Ummm.. OPSEC anyone?

The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.

The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

via U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast – NYTimes.com.

Articles like this make me sick. What part of “secret” didn’t these blockheads understand? OPSEC, aka Operational Security, means you don’t leak this kind of information to the press! Our men and women in uniform and in the CIA need to be able to operate without people knowing they’re coming, or where to look. That’s why this order was a “secret directive”. Geez.

The document, a copy of which was viewed by The New York Times, provides few details about continuing missions or intelligence-gathering operations.

Several government officials who described the impetus for the order would speak only on condition of anonymity because the document is classified. Spokesmen for the White House and the Pentagon declined to comment for this article. The Times, responding to concerns about troop safety raised by an official at United States Central Command, the military headquarters run by General Petraeus, withheld some details about how troops could be deployed in certain countries.

Do-wha-wha? You mean these fools actually took a classified document to the New York Times?  Props to the NYT for not running with the complete details, but still… This document was classified!!  There really are no words for this kind of stupidity – the NYT for publishing the information, and the butthats in the administration who took a classified document to the media.

Women on Subs = Not a good idea.

Despite concerns from critics over privacy, costs and the possibility of sexual activity, the Navy says it’s ready, willing, able, and now ready to put women on submarines.  (Source)

This is a stupid, stupid, very dumb, not-so-smart idea.

I love that the story points out that Navy wives don’t like this idea at all.  DURRR! Ya think?  Geez.

But some of the sailors’ spouses don’t share that indifference.

“The Navy wives, I think, are the most vocal,” said Linda Cagle, the owner of a restaurant near the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base. “They do not think it’s a good idea, they do not want women on submarines with their husbands or their boyfriends.”

The Navy hopes the penalties for “fraternizing” — ranging from fines to dismissal and two years’ confinement – will ease some of those concerns.

Because oh yeah… those penalties for “fraternizing” do such a bang-up job of prevent “it” from happening on board co-ed boats now.  Right.  /sarcasm.

Ugh.  I am a Navy Wife.  (Ok, so he’s retired now.  You can take the man out of the Military, but you can’t take the Military out of the man. Same can be said for the spouses. Seriously.)  I am blessed with a husband that I trust, with my heart and my life.  That said, I don’t think women belong on the Carriers, let alone other sea-going vessels.

I have no problem with women in the military.  I have no problem with women in the same shore-duty squadrons as men.  I have a problem with putting a bunch of men and women together in a floating city, and then separating those individuals from their spouses for 6 months plus a year.

I understand the argument that women don’t get the same opportunities to advance their military careers if they aren’t allowed to serve on board.  I have a solution – make a female-only boat/carrier/sub/etc.  But do not make our submarines co-ed.