An Eastern Western

 
--Propaganda questions 

 But behind all this, the circus is
a massive machine whose very life
depends on discipline and motion and speed.
A mechanized army on wheels,
that rolls over any obstacle in its path,
that meets calamity again and again,
but always comes up smiling
--The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

Look at that! That is a complete fucking fraud,
and it looks a hundred percent real.
It's the best work I've ever done in my life,
because it's so honest
--Wag the Dog (1997)

Come to your house,
no he doesn't stay long
Look around the room,
you see your father will be gone
--Death Don't Have No Mercy,
Rev. Gary Davis
________________________ 

 From a Special Operations perspective, the Osama bin Laden raid as presented by the Obama administration has some gaping holes. As Seymour Hersh said in a recent interview:

They're going in [ST6] just repelling down was the plan. You know, a perfect target for anybody with a BB gun. And they're going to go in like that without any air cover. (OBL) is going to hide out in a compound at Abbottabad, sort of a resort town, and a resort town 48 miles or so outside of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, within a mile or two of Pakistan's West Point where they train young officers, the army does, and a couple of miles from a regimental headquarters full of army troops. He's going to hide out there? I mean, As I wrote in the article, it's a Lewis Carroll story. It just doesn't sustain any credibility if you look at it objectively.

All Special Operations leave a paper trail, even though an event may be highly classified. Special Ops does not have any secret methods of mission preparation; they are all based upon logic and similar to those used in any combat unit. Troop-leading procedures and staff planning remain the same.

Pre-mission planning: 

-- Was Tac Air protection planned for all phases of the operation?

-- Was aerial rocket artillery pre-planned to seal off all avenues of approach and the objective?

-- Were medical assets on standby to receive the mission wounded?

-- Were intelligence assets designated to receive the Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW)?

-- Were the local U.S. Embassies alerted to the action?

-- Were "spares" designated for any helo losses at the objective?

--Was there a command and control element designated in the pre-mission planning which would be airborne during the operation?

--Were Air Forces assets on standby to deliver OBL to United States jurisdiction, should he be captured?

Actions at the Objective: 

-- Were avenues of approach blocked? 

-- Was there any near or far security element?

-- Were demo teams designated to destroy U.S. property left behind? Did the    Operations Order designate this?

-- What was the medevac standard operating procedure for friendly casualties? Were hospitals  on alert in Afghanistan?

-- What actions were anticipated Should Pakistani forces compromise the mission?

-- Were air cover assets on station?

-- Were Army Special Operations aviation assets covering the actions at the objective?

-- If the objective was too strong to be breached what actions were expected from the assault  team?

Actions upon leaving the objective: 

 

-- Were any assets designated to destroy any enemy forces reinforcing the objective?

-- Was there a designated temporary assembly area protected by friendly fires should the assault be repulsed?

These are all elements that a leader should address before, during and after the operational phases are actually conducted. An investigator should ask if these were present in the mission preparation and examination of the OPORD is vital in determining these points.

As example, the downed helo would not be destroyed until after the team was airborne and exfiltrating. No Special Operator would blow anything up until the assigned mission was completed. The mission is the highest priority.

The helo would be rigged and set to blow upon team exfiltration. Anything else would be calling additional local attention to the operation (though the sounds of gunfire and helo rotors bellowing into the night were all indications that the mission was operational, anyway.)

The team's actions indicate that this was a pre-determined cake-walk, and a real investigation would reveal this fact. Seymour Hersh's investigative piece begins the questioning, but it seems the media outlets are more interested in toeing the Obama administration's party line of denial, rather than doing their job as our watchdogs.

Soft Targets

 --the Jolly Roger 

 We kindle and char and inflame and ignite
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho
We burn up the city, we're really a fright
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho 
--A Pirate's Life for Me

 And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return, we can only look behind
from where we came 
--The Circle Game, Joni Mitchell
_____________________

Terrorists -- our topic du jour and theme de l'annee, for the forseeable future -- habitually attack soft targets. Vis-a-vis this fact, let us look at the United State's Special Operations Command (SOCOM), a group of not-terrorists, and its historical tactics.

First some history. Your study assignments are the S'on Tay Raid in Vietnam and the Cabanatuan prison camp raid of World War II.

