O Sole Mio

But she goes not abroad,
in search of monsters to destroy
She is the champion and vindicator
only of her own.
She is the well-wisher to
the freedom and independence of all
--John Quincy Adams

You can't do Right

Wrong,

and you can't do Wrong,

Right!

--seen in American Craft Magazine

(Dec/Jan 2012)

______________________

Terrorism is often called "War on the Cheap", and one must wonder if that is true of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), also.

We say the U.S. is the lone Superpower, and that We Support the Troops, but sometimes things aren't as hoped for. In the Waygul battle, and in the three Medal of Honor scenarios (Murphy, Miller and Meyer), the troops received sketchy support -- conduct not meet for the world's sole Superpower.

Waygul (503rd) featured a U.S. Platoon with an inexperienced platoon leader, non-existent engineer support and an inadequate supply of water (Ranger bets the insurgents had adequate water sources). The Platoon could not be reinforced by road or air cover, to include drones -- a dodgy force protection posture, at best. Yet this did not spur anyone in the chain of command to review the mission statement.

The troops soldiered on until nine were Killed in Action and 16 Wounded in Action, causing one to question the logic of utilizing far-flung command outposts that lack proper support, mutual support or adequate logistical support. Is this how Superpowers support their troops in the face of the enemy? Ranger tabs and jump wings will not stop a bullet, contrary to popular belief.

There is a systemic infection across the spectrum of these actions, and this is a weakness in planning and execution. With Lt. Murphy we have three men killed and "one lone survivor", and award a MOH based upon one live witness. The other witnesses were on the other end of a radio link.

Staff Sergeant Miller's MOH was foreshadowed by Lt. Murphy's three years earlier, and was a precursor to Meyer's fight. RangerAgainstWar has discussed each of these engagements per available open-source material, but all leave uncomfortable, unanswered questions.

And the rest of the leading quotation is below. Our esteemed leaders might take some guidance from a not-so-distant luminary in America's intellectual and political arsenal:

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

--John Quincy Adams, On U.S. Foreign Policy (1821)

Wanat, 2011

War is a quarrel between two thieves
too cowardly to fight their own battle;
therefore they take boys from one village
and another village, stick them into uniforms,
equip them with guns, and let them loose
like wild beasts against each other
--Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty,
Emma Goldman

Property, the whole thing's about property
--The Thin Red Line (1998)
______________________

In "Echoes from a Distant Battlefield" Vanity Fair writer Mark Bowden revisits the Battle of Wanat this month. Ranger has written on the battle before (here, here and here), and will add a few comments per Bowden's account.

It seems that the Platoon Leader (PL), Lt. Jonathan Brostrom, did not enjoy the full faith and confidence of his Battalion Commander and Company Commander. This is understandable since the Lt. was young and new to real world operations (this is not a criticism of Brostrom but a recognition of the facts.)

However, if Brostrom was lacking (and this is speculation), then the Program of Instruction at Combat Arms Officer's Basic Course must be reviewed. Ranger does not believe that building a combat outpost (COP) from scratch -- without Engineer support -- in the face of hostile forces was taught to this young officer. (His Ranger school training would not have addressed this contingency, either.)

If true, why didn't the Company Commander, Battalion Commander or Brigade Commander weight this effort to ensure success? Why was Combat Engineer support not tasked to build this COP while the Infantry Platoon provided near and far security?

Additionally, why were the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Marines present not attached or under operational control (OPCON) to the 503rd? This would have provided unity of command at the COP.

As noted, the presence of the Co CDR at the time of the fight is unusual, and his presence would have undermined the PL. The Forward Observer (FO), who assumably was for the organic mortars, should not have been isolated at the outpost. The mortar FO would have been most effectively used if co-located at the Platoon HQ element and operating directly under the PL's supervision.

The FO was fully qualified to coordinate the artillery fire support, but PL supervision would have also been required. Doctrinally, the FO is always with the HQ. With the FO isolated in a forward position, this was not a coordinated battle.

Even if the FO was a mortar platoon member, he could have coordinated the artillery support for this fight, under the PL or the unit commander. It is not mentioned whether the artillery or mortars fire concentrations for were for pre-planned defensive fires, but it is unlikely; it has never been mentioned.

The FO should have been at the Platoon HQ element also to provide radio redundancy, in addition to being easily controlled by the PL. The Platoon Sergeant should have known this doctrinal fact if the PL did not. Surely the Co CDR should have noted this discrepancy in the task organization of the defense.

