Militarism (Narcissism-in-uniform) Stinks by whoever lives it!

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050522/481/bag10705221227&g=events/iraq/082701iraqplane

Members of the Iraqi army hold a tribute parade Sunday, May 22, 2005 to honour the memory of fallen police hero Maj. Imad Shakir Mahmoud who died whilst stopping a suicide bomber on Sunday, May 15, in the city of Baqouba, 60 kilometers (35 miles) northeast of Baghdad in Iraq Sunday, May 22, 2005. (AP)

Is it just us, or haven't more people been killed by bomb blasts in Iraq than anything else?

Then what are we doing having clusterfucks of new Iraqi Army Soldiers march close together on parade?

Do we want to lose?

Do we have a death wish?

Who in the hell is training them to do this?

Here some slacker marines smoke 'n joke by the ole' fish pond: the Iraqis must love us!

"Operation Iraqi Freedom" to the rank & file (weak, economic co-dependents) and their alleged "leaders" (narcissistic, egomaniac, careerist bureaucrats) is American BS garrison life in comfy barracks transplanted to Iraq with extra pay & benefits. The USMC egomania is not a new thing.

As the above DoD graphs from Chuck Spinney of DNI shows, with the American nation-state big war Soldier unwanted presence continues, oil continues to flow but IRAQI CIVILIANS CONTINUE TO DIE IN LARGE NUMBERS. The INCREASE in Iraqi civilian deaths matches the rise of the so-called "security troops" being fielded by the weak central, puppet government of Iraq. Obviously, these Shia-dominated "security" forces from the Shia majority factionocracy are barging into civilian homes as learned from the Americans, roughing up and killing them, feeding new recruits for the rebellion. Our brutality of the Iraqis matches our mishandling of the south Vietnamese and will result in the same defeat because small, sub-national conflicts cannot be done properly by big, nation-state war forces however "scaled-down".

The last U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker thinks he can order the "From Here to Eternity" garrison culture out of existence, when his modularity reorganization will result in more narcissists with rifles from trucks with lots of time on their hands to play garrison games. To end this, he or his successor needs to insure Soldiers KNOW WHAT COMBINED ARMS WARFIGHTING LOOKS LIKE FROM BASIC TRAINING ON, ORDER RETIREMENT PARADES BE STOPPED, re-equip our light infantry and sustainment troops with tracked M113 Gavin APCs to have non-linear battlefield protected cross-country and amphibious mobility and get rid of garrison buildings and lawn care by BATTLEBOXes. Otherwise his words will not make it so...but its good to know he realizes parade ground mentalities are the problem. Chris Ashby in her cartoons captures the garrison non-sense of our day very well and we will show them throughout this web page.

Columbia (SC) State
August 25, 2006

More Training, Less Parading Urged

Army chief says use of Soldiers' time needs to be studied

By Chuck Crumbo

Army chief Gen. Peter Schoomaker worries that Soldiers are spending too much time marching in parades and "filling the bleachers" for retirement ceremonies.

So, on Thursday, the Army's four-star leader challenged a group of trainers meeting at Fort Jackson to find better and more efficient ways to train Soldiers.

"Look through the eyes of those you're training and ask yourself, in their view: 'Is this the best use of their time?'" Schoomaker said.

Addressing some 200 people attending a conference of brigade commanders and command sergeant majors who train Soldiers, Schoomaker praised troops and their families for their dedication and willingness to endure frequent deployments and even extensions in combat zones.

He was in Iraq last week, meeting Soldiers of the 172nd Stryker (truck] Brigade Combat Team. Two weeks before their yearlong tour was up, the Soldiers learned they would stay another four months.

Both the troops and their families, whom he later visited at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, the brigade's home station, said they weren't happy but would deal with it, Schoomaker said.

"We can't be sitting around and crying in our tea cups," Schoomaker said. "Sometimes you give more than you get."

Most new Soldiers are motivated and want to be challenged, Schoomaker said, but they also want to be respected - and there's no room in the training program for hazing or mindless detail work that he referred to as "painting rocks."

The obstacle a Soldier faces must be the task, not the drill sergeant or company captain, he said. "You can't do enough to help people survive on the battlefield."

Schoomaker acknowledged the Army has made a number of changes in recent years and will continue to do so as it retools to meet the emerging threat of terrorism.

"We're kind of building an airplane while it's in flight, and we can't stop."

Former Army Vietnam officer John Reed concludes that most volunteers in the current All Volunteer/Victim Force/Farce are defectives:

www.johntreed.com/militarydraft.html

Two actual case histories

I went to two high schools. At one, a guy I'll call George was the biggest social outcast in my class. If someone wanted to tease a girl, he might say, "I heard George is going to be your date for the prom." His yearbook write-up probably showed absolutely no extracurricular activities and commended him for his "nice smile." Your high school yearbook probably has a number of Georges. They probably enlisted in the military in disproportionate numbers.

George told me he spent his free time during high school sneaking through other people's backyards in his neighborhood at night to train himself for the military. When he graduated, he joined the marines-an all-volunteer outfit at the time. At times during its history, the marines had to draft people.

On the other hand, my best friend in junior high was very popular and athletic-MVP of his high school's various sports teams. Call him Jake. He got drafted into the Army.

When I was a platoon leader in the 82^nd Airborne Division, I felt like I was surrounded by thousands of Georges. Jake did not volunteer for either the Army or the paratroopers. He served his country including a tour in Vietnam. He was awarded the Combat Infantryman's Badge, which is one of the few military decorations that I have great respect for. Many military decorations are worthy of far less respect than laymen afford them.

