Today, Marine General James Mattis, one of my personal favorite military leaders, will be sworn in as Commander, Central Command, having jurisdiction over all U.S. forces in the middle east:
The assumption of command ceremony will take place at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla.
Mattis was tapped for the CENTCOM job after former commander Army Gen. David Petraeus was assigned to lead the war effort in Afghanistan. Mattis relinquished command of U.S. Joint Forces Command on Aug. 6.
As commander of CENTCOM, Mattis will be charged with maintaining relationships with 20 countries in the Middle East.
Mattis's swearing in ceremony will take place at 6:00PM EST. You can watch it here live:
Remember when the right freaked out about President Obama sending Ramadan greetings to the Muslim world last year? I'm just waiting for the same crowd to hit General Petraeus for this:
I'm General David Petraeus, Commander of the NATO International Security Assistance Force. And on behalf of all the members of ISAF, I want to extend very best wishes to you and your families as you celebrate the holy month of Ramazan.
Ramazan is, of course, a month of recommitment to faith, a month of celebration with family and friends, and a month of devotion and reflection.
Of course, they won't. Petraeus is there guy (and mine too, in all fairness) and they never really gave a shit about what holidays the President recognized. It was just another way for them to perpetuate their whisper scare campaign that Obama isn't like you, he's un-American and a secret Muslim who will force you to submit to Sharia. Of course, most of those who push that conspiracy know it to be untrue, but it works on the low-hanging teabagger uneducated fruit.
Good on Petraeus for putting that COIN brain of his to work and wishing good will on his host country on a holiday of their faith.
Bigot and anti-military hack Elaine Donnelly is at it again with her Orwellian-named Center for Military Readiness. Yesterday, she released a shady poll that supposedly shows that Americans don't want a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
Now, this poll seems shady on its face for several reasons:
CMR claims the poll found that respondents prefer the status quo by a margin of 48-45%. According to CMR's own press release, this means absolutely nothing, as that is within the +/-3.1% margin of error.
This poll is an overwhelming outlier compared with every other poll that has been taken on the subject. In February, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 57% of respondents support repeal. That same month, a CBS/New York Times poll found that 59% of respondents favored repeal. In March, a Vet Voice Foundation found that 73% of Iraq and Afghanistan combat Veterans found open gay service acceptable. Similarly, in May, a CNN poll found that 78% of respondents supported repeal.
The poll was conducted using a "likely voters" model, which excludes a large portion of the population. Additionally, in an off cycle election year of a President's first term, the opposite party can always expect gains. Therefore, a likely voters model in such an environment would more heavily favor Republican respondents.
Beyond that, I'm not sure why "likely voters" was a model chosen for a policy issue. It makes sense to use such a model for candidate preference, but not for a policy debate.
The polling was conducted by a firm called "The Polling Company/WomanTrend". Maybe some of you have heard of this outfit, but I never have and I spend a lot of time looking at polling data. Unless someone can present information otherwise, I don't think this firm rates as one of the more reputable polling organizations out there. Additionally, The Polling Company/WomanTrend's own website list their clients as overwhelmingly Republican and conservative groups, which would seem to indicate a Republican bias and/or "house effect".
CMR's results state that the sample was conducted using "the most recent figures available from the U.S. Census Bureau, and other publicly-available sources modeling the likely voter audience." First, citing "other publicly-available sources" isn't a very transparent statement. What are those sources? And what census data are they using? If it's national census data, they are working with data that is 10 years old, since the 2010 census has not been complete yet. Also, census data under-represents the young and minorities, both groups likely to support repeal.
So, needless to say, there are a lot of problems with this poll. I've got some calls out to some experts on this stuff. I'll be more than happy to retract if these results are shown to be valid, but I think just the results of this poll compared to others is enough to cast a fair amount of doubt. Even if you disagree, CMR's own statement acknowledges that the difference is within the margin.
And of course, I can't post something about Elaine Donnelly without again showing her getting owned by Iraq Wat Veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA):
The Servicemembers United has a new web ad out illustrating the human face of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and how we are losing valuable personnel and inhibiting combat readiness by discharging qualified professionals. Watch:
Family and friends have suddenly found themselves blocked from shipping cigarettes and other tobacco products to American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq because of a new law meant to hamper smuggling and underage sales through the mail.
