Pretty Realistic

Ranger Definition of the Day:
COIN -- The tunnel at the end of the light
________________

The News Hour with Jim Lehrer recently hosted the two Andrews -- Bacevich and Exum (nee, Abu Muquwama) -- to speak on the war in Afghanistan. Two former army officers, both smart men with different views (interview @ OnlineNewsHour, "Grim Military Report Stirs Questions on Afghan Strategy.")

Exum is now a consultant who gets paid government dollars, and naturally is in favor of the war. Bacevich doesn't have a horse in the race, so his evaluation is not based upon his wallet. One wonders if Exum is now a paid Department of Defense stooge, or if he really believes his line. If he is so dedicated to the cause, why isn't he still carrying a rifle and serving on Active Duty?
Here is what Ranger would have said if he were part of the interview:

• Building institutions in Afghanistan is not a gurantee that U.S. objectives will be achieved

• U.S. objectives are not the same as Afghan goals

• Corruption and drugs are the institution called "Afghanistan". A separate Afghanistan cannot be built exclusive of this fact

• U.S. policymakers cannot describe the cause or the effect of their policies

• How will building up key institutions change anything in Afghanistan?

• Building institutions must be accomplished by the Afghans. Democracy cannot and will not be forced upon a country

Exum says, "What we're trying to do is build up certain key institutions in Afghanistan that we believe will make that country inhospitable towards transnational terror groups." He "believes", but beliefs are unverifiable, subjective and often faulty. We do not share in his beliefs.

He continues, "I think the assessment that we put forward was -- was pretty realistic." In Exum's Counterinsurgency fantasyland, there are gradations of realism. Is there a "pretty realistic" and a "really realistic"? Please define what pretty realistic means -- sounds like a description of historical fiction.

Ranger wonders why this critical Afghanistan report was written by soldiers and government tit suckers rather than the State Department. Shouldn't nation building be a State Department function, or is that even an institution of any relevance in our phony little world?

One must also wonder how a man of brilliance like Bacevich ended up as only an O-6. This speaks volumes about the modern action Army promotion selection process.

Robbing Peter

In the Carboniferous Epoch
we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter
to pay for collective Paul
--Rudyard Kipling

and from every dead child a rifle with eyes,
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts
--I'm Explaining a Few Things, Pablo Neruda
_____________

This week Ranger met a young former Marine with two combat tours and now attending university, poring over his textbooks at a local coffee shop. "Mark" is two years out of service, and his grades and academic standards in that time are notable; he will have achieved his baccalaureate in only three years. Problem is, he has orders to report to Kansas City, Missouri, for his recall to active duty in three weeks.

This fine young man also has a 70% Department of Veterans Affairs service-connected disability rating, to include wounds to his hand with nerve damage, PTSD at 30%, migraines, headaches, head wounds and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). The head wounds and hand wounds are clearly visible.

Why Kansas City? Why not somewhere in Florida? Why recall him at all? He has done his duty in spades. The orders specified that he was required for the Global War on Terror. What tripe!

What is happening here? Don't the DVA and Department of Defense computers talk? Is the USMC so desperate for fresh meat that they must prey upon discharged personnel? Not to mention discharged, seriously wounded combat veterans who have already paid the price?

Mark is planning to report for this induction. Ranger advised him to ignore the orders. Would any court possibly hold him in violation of the law?

Ranger is humbled talking to such fine young men. Older veterans can sometimes forget the trials and tribulations of our newest members (Veterans, Alone Together, Share Stories They can't Tell You), which is something none of us should ever do. As Andrew Exum wrote in the NYT (For Some Soldiers, The War Never Ends), these soldiers are being conscripted, contrary to the claims of an all-volunteer Army -- they should not be treated as "election-year fodder."

We should be working very hard to stop the cruel scenario in which Mark and countless others find themselves. That is our duty.

Follow-on: Saw Mark briefly at the VA OPC Friday and he said his father, a Vietnam veteran like yours truly, also suggested he appeal the orders. We will see.