RVN SF VET
- 1618 comments
- 659 likes given
- 1826 likes received
Bio not provided
The NYT has more today:
"The Pentagon is revamping its quick-response forces around the globe to respond faster to crises like the one in Benghazi. The independent investigation determined that military intervention would not have prevented the deaths of the Americans there, but lawmakers from both parties have expressed anger that the military was caught flat-footed."
All the money we are about to spend on enhanced physical security and more Marines in our threatened embassies will not address the real problem. That problem is a failure to act upon intelligence. If the host government cannot guarantee the safety of our embassy, as Obama forced the Egyptian President to do. Then we need to evacuate in a timely fashion. When the stuff hits the fan, it is really too late for our relief forces to get there and make a difference unless we have an MEU offshore and are willing to make a forced entry possibly opposing the forces of the host country. There was the time that our embassy in Pakistan was set afire and all personnel crammed into the crypto spaces with the Marines placing themselves between the staff and the mob. We lost people that day and only survived owing to the belated arrival of the host country's forces and some help from the British. No US QRF could have gotten there in time. Our building of fortress-like embassies is the only remedy and that is an unfortunate turn of events. Even then, we will have more vulnerable consular facilities, as in China, which have been destroyed and damaged as in the managed riots in China. Nobody was killed in China because the government saw to it that only property damaged occurred. The tragic death of Ambassador Stevens and our other 3 personnel have made us forget all the other times this has happened. 2 or 3 embassy staff were killed in Pakistan. In Syria, we had 2 staff literally torn apart in the street.
@wordsmithfloppingaces @JustJrEnlisted @SeandaRealist Why did Cheney go to the CIA and sit with the analysts? One female analyst was prevented from going to small arms training prior to her deployment so that she could respond to Mr. Cheney. Although she was not intimidated, others were. Then we have Douglas Feith's discredited intelligence operation created in the Pentagon to cherry-pick intelligence and exploit discredited sources like "Curve Ball" and Chalabi (still in place in Iraq.) Yes, the stellar intellects in Congress were conned as was Secretary Powell. I realize that this was not calculated deception, much of it was incompetence - again.
No one really knows what would have happened had Saddam been left in power. Just as I don't know if we did all we could do to assassinate him and support an opposition. We certainly see strong Shiite forces now.I just think tat we were inept and misguided. And once we went in, we screwed it up beyond recognition. The post invasion mess can be laid at the Rumsfeld/Cheney door. I left President Bush out because I believe that it was only in his last year in office that he came out from under Cheney/Rumsfeld domination.
Just to balance things out. Bush was a turkey and so is Obama, Bush went out and committed to a war he didn't understand or examine in depth. Obama has continued along Bush's planned path. Bush was under Cheney/Rumsfeld's influence and partly motivated by Saddam's plot to kill his father. Obama is under the sway of his military who have no clue what they are doing. By persevering tactically, they cause us to err strategically. Like Iraq, we should have gotten out of Afghanistan immediately after military "victory." I do not believe that any future history of this period will be accurate. There is too much unknown and too much partisanship distorting what we think we know.
@Kriegsakademie @SeandaRealist Ilk also has a negative connotation. Some guys here also use "notorious" as a positive word describing someone when in fact it means widely and unfavorably known.
@64Driver You have only to examine those engagements with Arab/Chechen terrorists versus a Taliban group. For one thing, the trained terrorists are less apt to spray and pray. It's not so much who "wins" as, hopefully, you can call in CAS and turn the tide. It's the initial casualties that mark the difference. Further, in Afghanistan, for conventional units, it is the enemy who usually initiates the action - the very nature of guerrilla warfare. Needless to say, that's only one kind of action. Also, note how long it has taken to root out suicidal enemy when they attack in a built-up area. Usually, it is special operations troops (Allied and Afghan) who are called upon to root them out. That and AH-64s. {;*))
Troops didn't like to break down their gear for inspection until we repeatedly discovered that individuals had failed to pack mission essential equipment like spare antennas or batteries. Then there was the gear "that worked yesterday" but wasn't working for inspection. This is especially true for commo gear and night vision equipment.
Test firing weapons prior to moving out also was thought unnecessary until weapons jammed or would not fire.
Rehearsing immediate action drills per SOP always resulted in smoother execution. One thing that I've observed, but never experienced is the difficulty some have in feeding ammo up to the gunner when he is running out. You point out that you rehearse it and that's an excellent, overlooked detail. Another essential detail that appears difficult for some is the feeding of a new belt into an automatic weapon. Perhaps it has to do with how ammo is now packaged.
I cannot understand the aggregation of decision-making by those at the highest possible level instead of at the lowest level. It's insane, destroys initiative, and slows tactical response. Battalion used to be the end all and be all and the battalion commander knew how much to trust the initiative of his Company commanders. And this blog has discussed "mission command"!
@Oberhauptfeldwebel @Kriegsakademie Ha, ha. The School of Agriculture was the basis for the founding of Cornell and is outstanding to include their Veterinary Medicine program. But, I went to school on the other side of the campus. I did go around and watch a horse castration and was so traumatized I got PTSD.
@Frank2 All true, but as I say elsewhere, we might be better off hiring contractors who are specialized in this subject, rather than use NCOs and officers - at least for the classroom stuff. And, they need to be workshops, not lectures.
There is an article in the Sunday NY Times, written by a female Marine officer who graduated from MIT and got out after 4 years. Read it and weep.
