Qaddafi's Air Defenses 'Severely Disabled' Following Military Strikes

Really, it's about time. Do the rebels have any fight left in them or is this all too late to do any good? 112 Tomahawk cruise missles should keep qaddafi's head down for a while. It will be interesting to see if it has a big impact on the attacks by the government forces...

From FoxNews

Military strikes by the U.S. and its allies against targets in Libya Saturday have "severely disabled" Libyan leader's Muammar al-Qaddafi's air defenses, a U.S. official confirms to Fox News.

The official also warns they do not know what Qaddafi will do next following the military strikes.

"It's too soon to predict what he and his ground forces may do in response to today's strikes," the official told Fox News.

Despite the blow, Qaddafi remained defiant as he threatened to attack military and civilian targets in the Mediterranean in retaliation of international coalition strikes on Libya.

"It is now necessary to open the stores and arm all the masses with all types of weapons to defend the independence, unity and honor of Libya," Qaddafi said in a speech broadcast on Libya state television, according to Reuters. He also warns that weapons depots are being opened to arm the Libyan people in defense.

The Pentagon says 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been launched from U.S. and British ships in the Mediterranean, hitting more than 20 Libyan targets along the Mediterranean coastline.

Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, told reporters the Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from one British submarine and a number of American destroyers and subs. He said the success of the mission was not immediately clear, adding that additional attacks would commence later.

Read the rest at the link above...

Mindless Push for 'Diversity' in the Military Won't Win Wars

Are they saying there aren't enough minorities in the Military or that there aren't enough minority officers in the Military? Believe it or not, not everybody wants to be an officer. I didn't. I did exactly what I wanted to do in the Marine Corps. I got to shoot lots of guns, blow a bunch of shit up and play with lots of cool toys. The officers were standing around watching as we enjoyed the shooting.

My Uncle was a Marine Corps officer. A fighter pilot. He always seemed a little arrogant to me. As I came to find out later, that is a common trait among Marine Corps officers. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, it just didn't suit my personality.

Anyway, just like the story from yesterday about the dayton, ohio police department, the Military will probably lower the standards to make unqualified people seem qualified. Unqualified people no matter what the fake test results say, should not be leading people into combat. It will lessen the effectiveness of our Military and put lives at risk.

There is no one in a combat situation with a shorter lifespan than an incompetent officer.

And don't think for a minute that our Military can take an incompetent and unqualified and turn them into a good officer. Those people are born, not made. Good officers have instincts that are present before any training. Good training may enhance those instincts, but it can't make them.

This is a mistake, but it is all too common in this age of political correctness...

by Roger Hedgecock - Human Events

There are too many white men in the U.S. military.

So says a report released this week by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC), commissioned by Congress to examine ways to "increase diversity" in the military. The MLDC report finds that 77% of active-duty senior officers are white, 8% black, 5% Hispanic, and 16% women (of unspecified race).

What's the answer to this "problem"? Is the MLDC recommending that white males stop volunteering for military service? Do they want to start "selecting" who among them volunteers for service? Are they recommending that there be quotas for military service, as with the public university system? Or maybe the MLDC is going to recommend a mandatory draft for minorities and females until "diversity" is achieved?

The military is currently all-volunteer. If there are "too many" white males, the obvious reason is because white males volunteer proportionately more than other races and women.

If we can mandate voter registration at the local Department of Motor Vehicles (making it a whole lot easier for illegals to vote), why not mandate military recruiters at every high school graduation in Compton, Stockton, and Detroit? With recruitment brochures in 26 languages, of course. Why not set up recruitment offices within welfare offices and in unemployment offices?

The MLDC report makes 20 recommendations. Including "outreach" to "minority" communities to increase the eligibility pool, requiring "diversity strategic plans" in every command, making diversity a "priority," and requiring an official explanation when a "minority" or a woman is not nominated to a 3- or 4-star rank.

The report states, "Leveraging diversity as a vital strategic military resource will require the commitment, vision, and know-how of leaders at every level. Without this commitment to instill respect for diversity as a core value, the needed cultural change may not take place."

For starters, the MLDC calls for affirmative action for non-white, non-male people in the military. It's no longer about training the best warriors. It's about giving an advantage in promotion based on skin color. In other words, it is about racism

What an insult to the many black and Hispanic warriors serving in the military today.

