Number 8 on the list . . .
. . . in D.C. at least.
Thank you.
Larry Bond on Tom Clancy
From USNI News - this is Larry speaking:
Interview.
(USNI = U.S. Naval Institute)
From USNI News - this is Larry speaking:
The most correct thing you can say about the relationship between Hunt for Red October and “Harpoon” is that “Harpoon” was one of the many data sources that Clancy used when he was writing the book.
One way to tell “Harpoon” was one of [Clancy’s] sources is in the knife fight at the very end of the book where the Alfa-class is dogfighting with Red October. The Alfa fired a “Type-F” torpedo, which is what I called the Russian wire-guided torpedo in my [“Harpoon”] rules. When I wrote the first draft there was almost nothing in the unclassified realm regarding torpedo designations for the Russians. In fact I didn’t want to use the classified stuff—that was amazingly complicated.
I came up with Type A through Type F. When you see a bad guy fire a Type F torpedo [in the book]—that’s Tom using “Harpoon.”
(USNI = U.S. Naval Institute)
Why I always go for the Big Mac . . .
Item:
Story.
Item:
For the research, nuggets were preserved, dissected and stained before they were examined under a microscope.
Nugget number one was about 50 percent muscle tissue such as from the breast or thigh, which is what most people think of when they think of chicken meat. The rest of it was made from fat, blood vessels and nerves, specifically the cells that line the skin and internal organs of the chicken.
Nugget number two was 40 percent muscle. The rest was fat, cartilage and bone.
Story.
"More than anything . . ."
". . . I'm a technology freak."
- Tom Clancy
Early interview in Publishers Weekly.
". . . I'm a technology freak."
- Tom Clancy
Early interview in Publishers Weekly.
Clancy
Some good pieces on Clancy and his impact here:
NPR
And here:
NYT
I think some of the comments by readers and fans are especially touching.
Some good pieces on Clancy and his impact here:
NPR
And here:
NYT
I think some of the comments by readers and fans are especially touching.
Tom Clancy played an important role in my early career, both
directly and indirectly. It’s pretty much an open secret that I worked on a few projects for him. More importantly for me
personally, it was through this association that I ended up making a lot of
good friends, some of whom I'm still close with today. My early association led directly to Dreamland and other
series that followed.
I would add one thing to what’s been written: Clancy made
reading and patriotism cool again. That’s something I don’t think you can
underestimate.
Tom Clancy, 1947-2013
Story.
Tom Clancy, author of ‘Hunt for Red October’ and ‘Patriot Games,’ dead at 66
Story.
A-10 cuts update
WASHINGTON — Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., has placed a hold on the White House’s nominee for Air Force secretary, blocking the confirmation process of Deborah Lee James until questions are answered regarding potential cuts to the A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft, according to an Ayotte aide.
“Yes, she has placed a hold until she gets answers on the A-10 issue,” the aide told Defense News Wednesday evening. “She (as ranking member of the readiness subcommittee) views this as a readiness issue. Until we have a replacement for the A-10, why would the [Air Force] try to eliminate it? She isn’t necessarily saying we must retain the A-10, but wants to ensure there isn’t a capability gap that could result in lost American lives.”
The Iranian killer in Syria
From the New Yorker:
Story.
Few Americans realize the extent to which Iran caused destruction, death and chaos in Iraq, nor its continued drive for influence in that country. Quds Force and Hezbollah (and their antecedents) have been critical instruments for some four decades, and have had far greater impact than nuclear weapons ever will.
From the New Yorker:
[Qassem] Suleimani took command of the Quds Force fifteen years ago, and in that time he has sought to reshape the Middle East in Iran’s favor, working as a power broker and as a military force: assassinating rivals, arming allies, and, for most of a decade, directing a network of militant groups that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. The U.S. Department of the Treasury has sanctioned Suleimani for his role in supporting the Assad regime, and for abetting terrorism. And yet he has remained mostly invisible to the outside world, even as he runs agents and directs operations. “Suleimani is the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today,” John Maguire, a former C.I.A. officer in Iraq, told me, “and no one’s ever heard of him.”
Story.
Few Americans realize the extent to which Iran caused destruction, death and chaos in Iraq, nor its continued drive for influence in that country. Quds Force and Hezbollah (and their antecedents) have been critical instruments for some four decades, and have had far greater impact than nuclear weapons ever will.
Insecurity . . .
Item:
Never could have guessed. Full story from Reuters here.
Item:
(Reuters) - Federal prosecutors have documented at least 350 instances of faulty background investigations done by private contractors and special agents for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in recent years, illustrating what some lawmakers call systemic weaknesses in the granting of federal security clearances.
Never could have guessed. Full story from Reuters here.
Meanwhile, in Syria
Asad wanted to use gas . . .
. . . says key general.
Item:
Story in UK Telegraph.
. . . says key general.
Item:
Brigadier-General Zaher al-Sakat, a former chemical weapons chief in President Bashar al-Assad's own army . . .
. . . says he was ordered three times to use chemical weapons against his own people, but could not go through with it and replaced chemical canisters with ones containing harmless bleach.
He also insists that all such orders had to come from the top – President Assad himself – despite insistent denials by the regime that it has never used chemical weapons.
Story in UK Telegraph.
Can you live with the bomb?
Item:
Story.
The remarkable part of the story is not North Korea's continued development of nuclear weapons, but the restraint thus far by South Korea and Japan, which could quite easily develop their own devices. The logic of a first-strike blow against the North Korean nuclear armory - which would be much easier with nuclear-tipped penetrating weapons - is overwhelming. Even if one thought that retaliation by China was inevitable, a first-strike against North Korea would probably result in less overall damage (on both sides) than waiting for an attack and then retaliating.
Meanwhile, as the export of North Korean military technology continues, the goal of nonproliferation becomes more and more difficult. Iran will not be the last country to join the nuclear club.
