
![]() | |
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! September 9, 2009 Let's play war gamesBy GreyhawkThis is what war is, and a reminder that "embedded" does not mean safe. And like any story from a war zone - be it a bombing raid, exchange of gunfire, or other violent event, early reports are to be greeted with skepticism, at best. This one raises several questions, all of which have no doubt already been asked by those on the scene, most of which will be answered, many of which will be rightfully classified, some of which will be obvious, and few (if any) of which will be resolved to the satisfaction of all. This we know: four Marines died. Perhaps that fact renders it easy for outsiders to accept this quote as fact, too: U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines -- despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village. Outrageous! At least if we pretend for a moment that two things actually preventing anyone from making a reasonable comment about this are true: 1. We know everything about the Rules of Engagement - which are actually both variable (to a degree) and classified (beyond vague publicly released terms). In this case we must further assume that the targets were "legitimate" within those ROE, as implied by the quote above. and 2. Everything else in the above quote is accurate. Number two is more likely, but neither of those requirements are satisfied here. For a moment, however, we will pretend they are. If so, then the above is a description of the mis-application of the Rules of Engagement, something that in spite of efforts to the contrary is as inevitable (and regrettable and unfortunate and unacceptable) as the use of force that (after the heat of battle) is determined to exceed those limits. In neither case are the Rules of Engagement therefore "bad". There is no case to be made to the contrary here. I'd rather not go deeper into that discussion, as at this point (I repeat) a larger truth overwhelms the small details - we distant observers don't know if the case is as described and we don't know the ROE. In short: we don't know enough. But I suppose I could restate it this way: if you absolutely insist on jumping to a conclusion based only on the insufficient data points available, at least jump to the conclusion supported by those insufficient data points, not one they refute. Better still, wait for additional details. Even better: remember that the guys on the ground, who will ultimately resolve the situation (see second paragraph in this discussion) are actually there, and might even be more interested in their own well being than you are. More: War Games (II) Posted by Greyhawk / September 9, 2009 10:47 AM | Permalink 4 TrackBacksThe reporter who broke the story of how our rules of engagement in Afghanistan endanger the troops has a detailed follow up:The lack of timely air support - it took about 80 minutes by a reporter's watch for helicopters to arrive, despite assurances th... Read More "...only those who will admit defeat can be defeated. . . . Or, conversely, when the populace admits defeat, the forces in the field might just as well surrender or withdraw."Ancient history, that. Hardly news by any definition. ***** General Dave Petr... Read More A great discussion on changing the rules in Afghanistan at Small Wars Journal. ("Great" insofar as those contributing know what they're talking about.) My contribution is a question. To understand it you'd have to understand this: From the original pos... Read More "Report: Army denied aid to team under fire" reads the headline in the Marine Corps Times.Nearly two hours after the initial call for help, helicopter air support arrived -- but not before the unit took heavy casualties. The delay occurred because Army... Read More 5 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 |
If true, this is the mindset that facilitated the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit. Is this a purpose driven agenda to provide a reason for retreat- just as we did the first time? Shameful if true.
This report wasn't written second-hand. The reporter was actually there. The disturbing part of the article is that the entire set-up seems to have been orchestrated from within the Afghan Army, which recommended the mission. I wonder how you shape the ROE to deal with the fact that you're dealing with an unreliable, even treacherous ally, who you're there expressly to support and whose success will presumably determine your own.
I also wonder if the guys on the ground truly will be able to assess what happened and make changes to avoid a similar situation in the future. Aren't the people making the rules sitting back in Washington? And they have a different focus it seems, changing the definition of collateral damage.
All that said, you're right. There's a whole lot I don't know. Which of course doesn't stop me from stating an opinion!
You are correct Bennett. There are several questions raised, several likely lessons learned. Given that the event happened, the best outcome is that those are reviewed and passed on (in theater, not in public forums).
As for public forums, they are the perfect place for us to give our opinions, and challenge one another and think and respond. I hope my post didn't read like a long "shut up"! :)
(And are you Jim Bennett, or are there two Bennetts?)
There are two Bennetts. I am not Jim Bennett.
And no, I didn't think you were discouraging opinions, just cautioning people not to draw broader conclusions than the known facts will support. This admonition, although wise, will probably fall on deaf ears.
It's easy to read this particular story and wonder about the guy who's running that sh*t show over there. Because he sure is screwing it up if this is what the new kindler, gentler war is going to look like.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 09/10/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.