The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 quietly took effect June 29. It cut off those care packages by effectively requiring that tobacco be sent with one particular kind of U.S. Postal Service shipping that requires a signature for delivery but does not deliver to most overseas military addresses.
Even as a smoker, I'm all for restrictive cigarette laws that keep smokes out of the hands of kids. This, however, is lame. Me and my guys used to love ordering cigars to be shipped over and burning them in an afternoon game of wiffle ball (I had a plastic wiffle ball set that I carried with me every where we went. Nothing more fun than combat zone wiffle ball). There ought to be something than can be done about this. Maybe an amendment could be passed to allow exceptions for APO/FPO addresses or something.
Somethings got to be done. Doing a deployment without a Partagas black would be terrible.
Esquire Magazine has a new article out with extensive interviews with former House Speaker and current blowhard Newt Gingrich, as well as one of his ex-wives. The article shows Gingrich to be little more than an insecure, power hungry child who just wants to sit with the cool kids in the cafeteria. All that is interesting, but it's not anything I particularly care about in terms of policy. What I do find interesting is that in his grand infinite wisdom, Gingrich (who has no foreign policy experience whatsoever) has discovered a solution for how to address Iran. While the problem has plagued the last six presidents, it's easy as pie for Newt:
You call Obama's Iran policy appeasement. But what's the alternative?
"Replace the government."
You're advocating war with Iran?
"Not necessarily. There's every reason to believe that if you simply targeted gasoline, and you maximized your support for dissidents in Iran, that within a year you'd replace the regime without a war."
That's it? After such an incendiary charge, your only solution is sanctions and speeches?
"The only thing you have to stop is gasoline," he repeats.
But that just seems like nuance, and only a minor difference with Obama's position.
"The difference between replacing a regime and appeasing a regime is pretty radical."
But you won't replace the regime that way. You're just tinkering with sanctions, which have never worked.
"I would cut off gasoline, and I would fund the dissidents," he repeats.
Riiiight. Never mind that we have been aiding dissidents through the CIA since 1978. And yeah, getting the U.S. off petroleum will make us safer, but would it really have the effect of regime change in Iran? Doubtful, being that energy is priced and sold on a world market, so as long as demand remains constant so will the price that Iran is able to receive for it's oil.
I really wonder if Gingrich actually believes this crap or if he is just throwing red meat to his teabagger base (which somehow see him as "new blood", go figure). If the man wouldn't be so dangerous for this country, I'd argue we should elect him President like he wants just so we can see what a spectacular failure he would be.
This weekend, I found myself unexpectedly outside of my mid-sized Alabama town and in Dallas, Texas. While looking for things to do to fill out this unanticipated trip I noticed that Restrepo, a documentary about an infantry platoon's year in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley, was playing. The film has been in limited release and as much as I've wanted to see it, it hasn't played anywhere near me.
Restrepo captures both the misery and the absurdity of combat better than any war film ever seen. If you have yet to see Restrepo, here is your fair warning that you should expect nothing short of a masterpiece. For those who do have experience in combat, be sure you are emotionally and mentally in a place to watch the most realistic depiction of combat you've ever seen, outside of being there yourself.
For me, Restrepo held personal relevance. During the same period that 2nd Platoon, B Company, 2-503rd was in the Korengal Valley, my battalion was at Jalallabad attached to their higher headquarters. We also sent guys into the Korengal and while I didn't personally know anyone from the documentary, there were faces I recognized as guys who came back to J-Bad for resupply or other purposes. There were moments in the film I remember happening back then, like Operation Rock Avalanche and the mass-cas incident with 2-503rd's C Company.
I can't lie, with my personal attachment to the events in the film, it may have been the hardest film to watch that I've ever seen. There were more than a few moments that I sat in my theater seat biting my bottom lip and holding down the lump in my throat. Kate (who posted her own review here) sent me a text after I got out asking if I plan on seeing it again. I said I don't know if I can. No, Restrepo is not an easy film to watch. It is, however, a fiercely important film to watch.
As Kate mentioned in her review, Restrepo does not have a political aim. It doesn't paint Soldiers of mythical heros. It doesn't try to convince you that Afghanistan isn't worth winning, neither does it attempt to persuade that it is a worthy fight. If Restrepo had attempted to do any of those things it would have been of exponentially lesser quality than the film I saw this weekend.