"Georges" volunteer for the military for all sorts of inappropriate reasons:

* to overcome inferiority complexes
* to prove their manhood
* adventure (one of the marines convicted of murdering an innocent Iraqi said he joined to have adventures he could later tell people about. The Navy's recruiting slogan was once, "It's not just a job, it's an adventure.")
* to be able to brag that they had killed another man
* to brag that they were combat veterans
* to wear a uniform
* to get medals for bravery
* to put distance between themselves and the locale of bad or embarrassing past behavior
* to stay out of jail (during Vietnam and before, judges would sometimes offer a convicted criminal the choice of enlisting in the military or going to jail-When I was a company commander, all of my cooks were parolees from the Leavenworth military prison.)
* generous benefits like retirement after 20 years with half pay plus lifetime free medical care and PX and commissary privileges (undeniably a mercenary motivation, although not necessarily the only motivation)

Draftees are in the military for one very good reason:

* they figure it is their duty

Reed goes on to explain on his web page we need to have universal service so we can more "Jakes" into military service who do not have some inner vaccuum they are trying to fill, who realize they are complete ADULTS who just want to get the job done as best as possible:

* fairness regarding the distribution of responsibility for national defense to all categories of Americans including economic status, education, regional, and ethnic groups
* better quality military personnel including non-criminals and people used to getting results in the business world
* avoidance of persons attracted to military service for inappropriate reasons to acquire persons with skills that are needed but which the military cannot teach
* to ensure that the military is representative of the American people
* to make every family more interested in whether we should go to war thereby reducing the number of our wars
* to minimize bureaucratization of the military
* to avoid our military personnel being dominated by one region, currently, the South
* to avoid our military being dominated by one religious group, currently, Christian fundamentalism
* to avoid outsourcing our defense to a "day-labor" military of alien would-be U.S. citizens
* to make the U.S. less reluctant to use military force when necessary
* lets the military leaders focus on winning the war rather than keeping recruitment and re-enlistment rates high
* lack of a draft lets young men veto a Congressional declaration of war by "voting with their feet" not to volunteer, an intolerable transfer of responsibility and authority by the Congress
* lack of a draft turns our military increasingly mercenary and intolerably expensive as more and more money is required to induce adequate numbers of enlistments and reenlistments
* lack of a draft forces such inappropriate policies as preventing volunteers from leaving when their enlistment is up, longer combat tours, promotions of unqualified personnel, forcing non-infantry to become infantry and non-Army military personnel to be assigned to the Army, extraordinarily strict discipline to stop increased AWOLs and desertions

He's right on-target since today's Volunteer/Victims are told to STFU since they "volunteered for it", they are easier to send in to bleed in no-win wars that are good for corporate profits.

The 65/35 Split: How much of the U.S. Military is Without ANY Conscience?

In fact, if civilian society itself is composed of 65% lemmings who have no conscience whatsoever, and only 35% THINK and have internal morality, HOW MUCH of the U.S. military is immoral?

If the citizenry of America were drafted into military service the ratio would be 65% immoral and 35% moral. BUT WE DON'T DO THIS ANYMORE!

Today the military is composed of "volunteers". People who WANT TO BE LEMMINGS in a mother/daddy organization. What if the U.S. military ONLY DRAWS FROM THE 65% lemmings segment without a conscience?

Clearly, this is the case.

We say the ratio in the U.S. military is 99% lemmings who will do anything they are told to include killing innocent civilians as long as some mommy/daddy figure tells them its ok.

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id485.html

The Mind of James Donahue

Blind Obedience

Corporations Without Conscience

Author unknown
Received by e-mail.

I like it so much I am publishing it as it was received

"The greatest pyramids ... are made not of stone but of people: they are the vast bureaucracies that constitute society's core, and they function not necessarily to get the 'job' done but to reward the personal loyalty of those at the bottom to those at the top." - William Langewiesche, The Atlantic, 2001 November

Adam Smith's first major work was not The Wealth of Nations but a book on ethics: Theory of Moral Sentiments.

As an ethicist he understood that the mechanism of the "invisible hand" would be most efficient if self-interest was restrained by conscience. With remarkable prescience Smith warned that corporations (in his day called joint-stock companies) could slip the restraints of human conscience. In our day this is pretty much what has happened. Corporations have taken on a life of their own, entities without a conscience with the potential to wreak havoc on the societies that have created them.

This isn't the place to document the detrimental effects of corporations on society, the political process, the environment, etc. The journalist William Greider does an admirable job of this in his book "One World, Ready or Not - The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism." Here attention will be focused for the moment on one question: What is it about corporations that allows them to slip the restraints of human conscience?

William Langewiesche has provided the key to answering this question: "Corporate bureaucracies function not necessarily to get the 'job' done but to reward the personal loyalty of those at the bottom to those at the top." The power to reward loyalty is the currency of the corporation. And this power is also used to command obedience.

The subject of obedience to authority will be linked forever to Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments of the 1960's. His conclusions in his own words were: "The results as I observed them in the laboratory are disturbing. They raise the possibility that human nature cannot be counted on to insulate men from brutality and inhumane treatment at the direction of malevolent authority. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority. If in this study an anonymous experimenter could successfully command adults to subdue a fifty year old man and force on him painful electric shocks against his protests one can only wonder what government with its vastly greater authority and prestige can command of its subjects."

A little editing of Milgram's conclusion will put it in better context: "A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do [by an anonymous experimenter] irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority. One can only wonder what [a corporation] with its vastly greater authority and prestige can command of its [employees]." This sobering assessment goes a long way in explaining how corporations slip the restraints of human conscience. There is just one problem. "A substantial proportion of people" isn't good enough for a full explanation.

Dr. Thomas Blass's website on Milgram and his work, www.stanleymilgram.com , cites 65 percent as the proportion of people who delivered the maximum shock to their unwilling victims. (The experiments were rigged. The "victims" were in on it and no shocks were actually delivered.)

So what about the 35 percent of people who won't subordinate their consciences to authority? Well, consider how an employee rises through the levels of a corporate hierarchy. At each level ability, loyalty and obedience can be rewarded with a promotion. If at any level conscience interferes with loyalty or obedience then the employee likely won't be promoted further. So we have an employee screening process that selects for ability, loyalty and obedience but selects against conscience. As Leo Durocher put it, nice guys finish last.

