Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

War

When Men Outnumber Women

July 19, 2006 | By | No Comments

An Alert Reader, Martha, a former Air Force enlisted, who has been following the thread on women in combat with concern, writes to explain the “Abracadabra” issue:

I have heard horrid stories from deployed friends about the attitude toward women in the ranks. Even unattractive girls have a throng of men around them all the time when they are in “Bad Guy Land”. The names they give those women is crass. “Golden P**sy Syndrome” and similar things.

Then, on the flight home, “abracadabra” they are ugly again. The rejection is as sudden and violent as an IED attack. How can men be allowed to treat fellow soldiers like this, then turn around and treat them with respect on the battlefield?

Sadly, I didn’t have to go further than today’s New York Times to get a real-life illustration of why this kind of thing is no small matter. In an article, Behind Failed Abu Ghraib Plea, a Tangle of Bonds and Betrayals about Lynndie England, Charles Graner and Megan Ambuhl, the reporter, Kate Zernike lays out a tragic story that puts an even sorrier twist to the already sordid tale of Abu Ghraib.

lynddie_england_charles_graner.jpg
Lynndie England and

Charles Graner

megan_ambuhl.jpg
Credit: L.M. Otero/A P

Megan Ambuhl,

Graner’s new wife

The short version of the story is that Charles Graner was treating the United States Army like his own personal harem, carrying on overlapping affairs with both Lynndie England and Megan Ambuhl. Then, when Lynndie got pregnant, and sent home, they broke up. Graner sent an email to his father: “I stopped seeing her back in january but when all this garbage came out i started seeing her again,” he wrote. “chances are very good that it is my child….o well….daddy what did you bring home from the war????”

That’s some war souvenir.

With Lynndie sent home, Graner focused on Ambuhl. The two co-conspirators recently married at Ft. Hood, a surrogate groom standing in for Graner, who is already in prison.

A few quotes from the NYT piece at the jump.

###

Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Cross post from Reasoned Audacity.

Full Disclosure Your Business Blogger also serves as Vice President for the Center for Military Readiness, a non-profit think tank in Your Nation’s Capital.

Mudville Gazette has Open Post.

Read More

Jim Haynes' Hearing: Not a Pretty Sight

July 11, 2006 | By | No Comments

I was dropping the Little Woman off at Nordstroms and decided to spend a few hours in Your Nation’s Capital.

Watching a lawyer get beat up.

By some other lawyers. You’d think someone would be getting sued. But not in this venue — the Dirkson Senate Office Building, Room 226. This is the Judiciary Committee where Jim Haynes gave testimony to testy senators.

Today’s hearing was confrontational. The blood sport in DC.

Along with protesters. I stood next to a middle-aged fat-guy hippie with a TORTURE t-shirt. Very stylish.

I wander in and smile at a Maureen Dowd look-a-like at the press table. She didn’t smile back — must not have been her.

Soon after the hearing begins, one woman in an orange jump suit started shouting in an inappropriate “outside voice” (as would be described by parent to a child). She goes only a few seconds with “I’m an army colonel” and “Don’t confirm him” and how bad Haynes was for the Army. Before Specter angrily ordered her removed.

I’m disappointed that she is too quickly overcome. If she were really former Army, she’d put up more of a fight. Women in Combat and all that.

But Nina Totenburg started smiling. This was going to be a good show.

Haynes starts with family introduction family values stuff: Loyal wife of 24 years; three kids, public schools…whatever. Now I love this family stuff; I’ve got one too. But somehow, Haynes doesn’t pull off the sympathetic family-guy thing. Republicans are expected to be up-tight prudes. Not news. But it is a contrast.

To be questioned by Ted Kennedy. It is the odd nature of politics these days where conservatives make the move to being soft and cuddly and liberals pretend to be hard and warlike.

Ted Kennedy preaching obedience to the law. Goodness.

So Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Graham, Leahy let loose. Even the chairman Specter.

Republican Graham, from conservative South Carolina, also came out swinging.

And the punches landed. Blood on the walls. Even with Cornyn and Sessions saying the right, nice things couldn’t clear or clean it up.

