... to do something really nice. Take a look, click a link, help an Angel with an original idea do something nice for "her" troop.
Read full post with comments
Not here...
1 day ago
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
From Lizette Alvarez To Homeland Security
H/T to Troy at Bouhammer, who has a bit on this and LT Nixon, who has one himself.
I wrote a post in January of 2007 with the title, "I Knew It Was Coming." What I knew was coming was the Vietnam backlash against veterans. While the country "learned its lessons" from Vietnam, one of which being, "Even if you don't support the war, support the troops," there has always been an element that doesn't support the troops. That faction is increasing in boldness. That's why I have objected to the objectification of veterans, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly as in the case of Alvarez. It is a slippery slope that once trod can easily slide into the very same problems that Vietnam veterans have been subjected to.
It's well underway.
More, plus some good comments, after the jump.
It's funny that in the United States, particular problems that are most often manifested among a particular demographic cannot be directly referred to as such. It's just not politically correct. We have a lot of sensitivity to issues that occur mainly among minorities, or among lifestyle groups. We don't wish to offend, and we go to great lengths to avoid stating obvious relationships between cause and effect for the sake of the feelings or sensibilities of a particular group, be it racial or lifestyle oriented. In the beginning of this war, it was not cool to go after veterans or military members, but that has been inexorably changing.
Phase I starts with stories told by reporters like Alvarez, objectifying veterans of this country's wars as either victims or as potentially dangerous near-criminals. The ultimate expression of such objectification has been demonstrated in the publication of an "Intelligence and Analysis Assessment" by the Department of Homeland Security or "Geheimstaats Polizei" dated April 7th, 2009, which labels veterans as potentially dangerous to homeland security. This is Phase II.
Holy freakin' cow. Now there is a government agency, nay; a department, that publishes the words, "the return of military veterans... could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks." Lizette Alvarez must be jumping up and down with self-righteous justification.
This Soldier gasps in disbelief, shakes his head and sadly looks towards Washington in utter dismay. I saw it coming, and I've spoken against it. I've called the warning and pointed... and there is no stopping the slide towards a great evil which has now taken hold to the point of poisoning the relationship of my government and my brothers in arms. We are now, "them." We are now that minority. We are the Jews of 1930's Germany. We are McCarthy's Communists. We are the ones who are being moved to the back of the bus and who are losing our seats at the national lunch counter. Our honor is slipping away as we become the new insidious threat.
Our own government has declared us suspect.
Uh-huh. We also possess combat skills and experience that should be attractive to both DHS and law enforcement of all levels. I don't see that noted anywhere. I don't see a recommendation for harnessing the abilities of veterans to somehow be of use, or a recommendation to reach out to veterans to brief them on the existence of such recruiting efforts, if they exist. There does not seem to be any substantial evidence of such recruiting, merely the conjecture that our dangerous abilities and tendencies would be attractive to such groups.
There is the unspoken; veterans may have a tendency to be politically opposed to the current administration. Veterans may have had a tendency to have voted for the other guy. So, without any evidence of a groundswell in returning veterans joining such "rightwing" organizations or practicing or preparing to practice any "rightwing extremism," we are identified as being potential threats. We, who answered the call to defend our country, are now to be carefully watched. We, who have fought in the "War on Terror" are, without any evidence whatsoever, potentially violent terrorists ourselves?
The faction who in the early days of this war found themselves having to mute their cries against the warriors themselves is finding its voice, and with the lack of social backlash began to raise its voice from a low murmur to a conversational tone. That faction does tend to reside on the left end of the spectrum, and the left has taken power in the last election, bringing all causes on the left a new feeling of empowerment. In the first 60 days of the new administration the President of the United States, who insisted that he was stronger on veterans' issues than his opponent, himself brought forth a policy to cause veterans with service-related wounds and injuries to have to pay for medical care for such injuries from their private insurance.
It does not matter that he had to back away from this policy. It does not matter that it became less than politically expedient to continue through to implementation and, for now, the policy had to be abandoned. It matters that it was raised in the first place. It does not matter that a candidate speaks of "sacred trust." It matters what he tries to do once in power. Deeds, not words, are what show the real spirit and the real intent.
Now, under a new Secretary of Homeland Security, there is an "Intelligence and Analysis Assessment" that paints veterans, not as a casual aside but prominently among their main points, as a potential threat to domestic tranquility.
This is not a political blog. This is a military blog. This is an Afghanistan military blog. I try to stay in my lane, but when my brothers and sisters and I are being assaulted, I will not stay silent. This is not just a blog about Afghanistan and the military. It is written by a combat veteran of Afghanistan and a believer that we can make a positive difference in the world with what we do. I believe that we can make ourselves more secure by doing the right things on the opposite side of the world, and that sometimes that means going in harm's way. I believe that when you go in harm's way, sometimes you are harmed, and sometimes you have to harm in return. I believe that is regrettable, but that when it is necessary it should be done with focus, restraint, and with surgical violence at the personal level. I believe that there is a time and a place for such violence and that on our shores is not that time or place. I am finding myself being abandoned by my country in small but growing ways and I don't like it, because I have borne true allegiance to this country and do not deserve, nor do my compatriots, to be treated as a dog who has bitten a child would be.
The President of the United States, during his campaign, spoke of a "sacred trust." He has since made an action that I consider to be in direct contravention of that trust, and now a department of his administration has declared us, veterans, as a group, to be a potential danger. Now is the time for the President to renew his commitment to the sacred trust that he spoke of, because he sets the tone. He sets the tone for his administration and he sets the tone for all of those who feel that growing sense of empowerment to speak against this nation's veterans in derisive or objectifying language.
Being the first president to duck the Medal of Honor recipients on the day of his inauguration is not the way to set the tone. Being the first president to call for wounded veterans to pay for battle-related wounds from their private insurance is not the way to do it, either. Being the president who allows a department of his administration to label veterans as one of the likely suspects, without any evidence, in future domestic terrorism, is not the way to set this tone.
As a candidate, Barack Obama spoke of leadership and its importance. Now is the time for this President to be the President and set the tone for his administration relating to veterans issues. I'm a little worried at this point that this is not the president that the President cares to be.
I hope he proves my concerns to be unfounded. One way to do that would be to ruthlessly go after the unprofessional staff who published a report declaring, without evidence and based on nothing more than conjecture, that veterans are some kind of threat to this nation that we have but our lives on the line for.
I'll wrap this up with a quote from the cover of the report:
Propaganda needs to be done clearly and in the government's name... isn't that what that means? I notice that the word "responsibly" is not to be found there.
Read full post with comments
I wrote a post in January of 2007 with the title, "I Knew It Was Coming." What I knew was coming was the Vietnam backlash against veterans. While the country "learned its lessons" from Vietnam, one of which being, "Even if you don't support the war, support the troops," there has always been an element that doesn't support the troops. That faction is increasing in boldness. That's why I have objected to the objectification of veterans, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly as in the case of Alvarez. It is a slippery slope that once trod can easily slide into the very same problems that Vietnam veterans have been subjected to.
It's well underway.
More, plus some good comments, after the jump.
It's funny that in the United States, particular problems that are most often manifested among a particular demographic cannot be directly referred to as such. It's just not politically correct. We have a lot of sensitivity to issues that occur mainly among minorities, or among lifestyle groups. We don't wish to offend, and we go to great lengths to avoid stating obvious relationships between cause and effect for the sake of the feelings or sensibilities of a particular group, be it racial or lifestyle oriented. In the beginning of this war, it was not cool to go after veterans or military members, but that has been inexorably changing.
Phase I starts with stories told by reporters like Alvarez, objectifying veterans of this country's wars as either victims or as potentially dangerous near-criminals. The ultimate expression of such objectification has been demonstrated in the publication of an "Intelligence and Analysis Assessment" by the Department of Homeland Security or "Geheimstaats Polizei" dated April 7th, 2009, which labels veterans as potentially dangerous to homeland security. This is Phase II.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
Holy freakin' cow. Now there is a government agency, nay; a department, that publishes the words, "the return of military veterans... could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks." Lizette Alvarez must be jumping up and down with self-righteous justification.
This Soldier gasps in disbelief, shakes his head and sadly looks towards Washington in utter dismay. I saw it coming, and I've spoken against it. I've called the warning and pointed... and there is no stopping the slide towards a great evil which has now taken hold to the point of poisoning the relationship of my government and my brothers in arms. We are now, "them." We are now that minority. We are the Jews of 1930's Germany. We are McCarthy's Communists. We are the ones who are being moved to the back of the bus and who are losing our seats at the national lunch counter. Our honor is slipping away as we become the new insidious threat.
Our own government has declared us suspect.
(U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.
Uh-huh. We also possess combat skills and experience that should be attractive to both DHS and law enforcement of all levels. I don't see that noted anywhere. I don't see a recommendation for harnessing the abilities of veterans to somehow be of use, or a recommendation to reach out to veterans to brief them on the existence of such recruiting efforts, if they exist. There does not seem to be any substantial evidence of such recruiting, merely the conjecture that our dangerous abilities and tendencies would be attractive to such groups.
There is the unspoken; veterans may have a tendency to be politically opposed to the current administration. Veterans may have had a tendency to have voted for the other guy. So, without any evidence of a groundswell in returning veterans joining such "rightwing" organizations or practicing or preparing to practice any "rightwing extremism," we are identified as being potential threats. We, who answered the call to defend our country, are now to be carefully watched. We, who have fought in the "War on Terror" are, without any evidence whatsoever, potentially violent terrorists ourselves?
The faction who in the early days of this war found themselves having to mute their cries against the warriors themselves is finding its voice, and with the lack of social backlash began to raise its voice from a low murmur to a conversational tone. That faction does tend to reside on the left end of the spectrum, and the left has taken power in the last election, bringing all causes on the left a new feeling of empowerment. In the first 60 days of the new administration the President of the United States, who insisted that he was stronger on veterans' issues than his opponent, himself brought forth a policy to cause veterans with service-related wounds and injuries to have to pay for medical care for such injuries from their private insurance.
It does not matter that he had to back away from this policy. It does not matter that it became less than politically expedient to continue through to implementation and, for now, the policy had to be abandoned. It matters that it was raised in the first place. It does not matter that a candidate speaks of "sacred trust." It matters what he tries to do once in power. Deeds, not words, are what show the real spirit and the real intent.
Now, under a new Secretary of Homeland Security, there is an "Intelligence and Analysis Assessment" that paints veterans, not as a casual aside but prominently among their main points, as a potential threat to domestic tranquility.
This is not a political blog. This is a military blog. This is an Afghanistan military blog. I try to stay in my lane, but when my brothers and sisters and I are being assaulted, I will not stay silent. This is not just a blog about Afghanistan and the military. It is written by a combat veteran of Afghanistan and a believer that we can make a positive difference in the world with what we do. I believe that we can make ourselves more secure by doing the right things on the opposite side of the world, and that sometimes that means going in harm's way. I believe that when you go in harm's way, sometimes you are harmed, and sometimes you have to harm in return. I believe that is regrettable, but that when it is necessary it should be done with focus, restraint, and with surgical violence at the personal level. I believe that there is a time and a place for such violence and that on our shores is not that time or place. I am finding myself being abandoned by my country in small but growing ways and I don't like it, because I have borne true allegiance to this country and do not deserve, nor do my compatriots, to be treated as a dog who has bitten a child would be.
The President of the United States, during his campaign, spoke of a "sacred trust." He has since made an action that I consider to be in direct contravention of that trust, and now a department of his administration has declared us, veterans, as a group, to be a potential danger. Now is the time for the President to renew his commitment to the sacred trust that he spoke of, because he sets the tone. He sets the tone for his administration and he sets the tone for all of those who feel that growing sense of empowerment to speak against this nation's veterans in derisive or objectifying language.
Being the first president to duck the Medal of Honor recipients on the day of his inauguration is not the way to set the tone. Being the first president to call for wounded veterans to pay for battle-related wounds from their private insurance is not the way to do it, either. Being the president who allows a department of his administration to label veterans as one of the likely suspects, without any evidence, in future domestic terrorism, is not the way to set this tone.
As a candidate, Barack Obama spoke of leadership and its importance. Now is the time for this President to be the President and set the tone for his administration relating to veterans issues. I'm a little worried at this point that this is not the president that the President cares to be.
I hope he proves my concerns to be unfounded. One way to do that would be to ruthlessly go after the unprofessional staff who published a report declaring, without evidence and based on nothing more than conjecture, that veterans are some kind of threat to this nation that we have but our lives on the line for.
I'll wrap this up with a quote from the cover of the report:
Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.
Propaganda needs to be done clearly and in the government's name... isn't that what that means? I notice that the word "responsibly" is not to be found there.
Read full post with comments
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
It Is Time To Call Or Write Your Congressman
Something ugly is going on in Afghanistan. I don't know who the perpetrator is, but that's up to your Congressman to find out. Here's what I can tell you; at FOB Gardez and Camp Phoenix (and I'm checking to see if this has happened elsewhere as well) there used to be MWR internet facilities, complete with computers for the Soldiers to use. "Permanent" residents of the FOB could buy monthly internet access for a fee from a private provider, usually a bunch of Indians with a satellite dish. The fee varied, and while it was high, it just got higher.
It just got insane.
Now our Soldiers and Marines can buy internet by the hour, costing as much as $200 per month for pathetic speed. That is patently ridiculous! As I wrote when I was in country, my priorities for being a happy camper included internet in the top three. Most Soldiers don't send snail mail because you haven't seen a snail in your life as slow as mail to and from Afghanistan. We are the digital generation and we stay connected via electrons.
Will I pay $200/month to stay connected? Yes, I will. Will the private who makes a lot less pay it? Yes, he probably will.
This is a particular problem at Camp Phoenix, which each and every ETT/PMT has to process through on their way in and out of the country. Phoenix used to have an entire building full of phones and one that had internet computers and laptop drops in it. Now that building is full of phones. These "transients" who are trying to stay in touch with their families while they are coming into a new country, or whose families are trying to track their progress towards home, are now officially screwed.
What the hell, people?
First, the guy who made that decision was undoubtedly a Lieutenant Colonel or higher. Why he made that call is beyond me, but I can guarantee that he had no realistic idea, nor apparently did he care, how that type of expense impacted a young man with a family back home which he tried to stay in touch with via email and video chat. LTC's have jobs that provide internet-enabled computers, anyway, so what does he care? Doesn't affect him.
I cannot explain to you how much higher morale is when you can log on and get your email. I cannot explain to you how much more sustainable life is when you can log on the internet and see your child on the screen. Everyone wants to talk about the stress of deployment, but here is a morale killer and someone needs to look into it.
Someone is making a shitload of money from our deployed Soldiers, and those whose responsibility it is to safeguard those Soldiers and Marines are not only leaving them to the predations of crappy, overpriced service, but they actually had to change the existing system to do it! Now that the MWR rooms are gone, if those young men and women don't have a laptop, their access to this morale-saving technology is gone; or they can spend money that they weren't otherwise obligated to spend in order to buy a laptop and pay out the boowah for horrid service.
You want to take care of Soldiers? Provide free internet.
