by cincinnatus » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:47 pm
Couple of issues beyond what I've already said...
Good point Skyhook. I say again, our COIN strategy is incredible risky because it's too damn delicate, with far too much risk to strategic loss when "strategic corporals" make these kind of criminal choices. Another reason is we (U.S.) are the wrong country to have the patience to execute long-term all the requirements of the strategy (especially the offensive lines of operation still occurring during stabilization efforts).
Col Sun;
I re-read the story, and it says they "discussed scenarios" in which they would toss candy, then kill kids, but it doesn't sound like it happened. Additionally, the article mentions only 3 more actual kills (which was dubbed "a wild shooting spree"). Up till now, I was under the vague impression they had killed many more (1 or many kind of irrelevant if you're the 1 though). Also, the article has the standard biases...like the writers claiming these activities and attitudes are widespread in the Army, and then not offering the proof; that a Lewey would be in a position to "know" or "suspect" that the killing of Gul Muldin in the field was murder...as if he should have known based on some villagers claiming otherwise, while all his men present claimed the two had been attacked and returned fire, in full compliance with ROEs. The reason that is so flawed, is he was in the hut with the elder (probably having Chai) when he heard the shots. He gets on scene, and is told conflicting stories, but a standard defensive ROE scenario from his entire squad. Villagers claim otherwise, but any guess how often villagers are helpful in identifying perpetrators after someone is sniped or had an IED go off on them while doing a foot patrol? Same thing when they complain to the battalion XO...again, remember the context (that you identify...ID'ing the "bad guy" when they blend into an indifferent population). As for "it was well known" that this was going on throughout the platoon, and the company, I'd bet most of this "known" was nothing more than RUMINT (like, Sgt XX's wife is f-ing PFC ZZZ), versus having proof that they killed. And that's key...how do you act (assuming writer meant prosecute) based on vague suspicion, but zero proof? Now, after the fact, the Big Army is using power and threats that would never be available to a low-level squad Leader LT, and realistically not even to a company commander (I.e. to prosecute because "something doesn't feel right"). One last personal critique: the enlisted dislike of officers is especially acute in the Army. One of the best portrayals of how a platoon LT is viewed/treated is the Lt in "Heartbreak Ridge" (yea, Marines, but good overall example). Kind of silly to suggest the low-level CGOs would get open discussions from the enlisted, especially if most of the members of that squad knew, and had decided to maintain some wrong-headed infantry version of the "blue shield" to protect the guy who would keep him alive if they were ambushed.
Lastly, the stress these infantry foot patrol members face, that members inside small FOBs face (like in RESTREPO) is intense. Much like the generation walking villages of the Vietnam Highlands, in which the enemy dresses like the locals, eats like the locals, works the fields like the locals (umm...maybe they are the locals???), these soldiers and marines feel like they have little hope of accomplishing the "big picture" mission, and don't want to be the "last man to die for a mistake."
This entire situation is f-cked. I feel for the soldiers...and I can't get the mental image of Gul Muldin's murder out of my head. I've met an Afghan named Gul (he was 45 though). I've sat with village elders in Iraq and Afghanistan, drinking Chai, trying to earnestly listen to their grievances and provide some measure of respect and relief to their concerns.
Anyone read Bing West's book that just came out about "The Wrong War"? In the jacket, the forward says "Americans are in a war that they can't afford to lose, but a war that they can't win..." Pretty f-ing accurate summation.