But, as with everything in show business Your Nation’s Capital, Haynes didn’t have the stage presence of mind to counter senatorial heckling from the bench. He brought it on himself.

And he didn’t quite have his one-liners down. He starts with a story about his mentor musing that a lawyer, “Should never attribute to malice, that which can be attributed to stupidity.”

At which point I heard a Code-Pinker in front of me stage whisper, “So that makes us stupid?”

Which, of course, it does. But by now, even this early, the crowd was lost, the battle was lost. For Haynes.

I really don’t know what was worse: the contemptuous questions. Or Haynes’ gosh-awful answers.

My favorite exchange was from Leahy: Who told you, you would be a good judge?

Haynes, …the President must have thought…I would do a good job…

(When Haynes talked, there was a lot of ” … “.)

Leahy, Did the President ever say you’d be a good judge?

Haynes, No.

The crowd was stunned into silence. It is seldom that one sees such a punch-in-the-nose in public.

Leahy continues with the haymakers, Tell me about who first told you that you were to be nominated — when you first learned about being a judge on the Fourth Circuit.

Haynes, …I don’t remember…

Leahy, Can you tell us who first told you about being a judge?

Haynes, … [and] … [and some more]…[finally] I really don’t remember.

This is an odd answer from an afternoon filled with odd answers. There are events that release so much epinephrine that the memory is forever imprinted. Where You Were When Kennedy Was Shot. Where You Were When You Got Your Draft Notice. The NFL Draft Call. That Wife Stuff. Your Kids Being Born. The WTC Attack.

The Call To Be A Judge On The Federal Appeals Court.

Haynes doesn’t recall. Leahy says that in his 32 years in this business, “This is the first time a nominee didn’t remember The Call.”

How did Leahy know to ask that question? And know that he’d get such an embarrassing answer?

The audience shifts in their seats uncomfortably. Even those who don’t support Haynes now feel sorry for him.

Except for me. I’m hoping the Senators will ask Haynes about the Army placing women into combat, breaking rule and reg.

But all the Committee wants is to torture Haynes with torture. It seems that Haynes assembled a team of lawyers to fulfill a General’s request to use extraordinary means to get information.

They needed some clever wordsmithing to get around cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, which is prohibited by law.

And Haynes came up with some very clever work-arounds. With which I would agree.

But.

But, the law is clear: we can’t do degrading things like having a terrorist walk around nude on leash. If the Army interrogator wants a nude terrorist on a leash, change the law.

Goodness: This is insane. Nekked arabs on a rope is not torture. But the wording of the law is clear. Change the law so that we can torture with sleep deprivation and forced viewings of The View.

Instead, Haynes is too clever by half. And changes the meanings of words. Haynes says that it depends, “[how you] define that phrase…” and stumbled over an answer on ‘degrading’ interrogation techniques.

The Judiciary Committee didn’t get to Women in Combat. But they didn’t have to. Haynes has shown us an unfortunate pattern of word-change-definitions. Something about defense of necessity and lawyerly talkie-talk which made it clear that he was making it up.

When the issue is: either obey the law, or change it.

Haynes may be complicit in the changing of definition on women in combat. Somewhere, someone with clever lawyerly oversight, changed the definition of “co-locate.” Where women are now being placed into army units that are required to be all-male.

The pattern on Haynes’ advice to the DoD on torture seems to be the same with the semantics of women in combat.

The control of the military is slipping from the President and Congress to Army lawyers who can re-define “degrading” and “co-locate” and lots of other words to do anything the Army wants.

Which is not always a bad idea. But change the law first.

Haynes should not be nominated, unless he answers questions about women in combat.

###

Full Disclosure: I serve as the Vice President of the Center for Military Readiness.

Mudville has Open Post.

Big Lizards has excellent analysis on Article 3.

Basil’s Blog has a picnic.

Red State Blue State has Open Trackbacks.

My Wife Flew off with Bono and Branson; Bombed in London 7.7.05

July 6, 2006 | By | No Comments

charmaine_richard_branson.jpg

On the plane with Richard Branson

Following is an edited cross post from Charmaine’s Reasoned Audacity, July 1 – 7, 2005.

