Monty Python Mafia vs Army

The mob threatens the army: it would be a shame if something happened ..

(Stock film of the amy. Tanks rolling, troops moving forward etc. Stirring military music.)

Voice Over: In 1943, a group of British Army Officers working deep behind enemy lines, carried out one of the most dangerous and heroic raids in the history of warfare. But that’s as maybe. And now . . .

(Superimposed Caption on Screen : ‘AND NOW . . . UNOCCUPIED BRITAIN I970′ Cut to colonel’s office. Colonel is seated at desk.)

Colonel: (Graham Chapman) Come in, what do you want?

(Private Watkins enters and salutes.)

Watkins: (Eric Idle) I’d like to leave the army please, sir.

Colonel: Good heavens man, why?

Watkins: It’s dangerous.

Colonel: What?

Watkins: There are people with guns out there, sir.

Colonel: What?

Watkins: Real guns, sir. Not toy ones, sir. Proper ones, sir. They’ve all got ’em. All of ’em, sir. And some of ’em have got tanks.

Colonel: Watkins, they are on our side.

Watkins: And grenades, sir. And machine guns, sir. So I’d like to leave, sir, before I get killed, please.

Colonel: Watkins, you’ve only been in the army a day.

Watkins: I know sir but people get killed, properly dead sir, no barely cross fingers sir. A bloke was telling me, if you’re in the army and there’s a war you have to go and fight.

Colonel: That’s true.

Watkins: Well I mean, blimey, I mean if it was a big war somebody could be hurt.

Colonel: Watkins why did you join the army?

Watkins: For the water-skiing and for the travel, sir. And not for the killing, sir. I asked them to put it on my form, sir – no killing.

Colonel: Watkins are you a pacifist?

Watkins: No sir, I’m not a pacifist, sir. I’m a coward.

Colonel: That’s a very silly line. Sit down.

Watkins: Yes sir. Silly, sir. (sits in corner)

Colonel: Awfully bad.

(Knock at the door, sergeant enters, and salutes.)

Sergeant: (John Cleese) Two civilian gentlemen to see you sir!

Colonel: Show them in please, sergeant.

Sergeant: Mr Dino Vercotti and Mr Luigi Vercotti.

(The Vercotti brothers enter. They wear Mafia suits and dark glasses.)

Dino: (Terry Jones) Good morning, Colonel.

Colonel: Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you.

Luigi: (Michael Palin) (looking round office casually) You’ve… you’ve got a nice army base here, Colonel.

Colonel: Yes.

Luigi: We wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.

Colonel: What?

Dino: No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if… (he knocks something off mantel)

Colonel: Oh.

Dino: Oh sorry, Colonel.

Colonel: Well don’t worry about that. But please do sit down.

Luigi: No, we prefer to stand, thank you, Colonel.

Colonel: All right. All right. But what do you want?

Dino: What do we want, ha ha ha.

Luigi: Ha ha ha, very good, Colonel.

Dino: The Colonel’s a joker, Luigi.

Luigi: Explain it to the Colonel, Dino.

Dino: How many tanks you got, Colonel?

Colonel: About five hundred altogether.

Luigi: Five hundred, eh?

Dino: You ought to be careful, Co1onel.

Colonel: We are careful, extremely careful.

Dino: ‘Cos things break, don’t they?

Colonel: Break?

Luigi: Well everything breaks, don’t it Colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.

Dino: Oh see my brother’s clumsy Colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don’t feel the army’s playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, Colonel.

Colonel: What is all this about?

Luigi: How many men you got here, Colonel?

Colonel: Oh, er… seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops.

Luigi: Paratroops, Dino.

Dino: Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them.

Colonel: Set fire to them?

Luigi: Fires happen, Colonel.

Dino: Things burn.

Colonel: Look, what is all this about?

Dino: My brother and I have got a little proposition for you Colonel.

Luigi: Could save you a lot of bother.

Dino: I mean you’re doing all right here aren’t you, Colonel?

