Homeland Security
Ripley: These people are here to protect you. They're soldiers. Newt: It won't make any difference.
Frost: It's hot as hell in here.
Hudson: Yeah man, but it's a dry heat!
--Aliens (1986)
________
A little trip down memory lane:
On 2 Mar 71, Ranger was a young captain and redeployed back to CONUS from RVN. This was the Nixon good-faith move that the U.S. was drawing down the war by taking the vaunted 5th Special Forces Group Airborne out of the equation.
On 2 Mar 71, Ranger was a young captain and redeployed back to CONUS from RVN. This was the Nixon good-faith move that the U.S. was drawing down the war by taking the vaunted 5th Special Forces Group Airborne out of the equation.
The rub, however, was that only 53 of us brought the colors back home to good old Ft. Bragg. On 2 Mar 71 everybody wearing the Green Beret in RVN merely changed their headgear and became an element of USArmy VN -- USARV. Nice sham.
The SF left RVN, yet all the men remained behind, left in contact with the NVA/VC. Well, it played well in Peoria.
So here we are, 17 Oct 07, and the Army is making much out of drawing down a single combat Brigade. Ranger wonders if all the personnel will make it back to home station, or will they simply be absorbed by other formations? Just something to consider.
In "Military Sets Iraq Drawdown," the following quote reveals a disconnect in CI logic as practiced by today's Army:
The shift in Diyala in December could be a model for follow-on reductions next year, with a redrawing of the U.S. lines of responsibility so that a departing brigade has its battle space consumed by a remaining brigade. At the same time, Iraqi security forces would assume greater responsibility.
The Army obviously and understandably considers its occupied space as battle space. . . but, what else? Of course, where else would warriors hang out? Yet miraculously, when our warriors vacate this battle space, somehow it seems to morph magically into something Iraqi security forces can handle. Poof!
Wouldn't it be more instructive to consider this battle space (pardon Ranger, but the term battle space really cranks up my amps) the country of Iraq, or the city of Baghdad, or "their homeland"? Iraqis live, breathe and occupy these battle spaces. These are their homes and neighborhoods.
U.S. troops would best serve the Iraqis by giving them back their own backyards.
They have had more than enough of U.S. battle space.
Labels: battle space, Homeland security failure, iraq troop reduction
posted by rangeragainstwar at 10:21 PM
4 Comments:
it would be amazing if they would realize that removal of the occupation troops would be the first, and most needed step to any sort of detante or steps toward federalism.
i saw more than a couple of "cappings" where whole units were "changed" or even more shameless "reflagged." it was so damned stupid, not in the least because it was done right in front of the cameras. they not only did it, they did it in your face and dared you to say a word about it.
technically telling the truth while communicating a falsehood is one of the more vile political moves. in the words of the late john paul vann:
a partial truth is a total lie.
MB,
Hmmm... does this mean that a partial lie is a truth? I'm always looking for the angles.
I didn't know, but it seems safe to assume that the other services did the same shell game as the Army; it was obviously national policy.
Since writing it I've given some more thought (yes, Ranger's can think, though in limited spurts, in in limited scopes):
If we assume and accept that the fact that military power is needed in Iraq, than the vacuum left by one single Brigade shows the lack of depth to our battle area, and that we do not possess sufficient combat power to maintain the initiative and resolve the problem.
(Whatever the problem du jour is.)
Of course, this assumes you accept the military option, which I do not.
I was talking to some soldiers at the airport a month or so ago and commented on the fact that the unit patches are attached to their shoulders by velcro. I joked "do they move you around so much now that they don't even sew your insignias on any more?" They grinned and nodded their heads!
I'm sure it's for security or other reasons but with todays army, nothing would surprise me.
trip wire,
Glad you asked them. I don't have use for velcro on uniforms; it's noisy! In certain situations, the velcro can actually stick to carpeting if the soldiers hit the deck.
In the bush, those patches could rip off and leave evidence of your passage. Also, like I say, they'd be noisy if they ripped off.
It seems strange that they would need to change their patches that rapidly. If you follow the history of some reserve and national guard units in this war, they have been passed around like red-headed stepchildren.
(I hope you bought those soldiers a cup of coffee.)
Post a Comment
<< Home