping. But, hey, I've actually been there. It's some of the toughest terrain in the world, and the mountain ranges are vast. A classic military invasion isn't the answer. So, if Obama wants to invade, I'd just like to hear the details of his plan. Of course, he hasn't got one. He's just blowing smoke. He knows less about military matters than I do about neurosurgery. The difference between us is that he's convinced he's qualified to operate.

In the Queen's English, the guy's a wanker.

For those of you unfamiliar with Brit slang, here’s the definition of “wanker.” I think Col. Peters got it right, even though it’s kinda hard for me to visualize Her Highness calling anyone a wanker.

Hat tip: Lex.

Harsh, Part II. Or...About Today’s Pics… Two views of a radar site that overlooks Layton, Utah, taken while I was visiting SN1 last month. This particular site is most likely owned and operated by the FAA, but it could very well have been part of the extensive network of USAF radar sites that were built in the ‘50s and decommissioned in the ‘70s. There was once a time when every single square inch of the Lower 48 was swept by a USAF radar beam every 20 seconds, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Continuously. Not so any longer.

I spent two-thirds of my USAF career on sites just like the one in the pictures…the only thing that really varied from site to site was the elevation. In the flat parts of the US of A, the sites were situated on the highest ground to be found in the vicinity, which was often only a slight rise of 20 to 25 feet above the rest of the countryside. In other places the sites were perched on mountain tops that were literally thousands of feet above sea level, specifically in the coastal mountain ranges of the west coast and up in Alaska, where some truly spectacularly scenic locations existed. “Spectacularly scenic,” of course if you only just looked at a picture of two little dots perched on a mountain overlooking, say, the Bering Sea…not if you had to live and work in that sort of isolation for a year, which was the “standard” tour. And if one was in the radar business back in the day, one could look forward to doing a “remote” tour every four years or so, just like clockwork. I never did go to Alaska, but I did have orders to Cape Newenham that were canceled at the very last minute. I was sent to Fortuna AFS, ND, instead. And was probably the only guy to ever report in to that God-forsaken location with a smile on my face. At least Fortuna was in the US of A, albeit just barely.

So why am I on about this today? Simply because I chased up another Lex-link, this time it was photography of abandoned military bases. Buried within that link was a mention of Boron AFS—another radar site I called “home,” once upon a time. And then the synapses began to fire off, just like clockwork. The mind is a funny thing.

Update: If you follow the Cape Newenham link, don't miss the "Information Brochure," circa 1976. Since I received my orders to Cape Newenham in 1977, the chances are quite good I would have received this very same brochure, had I not been diverted to Fortuna. Just reading the thing sent shivers up my spine...

19 comments:

  1. Sez Col. Peters:

    But no worries there for good, old Barak--who was too important to serve in the military himself (military service is just for chumps like me or for those who are, as John Kerry pointed out, so stupid they're stuck in Iraq).

    Ahh yes, let's DO point out who was "too important" to serve in the military ... shall we? Let's make a list. Actually, just Google the term "military deferments" and see who pops up first.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, Lori...I thought if you commented on this post at all you would have commented about Fortuna, seein' as how the reunion just happened. Or perhaps other radar sites you knew and loved(?)... (And you haven't said a thing about the reunion, or is it because I haven't asked?)

    But, yeah...point well-taken about deferments. And beat to death, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That 1976 brochure certainly thrilled me :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Buck, it's just that the stuff that's going on politically is so disturbing to me. More so now than ever.

    For the record, I'm not impressed with Obama and I do not plan to vote for him. Actually, there is no one I'm impressed with at this point. What a plate of turds.

    ALL that aside ... : )

    The reunion went well, although we had only about 1/3 of the attendance we enjoyed 2 years ago. Still, everyone seemed to have fun, and I heard lots of laughter. There are lots and lots of photos being posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fortuna_afs/ (wish I could get the html thing to work here, but I never can).

    Next reunion is scheduled for 2010, and there will be another in 2013 that will coincide with centennial celebrations of the towns of Fortuna ND and Westby MT.

    Be there?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks to you, Cold Warrior. That second picture is just what I envisioned in the Tom Bodett essay. Hope you got the essay.

    Godforsaken place for me was NorthPac ca. 1984. The wave tossing cracked the superstructure of CGN-36. Lots of spewing on that cruise (not by me of course).

    Not as bad as "modlock" in the North Arabian Sea for several months in 1986. Steam ejection air conditioners don't work very well when seawater injection temps are 90F.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lori sez: Next reunion is scheduled for 2010, and there will be another in 2013 that will coincide with centennial celebrations of the towns of Fortuna ND and Westby MT.

    Be there?


    Well...I might, assuming I live that long. ;-)

    And I echo you're being "disturbed" by the political goings-on these days. But I suspect we're disturbed for entirely different reasons...

    Lou: Wasn't that brochure "inspiring?" (NOT!) Didja look at any of the photo albums? More chills, for me...

    There's a back-story to my despair/relief about my orders to Cape Newenham. TSMP and I were engaged at that point in time, and I shuddered at the thought of asking her to wait a year before we got married (although we were gonna wait until she graduated from college, anyway), not to mention the fact that we wouldn't see each other but once during my tour up in Alaska. We discussed the subject at great length in letters and over the phone (I was still in Japan, she was at school in Indiana), but all was "right with the world" when my orders were canceled. She accompanied me up to Fortuna, spent the summer of '77 with me there, and we saw each other a couple of more times during the winter of '77 - '78. We were married in June of '78, or about the time I would have returned from Alaska...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gosh, Reese, my BAD for not replying to your e-mail. Yes, I DID get the mp3...Thank You!!

