Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: September 25, 2005

October 1, 2005

TGISaturday...

...only one more workday in the week.

One of the advantages of this contractor gig is that I get to go places.

One of the disadvantages of this contractor gig is that the only places I get to go are military posts.

Not that Fort Polk in the aftermath of a hurricane and Fort Sill in the middle of a tornado alert and Fort Lewis under siege by pea-soup fog are devoid of charm, y�unnerstand, but when the high point of the day is listening to Talk Radio in between meetings -- well, you get the picture.

With which I segue seamlessly into John�s Imperial Grunts mention last Sunday as being prologue to Michael Medved�s interview with Robert Kaplan on Tuesday. And I actually came out of my jet-lagged stupor long enough to pay attention when Kaplan described some of the background action which led to his writing Imperial Grunts.

But I really perked up when Medved asked Kaplan what griped the troops the most; Kaplan answered, �The restrictive Rules of Engagement� and then went on to describe how exacting the troops had to be to avoid capping noncombatants caught in a firefight.

Heh. Wonder what he�d think of this�

�The Aircraft Commander of any Army helicopter receiving fire will perform the following steps before initiating suppressive fire: 1) Positively identify the location of the fire. 2) Positively identify the location of the nearest friendly units. 3) Positively identify the location of the nearest friendly civilians. 4) Positively identify the location of the nearest neutral civilians. 5) Determine whether the type, accuracy or volume of fire warrants returning the fire. 6) If you have determined that you should return fire, a) call Sector TOC with your aircraft identification, location, the type and volume of fire you are receiving, location of the source of the fire, the locations of 2, 3 and 4 (above), and request permission to return fire; b) Sector TOC will relay the request to 164th Group headquarters by the most expeditious means; c) 164th Group headquarters will notify First Aviation Brigade headquarters of the request; d) First Aviation Brigade headquarters will relay the request to Corps headquarters, which will approve / disapprove the request and so inform First Aviation Brigade headquarters; e) First Aviation Brigade will relay approval/disapproval to 164th Group headquarters; f) 164th Group headquarters will relay approval / disapproval to Sector TOC; g) Sector TOC will issue permission / denial of permission to return fire to the requesting aircraft.�

Try doing all that between now and the time you finally run out of fuel.

If you think I exaggerated the preceding to illustrate just how restrictive the ROE could get, ask the next Vietnam Helicopter pilot you meet about �the Rules.� He should be able to rattle them off from memory, because they were taped to the instrument panel of every helicopter in Vietnam. Those rules were about as restrictive and tightly-controlled as you can get without having to call the Commander-in-Chief on the red phone for permission to shoot back; they were intended to completely eliminate both fratricide and civilian casualties.

But did they work?

TINS*! Continued in Flash Traffic/Extended Entry

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... �

Once upon a time, I got the mission of flushing a suspected VC staging area into an ambush which was being set up just outside my zone�s eastern boundary. A couple of minutes before midnight, in the southern sector of my zone, I spotted a cooking fire with several armed people sitting around it.

I knew exactly where we were, because I�d been radar-vectored to the area and the orientation of the intersecting canals we called the Little Wagon Wheel were readily identifiable, even at night.

I called Sector TOC to report that we were on station and had a sighting.

I gave the 5th SF a Spot Report with a radar-confirmed 10-digit grid and said we were ready to rock �n� roll. Then, to the soothing sounds of the drum solo from �In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida," we proceeded to rain Leaden Death on the wily foe a thousand feet below...

...for about three rounds. Then, the M-60 jammed.

The good news is that the couple of seconds it took to clear the jam was long enough for the Green Beanie ambush patrol leader to make a squeaky �Gunship shooting up the Big Wagon Wheel�cease fire!� call on his RT-10.

The bad news is that we were firing up the Little Wagon Wheel�

Seems the newbie Lootenant-in-Charge had decided to be sneaky and travel cross-country with his ambush patrol instead of following his briefed route, which was along the only north-south canal in the area and he meandered southwest instead of southeast.

Instead of arriving in his own sandbox, he and his team wound up about three klicks inside mine.

So, despite adhering to fairly restrictive Rules of Engagement, despite radar vectors to the target area, despite being over a radar-confirmed ten-digit grid in the middle of a Free-Fire Zone and despite having had a complete situation brief and FM / UHF / VHF commo with every TOC in the Plain of Reeds, there would have been a several more names on The Wall if it hadn�t been for one twisted link in a 2500-round belt of machinegun ammo.

And it was ammo from a brand, new box.

Sometimes, Somebody Else amends the rules...

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Hmmmm. Tieing one hand behind your back to make it even?

posted by Boquisucio on October 1, 2005 8:37 AM

Help from above is always a good thing!

Good tunes fer shootin' to, though ;-)

posted by Barb on October 1, 2005 9:44 AM

*double take*

Waitaminit! When were you at Fort Lewis??? Are you coming back???

posted by Barb on October 1, 2005 9:53 AM

A good Crew Chief/Gunner could perform tasks numbered one through five in about the time it takes the human heart to beat twice, and act accordingly, giving the guys in the front plenty of time to execute tasks 6a through 6g at their leisure.

My "kid" is back in Indiana now, with Rules of Engagement stories of the new generation. I liked ours better.

posted by R Jewell on October 1, 2005 1:16 PM

Sometimes things happen to remind us all that, as much as we would like to believe it, we are NOT in charge of everything.

Sometimes it does take an Act of God to remind us of that fact.

posted by AFSister on October 1, 2005 9:01 PM

RJ - Betcha our "shortage stories" would top his: one C-rat had to last for three meals, undrinkable water and an ammo limit of 500 rounds per day. Urk.

Make sure you get your digs in between sips of beer by the fishin' hole, then the two of you can coordinate your stories about the big ones that chewed through the monofilament to get away...

posted by cw4(ret)billt on October 1, 2005 11:49 PM

Bill T, You guys in the Delta actually had one whole C Rat per day? Heck, as I remember it, back in '69 up in I Corps we had to make one last.............(insert outrageous claim here)

They have some good "shortage" stories too, among them "appropriating" gun mounts and other equipment, and use of '68 vintage 113's and "hillbilly armored" hummers.

