-
David Botti
|
Oct 3, 2008 11:37 AM
As U.S. forces have battled the insurgency in Iraq and the Taliban in
Afghanistan over the past half-decade, concerns over the wars'
environmental impact haven't received as much attention as the
strategic and political climates. The has lead to unsafe conditions
affecting the health of U.S. troops, Iraqi civilians, and the
environment around them. This is according to a new study by the RAND
Corporation commissioned by the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI)
in a effort to identify deficiencies in the Army's handling of its
environmental policy, and what effects these have had on the branch's
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report, Green Warriors: Army Environmental Considerations for Contingency Operations from Planning Through Post-Conflict,
states that neglecting environmental considerations can impact not only
human and environmental health, but success in counterinsurgency
operations, diplomacy, and reconstruction efforts:
The report concludes that environmental
considerations—including clean water, sanitation, hazardous-waste
management—can be important for achieving overall U.S. objectives
during reconstruction and post-conflict operations, including both
short- and long-term stability. If not properly addressed in planning
or operations, environmental considerations can increase the costs of
an operation and make it more difficult for the Army to sustain the
mission. Yet, environmental considerations are not well incorporated
into Army planning or operations in any phase of an operation. To
address these shortcomings, the Army should take additional steps to
ensure that environmental considerations (from strategic to tactical)
are appropriately incorporated into planning, operations, training, and
research.
At the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 the country had no
system of environmental regulation or laws. Even today walking through
some of the poorer neighborhoods of Baghdad, one sees trash strewn
thick throughout the dirt streets where the smell at times can become
unbearable. Adding to the country's lack of environmental awareness,
the RAND report gave examples of the U.S. military actions which
compounded the problem. The Military Times offered some highlights:
• A contractor hired by the Defense Department dumped waste oil in a landfill in Iraq and then sold the barrels.
•
U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan buried several drums containing
unidentified liquids, which later turned out to be hazardous, posing a
risk of soil and groundwater contamination.
• In Iraq, an
airfield sits over an old airfield with leaking fuel tanks. “Major
health issues arise whenever it is necessary to dig.”
•
Commanders in Iraq have set up hazardous-waste disposal areas close to
camp perimeters, creating a force-protection issue since they were
potential targets for hand grenades and IEDs.
• High-grade diesel
fuel was spilled in a lake in Iraq that was used for drinking water at
a base. The lake is no longer used as a source of drinking water.
•
U.S. forces in Iraq improperly dumped insecticides, batteries, oil
products and other hazardous material. Soldiers joked that fuel spills
were “replenishing the oil wells.”
• Troops in Iraq fell ill after rolling leaking drums of industrial-strength pesticides out of a building.
The Military Times further reported that according to the
U.S. Army Engineer School there is an estimated 11 million pounds of
hazardous waste in Iraq. Lt. Col. Garth Anderson, commander of the
733rd Facility Engineer Detachment, told the paper that environmental
problems can adversely affect U.S. soldiers trying to accomplish their
tactical missions, but added this is something rarely foremost in their
minds:
“It’s a pretty significant problem,” he said. “I think most soldiers
are more concerned about the mission … and may not be as concerned
about the environment. But it’s not just [a] … tree-hugger thing.”
The RAND report offers further examples of the relationship between environment and military missions:
Force-protection risks can also be increased by
environmental issues, as illustrated in a case from Iraq. Because of
the hostile environment there, commanders set up their own
hazardous-waste accumulation points inside their base camps. These
field-expedient satellite accumulation points were located too close to
camp perimeters, creating potential targets for hand grenades and
improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Environmental issues can
affect the military mission in yet another way. Poor U.S. environmental
practices in host nations in the region that support U.S. forces can
cause diplomatic problems that affect operations. In OIF, a contractor
in a host nation dumped waste anti-freeze from a U.S. base camp and
sold the drums. This incident caused a major diplomatic problem that is
still being negotiated. Although it has not reached the level where it
is affecting operations in this case, host nations have restricted U.S.
activities in several non-contingency operations in other parts of the
world because of environmental concerns. For example, restrictions were
imposed on Army training in Germany, and an Army training range was
closed in Okinawa.
Finally, military operations can be
affected by the ability of the logistical systems to support them. If
base camps and military equipment have large requirements for
resources, the logistics system must supply them for military
operations to continue. By taking steps such as developing local water
sources and reusing engine oil to reduce logistical needs, the Army can
reduce the logistical burdens of an operation, either by providing more
logistics capacity for warfighting or by reducing the size of the
logistical tail needed for an operation.