    And YOU deserve thanks for your service, as well. The military has a knack for putting its "employees" in bad situations, places, and circumstances. I simply wouldn't have been cut out to lead the sort of life one leads in the Navy. As I all-too-frequently told SN2 when he was in boomers..."I just don't understand...at all...the reasons why one would sign up for a life where you never see the sun, have NO access to alcohol, and NEVER touch anything soft for 90 days at a time"... But that was life in boomers; I understand it ain't that bad in the surface Navy.

    BTW...I continue to rag on him about the Navy, to this very day.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey, those photos of abandoned military bases are amazing. Thanks for posting that link, Buck!

    Point Arena AFS, CA has also been abandoned, but it was online (FAA operated, I believe) as recently as 1998, so the buildings are apparently in pretty good shape. I plan to take a trip up there and snap some photos, although they certainly won't be as gorgeous as the photos I just viewed!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ms. Lori:

    This here's SGT Buck's space, so I feel awkward asking you this. Do you want a former military person as president or not? If Buck googles as you suggest, what's he supposed to find? Are draft avoidances some sort of presidential or vice presidential prohibition?

    The US draft sucked in my opinion, and is history in fact.

    And you can breathe a sigh of relief: Neither the president nor vice president are running for anything in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We have our places, Sergeant. Yes surface navy saw the sun, had fantail barbecues once in a while. And if you were at sea over 90 days, a pallet of Bud (two cans to a sailor) came via helicopter.

    I also saw the Southern Cross from the bow in the I.O. at 2400. Cue the CSNY music.

    ReplyDelete
  11. reese wrote:

    This here's SGT Buck's space, so I feel awkward asking you this. Do you want a former military person as president or not? If Buck googles as you suggest, what's he supposed to find? Are draft avoidances some sort of presidential or vice presidential prohibition?

    As a veteran, I would generally prefer a former military person as president. Even though I have been disappointed by him at times, I would still like to see Colin Powell as a candidate, although that won't happen.

    However, what I cannot abide is someone who goes to such great extremes to avoid military service when they are clearly a war hawk. Anyone who loves war that much damn surely ought to serve, so they can personally understand the horrors they're sending others to face.

    I do breathe a little better knowing that Bush and Cheney won't be running in '08, although that certainly doesn't prevent them from influencing policy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Buck sez, to me: And I echo you're being "disturbed" by the political goings-on these days. But I suspect we're disturbed for entirely different reasons...

    I had to dig around for awhile to find this, but here, this is what disturbs me:

    "On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols

    This link will probably break, but the ref is:
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/
    journal/07132007/profile.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ms. Lori,

    Quotes and all, please give one that shows any US president or vice president ever loved or loves war.

    How about actions after quotes? They've all said something like, "This is the last resort, but necessary."

    ReplyDelete
  14. reese wrote: Quotes and all, please give one that shows any US president or vice president ever loved or loves war.

    Okay, it's my assumption, through their actions, that certain of them love war -- or the fruits of it, anyway. I know about assuming ... I shouldn't do that.

    Of course it would be political suicide for a pres or veep to admit their love for it, wouldn't it? So, while I believe they do love it, I won't bother trying to produce quotes that probably don't exist.

    How about actions after quotes? They've all said something like, "This is the last resort, but necessary."

    It's hardly ever the last resort. Is it? Really? There are no other ways to go about it? How about assassination? Oh, that's right, we don't do that. WHY NOT? imo, taking out Saddam singularly would have been FAR more preferable. Don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Assassination does nothing. All assassination does is get rid of the strongman. A bloodbath ensues at the top and eventually a new strongman consolidates power. And the woodchippers and rapes continue. With assassination there is no paradigm shift.

    Put another way, do you honestly think that if we somehow assassinated Kim Jong-Il that the Norks would give up their nukes and quit starving their people?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lori gave us a link (which worked) that, in turn, gave us this shining example of Bill Moyers' prose and logic:

    Recent events like President Bush's pardoning of Scooter Libby, the refusal of Vice President Cheney's office to surrender emails under subpoena to Congress and the President's prohibition of testimony of former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers in front of the House Judiciary Committee have caused unease over claims of "executive privilege." In addition, many of the White House anti-terror initiatives and procedures — from the status of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo to warrantless wiretapping — have come under legal scrutiny in Congress and the courts.

    All that as comment to the fact that some poll, somewhere, indicates 45% of the public favors impeaching the president. There's not ONE single thing in the preceding paragraph that is unusual, illegal, or unconstitutional. Period. And there have been, and will continue to occur, at regular intervals, unsuccessful (for the most part) court challenges to the aforementioned "cardinal sins," which is probably a better term than "impeachable offense." Sin against Liberal dogma, of course.

    Therefore, one could reasonably ask: "Impeach? On what grounds?" And add the corollary..."In WARTIME?"

    Mike! Are you back from Alabama (with a banjo on your knee), or still getting ready to go?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Reese said: This here's SGT Buck's space, so I feel awkward asking you this.

    I'm simply the host. I like to look at EIP as a small cocktail party...a space where people with differing opinions and POVs can pretty much say anything that comes to mind, and discussion is encouraged. Just two simple rules: No personal attacks and keep it (relatively) clean. Questions, comments, creative snark, yadda, yadda, are VERY welcome.

    I live for comments! (Hey, that would make a good Cafe Press bumper sticker, no?) ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. And thank you, Buck, for providing the space for all of us to spar politely. It sure would be interesting for everyone to meet in person, wouldn't it? : )

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yeah, sergeant, what Lori said there in comment 18.

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask.