Follow the latest on RallyPoint. Get insights from the top online professional network for service members and veterans.

Trending Discussions

265
233
32
970d94e2
I personally think we all looked a little more professional wearing a beret although it didn't block the sun from blazing your eyes.
Posted in these groups: Ccredberet BeretVtvr2bwn4 Soldier4276e14c Uniforms
1214 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
47
47
0
D43b9721
Has the United Nations outlived its usefulness in World Order or does it need to be reorganized?

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established on 24 October 1945 following the Second World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193. The headquarters of the United Nations is in Manhattan, New York City, and experiences extraterritoriality.

Do we give the institution more power or do we dismantle it?

Do we come up with a new World Organization that brings the countries together for world issues and what does that look like?

Do we go back to the days before the United Nations and the League of Nations in 1920 prior to WW1 and let each country work out their own issues, create its own treaties and alliances, and solve its own problems (and if another country comes to their aid so be it)?

CAPT Michael MoranSPC(P) (Join to see)Dennis AubuchonCH (CPT) James L. Machado WorkmanSSG Alan PelletierMSgt Rich MedinaSSG David AndrewsJeremiah McMillanSGT Mia MasonSFC James William Bolt [ 40 Yards ]]Letise DennisJordan MastersCPO Nate SzejniukPO2 David KeenerCMSgt William ReedPO3 Grant Skiles
98 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
126
126
0
697a3984
First let me say I am biased in my opinion since I am a single soldier. The Army stacks the deck against single soldiers, in a variety of ways. There are standards that single soldiers are forced to obey that married soldiers are not. Purely just because of their marriage.

Housing is my personal biggest area of concern being a single soldier. I am a 27 yr old college graduate. I get the same "rights" in my living quarters that a single 17/18 yr old straight out of high-school would get. If that same soldier is married, they get considerably more freedom, pay, and budget control than I do.

I as a single soldier get no say in where I live. At my current duty station the BAH for my rank and dependent status (Single, E-4) would be $1,068. So I essentially pay $1,068 dollars a month to live in the barracks. The barracks I live in have two separate bedrooms, with a common kitchen and bathroom area. Since there are two soldiers in each little barracks apartment, we collectively pay $2,136 a month for this set up. That is FAR more then what a similar apartment style would cost in the surrounding communities. If single soldiers were allowed to have BAH and live where they choose we could potentially save several hundred dollars a month by controlling our living expenses. That's not including the approximately $300 a month we are forced to pay for the DFACs.

There is also the issue of furniture in the barracks. Again we have no say, we get whatever the Army already has in the room. Personally I would love to have an actual nice mattress, instead of these cheap plastic blue ones.

Barracks inspections. I can't stand barracks inspections. The inspections are completely up to the person doing them and what they "think" the standard should be. One inspection your could be fine, the next one your getting lectured about how to make a bed. Last summer I had to write a 2 page paper for an LT about personal standards in the barracks. All because my bed didn't have hospital corners. (That morning when I get up I tossed my blanket off to the right of me, where it was just sorta crunched up against the wall running the length of my bed.) If I want to know what I am allowed to have and not have in my room, I have to read three different policy letters to find out. Division could allow something, Brigade could say no, and then Battalion have nothing about it at all. I get that lower commands are allowed to restrict privileges as they see fit. I'm just saying it's cumbersome to have to read three different levels policy to find out what is what.

It annoys me that I have to have periodic inspections(currently every morning before PT for my company) while married soldiers receive no inspections just because they are married. I get that they have a family, I just don't see why that should stop a squad leader from making a planned, announced, and visual walk-through of the house of the married soldier. Keeping the same standard of living as a single soldier should be part of the military life.

Meal Deductions. I don't think the DFACs are worth the $300 a month I have to pay. I hate having to "play" the "I am a Meal Card Holder" card to get lunch sometimes during work. It's usually followed by a married soldier saying "I'm working thru lunch, you don't see me bitching about wanting to leave for food". True. However when we miss our lunch it's gone. The money we paid is gone rather we ate that meal or not. Married people if they bring their lunch it'll still be there later. If they eat out, then well that's just money they didn't spend that day. They can use it tomorrow to get twice as much for lunch or eat somewhere more expensive depending on their budget.