To summarize, corporations slip the bounds of human conscience because of two conditions. The first condition involves human nature. Milgram's obedience experiments empirically show that a substantial proportion of people are willing to subordinate their consciences to authority. The second condition involves corporate nature. Corporations use an employee screening process that selects for ability, loyalty and obedience but selects against conscience.

It is noteworthy that two words have not been used in this discussion: "power" and "corruption." It has not been necessary to appeal to Lord Acton's axiom and indeed it is probably not generally true that power corrupts those who wield it. Rather, the association between power and corruption is more likely due to a flawed screening process that tends to select non-conscientious people to positions of power.

If the employee screening process is flawed by a tendency to select against conscience, then the obvious remedy is to fix the screening process. The key to doing this is the line above: "If at any level conscience interferes with loyalty or obedience then the employee likely won't be promoted further." Why not? Because it is in the self-interest of superiors to command the loyalty and obedience of their subordinates.

But what if employees were promoted not just on the basis of loyalty and obedience but also on the basis of conscientiousness? To do this the role of superiors in the employee promotion process would have to be diminished. It necessarily follows that as the role of superiors decreases the role of peers and subordinates would increase. There is a name for this. It is called democratization.

The aftershocks from the Enron/Andersen/Wall Street scandal are providing an historic opportunity to challenge one of the most unexamined beliefs in business culture, that corporate government must be strictly authoritarian in nature.

During Europe's Middle Ages the divine right of kings and the feudal order went unchallenged. It took the Renaissance, the rise of the bourgeoisie, and the Enlightenment to legitimize the idea of government responsible to the people.

During the debate over the U.S. Constitution, Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers to make the case for a centralized yet democratic federal government. The time is ripe for the world's most innovative thinkers on the subject of corporate governance to rethink the issue from first (i.e. democratic) principles with the aim of producing the corporate governance equivalent of the Federalist Papers.

How do the Lemmings Deny Reality? It Makes them feel Good to Lie to Themselves

Cognitive Dissonance (COGDIS) creates pleasure in lemming trucktards

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/warehousec/id39.html

Denying Bad News Makes Us "Feel Good"

By James Donahue

Sometimes it seems hard to believe that national leaders like our own president and many of his staffers would deny global warming even though the evidence around us is becoming so overwhelming even the average Joe on the street senses that something is really wrong.

And why would other world leaders and influential people, like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, say that the Nazi slaughter and suffering of Jews did not happen when there are many survivors of those World War II concentration camps still living today who tell the story? The embellishment of the death camp story is another matter.

Why, for that matter, is the world turning its back on the horrors now going on in places like Darfur, Africa, where the Sudanese Government is conducting mass genocide on hundreds of thousands and over a million people have been driven from their homes?

Dr. Drew Weston, in a published paper earlier this year, reports that a research study conducted at Emory University in Atlanta indicates that the brain responds to bad news in a unique way. The research shows that "there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected."

The study of brain mapping techniques reveals that "we derive pleasure from irrationally sticking with beliefs against evidence," Weston wrote. The study suggests that most people internalize a system of beliefs and that changing those beliefs in the form of new and compelling information can bring psychological and social pain. But when a person allows the brain to find a way to deny this new evidence and thus maintain old beliefs he or she experiences immediate biochemical pleasure.

The Weston study helps us understand why so many people throughout the world remain in denial that our planet is dying from overpopulation, extreme exploitation of natural resources, and irresponsible polluting of our land, seas and air. There is a widespread unwillingness to believe some recent scientific reports that suggest that we have no more than 50 years before the planet will no longer support life.

It is shocking to note that within hours after this report made the news, it strangely disappeared. No matter where we searched, the story was erased. Who and why was this done? The order to pull this story appears to have originated in high places . . . possibly from the White House.

Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said two federal agencies, the inspectors general for the Commerce Department and NASA have begun sweeping investigations of the Bush Administration's censorship and suppression of research into global warming.

Lautenberg said he believes the investigations "will uncover internal documents and agency correspondence that may expose widespread misconduct." What we find even more shocking is the lapdog nature of the national media to go right along with the federal program of denial. As a retired journalist, this writer finds it difficult to understand why responsible media would ignore the most important and critical news story in history . . . the threatened extinction of the human race.

The Weston study may give us some insight into the full spectrum of issues associated with individual opinions and mass-mindedness. If the story is too dire, we just do not want to hear it. Thus we allow our brains to play tricks on us, and let us go on believing that all is well when we really should know better.

Unjust Wars for corporate Profits = Soldiers Turn to Suicide, Need to Turn to Non-Participation in Evil

Unable to sort out the contradictions and hypocrisies, many servicemen are turning to suicide. If they feel this way, they should instead say NO! and fight corruption by refusing to participate in it.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/suspected-army-suicides-set-record/20071213092209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Suspected Army Suicides Set Record

By Gregg Zoroya,
USA Today
Posted: 2007-12-13 12:14:35
Filed Under: Nation News

(Dec. 13) - A record number of Soldiers - 109 - have killed themselves this year, according to Army statistics showing confirmed or suspected suicides.

The deaths occur as Soldiers serve longer combat deployments and the Army spends $100 million on support programs.

PIC

U.S. Soldiers prepare for a mission in Ramadi, Iraq, in June 2006. Army figures show suicides among troops are up, a trend that coincided with longer combat deployments.

"Soldiers, families and equipment are stretched and stressed," Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff, told Congress last month.

The Army provided suicide statistics to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. Her staff shared them with USA TODAY.

Those numbers show 77 confirmed suicides Army-wide this year through Nov. 27 and 32 other deaths pending final determination as suicides.