A year ago, Charmaine calls early morning from Edinburgh. “I’m having trouble flying into London,” she says.

I’m still waking up. I ask, “When can you come home?”

“I don’t know,” she says, her voice unsteady, “They’re still clearing the bodies.”

A wake up call. London, welcome to the war.

It started, as most things these days do, with Powerline.

Following is original posting from London as Charmaine called it into me, when her site went down. Any inconsistencies may be due to transcription overload.

This is Jack, the husband: Charmaine called. Her site is still down, but she wanted to file a report to Powerline.

“Flew into Heathrow airport and took a $150 cab ride into north London to conduct interviews and document the bombsites. Bobbies cordoned off area around the sites sealing the scene of the explosions. I got to within a block or so of Edgware Tube station entrance with Londoners sitting calmly, relaxing in pubs. Everything is strangely calm, business as usual. I interviewed a woman, an interior designer, expecting some emotional display. There was none. “We don’t do a lot of group hugging in England,” she said, making me think of the stiff-upper lip. “We are not sentimental.”

london_donotcrosstape.jpg

And she seemed to reflect the mood of the London population. Not for what they were doing but for what they were not doing: No candles, no out-pouring of grief, no hoards of gawkers milling around police tape, no teddy bears, no bouquets of flowers. No movement. No tears. Everything normal, except, maybe for that bus with the top blown off. Workers cleared and cleaned up the area real well. Spiffy. And got back to their pints.

I visited hospitals and learned that ‘only’ 37 were confirmed dead at that time. More confirmations were expected.

There were no moms with little children in downtown London. I interviewed middle-aged businessmen on cell phones and kids with Mohawks, none who were surprised.

Londoners gently reproached me about my concern over the bloodshed, “You Americans get sentimental over silly things. We’re used to getting bombed.” The IRA Troubles had hardened hearts as well as the London infrastructure.

I expected some grief, at least as much as there was when Lady Di died. And grief I got. I interviewed three very ordinary, normal teenaged English Muslims, one with short spiky hair (dressed not unlike my 10 year-old-dude). All three seems to be parroting Muslim talking points. “The bombings were a conspiracy by Blair to generate support for the war,” they recited in a charming British accent.

The bombers were quite indiscriminate. Edgware is not far from the heart of Little Beirut, a Muslim ethnic neighborhood.

A young British black woman told me, “The bombings are Tony Blair’s fault — they killed a 100 thousand Iraqis — and it’s like a boomerang [coming back at the British].” Most everyone I talked to believed that the British caused the bombing or had it coming.

Of the dozen or so people I interviewed only white males in business attire expressed surprise that anyone would think the British were at fault in anyway.

But these gentlemen were the minority. Most felt that the Brits were complicit. The people at London’s ground zero were sounding like the “wobbly” Spanish after their train bombings.

The day is a cloudy, cold, rainy 7.7.”

Charmaine is still out on the streets — 9pm local London time and will be sending pictures soon.

Read the story at the jump.

CMR Salamander points to HotAir with video.

Read More

Larry Summers Speaks Up for ROTC; Gets Fired

July 5, 2006 | By | No Comments

harvard_rotc_commissioning_yoest.jpg


Harvard ROTC

CommissioningThese two events are not connected. Directly.

Causation? Maybe. Correlation. Certainly.

Your Business Blogger was recently reminded that it is possible to get an army commission at Harvard.

Lefty gentleman Jody Wheeler writes/links in Fluke that it is not impossible these days to get an ROTC commission at Harvard.

Sort of.

Raphael C. Rosen, co-authors Profile in Courage in Jim Glassman’s TCSDaily. Rosen notes about Harvard President Summers that,

Yet another controversy has been the place of the military on campus which, in Harvard’s case, is effectively non-existent.

But Wheeler is right.

But.

The military program is effectively non-existent; is a head fake. For two reasons:

1) Cadets drill at nearby MIT, so as not to infect Harvard with any sense of patriotism, and

2) The ROTC program is supported with private funds.

Harvard lent only the logo to the commissioning. And its hated president, Larry Summers. The commissioning was cheered by the hated Rumsfeld.

