Uphill Battle III: Synthesis

6 June 1944, Pointe du Hoc

He will win who knows when to fight
and when not to fight
(or, Choose your battles wisely)
--Art of War, Sun Tzu's 1st Rule for Victory
______________

Ranger has visions of tabs, not sugar plum fairies, this Christmas season.

Yesterday he had the pleasure of meeting a WW II 2nd Ranger Battalion Normandy invasion soldier, having noticed the Ranger plate on his car. The ensuing conversation started another free association, with thoughts slamming around concerning what it means to be a Ranger.

How can two Rangers separated by a generation meet and greet and accept one another as brothers in arms? The older Ranger even applauded the use of the Ranger tab in opposition to a phony war. Both the 2nd Ranger Bn. vet and Ranger were trained to fulfill direct action missions, to accomplish a tactical plan. This is a given and was the price of admission.

Yet Ranger lacks that same camaraderie with many of his younger Ranger fellows. They are too often quick to criticize an alternate view, marching in lock step behind the conservative political agenda. Will they ever realize the futility of killing to achieve peace?

How does one compare 6 June 1944 actions of the 2nd Ranger Bn. at Pointe du Hoc with those of the ODA of the 3rd Special Forces Group 6 April 2008 in Nuristan's Shok Valley?

The action of the 2nd Rangers in '44 was crucial to a successful landing and establishment of a beachhead. If they failed, then the mission could possibly fail. The entire beach had to be taken and held in depth. The 2nd Battalion accepted this, and paid the price in young blood to achieve a quantifiable mission, earning their motto -- Rangers Lead the Way.

Contrast that with the battles in the denied areas of Afghanistan. The "insurgents" held a remote safe haven way off the beaten path. The mission is to kill, capture, and/or generally spread death and mayhem, except it doesn't happen that way. What happens when the SF are kicked off the hill and the locals remain king of the hill? Does the action affect anything, either positively or negatively?

The goal of combat is not to kill and die, but to win. Preferably in a war with meaningful goals. The business of the U.S. Army is winning wars, not killing. The Union Army at Gettysburg was not there to kill rebels; it was there to engage in combat and to impose the Union will upon the Rebel Army and government. Killing was but a tool, not the reason for the battle.

The same was true at D-Day. The goal was the destruction and defeat of the Nazi war machine. Killing was a means to effect that end, and not the sole mover on the battlefield. Killing in battle can be done like a rapier rather than in sweeping Claymore strokes.

On that 10,000 ft. mountain range in Afghanistan the SF attacked a fortified mountain position. Even assuming they killed everyone in the defensive complex, how would this accomplish anything? The SF cannot kill everyone opposed to the Karzai government. Assuming the alternate view, with the defenders having killed every attacking government soldier and ally.

So what?

Killing and destruction, bravery and suffering will not change anything in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) The entire operation is futile, on both sides of the fence.

The grueling and pivotal Point du Hoc action garnered two Distinguished Service Crosses and one Silver Star. How can a soldier reconcile the two events?

The tab on my uniform indicates conferred training and knowledge. These truths are no longer self evident, and what was taught as Army policy is now roundly ignored or blatantly violated. Reality has lost its relevance, and eyewash trumps a clear mission. This is not combat, it is insanity.

To cover this fact, we call this heroic and necessary.