RANGER AGAINST WAR: Why I Write <

Friday, September 02, 2011

Why I Write


But it wasn't because I didn't know enough
I just knew too much

Does that make me crazy?

Possibly

--Craz
y, Gnarls Barkley
_____________________

[Motivated by Sgt. Rabb's post @ Milpub]:


I was a soldier once and now not-so-young, a fact which allows me to connect the dots from present to past. The logic of soldiering has been left deeply ingrained in my thoughts and actions.

Last night was suffused with memories of past screw-ups and negative events that I still cannot justify or accept as being correct. Today's events resurface them, and I am discomfited down to my Ranger lizard brain.


When I was a platoon leader, my assigned strength equaled the 37 men killed in the recent shoot-down of the Chinook in Afghanistan. My platoon was line infantry, not elite in any manner. We did, however, stress one military precept: Dispersion.


We never put all our eggs in one basket. We would never allow one military round to kill or wound more than was militarily acceptable. We maintained dispersion while eating and even in the chow line when we were operational.
My tracks (M 106) were never bunched up to allow enemy counter battery to knock out more than one of our guns. Not being bunched up is Rule One of ground combat.

On or about 21/22 Jan 71 there was an action at B53 in the Republic of Vietnam in which another entire helicopter of highly-trained Special Forces and Special Operations Assets men were blown out of the sky. To this day it is my contention
that these men were sacrificed because there was not a proper and judicious recon. Helo gunship fire suppression of the area was not employed and the men did not know what enemy they were facing nor their capabilities.

U.S. SOF assets are still making the same senseless mistakes that get good men killed for no measurable reason.
What is the benefit of the cost?

Thirty soldiers died at the hands (we are told) of a lucky RPG gunner. But in Special Forces, we are taught
there is no such thing as "luck" -- there is only the presence or absence of solid planning and execution. No unit should lose 37 people associated gear from one lucky RPG shot.

Such a loss is criminal negligence on the part of the operational planners and team leaders. No sensible soldier would put all his assets in one bunch, hoping luck would not turn ill; it does not work that way either in gang warfare or combat.


Ranger does not believe the shoot down of the Chinook was an RPG loss. Why does the media not posit the employment of a ground-to-air Redeye or Strella-type missile? If the U.S. uses technology, then why not the Afghanis?
Why the fiction that their successes are due to sheer, dumb-ass luck? The Gods of War need not be Christian or Western.

What would it mean if they were as tactical as we?

Labels: , , ,

9 Comments:

Blogger FDChief said...

You don't get it, do ya?

If they were as clever as we are, if they could soldier like white men, if their lives were as precious to them as ours are to us...

...then what justification would we have for butchering them in their own land and ruling them with force and fire?

Any good imperial could tell you; it's because the brown savages are always lucky, never good; always savage, never brave; always ruthless, never committed; always fanatic, never determined.

Because of they were like us, how could we explain what we need to do to them without accepting their doing them to us?

Saturday, September 3, 2011 at 12:34:00 PM EST  
Blogger Underground Carpenter said...

Hi Jim and FDChief,

I went down the rabbit hole of links. I liked both y'all's comments.(H/T to Southern Regional Dialect. I don't normally use "y'all" in a sentence.)

"Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune, whose words do jarre; nor his reason in frame, whose sentence is preposterous"

Ben Jonson


Usually when an essay bothers me like Jonathan Raab's, spelling and punctuation are as jarring as the thoughts expressed. But there were no misspelled words, no run-on sentences, no comma spices, no misplaced modifiers. Baffling.

Dispersion sounds like a good thing in war, but In carpentry we always tightly stack our boards. Makes it easier to pick them up with a forklift.

Oh, and that's a great Jim Day 'toon!

Dave

Saturday, September 3, 2011 at 4:35:00 PM EST  
Anonymous Carl said...

There appears to be very little weight re the story of the "lucky" RPG round..yet why do so many still buy these rotten fabrications gov terms as "facts"? FDC, great comment.

Saturday, September 3, 2011 at 9:25:00 PM EST  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Dave,
Boards cannot provide covering or interlocking fires.
They are boards b/c they bunched up in forests and we cut their asses down.
jim

Sunday, September 4, 2011 at 12:55:00 PM EST  
Blogger Brooklyn Red Leg said...

I have to ask, could an RPG-7 actually take down a Chinook? I know I sound stupid by asking, but shouldn't it still be able to land, intact, if the rear rotors were blown off? On the other hand, doesn't the Stinger disperse a huge cloud of high velocity shrapnel that it would basically shred the Chinook?

Sunday, September 4, 2011 at 2:19:00 PM EST  
Blogger Ghost Dansing said...

young men dead, black angels

Sunday, September 4, 2011 at 5:56:00 PM EST  
Blogger FDChief said...

BRL: Any helo is vulnerable when in the "ground effect" zone; anything that negatively effects lift (like losing a rotor) can cause a sudden unplanned intersection with terrain.

And RPGs have proved effective against rotary-wing A/C. The rotor hub is a complex and delicate piece of machinery, and even a near-miss from an explosive projo is very likely to cause enough damage to it to allow the force of the rotation to do the rest.

And a Hook is designed to require both rotors functioning to fly; they actually rotate in opposite directions to prevent the A/C from spinning (there's no vertical tail rotor). The loss of one rotor will result in an unrecoverable spin. End of story.

The thing to me that suggests AGAINST a SAM is the close range. SAMs are designed to acquire aircraft at a fairly extended range and height. That close to the ground the missile might actually fail to acquire, or fail to detonate - mind you, even an inert missile might do enough damage with just the kinetic energy to drop the helo.

Monday, September 5, 2011 at 11:07:00 AM EST  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Chief,
We don't know squat let alone the engagement range.
We only know what we're fed.
Whatever did the dirty deed was sure cost effective.
jim

Monday, September 5, 2011 at 3:51:00 PM EST  
Blogger Rez Dog said...

What would it mean if they were as tactical as we are?

It would mean they will bog us down in an unwinnable fight.

Monday, September 5, 2011 at 4:38:00 PM EST  

Post a Comment

<< Home