Per my prior post about the new Clint Eastwood movie, "Flags of our Fathers", I saw it yesterday, and took my fifteen year old grandson with me. We both liked the movie. My recommendation is to go see it yourself if you have not already done so.
Factually correct as best I could tell, and the computer generated visual effects are superb, especially the aerial view of the massive ship convoy, as seen from the cockpit of passing fighter planes providing escort.
Reading the book by James Bradley helped me understand better the total context of the battle at Iwo Jima portrayed in part during the movie. Bradley's Father was one of the flag raisers and is a central figure in the movie.
I understand there is a "companion" to this movie to be released in early 2007 titled, Letters from Iwo Jima, also directed by Clint Eastwood. The movie is to portray the battle from the Japanese side, and will have English sub-titles. Should be an equally good movie to see if you're so inclined.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Army Change
For Army veterans unaware, the new Class "A" uniform will soon change from the standard green color that has been around for decades, to Army Blue. Similar to the current day Dress Blue (formal) uniform worn by men and women in the Army, the new Class "A" uniform will certainly change the way the Army looks.
The Army explains its purpose in making this major change, as wanting to go to essentially one uniform other than the ACU (Army Combat Uniform). Today, the Army Green jacket and trousers is worn for routine business, while the Dress Blue uniform is worn for more formal occasions. Junior enlisted Soldiers will wear the beret with the new dark blue uniform with light blue trousers, while NCOs will wear a service (billed) cap, and have a yellow stripe along the trouser side seam, the same as worn by commissioned officers today. The light green long and short-sleeve shirt worn today with the green uniform, will be replaced with a light gray color, long and short sleeve shirt.
I understand the Army's rationale for making the change, but I would have selected a different color than blue if I could have been a one-man decision committee. I've always thought the Army should have kept the brown jacket and light tan trouser, belted uniform worn by officers during World War II and after, as it's Class "A" uniform. When I was a cadet in Junior ROTC back in the 1950s, I wore that uniform, and really liked the way it looked. By the time I got to college ROTC, the Army had shifted to the green uniform, and I wore that for almost thirty years.
It will be interesting to see how this all works out. In addition to the new blue uniform, over the past few years the Army made the black beret the standard head gear for Class "A" wear, replaced the BDU/DCU (green or tan camouflage combat uniform) with the computerized pattern green-gray ACU, and also recently changed its recruiting slogan from "Army of One" to "Army Strong".
Lots of "change" underway in the Army in addition to the above. Again, it will be interesting to see how it all works out.
The Army explains its purpose in making this major change, as wanting to go to essentially one uniform other than the ACU (Army Combat Uniform). Today, the Army Green jacket and trousers is worn for routine business, while the Dress Blue uniform is worn for more formal occasions. Junior enlisted Soldiers will wear the beret with the new dark blue uniform with light blue trousers, while NCOs will wear a service (billed) cap, and have a yellow stripe along the trouser side seam, the same as worn by commissioned officers today. The light green long and short-sleeve shirt worn today with the green uniform, will be replaced with a light gray color, long and short sleeve shirt.
I understand the Army's rationale for making the change, but I would have selected a different color than blue if I could have been a one-man decision committee. I've always thought the Army should have kept the brown jacket and light tan trouser, belted uniform worn by officers during World War II and after, as it's Class "A" uniform. When I was a cadet in Junior ROTC back in the 1950s, I wore that uniform, and really liked the way it looked. By the time I got to college ROTC, the Army had shifted to the green uniform, and I wore that for almost thirty years.
It will be interesting to see how this all works out. In addition to the new blue uniform, over the past few years the Army made the black beret the standard head gear for Class "A" wear, replaced the BDU/DCU (green or tan camouflage combat uniform) with the computerized pattern green-gray ACU, and also recently changed its recruiting slogan from "Army of One" to "Army Strong".
Lots of "change" underway in the Army in addition to the above. Again, it will be interesting to see how it all works out.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Pollsters at the door
Living in the politically charged Commonwealth of Virginia, as we near the 2006 mid-term elections, I'm getting pretty weary of being interrupted during the day by pollsters calling me on the telephone, and asking about my opinions. Will I support one or the other candidate for the US Senate? What are my main concerns today? And so forth.
Frankly, my main concern is that I'm sick of politics. If the democratic and republican parties were each running a for-profit business like a fast-food restaurant for example, they would put each other out of business in a heart beat, with all the negative advertising going on. No sane person would eat in either establishment!
No matter who wins, not much will change overall when you get right down to it. The animosity and hate-filled accusations spouted off by people from each political party over the past decade has caused a festering wound that will be hard to heal.
Oh well, at least Virginia Tech thrashed Clemson in football last night. But on the other hand, Detroit lost game four of the World Series.
Frankly, my main concern is that I'm sick of politics. If the democratic and republican parties were each running a for-profit business like a fast-food restaurant for example, they would put each other out of business in a heart beat, with all the negative advertising going on. No sane person would eat in either establishment!
