
![]() | |
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! April 25, 2005 Times Reporters Sound Off on MarinesBy GreyhawkThis comment regarding a Dawn Patrol link to the New York Times story on Marines who've returned from Iraq reaffirms my ever growing faith in Mudville readers: "Marines From Iraq Sound Off About Want Of Armor And MenRight on, Don. The Times would have us believe that without them, no one would know of the logistical nightmare that is war. What? Vehicle armor shortage? Why hasn't anything been said about this before?!? Here's another telling passage: Toward the end of their tour when half of their fleet had become factory-armored, the armor's worth became starkly clear. A car bomb that the unit's commander, Capt. Kelly D. Royer, said was at least as powerful as the one on May 29 showered a fully armored Humvee with shrapnel, photographs show. The marines inside were left nearly unscathed.So why isn't the focus of the story on the ability of the Marines and the military establishment to adapt and overcome? Finally can anyone make sense of this paragraph? The company leaders say it is impossible to know how many lives may have been saved through better protection, since the insurgents became adept at overcoming improved defenses with more powerful weapons. Likewise, Pentagon officials say they do not know how many of the more than 1,500 American troops who have died in the war had insufficient protective gear.I get Few lives have been saved, because no amount of armor would be sufficient, and no one knows how many died due to insufficient armor. Can someone explain the point of this paragraph? And if so could you reconcile it with the previous one I quoted? Okay - I need say no more, because fellow MilBlogger Jason Van Steenwick - who was there before the Marines - has plenty more. And without saying as much, he lays waste to that institutional code of silence garbage too. But he presents his acknowldgement of systemic military shortfalls with a focus on improving that system. If there were any qualified reporters or editors at the Times they could see the difference. "Look this is broken" Milblogger answer: "Fix it." Times answer: "We're doomed!" The Times story tells a classic example of early failures, lessons learned, foes that adapt to enemy tactics (on both sides) and utlimately triumph. But the Times story failed to mention the triumph part - in fact it twists it into a tale of death and loss. Not a single quote from a Marine in the story supports the Time's characterization of them as whining failures. Too bad a heroic outfit had it's accomplishments and sacrifices disgraced by the New York Times - there's another lesson for military units to learn, and not repeat. Go read Jason - no registration required. Posted by Greyhawk / April 25, 2005 8:08 PM | Permalink 3 TrackBacksI saw this article yesterday from one of my email alerts. Since I don't have a registration with the NYT I couldn't read the story. I just have a thing about giving the NYT's even the appearance of my support so in my little way I snub them. Am I sur... Read More I wrote a piece yesterday regarding this New York Times report on Marines returning from Iraq. Super Patriot Slarrow responded in comments: Who exactly is RESPONSIBLE for the deaths of these kids? Clearly, those responsible for the death of these... Read More I wrote a piece yesterday regarding this New York Times report on Marines returning from Iraq. Super Patriot Slarrow responded in comments: Who exactly is RESPONSIBLE for the deaths of these kids? Clearly, those responsible for the death of these... Read More 8 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
I wonder if they think they are actually covering news? Aside from the attempt to sntach defeat from the jaws of victory, this is just a pitiful non-story.
One of the oldest canards of all about the military is
"Don't worry if the troops are bitchin', worry if they stop, 'cuz they're dead."
Cordially,
Uncle J
My take on the Rosetta Stone para:
Company leaders can't determine a cause and effect of improved armor because the bad guys responded by just making bigger bombs. Also there are no indication of how many KIA may have been contributed to by a lack of what someone feels is "sufficient" protective gear.
There are two purposes of this paragraph: make the military look helpless in the face of the insurgency ("it doesn't matter what we do, they just keep on killing us") and make the military look stupid and/or uncaring about its members ("gee, I dunno how many got hurt, besides, we don't care enough to research this increadibly important statistic anyway").
Why doesn't the military have all the equipment it needs?
Could it be because their funding was slashed by the liberals pre 9/11. Not that much has changed, they're still at it.
If I recall correctly, Clinton suggested using half the war budget to deal with AIDS in Africa at the World Eco Forum.
Remember the line about dreaming of the day when the Pentagone has to hold bake sales to buy wepons?
I'm with you on that Dave - and the purpose of the other paragraph is to show how balanced the Times is. Armor is no good, the military doesn't care, and here's an uparmored humvee that protected it's occupants.
Does the Times have a decent comics page? Is it packed full of great money saving cents-off grocery coupons? I'm really at a loss to see a motivation to purchase.
Shop Target, the Times has the best crossword puzzles going. Is that reason enough? It is for my wife so I read the whole Times piece.
I would suspect that between a quarter and a third of of our casualties since the end of the 'major combat' phase of this war were a result of equipment and tactics not keeping up with the changing strategy of the enemy. That's the way it usually works. The bad guys spring something new and it can work for a while, we learn to counter it, then they try something else new. In this school the exams on the new lessons are graded in the blood, limbs and lives of our young men and women.
Did anyone notice the graphic in the Times' article? It had a schematic of the armor on a HMMWV and claimed that with armor, a HMMWV was "capable of withstanding 155mm Howitzer rounds" (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/25/international/20050425_MARINES_GRAPHIC.gif)
I already sent in a note for a correction, but the fact that anyone would even consider that something the size of an SUV with 3/8" of steel plating could take a hit from a 155 mm howitzer and survive is incredible. It must be a VERY liberal definition of "survive."
MAybe the Times and the other media need to start hiring some vets to do the reporting, at least they'll get the names and ranks right.
Good point, milbloggers see a problem and look for a fix, even if it hasty, I mean field expedient.
Shortages and defective tools in combat are nothing new. In Vietnam the early version of the M-16 with an aluminum bolt caused presumed deaths from jamming. Marines fought most of the Vietnam war using World War II and Korean-era equipment. We ate c-rations left over from the Korean war. Troops often bought replacement equipment on the black market because it was faster than getting resupplied in the bush. Marines fight with what they've got and always will. At the same time they bitch about everything because that's what they do.