At S'on Tay, U.S. Special Forces led an incursion into a hard target, killing enemy soldiers and exfiltrating following the mission's completion. The Rangers breached another hard target at the Cabanatuan prison camp in the Philippines, deep in enemy terrain ("The Great Raid"). There, they sought to liberate allied prisoners of war and civilians. (In the European theatre, the Hammelburg raid was a similar operation, though with a more dire outcome.)

At both S'on Tay and Cabanatuan, there was a great possibility that the action could go South, which is exactly what happened to Task Force Baum, but those difficult actions characterized the Special Forces credo. The Special Forces of yore enlisted special men for challenging operations.

Today, the U.S. enlists its Special Forces to "take out" soft targets, crowing after the fact about the foregone conclusions. SEALs now kill such soft targets in their bedroom (= Osama bin Laden), or kill meaningless pathetic targets like the Somali pirates (the fictional Black Spot still inspiring fear.) The U.S. may as well paint targets on the foreheads before doing them the favor of releasing them from their miserable lives of poverty and desperation.

--Special Forces recruiting poster, ca. 1970

Now you have men like former SEAL Robert O'Neill bragging about being the triggerman in the OBL assassination, but not all soldiers in his community find his braggodocio endearing.

No one has the pirate's backs, and if the UBL raid went South the Pakistanis (stationed a short hop away) would not have moved to destroy the SEAL team; they love our money too much for such a dumb overreaction.

But what happens when the SEALs move against medium threat targets as in Robert's Ridge (Takur Ghar), the site of the Murphy Medal of Honor scenario? Well, they get blown out of the water.

Now to the current Islamic State (IS) - ISIL scenarios. Why don't the SEALs attempt hostage rescues against hard targets, like the British-speaking beheading specialist, for he is surely no less a target than the pirates. Do they lack the capability? Why not attack and destroy an IS command post? 

Word is, the SEALs who whacked UBL in his jammies received Silver Stars (SSM) for conducting their assassination. However, the Army regulations for bestowing such an award requires "close combat with the enemy", none of which was reported. Where is the heroism required to meet the bar of "conspicuous gallantry"? 

Special Operations has become specialized in "taking out" soft targets, much as the terror organizations against whom they are arrayed.

Murder, Inc.

Well I'm hot blooded, check it and see
I got a fever of a hundred and three
Come on baby, do you do more than dance?
I'm hot blooded, I'm hot blooded
--Hot Blooded, Foreigner

--Why'd you do it? Why did you kill him?
--He had bad breath
--Murder, Inc. (1960)

When Smith attacked Mr. Clutter
he was under a mental eclipse,
deep inside a schizophrenic darkness
--In Cold Blood, Truman Capote
________________

["Murder, Inc." is a re-post of a 9 April 2011 entry.]

February 1, 1968, B. G. Loan, Chief of the Vietnamese National Police, executed what was a guerrilla, Vietcong soldier or terrorist (take your pick, as this designation is irrelevant to this discussion.) Whichever, the recipient of General Loan's attention was shot dead on a Saigon street corner.

This was called field adjudication at the time, and in a perverse way this shooting was understandable and strangely appropriate. The killing was done in hot blood during a period of extensive combat.

However, this photo was a galvanizing moment which enabled the U.S. to pivot against the war. From 1 Feb 68, there was not a chance for the U.S. to win the war in Vietnam. Even though the execution was explained as a consequence of guerrilla activity and war crimes and due to a pervading wartime mentality -- despite any possibly legitimization of the act -- the pure violence was a turn-off to the American public.

The stark reality of the brutality was the final straw which broke the American voter's backs. That one death symbolized the futility of the shooting match in a black-and-white manner, in a way that no amount of debate could achieve. Gen. Loan's photographed action was the beginning of the end.

That was 43 years ago, and now we allow a U.S. president to issue a death warrant without anyone blinking an eye. In 1968 the U.S. public recoiled from the sight of a naked street-corner execution; in 2011, we exult at a presidentially-ordered murder of a thug in cold blood, no better or worse than a VC member on some Saigon street corner.

Why the recoil then, the approval now? The only difference is that Loan had the stones to pull the trigger himself in broad daylight. Why do we glorify a once and future president when both are akin to cold-blooded killers, something we once found so repugnant in the not-so-distant past?