We get no say in what sounds good for dinner. It's whatever the DFAC has. Sometimes that means either fried or grilled chicken. If they run out of one thing, it'll be whatever they have left. It's not right. It leaves married people with control over their diet and single soldiers with whatever the Army needed to clean out of the fridge.

The above is just Big Army things, the discrimination continues all the way down to the company level. At my company single soldiers who live in the barracks are not allowed to park in the lot in front of the company. Now our barracks is approximately 3/4 mile down the road. Our motor pool is another 3/4 mile the other direction. I find it silly that an entire parking lot is reserved for married people. Sure single soldiers can drive to work, but we have to park in the barracks across the street. Which is not the barracks we live in. Married people can't park in that same lot if the one in front of company is full? To a point I can understand the reasoning behind this, but single soldiers have to leave and run here and there just like our married counter-parts. Why should they get special parking treatment? I don't see anyone stopping married people from using the barracks washers and dryers to avoid buying their own/going to coin laundry mats. Why are married people allowed to dip their hands in our honey and slap ours away from theirs?

Like I said from the start I'm biased. I look over the fence and see greener grass. Perhaps this is all just one single soldier bitching and complaining.
Posted in these groups: Vc_iwcc_w415 BarracksHouse-money-428x285 BAS
262 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
9
9
0
I think we should think about what the future AAR or review will look like in the future. Maybe by thinking now, we can predict or understand our problems?
13 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
30
30
0
Aba7408c
RallyPoint is honored to host LTC Mike Erwin, founder of Team RWB, for a live Q&A at 3:00pm EST on 9/19/2017. Mike founded Team RWB in 2010 while still serving in the Army, and still serves on its board of directors. After graduating from West Point in 2002 he served on Active Duty for 13 years. Erwin's military career includes three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He still serves today in the US Army Reserve.

Since Team RWB, LTC Erwin has shifted focus to The Positivity project (https://posproject.org/) which helps empower students to build strong relationships. He’s joining us today to discuss his mission with The Positivity Project, his military experience, his book “Lead Yourself First: Inspiring Leadership Through Solitude”, and more.
20 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
2
2
0
Developing countries also have the Right to defend themselves against foreign aggression; if India did not have an arsenal then, Pakistan would invade India and make India another IS. A war of nuclear proportions can evolve into WWIII.
Posted in these groups: North-korea-flag-jpg North KoreaKorea Korea
22 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
Rp-logo-flat-shadow
Command Post What is this?
17
17
0
3b1291c3
I recently read a great position article by Victor Cha from the Center for Strategic and International studies on how to play the China card in regards to handling the events we are seeing out of North Korea. For the most part, the general consensus to dealing with North Korea will be through their closest friend, China. To this point, I completely agree. It is likely that we will (and are) attempting to pressure China to, in turn, pressure North Korea. However, as Victor points out, this pressure is not likely to lead to our best envisioned end state of a regime change and diminished focus on weapons of mass destruction. Why? Multiple factors of competition, mistrust, history, regime collapse and more lead to a litany of variables that China just doesn’t want to be responsible for or tied to. As Victor argues, it’s time to consider a change in diplomacy; I argue that it also is a time to consider a change in end state expectations and how we get there. [1]

Multiple presidential administrations have attempted to curb North Korean weapons development and engage the hermit country in a way that would stabilize the peninsula and tone down the rhetoric. From the “preventive defense” attempts of the 1994 U.S.- North Korea Framework to curb nuclear power ambitions to the crippling sanctions of today, all attempts to change the regime’s trajectory towards nuclear weapons have been some sort of a failure.[2] However, I believe the actions themselves aren’t the failure, but the underlying assumptions with a focus on the stabilization of the country rather than the stabilization of the Kim Regime itself is the underlying issue.