Richard Posner writes on the Summers Resignation,

harvard_rotc_Summers_Grads_06_yoest.JPG


Larry Summers at the commissioning

A few comments portray Summers as a political reactionary, noting for example his effort to bring back ROTC to Harvard. Summers is of course a Democrat who served in the Clinton Administration. He recognized that it was not good for Harvard to be monolithically left wing. As John Stuart Mill pointed out in On Liberty, a person’s critical faculties are apt to atrophy if he is surrounded by like-minded people who do not question his ideas and opinions. Nor would it be inappropriate for Summers to believe that Harvard’s influence on public policy is needlessly diminished by unpatriotic institutional decisions, such as excluding military recruiters and instruction from the university.

mem_feminist_khankrumtherbulgar_yoest.jpg


Fem-FearBut the Harvard ROTC commissioning ceremony is a start to bring back the Old School into the new world. If the feminists can be beaten.

After all, John Harvard was a Jesus-loving, Bible-thumping Puritan.

Harvard as a Divinity School. Now that would be Progressive.

###

Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Read more on the Fem-Fear at Khankrumthebulgar

See Advocates for Harvard ROTC.

Also see segal org for ROTC funding at Harvard.

See Nothing on Harvard.

Full Disclosure: Your Business Blogger’s education was partially funded by the Army’s ROTC program.

Mudville Gazette has Open Post.

Navy Combat Action Ribbon; Girls Get Them Too

June 30, 2006 | By | One Comment

Combat_Action_Ribbon.png


The Navy’s

Combat

Action

RibbonGirls used to wear ribbons in their hair. Now girls wear them on their chests. Left breast, to be exact.

Bill Gertz is reporting today in The Washington Times that the Navy is expanding the award criteria for the Combat Action Ribbon to include IED’s.

A Marine officer said to Gertz,

Your don’t have to return fire to win a combat action ribbon.

“Direct Exposure” is now in the same category as “Direct Fire.”

Combat_Action_Badge_1stAwd.jpg

The Army’s

Combat Action Badge

1st AwardWhich is as it should be. But this will now mean that women will be eligible — the CAR is the Navy’s equivalent to the Army’s Combat Action Badge. Which is now being awarded to women.

With which I would also agree. Except.

Except this is more of the Pentagon’s incremental change where we continue to see ‘women’ and ‘combat’ in the same phrase.

So what’s all the fuss about women getting combat decorations?

The truth is that women shouldn’t be deliberately subject to any hostile fire, direct, in-direct, mines, or improvised.

Women are being placed at “the tip of the spear.”

While men abed in America

Hold their manhood cheap…

We few, we happy few,

We band of…siblings.

###

Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

See Reasoned Audacity with Combat Action Badge: Unisex Design.

I Was A Soldier

June 29, 2006 | By | No Comments

Only one American male in nine has worn a military uniform. This includes the WWll vets passing on.

Charmaine and I were talking about war and rumors of war and she remarked that it seems as if no one cares, if the polls are to be believed. This is a common conversation, when you have sons who want to serve and sacrifice.

Because some folks these days, usually in Blue States, don’t understand the military. And people these days are not having kids.

And so, as the cliche goes, The Greatest Generation has begot the Me Generation. A sad MyGration.

But there is hope. There are still soldiers. And the Roe Effect is rolling in. Soon.

I Was A Soldier

By Colonel Daniel K. Cedusky, USA, Retired

I was a Soldier: That’s the way it is, that’s what we were…are. We put

it, simply, without any swagger, without any brag, in those four plain

words.

us_army_1974_yoest.png

Read More

Women in Combat, Why Not?

June 26, 2006 | By | One Comment

Last year Charmaine wrote an article on the wisdom of violence against women. How liberals in Congress don’t seem to mind women getting assaulted — by sending our girls off to war to get their heads sawed off by the Islamofascists.

Why worry about women in combat? Why not just let the Pentagon go ahead with boiling the frog? After all, proponents argue, it is an all-volunteer army now.

Let me highlight one reason, among others: the draft.

This argument is often dismissed automatically as being politically untenable. “They’ll never bring the draft back!” But that is short-sighted and naive.