Item:
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korean scientists are able to build crucial equipment for uranium-based nuclear bombs on their own, cutting the need for imports that had been one of the few ways outsiders could monitor the country's secretive atomic work, according to evidence gathered by two American experts.
The experts say material published in North Korean scientific publications and news media shows that Pyongyang is mastering domestic production of essential components for the gas centrifuges needed to make such bombs. The development further complicates long-stalled efforts to stop a nuclear bomb program that Pyongyang has vowed to expand, despite international condemnation
Story.
The remarkable part of the story is not North Korea's continued development of nuclear weapons, but the restraint thus far by South Korea and Japan, which could quite easily develop their own devices. The logic of a first-strike blow against the North Korean nuclear armory - which would be much easier with nuclear-tipped penetrating weapons - is overwhelming. Even if one thought that retaliation by China was inevitable, a first-strike against North Korea would probably result in less overall damage (on both sides) than waiting for an attack and then retaliating.
Meanwhile, as the export of North Korean military technology continues, the goal of nonproliferation becomes more and more difficult. Iran will not be the last country to join the nuclear club.
Chinese UAVs
Item:
Full story.
The piece is more than a little breathless, and misinformed (or maybe purposely under-informed) about U.S. capabilities, but must reading anyway.
Item:
BEIJING — For almost two years, hackers based in Shanghai went after one foreign defense contractor after another, at least 20 in all. Their target, according to an American cybersecurity company that monitored the attacks, was the technology behind the United States’ clear lead in military drones.
Full story.
The piece is more than a little breathless, and misinformed (or maybe purposely under-informed) about U.S. capabilities, but must reading anyway.
The next air war
It's the mindset . . .
. . . not the plane.
Item:
“The fifth generation pilots are going to have to be trained that firing first is not their core con-ops. Giving validated targets to other shooters is the ‘to be’ condition,” Wynne said. “This is reversing decades of training and experience where the instinct is to fire first and ask questions later.
“With fifth-gen aircraft you are setting up the air space for air dominance, and weapons are delivered from assets throughout the managed airspace. Without the fifth generation aircraft you have to fight your way in and expend significant effort just trying to survive. With the fifth generation aircraft you are setting up the grid to shape the offensive and defensive force to achieve the results which you seek.”Full article.
Fifth generation = F-22 and F-35. The article is an excellent summary, though since it's by necessity it skims the surface and doesn't mention other technologies that are changing the entire shape and demands of the battlefield. (Think UAVs for starters.)
(Thanks DR, for the link.)
Now available for Nook
Ugly hurts . . .
. . . . the enemy, that is.
Book 3 of the Hogs series is now available for the Nook. Preview and download here.
An adjunct's life and death
Ever wonder where the tens of thousands of dollars students spend each year on college tuition goes? Evidently not to teachers:
There's more to the story.
Ever wonder where the tens of thousands of dollars students spend each year on college tuition goes? Evidently not to teachers:
As amazing as it sounds, Margaret Mary, a 25-year professor, was not making ends meet. Even during the best of times, when she was teaching three classes a semester and two during the summer, she was not even clearing $25,000 a year, and she received absolutely no health care benefits. Compare this with the salary of Duquesne's president, who makes more than $700,000 with full benefits.
There's more to the story.
Franzen goes off
Jonathan Franzen, from a long but tart rant:
The rest of the article. (Starts slow, and probably a little esoteric for most, but gathers steam.)
Jonathan Franzen, from a long but tart rant:
In my own little corner of the world, which is to say American fiction, Jeff Bezos of Amazon may not be the antichrist, but he surely looks like one of the four horsemen. Amazon wants a world in which books are either self-published or published by Amazon itself, with readers dependent on Amazon reviews in choosing books, and with authors responsible for their own promotion. The work of yakkers and tweeters and braggers, and of people with the money to pay somebody to churn out hundreds of five-star reviews for them, will flourish in that world. But what happens to the people who became writers because yakking and tweeting and bragging felt to them like intolerably shallow forms of social engagement? What happens to the people who want to communicate in depth, individual to individual, in the quiet and permanence of the printed word, and who were shaped by their love of writers who wrote when publication still assured some kind of quality control and literary reputations were more than a matter of self-promotional decibel levels?
The rest of the article. (Starts slow, and probably a little esoteric for most, but gathers steam.)
For a limited time
Fires of War is available free for the Kindle via Amazon's UK site.
Fires is the third book in the First Team series, which features Bob "Ferg" Ferguson as a free-wheeling, smooth-talking CIA officer who works with a group of special operators and is backed up by a Special Forces unit.
You can download the book here. The free offer expires Monday.
(I know it's book three, but you can certainly read them in whatever order you want.)
Fires of War is available free for the Kindle via Amazon's UK site.
Fires is the third book in the First Team series, which features Bob "Ferg" Ferguson as a free-wheeling, smooth-talking CIA officer who works with a group of special operators and is backed up by a Special Forces unit.
You can download the book here. The free offer expires Monday.
(I know it's book three, but you can certainly read them in whatever order you want.)
Meanwhile, in Iran . . .
Item:
Link.
Item:
Iranian President Hassan Rohani said Tuesday that Iran will not forgo any part of its nuclear program, Iranian news agency Mehr reported. The president also said his country would not relinquish its right to nuclear technology, which he called "complete."
Prior to Rohani's remarks, Western commentators had been optimistic that Iran was undergoing a policy change with regard to its contested nuclear program. Iran recently announced its Foreign Ministry would take over nuclear talks with world powers, removing conservative hardliners from the negotiations.
Link.
The likely legacy of the authorization debate
Douthat blog.
Read the entire entry for the (highly unlikely) impeachment scenario.