Per my previous commentaries, I withdraw my criticism of the time on target that the artillery provided for the defenders. The latest data indicates that six minutes after the first round was fired, the artillery was ready to shoot. The delay was caused by internal Platoon efforts to head count unit members to prevent friendly-fire casualties. The Artillery Unit and the Platoon functioned professionally. My criticism of the choice of round remains: The 155 arty is not the fire of choice for danger close missions, it seems to me.

The unit mortars and M240-40 mm grenade platoon weapons were poorly employed as they were too far forward to provide adequate fire; they were too close and the rounds would not arm (=explode), in effect rendering them non-functional. Key: The vehicles and weapons systems were unprotected and subjected to direct enemy fire. They were effectively in a beaten zone.
It is also hard to understand why the TOW systems were deployed as anti-personnel weapons. Surely the defenders did not expect the hostiles to be an armored threat (?) All the assigned weapons systems did not operate as combat multipliers; any experienced Infantryman would know that.

Those conclude Rangers comments on the battle.

A curious side observation mentioned in this article is the fact that all land used by the U.S. must be purchased before it can build any COPs, firebases, etc. How much cold cash has the U.S. paid for this god-forsaken worthless real estate in order to protect the government of Afghanistan from the people of that great nation?

The U.S. did not pay for the land its combat firebases occupied in WW II, Korea, RVN or any other conflict, so why now, and who profits? Who owns the land once we pay for it? Do we get a 100-year title, like in sunny Mexico? It galls to consider that the U.S. pays for the privilege of sacrificing U.S. soldiers for . . . what? Surely this is a new definition of insanity.

In the Army's report, General Campbell said that death is the inevitable result of ground combat, and that we should not judge the chain of command. Though true to a point, there must be something of value to come from a military exercise.

It is easy to compare the losses in this fight to that of the 22 SEALS in the Chinook shoot down. A platoon-sized element was left flapping when they were conducting an offensive operation. We place too much faith in air mobility, both defensive and offensive. Wholesale death cannot be written off with a cavalier, "Well, that's war -- and they volunteered, anyway" (the latter is a big war hawk vindication here in the Swamp.) We at Ranger do not like platitudes.

In closing, when Ranger received his Ranger training in 1968 and '69, he was taught just enough to get himself killed. It appears the Lt. Brostrom learned the same way when he, per Ranger training and spirit, automatically moved to the point of greatest danger. (If any readers have further thoughts on the matter, input is appreciated.)

It is fine to put small units in danger as a magnet for hostile intentions IF they are simply bait, and IF the Quick Reaction Forces (QRF) can exploit that fact and IF the unit has a defensible position and/or an escape route if things go South. This was not the case for Lt. Brostrom's fight.

The men in this fight comported themselves in the spirit of D-Day Bastogne, and should be proud of their fight. It was as desperate as any fight conducted by any Airborne unit of the U.S. Army, in any war.

This cannot be taken from the soldiers of the PL. Ranger wonders why they did not receive a Presidential Unit Citation.

Dog Day Afternoon

Photo by Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images

Hell no, I won't go
--Vietnam war protest

I won't be doggone,
I'll be long gone
--I'll Be Doggone, Marvin Gaye

Joyful, joyful, joyful,
as only dogs know how to be happy
with only the autonomy
of their shameless spirit
--A Dog Has Died, Pablo Neruda
________________

Photo caption:

Basco from Patrol Explosive Detector Dog (PEDD) of US Airforce refuses to go inside a tunnel as US sergeant Matthew Templet from 627 Security Forces Squadran, Joint Base Lewis McChord coax him to seek for possible explosives in an abandoned house in Loya Derah village during a clearance patrol in Zari district of Kandahar province on December 28, 2010.

US Army soldiers patrol the abondoned villages in Zari district to re-clear the area from the explosives as the Afghan villagers have started moving back to their homes. The residents left their village about three years ago when it turned into a battlefield against Talibans.

There is a reason Basco won't go. This dog is no dummy -- he knows there are no Milk Bones in that hole. (Don't we hire these dogs to guide us? He's telling us something!) It seems Basco is smarter than his handlers.

BTB: Why is an Air Force Sergeant on a combat patrol?

[Update 1.18.11: Dog handler Sgt. Zainah Caye Creamer, 28, was killed in Afghanistan 1.12.11. Her dog, Jofa, reportedly survived.]