If women in the military begin serving in combat, voluntarily, and the ban against women in ground combat is lifted, then there will be no legal basis for maintaining their exclusion from the draft.

gibby_sarah_airforce.jpg

Not My Little Girls

US Air Force Academy

This is just common sense. As further evidence of how plausible this scenario is, here’s an article in Washington Monthly, “The Case for the Draft,” arguing for a reinstated draft now, that would include both men and women:

A better solution would fix the weaknesses of the all-volunteer force without undermining its strengths. Here’s how such a plan might work. Instead of a lottery, the federal government would impose a requirement that no four-year college or university be allowed to accept a student, male or female, unless and until that student had completed a 12-month to two-year term of service. . . They would be deployed as needed for peacekeeping or nation-building missions. They would serve for 12-months to two years, with modest follow-on reserve obligations.

The authors do hedge their bets a little by including “national service programs” like tutoring with AmeriCorps as part of their draft program. But there is still the legal issue: on what legal grounds would you exclude the rest of the female population from mandatory combat service once some women are serving voluntarily, should the need arise?

We face an unknown future, so our policy decisions today should be guided by wisdom informed by yesterday’s history. One thing we do know is that nation’s must be prepared to protect themselves against the unexpected. Any other posture is sheer foolishness.

Some of the wisdom of yesterday includes knowing the politics of the draft. One of the legacies of Vietnam was General Westmoreland’s strategy of using the draft to fill ranks. Instead of calling up the standing army, reserves, national guard, then finally the general population, Westmoreland bypassed this cascade — we went from standing army directly to the civilian population. His rationale was that he could keep the draftees longer.

We all know the domestic political tension that resulted, and continues to haunt us today. How much worse would that political conflagration be if Uncle Sam comes after our daughters?

The politics of “allowing” women in combat lead remorselessly toward drafting women. And a feminine mobilization leads directly to political gridlock right at a time when self-defense requires prompt, resolute, decisive action.

We simply cannot afford to advance on the assumption that we will never again need a mass mobilization to defend our country. In some sad tomorrow, we may need to call up civilians, but not now, not today.

And not women.

###

See Charmaine’s The Politics of the Draft.

Full Disclosure: Your Business Blogger also has the honor of serving as the VIce President of the Center for Military Readiness.

Mudville Gazette has Open Post.

Fathers' Day on Eternal Patrol

June 15, 2006 | By | No Comments

bonefish_223ReturnFromPatrol4.jpg

USS BonefishJune 18th, this Sunday is Fathers’ Day. It is also the day of loss of the USS Bonefish in 1945. This date is acknowledged each year by our household — for the men lost — the Dads; the sons.

A few years ago Your Business Blogger was honored to be invited to the Submarine Veterans Chapter in North Carolina and share a few words. The podium was on the ocean front. Grizzled vets and wives sat in the sun. Hot. Uncomplaining.

Afterwards, a plane flew overhead and dropped a wreath on the water a few hundred yards out. An honor guard fired a three-round volley. The Dude scampered for the shell casings. I have them in a desk drawer. To remember.

Submariners’ Memorial Service, Saturday May 13, 2000, Outer Banks, North Carolina

Debt of Honor

It is an honor to join you here today and remember the submariners “still on patrol.” And to remember our debt of honor due. I’ve asked my son, John, to join us today — a day I expect him to remember and take to his grave.

During World War II, my dad, a teenager from New Jersey, left high school, went to submarine school and was assigned to the USS Bonefish.

uss_bonefish_vp1.JPG

Virtual Painter Photos

Courtesy Tom McMahonWhen John saw previews of the blockbuster movie U-571, he asked if it was about his grandfather. The movie is a story about honor, courage, strength, character, what being a man, a warrior really is. Yes John, your grandfather was in the movie, and so were each of the submariners here today.

But in the movie the men came home. We are here today for the men who didn’t.

My father was re-assigned and walked off the gangplank and another man walked on the Bonefish. The Bonefish was lost in combat on June 18, 1945 with all hands.

My dad eventually went back to high school and married my mother. The other man is on the bottom of the Sea of Japan.

My father, after a half-century later after fighting in and surviving two wars, is buried in Arlington Cemetery. He had the chance to raise a family and devote 30 years to the Navy and pin Second Lieutenant bars on my shoulders.