Among the report's recommendations for military leaders are to
cultivate an "environmental ethic" throughout the Army; to better
incorporate environmental considerations into strategic planning; and
to train soldiers about environmental issues that could arise in the
field before they deploy.
More
-
David Botti
|
Sep 11, 2008 12:39 PM
It used to be that the term "forgotten" was often applied to the war in
Afghanistan, at least in comparison to the stream of news coming out of
Iraq during the past few years. Now, as Iraq quiets, troop shifts to
Afghanistan are planned for the near future, and the media once again
devotes more column inches to that conflict, word comes of a new
milestone: 2008 is the deadliest year for U.S. forces in Afghanistan
since the 2001 invasion.
The Associated Press reports that two
U.S. soldiers were killed today, the seventh anniversary of the 9/11
attacks, bringing 2008's death toll to 113, passing the 111 U.S.
soldiers killed there last year. At the same time, 33,000 U.S. troops
are currently operating in Afghanistan; the most since 2001. As the
two latest U.S. deaths are still recent, there are few details available:
The NATO-led force said one soldier was killed when insurgents attacked
a compound. The separate U.S.-led coalition said a second service
member died in combat. No other details were released, but a Western
military official told The Associated Press that both troops were
American.
Yesterday
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, told
congress that NATO forces are running out of time in Afghanistan and
attention needs to be given to Pakistan's tribal areas along with the
border. His testimony came as U.S. forces are openly conducting
cross-border raids into Pakistan, which is drawing condemnation from that country's government. From the LA Times:
Mullen said the new strategy for Afghanistan must focus on more than
just increasing troop strength. He noted that existing provincial
reconstruction teams did not have enough agricultural, educational and
judicial experts. The U.S. must focus on boosting foreign investment
and improving governance in Afghanistan, he said.
"We can't kill our way to victory," Mullen said.
Mullen said he was not convinced the U.S. and its allies were winning in Afghanistan but said he believed victory was possible.
There's been scant coverage of day-to-day U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan, but still there is some quality
work out there. The UK Guardian has this interactive piece following U.S. and British soldiers in various regions of the country. The paper also has a striking series of videos riding along with a U.S. Army Medevac helicopter crew. There was also this frightening and candid New York Times Magazine piece following a unit of soldiers operating in the volatile Korengal Valley.
More
-
David Botti
|
May 15, 2008 11:45 AM
Discussion over proposed GI Bill overhauls is front and center on the
House floor as lawmakers debate an add-on to President Bush's request
for more war funding. The goal of the add-on is to update the WWII-era
GI Bill which allows veterans to receive money for attending college.
Under the current proposal, Iraq and Afghanistan vets would be allowed
to attend any four-year public university after having served at least
three years in the active-duty military. To pay for this, the plan
calls for a surtax on people making over $500,000, or couples with a
combined income of $1 million. The Associated Press has reactions from both sides of the debate:
"We are talking about people who are making over $1 million
to pay a small sacrifice for this war where our military families are
paying a huge sacrifice," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.
The White House weighed in with an official veto promise Thursday that also attacked the Democratic plan for increasing taxes.
"The president has been clear that tax increases are unacceptable," the White House statement said.
The
overall war spending bill proposal calls for $163 billion to fight the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the GI Bill add-on expects to raise
$54 billion over the next 10 years through the surtax. The bill would
also allow veterans 15 years to use the benefits, whereas currently the
limit is 10 years.
In the Senate Wednesday, Sen. McCain's
proposal for a GI Bill overhaul lost in a 55-42 vote to a counter
proposal by Sen. Jim Webb. MSNBC summarized the differences between the two:
In the simplest terms, the Webb bill would effectively pay for tuition
and housing at a four-year public college for those serving at least
three years of active duty. The McCain measure isn't as generous, as it
increases existing education benefits by $400 a month for the same time
served: from $1,100 to $1,500.
After the vote, McCain had this reaction [via ABC News]:
“My job is to get people to stay in the military, not only to join, but
to stay as well,” McCain said, although he added that he will be
sitting down with Webb to try to work out a compromise. He wants to
make sure to include a component of his bill which is not in Webb bill
that would allow for transferability of benefits to family members.