Much Atwitter About Nothing

Don't -- don't hang back with the brutes!
--A Streetcar Named Desire,
Tennessee Williams

People who need people
Are the luckiest people
In the world!
--People, fr. Funny Girl

Ex-cuuuse Me!
--Let's Get Small (album), Steve Martin
_________________

Front page People mag heralds "Brave" Elizabeth Edwards as "courageous", having gone through "hard-fought" battles.

Yes, she may have been the long-suffering wife of less-than-noble politician John Edwards, and she may have carried herself with dignity, save for the last bit when confronting the issue of his mistress and their bastard child, but so what? These are the vicissitudes of far too many ignoble lives. We never learn, and we never tire of the voyeurism.

The same week, American soldiers were killed in a manner most vile, and who cares? Not People, which pretends to portray the lives of those worth talking about. A rich entitled white woman dies and everybody is all atwitter; the Phony Wars on Terror continue to tear up our best and bravest, and no one bats an eye over what should be the central issue for patriotic nation, especially during the holidays when we count our blessings.

Where is the concern for our soldiers, who are truly deserving of our sympathy? As Erin Martin, whose Marine husband is recovering in Walter Reed Medical center, wrote in the letters section of USA Today (12.23.10): "It always amazes me when someone asks me why my husband wants to "kill people" for a living. I have learned that we live in a backward world. ... We praise celebrities who are addicted to drugs and are floating through life like lumps of nothing ..."

Elizabeth Edwards does not deserve my sympathy. She lived a life of luxury and was not exactly a Mother Theresa. Ditto the other denizens of the 12.20.10 front page, Celine Dion and Brad & Angelina.

Why do we hang out in Fantasyland? Let's get back to reality and get our soldier's out of harm's way.

Thinking Afghanistan

Cover of 7/26 Newsweek. Subheading: "Nation Building Isn't Working. New Strategies for the War on Terror -- Richard N. Haass."

The word "Rethinking" has a mis-used prefix. It implies a prefatory condition. It is doubtful that the War on Terror was thought out prior to the U.S. invasion.

(And anyway, Haass, as president of the Council on Foreign Relations, should get on-board with the new name. WOT is sooo yesterday! It's gone past "Overseas Contingency Operations" -- it's now "CVE": Countering Violent Extremism. It's not just your backyard, garden-variety extremists anymore.)

Spinning Wheels

Talking about your troubles and you,
you never learn
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel turn
--Spinning Wheels,
Blood, Sweat and Tears
_______________

Today's news is that General McChrystal has put his foot in his mouth, an action which is a perfect analog to the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©).

In a nutshell, McChrystal criticized Obama and special envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq Afghan Richard Holbrooke; Obama criticizes Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and Karzai continues to rake in U.S. dollars to finance his future lifestyle after he escapes to England or France.

The entire PWOT © seems like an old transmission that groans with every turn of the engine. Pretty soon the gears will become too loose or it will overheat from friction; either way, the machine will cease to function. The transmission lacks oil and fluid, and the gears don't mesh. Moreover, the driver doesn't know how to coax the old mare.

The above is a far cry from the actions of the leadership of al-Qaida, which by comparison seems to operate in a smooth manner.

That is what our PWOT has become: An old, self-destructive gearbox that will not take us anywhere that we need to go. Gen. McChrystal's mouth is the giveaway.

True Believers

I doubt if the oppressed ever fight for freedom.
They fight for pride and for power --
power to oppress others.
The oppressed want above all to imitate their oppressors;
they want to retaliate
--The True Believer, Eric Hoffer

Any time you want to
You can turn me on to
Anything you want to
Any time at all
--Groovy Kind of Love,
Carole Bayer
__________________

The great nation of America has been reduced to issuing fatwas in its Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), so inscrutable are our foes.

So nefarious we must trounce the very documents which made us a great nation. So dangerous that our President must authorize the non-judicial killing of a U.S. citizen "believed" to be involved in attacks upon the U.S.:

"The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday (U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of U.S. Cleric)"

When the U.S. legal code has been so mangled that the U.S. President can issue a fatwa on a belief, rather than subjecting the individual to proof presented in a court of law, we have fallen. The President of the U.S. should neither be an executioner, nor an issuer of orders to executioners.

"American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said."

