Where's The Logic?

Our Navy has been shooting little fish in a big barrel, which some take issue with, but what has inflamed the antithisadministrationalists is a recent double-tap incident, where the target was not sunk with the first blast, so a follow up was used to send the vessel to Davy Jone's Locker. What seems to have some folks upset is that the first blast capsized the vessel, with a couple of crew members clinging to the hull when the second blow was delivered. 

Their outrage drips with insincerity.

Were the crew clinging to the capsized vessel any less a threat than they were when the boat was upright and they were on deck? Of course not, and if you think otherwise you are either an idiot, or suffering from TDS, or both. 

Think. Just think. 

Were the crew's surface-to-air missiles lost in the first blast? Of course not. Why? Because they didn't have any. How about their 50 caliber machine guns? Same here. Can't lose what you don't have. Torpedoes...yeah that's the story. No it isn't. This was not a torpedo boat. 

The fact is this crew presented every bit as much a military threat to the US after the boat was capsized as they did before: nada. 

So if you're on the side of "we shouldn't do that" logic dictates that the second strike is no more contemptible than the first, as the crew never presented an imminent military threat. 

If you're on the other side of the equation you might argue that any drugs they might transport, and there has been no evidence presented, these drugs represent weapons of mass destruction and transporting them is a terrorist act. After all we do have a war on terror. You might even reflect back on the English giving Native Americans smallpox infected blankets as you conveniently ignore that these drugs would be for paying customers. As in "market demand." The English were very open about their intent to kill the Natives, but killing addicts is just bad business. 

Not matter which side you favor, the second strike is no more an issue than the first. If you support the military action, then sinking the boats and killing the crew is justified regardless of the number of missile strikes required. Anything less is illogical. If you fall on the other side of the issue, then the second strike is no worse than the first, or perhaps it is better to say that the first strike is no better than the second, and you should be just as incensed at a one-shot kill. Anything less is illogical. 

How about we spend less time with hyperbolic partisan rhetoric and exercise a few brain cells.

What Is It Good For?

War, that is.

America's current relationship with war started after WWII, the last time the constitution was respected and war was declared. Since then, "war" has been redefined and very war-like activities and control of military actions have been delegated, by congress, to the executive branch. Over several recent administrations we've seen the executive branch taking military action without prior congressional approval and increasingly without notification. Arguably, America's use of military force has been more brazen of late, but this is a difference in degree rather than kind. 

Ever since the advent of the all-volunteer military, society's relationship with "war" has been transformed. After a few generations without a credible threat of a draft, many segments of our society, particularly the "elites" have little or no personal experience with the military, or even near adjacency. There are lots of folks, not just Gronk, who cannot get USAA insurance. Men no longer burn draft cards nor women their bras (wasn't America great back then?) and our use of the very word, war, has been transformed. Diluted. Eviscerated. 

We apply "war" to damn near anything, without having body counts recited every evening on the evening news...Goodnight Chet. We've had a war on terror, which did involve "kinetic actions" but more dangerous is applying the term "war" to non-military situations. We've had a "war on poverty." A "war on hunger." And when "just say no" fell flat and "your brain on drugs" reminded folks of a post-party WaHo breakfast, we now have a "war on drugs." 

Is anyone really surprised that the combination of concentrating power in the executive branch and the hyperbolic rhetoric around this "war" resulted in military action? Really?

Now we're confronted with deja vu, An Operational Necessity, the book, not the mission concept in OpNavInst 3710.7Q. The recent engagement in the Caribbean faintly resembles the situation in the book, with some key differences. There is no declared war. Only one participant is bringing military power to bear, though the French freighter was unarmed. In the war, the real war, the attackers were brought to justice, such as it was when the defeated faced the victorious, with the Germans fairing poorly. 

Today there will be no Nuremberg. No trials. But going forward maybe we should be a bit more careful when conflating the merely important with the truly life-threatening. 

Dragging Them Aboard

Just when you start daydreaming about the upcoming Blue Angels airshow and even consider knocking back a cold Bud Light (just kidding) you get hit with this: the US Navy is using an enlisted yeoman drag queen to attract recruits. Has no one in the military or any part of the Biden administration been paying attention. Have they not noticed what the Mulvaney cockup has done to Aneheuser Busch? Do they really think this will help recruitment? Make youngsters think: I wanna go SWO 'cuz I like me a good drag show? Really? 

It ain't woke but it might be a good idea to remind folks that Navy's job-one is to defend this country through military might, not pander to whimsical fantasies held by emotional and intellectual windsocks who will sacrifice nothing for anything or anyone and will serve only themselves.