Are we so disconnected from our national policies that we accept this violence in passing as business-as-usual? What does it mean to be an American today vis-a-vis war and assassination?

The lesson from Loan's/Obama's assassination is that any government with a tenuous hold on a situation will resort to desperate acts. Though the South Vietnamese restored short-term order via brutal tactics, NOTE: Saigon no longer exists.

When regimes execute people on street corners the end in nigh. Gang-style executions are symptomatic of bankrupt policies. If the U.S. was being successful, it would not have to resort to such activities.

Worst Case Planning

"Relax," said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive,
You can check out anytime you like... 
but you can never leave" 
--Hotel California, The Eagles 

Think where man’s glory most begins and ends,
And say my glory was I had such friends 
--The Municipal Gallery Revisited, 
W. B. Yeats 

______________________

The recent murder of U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other diplomats along with the release of Mark Bissonnette's book No Easy Day prompt further thoughts:

The Special Forces Son Tay raid was an Act of War into a hostile nation to retrieve United States Prisoners of War.   It was a high-risk operation, just as was the SEAL team assassination party's incursion in Abbottabad, Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden.  The difference is, Pakistan is an ostensible ally, and allies do not invade other allies; the idea is, a nation runs hostile operations in hostile countries.

If Son Tay had failed, the U.S. could accept that fact and the resultant loss of friendly lives, but what would a botched job have done to America in the case of the OBL raid? Could we have accepted a Black Hawk Down scenario, in which U.S. dead would be dragged through the streets of a friendly nation in hideous glee?

Would the U.S. have fought any Pakistani troops sent to establish Pakistan's control of their sovereign territory?  Did anyone wargame these questions?  Were the risks worth the payoff?  Was the killing of OBL worth taking these risks?

Since the inception of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) the military logic of operations has consistently been composed of pie-in-the-sky planning and ignoring worst-case scenarios.  

What strategic value attended this operation?  If the intel was as good as Bissonnette's book suggests, why not just JDAM the target area?  If indeed killing was the object, why not simply put a precision target on the compound?

Maybe the fix was in, and the Pakistanis had been read into the scenario and had agreed to avoid and contact with U.S. troops, but this seems unlikely. If this were true, then they are a duplicitous bunch of opportunists sans straight-talk or straight-dealing. Whatever the situation, the operation lacked any semblance of military logic.

These thoughts pose further questions, "What is 'hostile'?"  Are Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan allies or even friendly, or are the hostile to the U.S.?  How does the U.S. treat enemies, and how, friends?  Can we even distinguish the difference these days?

It is hardly credible that Iraq and Afghanistan are friendly to the U.S.  It is readily believable that they will suck every dollar that we will throw their way, but they will never love or befriend us, and to believe so is delusional.

[cross-posted @ milpub]

The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, Pt. II

 Two shots in the heart, one in the mind
--T-shirt sold at a gun show

 Johnny's in America
Johnny wants a brain
Johnny wants to suck on a Coke
Johnny wants a woman 
--I'm Afraid of Americans, 
David Bowie
 __________________________

Former SEAL Mark Bissonnette's "No Good Day" recounted the assassination of Osama bin Laden, and though trying to serve as patriotic doggerel instead reveals the sham that is the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©).

Instead of having America's finest assassinate an ailing terrorist has-been by breaching his compound, why not find out where he was having his weekly dialysis performed -- would not that be a better place to conduct an operation?  What other possible scenarios could have occurred?  Bissonnette writes of the ever-re-converted modular structure in which they trained, but there is no talk of training OUTSIDE of the box.

Of course, that would not be Bissonnette's call, but his higher ups, and one must wonder why such an anti-climactic denouement with such apparent contradiction was executed.  However, this quality should come as no surprise when one of the founding theatrics of the PWOT © -- the all-services "rescue" of Jessica Lynch -- was revealed for the sham it was.

Further, was it necessary to kill bin Laden?  Was he still an operational threat, or just a symbolic target of revenge?  If the latter, then the United States is using terror to combat terror, a never-ending Mobius strip of murder.

If the PWOT is about winning hearts and minds, how do we justify assassination? If the operation was so vital to our national security, then why is the helmet cam footage not being released?  Surely we the citizens have the right to see our tax dollars at work killing folks and alienating Islamic hearts and minds.