Although I am by no means an expert on the Kim Jong-un regime or the Kim Dynasty as a whole, from the discussions I have had to the research I have conducted, I am thoroughly convinced every action conducted by the leader is for the security of his Regime, not the country. So, as initiatives have consistently worked to deter action and stabilize a country, I argue it is time we work to stabilize the regime and, in turn, help manage its actions. Now, before we talk about this, let’s acknowledge that working with a regime like this goes against our moralistic nature, as the regime of North Korea is brutish and just down right horrible to its population. However, to that point, its brutal practices are likely actions driven by a regime who consistently is working to secure itself and thereby, has the potential to diminish as the regime’s future is secured.

So, where would we begin to stabilize what seems to be a regime of non-rational actors? First, I believe we need to start by treating them as rational actors. Although their actions may not seem rational to us, as former Joint Chief of Staff General Dempsey once pointed out to a poor reporter, that doesn’t mean they aren’t rational actors. I do believe the regime has an envisioned future and understands where they want to sit in the world. What is that position? Likely, a mid-level country like their cousins to the South. A regime who holds an array of respect and positions in the international system. A position that can influence trade, maritime operations, or weigh in on regional and international issues. Essentially, a position that projects the regimes divinity and strength from within. What is important to remember is that we are talking about the regime, not the country, and thereby we have to acknowledge that this will look vastly different than the free and connected society in the south, but with all the basic tenants of holding a position in the world. This fundamental change in an underlying assumption and focus is a strong facet to seeing that the regime has the potential to stabilize as their envisioned future comes to fruition.

Operating off this assumption, I believe to bring a regime like Kim’s to that point of stability, we have to employ a preventative style of strategy that integrates North Korea into the world system. This would be very familiar to post-Cold War strategies for integrating a fledgling Russian federation back into the world. We’d utilize methods like inviting the Russians into peacekeeping operations in Bosnia-Kosovo, which developed communication frameworks and enabled Russia to find their prideful place in the world structure. Similar activities like investment and repurposing of military personnel in the Ukraine, post Soviet collapse, helped to secure the region and denuclearize a once heavily nuclear country. Many of these strategies of preventative defense, outlined by former Secretaries of Defense Carter and Perry in their book, “Preventative Defense” could yield positive results, as long as their strategies are employed with a focus on the Kim Jong-un regime, rather than the country itself.

To put these ideas into perspective a little more, let’s expand on a few things. To date, the regime is clearly not deterred from developing their weapons of mass destruction and I believe that is because the regime believes it is their most effective and most feasible entry to the international community. To support this, we have to understand that the hermit nation really has no place in modern society. They are not a world player in exports or imports. They do not possess advanced technology which they can offer to the world, and they do not carry any cultural or historic envy in the world. So, what do they have? What do they have to offer? From the regime’s eyes, I believe its only option is their military capability or threat. Basically, “a pay attention to us by force” motto.

Beyond attention-seeking, let’s talk about the potential personal ambitions of Kim Jong-un and his Regime. Kim is a leader, a divinity to some, and one of the privileged few that gets to look beyond the gates of the Regime. Enter the mind of a man in that position, looking out and knowing his influence has significant limits and that those limits actually threaten the life span of his regime, and thereby, his influence. Wouldn’t that drive you to build a mechanism to gain more, or to at least secure your regime’s future both within the country and the international community? I believe it would. This goes back to the understanding that the regime’s survival is priority number one and, therefore, any and all mechanisms to strengthen it must be pursued, no matter the cost.

Moving on to the next piece of bringing North Korea into the world; allowing their sustained nuclear strike capability. Before we talk about nuclear weapons as a means of communication vs. a threat, let's first acknowledge a few other issues that are likely to come up with a reliable nuclear strike platform. With an increased capability like this, the conventional military threat could be emboldened as well, and the regional stability could be threatened. Additionally, we could see increased rhetoric and open threats as North Korean leaders learned how to negotiate and communicate on the world stage - threats would likely be their default response. Further, we could see an intrepid nuclear-capable regime backtrack or cheat on negotiated deals, which could deteriorate security worldwide. These, and many more, are all risks we must acknowledge and account for. We must be heavily involved in the management of regime actions as they move forward as a nuclear power.