Talk
of McCain's proposal also entered the presidential campaigns when
Barack Obama criticized his potential opponent's unwillingness to
expand more veterans benefits. McCain's camp countered by saying it
was absurd for Obama to criticize McCain's commitment to veterans. In
Obama's words [via USA Today]:
I have great respect for John McCain's service to this country and
I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of
the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks
it's too generous. I couldn't disagree more. At a time when the
skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a
college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men
and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to
pursue the American Dream.
Also in military benefits news, the House Armed Services Committee approved next year's defense spending bill which includes a 3.9 percent pay raise for members of the military.
More
-
David Botti
|
May 9, 2008 01:58 PM
Though he was killed in Afghanistan in 2004, Pat Tillman's death is
still a subject of controversy and tremendous reflection. Tillman, you
will recall, was the NFL player turned Army Ranger who was originally
said to have died under enemy fire (he was awarded the Silver Star),
but later reports found he was killed by friendly fire.
Now his
mother, Mary, has published a book in which she charges that former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew about the cover-up over the
details of her son's death. As she writes [via MSNBC]:
“... I believe Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew Pat was killed
by fratricide and permitted the cover-up. It is not
believable that a man known for his propensity to micromanage would not
want to know what happened to his most high-profile soldier. I informed
the committee that Pat received a personal letter from Rumsfeld shortly
after he and his brother enlisted, commending him for his commitment to
serve. Pat was obviously in Rumsfeld's consciousness."
During a recent 60 Minutes interview,
Katie Couric questioned Army Secretary Pete Geren over the alterations
of eyewitness accounts of Tillman's death used for his Silver Star
citation. She asked if he knew who manipulated the statements, and he
replied:
"Well, that's one of the questions that we will never completely
answer. But it certainly is one of the areas that
that raises questions. There are so many mistakes. So many things that
happened. If you add them all together, it certainly calls into
question the credibility of those who handled this. And raises the kind
of questions that Ms. Tillman raises. I don't blame her for that. And I
don't expect her ever to believe us. But there was no effort to
deceive. There were mistakes and grievous errors by the legions. And as
a result, we fell short of our duty to her as a mother of one of our
heroes."
Over at the IAVA blog,
Perry Jefferies takes issue with Sec. Geren's uncertainty, saying that
the process for awarding medals should clearly indicate who writes a
citation:
Only a certain amount of people handle the citation
for the Silver Star, one of our highest military awards. Each commander
signs a block on the document and there is a document called a
transmittal letter that accompanies it from office to office. Only
organizational will prevents the Army from prosecuting the criminal
that a) faked an official document and b) tried to leave a lower grade
enlisted Soldier to take the blame.
If indeed the medal was awarded under dishonest conditions, should it still stand? A letter to the Arizona Republic newspaper took this stance:
The awarding of the decoration was illegal, as
the incident obviously
didn't represent "gallantry in action against an armed enemy," as
required by the Army's own regulations. This award does a disservice
to all of our veterans who have legitimately earned this august award.
The Tillman family should return the award to the Army, which should
then rescind the award as unjustified and issued illegally.
Another reader then responded:
Yes, it may be true that this star represents "gallantry in action
against an armed enemy." What could be more gallant than a young man
giving up not only his career but his life? Pat Tillman gave up his life to serve in an illegal war that has ruined
our economy with the billions of dollars being wasted but, more
important, the loss of the respect of the rest of the world.
In the New York Times' look at Mary Tillman's new book, there's an interesting historical note of other athletes who've been killed in action.
Eddie Grant, the Giants’
third baseman, died in France in 1918. Christy Mathewson, the great
Giants pitcher, had his life shortened from a mustard-gas accident in
training near the end of World War I. And Nile Kinnick, the star
running back from Iowa, died in a training flight in 1943. But Pat
Tillman’s death was different because of the way he was used,
posthumously, blatantly.
You can read a Newsweek Q&A with Mary Tillman here.
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 30, 2008 10:28 AM
Is it possible that, when all is said and done, the war in Afghanistan will become a "forgotten war"? An article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer
on U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan got me thinking about where that
war will end up in the history books--and I couldn't help but think of
the Korean War. My knowledge of that war comes primarily from my
father, an Air Force veteran who served during the conflict. Ever since
I could remember, whenever he talks about Korea he prefaces the
conversation lamenting the fact the Korean War receives much less
attention than WWII or Vietnam. Korea shows that even a modern war can
fade from collective memory.