One argument Douthat doesn't make, but fits in with his logic (and would have made much more sense, to the extent that sense is to be found in the situation): The authorization for force should have been sought BEFORE the use of chemical weapons. Then it might actually have had a deterrent value, which frankly is more than half its worth.
Ah, you might say, but if Congress actually votes the Syria authorization down, then future presidents will feel constrained by the threat of a similar congressional veto whether they want to emulate Obama or not. Except that it’s actually more likely that future presidents will look at a congressional rejection in the case of Syria and see a case for going to Congress even lessfrequently than recent chief executives have done. The lesson will be clear enough: Presidents who ignore Congress’s Article I powers (Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya) get away with it, while presidents who respect those powers set themselves up for a humiliation.
Douthat blog.
Read the entire entry for the (highly unlikely) impeachment scenario.
One argument Douthat doesn't make, but fits in with his logic (and would have made much more sense, to the extent that sense is to be found in the situation): The authorization for force should have been sought BEFORE the use of chemical weapons. Then it might actually have had a deterrent value, which frankly is more than half its worth.
Landing in the dark
This was actually the first time on a ship; the aircraft had landed vertically at night several months ago.
(Note to purists: Yes, of course - the USS Wasp is an amphibious assault ship, not a carrier. Sorry for the earlier slip.)
The last war
It's often said that generals prepare for the last war they fought. The debate over what to do in Syria shows civilian leaders and the media do that to the nth degree. Many of the comments that are being made by politicians and the so-called analyses by pundits have a lot more to do with the situation in Iraq pre-invasion than Syria (or the region) now.
I expect the strike will be approved. I also expect it won't have any effect on the civil war itself, partly by design. What the effect of the debate will have is yet to be determined.
The real question that should be debated - and is in some quarters - is this: What should be done to countries that commit murder on a mass scale using weapons that are universally detested? It's a valid question at any point, but especially this week.
If the answer is not swift, direct, and intense military punishment, then how do you ever justify taking action against a country because it uses nuclear weapons, let alone acquires them?
It's often said that generals prepare for the last war they fought. The debate over what to do in Syria shows civilian leaders and the media do that to the nth degree. Many of the comments that are being made by politicians and the so-called analyses by pundits have a lot more to do with the situation in Iraq pre-invasion than Syria (or the region) now.
I expect the strike will be approved. I also expect it won't have any effect on the civil war itself, partly by design. What the effect of the debate will have is yet to be determined.
The real question that should be debated - and is in some quarters - is this: What should be done to countries that commit murder on a mass scale using weapons that are universally detested? It's a valid question at any point, but especially this week.
If the answer is not swift, direct, and intense military punishment, then how do you ever justify taking action against a country because it uses nuclear weapons, let alone acquires them?
Happy birthday
Last day . . .
. . . for the free story.
(And thank you for lifting it into the top 100 on Kindle.)
Link.
Punting on first down . . .
. . . is a good way to lose.
Item:
(Reuters) - Syria hailed an "historic American retreat" on Sunday, mockingly accusing President Barack Obama of hesitation and confusion after he delayed a military strike to consult Congress.
These are the sort of mistakes that have grave consequences as time goes on.
Free Hogs short story for Kindle
So here's the story:
It's been a wild and crazy year. Besides Sniper, American Gun, Rogue, Dreamland, TV rumors and movie deals, one of the real high points has been the reaction to Hogs. So I wanted to celebrate my birthday by thanking the people who have been so kind to me over the past year - my readers.
I came up with the idea of giving away a Hogs story. The idea was this: I'd write the story - unlike the books, there is no backlog of short stories - and then give it away for free as my own personal thank you card.
The problem is, you can't give away short stories for free on Kindle Amazon, or at least I can't.* The best we could do was enroll it in a special program that lets us give it away for free for five days. After that, it will cost the lowest price that we can set: 99 cents.
Here's the link.
Happy birthday! (And no, I don't see myself as Skull, in case you're wondering.)
* Other writers may be able to make different arrangements, but this is what the agreement I'm bound by states.
Syria
Everyone condemns the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations. But what does that mean, exactly? Tsk-tsk, or consequences for those who use them?
The parallels to Iraq that are so popular in Britain and in some of the mass media are way off the point. Much more relevant here is the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
The Syrian civil war - part of a much larger internecine war in the Muslim community - is a complicated quagmire; from a Western point of view, the choice of winner is none of the above. But if you don't think you've just seen proof of how likely it is that a nuclear weapon will be used once it's built, you're kidding yourself.
If you're serious about curtailing the use of chemical weapons on civilians or even stopping war in general, logic dictates a doctrine that says the use of any weapons of mass destruction will provoke a military response, if not by all, at least by some. And the response has to be very serious and out of proportion with the consequences of the chemical strike. Pinpricks will have the opposite effect.
Such a doctrine is not exactly pretty, and it doesn't have the beautiful internal logic of Aristotle, but it's a hell of a lot more effective than economic sanctions, let alone hand-wringing by talking heads on Fox and CNN.
The Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East is only going to get worse and deeper over the next few months and most likely years. Syria will continue to burn. It's not a conflict that the West can win or even stop. But if you're looking to lessen the fallout, both in the region and the wider world, you need to take steps to do so.
Everyone condemns the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations. But what does that mean, exactly? Tsk-tsk, or consequences for those who use them?
The parallels to Iraq that are so popular in Britain and in some of the mass media are way off the point. Much more relevant here is the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
The Syrian civil war - part of a much larger internecine war in the Muslim community - is a complicated quagmire; from a Western point of view, the choice of winner is none of the above. But if you don't think you've just seen proof of how likely it is that a nuclear weapon will be used once it's built, you're kidding yourself.
If you're serious about curtailing the use of chemical weapons on civilians or even stopping war in general, logic dictates a doctrine that says the use of any weapons of mass destruction will provoke a military response, if not by all, at least by some. And the response has to be very serious and out of proportion with the consequences of the chemical strike. Pinpricks will have the opposite effect.