@ironiclad Where did this come from and why are you here wasting your time? In fact, one problem is that the public idealizes the military and calls everyone a hero. They are not concerned about much of anything that we talk about here. While the Congress and people inside the Beltway are outraged by sexual harassment officers and NCOs' behavior, the general public probably thinks that it is ironic or even funny. I imagine that the public is unaware of the general and flag officers who have trangressed and been relieved and/or retired.
No, we have to worry while the public just cruises by largely uninvolved. We have to think how to change and possibly improve. And, like it or not, the military has an impact on the nation and even leads in some areas like segregation, for example.
I'll bet "the man in the street" couldn't tell you about the IRS scandal. Being aware of something and understanding it are two different thing. Many languages have two different words for "to know."
@Charlieford @Geo Frick Frack I think that your guess is right, but I doubt the White House came up with that specific idea. I think that they said "Do something." and this is what the JCS and the Marines came up with. However, 500 is a big, costly investment for no meaningful change. The military is a "me too" culture, so other regional commanders said, "I want one too!" Intimidate was my best guess. If you really want to blue sky; I can see terrorists setting up an ambush for that force - only a small fraction of which could be transported to a Yemen for example. An MEU would be far more powerful.
@ironiclad I hate to break this to you; but RVN VETS are old too. But, most of us did not spend the bulk of our adult lives in the Army on Active Duty. As a Reservist, you can love the Army while living in the civilian world and try to bring their values together. Not always easy. We expect things in the military that just don't happen in the civilian world. For example, response times or succinct speech.
@engelbrad To get USAA as a sponsor is fantastic! I wouldn't know if they were the ones who requested it, but congratulations are in order! That is really impressive.
@Geo Frick Frack I think that you are creating a straw man. I do not see anyone trying to increase the military's role in an embassy. These are augmentations of existing embassy Marines in their traditional roles. In the past, Marine amphibious units have successfully evacuated embassy personnel and American and allied citizens from failing nations and nations wracked by civil war - without firing a shot. So far, no one has wanted to engage an MEU during a peaceful evacuation. There are nations without a coast that would require evacuation by air. Perhaps that is the role of the 500 man force. Frankly, I don't fully understands why regional commanders want similar units except for political purposes - they don't want a Benghazi.
However, the time to act and to avoid a Benghazi is before it happens. Just get out of Dodge - something State is reluctant to do as it may send the wrong message to the host government. I think that the role of the 500 is to intimidate as I have trouble envisioning their employment. At best it is awkward and at worst it looks like an invasion. It is foolish to build contingency forces on the Benghazi model. How many missions are their in rented villas or office buildings which are in reality CIA stations? If there are many, then perhaps the CIA ought to worry about them using covert QRFs like the one assembled at the Annex. The goal is always clandestine exfiltration in an emergency - not landing Marines to protect a covert installation.
@Geo Frick Frack There is a meaningful distinction between Security Augmentation and a 500 man force with Ospreys. Then there are the Marine FAST units. One could argue that these forces represent 3 levels of escalation. The 500 man force is for when the host country cannot carry out its responsibilities. If such a failed country doesn't want us to enter - that's where "forced entry" comes in - another Marinre specialty. I think that this is the Marines getting a firm grip on one of their old missions and staking it out as theirs alone. This is the Marines saying no more SOF units, we'll handle it. Nothing wrong with that.
@BrianScott The intellectual linkage should not be there - that's a problem. Those policies should have nothing to do with sexual harassment. That sexual harassment is an outgrowth of fraternization is more likely. Rape is an act of agression. Gender integration in peacetime and combat is a problem owing to commanders ignoring the rules on fraternization. Fraternization at Bagram is not exactly a combat issue; nor is pregnancies on Navy ships. It is a failure, by commanders, to maintain good order and discipline. The fact that general and flag officers have themselves been relieve for fraternization and adultery speaks volumes. The fish rots from the head.
We have a problem regardless of statistics.
@linwood Oh gosh, I just had this vision of Israeli cowboys based upon an experience I had with an Israeli UDT guy. So, you want me to moichey on down and move the cows? So, which way should the cows go? Why in that direction? Do the cows want to go? ..... Country music indeed!
@Grigori LESSONS LEARNED:
Do not all go on piss leave at the same time. Never go alone either. Two do everything to include getting water, etc.
@Kriegsakademie {;*)) Please read my comment again. My college friend began the SES Association which used to be in downtown DC. There is no college as far as I know. A few senior Civil Servants, FSOs, and CIA officers (with GS grades) go to the NWC and perhaps other military war colleges.She and I went to Cornell as undergraduates.
@Eric_Strattoniii We are no worse than anyone else is not satisfactory.
@robertjalberts I think that this is certainly as difficult as Iran and could be as protracted as working with China. When the hell do you guys think that this started. The military has been covering this crap up for years. Carriers deploy and women get magically pregnant? It's not easy to find privacy on a ship. A friends wife was so upset by the sexual more at Bagram that she cut her intelligence contract short. Married, single - it made no difference.
So please do not tell me that the chain of command isn't aware of what is going on at Bagram and elsewhere. You want to be draconian and effective? Relieve the commander and the NCO over the people who participated in sexual assault or fraternization. I think that things would change quickly.
@23rdInf69n70 Well said. He could have started with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. His initial, honest answers, were totally unsatisfactory. Essentially I heard two things: we are just reflecting society and we're no worse than anyone else. Much later, General Dempsey thought to mention that the military holds their members to a much higher standard. So, AF general, the only thing that should be "hooking-up" in the Air Force is tankers. His testimony, however, said it all. Senior leadership just doesn't get it. Therefore, the burden right now falls upon civilian leadership and the first thing that they must do is fire the top general officers who do not get it.