It's clear that Iraq overshadows
Afghanistan in the public consciousness, but it seems as though over
the past few years the term "overshadows" has become somewhat of an
understatement. Here's the situation over there as told by the
Inquirer:
The U.S. military death toll will soon reach 500 in Afghanistan,
where the war has received less media attention than the conflict in
Iraq despite an increasingly violent insurgency, the resurgence of
al-Qaeda, and a growing commitment of troops...
...By the Pentagon's latest count, the armed forces have suffered 489
deaths so far. And still troops arrive: The number in Afghanistan
exceeds 34,000, with 7,500 additional men and women requested.
The U.S. troops are part of a 40-nation force expanded from 40,000
in fall 2006 to nearly 70,000 today. Last year was the deadliest since
2001, according to the United Nations, which reported 8,000 fatalities,
including 1,500 civilians.
As far back as 2004, Time Magazine published a cover story whose online component was titled: "Remember Afghanistan?" And then there was this New York Times 2005 editorial
titled: "Afghanistan's Forgotten War." Now, in 2008, we're still
wondering if Afghanistan is forgotten. But, why? Is it simply because
of less media coverage? Is it because of Iraq? Is it because people
don't care, don't understand, or don't have enough energy to follow two
U.S. wars at the same time?
Whatever the reason, the violence
still continues. Yesterday came word that U.S. Marines recently
deployed to Afghanistan, launched a major operation attacking a
Taliban-held town in the violent Helmand region. According to the Associated Press, this was the furthest south U.S. forces had operated in years:
The goal is to stretch NATO's presence into an area where illegal opium
poppy fields are plentiful and the Taliban is strong. British troops
man a small base on Garmser's northern edge but insurgents rule the
countryside south of the outpost all the way to the Pakistan border.
Also yesterday, Canada's Globe and Mail Newspaper published an opinion piece
by Brigadier General Dennis Tabbernor, deputy commanding general,
Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan. The paper posed the
question: "Is Afghanistan Worth It?," and he answered in part:
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 29, 2008 10:41 AM
More than half a century after the GI Bill
was first enacted to help send vets to college, politicians and
advocates are touting a new proposed bill to expand these benefits. The
Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act was introduced by a
number of Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate. Among
them is Virginia Senator (and Vietnam vet) Jim Webb whose posted this
statement on his Website:
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act is designed to offer
the brave men and women who have served honorably since September 11,
2001 a level of educational benefits on par with those provided to
veterans of the World War II era.
In a profile of numerous veterans
struggling to capitalize on education opportunities after returning
home from war, the Washington Post helps to break down where the
current GI Bill stands now. The problem is that these benefits can no
longer fully fund higher education, as they once did for earlier
generations of veterans.
Many people enlist to earn money for college, and almost everyone signs
up for the education benefits -- which, in the case of the main GI
Bill, requires a service member to pay about $1,200 into the plan-- but
not everyone takes advantage of it. And that buy-in is not returned
even if the benefits are unused.
About 70 percent use at least some part of it, said Keith Wilson,
director of the education service, but the VA does not track how many
earn degrees.
An independent study found that just over half use some part of the
benefits, said Ray Kelley of AMVETS, a veterans support group, and only
8 percent use all. "Congress is realizing we're not giving them the
benefits we say we're giving them," Kelley said. "They only have 36
months from the time they start using it to the time they finish." That
means going to school full time, year-round.
Earlier this month NPR's Morning Edition broke down more of the specifics of the proposed bill.
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 25, 2008 03:03 PM
The Air Force Times reported today
that the bankruptcy of a civilian airline under contract to provide
flights for the military is delaying homecoming for some troops. ATA
shut down the day after filing for bankruptcy on April 2--the airline's
second bankruptcy in nearly three years. An army spokesman told the AF
Times that troops could expect delays of two to six days for the next
several weeks.
ATA was part of the FedEx Teaming Arrangement, a
group of airlines contracted by the military to transport troops and
their families overseas. The Indianapolis Star reported on the circumstances of the local air carrier's demise:
Hampered by unprofitable routes, ATA lost $75 million last year and was
in talks with five potential suitors when FedEx, with apparently little
explanation, decided to cut off the Indianapolis carrier's only money
maker: military charters...Its roots were passenger charters that led the carrier, earlier known
as American Trans Air, to branch out into troop charters. ATA operates
a $340 million-a-year airborne bus line ferrying troops and their
families to and from places where the U.S. military stations troops
worldwide.