The Army updated those statistics Wednesday, confirming 85 suicides, including 27 in Iraq and four in Afghanistan.

The highest number of Army suicides recorded since 1990 was 102 in 1992 - a period when the service was 20% larger than today.

A total of 109 suicides this year would equal a rate of 18.4 per 100,000, the highest since the Army started counting in 1980. The civilian suicide rate was 11 per 100,000 in 2004, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The military hasn't erased the stigma surrounding mental health issues, so troubled Soldiers often do not seek help, Murray says.

"I want to say I'm surprised" by the suicide increase, she says. "But when we're not doing everything we can to deal with mental health, when we know the Army is under such stress, it's not a surprise. It has to be a wakeup call."

The Army has moved more aggressively in recent years to stem suicides, instituting mandatory training for every soldier about mental health and establishing a program to study its suicides.

Research released by the Army in August shows that almost 70% of suicides in 2006 were spurred by failed relationships.

The Army continues to improve its suicide-prevention programs, spokesman Paul Boyce said Wednesday. A hotline number - 800-342-9647 - is also available.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, records show that 128 Soldiers have killed themselves while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

One was Spc. Travis Virgadamo, 19, of Las Vegas. His family said he was on suicide watch but was eventually taken off, and his gun was returned. "That night he killed himself," says his grandmother, Kate O'Brien, of Pahrump, Nev.

O'Brien says her grandson desperately wanted to come home.

"He would say, 'Grandma, pray for me.' " she says. "What good is somebody (to the war effort) that is under such stress?"

EFFECT #2: Snobby U.S. servicemen abuse each other....is it a surprise they infuriate and make more enemy rebels? that servicemen turn to suicide?

Arguably, America's greatest actor today is Gene Hackman.

He was once in the marines.

Notice how he was treated by the snobby marines and ask yourself how pride--narcissism---can be an uplifting "virtue", and how being a condescending snob is going to bring out the best in anyone, much less a foreign civilian struggling to make his/her country safe and make a living? There's no such thing as "respect" and "honor" in USMC "values" which are vanities and egotism sugar coated in dress uniforms. Army BS "LDRSHP" values are not much better, either.

www.imdb.com/name/nm0000432/bio

Was in the marine corps. Toured in China. Based his role in The Conversation (www.imdb.com/title/tt0071360) (1974) on one of his uncles and a fellow marine he had known well. He characterized the marine as someone "who probably became a serial killer". In a 2004 Vanity Fair story on he, Dustin Hoffman, and Robert Duvall, Hackman said one of the worst memories of being a struggling actor, was working as a doorman in New York City. He recalled having seen former marine officers pass him by when opening the door for them, which one had said "Hackman, you're a sorry son of a bitch."

With marines like that overseas is it a wonder the rebellion is growing?

Here's an Army horror story from Iraq of the dehumanizing lemming, militaristic fascist culture now permeating in the U.S. military. I was looking for a web page on the PBS documentary "In the Company of Soldiers" where a medic shoots and kills an Iraqi man's dog for no reason and you can hear him cry as he had lost his only friend he had in this life. He did it just to be an asshole (because he could!) no doubt suffering from the lingering and monumental BS of constant harassment dealt him daily in the Army. That asshole, sorry-excuse-for-a-Soldier should have been punished. Instead we found this story of yet another outrage foisted by the American military fascist mentality.

What would YOU do?

I know what I'd have done, the troops would have kept the dog.

www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/orl-asecapache111

Orders to kill adopted puppy leave Florida Soldiers mourning

By Roger Roy

It's against the rules for U.S. Soldiers in Iraq to have pets, [EDITOR: says fu*king who?] but the skinny black puppy that wandered up to the Florida National Guard Soldiers at a base in northern Iraq wouldn't go away.

So the Soldiers from Alpha Co. of the 2nd Battalion of the 124th Infantry Regiment adopted the mutt and named her Apache after their radio call sign.

But Army regulations finally caught up with Alpha Co. and Apache.

Family members said Wednesday that the Soldiers were eventually forced to obey orders and have the dog killed.

"My husband was devastated," said Maggie Ford of Melbourne, whose husband, Sgt. 1st Class Bill Ford, had hoped to bring the dog back to Florida. "We all cried when we found out."

Many wild and stray dogs, often unfriendly and even dangerous, roam the Iraq countryside. But Soldiers said Apache was always friendly. At first, the men tried to ignore the eager pup, who kept sidling up to them begging for food while they kept guard at a checkpoint leading into Camp Anaconda, a huge American base outside Balad, about an hour north of Baghdad. But finally the Soldiers gave in and took the dog back to their camp.

While affectionate with the 130 or so Soldiers in the company, Apache could spot a stranger instantly and would bark and growl menacingly. She seemed to especially dislike officers, and in September nipped at a captain from another company who got too close.

But Apache would happily greet the Soldiers when they returned from patrols, then roll over to have her belly rubbed and chew playfully on their arms.

Still, the Soldiers were warned repeatedly that they were flouting the rules and that they had to get rid of the dog.

Maggie Ford said her husband was researching how to bring Apache back when the Soldiers come home in February, but commanders last month gave the Soldiers a deadline.

She said her husband couldn't bear to have the dog killed, so the Soldiers drove Apache about 10 miles outside the base in the hope someone would take care of her.

Within three days, Apache had found her way back to camp, Maggie Ford said.

Finally, around Thanksgiving, the Soldiers took their pet to a veterinarian, who destroyed her, she said.

Family members still don't have all the details. The Soldiers from Alpha Co., who mostly train at the Leesburg armory, and those from Bravo Co., who train at the Sanford armory, have little access to telephones or e-mail at Camp Anaconda, and their families have infrequent contact with them.

But several said the Soldiers were upset they had to have the dog destroyed.

"Their morale dropped," said Linda Wood of Sumterville, whose son Spc. Seth Wood is in Alpha Co. "There were some guys who were very, very attached to that dog."