It has not been explained how the U.S. has the right to violate the sovereignty of the borders of the  nation of Pakistan.  Would we Americans welcome United Nations black helicopters invading our borders?

The U.S. romps and stomps like a bull in a China shop, acting as though the entire world -- or even just U.S. taxpayers -- buys into the Special Operations view of the world, which is that they may kill at will.

The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

  Can't kill your way out of war
--General David Petraeus 

Acting is all about honesty.
If you can fake that, you've got it made
--George Burns

 I think I'll move to Australia 
--Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible,
No Good, Very Bad Day, Judith Viorst
________________________

Retired SEAL Matt Bissonnette's No Easy Day (published under the pseudonym, "Mark Owen") is a kiss-and-tell about the assassination of Osama bin Laden by Seal Team 6 (ST6), of which he was a member.  Many things surrounding this book reveal the questionable nature of the War on Terror.

First, if the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) were real, would it not be an act of sheer insanity to identify oneself in the media?  Would one not then be a sitting duck for al Qaeda retribution?

Second: All members of ST6 were awarded the Silver Star Medal (SSM) for this operation in which there was, by Bissonnette's account, less-than negligible hostile action.  This award should be bestowed for conspicuous valor in the face of an armed enemy -- how does this equate with assassinating an unarmed man in his nightshirt, in his house?

The Silver Star is appropriate for the Bedford Boys in World War II Normandy and later, the Battle of the Bulge. Appropriate for the Battle of Lang Vei or the Son Tay raid in Vietnam, in which large enemy forces were engaged and neutralized in a genuine military raid conducted for a military reason.  More recently, think Waygul and Wanat.

The SSM is NOT awarded for service or achievement; the Bronze Star without "V" device (valor) device takes care of that need. As with the Pat Tillman scenario, the statutory requirements for the award were not met.  There were more SSM's awarded for the OBL action than were awarded to entire Ranger and Airborne Battalions on D-Day.  Moreover, assassination is not a military term.

Third: The Law of Land Warfare and the Geneva Conventions, which are the law of our land and all civilized nations, does not recognize the actions of Bissonnette's "No Easy Day".

Bissonnette admits that OBL was shot in the entry phase with two to the head, and he said he himself then fired a handful into the body of a grievously-wounded adversary, whom he "could not identify".  If the target was no longer capable of hostile action (any man  is neutralized when he takes two to the head from a 5.56 carbine, and Bissonette describes OBL's brains spilling onto the floor), then his action is a violation of the GC's.  

He justified his trunk shots on the program 60 Minutes by saying he wasn't sure if OBL held a grenade under his clothing which he might throw, but that would be a scenario only seen in Marvel comics. Of course, after a cascade of dissimulation from the highest levels, what matter a final fib from a triggerman?

Fourth, but perhaps most significantly: Why was there no credible effort made to capture the most valuable source of intelligence concerning al Qaeda?  A live prisoner is an invaluable asset for neutralizing terror networks.  A kill mission in this case lacks military (though perhaps not political) logic.

The author has been criticized for jeopardizing national security, but what SEAL or SOCOM technique, training or operational imperative was exposed that had not already been revealed in the recent Navy propaganda film, "Act of Valor"?

If Act of Valor is a righteous film, then too is this book.  If this is a false conclusion, then Bradley Manning may be getting a new bunk mate.

Washington's objection to this book is that this soldier compromised the White House's carefully-scripted theater, revealing that the rapt faces in the NSC viewing room the day of the assassination were actually conducting the finest performance of the day.

[cross-posted @ milpub]

Public Enemy No. 1

~Did you know Joan of Arc?
~Know her? I went with her, dummy, I went with her!
--2,000 Year Old Man, Brooks/Reiner

2,500 years, and it’s still the same story
--Retracing the steps of Odysseus
__________________

Last month the Federal Bureau of Investigation filled the position held by Osama bin Laden on their 10 Most-Wanted List with Eric Justin Toth, 30 -- "a former third grade teacher at the prestigious Beauvoir-National Cathedral School in Washington D.C in 2008 when a school camera allegedly in his possession was found to contain pornographic images."