Often, when I'm asked about what it was like being in Afghanistan by civilians, I tell them it was the most fun I ever had being miserable. That probably sounds ridiculous to anyone who has never been deployed, but those who have know exactly what I mean. Yeah, being deployed sucks. It really sucks. But you also develop loyalty and camaraderie with a group of fellow Soldiers who become your only family, and involve yourselves in some of those ridiculous activities imaginable just to maintain sanity. Yeah, my deployment was RPG's flying over my head, not showering for weeks at a time, and carrying a flag-draped coffin onto a C-17. But it was also making professional wrestling style championship belts out of PT belts for our nightly dominos game and blasting the chosen theme song for who ever won the game on a given evening.
That's what combat was like for me, and that is what you see in Restrepo. What's sad is that while the film did take the prestigious Grand Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival, it won't even have an outside shot at Best Picture at the Oscars here in America. Last year, as you'll remember, a "war movie" that billed itself as an accurate depiction of combat, yet had no basis in reality whatsoever, took that award. The Hurt Locker is a children's cartoon compared to Restrepo.
Restrepo's brilliance lies in it's simplicity, even though the subject matter is not simple at all. It's a fifteen-month view of the face of Soldiers at war, packed into 90 minutes. It's raw. It's real. It's what anyone who asks the "what's it like question" should see for their answer, and what those of us who already know that answer should see as well.
VoteVets.org friend and reporter for Wired magazine Spencer Ackerman is on the ground in Afghanistan to spend some time embedded with U.S. troops there. This isn't Spencer's first rodeo having done several previous embeds in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Spencer has an interesting write up this morning about what post-surge Bagram looks like. It's a good read for anyone who has been on the sprawling base outside of Kabul:
Step off a C-17 cargo plane, as I did very early Friday morning, and you see a flight line packed with planes. When I was last here two years ago, helicopters crowded the runways and fixed-wing aircraft were -- well, if not rare, still a notable sight. Today you've got C-17s, Predators, F-16s, F-15s, MC-12 passenger planes ... I didn't see any of the C-130 cargo craft, but they're here somewhere.
More notable than the overstuffed runways is the over-driven road. Disney Drive, the main thoroughfare that rings the eight-square-mile base, used to feature pedestrians with reflective sashes over their PT uniforms carrying Styrofoam boxes of leftovers out of the mess halls. And those guys are still there.
But now the western part of Disney is a two-lane parking lot of Humvees, flamboyant cargo big-rigs from Pakistan known as jingle trucks, yellow DHL shipping vans, contractor vehicles and mud-caked flatbeds. If the Navy could figure out a way to bring a littoral-combat ship to a landlocked country, it would idle on Disney.
Expect to wait an eternity if you want to pull out onto the road. Cross the street at your own risk.
Then there are all the new facilities. West Disney has a fresh coat of cement -- something that's easy to come by, now that the Turkish firm Yukcel manufactures cement right inside Bagram's walls.
There on the flightline: the skeletons of new hangars. New towers with particleboard for terraces. A skyline of cranes. The omnipresent plastic banner on a girder-and-cement seedling advertising a new project built by cut-rate labor paid by Inglett and Stubbs International
Greetings from the past! Yes, I wrote this post last night (future post, one of the few benefits of being a front-pager) before I took my computer into the shop.
My sweet thing needs a minor procedure done, but I'll be scarce here today. I may drop in and leave some comments via iPhone. Everything should be back to combat speed on Monday. Here are some links to get you through the day and the weekend:
Mullen: Too many spouses kept out of the loop: Mullen wants to end troops' ability to opt out of contact with families. Good intentions I'm sure, but there are privacy issues at play, besides the fact that it was really annoying getting e-mails from my ex-wife's (who was also a Soldier and was stateside) FRG while I was in Afghanistan. Not to mention calls during work in garrison. Not to mention the rumor mills. Not to mention... you get the idea.
Gerlach challenges Trivedi's medical, local credentials: Incumbent Republican Congressman attacks Democratic challenger for not being around in the district for the last few years. Of course, he was on active duty as a surgeon and spent a good deal of that time in Iraq. Classy.
The intelligence and counter-terrorism policies of the Obama Administration, which in large part run directly counter to those of the previous administration, have once again showed their in ability to protect us from terrorism on our own soil. Just look at the latestfailures of this Administration at protecting us from terrorism:
to fight alongside al-Qaida, possibly even to carry out a suicide bombing, federal authorities said Wednesday.
Shaker Masri, 26, a U.S. citizen who lived in a Gold Coast high-rise, was ordered held without bail by a federal judge as a danger and a flight risk.