Back on the home front, military families awaiting the return of their stranded loved ones are speaking out. The Hartford Courant has the story of one father who reached out to his old college roommate, Miramax Films co-founder Harvey Weinstein, for help:
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 23, 2008 09:57 AM
A trial in U.S. District Court is now underway as a group of veterans
challenge the Department of Veterans Affairs over the lack of care
afforded to returning troops. The case, Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, is said by the plaintiffs' attorney to be the first of its kind. Yesterday a suicide expert testified on behalf of the plaintiffs that veterans are killing themselves at three to seven times the rate of the general population. The American Lawyer has a good summary of what the case is all about:
The suit claims that many disabled combat veterans are in dire need of
counseling and other services they are not currently receiving from the
U.S. government. Erspamer [the plaintiff's counsel] estimates that 120 veterans who served in
Iraq or Afghanistan commit suicide each week. The veterans' groups are
not seeking monetary damages but want reform of a health care system in
which they allege a huge backlog of cases prevents veterans from
receiving timely care.
The
San Francisco Chronicle outlined what suicide expert Ronald Maris sees
as a complete lack of readiness within the VA to deal with the great
number of veterans suicides:
A majority of the VA's
counselors, doctors, social workers and psychologists "don't have the
tools and the information that they need to intervene effectively with
suicidal vets," said Maris, a former president of the American
Association of Suicidology who has been a consultant to the Army on
suicide prevention.
He was particularly critical of the VA's top health care
administrator, William Feeley, who said in a pretrial deposition April
9 that the agency has no systematic national plan for suicide
prevention. Feeley also said he was unaware of any methods of tracking
veterans at risk of suicide and that suicide rates "are not a metric we
are measuring."
The impact of the trial is being felt in Washington, D.C. where two U.S. senators are now calling for the resignation
of the VA's chief mental health official, Dr. Ira Katz. Senator Patty
Murray (D-Wash.) is citing evidence learned in the trial showing that
the VA withheld information on the rising number of veterans suicides.
As her statement reads:
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 17, 2008 01:22 PM
A new comprehensive report
by the RAND Corporation has concluded that 300,000 veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan suffer from depression or PTSD--and only about half have
sought out treatment, according to the Associated Press.
The report surveyed 1,965 vets in what the AP calls the first large
scale private study of its kind. The numbers show that 18.5 percent of
all Iraq and Afghanistan vets suffer from these these symptoms.
According to RAND, possible solutions to temper these problems may be
available:
Among our recommendations is that effective treatments documented in the scientific literature — evidence-based care
— are available for PTSD and major depression. Delivery of such care to
all veterans with PTSD or major depression would pay for itself within
two years, or even save money, by improving productivity and reducing
medical and mortality costs. Such care may also be a cost-effective way
to retain a ready and healthy military force for the future. However,
to ensure that this care is delivered requires system-level changes
across the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and the U.S. health care system.
The AP offered up more conclusions drawn from the study, including why vets are not seeking care:
They gave various reasons for not getting help, including that they
worried about the side effects of medication; believe family and
friends could help them with the problem, or that they feared seeking
care might damage their careers.
The
report also noted who is most susceptible to depression and PTSD,
although, in the end, it is a vet's exposure to combat trauma that is
the greatest predictor:
Rates of PTSD and major depression were highest among Army soldiers and
Marines, and among service members who were no longer on active duty
(people in the reserves and those who had been discharged or retired
from the military). Women, Hispanics and enlisted personnel all were
more likely to report symptoms of PTSD and major depressions.
Last November the Pentagon opened the Defense
Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain
Injury in an effort to bring together education, treatment, and
research. From the Department of Defense:
The center also will set standards and
assess, survey and validate DoD programs, and decide, in part, how
resources are directed... Center officials are
reviewing hundreds of research project proposals that hope to claim a
piece of the $300 million set aside by Congress last year for brain
injury research. The office also will work with the military services
to see which of the many programs funded with another $600 million from
Congress are working and how to direct those funds to programs most
beneficial to servicemembers and families.