The fishing/beer gig sounds good. Maybe we'll do that as soon as we surgically remove the 6 and 8 year olds that have permenantly attached themselves to his legs since he got home.

posted by R Jewell on October 3, 2005 9:36 AM

RJ - Yeah, we actually had a whole C for the day, but it was "Turkey or Chicken Loaf."

Kinda makes you wonder, since even the people who made it didn't know what it was...

Heh--surgery shouldn't be necessary; just play with 'em for about four months and they'll drop off to sleep on their own.

posted by cw4(ret)billt on October 3, 2005 10:21 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by CW4BillT on Oct 01, 2005 | This is no Sh*t!

September 30, 2005

The Militaria Bar of Argghhh!

Since the Castle Exchequer is busy funding universities and accelerated payoffs so that one day the Master and Mistress may actually, perhaps, stop doing the 7-6 drudge, additions to the Arsenal have been slight, as pretty much all the cheap firearms to be had already reside in the racks, and the remaining (plenty of 'em, to be sure) residents of the 'want list' are, well, not cheap.

This doesn't mean that the Armorer is totally bereft of new toys and gadgets. Rather, it means he's filling in the corners of the other bits and pieces of soldier-related stuff he likes to get.

Here is the Bar at Argghhh!

Its been featured before. It even drew an aghast email from a GFW! For the record, we took the GFW's warning to heart. The Bar is no longer in the kitchen. It's out in the living room, so the rifle is handy when I feel the need to shoot out the talking head on television. Of course, I don't do that very often anymore... see opening paragraph.

The bar is home to a Boer rifle captured during the eponymous war by New Zealand soldiers. The brass scope is a brit artillery sight from the same era. One the end of the bar, the rectangular thing on the overhead part is an Australian "Two-Up" game stick and coins. Hanging from the end there are two tin cups, one Brit, one German, similar to the ones these gents are sharing. We've got rum jugs, beer bottles, schnapps glasses (all legit, battlefield recoveries) and trench art.

This week, I got a new gizmo. More properly, two gizmos, nestled at the bottom of the ABCA bud vase there (which currently serves as a swizzle-stick holder) - the little bullet-looking things.

They're German-made, having "Bavaria" stamped on them. They were made for English-speakers - they have "Take a Shot" embossed on them. And they're cool, almost like a Babushka doll - one has 4 tiny shot glasses nested in it - the other is a lighter (needs a wick and flint, but it's otherwise in great shape).

I just knew you wanted to know. Oh, and SWWBO - they were cheep, too!

Update: Per BCR's request.

Now, you need to get the labs working on that matter-transference gizmo we've talked about!

This one is for SWWBO!

Both contain 4 shots of Especial, 2 shots Cointreau, 2 shots Grand Marnier, and by that time, a little mix. Prosit!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Sep 30, 2005 | General Militaria
� Stop The ACLU links with: Sunday Funnies

September 29, 2005

Been here, done this - but only in peacetime.

It's a tough job, no matter when.

CSA Sends: "Dear Casualty Notification Officer"

Names elided by me.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Wow. Simply... wow. Like the mother, words fail me how people can manage to carry out this assignment.

posted by SGT Jeff (IRR) on September 29, 2005 4:42 PM

Standing and fighting would be a much easier duty than delivering the horrible news to the loved ones. Thanks for sharing this, John.

posted by Barb on September 29, 2005 5:21 PM

Not to belabor the obvious - but it's harder to get this news than it is to give it.

posted by John of Argghhh! on September 29, 2005 5:22 PM

My son is a US Marine (ret). He was seriously injured in a training accident just before his Btn deployed to Iraq in Feburary of 2004. Upon his recovery he found himself, a SpOps Team Leader, transformed into a CAO and family liason officer. During those months he called me two or three times a week, usually in tears because he found that duty much more difficult than being a heavy machine gunner. There were several times I thought the MP's would be picking him up at the airport in San Diego trying to buy a plane ticket to Baghdad so he didn't have to face another family.

He did his duty. He hated every minute of it, but he did it well.

posted by Becker on September 29, 2005 7:43 PM

During Desert Storm, the Non-Commissioned Officers of the School Of Infantry (West) were assigned as escorts for the Marine Casualty Notification Officers aboard Camp Pendleton. We were to accompany our Officers on Casualty Calls to the next of kin of fallen Marines and Sailors.

I was never called upon to carry out that mission, and I thank God that I never had to perform it... I would have rather taken the round myself, as I don't think I could have maintain my bearing...

posted by Sgt. B. on September 29, 2005 11:12 PM

On two occasions, I sincerely wished that it had been me that had died.

There are just no words to express the way you feel when a mother and father gives their country a son, sharing his pride in what he has accomplished and loving him the more for having done it, trusting and praying that he will be in safe hands...

...and then you have to tell them that you lost him.

posted by cw4(ret)billt on September 30, 2005 12:46 AM

Bill... I can't imagine the pain the death of a fellow Soldier causes, especially when you were the officer in charge. However, in most cases, I think the parents and other loved ones would agree that:
1. it's not your fault
2. it was his/her time to go
3. they died doing something they believed in
4. you will always be welcome in their home because of how highly their son/daughter respected you
5. courage is the number one quality all Soldiers must have- the courage to stand up and fight, and the courage to stand up and support each other in times of death and serious injury.

John-
Thanks for posting this beautiful letter. I only hope that if this should ever happen to me, I will be as gratious.

posted by AFSister on September 30, 2005 9:23 AM

Can you imagine being the guy/gal who had to do the notification to Cindy Sheehan? (Just a thought...)

Anyway -

I've done Casualty Assistance Officer (CAO) duty but not notification (either as a detail or as a Commander, thank God). I pray that when/if the notification task falls to me, I have the strength and courage to properly discharge this duty.