Kim Alfonso of Tampa, whose husband, Sgt. 1st Class Mark Alfonso, is the leader of the platoon that adopted Apache, said she spoke to her husband after the dog was destroyed, but he was too upset to discuss what had happened.

She said her husband has tried to keep his men from dwelling on the dog's fate. The Soldiers conduct frequent raids and patrols looking for guerrillas and can't afford to be distracted.

And while Apache's death was upsetting to many of the men and their families, Kim Alfonso said, it's a small tragedy in a place where hundreds of Americans, and still unknown numbers of Iraqis, have died since the war began.

Iraq, after all, is a place where life is hard enough for people, let alone animals.

Kim Alfonso said her husband recently had her mail him some clothes their 3-year-old daughter had outgrown so he could give them to children in the local villages, who often wear little more than rags.

"You have to keep things in perspective," Kim Alfonso said. "It's not like one of our guys was shot. We're talking about a dog. But it is sad." [EDITOR: wrong you ignorant wife co-dependant. How you treat animals directly reflects on your value in general towards LIFE. This is a reflection on how the U.S. military does not value life in general]

EXCESSIVE, SEXY FIGHTER-BOMBER AIR SHOW FIREPOWER BY EGOMANIACS WHO REFUSE TO CHANGE THEMSELVES

The following startling report by former USMC officer Carlton Meyer exposes American triumphalist egomaniacs on a binge of civilian atrocities they try to excuse away because its done by staging a private air show using sexy, mega-expensive fighter-bombers.

1. This is yet more reason why the immature nation-state war Soldier/marine should not be tasked to do sub-national conflicts and why we need a NLB-SC composed of psychologically-screened, older more mature Soldiers.

www.combatreform.com/johnpaulvann.htm

The nation-state war racketeers don't want a properly trained/equipped NLB-SC because it may be the only "action" to justify their budgets and they certainly are not going to let someone else get the missions regardless of how unqualified they are to do them.

2. Another series of tragedies showing why we need low-altitude MANNED observation/attack aircraft with discretionary firepower to control the ground below 24/7/365 not sexy fighter-bombers that can't see what they are dropping and have to have their hands held by a GFAC on the ground below.

www.geocities.com/usarmyaviationdigest/grasshoppersmustreturn.htm

Carlton writes:

"Here is one of my recent articles at www.sandersresearch.com The website is now free but one must register there."

Carlton

SRA, Aerial Car Bombs

By Carlton Meyer Mar/20/2007

Youtube.com has become one of the world's most popular websites in less than a year. It allows anyone to easily upload home-made videos for everyone to view -- all for free. This is an example of America's "new economy" because it loses millions of dollars a month with no real plan of how to make it profitable. Meanwhile, youtube and other new video databases have changed the way information can be presented over the Internet.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth millions. Just a few video clips provide excellent examples of how the U.S. military failed in Iraq. Numerous stories have appeared in the press about U.S. Soldiers and marines slaughtering innocents. However, the most common method occurs when large aerial bombs are dropped on Iraqi cities. While the corporate media provides daily reports of civilians killed by car bombs, they rarely mention civilians killed by U.S. military bombs.

Here is a youtube clip of U.S. troops dealing with a sniper in a major city.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq8oZ7_Z8pg

That blast was as powerful as any car bomb, and U.S. troops certainly didn't inspect the building beforehand to ensure it was not occupied by civilians. The audio is equally frighting as it shows immature Soldiers laughing and cheering at the massive destruction, like teenagers enjoying fireworks. How would you like those yahoos rooting out insurgents in your neighborhood?

The Iraqi city of Ramadi has proven tough to pacify. Here are American "peacekeepers" exploding 2000 lb. bombs on its inhabitants.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Lcjfdra2c&mode=related&search=

Here are two more recent examples of gratuitous death and destruction in Iraqi cities:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbE42svaMjM&mode=related&search=

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGC5LmjVDIA&mode=related&search=

Search youtube to find more. These are just incidents that were videotaped and uploaded at youtube. Such crimes occur daily in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and helps explain "why they hate us." Youtube allows viewers to comment, which provides frightening examples of the hatred many Americans have toward everyone. They don't care if innocent people are killed; they think it funny. While billions of dollars are spent each month to rebuild these nations, aerial bomb attacks probably destroy more each day than is rebuilt.

Some may claim these incidents are the result of some immature junior enlisted personnel. Daily evidence proves otherwise. The U.S. Central Command proudly posts its daily airpower summary on the Internet. Here is part of the March 7th summary:

------------------------------------------

SOUTHWEST ASIA - In Afghanistan yesterday, .... Also near Sangin, U.S. Navy F/A-18s received coordinates for a compound where enemy fire was originating. One of the F/A-18s dropped a Guided Bomb Unit-12 on the compound. A JTAC reported a good hit with an unusually large initial explosion and at least ten secondary explosions, possibly indicating destruction of a weapons cache. Other U.S. Navy F/A-18s dropped GBU-12s and GBU-38s on two separate anti-Coalition insurgent buildings near Sangin. All weapons hit the desired target as confirmed by a JTAC. Other F/A-18s also dropped GBU-12s and GBU-38s on enemies in a wooded area and another enemy building near Sangin. Royal Air Force GR-7 Harriers released Enhanced Paveway II munitions and a 540 pound bomb on enemy trench systems near Kajaki Dam. The weapons directly hit the targets according to a JTAC. French Air Force M2000s provided a show of force for Coalition forces receiving rocket fire near Now Zad. In total, 54 close air support missions were flown in support of the International Security Assistance Force and Afghan troops, reconstruction activities and route patrols.[1]

-----------------------------------------

As a result of one of these actions, the media reported that nine civilians, including four children, were killed in Afghanistan when U.S. warplanes dropped two 2,000 lb. bombs on their mud home. The Central Command attempted to justify these murders: "Coalition forces observed two men with AK-47s [assault rifles] leaving the scene of the rocket attack and entering the compound," said Lt-Col David Accetta, a military spokesman. "These men knowingly endangered civilians by retreating into a populated area while conducting attacks against coalition forces." The "compound" was a small group of mud houses where a family lived.[2]

In this case, a single rocket was fired at an American airbase and caused no damage. Two men with rifles were seen near the area where the rocket was launched. The two disappeared into a small group of mud huts. It is not uncommon for Afghan men to carry rifles, yet they may have been responsible for launching that harassing rocket. A rational commander may dispatch a squad of Soldiers to search the mud huts and question the men. However, some deranged Americans decided to drop bombs on the mud huts where civilians lived.