Such a doctrine is not exactly pretty, and it doesn't have the beautiful internal logic of Aristotle, but it's a hell of a lot more effective than economic sanctions, let alone hand-wringing by talking heads on Fox and CNN.
The Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East is only going to get worse and deeper over the next few months and most likely years. Syria will continue to burn. It's not a conflict that the West can win or even stop. But if you're looking to lessen the fallout, both in the region and the wider world, you need to take steps to do so.
A-10 watch . . .
Item:
In training terms, going to Red Flag is kind of like going to the World Series. These guys are good, and will get even better.
Item:
FORT WAYNE – The Air National Guard’s 122nd Fighter Wing left this week for its first full-fledged multination training exercises using its A-10 Warthog jets.
The fighter wing, based in Fort Wayne, is participating in a “red flag,” or high intensity air-to-air and air-to-ground combat, exercise at Eielson Air National Guard Base near Fairbanks. Units involved will use live ammunition, said Tech Sgt. Kurt Briner, a Guard spokesman in Fort Wayne.Story.
In training terms, going to Red Flag is kind of like going to the World Series. These guys are good, and will get even better.
Naming names
One of the things writers do. Charles Salzberg:
One of the things writers do. Charles Salzberg:
Since the technique worked for me once, both creatively and as a nice little inside joke, a kind of cut-rate Nabokovian element, I thought it might be fun to use other names of people I knew. And so when I needed to create a character who was an expert on rare books, I used my old friend and fellow writer Ross Klavan, even giving the character some of Ross’s physical and vocal qualities, as well as his love of books. Swann’s search takes him up to Syracuse University, where he meets an unconventional English professor, one more link in the chain of his search. This became Richard Dubin, a real-life professor friend who teaches film and television at the Newhouse School, where I once taught.
I didn’t bother asking permission of any of these friends, knowing I could always change the names once the book was finished. But when I offhandedly mentioned my little literary parlor game to them, none seemed the least bit disturbed. In fact, they were pleased. The only surprising plea: “please don’t make me a good guy.”Story. (NYT paywall)
U2 history declassified
Everything you wanted to know about the CIA and the original U-2 program (and Oxcart, known to the Air Force as the SR-71), but were afraid to ask, has recently been published in a declassified history report here.
Well, not everything. But it's an excellent start.
Everything you wanted to know about the CIA and the original U-2 program (and Oxcart, known to the Air Force as the SR-71), but were afraid to ask, has recently been published in a declassified history report here.
Well, not everything. But it's an excellent start.
A-10s
Is the Hog ready to retire?
Many in the Air Force want them to.
Story:
People have been trying to retire the Hog since before the First Gulf War. For an obsolete aircraft, it kicks a lot of ass - and does it better than any fast jet.
Many in the Air Force want them to.
Story:
The A-10 Thunderbolt II — better known as the Warthog — was the darling of the first Gulf War, destroying some 4,000 military vehicles and artillery pieces in that conflict.Story.
Today, it remains one of the most requested aircraft by ground commanders in Afghanistan, according to one Air National Guard representative.
But its day may be coming to an end.
People have been trying to retire the Hog since before the First Gulf War. For an obsolete aircraft, it kicks a lot of ass - and does it better than any fast jet.
I won't ever make this list . . .
. . . but some of the pictures make me feel a little better about my recent haircut.
From the article:
Amen to that. Story here.
The World's Top-Earning Authors:
With '50 Shades,' E.L. James Debuts At No. 1
From the article:
If you’re not writing in a genre with mass commercial appeal, you can pretty much forget about making the list. But even if you are, and your books are best sellers, that’s still not a guaranteed in.
Amen to that. Story here.
No Gun in jail . . .
The California prison system has forbidden inmates to read AMERICAN GUN . . . it's a dangerous book. From the explanatory letter:
Because they'll surely go out an duplicate the Spencer from our description, no doubt.
I'm not entirely sure whether this is an honor, or a big blow to prospective sales . . .
The California prison system has forbidden inmates to read AMERICAN GUN . . . it's a dangerous book. From the explanatory letter:
“Inmates may not possess … any writing which describes the making of any weapons”
Because they'll surely go out an duplicate the Spencer from our description, no doubt.
I'm not entirely sure whether this is an honor, or a big blow to prospective sales . . .
August 1, 2013
Old planes don't die . . .
. . . they simply bake away.
Item:
Story.
. . . they simply bake away.
Item:
The aircraft that once spirited President Dwight D. Eisenhower on cross-country voyages now sits in a field that's part of Marana Regional Airport, decaying under the relentless glare of the sun.
The first plane to be designated as Air Force One is fenced off from public viewing - alone and nearly forgotten on a 10-acre parcel.
"I think it's one of these big secrets that, really, few people know that it's out there," said Steve Miller, airport manager. "It's sad that it's just sitting out there, considering its history over the past 70 years."
Story.
Hogs 5
Now up . . . .
Target Saddam, Book 5 in the Hogs First Gulf War series, is now available for Kindle here.
Sorry for the delay - we've had some technical problems with the formatting and cover; hopefully those glitches are fixed. (If anyone experiences problems, I'd appreciate it greatly if you could drop me a note via the author site email, author(at)jimdefelice.com. We'll try and make it up to you.)
And a note for Nook readers - Book 3 should be up very soon.
Target Saddam, Book 5 in the Hogs First Gulf War series, is now available for Kindle here.
Sorry for the delay - we've had some technical problems with the formatting and cover; hopefully those glitches are fixed. (If anyone experiences problems, I'd appreciate it greatly if you could drop me a note via the author site email, author(at)jimdefelice.com. We'll try and make it up to you.)
And a note for Nook readers - Book 3 should be up very soon.