CAO is a sacred duty for me and the feeling of service you derive from it is indescribable. It's even better when you can sort out a VA or Army Pay situation for the widow.

Same same if you've ever been on a funeral detail. In my cases, they were for retirees not Soldiers recently fallen in combat. The mark you make on the community by your presence and professionalism is exponential.

I had my guys watch "Gardens of Stone" before we assumed the on-call role and it got the studs "thinking right" about the responsibilities.

This is a good topic when think about in abstract but rarely in any detail.

posted by LongTabSigo on September 30, 2005 10:19 AM

Heh. 'Gardens of Stone' brings to mind typical soldier humor...

"Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, let's plant this sucker and get back on the bus..."

posted by John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 10:40 AM

Jesus.

I had to wake my mother up in the middle of the night to tell her that her daughter, my sister, had been killed in an accident. It's the most difficult thing I've done in my life.

These soldiers who make these calls over and over have my respect. It was an act of strength and sheer goodness on the part of the letter-writer to acknowledge their duty, once she was able.

Gonna go weep now.

posted by April on September 30, 2005 10:47 AM

AFSis - Logically, you're right. Emotionally, however, John ("...it's harder to get this news than it is to give it.") is correct...

One of those two occasions marked the only time I was punched and I never even considered defending myself; I knew it wasn't me he was lashing out at and about three seconds later he had me in a bear hug, bawling on my shoulder.

posted by cw4(ret)billt on September 30, 2005 11:46 AM

Oh, man... Everytime I come back to this thread it's gets to be more tear-inducing! Those of you who have been CAOs or on the receiving end of CAOs performing their duties: you have my deepest condolences, and my full gratitude and respect.

posted by Fuzzybear Lioness on September 30, 2005 12:20 PM

LTS - I think of 'Gardens of Stone' often when I read the casualty emails ... such somber duty, paying last respects and honor to the fallen.

Bill - I know that you are sorrier than I could ever be that you were called to perform that duty. I also know that your first sorrow wasn't for yourself but for the ones who received the news. *Hugs*

posted by Barb on September 30, 2005 12:43 PM

'Gardens of Stone' is one of my two favorite movies. To me, it shows the greatest way of showing respect to the fallen. During Desert Storm, a group of Army Reserve Master Sgt's from the training unit in West Palm Beach, Fl was deployed...to Florida. They were assigned CAO duties. Trained on how to deliver the news and to do military funerals, and that's what they did for six months. Talk about a sorry deployment....

posted by msg keith on September 30, 2005 3:21 PM

I was in the honor guard on Ft. Huachuca for a short while. I did daily flag duty, mostly, and other cool stuff (no kidding, I liked that part of the work). The couple times I was put on funeral alert, I dreaded it the whole time, and when my weeks had passed without being called, I cannot begin to tell you how releived I was.

My marine-raider step father was buried by a USMC honor guard. One of my most vivid memories (and that was in the late 60s). I still get choked up at taps, just because of that.

On a more personal note, I had to tell my adopted 12 year-old her birth mother had died. My wife had to tell me my very much loved other step father had died. We both agree there is nothing harder to do, but having been on both ends, I am with JOhn, it's harder to get that to give.

I think that's one of those things that just makes you a stronger better person, and that everyone should have to do that duty at some time. It isn't fun, but it makes you a member of a larger community of grown-ups.

On a final note, the notification scene in Saving Private Ryan is one of the most moving, and the mother's reaction still makes me cry. I just can't iamgine what it must have been like to do that during WWII for any length of time. Seems like it would have been awful...

V/R

posted by SangerM on September 30, 2005 6:54 PM

The wording of such news is dignified and respectful. It is a sad duty for all the aforementioned reasons.

I pray the Almighty to keep them and all our men and women in harm's way in the hollow of His hand.

posted by Cricket on October 4, 2005 12:13 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Sep 29, 2005 | Observations on things Military | Something for the Soul
� Random Fate links with: Much sadness…
� My Side of the Puddle links with: Time for some linky-lovin

On making difficult decisions

I've been asked by several people to comment on Captain Fishback's letter in the Washington Post.

The intro:

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled.

If you haven't read this, you should.

A couple of things, in answer to questions. Yes, Captain Fishback is real. That's his name, that's his unit. I've checked.

Second - he's right that the guidance has been muddled, changing, and at times contradictory. His quest for answers occurred over months, and over those months, answer did, in fact, change. I've been following that myself, from the inside. I have a good friend who has written a historical monograph on the subject, recently, for the Army, and he said his research was difficult and confusing. If it was that way for a professional historian, I imagine for troops in the field in what we term the "OE" or Operational Environment, it was more so... if they ever got the word, definitively.

It's all been a black eye for the services, certainly. Whether I agree or not with whatever current definition is being floated by whomever, with whatever axe to grind, there is no doubt that there has been a failure of the leadership to fully and forcefully grasp and deal with the issue in an effective way. And, in many respects, having been on operations, the failures may be at far lower levels than you think, for reasons that have to do with the behavior of soldiers under combat stress. But that's a post for a different time.

What's clear with Captain Fishback is that he feels the chain of command has been unresponsive, possibly even evasive.

There is a book, originally published as in 1960 as DoD Pam 1-20, the Armed Forces Officer, authored by BG S.L.A. Marshall. It had in it a passage talking, essentially, about "Speaking Truth to Power" though Marshall certainly didn't term it that way. The current version, revised in 1988, waters that discussion down considerably - to my personal regret.

Marshall said, essentially, that if, upon reflection, an officer felt strongly enough about something, he must speak out to his superiors, regardless of personal consequence. Apparently Captain Fishback finds himself in that position. I'm sure it's a lonely one within his peer group, and he finds himself among strange new friends... such as Human Rights Watch.

As a Navy CPO I've been chatting with notes:

The German Great General Staff once issued a certificate to officers selected for staff duty which in part read:
"The King has made you a staff officer in order that you will know those orders to obey and those not to be obeyed."