Like many veterans, he didn’t talk much about being in harm’s way. Still, I imagine, in some Navy Valhalla, my dad and this other sailor linked up and asked the Creator, “Why?”

Why was my father spared? Why each of you? Why was the other man, why did the other men not come home? War forces these questions on us, and they echo for generations — my father had me, and now I have a 5-year old son, John, who carries his grandfather’s name and his love of battle and discipline.

John, like all children, often asks, “Why?” Like all fathers, I struggle to answer. But there are some questions we cannot fathom on this side of eternity. Why was my father not on that submarine that fateful day?

And the answer does not come. Only that John now lives — with a purpose and a destiny and lessons to learn and a debt of honor.

The submarine and her crew is the truest example of a military unit and military cohesion and military mission. And this is what I want my son to see. He saw it in the movie U-571, and in each of you today. But more important, I want him to understand the sacrifice of the men remembered today.

When my wife was pregnant with our first child, someone asked her, “What is your greatest fear?” She answered that it was losing her husband; she feared the possibility of facing the awesome responsibility of motherhood alone.

uss_bonefish_vp3.JPG

But now, several children later, as I reflect on that same question, my fear is not losing her, or even one of our daughters. I fear losing my son. In my masculine pride, I believe I can protect my wife and girls, but in my heart, just below the surface, is the dread possibility that I must one day send my son to war.

Just as your fathers sent each of you. And by God’s grace, you and my father came back.

My boy loves my cavalry saber and my dad’s medals. Wearing a military uniform and military service runs deep in our family. My son’s blood line is traced through the Civil War and the Revolutionary War to William Penn to Charlemagne of ninth century France. His great-grandfather helped build the Virginia Military Institute.

I pray the time never comes, but if it does, I expect that he will fight for God and country like his fathers before him. And like you, warriors gathered today, and like the warriors still on “eternal patrol” we honor today.

I have in my office the Norman Rockwell print of the “Homecoming GI” showing a young man coming home from war being greeting by the neighborhood. His back is toward us, his face is each of you and my father. We remember today the boys who didn’t come home, lost at sea — the only thing left was a gold star and a Purple Heart and our eternal gratitude.

Buried at sea, there are no headstones, I cannot mark the grave of the man who took my father’s place. But shortly we will honor that man and each of the 3,505 men lost on 52 boats with a wreath. It is fitting that, as some boats were lost to aerial bombs, that we remember those lost heroes with an aerial wreath dropped over the sea.

There will always be wars and rumors of war, the Bible teaches. When I think of future wars I pray that a lost heroic high-tech Bonefish will not carry my John. The fear of this nearly unendurable loss humbles me. That young submariner who walked — requested permission to board — the Bonefish to take my father’s place was another man’s son. Another father’s dreams lost at sea. War turns civilization on its head: In peace sons bury fathers. In war fathers bury sons.

Today we remember the men buried in the sea. It is a weighty debt. A debt of honor due. This is why I have my boy, the grandson of a submariner, here today to honor those men with you. I expect to instill in him a sense of history, of true sacrifice, of his mission in life. That his body is not his own, that he has a higher calling and that he will honor and obey. That he has a high calling.

I hope that I can teach him the lessons of his forefathers, and the lessons of the men we remember today and each of you — a great cloud of witnesses. The Greatest Generation.

It is my prayer that instilling this sense of mission will drive out the distractions, temptations and destructions of his growing generation. That he will see the hand of Divine Providence moving in his life. That he will know that he has so much to be thankful for. Like his fathers before him. That, as Scripture teaches, greater love has no man than to give his life for another.

uss_bonefish_vp4.JPG

I pray that he will be grateful, like his grandfather, and me, to the man and the men who died for us. It is my charge to tell my son that another young man took his grandfather’s place.

My son has the duty, and like us all, to that man and those men. My son has the duty to live with a sense of respect and purpose and awe. To live with a sense of reverence to the tomb, the crushed hull, of that other submariner.

Today we salute and honor the man and the men who died for me and for us all. I want my son to know his debt of honor. And Lord willing, my son will bury me.