On-line stores as gatekeepers
Joseph Espisito on Amazon, et al . . .
Article. Found through Linked-in.
Joseph Espisito on Amazon, et al . . .
Today’s gatekeepers are no longer the big media companies (defined as organizations that invest in and distribute content: books, magazines, television, journals, movies) but the huge technology companies that have learned how to profit from others’ content: Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook. Unlike the gatekeepers of old, however, who were characterized by editorial decision-making, the new gatekeepers control access through an abstract network of relationships, some of which qualify as what economists call “network effects”: instead of a product or service increases as more people use it. A rose by any other name . . . is still a gatekeeper.
Article. Found through Linked-in.
Sicily, 1943 (4)
What role did the journalist play?
Having raised the subject of Bradley and Sicily, I’m
reminded of two personnel conflicts that took place there that are still
studied and debated by historians to this day. The first is Patton and the
slapping incident, which Bradley tried to suppress, a fact rarely reported
though Bradley himself talked about it, admittedly briefly, in his memoir.
The second was Bradley’s firing of Terry Allen, at the time
the commander of the 1st Division.
Allen has a legion of fierce defenders on that score, and it
doesn’t make sense to go back over the issues. (They are laid out in Omar
Bradley, General at War, if you’re interested.) To what extent, if any, Allen’s
drinking may have played in the decision is probably impossible to determine.
What really interests me is what role, if any, the
journalist Quentin Reynolds played in both the Patton affair and in Allen’s
sacking.
Reynolds – who by the way wrote an interesting first-hand
account of the battle of Dieppe – reported the slapping incident to Eisenhower
and was probably instrumental in convincing Eisenhower that he had to be
punished. That’s been pretty well documented. What’s less well known is that
Reynolds was in Allen’s camp, and witnessed at least one briefing where Allen
acted, well, not in the way we would expect a general to act before an
important battle. His report hints, but doesn’t say, that he was drinking.
Did Reynolds talk to Eisenhower about Allen? Did he talk to
Bradley?
There’s no record that he talked to Bradley, and given
Bradley’s attitude toward reporters, it’s at least debatable that he would have
had much influence with him. Eisenhower’s a different story. And while Bradley
denied it, many historians believe that he only fired Allen because Eisenhower
wanted him to. (My view is that it had more to do with Bradley, but admittedly
the case can be made that it went the other way.)
As far as I know, there’s no real evidence that Reynolds was
involved. But I’d love to see someone dig into the issue. Reynolds himself is
an interesting figure – worth a biography by someone someday, I’d say.
Bradley links
Speaking of Omar . . .
You can find more on Bradley, along with links to purchase my book, at my website. Start here.
You can find more on Bradley, along with links to purchase my book, at my website. Start here.
Sicily, 1943 (3)
Bradley & the invasion
Omar Bradley was one of the key American generals on Sicily,
Patton’s corps commander and occasional sounding board. Sicily was a critical
battle for him in many ways; it set the stage for him to command in northern
Europe.
Having written a biography of Omar Bradley*, I think I’ll
defer to the book for a fuller account of his time there, even though I wish I
had been able to devote more space and time in the book to the campaign. However,
I have two observations about Bradley and Sicily that are pretty subjective,
and are probably passed over because of everything else that happened in his
career.
I think Bradley learned a great deal on Sicily. He was always
regarded as a great tactician in the army before the invasion, but I think the
geography and the Americans’ subordinate role prevented him from really
strutting his stuff as a corps commander. Most people don’t realize that he was
very much in Patton’s mold when it came to bold attacks with plenty of movement
– something that, if you think about who he’d been working with in Africa
(Patton) makes a lot of sense. Patton’s dash around the backside of the island
notwithstanding, Sicily wasn’t particularly conducive to that kind of warfare.
But in commanding his divisions under fire and in a much
more intensive atmosphere even than Africa, I think Bradley realized that he
was actually a pretty good general. He was able to spot several tactical errors
that Patton made, and pointed them out to them. The results weren’t
particularly encouraging – Patton on Sicily wasn’t given to listening to
anyone, not even Bradley – but I think that Bradley realized he needn’t be in
the older man’s shadow. And the same could said, in spades, about his
relationship with Montgomery. Without those realizations, he never could have
commanded in northern Europe.
I also think – and this admittedly is even more speculative –
that the combat he saw on Sicily made him much more compassionate toward his
rank and file soldiers. After Africa, his critique was that Americans didn’t
want to kill enough – he wanted, rightly, for them to be vicious in closing
with the enemy. In contrast, we see a much more compassionate side of him after
Sicily. It’s after Sicily that most of the stories about his kindness toward
the troops – giving men coats, etc. – come from. Admittedly, this may just be a
coincidence. But I think the accumulation of the war had its effect – not that
he was softened exactly, but to the extent that there was a philosophical side
of the general, it dates after this campaign.
Very, very subjective, I know.
* Actually, the only one so far. Bradley deserves more.
Sicily, 1943 (2)
What did they learn?
A lot.
How you view Sicily probably depends on whether you think Italy was worth attacking in the first place. I think it was, and while I think the allies could have achieved better results with a more daring plan (and better execution of the plan they stuck themselves with), on the whole, it was a necessary campaign.
And one they won.
Here's a link to the U.S. Army's official history of the campaign:
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-16/72-16.htm
A lot.
The World War II allies’ Sicily campaign, which took place
seventy years ago this month, had its share of snafus and fubars. Among other
things, the allies missed a chance at destroying a significant portion of the
German army protecting southern Italy, a failure that quickly came to haunt
them in the following months.
On the other hand, a lot of good things did come from that
battle. For one, it probably convinced Eisenhower that Bradley was the man he
needed to run the D-Day invasion. It also featured the largest beach landings
under fire to that point in the war; by some measures, it was even larger than
Normandy.