Now, with all that we have outlined here - the changes in the assumptions and the changes in focus from country to the regime - we can talk about nuclear capability in North Korea as a potential conduit of communication rather than strictly a threat. Acknowledging their nuclear capability and immediately bringing them into established frameworks for nuclear capable countries could potentially open lines of communication that have not yet been achieved. With a strong deterrence in his pocket from “western interdiction”, Kim could possibly be more willing to establish norms and predictability in their military exercises and actions as they attempt to garner an image of a world player. To circle back to Victor Cha’s article, these lines of communication will likely never be directly with the U.S. or “West” due to the regime’s lack of trust, but would more likely be directed through China. However, the closer the regime gets to established frameworks, the closer those lines of communication can become.

Years of attempting to deter a nuclear North Korea have seem to have little effect, and the time for acknowledging their capability may be presenting itself. So, there are interesting questions that need to be asked. If Kim Jong-un has his desired nuclear program with strike capabilities around the world, could that actually be the missing piece that brings him within the international framework? Will it actually be the conduit that brings stability to the regime and, thereby, the entire region of North Korea? Or are we actually sitting at the brink of a mad-man ready to destroy the world? Either way, these are two extremely interesting and important questions.

What do you think?


-----
Luke Jenkins is an Active Duty Army officer and founder of OweYaa.com, a veteran service organization. He is a passionate student of strategy and matters relating to national defense strategy. This article reflects his personal analysis and thoughts and does not reflect an official stance of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or any organization related to national defense framework.

-----
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/right-way-play-china-card-north-korea
[2] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework
Photo by Roman Harak - https://www.flickr.com/photos/roman-harak/ [login to see]
12 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
13
13
0
50 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
66
66
0
I am a non-combat vet retired in 2004. Never deployed in the first Gulf war, Iraq or Afganistan. My Commander and my Cheif chose to leave me home to care for my wife. Not my choice but I appreciate what they did for us. She was diagnosed with Multiple sclerosis in 2001 and breast cancer in 2003. All of my buddies have deployed and I miss that little connection they have when we all get together. So I wonder is there any animosity by combat vets toward non-combat vets. My buds say I'm one of them it doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong I am proud of my service and have a son serving now. Was just curious. Thank you for any feed back.
Posted in these groups: Air_combat_art_0134 CombatTumblr_static_tumblr_mtb09amgp11s0247uo1_1280 Military Life
250 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
97
97
0
93345928
This is mine. The USS Missouri (BB-63). I took this as she pulled alongside the USS Wichita (AOR-1) for an UNREP. The sense of history, and POWER was indescribable. I really felt the ship's presence in a manner I didn't with many others that came alongside.

How about you? What's your 'thing' like that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)
201 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
0
0
0
Situation: SHOW-ME Gold program (like ROTC but we all been through Basic and AIT as it is required) has PT from 0600-0700 before classes start. Some have an 8am class and they are allowed to leave at 07 if PT runs over. But people who don’t stay and do the cool down. So here’s the problem: soldiers are complaining about being dismissed at passed 07 even if they don’t have a 8am as they feel it’s
18 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
55
28
27
Bea59a0
The latest tragedy of gun violence against the LGBTQ community is just a continuance of the attack in the SC church, the campus shootings, Navy Yard assault, Theater attack, and assaults upon our children at schools. Assault weapons are the issue, not "guns." How do we fix this?
1077 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
13
13
0
Some only share jobs listings or related links but don't converse with responses. Some ask genuine questions and continue the conversation.

What's going on?
6 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
18
18
0
D9346c4a
*RP Staff will be monitoring this discussion*

From RP Staff:
We are honored to welcome former Navy SEAL, Special Operations Chief Joost Janssen, to RallyPoint for a live Q&A. Joost has had an accomplished military career as a US Navy SEAL, with over twelve years of service. After several overseas deployments, he spent three years as a NSWC BUD/S Instructor. After the Navy, Joost contracted for five years as ‘Agency’ direct hire in support of counterterrorism related operations. Joost deployed and conducted operations in over 12 countries including; Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines. After leaving Special Operations, Joost continued a career with GSGI as a Senior Tactical Advisor and Military Stunt Player.