###

Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Debt of Honor; USS Bonefish Lost was originally published by The Virginian Pilot and other print outlets.

Be Excellent has Father’s Day Advice.

Basil has a picnic.

Center for Military Readiness Names New Vice President

June 10, 2006 | By | One Comment

As George Bush started to run for president, the story is told about Dick Cheney and his work to help find a Vice President. Numerous talented candidates were evaluated. But none were quite as good as…Dick Cheney.

(Cheney did this before. Dick Cheney says that he set up an exploratory committee for Lynn as she was looking for a husband.)

So I followed the Vice President’s example when Elaine Donnelly asked about hiring staff to help her at the Center for Military Readiness.

I volunteered to set up an exploratory committee and helped evaluate candidates. There were many outstanding contenders. Not-so-Secretly, I wanted the job.

And you can’t beat the Cheney model.

cmr_message_elaine_banner.bmp

Jack Yoest Appointed Vice President

of the Center for Military Readiness

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 6, 2006

Contact: Elaine Donnelly (734/464-9430 ) or Jack Yoest (202/215-2434);

Website: www.cmrlink.org

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, is pleased to announce the appointment of John “Jack” Wesley Yoest, Jr., as Vice President of CMR.

Mr. Yoest will represent the Center for Military Readiness in the nation’s capital, and will work with Pentagon policy makers, legislators, and the media on wartime military personnel policies of concern to CMR. He will also be involved in research and production of CMR Policy Analysis reports and publications, and will manage initiatives in development, marketing, and new media on the Internet.

Donnelly predicted that the expertise and vision that Yoest brings to the new position will heighten the organization’s presence and influence in Washington D.C., and further extend the organization’s reach into the ranks of active duty men and women worldwide. “Jack’s abilities as a writer, successful entrepreneur and business consultant, plus his military background, will help CMR to increase awareness of policy decisions that affect discipline, morale and readiness, especially in time of war.”

Mr. Yoest has started successful manufacturing and software businesses, advised non-profit CEOs on fundraising and strategic direction, and has consulted with domestic and international companies in the fields of high technology, biotechnology and medical devices. He served as an Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Resources during the administration of Virginia Governor James Gilmore. He was Chief of Technology during the Secretariat’s Year 2000 (Y2K) conversion, and was a key advisor on the state’s website development and policy construction for electronic commerce (e-business).

Mr. Yoest earned an MBA from George Mason University and completed graduate work in the International Operations Management Program at Oxford University. A former Captain in the U. S. Army and son of a 30-year Navy submariner, Yoest served in combat arms and on the U.S. Armor and Engineer Board, which directed research and conducted testing with night vision and electro-optics.

His articles on business, military, and social/cultural subjects have been published in National Review Online, The Women’s Quarterly, and Small Business Trends, and syndicated by the Scripps-Howard News Service. Yoest resides in the Washington D.C. area with his five children and wife Charmaine, who is Vice President for Communications at the Family Research Council.

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent, non-partisan public policy organization, founded in 1993, which specializes in military personnel issues.

Center for Military Readiness P.O. Box 51600 Livonia, Michigan 48151

Phone: (734) 464-9430

###

CMR_announcement_yoest_vp_inside_politics.png

The press release was picked up by The Washington Times.

CMR_announcement_yoest_vp006.jpg

Mudville has Open Post.

31 May

By

3 Comments

USS Scorpion Lost

May 31, 2006 | By | 3 Comments

Your Business Blogger has an article up at National Review Online. About the loss of the sub USS Scorpion.

I went to school with a girl whose dad is on eternal patrol.

Yolanda Mazzuchi was about the prettiest girl in our school class. Our dads were in the Navy, often gone for months at a time. And they would be welcomed home at dockside with cheers and homemade signs. These gatherings at the D&S Piers at the Naval Base in Norfolk, Virginia, were a regular part of our lives growing up….

At 1 in the afternoon on Monday, May 27, 1968, at the height of the Cold War the USS Scorpion was due in port.

Yolanda didn’t know it then, but her dad was already dead….

The loss still hurts four decades later. Read the rest.

###

Mudville Gazette has Open Post.

And visit the vanities.