Logistics never get much attention in the history books, but
dealing with the sheer size of the American force was a critical learning
experience. Sicily was also the place where a significant number of junior NCOs
and officers learned how to lead.
Friendly fire incidents directed the allies’ attention to
the problem, though there was never a wholly satisfying solution.
Another lesson learned but only partly implemented was the
difficulty of using paratroopers to seize significant tactical points early in
the battle. On Sicily, paratroopers were blown significantly off course, which
kept them from achieving their targets in the initial stages of the battle. Ironically,
their unplanned dispersion, along with their courage and ferocity, helped them
play a key role as the battle progressed. They would end up having somewhat
similar problems in Normandy, though there they were successful in holding key
beach exits necessary for the invaders to escape the noose at the sands. (Bradley
did adjust their objectives before the battle, scaling them back a bit in
response to intelligence reports, but to the end he was an extreme advocate and
supporter of paratroop attacks, probably beyond what was practical.)
The conquest of Sicily gave the allies a place to base their
planes for the Italian campaign. Close-air support was not yet a perfected
science – aside from some early experiments, it wasn’t until France that
fighter-bombers started teaming up closely with advancing ground units – but
Sicily’s bases extended the range and time that could be covered on the
mainland.
And one they won.
Here's a link to the U.S. Army's official history of the campaign:
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-16/72-16.htm
Sicily, 1943
The Bungled Campaign
Some seventy years ago this month, the allies landed on
Sicily in one of World War II's largest amphibious assaults. Over the course of the next four or five weeks, they fought a confused
and in some cases haphazard campaign against German troops, Italian troops,
severe geography, and themselves.
World War II’s Sicily campaign tends to get overlooked,
especially by Americans. While it was arguably a necessary stepping stone for an Italian
campaign, the very decision to invade Sicily was controversial among the allied
leaders at the time. While the allies eventually won the island, it can’t be
said that they did so because of any brilliant maneuvering or military
leadership. They let a major portion of the German army escape, and functioned
with a lack of coordination that could easily have been fatal, had they faced a
more determined and better led enemy in the Italians.
Bernard Montgomery, and to some extent his boss Harold Alexander,
generally get the bulk of the criticism. Though Alexander in theory was running
the show*, Montgomery ended up drawing the invasion plan and calling most of
the shots. His slow plodding attack -–I know, easy for me to say – was pretty
much typical Montgomery, and anyone who studies it can’t be very surprised by
his performance in northern Europe the following year.
Interestingly, George Patton often escapes criticism for his
Sicilian campaign. Instead, critics tend to focus on the so-calling slapping
incidents, where he attempted to rouse men from hospital beds by humiliating
them in front of others.
In the context of the times, Patton’s actions in the
hospitals may have been harsh, but they’re certainly understandable. What isn’t
understandable was his decision to flaunt Alexander’s orders and Montgomery’s
plans, and have half the American force take an end run around the island. While
his troops didn’t entirely abandon the British – Bradley’s corps held Montgomery’s
mountainous western flank, Patton's end run meant the Americans were in no position
to pressure the retreating Germans at Messina.
That could have been done, and presumably would have yielded some results. But for some reason,
Patton often gets a pass from most historians. It’s not surprising, really – making the case that Patton was a
superb general is a heck of a lot easier if you don’t have to puzzle out what
he had in mind there.
On the other hand, Patton's dash was merely the icing on the cake of a tepid plan; even if he'd been available it's possible he would have simply sped the German retreat.
So what might the allies have done?
So what might the allies have done?
Invade from the north as well as the south, striking Messina early, cutting off the German retreat.
Admittedly, this would have been a risky move - among other things, the north was probably outside of fighter cover and amphibious landings were still iffy. But it was also a high-stakes plan that would have isolated a significant portion of the German army. (The Italians, one presumes, would have quit in even larger numbers.) If those men didn't live to fight another day in Italy, maybe the entire Italian campaign would have started a lot more smoothly . . .
* Technically Alexander was under Eisenhower, but Alexander was really the
one who was supposed to be in charge of the actual invasion force.
How to start
Stephen King on opening lines:
From the Atlantic.
Stephen King: There are all sorts of theories and ideas about what constitutes a good opening line. It's tricky thing, and tough to talk about because I don't think conceptually while I work on a first draft -- I just write. To get scientific about it is a little like trying to catch moonbeams in a jar.
But there's one thing I'm sure about. An opening line should invite the reader to begin the story. It should say: Listen. Come in here. You want to know about this.
From the Atlantic.
Banksters
How middlemen big banks get rich
Call it a bank tax.
Item:
Only a tenth of a cent or so of an aluminum can’s purchase price can be traced back to the strategy. But multiply that amount by the 90 billion aluminum cans consumed in the United States each year — and add the tons of aluminum used in things like cars, electronics and house siding — and the efforts by Goldman and other financial players has cost American consumers more than $5 billion over the last three years, say former industry executives, analysts and consultants.
The inflated aluminum pricing is just one way that Wall Street is flexing its financial muscle and capitalizing on loosened federal regulations to sway a variety of commodities markets, according to financial records, regulatory documents and interviews with people involved in the activities.
And it's not just aluminum or metals:
. . .speculation added about $10 per fill-up for the average American driver. Other experts have put the total, combined cost at $200 billion a year.
Putting the long in "long gun" . . .
What if you had a rifle that could hit its target at two miles?
Item:
Consider: with the aiming technology, there's no need for the "shooter" to actually be with the gun.
Many possibilities...
What if you had a rifle that could hit its target at two miles?
Item:
TrackingPoint Technology, creators of Xact precision-guided firearm technology, wants to push the limit of long-range shooting. The company announced Wednesday that they are developing a “super gun” that will be able to shoot accurately over 3,100 yards, “farther than the longest confirmed long-range small arms shot of all time,” according to the release.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/17/gunmaker-building-super-gun-capable-of-shooting-over-3100-yards-with-pinpoint-accuracy/#ixzz2Zc9G3TbF
Consider: with the aiming technology, there's no need for the "shooter" to actually be with the gun.