Whether he is right to do this, only time will tell. And only time will tell what the price is he pays for doing it.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Last night I listened to an extended discussion on American Public Radio about the actions of Captain Fishback (sorry, I don't recall the program, I was listening via streaming on the Internet, since American Public Radio is not broadcast here in France), and the only illumination from the discussion was that no minds will be changed. Those who had strong opinions on this before will continue to have strong opinions with no change in the said opinions.

At this point, I don't know what to think. Things are always significantly different at the "pointy end" of events, and far, far too often the context of the emotions and events at the pointy end are forgotten in the comfort of our home offices pounding away at our keyboards in our air-conditioned houses.

This appears to be a black eye for the Services, yes, along with another black eye for the United States as a whole. I can only hope that Captain Fishback is truly taking his actions for the right reasons, and that the truth does eventually come out if only so we can find ways to keep abuses from happening again as much as humanly possible.

posted by Jack on September 29, 2005 12:03 PM

I need more information.

CPT Fishback propounds some interesting and very important questions that are relevant at the one over the world level, but have little application where boots are on the ground.

Unless you served as an MP or MI type, your training in handling EPWs was focused on the Five Esses and the Geneva Convention.

Here's my main point: at the level that Fishback operates, he doesn't need to make a determination about whether or not someone is an enemy combatant or a POW or some other category. It's just not his job. He needs to follow the Five Esses and turn this problem over to someone who has the authority to make those decisions.

Reading this in the most favorable light I can, Fishback is guilty of thinking strategically, when he should be thinking tactically. Assuming he and his soldiers are "following the rules", there is no dishonor, or even question of honor involved in dealing with "bad guys", regardless of what legal tag someone hangs on them later.

Steve C.

posted by Steve on September 29, 2005 12:07 PM

Treatment of prisoners has been a hot topic in my household for months. My Marine veteran beloved contends that the Geneva conventions don't apply, because the enemy does not identify itself with uniforms, and our soldiers have therefore done nothing wrong, and people shouldn't feel any sympathy at all toward the detainees.

In this country, the subject seems to break evenly along partisan lines--rabid indignance and American self-loathing on the left, and rabid denial of possible failure on the right.

My take is this: I don't really care about the damned prisoners. What sickens me about the Abu Ghraib and other instances where prisoners have been "abused" is the perverse and sadistic pleasure displayed by our men and women in uniform who committed these acts. This is what seems glaringly un-American to me. It just isn't honorable.

I understand about combat stress, and how it might cloud one's judgement. But shouldn't leadership be able to supercede that, and keep dishonorable behavior in check?

It takes courage for Captain Fishback to bring this into the open. I hope it results in some clarification, going forward, of what is acceptable behavior on the part of our forces.

posted by April on September 29, 2005 12:35 PM

What appears to be CPT Fishback's testimony to Human Rights Watch is here. It's very, very interesting, and reveals a lot about his thinking on the subject.

posted by Fuzzybear Lioness on September 29, 2005 1:21 PM

I'm not sure FIshback is guilty of anything. He's looking out for his men. Looking to keep them from prosecution and mental distress later in life over actions taken here and now. Good on him.

We learned at Nuremburg that ignorance and following orders is not a defense. He's doing his job by finding out what exactly the rules are and whether those rules are correct. This isn't a problem child--though I imagine he'll be made into one by all of us partisan hacks trying to make his actions larger than they really are--just a guy doing his job ablely.

I'm not sure I agree with Cpt. Fishback, but the man has guts and a clear sense of duty/right and wrong(not everyone agreed with Patton/Mac/Bradley/Westmooreland on everything either). He's exactly what we need and he's doing a fine job.

posted by ry on September 29, 2005 5:05 PM

I guess I come down on the side of Steve C and am slightly confused on this subject.

When the prisoners are taken in I thought there were basic rules. I don't expect that they would be beaten however, I expect if they refused to obey orders, like get down on their knees, that they would be forced to do so. Police do this all the time. Is that an issue?

Or is this issue strictly about what happens when they are already in custody being interrogated or in prison? At which point, I am familiar with general prison practices which it seems gitmo at least follows in general. I suppose that I don't expect prisoners to have food and basic health and hygiene needs withheld unless there is a real infraction of the rules. I expect that, without the status of "prisoner of war" the person is not protected against interrogation or specific methods that would include prolonged interrogation, lying to the prisoner to get them to cooperate or incriminate themselves (such as telling them that another prisoner has already given X information incriminating that prisoner or about an operation, etc) and I don't expect that they have representation during interrogation.

I did wonder about certain "stress positions" like handcuffing them in a standing position for 10 or more hours, refusing a bathroom or exposing them to extreme temperatures.

Things like taking their clothes away, forced extractions, putting them in isolation, did not bother me either since these are basic practices in prisons as well and generally related to the behavior of the prisoner against himself, another prisoner or a guard.

I suppose my expectations, even if they were sabatuers and terrorists (per the geneva convention) was that we would not see things like pulling nails, hammering toes, sawing off fingers, electrocution or threats to do any of these (or other bodily harm, that includes being bitten by a dog).

I did not expect to see them in pictures with panties on their heads, a dog leash or standing naked with some chic laughing her ass off.

I believe that the other issue is closely related to what the Geneva conventions say about non-uniformed prisoners or "sabatuers and terrorists". by the standards previously written, they would be quickly tried and executed. but we are a more "humane" society so, even though the technicality of the conventions state that, we don't follow those rules. Since we don't, we enter into a fuzzy grey area by some folks standards.

Again, maybe I'm confused or just letting my own morality get in the way, but from this standpoint, it seems that we would do as the manual says and revert to treating them with the basic GC rules of care, feeding and freedom from physical harm (aside from being found guilty of some truly hienous crime and being executed), but would simply mitigate the rules that say the prisoner is only responsible to give name, rank and serial number (there being no rank or serial number anyway in a terrorist cell, unofficial militia or non-uniformed actor) and would not protect them from specific interrogation techniques, again, only limited by the removal of violence, assault or threat of such.