No matter who wins, not much will change overall when you get right down to it. The animosity and hate-filled accusations spouted off by people from each political party over the past decade has caused a festering wound that will be hard to heal.
Oh well, at least Virginia Tech thrashed Clemson in football last night. But on the other hand, Detroit lost game four of the World Series.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Valor
Short word...big meaning. Valor.
The new movie "Flags of our Fathers" opened up last weekend, and is one I have placed on my "must-see" list. Reviews are great, but attendance is not.
Why? People today younger than 30 apparently have little interest in going to see a movie about the unbelievable valor displayed by US Marines at Iwo Jima during February-March 1945. Based on media reports about last weekend's opening movie attendance, our younger generation was much more interested in seeing movies about magic and crime solving. Sad, but true.
I read James Bradley's book about the Iwo Jima flag raising, and it is one of the best I've read. Another book he wrote, "Flyboys" is equally good. Both of his books are full of examples of the highest level of valor, displayed by men from what is called "our greatest generation".
It's a shame that more of our youth today, who are of the same age as those who fought at Iwo Jima, have such little interest in our nation's military history. I don't include today's men and women in uniform in this category...they fully understand military valor and sacrifice.
If you go to a movie-plex where "Flags" is being shown along with other current movies, why not point one of the younger people walking out from just having been dazzled by magic, to the door marked "Flags of our Fathers". It will do them some good to learn what military valor really means.
The new movie "Flags of our Fathers" opened up last weekend, and is one I have placed on my "must-see" list. Reviews are great, but attendance is not.
Why? People today younger than 30 apparently have little interest in going to see a movie about the unbelievable valor displayed by US Marines at Iwo Jima during February-March 1945. Based on media reports about last weekend's opening movie attendance, our younger generation was much more interested in seeing movies about magic and crime solving. Sad, but true.
I read James Bradley's book about the Iwo Jima flag raising, and it is one of the best I've read. Another book he wrote, "Flyboys" is equally good. Both of his books are full of examples of the highest level of valor, displayed by men from what is called "our greatest generation".
It's a shame that more of our youth today, who are of the same age as those who fought at Iwo Jima, have such little interest in our nation's military history. I don't include today's men and women in uniform in this category...they fully understand military valor and sacrifice.
If you go to a movie-plex where "Flags" is being shown along with other current movies, why not point one of the younger people walking out from just having been dazzled by magic, to the door marked "Flags of our Fathers". It will do them some good to learn what military valor really means.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Friday Night Lights
If you've read the book, or seen the new TV series (same name as the title here) you'll appreciate what I'm about to say. Going to a local high school football game is pretty good stuff.
Living where I do in Southwest Virginia, surrounded by hard working families with a large amount of loyalty to their local roots, allows me to sit in the midst of high school band boosters; and screaming students, parents, grandparents and fans all cheering for the home team. Last night "my" team from Henry County, played arch rival Martinsville High School from the nearby city. Martinsville players dressed in bright red and white, and Magna Vista players dressed in dark blue and red both fought hard. In years past Magna Vista won easily. But last night they were beaten badly by the kids from the city.
The consolation to me and my family was that our band out performed Martinsville at halftime, and that fits the formula I devised years ago when we moved here, and started attending high school sports functions. "If a school has a good football team, their band won't be that good. On the other hand, if a school has a bad football team, then it's likely their band will be great." Last night proved my formula is correct.
Living where I do in Southwest Virginia, surrounded by hard working families with a large amount of loyalty to their local roots, allows me to sit in the midst of high school band boosters; and screaming students, parents, grandparents and fans all cheering for the home team. Last night "my" team from Henry County, played arch rival Martinsville High School from the nearby city. Martinsville players dressed in bright red and white, and Magna Vista players dressed in dark blue and red both fought hard. In years past Magna Vista won easily. But last night they were beaten badly by the kids from the city.
The consolation to me and my family was that our band out performed Martinsville at halftime, and that fits the formula I devised years ago when we moved here, and started attending high school sports functions. "If a school has a good football team, their band won't be that good. On the other hand, if a school has a bad football team, then it's likely their band will be great." Last night proved my formula is correct.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Army changing standards...good or bad
Let me see if I got this right. First, I read where the Army lowered its entry standards in order to be able to meet recruitment goals this year, and is now allowing people to join who last year would have not made the cut.
Second, I read that during initial entry training the Army is spending a lot more time re-training people who may have been injured, or had difficulty meeting performance standards, in order to keep attrition rates lower than before.
Third, I just read where a high level Department of Defense civilian in charge of personnel has concluded that as a result of a shift in the manner in which Drill Sergeants relate to those in their charge, the Army is better off than it was before. Those in charge say they have found that today's generation responds better to Drill Sergeants who take a more "counseling approach". It's OK, they say, to be harsh, but that ought to be the exception rather than the rule.