A criminal complaint charged Masri with knowingly attempting to provide material support to al-Qaida and a second terrorist group based in Somalia and affiliated with al-Qaida.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced charges on Thursday against 14 suspects accused of supporting the terrorist group al-Shabab in Somalia. Holder said the indictments reflect a "disturbing trend" of terrorist organizations recruiting in the United States.
Attorney General Holder announced four indictments charging suspects in Minnesota, California and Alabama with seeking to provide money, personnel and services to al-Shabab, which has links to al-Qaida.
Clearly, when you support Democrats you only embolden the terrorists.
The Director of National Intelligence is charged with coordinating between different agencies in America's vast intelligence apparatus so that the right intel gets to the right place at the right time.
Senate Republicans appear not to be concerned with that:
WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans are trying to wring concessions out of the White House before agreeing to vote on President Obama's nominee to become the nation's intelligence chief.
With the Senate about to go on its August break, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper's nomination to be director of national intelligence hangs in the balance. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has temporarily blocked the nomination, and other GOP lawmakers are threatening to join him.
I past the point where I'm surprised by the Republicans' ability to inject politics into any issue, no matter how shameless that act might be. But they still need to get called out on it. The Senate GOP has taken their "party of no" ideology to a level where they are willing to choose politics over the safety of every American. Stay classy, Senate GOP.
Banks used to distribute SGLI funds are apparently engaging in a shameless scam that uses SGLI money entitled to Gold Star families to make profits for themselves.
The scam works like this: instead of sending the family the money, the banks used to distribute the funds (in the case of SGLI, Prudential and Metlife) send the family a "checkbook" and a notice that for the convenience of the family the money has been placed in an interest bearing account from which the "checkbook" will draw funds.
Only the "interest bearing account" is not an FDIC insured checking account, as was recently discovered by Cindy Lohman after her son was killed in Afghanistan:
As time went on, she says, she tried to use one of the "checks" to buy a bed, and the salesman rejected it. That happened again this year, she says, when she went to a Target store to purchase a camera on Armed Forces Day, May 15.
'I'm Shocked'
Lohman, a public health nurse who helps special-needs children, says she had always believed that her son's life insurance funds were in a bank insured by the FDIC. That money -- like $28 billion in 1 million death-benefit accounts managed by insurers -- wasn't actually sitting in a bank.
It was being held in Prudential's general corporate account, earning investment income for the insurer. Prudential paid survivors like Lohman 1 percent interest in 2008 on their Alliance Accounts, while it earned a 4.8 percent return on its corporate funds, according to regulatory filings.
That's right. Banks are making life insurance funds less accessible to the families of deceased service members in order to earn interests of the deaths of America's heroes.
Iraq Veteran, Paratrooper and VoteVetsPAC endorsed Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-PA), as well as my favorite Republican, Walter Jones (R-NC) (seriously, Jones is pretty awesome) are working to end the practice, as well as calling for hearings into the scam.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is investigating the situation, as is Congressman Patrick Murphy, who expressed his "outrage" over the "immoral" practice in a press release Thursday after reading the Bloomberg story.
Murphy, who said the companies are "secretly profiting off the death of U.S. troops," has written a letter to the head of Prudential Financial Inc., demanding that it end the practice immediately. The 8th District Democrat also wants the company to disclose the exact amount of profit it made off troops' death benefits, and return the money to the families.
"I am outraged to learn that life insurance companies are ripping off parents and spouses of troops who sacrificed their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, making millions off benefits that should be going directly to the families," he stated.
These "Alliance Accounts" and accompanying vouchers have been a source of confusion and consternation to the families of deceased servicemembers. These families deserve receipt of life insurance benefits in a clear, transparent manner. I think this issue merits investigation and review by your Committee. On behalf of America's brave servicemenbers and their families, I respectfully urge you to schedule a hearing on this matter as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration.
In support of Jones, Murphy and most importantly our Gold Star families who have lost their loved ones, VoteVets.org has started a petition calling for hearings into the scam. You can sign that petition here. Please sign our petition and forward it to as many friends as possible so that we can let Congress know that letting banks profit off the death of our troops is unacceptable.
Oh boy. Can't wait to hear the nuts across the spectrum freak out about this:
WASHINGTON -- The author of the Rolling Stone article that ended the military career of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former top commander in Afghanistan, has been denied permission to join U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said Tuesday.