I also expect that we have created some fairy tale in our minds about how well other prisoners were treated during other wars from our men in uniform. I believe that this change is directly related to freedom of information, 24 hour news cycles and the advent of new "human rights" organizations.

The additional pressure applied by this may also be creating the confusion that some feel about what the rules are along witht he possible ambiguous direction from a chain of command even starting with a sergent or lieutenant of a platoon.

when I say the confusion from these other outside entities, I believe that this is brought on by standards of these organizations that are even above those granted to a criminal in a legal system and also by trying to apply morality standards of your basic citizen who would not expect to be treated that way on a normal day interacting with "law enforcement".

I guess, again, I am confused about why this is an issue since it seems much simpler than is being made out. But, as pointed out, here we are at our keyboards and not involved. However, i believe that judging activities from the outside is appropriate since that allows for cooler heads to prevail, as difficult as the rules are to apply in every situation. We do the same for our police and other law enforcement entities.

posted by kat-missouri on September 29, 2005 5:27 PM

Hope Captain Fishback wasn't planning on a career.
Asking questions is not a trait appreciated by the brass. Especially hard questions.
It was the same in RVN but different. Shoot on this side of the road but not that side. "But they are shooting at me." Say again, do not return fire due to friendlys in area. "Friendlys don't fire at friends". "Hose them down guys must have a commo problem as last message was garbled."
Before you hit the ground you better know who the warriors are. If you have bleeding hearts, sissy's , or media friendlys in your unit get rid of them fast.
Another lesson from RVN. Stay away from media types even if it means discouraging them by any means possible. Nothing good ever came from reporters, photogs, or civilians in combat.

posted by Jim B on September 29, 2005 5:46 PM

Jim B,

All I can say is that I'm glad that you and Lt. Calley are no longer members of the service. Have a nice life.

posted by nitpicker on September 29, 2005 6:02 PM

I'm invoking Godwin's law here, nitpcker. JimB may be a little gruff, but there's no reason to be essentially calling him a murderer/fascist/evil slumbick around here.

He also has a point: rules we civilians live by in our daily lives don't apply on the battlefield. That's why Geneva was written in the first place because wars and battlefields occur when those rules have already broken down. Having reporters, civilians, and photohounds on the field is a problem because they frame things, often times, in everyday civilian terms.

We may/may not agree with that argument but it isn't grounds to flame.

posted by ry on September 29, 2005 6:54 PM

Here's the point. Soldiers should have honor. Period.

I don't disagree that orders from the rear should be disobeyed when they're proven wrong by conditions on the battlefield, but Jim B seems to be suggesting that soldiers get to make up their own rules as they go along and that anyone who wants to show the world what's going on in the battlefield should be "discourag(ed)...by any means possible."

So soldiers should threaten reporters and photographers? Americans don't have a right to know what their soldiers are doing? And what, exactly, does Jim suggest you do with your sissies and bleeding hearts?

As much as people like to bitch about the treatment Vietnam veterans received from civilians when they returned, studies have shown that many of the people who suffered from PTSD and other problems were much more worried about being considered "sissies" because they woke up with nightmares or couldn't get their shit together over such silly things as killing people. Does Jim support the troops? All of them or just the ones who live up to his standards? All of them or just the ones who are willing to do nothing and allow evil to occur.

I apologize for suggesting that Jim and Calley were alike. That was wrong. And I'm sorry if you felt like I was "flaming" him, but I was just being honest. I am glad.

posted by nitpicker on September 29, 2005 7:08 PM

I'll side with Ry here - feel free to attack Jim's post in it's particulars, but let's not just come in, toss a firebomb at Jim in general, and leave. Jim's opinion, whether you like it or not, sounds 'informed' - you can argue with the conclusions he's drawn from his experience, but lets not just slime Jim.

Nitpicker *did* leave a legitimate web presence, which is nice and polite, upfront and honest. I appreciate that.

I don't think Jim was suggesting that My Lai was good policy. Nor do I think Jim was suggesting that he and his unit would/did that kind of thing. Jim was talking about rules that make perfect sense when drawn up in a TOC 40 miles away don't seem to make too much sense in a firefight right here and now - and that you need small unit leaders who can tell the difference.

The battlefield is an ugly, confused, scary place. Much of the tech we've been working on these last 30 years is actually intended to address Jim's scenario - the one where you can't shoot over there because there are friendlies in the area (which can mean villagers, not just troops). The tech is aimed towards giving soldiers a view of the close fight that will help them pick the shooters from the hapless.

As for the press... well, I learned in high school athletics that they can be useful, but they are most emphatically not your friend.

You just have to learn how to use them and live with them, because they are certainly using you. And you have the right to use them, too.

Kat brings up the point of the 'fairy tale' of how we treated prisoners of war in previous wars.

Generally, we didn't go into the sadistic torture thing. But several divisions did have a bad reputation (in the pristine sense) for the number of prisoners 'shot while trying to escape' in their areas of operations. The 45th Infantry, in particular, comes to mind, and periodically their excellent museum in Oklahoma City has exhibits which touch on that.

And Kat talks of some confusion about the nature of the topic and the distinctions being made - am I missing something here - or did Kat not just make Captain Fishback's point?

While Steve C. I think correctly observes that Captain Fishback has his scan on areas not generally of his concern - Captain Fishback is also doing what Jim alludes to - trying to take care of his troops, and doing what an Officer should do - look ahead, look out, look to the future. If he's right, he might be like Colonel McMaster, who took a risk writing a book that essentially called the senior military and political leadership of the Vietnam Era incompetent boobs.

Turns out more people agreed with him than not. So he survived that risk to find himself in command at Tal Afar.