Now don't get me wrong, I strongly agree there is a need to have Drill Sergeants perform their duties in an appropriate, professional and dignified manner, but it bothers me that the Army is now saying it's altering the way it trains, because those coming in are different from those in the past. My conclusion based on the first two points above, is that the Army is changing the Drill Sergeant culture in order to meet initial entry training graduation objectives. Quantity over quality.
My view is that if young people today can't meet essentially the same standards that others who went before met (lets say from 1985-2003 to put things in perspective), then tough! Go sell burgers or something.
Second, I read that during initial entry training the Army is spending a lot more time re-training people who may have been injured, or had difficulty meeting performance standards, in order to keep attrition rates lower than before.
Third, I just read where a high level Department of Defense civilian in charge of personnel has concluded that as a result of a shift in the manner in which Drill Sergeants relate to those in their charge, the Army is better off than it was before. Those in charge say they have found that today's generation responds better to Drill Sergeants who take a more "counseling approach". It's OK, they say, to be harsh, but that ought to be the exception rather than the rule.
Now don't get me wrong, I strongly agree there is a need to have Drill Sergeants perform their duties in an appropriate, professional and dignified manner, but it bothers me that the Army is now saying it's altering the way it trains, because those coming in are different from those in the past. My conclusion based on the first two points above, is that the Army is changing the Drill Sergeant culture in order to meet initial entry training graduation objectives. Quantity over quality.
My view is that if young people today can't meet essentially the same standards that others who went before met (lets say from 1985-2003 to put things in perspective), then tough! Go sell burgers or something.
Amphibious Engineers
I'm in the process now of putting together a magazine presentation (November-December 2006 issue) about WWII amphibious engineers who were so critical to the success of beach assault landings and follow-on logistical build up as forces moved inland. The main part of that presentation is an article written by the daughter of one of the veterans of those operations. Before I read her article, and had an opportunity to view many photos she provided, I had always assumed that engineers involved in beach landings during WWII were mostly engaged in clearing obstacles. I did not know, for example, that engineers were also responsible for much of the unloading of supplies onto the beachhead.
The unit involved in the presentation entered the war in 1942 from the U.S. and was a part of actions in North Africa. Afterwards, they supported beach assaults on the Italian island of Sicily, and then onto the Italian mainland at Naples and Anzio. Afterwards, they moved from Italy to France and then into Germany where they remained until the war's end in 1945. In all, they were overseas a long time...1942-1945.
I've always been amazed at how the people back home during World War II, with loved ones deployed and away from home for such long periods, kept their faith and remained so supportive for so long. It was a special time for the United States that's for sure. Makes you proud of those who were there at the time.
The unit involved in the presentation entered the war in 1942 from the U.S. and was a part of actions in North Africa. Afterwards, they supported beach assaults on the Italian island of Sicily, and then onto the Italian mainland at Naples and Anzio. Afterwards, they moved from Italy to France and then into Germany where they remained until the war's end in 1945. In all, they were overseas a long time...1942-1945.
I've always been amazed at how the people back home during World War II, with loved ones deployed and away from home for such long periods, kept their faith and remained so supportive for so long. It was a special time for the United States that's for sure. Makes you proud of those who were there at the time.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Naming the war
For the past 3 years or so, most have been referring to the fight against terrorists as the "Global War on Terror". Some called it the Global War on "Terrorists". Now, it seems that the name has been officially changed to the Long War.
In the annual report publication of the Association of the U.S. Army (2006-07 Green Book) the Army Chief of Staff uses the term Long War in his portion of the report, and as I read through other articles written by senior Army staff people, military and civilian, I saw it used again and again. So, that must mean it's official...we're now involved in the Long War.
I wonder who came up with that term. I guess it sort of makes sense, but for some reason it doesn't seem right to me. For example, how long is "long"? World War Two was pretty long it seems to me, as was the war in Viet Nam. The Cold War was longer still.
How do we define victory in the Long War? Is it over when we defeat all the enemies we have, or when they surrender or quit the fight? And, exactly who are the enemies we face in the Long War? My assumption is that the enemy are terrorists throughout the world, who seek to eliminate all influences and domination of nations in the democratically free world. If that assumption is correct, then are we not in a war against terror/terrorists? If so, what was wrong with the previous name…Global War on Terror?
In the annual report publication of the Association of the U.S. Army (2006-07 Green Book) the Army Chief of Staff uses the term Long War in his portion of the report, and as I read through other articles written by senior Army staff people, military and civilian, I saw it used again and again. So, that must mean it's official...we're now involved in the Long War.
I wonder who came up with that term. I guess it sort of makes sense, but for some reason it doesn't seem right to me. For example, how long is "long"? World War Two was pretty long it seems to me, as was the war in Viet Nam. The Cold War was longer still.
How do we define victory in the Long War? Is it over when we defeat all the enemies we have, or when they surrender or quit the fight? And, exactly who are the enemies we face in the Long War? My assumption is that the enemy are terrorists throughout the world, who seek to eliminate all influences and domination of nations in the democratically free world. If that assumption is correct, then are we not in a war against terror/terrorists? If so, what was wrong with the previous name…Global War on Terror?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)