No, this the way that we take care of our deployed troops. We rape them for every dime we can so that they don't lose their freaking minds in a foreign country. Someone is making a lot of money on this, and it's on Joe's back.
Please get your Congressman interested in this. It's things like this that don't get solved when people are living by the "what happens in Afghanistan, stays in Afghanistan" moral code unless a Congressman starts asking what the hell they are thinking of.
Read full post with comments
It just got insane.
Now our Soldiers and Marines can buy internet by the hour, costing as much as $200 per month for pathetic speed. That is patently ridiculous! As I wrote when I was in country, my priorities for being a happy camper included internet in the top three. Most Soldiers don't send snail mail because you haven't seen a snail in your life as slow as mail to and from Afghanistan. We are the digital generation and we stay connected via electrons.
Will I pay $200/month to stay connected? Yes, I will. Will the private who makes a lot less pay it? Yes, he probably will.
This is a particular problem at Camp Phoenix, which each and every ETT/PMT has to process through on their way in and out of the country. Phoenix used to have an entire building full of phones and one that had internet computers and laptop drops in it. Now that building is full of phones. These "transients" who are trying to stay in touch with their families while they are coming into a new country, or whose families are trying to track their progress towards home, are now officially screwed.
What the hell, people?
First, the guy who made that decision was undoubtedly a Lieutenant Colonel or higher. Why he made that call is beyond me, but I can guarantee that he had no realistic idea, nor apparently did he care, how that type of expense impacted a young man with a family back home which he tried to stay in touch with via email and video chat. LTC's have jobs that provide internet-enabled computers, anyway, so what does he care? Doesn't affect him.
I cannot explain to you how much higher morale is when you can log on and get your email. I cannot explain to you how much more sustainable life is when you can log on the internet and see your child on the screen. Everyone wants to talk about the stress of deployment, but here is a morale killer and someone needs to look into it.
Someone is making a shitload of money from our deployed Soldiers, and those whose responsibility it is to safeguard those Soldiers and Marines are not only leaving them to the predations of crappy, overpriced service, but they actually had to change the existing system to do it! Now that the MWR rooms are gone, if those young men and women don't have a laptop, their access to this morale-saving technology is gone; or they can spend money that they weren't otherwise obligated to spend in order to buy a laptop and pay out the boowah for horrid service.
You want to take care of Soldiers? Provide free internet.
No, this the way that we take care of our deployed troops. We rape them for every dime we can so that they don't lose their freaking minds in a foreign country. Someone is making a lot of money on this, and it's on Joe's back.
Please get your Congressman interested in this. It's things like this that don't get solved when people are living by the "what happens in Afghanistan, stays in Afghanistan" moral code unless a Congressman starts asking what the hell they are thinking of.
Read full post with comments
Monday, April 6, 2009
A Comment On Bouhammer
Just to be clear; this is only nominally about Bill Maher. Really, Maher is just a symptom. His "joke" about military rapists was ill-advised, but sometimes a guy hits a clunker. I still call foul, but whatever; it's not the end of the world. Like I said, it's a symptom of a series of issues that are all tied together, a few of which are brought together in this comment left on Bouhammer.com, which Troy Steward, the blogauthor over at Bouhammer, has kindly allowed me to use for the purpose of response.
Get some popcorn, there's more after the jump.
Here is the original comment:
Richard, thank you for your service and for escorting the remains of America's fallen, I assume as a Patriot Guard Rider. I deeply appreciate the Patriot Guard Riders. Thanks for your lobbying efforts as well. Thanks also for this comment on Bouhammer's blog, because it got me going.
Let's take this a step at a time; first, Maher is officially no longer funny. Maher is at best generally funny. Funny in the sense you used it is a state of being, and with this Maher is not existing in a state of being funny. He is at best generally funny, but he is not funny. Depending on your taste, he is usually, sometimes, or rarely funny, but he is not funny.
Why the hostility? Because someone has to say it, and tens of thousands of deployed servicemembers lack either the time, the bandwidth, the words or the platform to speak up against being called a bunch of rapists. Indeed, there have been rapes on Okinawa. Again, I would point out that while such events are exceedingly bad for international relations, a foreign national is less likely to be raped by a young Soldier or Marine than an American woman is to be raped by a non-military male in any American city with a comparable population of males in the same demographic groups.
You will never find a more professional group of young men than the 18-26 year olds in the military. You may find individual civilians who you may hold up with a spotlight on them, but I defy you to find a group of civilians of similar ages who routinely take the lives of others in their hands the way these people do and deliver the results that they do.
There is not an American company who can claim anyplace near the success rate in training and dedication that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines routinely deliver. There is not a similar group of young men in this country who have a lower overall crime rate. The best young men and women that this nation has to offer are in the Armed Forces of the United States; they are a credit not only to the organizations that they serve but to themselves and their families as well. Just to stay focused; I am not speaking of older professionals, nor am I speaking of senior NCO's or officers. I am speaking strictly about our young Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors. I by no means claim personal superiority to any civilian professional. This is not about me nor meant to degrade anyone. It is in response to a degrading comment, and to those who find it "funny." I have never in my life seen, as a group, a more professional bunch of young people.