Reuters reported Tuesday that the cleric was approved for "capture or killing". It is correct to capture al-Awlaki, but not to assassinate him. If he resists arrest and is killed in that process, that is a much different matter. If he is that dangerous, send in a Ranger Battalion -- they should be able to capture a terrorist.

While it is "extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing," director of national intelligence Dennis C. Blair said it was possible.

Speaking to a House hearing in February Blair said, “We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” Mr. Awlaki was not mentioned as a target.

It is illegal for law enforcement officers to kill suspects, so why is it legal for U.S. intel types to do so?

"As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford."

U.S. policy labels Al-Awlaki as a military enemy, even though none of his activity has been military in nature. All of his actions are criminal, even the alleged conspiracy that led to the Ft. Hood killings.

Also, no one has proven that he presents an imminent threat. How can someone hiding out in Yemen or the wilds of Afghanistan or Pakistan be an imminent threat to anything? These threats are grossly overplayed.

In fact, the Ft. Hood shootings would not have occurred is Army leadership were to have been doing their force protection jobs. This act was blatantly impending before the first shots were fired. The same can be said for the events of 9-11-01. Civilian intelligence was negligent on post.

The real criminality is the laxity of our response rather than the nature of the threat. The threat posed by those supposedly animated by Imam al-Awlaki, like Ft. Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and crotch rocket [not] Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was clearly evident. In the former case, it was in his reports; in the latter, the urgent warnings from his father to an embassy.

Yet despite all the warning signs, hysterics like Representative Jane Harman (D-CA), chairwoman of a House subcommittee on homeland security, calls Mr. Awlaki “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”

Well of course -- what's a homeland security committee without a terrorist, right?

[Soon -- report on Hague Convention and special targeting of individuals.]

The Baghdad Beltway

Oh, who are the people in your neighborhood?
In your neighborhood?

Well, they're the people that you meet
When you're walking down the street
They're the people that you meet each day

--Who Are The People in Your Neighborhood?,
Bob McGrath (Sesame Street)
__________________

Former secretary of Health and Human Services and possible potential '08 presidential candidate Tommy Thompson, speaking on National Public Radio yesterday (3/20/07), winningly suggested that we poll the Iraqis to see if they really want us to stay. Because that is a question, y'know. And I can certainly understand the confusion.

Because the press has a habit of depicting the violence which does not abate in Iraq as some sort of Teddy Boy crimes between neighborhood toughs who just won't stop encroaching on the other's turf.

The New York Times reports there are "rogue elements of Shia extremists," and a troublesome "Sunni group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," and it is an "arduous effort to head off" their "sectarian strife" ("Sunni Militants Disrupt Plan to Calm Baghdad.") And somehow, we're caught in the crosshairs. But the overall view is, we're trying to put out fires and be good stewards of our Iraqi clients.

The Times article later seemingly contradicts itself by quoting a November Pentagon report identifying the Shiite Mahdi Army as "replacing Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia 'as the most dangerous accelerent of potentially self-sustaining sectarian violence in Iraq."

As General Petraeus said recently of the car bomb factories his troops are finding in the hinterlands, "we clearly have got to find as many of those as we can to destroy them and then, obviously, to interdict those that are still able to be built." Like so many crack houses, perhaps we can eject the trouble-makers, and maybe successfully convert them into more wholesome enterprises for the locals.

"Although the focus, the priority, clearly is Baghdad, anyone who knows anything about securing Baghdad knows that you must also secure the Baghdad belts, in other words, the areas that surround Baghdad," Petraeus said. How far out do the belts go? Is it, like the ever-expanding waistbands of Americans, with the largest belt encircling the entire country? I see Iraq as a giant matryoshka doll. Baghdad is merely one of the little inside nested dolls.

It's as though we're walking in the fog of bad James Taylor lyrics: "It used to be your town, it used to be my town, too" (Her Town, Too.) Except, it never was our town. And the bloom is off the rose, and it is too late for the sentiments of the wonderful King and I:

Getting to know you,
Getting to know all about you.
Getting to like you,
Getting to hope you like me.

As Badtux says, "'terrorists' ARE the people of Iraq. They aren't hiding there. They live there (3/17/07)." It is like a bad Sam Kinison routine. People, they don't want you there. I appreciate that Mr. Thomspon, in his best government self, would like a poll on the matter, but the majority of Iraqis polled have already said that it is o.k. to kill Americans. What more do we need to know?

--Lisa