Luigi: Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, er, fights started breaking out during general inspection, like.

Dino: It wouldn’t be good for business would it, Colonel?

Colonel: Are you threatening me?

Dino: Oh, no, no, no.

Luigi: Whatever made you think that, Colonel?

Dino: The Colonel doesn’t think we’re nice people, Luigi.

Luigi: We’re your buddies, Colonel.

Dino: We want to look after you.

Colonel: Look after me?

Luigi: We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week.

Colonel: No, no, no.

Luigi: Twelve and six.

Colonel: No, no, no.

Luigi: Eight and six… five bob.

Colonel: No, no this is silly.

Dino: What’s silly?

Colonel: No, the whole premise is silly and it’s very badly written. I’m the senior officer here and I haven’t had a funny line yet. So I’m stopping it.

Dino: You can’t do that!

Colonel: I’ve done it. The sketch is over.

Watkins: I want to leave the army please sir, it’s dangerous.

Colonel: Look, I stopped your sketch five minutes ago. So get out of shot. Right director! Close up. Zoom in on me. (camera zooms in) That’s better.

Luigi: (off screen) It’s only ‘cos you couldn’t think of a punch line.

Colonel: Not true, not true. It’s time for the cartoon. Cue telecine, ten, nine, eight…

(Cut to telecine countdown.)

Dino: (off screen) The general public’s not going to understand this, are they?

Colonel: (off screen) Shut up you eyeties!

What is China’s Grand Strategy?

America’s foreign policy establishment believed that China’s economic ascent would lead to political liberalization, and that China in the long term would become a benign actor in world affairs. That view has been falsified, but there is no consensus about what China wants and what threat it might pose to American interests. China is seeking technological self-sufficiency and even superiority in key industries. It has concentrated military spending on advanced technologies. Its Belt and Road Initiative proposes a trillion-dollar investment program to project China’s influence across the world. What is China’s grand design, and how should the United States respond to it?

David P. Goldman is a columnist at Asia Times and a principal of Asia Times Holdings LLC. He contributes regularly to the Claremont Review of Books and other conservative outlets, including PJ Media, where he writes the “Spengler” column. During 2013-2016 he was a managing director at Yunfeng Financial, a Hong Kong investment bank. Previously he was global head of debt research at Bank of America and head of credit strategy at Credit Suisse. He is the author of several books including “How Civilizations Die” (2011).

More US troops die during training than in combat operations

Washington (CNN)A vehicle accident that killed one cadet from the US Military Academy and injured 21 others Thursday is refocusing attention on a startling statistic — more American service members are dying during training exercises than in combat operations.

Between 2006 and 2018, 31.9% of active-duty military deaths were the result of accidents, according to a congressional report updated last month. By comparison, 16.3% of service members who died during that time were killed in action.
And a large majority of those accidents occurred in circumstances unrelated to combat deployments.
“Since 2006 … a total of 16,652 active-duty personnel and mobilized reservists have died while serving in the US armed forces. Seventy-three percent of these casualties occurred under circumstances unrelated to war,” the report states.
It is a trend that has only seemed to pick up momentum of late, as noncombat deaths have exceeded the number of military members killed in action every year since 2015.
In 2017, nearly four times as many service members died in training accidents as were killed in combat, according to a House Armed Services Committee report related to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019 — a key point highlighted by many lawmakers and military officials who argued for additional defense spending to help offset readiness issues that have compounded for years.
“In all, 21 servicemembers died in combat that year while 80 died as a result of noncombat training-related accidents,” the report said.
The military endured a high rate of training-related deaths again in 2018 and a spate of deadly noncombat military aircraft crashes prompted then-House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, to say the “readiness of the military is at a crisis point.”
“This crisis is not limited to military aviation,” Thornberry wrote in a 2018 report. “This past summer, the Navy lost 17 Sailors in separate collisions involving the USS McCain and the USS Fitzgerald. Navy investigators later found that both accidents were related to ongoing Navy readiness problems.”
One of the most recent accidents occurred in March, when two Marine pilots died in a helicopter crash near Yuma, Arizona, during a routine training exercise.
While details on the cause of Thursday’s deadly accident remain unclear, the incident serves as yet another reminder of broader safety issues related to military training.
Lt. Gen. Darryl A. Williams, the superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, was unable to immediately provide details about the cause of the rollover vehicle accident, citing the ongoing investigation. He said the name of the deceased cadet would not be released until the family was notified.
“Today was a tragic day for the West Point community and our United States Army,” Williams said.