If Chevrolet and their union could consistently produce the level of professionalism that our young servicemembers display, there would be no need for a bailout. If the banks displayed the same level of selfless service as these young men and women, there would be no need for a bailout. If Wall Street displayed the same knowledge of right and wrong as these young Americans, there would be no need for a bailout. An Army PFC could figure out that being given money by the government to do a job doesn't mean, "give yourself a bonus."
Trust me, Bill and Richard, if America could produce more like the young men who have volunteered to stand on that line between you and bad things and people and who represent these United States in an overwhelmingly exemplary fashion in foreign lands both friendly and hostile, this country would be a better place. Calling them, as a group, "rapists" is not funny, and neither is Bill Maher.
That being said, let's look at the rest of the comment. As an aside, we do not have to wear the belts on patrol. They are worn on the FOBs, and as such are a symbol of the disconnect between the inside and outside of "the wire." No one who spends a fair amount of time outside the wire can put one on without feeling silly, nor can they believe that there are "reflective belt nazis" on the FOBs, but there are. We don't wear them outside the wire, as that is just plain silly.
Insanity is the inability or refusal to perceive, accept and abide in reality (the truth.) Doing the same thing over and over again is merely a symptom, displaying the inability to understand or accept reality. In order to deal with the insanity, you have to recognize where it came from.
I'm a half-step behind you generationally. My brother served in Vietnam, and I witnessed it. For most of my career, I bought the meme that the military didn't lose that war, that the American people lost their will and the political machinery lost it. Here is what I have learned; the military did lose the Vietnam War. We never did learn the lessons of counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Now, let's stay focused; the American Soldier did not lose that war, but his leadership to the highest levels did. Soldiers were not trained in counterinsurgency, but they did the best that they could and fought very hard. They paid the price and they handed it back many fold. There was no lack of bravery, of sacrifice or of personal purpose. There was a huge failure in leadership. We teeter on that brink right now, but we are tipping in the right direction.
Your recipe for counter-terrorism would fail just as surely as the American Military failed in Vietnam, Richard. It is anger and firepower-driven and while it sounds at first take like it's just common sense, it as far from a successful strategy as one can get. Unfortunately, it still has adherents in the military.
Getting rid of "Ozzie B" is just getting rid of a poster child. It's like saying that getting rid of Gordon Brown will make all of the Brits just go away.
Invisible military forces would be really handy in making the Afghan people feel secure enough to make decisions that aren't driven by the need to avoid being a victim of the Taliban need to make an example of them for daring to make a decision of their own; like, say, the decision to let their little girls go to school that day. No, Richard, having 40,000 Special Forces running around would involve, first, training a bunch of new Special Forces. Secondly, it would just tie up 40,000 Green Berets doing things that wouldn't help solve the long term problem. Do you know how many Afghan National Army units we could train with 40,000 SF?
Here's an automatic Charlie Fox, Richard; do a job that you aren't trained for. Just as you weren't trained for COIN, even if they told you that you were doing it, neither are our young Soldiers. The Marines do a little better than the Army. Our young Sergeants are not trained in it, either. The only ones who have any understanding of it are generally officers, with varying levels of understanding, and Senior NCO's who take it upon themselves to read and study it on their own and see the applicability of it on the ground. Vampire 6 does have it right... but it's not because he was put through a stellar course on COIN. He has it right because he has read the books and because when he looks at his situation on the ground what he has read comes to life. He truly is farting upwind, but if enough of us fart upwind, perhaps the wind will change. Nobody's ever really tried that.
Ideally, Richard, NGO's and AGO's (Afghan Government Organizations) are the ones who should be doing the food and firewood deal. It's men like Vampire 6 who are doing the best that they can do with what they have, and they do what needs to be done when nobody else can or will. That's COIN on a shoestring, and men like Vampire 6 are why we haven't failed abjectly. If we had more of them, we'd be more successful. Vampire 6 hasn't won any fans in his Chain of Command, Richard. His criticisms are undoubtedly on-target. Guys like me get excited to read them because we have seen the same things. He has had the ability to apply his personal readings of COIN to his experience on the ground and he has had the moral courage to point out where we are our own worst enemies.
Richard, we do not need "high cover." What we need is "ground cover." If the Taliban can't openly walk around in the villages, and at night they can't skulk around dropping off their intimidating notes and threats called "night letters," then the people of Afghanistan will begin to take breaths of air that smell vaguely of freedom from intimidation. Men like Vampire 6 understand this, and when men like you see it and lobby not just for body armor but for accountability and basing the "success" and career progression of military leaders on the results that matter on the ground, then you will be even more helpful.
If this you feel like I've torn into you, Richard, please don't. You have raised some of the issues that I directly wanted to discuss, and for that I thank you. I understand that some of what you said was meant quite a bit less seriously than I seemed to take it, but these are things that I take very seriously.
Read full post with comments
Get some popcorn, there's more after the jump.
Here is the original comment:
Richard, on April 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
What is up with the attitude? Mayer is funny. There have been rapes in Okinawa. You didn’t do it. I didn’t do it. So, why all the hostility? Oh, yeah, I ams one non-Republican who has: Lobbied to get you better armor, rations and housing, better bebefits from the VA. I’ve spent time and money escorting OUR fallen to their graves, willing to spend a night in jail if it meant OUR guys would get buried without looney fruitcase demonstrators harrassing the survivors.