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 9, 2008 10:09 AM
Since the start of the Iraq war, the importance and viability of
military blogs has stirred up tremendous debate. There have been
issues of military censorship, journalistic viability, and ethical
dilemmas. Recently, talk of where (and how) military blogs fit into
the war's narrative has seemed to intensify to some degree. Here's a
look at what's happening:
The Columbia Journalism Review published a lengthy article in its last issue profiling Bill Roggio, a U.S.-based military blogger who's set up his own media operation
aimed at reporting on terrorism and "small wars" beyond what the
mainstream media can do. Before the piece gets to Roggio, the intro
takes a look at the gap military blogs aim to fill:
When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, among the
seven-hundred-odd journalists who embedded with combat units were few
who were familiar with the military in any intimate way. To many
critics, especially those with military experience, this revealed
itself in the press’s coverage of the war, which they felt often missed
the mark when it came to explaining the hows and the whys of the fight,
as well as the mundane realities of military life and culture.
Army veteran Roggio first started blogging about the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan to put the events in perspective for his family. But, as
CJR notes, a transformation took place that's changed the way Roggio
operates—and underscores the significance these blogs can have:
It was during the second battle for Fallujah in November 2004,
however, that he began to focus his effort. He had been posting
detailed battle maps of Iraq’s Anbar province on his site, showing
where Marine and Army units were meeting the stiffest resistance from
insurgent groups who harassed them with roadside bombs and the
occasional ambush. In the spring of 2005, a new group of readers began logging on to
Roggio’s site. The Marines in Anbar province were embroiled in a deadly
game of cat-and-mouse, and looking for any tactical advantage they
could find. Officers with the Regimental Combat Team 2 discovered
Roggio’s site and began using it as an information source, calling his
site the “Command Chronology of Western Iraq.”
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 2, 2008 11:10 AM
The Washington Post reports today
on the decrease in readiness among U.S. ground combat forces. Not only
are the soldiers and Marines worn down by continuous deployments, but
tactically there are few available forces to respond other potential
conflicts throughout the world. According to the Post, Army Vice Chief
of Staff Gen. Richard Cody told the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"When the five-brigade surge went in...that took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers for the United States Army."
Currently,
Army soldiers serve 15-month overseas deployments with 12 months at
home in between. Marines serve seven-month deployments separated by
another seven months. For the Marine Corps (a much smaller branch of
service than the Army) the fact that 3,200 Marines are now being sent to Afghanistan is considered by some to be severely degrading Marine assets.
"There has been little, if any, change of the stress or tempo for our
forces," [said Gen. Robert Magnus, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps], calling the current pace of operations
"unsustainable."
Magnus suggested that if more Marines are freed from Iraq they could
also go to Afghanistan. Marines "will move to the sound of the guns in
Afghanistan," he said. But he said it would be difficult to keep the
force split between the two countries because the Marine Corps has
limited resources to command a divided force and supply it
logistically.
The Marine Corps is "basically in two boats at the same time," he said.
The
Post further reported that efforts to increase the number of soldiers
and Marines will not translate into units able to provide operational
relief until 2011.
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 2, 2008 10:36 AM
A reader recently pointed me to an incredibly detailed interactive map
indicating the hometowns of U.S. military casualties from Operations
Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Based on information available from
the Department of Defense, the map's creator has allowed viewers to
filter the map by branch of service, military operation, sex, and age. Check it out here. It first appears zoomed in on the New York City area, but one can view anywhere in the country.
From the Website's mission statement:
In mid 2007 oobgolf.com launched an advanced golf course finder for our users. We recently made the decision
to use that same technology and development resources to map the hometowns of soldiers who have died in
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This was not done as a political statement. We simply felt that this tool provided a unique way for Americans
to connect to these fallen soldiers in a new more personal way.
More
-
David Botti
|
Mar 11, 2008 01:03 PM
Thirty-seven years after John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War
(VVAW) descended upon Washington, D.C. to protest against U.S.
atrocities in Vietnam, a new generation of veterans will do the same
later this week. The group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is
heading to the Capital as part of an event called Winter Soldier: Iraq
& Afghanistan, named after the similar VVAW event four decades
ago. As IVAW puts it:
The four-day event will bring together veterans from across the country
to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan - and
present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be
panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to
give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from
the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans'
health benefits and support.
There
hasn't been much U.S. press coverage on the event, but the UK's Sunday
Times, using the headline of "Patriot Missiles," had a lengthy magazine story on the subject:
The veterans are not against the military and seek not to indict it – instead
they seek to shine a light on the bigger picture: that the Abu Ghraib prison
regime and the Haditha massacre of innocent Iraqis are not isolated
incidents perpetrated by “bad seeds” as the military suggests, but evidence
of an endemic problem. They will say they were tasked to do terrible things
and point the finger up the chain of command, which ignores, diminishes or
covers up routine abuse and atrocities.