About 'American Assassin':

AMERICAN ASSASSIN follows the rise of Mitch Rapp (Dylan O’Brien), a CIA black ops recruit under the instruction of Cold War veteran Stan Hurley (Michael Keaton). The pair is then enlisted by CIA Deputy Director Irene Kennedy (Sanaa Lathan) to investigate a wave of apparently random attacks on both military and civilian targets. Together the three discover a pattern in the violence leading them to a joint mission with a lethal Turkish agent (Shiva Negar) to stop a mysterious operative (Taylor Kitsch) intent on starting a World War in the Middle East.
9 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
11
11
0
At the point of retirement from active reserve status to retired status [either because of becoming eligible for retirement or mandatory retirement date] each service member has an option to become a gray area retiree which links their retired salary to the active duty salary at the time of their retirement; but, subjects us to recall to active duty.
I have learned from other RallyPoint members that they received Certificates of Retirement from their respective services [US Navy and US Air Force] at the end of military reserve component service.
I expect the US Army and US Marine Corps also provide Certificates of Retirement; but, I have never seen one.
FYI COL Mikel Burroughs LTC Stephen C. Maj William W. "Bill" Price Capt Christopher Mueller Capt Seid Waddell CW5 (Join to see) SGM David W. Carr LOM DMSM former MP SGT SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SSgt (Join to see) SP5 Mark Kuzinski SGT John McConnell SGT Robert George SP5 Robert Ruck SCPO Morris RamseyCPL Eric Escasio SPC (Join to see) SrA (Join to see) SPC (Join to see)
26 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
Rp-logo-flat-shadow
Command Post What is this?
46
43
3
422edf63
Agree — but put the K-bars away until you’ve read through to the end…

Whether the United States Marine Corps (USMC) should be part of the United States Army has been a question since the founding of the USMC, 241 years ago. But the true question is not one of Army vs Marines, but rather one of having a single service dedicated to operations on land, and the correlating operational, political, and budgetary influence that would entail. Throughout history, all the way up to the present day, the Army and USMC have shared overlapping, sometimes duplicative missions, doctrine, and acquisitions. Even the separate missions exclusively filled by the USMC today require Army support at some point during, or soon after the operation commences. The Marine Corps should be folded into the Army so that there is one branch dedicated to operations on land. But that branch should be more like the Marine Corps.

The first companies of “naval infantry” were raised in 1775 with the intent of providing the fledgling United States the ability to secure its ships, and take the war to Britain’s shipping and possessions along the American coast and overseas. Concerned with the immediate strategic threat posed by the British Army in North America, the Continental Army could not be put to the task. Therefor a separate branch was conceived (though under the purview of the U.S. Navy). In the succeeding 19th century, the notional missions of the Army and the Marines diverged and solidified. The Army concerned itself almost exclusively with operations on the North American continent, to include the American Civil War. The Marines provided security on Navy ships (which justified their existence at the time), but also began to develop a nascent expeditionary capability to complement increasing instances of gunboat diplomacy. These separate missions developed during an era with a general absence of strategic threats to the nation, an isolationist foreign policy, and a general distrust of a standing military, all of which kept budgets and manpower low for all services. Also throughout the 19th century, (what was) the Marines’ primary mission, security of navy ships, began to erode as the threat of piracy was greatly reduced, more and more ports were opened through other means, and the specter of shipboard mutiny was practically eliminated. America’s first truly overseas conflicts, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, provided a series of watershed moments that redefined the mission of the USMC.

Because of their presence aboard Navy ships and their correlating amphibious doctrine, the Marines were often the first U.S. troops to arrive in a given theater. During the Spanish-American War, Marines seized vital ports and harbors and provided additional land forces for combat operations. Upon America’s entry into World War I, Marines were among the first American troops to arrive in France, and later earned acclaim for their prowess in battle. In World War II, while technically still part of the Navy, Marines played a major role in the war in the Central Pacific as they developed innovative tactics, techniques, and procedures for amphibious warfare, and further proved their mettle against a determined enemy. These events, along with the vision and temerity of its commandants and political advocates, staked a claim for the USMC as a separate fighting force with a distinct mission, autonomous from the Navy. This has inevitably brought it into conflict with the Army, especially in years of budget austerity.