After having been through one circle jerking rattfuck on behalf of our nation, I’m not at all suprised you have to wear these goofy belts while on patrol. But, just for morale purposes, let me share a scripture with you; Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ, the same yesteday, today, and forever.
They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Take that with a grain of salt. We learned something, about politics and fighting, in our generation. It means, to me, if you’re gonna go, go hard. This fucking around politically, occupying and policing, is not an Armed Forces job. So it’s an automatic cluster fuck when they make you try. Vampire’s got it right, but he’s farting upwind, you wait and see.
We need about 40,000 green berets looking for one criminal, Ozzie B., and the rest can sort itself out. The food and firewood options should be NGOs jobs. Military should be ‘high cover’. There, available, and mostly invisible.
Sorry to grind on ya, but it sure seemed we would have learned COIN by now. I’m not a liberal, but I sure ain’t a Repugnut. I’d rather you (as in, ALL of you) were home. It tears my guts to bury kids again, and I don’t want one life uselessly spent. Having said all that, YOU are the guy in-country, so you get the edge.
Thanks for listening
Richard
Richard, thank you for your service and for escorting the remains of America's fallen, I assume as a Patriot Guard Rider. I deeply appreciate the Patriot Guard Riders. Thanks for your lobbying efforts as well. Thanks also for this comment on Bouhammer's blog, because it got me going.
Let's take this a step at a time; first, Maher is officially no longer funny. Maher is at best generally funny. Funny in the sense you used it is a state of being, and with this Maher is not existing in a state of being funny. He is at best generally funny, but he is not funny. Depending on your taste, he is usually, sometimes, or rarely funny, but he is not funny.
Why the hostility? Because someone has to say it, and tens of thousands of deployed servicemembers lack either the time, the bandwidth, the words or the platform to speak up against being called a bunch of rapists. Indeed, there have been rapes on Okinawa. Again, I would point out that while such events are exceedingly bad for international relations, a foreign national is less likely to be raped by a young Soldier or Marine than an American woman is to be raped by a non-military male in any American city with a comparable population of males in the same demographic groups.
You will never find a more professional group of young men than the 18-26 year olds in the military. You may find individual civilians who you may hold up with a spotlight on them, but I defy you to find a group of civilians of similar ages who routinely take the lives of others in their hands the way these people do and deliver the results that they do.
There is not an American company who can claim anyplace near the success rate in training and dedication that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines routinely deliver. There is not a similar group of young men in this country who have a lower overall crime rate. The best young men and women that this nation has to offer are in the Armed Forces of the United States; they are a credit not only to the organizations that they serve but to themselves and their families as well. Just to stay focused; I am not speaking of older professionals, nor am I speaking of senior NCO's or officers. I am speaking strictly about our young Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors. I by no means claim personal superiority to any civilian professional. This is not about me nor meant to degrade anyone. It is in response to a degrading comment, and to those who find it "funny." I have never in my life seen, as a group, a more professional bunch of young people.
If Chevrolet and their union could consistently produce the level of professionalism that our young servicemembers display, there would be no need for a bailout. If the banks displayed the same level of selfless service as these young men and women, there would be no need for a bailout. If Wall Street displayed the same knowledge of right and wrong as these young Americans, there would be no need for a bailout. An Army PFC could figure out that being given money by the government to do a job doesn't mean, "give yourself a bonus."
Trust me, Bill and Richard, if America could produce more like the young men who have volunteered to stand on that line between you and bad things and people and who represent these United States in an overwhelmingly exemplary fashion in foreign lands both friendly and hostile, this country would be a better place. Calling them, as a group, "rapists" is not funny, and neither is Bill Maher.
That being said, let's look at the rest of the comment. As an aside, we do not have to wear the belts on patrol. They are worn on the FOBs, and as such are a symbol of the disconnect between the inside and outside of "the wire." No one who spends a fair amount of time outside the wire can put one on without feeling silly, nor can they believe that there are "reflective belt nazis" on the FOBs, but there are. We don't wear them outside the wire, as that is just plain silly.
They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.
Insanity is the inability or refusal to perceive, accept and abide in reality (the truth.) Doing the same thing over and over again is merely a symptom, displaying the inability to understand or accept reality. In order to deal with the insanity, you have to recognize where it came from.
We learned something, about politics and fighting, in our generation. It means, to me, if you’re gonna go, go hard. This fucking around politically, occupying and policing, is not an Armed Forces job. So it’s an automatic cluster fuck when they make you try. Vampire’s got it right, but he’s farting upwind, you wait and see.
We need about 40,000 green berets looking for one criminal, Ozzie B., and the rest can sort itself out. The food and firewood options should be NGOs jobs. Military should be ‘high cover’. There, available, and mostly invisible.