Captain Fishback may or may not survive - but he certainly paid attention in his ethics classes.

posted by John of Argghhh! on September 29, 2005 7:21 PM

And I'll note that Nitpicker was putting up his response while I was composing my previous, so he didn't see what I had to say nor I what he said.

posted by John of Argghhh! on September 29, 2005 7:24 PM

It's interesting that you bring up My Lai, which I think has some interesting connections to the issues at hand. Like My Lai, it has taken too long for some resolution to occur. Thompson reported Calley and his troops two years before Ridenhour took his complaints to Mo Udall and made some things happen. Now that Fishback has gone to McCain and a judge has ordered the release of more Abu Ghraib photos, things are going to finally start happening with this investigation

So far though, like My Lai, only the soldiers on the ground were punished despite their insistence that they were following orders from on high.

Funny thing, though, the Army today doesn't act like Calley was acting alone. Back in 98 I was going to Bosnia and we had a lesson in the Law of Land Warfare. One of the things they teach you is how to disobey a direct order. This LTC teaching the class said he had taught the LoLW at the Academy and that they always use Calley as an example. His main point wasn't what a jerk Calley was, but how Calley screwed up by not refusing the order.

Yes, Calley and the screw-ups at Abu Ghraib deserve what's coming to them in this life and the next, but, like My Lai, I don't think that the burden of these terrible incidents rests on their shoulders alone.

posted by nitpicker on September 29, 2005 7:33 PM

I meant, "There's an interesting correlation between this and My Lai." Obviously, I brought it up.

And in a stupid, angry way. Again, I apologize to Jim B.

posted by nitpicker on September 29, 2005 7:39 PM

I'll defend JimB. Largely because this one is so obvious to me.
Pure 4th Gen war is not like WW2 or Korea. There are no safe zones(isn't this exactly what Hackworth had been bitching about up until his death?). THis is what we're facing now, is it not? Basically, you can't have the same expectations for a near-pure conventional war and a near-pure unconventional war. One side has already tossed out the rules so everything is FUBAR from the begining.

Now add to this we have people who can't tell an APC from an SP Artillery piece from a tank, much less cite or understand LoLW(dating back to Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War) or Geneva and all its iterations since 1940, framing the debate in ways that US personell are seemingly always in a poor light.(I wonder how many people that pushes into having nightmares? Knowing, based off of reports, that the American public thinks your scum who kills women and children willy-nilly--even if it isn't true.)

Context and perspective matters, and these people(reporters, photohounds, and do-gooder civilians of all stripes) don't have the perspective or background knowledge to understand the context(by and large--trying to be somewhat careful about using too large a brush as I don't want to have to remove Sanger's boot from my behind again.). My favorite example of this is an NBC reporter who went on TV to say that the JDAM was the most important development in military history. Then there's that Arnott goon saying that American forces we're being defeated during the major sand storm imposed halt. (How well did The Truth suffer that day, I wonder. But I digress too much.). Many reporters don't understand what they are seeing and their reportage hurts the efforts of those at the sharp end.

Protecting your troops matters too. If you can achieve that by telling a reporter of the type I described above to bugger off, I'm for it.

There is the publics right to know, but the right to know right now is balanced against peoples lives in the field. And I'm not sure it's ever been the publics right to know RIGHT NOW.

YOu can topple an administration after the shooting stops, thank you very much. Blame and punishment can be attributted after the shooting stops. During runs the risk of prolonging a 4th Gen fight since it's a fight of political will and infowar, and not military strength as we've understood it in the past.
JimB is looking out for The Men. There's a nobility in that, even if it can be taken to far into the realm of lies and coverups.

posted by ry on September 29, 2005 9:49 PM

I had started a long rant in which I began carefully fisking some of the points made in the thread above, but I finally just decided to say this instead:

From the way this thread evolved, it's fairly easy to guess who has real-world experience, a decent education, AND a relatively mature, pragmatic weltanschauung. It's also easy to see who doesn't....

Platitudes and sophistry are characteristics of a weak mind, a poor education, or a lack of experience in the topic being discussed. They are also typical of people who, lacking genuine, pertinent experience, tend to force-fit the logic, vocabulary, or perspectives of one milieu on a similar but essentially different one, just to appear credible; for example, to talk about chicken shit when the topic is eggs.

It just seems to me that Jim B was talking "eggs."

~SangerM

posted by SangerM on September 30, 2005 1:14 AM

I invite everyone over to Lex's (trackback) for his take, as well.

posted by John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 8:41 AM

No definitive orders for the treatment of POW's. Has there EVER been such?

posted by Lisa on September 30, 2005 11:00 AM

Reminds me of a scene from "True Grit."

Glen Campbell is spanking Kim Darby.

John Wayne: Stop that!

Campbell: Why?

Wayne: Yer enjoying it too much!

posted by Justthisguy on September 30, 2005 12:21 PM

Yes.

Search them
Secure them (tie them up)
Segregate them (enlisted, NCOs and officers)
Safeguard them (keep them out of harm's way)
Speed them to the rear

Those are the standard operating procedures.

At the unit level (company/battlion) you don't interrogate them nor do you "classify" (sort the sheep from the goats) them. You pass them on back through the trains to wherever the EPW holding area is located, usually at division level. At that level there are MP units trained to handle EPWs and MI units to do interrogations and intelligence exploitation, ie what does this map mean? Is this code books useful?

What people are conflating is the question of legal status, what Geneva classification category applies to a detainee. The US, I think correctly, has defined terrorists as criminals, not soldiers. As such they are not entitled to the normal protections extended to "soldiers" under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. We are free, under our own regulations and laws to prosecute them for committing criminal acts.

What this really always boils down to is the question of "torture". A protected person, a PW, can not be coerced into answering questions. You can not withhold food, water, shelter etc or make them conditional on providing information. There are no such rules or laws dealing with how one treats criminals. Our policy is treat them as if they were EPWs, except in matters of their conduct and with regard to interrogation. We reserve the right to try them for crimes committed. We reserve the right to use some forms of coercion to obtain intelligence information.

Well then what's torture? At that point I have to take a pass. Like ponorgraphy, I know it when I see it. Beyond that there are reams of regulations, policies, laws and even treaties. Like most government documents, they don't give you an accurate road map. They tell you what you can't do, or what you must do. Not what you may do.