Many possibilities...
7/16/2013
Sugar babies
Item:
I'm shocked, shocked to discover this is going on . . .
NY Times story.
Item:
The Panamanian authorities impounded a rusting North Korean freighter on a voyage from Cuba toward the Panama Canal and back to its home country, and said the ship was carrying missile system components cloaked in a cargo of sugar. The arms would appear to represent a significant violation of United Nations sanctions imposed on North Korea.
I'm shocked, shocked to discover this is going on . . .
NY Times story.
A 'quiet mystery' no more
A book, a name & fame
Item:
JK Rowling has secretly written a crime novel under the guise of male debut writer Robert Galbraith.
The Harry Potter author was acclaimed for The Cuckoo's Calling, about a war veteran turned private investigator called Cormoran Strike.
The book had sold 1,500 copies before the secret emerged . . .
Any question about how it will sell now?
Friday, July 12, 2013
Thank you . . .
. . . for making American Sniper one of the top-selling books of 2013 - and 2012.
The suit hath ended . . .
. . . And Apple is found guilty
Based on the trial record, and for the reasons stated
herein, this Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
Apple conspired to restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and relevant state statutes to the extent those
laws are congruent with Section 1. A scheduling order will
follow regarding the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief
and damages.
And when the dust clears, Amazon has its monopoly, free and clear.
7/9/2013
D'Este strikes again
Political columnists aren't the only ones who use Bradley as a punching bag (see the 7/5 post). Even renowned historians occasionally do the same thing - witness Carlos D'Estes' essay in the recent magazine "Great American Fighters."
D'Este's mention of Bradley is mostly aimed at making George Patton seem even greater than he was* - the same sort of rhetorical device that the columnist used, though D'Este has much less of an excuse. I picked on the "eminent" historian quite a bit in General at War, so I won't retread that ground here. I will note that the article, though seemingly based on D'Estes' book on Patton, makes distortions that aren't in that book.
I've never made an argument that Bradley was a better general than Patton. Others have. Comparing generals is extremely difficult, as you have to put them into context before you can even understand what they're about, and it's rare that the circumstances will match up to the degree necessary. I don't think there's any doubt that Patton was better at some things than Bradley. Patton was clearly the more colorful and larger personality, and left a diary that reveals much of inner thinking and turmoil - gold mine for historians.
Bradley learned a lot from Patton, and in fact the two men thought about war in very similar terms. I do believe that not only could Patton have not done Bradley's job in Europe, but that Patton was fortunate to have Bradley as his commander there.
Now you can interpret that idea in many ways. My own feeling is that Patton respected Bradley just enough to be kept from his own worst impulses - usually. Many historians have talked about Patton maturing in battle during the war, and point to the slapping incident as the key. While I can't dismiss either contention, I think there is also plenty of evidence that Patton was the same Patton in Africa, Sicily, and Europe. The one difference was Bradley - you don't see any idiotic left-turns in France like you did in Sicily.
This isn't the place to list Bradley's accomplishments, which were many. You'd need a book - here's another plug for General at War. You'll find a few of his shortcomings listed there, too. But in any event, I don't think it's necessary to make Bradley a straw man to illustrate Patton's greatness, real or imagined.
* It makes some unsupportable assertions about Patton foreseeing the Battle of the Bulge, among other weak points. None of this is to imply that Patton's performance in the Bulge was anything less than spectacular. And in fact one can only imagine what might have happened if Bradley's plan to use a northern pincer as well as a southern one early in the battle had been implemented - American troops might have been in Berlin even earlier than they were.
Note the word "might" there.
Political columnists aren't the only ones who use Bradley as a punching bag (see the 7/5 post). Even renowned historians occasionally do the same thing - witness Carlos D'Estes' essay in the recent magazine "Great American Fighters."
D'Este's mention of Bradley is mostly aimed at making George Patton seem even greater than he was* - the same sort of rhetorical device that the columnist used, though D'Este has much less of an excuse. I picked on the "eminent" historian quite a bit in General at War, so I won't retread that ground here. I will note that the article, though seemingly based on D'Estes' book on Patton, makes distortions that aren't in that book.
I've never made an argument that Bradley was a better general than Patton. Others have. Comparing generals is extremely difficult, as you have to put them into context before you can even understand what they're about, and it's rare that the circumstances will match up to the degree necessary. I don't think there's any doubt that Patton was better at some things than Bradley. Patton was clearly the more colorful and larger personality, and left a diary that reveals much of inner thinking and turmoil - gold mine for historians.
Bradley learned a lot from Patton, and in fact the two men thought about war in very similar terms. I do believe that not only could Patton have not done Bradley's job in Europe, but that Patton was fortunate to have Bradley as his commander there.
Now you can interpret that idea in many ways. My own feeling is that Patton respected Bradley just enough to be kept from his own worst impulses - usually. Many historians have talked about Patton maturing in battle during the war, and point to the slapping incident as the key. While I can't dismiss either contention, I think there is also plenty of evidence that Patton was the same Patton in Africa, Sicily, and Europe. The one difference was Bradley - you don't see any idiotic left-turns in France like you did in Sicily.
This isn't the place to list Bradley's accomplishments, which were many. You'd need a book - here's another plug for General at War. You'll find a few of his shortcomings listed there, too. But in any event, I don't think it's necessary to make Bradley a straw man to illustrate Patton's greatness, real or imagined.
* It makes some unsupportable assertions about Patton foreseeing the Battle of the Bulge, among other weak points. None of this is to imply that Patton's performance in the Bulge was anything less than spectacular. And in fact one can only imagine what might have happened if Bradley's plan to use a northern pincer as well as a southern one early in the battle had been implemented - American troops might have been in Berlin even earlier than they were.