I'm a half-step behind you generationally. My brother served in Vietnam, and I witnessed it. For most of my career, I bought the meme that the military didn't lose that war, that the American people lost their will and the political machinery lost it. Here is what I have learned; the military did lose the Vietnam War. We never did learn the lessons of counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Now, let's stay focused; the American Soldier did not lose that war, but his leadership to the highest levels did. Soldiers were not trained in counterinsurgency, but they did the best that they could and fought very hard. They paid the price and they handed it back many fold. There was no lack of bravery, of sacrifice or of personal purpose. There was a huge failure in leadership. We teeter on that brink right now, but we are tipping in the right direction.
Your recipe for counter-terrorism would fail just as surely as the American Military failed in Vietnam, Richard. It is anger and firepower-driven and while it sounds at first take like it's just common sense, it as far from a successful strategy as one can get. Unfortunately, it still has adherents in the military.
Getting rid of "Ozzie B" is just getting rid of a poster child. It's like saying that getting rid of Gordon Brown will make all of the Brits just go away.
Invisible military forces would be really handy in making the Afghan people feel secure enough to make decisions that aren't driven by the need to avoid being a victim of the Taliban need to make an example of them for daring to make a decision of their own; like, say, the decision to let their little girls go to school that day. No, Richard, having 40,000 Special Forces running around would involve, first, training a bunch of new Special Forces. Secondly, it would just tie up 40,000 Green Berets doing things that wouldn't help solve the long term problem. Do you know how many Afghan National Army units we could train with 40,000 SF?
Here's an automatic Charlie Fox, Richard; do a job that you aren't trained for. Just as you weren't trained for COIN, even if they told you that you were doing it, neither are our young Soldiers. The Marines do a little better than the Army. Our young Sergeants are not trained in it, either. The only ones who have any understanding of it are generally officers, with varying levels of understanding, and Senior NCO's who take it upon themselves to read and study it on their own and see the applicability of it on the ground. Vampire 6 does have it right... but it's not because he was put through a stellar course on COIN. He has it right because he has read the books and because when he looks at his situation on the ground what he has read comes to life. He truly is farting upwind, but if enough of us fart upwind, perhaps the wind will change. Nobody's ever really tried that.
Ideally, Richard, NGO's and AGO's (Afghan Government Organizations) are the ones who should be doing the food and firewood deal. It's men like Vampire 6 who are doing the best that they can do with what they have, and they do what needs to be done when nobody else can or will. That's COIN on a shoestring, and men like Vampire 6 are why we haven't failed abjectly. If we had more of them, we'd be more successful. Vampire 6 hasn't won any fans in his Chain of Command, Richard. His criticisms are undoubtedly on-target. Guys like me get excited to read them because we have seen the same things. He has had the ability to apply his personal readings of COIN to his experience on the ground and he has had the moral courage to point out where we are our own worst enemies.
Richard, we do not need "high cover." What we need is "ground cover." If the Taliban can't openly walk around in the villages, and at night they can't skulk around dropping off their intimidating notes and threats called "night letters," then the people of Afghanistan will begin to take breaths of air that smell vaguely of freedom from intimidation. Men like Vampire 6 understand this, and when men like you see it and lobby not just for body armor but for accountability and basing the "success" and career progression of military leaders on the results that matter on the ground, then you will be even more helpful.
If this you feel like I've torn into you, Richard, please don't. You have raised some of the issues that I directly wanted to discuss, and for that I thank you. I understand that some of what you said was meant quite a bit less seriously than I seemed to take it, but these are things that I take very seriously.
Read full post with comments
Friday, April 3, 2009
Not Just A Popularity Contest
Go on over to Blackfive and add a comment for your favorite "unknown" blog. This isn't like the milbloggies... they are trying to recognize the little guys.
Vampire 6 is doing really well in the nominations. Great blog, great counterinsurgent, great American. I can go with that.
Read full post with comments
Vampire 6 is doing really well in the nominations. Great blog, great counterinsurgent, great American. I can go with that.
Read full post with comments
Thursday, April 2, 2009
What Would You Expect?
The latest news is that the Taliban have referred to as, "Lunatic" the latest overture to reconcile with "moderate" Taliban. Our old buddy Zabiullah Mujahid, the Taliban spokesman-ever-at-an-undisclosed-location released the latest critical evaluation of the plan to offer reconciliation to "moderate" Taliban.
What would you expect the "official" Taliban position on this to be? Would anyone expect them to hold referendums at their union meetings on who wanted to reconcile? More like the first one who brings it up will get a knife to the throat for his visit from the good idea fairy.
More after the jump...
Now, the reasonable question to ask is, "Just what the hell is a moderate Taliban?" Remember, not all insurgents are deeply committed Taliban. One thing we noted was that a lot of criminal elements with business interests to protect sided with the Taliban and used the brand name to strike terror and cloak themselves in religious legitimacy while still pursuing their criminal enterprises. Others are simply unemployed or underemployed men who hope to someday pay a dowry. In a society with not much dating action, coming up with a bride price weighs heavily on a young man's mind.
Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the Taliban are not going to feel any need to reconcile while they perceive themselves to be "winning." While they are "winning," those less than idealistically pure are not only "employed," they are also securing their future with the next regime. If, and only if, the Coalition and the Afghan Government start to make significant progress, then the veneer will begin to crack.