I don't lose a lot of sleep over this. Good officers and NCOs at unit level will keep control of their troops. Most detention centers are run by competent and concerned professionals who want to do the right thing and follow the rules while accomplishing the mission.

What I do lose sleep over is when I hear about an entire command so dysfunctional, that the privates and Spec Fours are making policy on the fly and indulging in ghastly juvenile debauchery. And nobody seems to know (or care) about what's going on.

Steve C.

posted by Steve on September 30, 2005 12:48 PM

I think Steve pretty much nailed it. I do appreciate the good Captain's concerns, but that is a different bal of wax from the day-to-day operational aspects of this. I was taught to use the five S's back in the 70's. They are still good rules. And as the front-line guy, I was more than happy to know that all I had to do was keep them safe until I could give them to the people who knew how to deal with them.

On another note, for how the American treated POWs, one can read things about Tarawa where there were NO prisoners, 8K Japanese and Koreans killed by 4K Marines) or about the Army in WWII, say when they found Germans wearing US boots for example).

And for all of the stuff out of Iraq, I have a hard time not considering that we didn't put their heads on pikes at the prison gates, or display their body parts for all to see. And considering how the Europeans used to deal with prisoners, I don't even want to hear from them--one of the most sickening places I ever visted was the Kriminal Museum in Rothenerg, FRG. (I never visted Dachau or the like, that would have been too much).

I know, a meander, but there it is...

posted by SangerM on September 30, 2005 7:03 PM

You know, I have no doubt that CPT. Fishback is a good and honorable man. Won't his actions lead to the blanket catch all phrase of 'poor judgment' when he couldn't get clear guidance? And if he hadn't sought them out, he would still be wrong. It is a no win situation for him and he takes the rap for good or ill.

Will re read this again in detail and may have more questions after I have read it...

posted by Cricket on October 1, 2005 11:07 AM

Crick,
That's exactly why I say he's doing his job. Of course, he could still be making a pain of himself, arguing minutea and the like, but so far it looks like he's doing his job.

posted by ry on October 1, 2005 5:39 PM

Thanks. Guidance has to be clear and consistent.

Good on him for being exact so that he does his job and does not stand accused of wrongdoing.

posted by Cricket on October 4, 2005 12:19 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Sep 29, 2005 | Observations on things Military
� Neptunus Lex links with: An Inconvenient Captain
� My Side of the Puddle links with: Time for some linky-lovin
� Fuzzilicious Thinking links with: Captain Fishback

September 27, 2005

Tuesday olio

A post in which I punish you for *not* having broadband access. But at least all the big stuff opens in a new window...

First up: The Neo-Con Blogger(TM) has a .wmv for you. (When you get to the site, remember to right-click and open in a new window)

For the 4.3888045831 of you who *haven't* been everywhere else in the milblog world or Free Republic before coming here, go check out this gesture of defiance. H/t, Ry.

Here's the punisher: a 3 meg Powerpoint Show about New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina. It came from France - and might well be intended as a snark, I don't know. Cultural differences can make things seem one way or another. Regardless - it's a good collection of pictures, put to music. I wasn't offended by it - but I'm not sure the author didn't *intend* for me to be offended. Mebbe Jack knows. Anyway - right click and save as and run it from your desktop for best performance.

The Great USA.

That's what I've got this morning. If you are a person who checks back, I'll probably add to this post as the mood (and access to non-work computer) allows.

Snerk! This is one reason to keep Europe alive... h/t, the Blogfather.

Barb's back! And she scouted at least one castle for the Castle Argghhh!!! Someday We'll Do It European Castle Tour.

Cassie has a Gun Pr0n caption contest up. Don't embarass me over there - that *ain't* a tank in the picture!

Speaking of tanks, and tankers...

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Firsties!
The Neo-Con Blogger video is from my county- Clermont, Ohio. It was produced in honor of our military, but specifically, for the Maupin family. It first came out about a year ago (I think) when Matt was first taken hostage. It used to have links to Clermont Yellow Ribbon, but I didn't see them this time.

I love the picture Ry sent! God love 'em....

And the Great USA video was a great collection of images from Katrina- thanks for sharing!

posted by AFSister on September 27, 2005 8:30 AM

That Marine rocks! I'd like to see that photo all over the news, but I know that's just wishful thinking.

posted by April on September 27, 2005 9:17 AM

Sign me up for that Castle Tour!

posted by AFSister on September 27, 2005 2:46 PM

I liked The Great USA, but I'd bet a dime to a euro the person who made it meant it to be an insult. The title is the giveaway, I think, as are the images chosen (when so many others are also available).

I think, however, that this says a great deal about just how little the French or any Europeans for that matter, really understand us. I don't see it as an insult, an indictment, or a revelation, just a fairly moving montage of images that capture the essence of what was reported to the world.

Basically I think it missed its intended target. Either that or it's just too nuanced for me...

And I LOVE the picture of the marine. It reminds me of that cardboard sign the Marines posted on the bridge at Fallujah. Ha!

posted by SangerM on September 27, 2005 3:18 PM

And that, Sanger - is *exactly* why I put it up. That and the fact that I've always liked that version of House of the Rising Sun...

posted by John of Argghhh! on September 27, 2005 3:25 PM

Figured as much.

Is that the Frigid Pink Version? I like this version, but can't tell who it is.

posted by SangerM on September 27, 2005 3:32 PM

Great stuff. Thank you!!!

posted by wordsmith on September 27, 2005 3:53 PM

Gaw-damn-it. I can't get this 'Great America' thing to play. I keep getting a 'power point cannot open' dialogue box. I saved it to hard drive. WTF? Help?

posted by ry on September 27, 2005 4:53 PM

Ry - Are you able to open Powerpoint first, and then open the PPS file? That might help.

John - Thanks for the link. We visited a couple of castles, and a neat Swiss defensive position on the French border camouflaged as a Chalet. Pictures to come as soon as I can upload and clean 'em up ...

posted by Barb on September 27, 2005 5:13 PM

Oh lovely. Does the quotes feature work in snow?
And can they write their names?