Note the word "might" there.
Dreamland
New ebook project
Dale Brown and I are in the process of re-issuing some of the early Dreamlands as ebooks. Here's one of the covers:
Nerve Center was actually Book 2 in the series. I especially liked it because I got to play with mind control technology that Dale had used in one of his stand-alone books.
We'll give out more details as the project progresses.
7/5/2013
Omar Bradley as punching bag
A reader, now friend*, recently sent me an email referring to a column listing Omar Bradley's alleged sins on D-Day. These ranged from the old chestnut of his "failure" to use water-breathing tanks on the beaches to his choice of a "head-on" assault rather than a mysterious "flank" attack.
The author of the column was a nationally known pundit who clearly doesn't know much about World War II, so while I'm intrigued by the notion of an attack that surely used the fifth dimension, I'm not going to bother spending time with the criticisms. None stand up to actual examination.
What was interesting about the column was the way the criticisms were used: the author wanted to write about how D-Day was won by the "common" man, the soldiers who were there. He wanted to extol their bravery and courage under fire. Which, certainly, is not only a noble theme, but accurate as well. The guys who took the bullets on the beaches - and in the water, and on the bluffs, and in the terrain behind the beaches, etc. - were extremely heroic, and it's to them that the lion's share of the credit for winning the battle should go.
As it always should.
But that's not a reason to invent criticisms of their leaders. Nor do any warranted criticisms of their leaders (and there certainly are warranted criticisms, of Bradley and the other leaders, as no one is perfect) make their deeds any more noble.
What was going on in the column was a common rhetorical device. Consciously or unconsciously, the author felt that he needed to elevate heroism by denigrating something else. He couldn't or wouldn't call Bradley a coward, but he could claim that he was incompetent, or at least less than very competent. While the rhetorical device probably dates back to the time when scribes were chiseling words in stone, it's been especially popular in pop writing about military matters since Vietnam. Writers who want to extol the virtues of the guys and gals actually fighting the war but not seem to approve of the war itself can do so easily by criticizing the generals and politicians at the top. And what's good for Vietnam, is good for war in general. And life in general, for that matter. No pun intended in either case.
For the columnist, Bradley was just a device. Any of the D-Day leaders really could have been used, but he's especially convenient because the general public really knows little about either him or his role in the war, let alone D-Day. Nor, for that matter, do they know much about the actual battle, beyond maybe what they saw in Saving Private Ryan.
Needless to say, Bradley wasn't perfect at D-Day. But he was far from incompetent. And whatever criticisms we might have of him are at best close to nitpicking - the American forces took their objectives in the face of stiff and murderous opposition.
Thanks largely to their courage, bravery and sacrifice.
* I welcome correspondence through my website; email me at: author(at)jimdefelice.com
Put @ in place of (at) and you're good to go.
A whole new meaning . . .
. . . to "You've Got Mail"
Item:
U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement
“It’s a treasure trove of information,” said James J. Wedick, a former F.B.I. agent who spent 34 years at the agency and who said he used mail covers in a number of investigations, including one that led to the prosecution of several elected officials in California on corruption charges. “Looking at just the outside of letters and other mail, I can see who you bank with, who you communicate with — all kinds of useful information that gives investigators leads that they can then follow up on with a subpoena.”
But, he said: “It can be easily abused because it’s so easy to use and you don’t have to go through a judge to get the information. You just fill out a form.”
Story.
7/2/2013
E tu, MFer? . . .
Hogarth Press recently announced that it's going to publish novelizations of Shakespeare in 2016. Setting aside the question of why a novelization of the original might be interesting, let alone necessary, the idea of mucking around with Macbeth or Julius Cesar intrigues me.
Especially if you get to use modern weapons as well as language. UAVs over the Roman Forum, Macbeth hounded by a Gatling-wielding Apache - the possibilities are endless. Drag Will into the modern era kicking, screaming, and gushing blood.
Of course, England will no doubt bar entry for any author involved in the project. But it's a small enough price to pay for sacrilege.
Jazzin' it up . . .
At SPAC
We were in Saratoga over the weekend for
the Jazz Festival at SPAC and caught some great acts. Bob James and David
Sanborn were transcendental.
And I have to mention Big Sam's Funky
Nation - up from Louisiana just for the show - who had things hopping on the
center stage Saturday afternoon.
Large Army cuts loom
Item:
That larger number - 180,000 - would be close to a third of the present force.
This is actually a huge story, with foreign policy, weapons, and technology implications that will extend well into the next decade. I don't pretend to know what the right force level is, but it's clear that tomorrow's Army will be a lot different than today's.
Item:
The Army's reduction of 80,000 soldiers, announced in 2012 as part of a budget deal between the White House and Congress, will occur over the next four years, Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told reporters. The Pentagon's share of the cut was $487 billion.
If the automatic cuts known as sequestration continue, the reductions in Army forces will be much deeper, Odierno said, forcing the Army to shed as many as 100,000 additional soldiers.
If that happens, the reductions announced Tuesday would represent "only the first step," Odierno said.
Story.That larger number - 180,000 - would be close to a third of the present force.
This is actually a huge story, with foreign policy, weapons, and technology implications that will extend well into the next decade. I don't pretend to know what the right force level is, but it's clear that tomorrow's Army will be a lot different than today's.
Now available for Nook
.jpg)
Books 1 & 2 in the Hogs series are now on-line and available for the Nook at BarnesandNoble.com
Click here to read a preview or buy Hogs 1: Going Deep
.jpg)
Books 1 & 2 in the Hogs series are now on-line and available for the Nook at BarnesandNoble.com
Click here to read a preview or buy Hogs 1: Going Deep
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