It is good counterinsurgent strategy to leave the door open to reconciliation. My M-9 pistol carried a 14-1 magazine. Fourteen rounds were for them and one was for me. Surrender was not an option. In the circumstances in which teams like mine operated, getting overwhelmed by a superior force was not hard to imagine. What if my Afghans broke and ran? What if I was wounded and overtaken? One round. As long as I had that one round, I would not be a propaganda tool, beheaded on video for the world to watch on the internet, for I knew that death was the only end result. My ANP may have fared better, but it was hard to tell. They weren't inclined to give up, either, but for them there was some hope of survival.
I discuss this only to demonstrate that the promise of decent treatment can be an inducement, to someone who is under terrifying pressure, to consider another way out of the pickle in which they find themselves.
If security begins to spread, some of the roughly 80 percent of the populace who don't want the Taliban in charge will start talking and Taliban and criminals will start to get arrested. That is when the continued calls for reconciliation will start to make some start to think.
Galula pointed out that offering a path to reconciliation is important. It only works when the insurgent is struggling, however. When the government is losing, it just looks desperate. This is the correct policy, but it's not going to have any effect until the government begins taking back some areas. Galula pointed out, also, that committed insurgents only only negotiate when it is their best interests, one of those times being when they feel they are on the verge of victory, only to lull and distract their enemies with a false sense of hope or to convince the government to fatally weaken itself. I think that this is what the Taliban were doing at the meetings last year, trying to get the Coalition to leave so that the government could be more easily overwhelmed.
But Zabiullah Mujahid is not going to change his song. Taliban "rejection" of reconciliation is not news. It's just exactly what you would expect them to do. If that song does change, we are most likely in trouble.
Read full post with comments
What would you expect the "official" Taliban position on this to be? Would anyone expect them to hold referendums at their union meetings on who wanted to reconcile? More like the first one who brings it up will get a knife to the throat for his visit from the good idea fairy.
More after the jump...
Now, the reasonable question to ask is, "Just what the hell is a moderate Taliban?" Remember, not all insurgents are deeply committed Taliban. One thing we noted was that a lot of criminal elements with business interests to protect sided with the Taliban and used the brand name to strike terror and cloak themselves in religious legitimacy while still pursuing their criminal enterprises. Others are simply unemployed or underemployed men who hope to someday pay a dowry. In a society with not much dating action, coming up with a bride price weighs heavily on a young man's mind.
Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the Taliban are not going to feel any need to reconcile while they perceive themselves to be "winning." While they are "winning," those less than idealistically pure are not only "employed," they are also securing their future with the next regime. If, and only if, the Coalition and the Afghan Government start to make significant progress, then the veneer will begin to crack.
It is good counterinsurgent strategy to leave the door open to reconciliation. My M-9 pistol carried a 14-1 magazine. Fourteen rounds were for them and one was for me. Surrender was not an option. In the circumstances in which teams like mine operated, getting overwhelmed by a superior force was not hard to imagine. What if my Afghans broke and ran? What if I was wounded and overtaken? One round. As long as I had that one round, I would not be a propaganda tool, beheaded on video for the world to watch on the internet, for I knew that death was the only end result. My ANP may have fared better, but it was hard to tell. They weren't inclined to give up, either, but for them there was some hope of survival.
I discuss this only to demonstrate that the promise of decent treatment can be an inducement, to someone who is under terrifying pressure, to consider another way out of the pickle in which they find themselves.
If security begins to spread, some of the roughly 80 percent of the populace who don't want the Taliban in charge will start talking and Taliban and criminals will start to get arrested. That is when the continued calls for reconciliation will start to make some start to think.
Galula pointed out that offering a path to reconciliation is important. It only works when the insurgent is struggling, however. When the government is losing, it just looks desperate. This is the correct policy, but it's not going to have any effect until the government begins taking back some areas. Galula pointed out, also, that committed insurgents only only negotiate when it is their best interests, one of those times being when they feel they are on the verge of victory, only to lull and distract their enemies with a false sense of hope or to convince the government to fatally weaken itself. I think that this is what the Taliban were doing at the meetings last year, trying to get the Coalition to leave so that the government could be more easily overwhelmed.
But Zabiullah Mujahid is not going to change his song. Taliban "rejection" of reconciliation is not news. It's just exactly what you would expect them to do. If that song does change, we are most likely in trouble.
Read full post with comments
Vampire T-shirt Update
For those of you who ordered Vampire t-shirts and are wondering if you are ever going to get them, there is news. First of all, rest assured that you did a good thing in three ways... you are supporting Soldiers' Angels, whom I dearly love, you are helping a group of hard-working and entrepreneurial former Marines get their little business off the ground and you are showing support for the great Vampire 6 and his merry band of Vampirelings. Good stuff.
Very good stuff, in fact... so good that Vision Strikewear, the little bunch of Marines-turned-t-shirt-printers, is literally overwhelmed and running behind significantly on filling the orders. This is a good thing.
So, thanks to everyone who bought a shrt or two, and please be patient.
Read full post with comments
Very good stuff, in fact... so good that Vision Strikewear, the little bunch of Marines-turned-t-shirt-printers, is literally overwhelmed and running behind significantly on filling the orders. This is a good thing.
So, thanks to everyone who bought a shrt or two, and please be patient.
Read full post with comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