Defense Department spokesman Col. David Lapan told reporters that freelance writer Michael Hastings was rebuffed when he asked to accompany, or "embed," with American forces next month.
Prediction: the extremes on both sides are going to act like this is the Pentagon trying to run Pravda. From both sides, you'll hear that Obama is trying to censor information, only from different perspectives. Either because he doesn't want us to know that the war in Afghanistan is terrible and our troops want to target civilians etc. etc. etc., or because he doesn't want us to know that America's fighting men and women don't want to follow their Commander-in-Chief.
Of course, neither of those things are true. But truth never mattered to extremists.
I never really go on T.V. I've got a face meant for radio. So, every time there is a big national security or Veteran's story in the news I usually get tapped by my employer to go on that medium and discuss said issue. Sometimes its something that will air nationally on NPR or a syndicated show, but more often than that it's local affiliates or regional syndicates and their morning/mid-day talk shows. For those smaller market shows, it's usually left up to me whether or not to do them. There's a reason I say no to most (not all) right-wing or teabagger shows. There's no point in allowing access when you know you the coverage you get will be bad. It's an unforced error.
So, yeah, we need good, honest journalists in the combat zones. But Michael Hastings knows what he wrote and why his embed got denied. And I bet if you asked Hastings if he was surprised, he'll tell you he wasn't.
I've got no problem with Hastings. Any other reporter would have done the same thing. The fault lies with Stan McChrystal and his loose lipped man. What I do have a problem with is those on the extremes that will argue that this is something extraordinary, when it is nothing of the sort.
At a place I spent the better part of fourteen months:
Taliban militants have attacked the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan.
Officials say the militants first launched rockets on the Kandahar airfield in southern Afghanistan Tuesday. They say insurgents wearing suicide vests then tried to storm the base.
The assault sparked an hour-long gun battle, but the attackers did not breach the perimeter.
Afghan officials say an international soldier was wounded in the attack. They say several of the attackers were killed in the fighting.
Taliban insurgents previously tried to storm the Kandahar base in May.
Not to mention on the heels of attacks at Bagram, and less recent attacks at other major outposts in the country.
In a counterinsurgency, an increase in attacks and casualties is expected after an increase in troops. What is troubling is that the attacks are getting more coordinated and increasingly directed at larger targets.
I now understand that terrorism trials in civilian courts are an utter failure. We should keep GITMO open and rely on military commissions to punish those who wish us ill. Just look at the utter failure of the most recent terrorism trial:
NEW YORK -- Two men were convicted Monday of plotting to blow up jet fuel tanks at John F. Kennedy International Airport, a plan that authorities said was meant to outdo the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and avenge perceived U.S. oppression of Muslims around the world.
Clearly, we can't send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed through such a justice system that will put terrorists on our streets.
I joined VoteVets and wrote for this blog as a volunteer for two years before I ever came on staff. Needless to say, this blog and this organization are a labor of love for me. I especially enjoy the relationships I've had with the front-pagers here at VetVoice. I consider all of them personal friends.
That's why it pained me to read the comments of one of our now-former front-pagers threatening physical violence against another commenter. All of our staffers, volunteers, and over 100,000 members have worked really hard to turn VoteVets into the credible, influential organization that it is today. Regardless of whether I agree with the opinions of a particular commenter or not, this cannot be a place where a representative of this organization jeopardizes that credibility by threatening members of the community.
I hope the individual in question will continue to be a part of our community and contribute to our conversation here. Unfortunately, as this individual has been one of the most valued members of this organization, it will not be on the front page of this blog.
Today President Obama gave a speech in Atlanta, Georgia to the national convention of the Disabled American Veterans. The central point of his message was to highlight the recent drawdown of American forces in Iraq.
Obama cited progress toward meeting his deadline of withdrawing all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of this month. A transitional force of 50,000 troops will remain to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and provide security for ongoing U.S. civilian efforts. Under an agreement negotiated in 2008 with the Iraqis, all American troops are to be gone from Iraq by the end of next year.
I wanted to highlight that last sentence for a reason. It is important to note that the pace of the withdrawal, number of troops to be withdrawn, and dates of withdrawal, were all worked out between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration in 2008. The troops and their leadership have since done a wonderful job in carrying out the tasks needed for this transition. This is not to say that our current Commander-in-Chief has not had a heavy role to play as well. Although the details of the withdrawal were worked out before Obama became president, many high-level leaders were worrying as to whether the agreement would even be honored.
"Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011," said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. "If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama."
President Obama did state that the sacrifice by our troops is not yet over. But this is an important step in a transition set in motion almost three years ago.
"The hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq," Obama said in a speech to the national convention of the Disabled American Veterans. "But make no mistake, our commitment in Iraq is changing - from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats."
FORWARD OPERATING BASE BOSTICK, Afghanistan -- Sgt. Thomas Riordan didn't want to return to Afghanistan after home leave. He had just fought through a battle that killed eight Soldiers, and when he arrived home his wife said she was leaving. He almost killed himself that night.
When his psychologist asked what he thought he should do, Riordan said: Stay in Colorado.
Instead, the military brought Riordan back to this base in the eastern Afghan mountains, where mortar rounds sound regularly and Soldiers have to wear flack jackets if they step outside their barracks before 8 a.m., even to go to the bathroom.
Increasingly, the army is trying to treat traumatized Soldiers "in theater" -- where they're stationed. The idea is that Soldiers will heal best if kept with those who understand what they've been through, rather than being dumped into a treatment center back in the States where they'll be surrounded by unfamiliar people and untethered from their work and routine.
I legitimately don't know how I feel about this. I can see the upside. My problems with PTSD are no where near what SGT Riordan is dealing with, and I often find it difficult interacting with people who have no combat experience. At the same time, sending a PTSD sufferer as close as possible to their "stresser" doesn't seem very wise either. The article goes on to describe how SGT Riordan has been deemed as too "unstable" to leave the wire, so he's also dealing with a certain stigma in that since.
I'm leaning against this idea, but I'm not sure. What do you guys think?
It's Monday morning, and nothing beats starting the week off with the same old broken record: Afghanistan RoE has not been overly restrictive. We simply have a culture within the ranks that discourages nuance and dumbs everything down to a 3x5 card.
What's worse is that the media understands this but still feels the need to write about it with sensationalist headlines that seem to make it appear as though they do not. We have seen this most apparently lately in the discussion as to when and whether General Petraeus would issue new RoE removing the "restrictions" promulgated by General McChrystal.
Of course, though, General Petraeus never stated or insinuated that non-existent "restrictions" would be rolled back, only that current RoE would be clarified. But don't tell that to the Wall Street Journal, who is running with this headline and teaser:
Petraeus Resets Afghan Airstrike Rules
Amid Review of U.S. Strategy, Military Eases Restrictions on Attacks Against Insurgents Hiding in Abandoned Buildings
When I first read that, I assumed I'd be writing today about how the WSJ are simply idiots who do not understand the RoE (the second part of that I still agree with, since the RoE is classified). But upon reading the article, I found that the author does understand what is going on with Petraeus's clarification:
Gen. Petraeus, who has spoken often about how civilian deaths undermine a counterinsurgency effort, is expected to largely keep in place limits on the use of airstrikes. Two senior military officials said Gen. Petraeus would largely keep intact Gen. McChrystal's previous guidance on the use of force-and will emphasize his support for Gen. McChrystal's efforts to limit civilian casualties.
Last week, Gen. Petraeus issued new counterinsurgency guidelines that largely continue the practices laid out by Gen. McChrystal. The guidance tells troops to position their outposts near population centers in order to better protect the population, to be careful that money paid out for projects or contracts doesn't go to the insurgency, and to confront corrupt officials.
Are you doing a double take? Because I know I did.
Yeah, the same article that is teased with:
Military Eases Restrictions on Attacks Against Insurgents Hiding in Abandoned Buildings
includes the graph that says:
Gen. Petraeus, who has spoken often about how civilian deaths undermine a counterinsurgency effort, is expected to largely keep in place limits on the use of airstrikes.
In fact, if you read the entire article, there is not one solitary sentence about "easing restrictions", mostly because those restrictions never existed in the first place. But that doesn't stop WSJ, a Murdoch-owned paper, from leading with a headline that perpetuates the myth that Soldiers are fighting with their hands tied.
And the fish-wrap industry wonders why they can no longer sell papers. Give me a call Rupert, I'll explain it to you.
"The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic."--Military Times
"Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature."--Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire
"A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration."--General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State
"This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life."--Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)
"Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq."--Booklist
". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle."--Publishers Weekly
". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq."--Bookmarks Magazine
Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.