Toth, 30, a former private schoolteacher, was indicted in 2008 in Maryland on one count related to producing child pornography, according to court records. Authorities found pornographic images on a camera in his possession, the FBI said

There also is a sealed two-count complaint against Toth that has been filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., which charges him with possessing a video that includes an image of child pornography and transporting it across state lines, according to the FBI (FBI 10 Most Wanted Fugitive.)

A few questions:

Were Toth not to have worked at "prestigious Beauvoir-National Cathedral School in Washington D.C.," would his camera even have been searched? Further, what was found on the camera were "pornographic images", but it is not clear if these were underage images.

What is stated is that he was found to possess and transport across state lines a video that included "an image" of child pornography; again, it is not clear whether this was a representation of such or actually a child. Now, this is certainly not good for a 3rd-grade teacher, and Mr. Toth faces a 15-30 year sentence for these actions.

But we wonder if Eric Toth is now in danger of being assassinated by Seal Team 6 (ST6) as he has the misfortune of replacing OBL as Public Enemy #1. If apprehended, will waterboarding be allowed in his interrogation sessions? Will he be tried by military tribunal?

If he escapes to a foreign hideout, will we take him out with a Hellfire missile? If all of these technologies were alright for the likes of terrorists, why not against the prurient and lubricious consumer of kiddie porn, Mr. Toth (that is, alleged kiddie porn purveyor)?

We have precedents here -- would Attorney General Holder please clarify this for us?

The Raw and the Cooked

--The Undead Meets the Unborn

The clothes that are considered right to wear
Will not be either sensible or cheap,
So long as we consent to live like sheep
And never mention those who disappear
--Leap Before You Look, W. H. Auden

Parsons was Winston's fellow employee
at the Ministry of Truth.
He was a fattish but active man of paralyzing stupidity
a mass of imbecile enthusiasms –
one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges
on whom, more even than on the thought police,
the stability of the Party depended
--1984, George Orwell (I, ii)

The image a society evolves of the relationship
between the living and the dead is,
in the final analysis, an attempt,
on the level of religious thought,
to conceal, embellish or justify
the actual relationships which prevail among the living
--Tristes Tropiques, Claude Levi-Strauss
____________________

Zombie (n.): an animated corpse brought to life
by mystical means like witchcraft

_____________________

After writing Zombie Zoo, Ranger was overcome by Easter excitement in his ville, which got his little Ranger brain to thinking: "Wasn't Jesus a zombie, too?" Throw in Lazarus and a few others who had also begun down that road of human destiny politely called, "decay".

Zombies have taken on a pall, but why should they be relegated to the marginalia of hoodoo or witchcraft when the devotees of our major religion stateside have a zombie as a savior? Why "Night of the Living Dead" or Woody Harrelson when we think of the undead, when we could just as easily put Jesus in that category?

Our ancestors burned women at the stake for suspicion of practicing witchcraft and we have always frowned on necromancy and necrophilia (though Ranger does have his own stories of approximation, ahem), yet we hypocritically turn around and have sunrise Easter services based on Zombiemania? "He is arisen" . . . from the DEAD!

And if you are Catholic or Anglican, you now "eat" of his zombiefied body 2,000 years on, once a week if you are faithful! People, if you take the words of the bible literally -- which is how you should, if you believe it -- how is this different than Idi Amin's cannibalism? Gross, yeah?

Some sticklers will say that zombies eat brains, and therefore, Jesus cannot be a zombie. But how do you know he did not eat sweetbreads, specifically, urdu, as it's known in Ranger's home neck of the woods? Does a belief in a Stone- or Bronze-Age god imply a loss of gray matter?

So why write about Zombie Jesus? Well, we shoot the Zombie Osama bin Laden in effigy (pretty stupid since zombies are undead, anyway), while we laud his killer-in-chief, Mr. Obama. Hillary Clinton recently commented they "couldn't breathe" for the 35 minutes they were watching his shooting -- not breathing is pretty zombie-like. However, both of those living people are more dangerous and zombie-like than OBL had the ability to be.

We fear the wrong zombies, and worship indiscriminately. Why is OBL feared, but not Bush or Obama, or any other U.S. leader?

Who or what is eating your brain? We are curious, and wonder if you are abdicating bits of it voluntarily for your own reasons.