Other
veterans, and vet bloggers, aren't thrilled with this event. A group
called "Stop the Slander," described as a "coalition of concerned
veterans, family members, and friends," has even published a guide for reporter's covering IVAW.
The guide warns journalists that claims made by IVAW may be untrue.
The guide even provides an acronym to follow of questions to ask:
D: Date(s) – When did the incident occur?
U: Unit(s) – What military units were involved?
P: Personnel – What are the names of the participants and witnesses?
E: Event(s) – What exactly happened exactly where?
S:
Signature(s) – Was this reported at the time or later and were reports,
affidavits or depositions signed, or will they now be signed?
Veterans For Freedom blogger, Mark Seavey, took his own critical look at the IVAW's preparations
for the Winter Soldier event, but in the end wrote that both sides of
the debate should be heard -- without unnecessary contest or debate:
I think it speaks well of IVAW that they expect all testimony to be
true and verifiable. And there will plenty of eyes there to ensure
that. Hopefully we can all say our piece, discuss our views and then
go home with no violence on anyone’s part.
The term "Winter Soldier" is derived from Thomas Paine's passage
intended to motivate George Washington's troops suffering at Valley
Forge:
“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and
sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his
country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man
and woman.”
This
is generating a huge amount of debate within the vocal veterans
community. What's interesting to note is that perhaps the only
demographic who can debate IVAW, without being called-out on their lack
of service, is other veterans. The issues goes above someone's service
record, and shows how the fabled, and perhaps cliched, military bond
can only go so far in such times of controversy. Or, is it still
there, above all the ruckus? We'll soon find out.
More
-
David Botti
|
Mar 10, 2008 12:17 PM
In the realm of military awards, history was recently made when the military announced a 19-year-old soldier would become only the second woman since WWII to receive the Silver Star . Monica Lin Brown , an Army medic who served in Afghanistan, will be...
More
-
David Botti
|
Feb 26, 2008 11:25 AM
Over at the IntelDump last Friday,
Phil Carter was urged by his readers to examine an anecdote Barack
Obama gave in the Democratic presidential debate the day before. In the
military community Obama's recollection of his conversation with an
Army captain about the use of captured weapons prompted curiosity,
skepticism, and disbelief. As Obama said:
I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon,
supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to
Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to
Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they
didn't have enough humvees.
They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier
to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by
our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad
judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we
face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead.
What's
got everyone talking is the idea that U.S. troops are so ill-equipped
that they are actually using the enemy's weapons to turn around and
fight the same enemy. My rifle company landed in Iraq in 2003 with
hardly any M240G machine gun ammo. The rumor was additional ammo was
graciously provided to the machine gunners by some Navy SEAL's. But
that was when the war first started. How about now?
Carter provided a few follow-ups which sought to fact-check Obama's comments. Here's what he found out through a friend:
I talked this morning with two friends who led rifle platoons in
Afghanistan. Both confirmed to me that they did, at times, use captured
or found weapons or ammunition. One relayed the story of mounting a
Soviet 12.7mm heavy machine gun (the equivalent of a U.S. .50 caliber
machine gun) on his HMMWV because it was too difficult to get the spare
parts needed to fix their G.I. (government issue) .50 cal. Another told
me his platoon carried AKs anytime they patrolled with their Afghan
counterparts, and that it was always much easier to get 7.62mm ammo for
the AKs than to go through the U.S. bureaucracy for ammunition
requisition.
Then there was ABC News National Correspondent Jake Tapper who went straight to the Obama campaign staff seeking an interview with the Army soldier Obama referenced. The story checks out; but Tapper saw fit to elaborate:
They also didn't have the humvees they were supposed to have both
before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.
"We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were
supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was
usually just two."
So what did they do? "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees." Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.
Carter also pointed out this post on the National Review Online
which took issue with the idea that captains were commanding rifle
platoons; a job normally reserved for lieutenants. At one point I had a
captain commanding my rifle platoon; so, that takes care of that,
fact-check. Particularly in the Marine Corps Reserves, where officers
must complete a period of active duty service before switching to
reserve duty, you find hardly any Lieutenants. The result is that
higher ranks are sometimes taking up lower billeted job positions.
Finally, over the weekend, the Associated Press fact-checked
Obama's story. The article also mentioned that Sen. John Warner,
ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is
seeking information about the anonymous captain and his platoon. Warner
is looking to speak about the situation at the next committee meeting.
More