Even more shocking was evidence of approval by senior American military officers provided by their spokesman. He did not apologize and and state that an investigation was underway and criminal charges are likely to be filed. He blamed the two Afghans with rifles for the civilian deaths, men whom he was not even sure were responsible for launching a small rocket. Even if they were, they did not kill the nine civilians, some in the U.S. military murdered them. This was not part of a firefight and no U.S. servicemen were in danger, so what did they think would happened when they dropped two huge bombs on a group of mud huts where civilians lived?

This is not only inexcusable, but criminal. This was a widely reported story, yet there was no outrage by members of congress, no editorials demanding an investigation, and no military officers relieved of command. This is why such outrageous acts continue, and why the insurgency continues to grow in both Iraq and Afghanistan as friends, relatives, and sympathetic Muslims join in the fight against American "peacekeepers."

The U.S. Military has a justice system to punish people who kill others, even by accident. The Central Command's website provides a recent news release about a junior enlisted Soldier convicted of negligent homicide and sent to prison:

--------------------------------------------

Specialist Daniel E. Turner, C Battery 1/142 Field Artillery, 16th MP BDE, was convicted at a general court-martial Feb. 26 for negligent homicide and dereliction of duty. In the early morning hours of July 20, 2006, Turner shot and killed a fellow Soldier while clearing his M9 pistol. Turner was culpably negligent in failing to ensure his weapon was safe and in failing to ensure he safely cleared his weapon. The court martial was tried at Camp Victory, Iraq, presided over by military judge, Col. James Pohl of the 5th Judicial Circuit based in Germany. The court-martial panel sentenced Turner to confinement for 15 months, reduction to the grade of E-1, total forfeitures of pay and allowances, and a bad conduct discharge.[3]

---------------------------------------------

This was clearly an accident, but killing an American results in prison time. However, when Americans recklessly kill Afghans and Iraqis, it is always the victims fault for living where a bomb was dropped. This arrogance is why the U.S. military has lost.

_____________________________________________

[1] "Airpower Summary for March 6"; U.S. Central Command; March 7, 2007.

[2] "Afghan children die as U.S. drops one-tonne bombs"; The Independent; March 6, 2007.

[3] "News Release "; U.S. Central Command; Feb. 27, 2007.

THE WEAK, ECONOMIC CO-DEPENDANTS

For more of Chris Ashby's amazing artwork and cartoons: www.elusive-concept.com

The vast majority of people in the Army are there for economic reasons...we'd say 50%. The other 49% are insecure folks seeking self-validation and blood lust, which we will detail in the next section. The weak, economic co-dependants are not securing the Iraqi roads from bombs nor setting up night ambushes; the Army is a "9-5" job for them. Their heads are not in the game--the war--we mean not X-BOX. Too bad if it means some Jessica Lynch support unit truck drivers die from a bomb blast, "I have to get back to my playstation ASAP". Do we really need 130, 000+ Americans on government welfare in uniforms in Iraq? We don't.

Soldiers frolic in a Camp Victory swimming pool as Iraqis go without water to drink just miles away

Now compare the bad attitude we have created in U.S. Army Specialists and marine Lance Corporal E4s ("Lance Coolies") with the pro-active, acts-like-he-is-a-member-who-owns-the-organization, U.S. Air Force Airman John Levitow. Consider how many people would haver died if he acted according to the "Specialist Creed" and did nothing as the flare burned in the AC-47. Or how we are in the 21st CENTURY not the 19th and the cunning enemies we face on the non-linear battlefield will eagerly reward our snobby stupidity with DEATH from their creative attacks we didn't see coming because we were too busy defecating on someone with lesser rank (why? because we can!) to be studying war and being on top of it. Oh, yeah Levitow was saving U.S. Army Soldiers on the ground below when this incident of selfless heroism happened.

LEVITOW, JOHN L.

Rank and organization: (then Airman 1st Class) Sergeant, U.S. Air Force, 3rd Special Operations Squadron

Place and date: Long Binh Army Post, Republic of Vietnam, 24 February 1969

Entered service at: New Haven, Connecticut

Born: 1 November 1945, Hartford, Connecticut

Citation:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Levitow (then A1C.), U.S. Air Force, distinguished himself by exceptional heroism while assigned as a load master aboard an AC-47 aircraft flying a night mission in support of Long Binh Army Post. Sgt. Levitow's aircraft was struck by a hostile mortar round. The resulting explosion ripped a hole 2 feet in diameter through the wing, and fragments made over 3,500 holes in the fuselage. All occupants of the cargo compartment were wounded and helplessly slammed against the floor and fuselage. The explosion tore an activated flare from the grasp of a crew member who had been launching flares to provide illumination for Army ground troops engaged in combat. Sgt. Levitow, though stunned by the concussion of the blast and suffering from over 40 fragment wounds in the back and legs, staggered to his feet and turned to assist the man nearest to him who had been knocked down and was bleeding heavily. As he was moving his wounded comrade forward and away from the opened cargo compartment door, he saw the smoking flare ahead of him in the aisle. Realizing the danger involved and completely disregarding his own wounds, Sgt. Levitow started toward the burning flare. The aircraft was partially out of control and the flare was rolling wildly from side to side. Sgt. Levitow struggled forward despite the loss of blood from his many wounds and the partial loss of feeling in his right leg. Unable to grasp the rolling flare with his hands, he threw himself bodily upon the burning flare. Hugging the deadly device to his body, he dragged himself back to the rear of the aircraft and hurled the flare through the open cargo door. At that instant the flare separated and ignited in the air, but clear of the aircraft. Sgt. Levitow, by his selfless and heroic actions, saved the aircraft and its entire crew from certain death and destruction. Sgt. Levitow's gallantry, his profound concern for his fellow men, at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Air Force and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his country.