Here is what the MLDC needs to understand. These young men and women are American patriots. Differences among them imposed by silly civilian, politically correct nonsense doesn't count when the bullets start flying.

Thank you, MLDC, but the last thing unit cohesion and military preparedness needs is the creation of yet another reminder of differences and divisions among the troops.

Ask a hero like retired Army Col. Allen West (now, praise God, Congressman West), what he thinks of bringing "diversity" training into the military. I'm guessing that this third generation Army veteran of African-American descent will tell you (in colorful language) that the Army needs more warriors of whatever color.

Which brings me to the NBA. By the standards of the MLDC, the NBA violates diversity. There are just too many blacks. Team owners should justify in writing exactly what efforts they have made to ensure diversity by making room for whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc., on each of their teams.

Of course this is nonsense. The NBA signs up talent to win games, which in turn puts paying fans in the seats and makes money. Owners couldn't care less what race the players happen to be, as long as they shoot and score.

And what about National Public Radio? Applying the MLDC standard, are there too many whites at NPR? On my last visit to the NPR station in Washington, D.C., even the receptionist was white.

I'll bet the percentage of white upper management at NPR exceeds the 77% that got MLDC to conclude there were too many whites in the military. Should Congress defund NPR—and then set up a Commission to examine the diversity— there?

The U.S. military is established in the Constitution to protect and defend the country. Obsessing about the skin color or gender of the nation's defenders interferes with the ability to win wars and protect this country.

The MLDC report deserves the round file treatment, to be remembered as the high watermark of political correctness run amok.

Hero's unwelcome

I have read some really disturbing things lately, but this has got to be the worst. How can any American jeer a war Veteran? I think I just answered my own question.

columbia university should absolutely be ashamed. Don't these elitist dumbasses know that without our United States Military they wouldn't be able to be critical of everything they don't agree with? They wouldn't be able to act like the spoiled scumbags that they are?

Maybe they should try acting like a bunch of elitist assholes in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran or Libya or China or any other number of countries that aren't so tolerant.

Anthony Maschek should have been treated with the respect he deserves. He had the guts to volunteer to protect this Country. He is a far better human than any of those jeering scumbags or their assclown professors.

columbia should hang it's head in disgrace...

By Annie Karni - NewYork Post

Wounded Iraq vet jeered at Columbia

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

"Racist!" some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

Maschek, 28, had bravely stepped up to the mike Tuesday at the meeting to issue an impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.

"It doesn't matter how you feel about the war. It doesn't matter how you feel about fighting," said Maschek. "There are bad men out there plotting to kill you."

Several students laughed and jeered the Idaho native, a 10th Mountain Division infantryman who spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington recovering from grievous wounds.

Maschek, who is studying economics, miraculously survived the insurgent attack in Kirkuk. In the hail of gunfire, he broke both legs and suffered wounds to his abdomen, arm and chest.

He enrolled last August at the Ivy League school, where an increasingly ugly battle is unfolding over the 42-year military ban there.

More than half of the students who spoke at the meeting -- the second of three hearings on the subject -- expressed opposition to ROTC's return. Many of the 200 students in the audience held anti-military placards with slogans such as, "1 in 3 female soldiers experiences sexual assault in the military."

The university has created a task force polling 10,000 students on the issue, but would not release the vote tally of the 1,300 who have already responded.

In 2005, when the university last voted to reject ROTC's return, it cited the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

That policy was overturned in December, but resistance remains.

"Transpeople are part of the Columbia community," said senior Sean Udell at the meeting, referring to the military's current ban on transgender soldiers.

Faculty members are divided.

"Universities should not be involved in military activities," Sociology Professor Emeritus Herbert Gans told The Post. "Columbia should come out against spending $300 billion a year on unnecessary wars."

A group of 34 faculty colleagues, including historian Kenneth Jackson and former Bloomberg adviser Esther Fuchs, plan to announce their support of ROTC tomorrow.

José Robledo, 30, a Columbia student who commutes to Fordham University for ROTC coursework, said he found the treatment of Maschek abhorrent.

"The anti-ROTC side has been disrespectful and loud. They hiss and they jeer," he said. "It's been to the detriment of the argument."