A quick thought about General Byrnes' firing

[jmowreader]

Is it possible General Byrnes was about to say something not-good about the Pentagon's current pet project, Future Combat Systems?

Future Combat Systems is, essentially, a way for the Army to spend $127 billion it doesn't have on things we can't currently make. An example: the armor plating on the FCS fighting vehicles. It's ceramic, and even the most gung-ho FCS advocate will admit that, right now and into the foreseeable future, the technology to make the front apron for the FCS chassis does not exist.

I also looked at the FCS specifications on globalsecurity.org. The biggest number: 20 tons. That's all it's allowed to weigh, combat-loaded, and that's a big problem for two reasons: durability and usability. The Army is talking about taking this featherweight vehicle and building a howitzer (that only uses an autoloader--it apparently can't be manually-rammed at all) out of it. If you've ever seen a howitzer in person, you know that there's a LOT of metal in one for good reason: the added mass helps the weapon absorb the shock of being fired repeatedly. Usability? The added weight makes the weapon more stable. Firing artillery is a precision art; if that barrel moves even an iota and you're firing on a target 15 kilometers away, the round is going to land fifty feet from where you want it. In this case, a miss IS as good as a mile.

Oh yeah: one way they're getting the weight down is by using a shorter barrel on the gun. The longer an artillery weapon's barrel is, the farther the round can go--the more barrel, the more time for the round to pick up speed from the powder charge. They talk about only losing 4 kilometers of range. No artilleryman likes the idea of losing range on his weapon.

So we've got FCS. It's expensive and the whole concept is questionable--be able to drive off a C-130 and immediately start shooting at people. If the top general in one of the Army's most important commands openly questions the system, Congress is going to ask the kind of questions procurement officials with blank checks don't want to answer.

So what's the quickest way to discredit General Byrnes? Play the dick card--find something questionable in his sexual history and hit him hard with it.

On edit: changed $127 million into real money.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. If this was the 4 star who was cashiered supposedly over an affair,

I would virtually guarantee it's over SOMETHING completely different.

They wouldn't sack someone of that rank on an affair unless he was rubbing everyone's face in it, getting naked lapdances from his mistress on top of his desk.

My guess is that the most likely scenario is that he had some significant break with shrubco or neocon policy over something, either with respect to the the Iraq war, upcoming plans for Iran, or some other thing like your post suggests.

Unfortunately we may never know. Unless this guy perhaps speaks up.

[LSparkle]

3. I'd love it if he became "Deep Throat II"

I agree -- I think it's over something to do with Iran, and if he would only talk ...

[TheDebbieDee]

7. I read speculation on this site......

that it was feared that Gen. Byrnes was attempting to stage some type of military coup.

But, apparently there wasn't enough evidence to nail him for these plans. So, they're burning him for having an affair.

He's been legally separated from his wife for quite some time - as far as the Army should be concerned, once a soldier is legally separated, his/her affairs are nobody's business but their own.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. If we are going after terrorists, pray tell me why all the armor??

Do the terrorists have

A: A standing army

B: A fleet of tanks

C: Missiles

D: Tomahawks

E: Bunker busters

F: Cruise missiles

G: Advanced targetting systems

H: Satellite intelligence

I: Drones with missiles

J: Nuclear warheads

K: Bradleys

L: Aircraft carriers

M: Nuclear submarines

N: Sonic weapons

P: Laser weapons

Q: Cluster bombs

R: Smart bombs

S: Depleted uranium

T: The javelin weapon system

U: Abrams A1M1

V: An airforce

W: A navy

X: An army

Y: A failing economy

Z: Or a fundamentalist president dancing on corporate strings.

[jmowreader]

8. You asked and I'll tell...

The "insurgents" ain't exactly insurgents.

When we invaded Iraq, one of the first things we did was to fire the entire Old Iraqi Army. Naturally, we "forgot" to police up the keys to the arms rooms and motor pools...and now we get to fight not the Wolverines that the term "insurgents" suggests, but a real army.

You know all these car bombs that have been going off in Iraq? Guess what, kids: the "insurgents" have built factories to make these. Factories!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. Maybe they don't care for Bremer's new deal... whaddya think?

[jmowreader]

11. Maybe they don't care for living in an occupied country

I mean, I'm just sayin'...

[DemInDistress]

4. Spending 127 million dollars they don't have

WOW...is that all,surely 127 mil. is a drop in the bucket of misplaced,mismanaged and stolen funds...BTW,the Pentagon can't account for a trillion dollars
2005.05.24: Detainee Torture, Pentagon's Missing $1 Trillion
Congress Must Investigate Torture of Detainees, Pentagon's Missing $1 Trillion.
... And the missing one trillion dollars must be accounted for before ...
www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_05_24.html - 10k

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. How do they have the balls to criticize either the U.N. or any other

nation for dipping into the funds as it were... oh we are such a shining frigging example of how it all should be... hypocrites all.

[jmowreader]

9. Thanks for catching that

It is $127 billion, not $127 million.

$127 million is more like the budget for food purchases for the next couple of years.

[wli]

5. more likely something sinister is going on

We can't tell what without a legitimate whistleblower, though.