How the Navy could be torpedoing Trump’s chances in 2020

When it comes time to defend his red wall along the Great Lakes, President Trump is going to come face to face with the consequences of his Pentagon leadership’s failure to implement his oft-promised 355-ship Navy (up from 290 today).

Pennsylvania workers make many of the essentials that go into ships, including shafts manufactured in Erie and cooling systems in York. Every time the Navy awards a contract for a new ship, the president or vice president should be at one of these facilities talking about the jobs the contracts will provide. But the Navy hasn’t been issuing those contracts, so the president can’t make those announcements.

The Navy could have gone big — still could still go big — in Philadelphia. To extend the life of the existing fleet, a person familiar with the planning tells me, the Navy must perform roughly 100 more ship dockings in the next decade than current dock space can accommodate. Philly Shipyard has the capability to build floating dry docks to make up for this shortfall. Why isn’t Trump announcing a plan to expand the Navy’s dry-dock infrastructure while standing in Philly Shipyard?

Wisconsin benefits from Navy shipbuilding in two ways. First, there is the shipyard in Marinette that creates jobs in both Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The Fincantieri Marine Group is a bidder on the new 20-ship Navy FFG(X) guided-missile frigate program, but politics cannot take precedence over ship design, so the contract is not guaranteed to land lakeside in Wisconsin. The least Trump could do, though, is insist that the Navy pick up the pace of its dreadfully slow design competition.

The Fincantieri Marinette Marine is already under contract to build four Multi-Mission Surface Combatant ships for Saudi Arabia. More work would be sent Wisconsin’s way if the Trump administration could persuade the Saudis to increase their order or bring other countries, such as Israel, on board.

Incredibly, Michigan ranks near the bottom of all the states when defense spending is calculated as a percentage of a state’s GDP — 47th out of 50 in fiscal year 2017 for what was once the arsenal of democracy. Per-resident defense spending in Michigan that year was a paltry $386, compared with $1,554 in Oklahoma.

When the Air Force decided in 2017 not to base F-35A fighter aircraft at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan, it missed an easy way to achieve some equity in the distribution of defense-industry dollars in the states. Trump could direct the Pentagon to reverse that decision.

The Navy’s plans for a new “large unmanned surface vessel” calls for a ship which could be built at a Great Lakes facility; near Detroit makes sense, if only out of fairness to a state that has been largely ignored in the Trump military rebuild. Given the likely long-term need for many of these ships in the future, a new facility could be planted and grown along with the program. It pains this Buckeye to say so, but somewhere along the Michigan coast next door to Ohio would be equitable.

A focus on Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin need not be limited to the Defense Department. Recently, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) pushed successfully for the planned relocation of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management to Grand Junction, Colo., in a brilliant move to bring bureaucrats closer to the citizens they regulate and whom they are supposed to serve. Sending large parts of the Environmental Protection Agency to Flint, Mich., or nearby locations would drive home the same message.

Trump has the chance to drain the swamp while making government agencies much more attuned to the people in flyover country. But he must act soon.

Yet, it is really the Navy’s utter failure to deliver even a bare-bones plan to realize the president’s promise of a 355-ship Navy that ought to rankle the commander in chief. A new chief of naval operations will arrive soon. The president ought to have waiting on his desk copies of the speeches in which he promised, and then promised again, a 355-ship Navy, along with the slogan famously used by Winston Churchill scrawled with the black Sharpie that Trump likes to use: “Action this day!”