Maintaining a marine corps within, but autonomous from the Department of the Navy, is analogous to maintaining a separate airborne corps within, but autonomous from the Department of The Air Force (though one wonders if such a thing would exist, similar to the German Fallschirmjäger, had the U.S. Air Force began as a separate branch from the Army). The entire USMC is roughly the same size as the U.S. Army Reserve alone, and accounts for just 4–6% of the Department of Defense’s budget, versus the double-digit percentages of the other services (~31% for the Army). The Army, for all intents and purposes can, and has, performed the same functions as the USMC. For example, Operation Overlord, the largest amphibious operation in the history of modern warfare, is credited to the U.S. Army, along with numerous other amphibious operations in Africa, Europe, and the Pacific during World War II. Furthermore, doctrinally the Army provides extensive support to the USMC, especially in the areas of logistics, communications, and command & control capabilities. This is in part due to the USMC’s exclusive focus on combat (every Marine is a rifleman) and maintaining an expeditionary mindset, though even combat operations directly under marine command are usually augmented and/or supported by Army combat forces, which are just as effective. Most recently, the USMC temporarily vacated its expeditionary mindset when it became a battle-space owner in both Iraq and Afghanistan, separate from the Army. Taken in sum, this all leads to concerns for true unity of effort in a given operation. For these reasons, the USMC should be officially made part of the U.S. Army.

But only if the U.S. Army can then be made like the Marine Corps. The Army is a ponderous, vast organization, and contains a wide array of Soldiers and equipment, that are not necessarily amenable to a combat-focused, expeditionary mindset. When all things are reckoned, it is the unique culture of the USMC, fostered through generations and inculcated into every recruit, that makes it truly separate and distinct from other services, to include the Army. Furthermore, due to its small size and focused mission set, the USMC as an organization is adept at working with other services and organizations, and at leveraging influence within bureaucracy and politics. While the Army certainly has Soldiers and units that embody a similar combat focused, expeditionary mindset to the USMC, due to its size and wide array missions and specialties, that mindset may not be present to the same degree throughout the whole force. Additionally, many of the Army’s missions, outside of combat, simply are not riveting or flashy, let alone easy to understand and articulate to either politicians or the general population. These same concerns no doubt exist within the USMC, but are shielded from outsiders by its heraldry and carefully crafted narrative.

The best time to fold the USMC into the Army was at the transition between the 19th and 20th centuries, when the USMC was redefining its mission. The only way to do so now, absent a dynamic catalyst for change (e.g. dramatic budget cuts), would be if the Army itself became a like-minded organization, and was guaranteed to preserve the heraldry, structure, and capability of the Marine Corps. The Army would need to inculcate a combat focused, expeditionary mindset into all its Soldiers and systems, while still maintaining its ability to fulfill the various missions that require it to be structured as it is. This would allow it to better manage the rotation of personnel through marine units, though an individual must first volunteer, and then qualify as a Marine. The unique capability and doctrine of the Marines could then be transitioned to the Army. Within the Army structure, Marine units would then be utilized for their distinct capability (i.e. amphibious operations), similar to the 82nd Airborne Division, or the 75th Ranger Regiment.

The United States’ military risks nothing substantial, however, by keeping the two branches separate under the current structure. So long as the military is able to fulfill its core, fundamental missions, and safeguard U.S. interests around the globe, the current structure works — and, if nothing else, the Marines have earned the right to their independence. Notionally, perhaps even practically, folding the Marine Corps into the Army makes sense. But there is no reason at the present time to justify such a move, and all the pain and angst it would cause (even under the best of circumstances). It should be done, it could be done, but realistically it will not be done, and absent an extreme justification it should not be forced.

----------
Nathan Wike is an officer in the U.S. Army and a member of the Military Writer’s Guild. The opinions expressed are his alone, and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

----------
This topic was taken from the list “Fifty-One Strategic Debates Worth Having”, from the U.S. Military Academy’s Modern War Institute (http://mwi.usma.edu/).

----------
COVER IMAGE
Created by the author
371 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small

Are you sure you wish to convert this post?

Seg?add=7750261&t=2