Sadly, John died a few years ago but consider his life story.

www.mishalov.com/Levitow.html

John Levitow, 55, Airman Honored for Bravery, Dies

By Richard Goldstein,, November 24, 2000

John L. Levitow, the only Air Force enlisted man to be awarded the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War, died Nov. 8 at his home in Rocky Hill, Conn. He was 55.

The cause was cancer, his family said.

On the night of Feb. 24, 1969, Airman First Class Levitow was serving as loadmaster of an AC-47 gunship circling over the besieged United States Army base at Long Binh. The plane was firing thousands of rounds of ammunition at enemy forces and dropping magnesium flares to illuminate their positions for the American ground troops.

Airman Levitow, on his 181st combat sortie, was responsible for removing the flares from a rack, setting their controls and passing them to a gunner who would pull the safety pins, then throw the flares out a cargo door. The flares, attached to parachutes, ignited in midair 20 seconds later.

In the fifth hour of the mission, a Vietcong mortar hit the plane's right wing and exploded, opening a hole two feet in diameter and sending shrapnel through the aircraft's skin.

Airman Levitow was hit by 40 pieces of shrapnel in his back and legs and was stunned from the blast's concussion. "It felt like a large piece of wood struck my side," he would recall.

The other four crewmen in the cargo compartment were also wounded as the pilot struggled to keep the plane under control.

The gunner, Airman Ellis Owen, was about to toss a flare out the cargo door when he was wounded. The flare, fully armed and capable of burning through the plane's metal skin if it ignited, fell from his grasp.

As Airman Levitow was moving another wounded crewman away from the open cargo door, he saw the smoking flare rolling wildly from side to side among thousands of rounds of ammunition. An explosion seemed imminent.

Airman Levitow reached three times for three-foot-long, 27-pound metal tube holding the flare, but it slipped from his grasp each time. Finally, he threw himself on it, hugged it to his body and dragged it to the open door, trailing blood from his wounds and having lost partial feeling in his right leg.

He heaved the flare outside the door. A second or so later it ignited, but it was clear of the aircraft.

The pilot, Maj. Kenneth Carpenter, made a safe landing at the Bien Hoa air base with more than 3,500 shrapnel holes in the fuselage.

"I had the aircraft in a 30-degree bank, and how Levitow ever managed to get to the flare and throw it out, I'll never know," Major Carpenter said.

After being treated for his injuries, Airman Levitow flew an additional 20 combat missions. He was discharged from the Air Force in August 1969 as a sergeant and received the Medal of Honor from President Richard M. Nixon at the White House on May 14, 1970. The citation stated that he "saved the aircraft and its entire crew from certain death and destruction."

John Lee Levitow, a native of Hartford, worked for federal and state veterans' agencies for more than two decades after leaving the Air Force. He was the legislative liaison and director of planning for the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs at the time of his death.

He is survived by a son, John Jr., of Charlotte, N.C.; a daughter, Corrie Wilson, of Cromwell, Conn.; his mother, Marion Levitow, of South Windsor, Conn.; a sister, Mary-Lee Constatino, of East Hartford, Conn., and a grandson.

Long after receiving the nation's highest award for valor, Mr. Levitow was honored again.

In January 1998, in a ceremony at Long Beach, Calif., the Air Force named a C-17 Globemaster plane for him. The legend on the fuselage read: "The Spirit of Sgt. John L. Levitow."

John Levitow, Vietnam Medal of Honor recipient, died on 8 November 2000

8 November 2000 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Air Force Sergeant John L. Levitow, one of only 16 airmen awarded the Medal of Honor for exceptional heroism during wartime died Nov. 8 at his home in Connecticut after a lengthy battle with cancer. He was 55.

Levitow, the lowest ranking airman to earn the medal, received the honor as a result of an incident on Feb. 24, 1969. At that time, the airman first class served as loadmaster aboard a severely damaged AC-47 gunship flying a mission over Long Bihn, South Vietnam.

Suffering from more than 40 shrapnel wounds in his back and legs caused by a mortar blast, he saw a smoking magnesium flare amid a jumble of spilled ammunition canisters. Despite loss of blood and partial loss of feeling in his right leg, the 23-year-old threw himself on the flare, hugged it close, dragged himself toward an open cargo door and hurled the flare out. Almost simultaneously, the flare ignited harmlessly outside the door and away from the munitions.

President Richard M. Nixon presented the Medal of Honor to Levitow on Armed Forces Day, May 14, 1970, at the White House.

After Levitow left the Air Force, he worked in the field of veteran's affairs for more than 22 years. His most recent work was for Connecticut developing and designing veteran programs.

Further details and funeral arrangements for a military burial at Arlington National Cemetery are pending.

---

Is it a wonder the rebels "own-the-night" to lay bombs at will?

We are too lazy to stop them.

www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/international/middleeast/13soldier.html?th&emc=th

August 13, 2005

G.I.'s Deployed in Iraq Desert With Lots of American Stuff
By KIRK SEMPLE

CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq - First Lt. Taysha Deaton of the Louisiana National Guard went to war expecting a gritty yearlong deployment of sand, heat and duress, but ended up spending her nights in a king-size bed beneath imported sheets and a fluffy down comforter.