*mumbles to self "Put Bulldoze Europe on my to do list."*

posted by Cricket on September 27, 2005 6:13 PM

I would say 'The Great USA' was definitely intended as a snark- a biting social commentary on "the plight of poor minorities caught in the crushing grip of Cowboy George's indifferent callousness..."
This from the citizen of a country where thousands died last year from a heat wave... and I wonder what percentage of those victims were the poor and dispossessed of France?
Just asking...

posted by Neffi on September 27, 2005 7:19 PM

Love the pic of the Marine standing and rudely saluting. We may be having discussions, here, about what the USA should and should not do in the wide world, but blowing our troopers up is not the way to get on our good side and have us sympathise with you.

posted by Justthisguy on September 27, 2005 7:33 PM

Yes, I posted this as a tribute to all Vets. Many people commented directly on my site. More people sent me emails expressing thier thanks. Any time I can find something so moving that thanks current and past Vets, I will post it. Great Site!

posted by patd95 on September 29, 2005 12:25 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Sep 27, 2005 | Hurricane Katrina | Observations on things Military
� NIF links with: The Adventures of the Cosmic Mighty Force
� Scotts Conservative News & Commentary links with: Attitude As Only the Corps Can Deliver

September 26, 2005

Big sigh.

Good call, Coach. Really.

Agent 86, aka Don Adams, USMCR, has passed to Fiddler's Green. Lieutenant Albert, et. al., await.

Snerk! That ain't the Oktoberfest I remember. Mardi Gras in New Orleans, perhaps, but not Munich!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Sep 26, 2005 | Something for the Soul

TINS!

In the comments to a post below, Bill bloviates thusly;

Kaplan's off the mark on "unasseting" the helicopter begetting "unassing" same -- "unassing" the ship was common usage 'bout thirty years prior to the present oh-so-trendy verbification of nouns.
This is what comes of refusing to publish Roget's in a cammied cover...

Now that we auld pharts don't work in The 'Box any more, the corporate memory shifts.

5 gets you 10 that the New Kids On The Block (NKOB) figured that 'unassing' had to have some kewl derivation, and cast about until they came up with "Unassetting". Kind of like we do when confronted with an acronym we understand, but someone asks us what the letters stand for - and we MSU* an answer.

Or, someone like us was drunk, and the New Kids misunderstood us to say Unassetting when we really slurred un ass-sitting.

I can see it now...

Interior, night, tent. Cases of near-beer abound. Grizzled, white-haired warrant officer pilot (GWWOP) lies sprawled on his cot, 27-inch zipper open to his waist, in case that cute admin warrant ambles by... GWWOP sips from carefully packed and concealed ABC (alcoholic beverage container).
NKOBs come in.

NKOB1 "Hey, didja hear that Kaplan guy? Asking about what "unassing" meant? Where d'ya think it came from?"

NKOB2 "I dunno, really. Whatcha think?"

GWWOP *Hic*

NKOB1 "I dunno, whattaya you think?"

GWWOP "I know"

NKOB2 "Yeah? Where'd it come from Gramps?"

GWWOP "Back in da 'Nam, in the Delta, where men were men and small furry animals were really small furry animals, and scared... *hic* it meant, *hic* it meant, get yer assesh outta th' aaaair, *hic* aiiiiirrr, *hic* bird. *bleary eyed look* Uuuuuhhhhnasshed the bird. *hic* Yep. Thash' it."

NKOB1 "Hey, cool - it means they 'unasseted' the birds! C'mon, let's go tell Kaplan!"

NKOB1 and 2 rush off to find The Reporter Guy.

GWWOP "Hehehehehehehehe. My work here is done."

*Make Shite Up. This also applies when confronted with a Congressional Staffer Who Knows That Word Is An Acronym and he must know it's meaning when he writes the Congressperson's Report On The Subject.

Case in point - when I was running the Battle Sim Center at Fort Sill, way back in the days it first opened, we had lots of visitors. We were the first TRADOC school to implement a simcenter, and we did it mostly out-of-hide. But it was Kapital K Kewl. (it really was, leave aside that it set me on the path to my eventual lucrative post-retirement employment). We'd get Persons From Congress (usually staffers, the Congresscritter themself being a bit intimidated by all those blinkenlites). Anyway, our major tool was a high-res simulation called Janus, still in use, though its star dims on the training side. (Hey, it's almost as old as Bill).

Staffers *Knew* Janus had to be an acronym (even though it wasn't in all-caps) probably because their poli-sci degrees never covered Roman mythology, where Janus is the two-headed god of portals, the past looking to the future. No, the only Janus they knew was maybe Janus Funds, and Everybody Knows the services are all into acronyms, so what did it mean?

You'd tell them, "Nothing. It's the name of a roman god and..."

"Oh, please!" they'd reply. "I have a source in the Pentagon who told me what it meant, only I forgot, now don't make me call them..."

Snerk. Like I'm afraid of that.

"Okay, you got me. It means 'Just ANother Useless Simulation'."

*scribble scribb...* "It does not! Now, what does it *mean*?" (throw in gerbil-glare)

"It doesn't *mean* anything. It was originally built as an analysis tool for comparing current equipment and force structures against new equipment and force structures... from the past to the future... Janus... the roman god of portals."

"Oh, don't give me that! You're just trying to make me look stupid in front of my boss!"

"Nope. Sorry. I'm not." (thought to self, "I couldn't do any better than you are right now, anyway.")

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Sep 26, 2005

Wahabism Delenda Est!

If cease fires in the name of peace actually produced peace the Middle East would be the most peaceful place on earth by now.
.
Mebbe it's just Clobbering Time.
.
Just sayin'
.
"The Iraqis don't want Saddam back - they want the stability. But they want the stability without being fed into industrial chippers."
. -The Armorer, on Hugh Hewitt, 27 December 2006.

Life Member