She bought the bed from a departing Soldier to replace the twin-size metal frame that came with her air-conditioned trailer on this base in western Baghdad. She also acquired a refrigerator, television, cellphone, microwave oven, boom box and DVD player, and signed up for a high-speed Internet connection.

"We had no idea conditions were going to be this great!" said Lieutenant Deaton, 25, the public affairs officer of the 256th Brigade Combat Team and an ambassador of the exclamation mark. "My first thought was, oh my God! This is good!"

As much as modern warfare has changed in recent decades, so has the lifestyle of the modern warrior - at least the modern American warrior on base.

Camp Liberty, one of the best-appointed compounds in the constellation of American military bases in Iraq, has the vague feel of a college campus, albeit with sand underfoot, Black Hawks overhead and the occasional random mortar attack.

The Soldiers live in trailers on a grid of neat gravel pathways, and the chow hall offers a vast selection of food and beverages, ethnic cuisine nights, an ice cream parlor and, occasionally, a live jazz combo. Camp Liberty, like many other bases, also has Internet cafes, an impressively stocked store, gymnasiums with modern equipment, air-conditioning everywhere and extracurricular activities like language and martial arts lessons.

Not that life is this comfortable for everyone. Small outposts in the rural hinterlands can be crude, at best, with nothing beyond the very basic amenities and Soldiers required to wear their full "battle rattle" - body armor and helmet - all day because insurgent attacks are so frequent.

And for those Soldiers whose jobs require them to leave base, there is no escape from the cruel realities of war in Iraq.

Wrapped in body armor and the ubiquitous threat of death, they choke on dust and heat and make do with Meals Ready to Eat. On long combat missions, they may go weeks without a shower and sleep wherever they can: on the ground, in empty buildings, in their cramped vehicles. Beyond that, the Pentagon's program to provide them with stronger, safer vehicles has suffered delays.

But wherever possible, the current generation of young Soldiers - like its predecessors in Vietnam and other conflicts - has sought the succor of the familiar, and resourceful Soldiers in this war have taken this quest to astonishing levels, accumulating all the accouterments of home: personal electronics, bed linens, furniture, household appliances and beauty products.

Gadgetry, in particular, proliferates among the 138,000 troops stationed in Iraq: laptop computers, MP3 and DVD players, digital cameras, televisions and video game consoles. On bases in greater Baghdad, many Soldiers have cellphones and some have satellite dishes that pull in scores of stations. Personal DVD collections numbering several hundred are not uncommon; the legendary ones top 1,000.

Never in the field of human conflict has so much stuff been acquired by so many Soldiers in so little time.

One Louisiana National Guardsman stationed on Camp Liberty converted his trailer into a recording studio, and a New York National Guardsman living nearby has spent some of his free time during the last year producing a record by a singer in New York using an electric keyboard, sequencer, laptop computer, sampler, drum machine and mixer in his room; he and the singer use sound files sent via the Internet to exchange musical ideas and recorded tracks.

"I don't know how they managed to acquire so much audio-visual machinery," said an amused Lt. Col. Geoffrey J. Slack, 48, commander of the First Battalion, 69th Infantry, of the New York National Guard, which is garrisoned on Camp Liberty with the Louisianans. "Some of these kids, they'll go out and fight all day, and they'll come back and play these goofy space-age electronic war games all night. The furthest thing from my mind is to play war games. You'll walk by and hear them hootin' and hollerin'."

Some of these luxuries came with the Soldiers, but most are purchased from departing troops, in stores (the one at Camp Liberty sells at least 11 different makes of television, including a giant $2,999 42-inch JVC plasma television) or over the Internet (the United States Postal Service charges domestic rates for packages sent to troops in Iraq).

Lieutenant Deaton said, "Amazon, eBay and Overstock.com have all made money while we've been here."

The DVD collections among troops mostly comprise pirated disks, each containing several movies, that are sold on American bases by Iraqi vendors for about $3 each.

"Throughout the whole deployment, I was comfortable," said Specialist Chris Foster, a guardsman from Baton Rouge, La., whose initial spree of purchases last year included an electronic back massager. "I didn't have a need for anything."

For Specialist Foster, wartime comfort is often no further away than the nearest Xbox game controller, and he is particularly proud of his division-wide invincibility at Halo 2, a shoot-'em-up video game in which the player is "a genetically enhanced super Soldier."

"They call me 'Halo God,' " Specialist Foster said. "Half my deployment I've spent playing Halo 2." He and other Soldiers once ran cables between several different trailers enabling as many as 12 players to play at one time.

Lately, Specialist Foster has done much of his Xbox playing in the trailer belonging to Cpl. Andrew Smith, 23, a guardsman from La Place, La.

In addition to their Army-issued beds and wardrobe, Corporal Smith and his roommate outfitted the room with an entertainment center, a beanbag chair and custom-made shelves and a desk.

Their belongings include three guitars, a laptop computer with speakers and a 30-inch flat-screen TV with surround sound - a gift from Specialist Foster, who gave Corporal Smith his entire video-game complex in part to try to curb what he calls his "Halo 2 addiction."

"I wasn't into video games until I got here," Corporal Smith admitted, in the sheepish manner of someone confessing a new vice. "My wife told me I wasn't allowed to bring it home."

Now that the Louisiana and New York units at Camp Liberty have begun shifting living quarters in preparation for their return to the United States, the Soldiers have been trying to find buyers for the items they do not want to ship home.

In this periodic ritual, fliers are posted around the base, which becomes a low-profile yard sale as newly deployed Soldiers hustle deals from the departing troops.

On a recent morning, Phill Woods, 47, and Bob Szescila, 23, two military contractors, were perusing the booty of a group yard sale organized by the medical platoon of New York's 69th Infantry. Mr. Woods settled on a waist-high LG refrigerator; asking price: $60. Mr. Woods, a beefy man with a long ponytail, pulled a wad of cash out of his pocket and forked over $60, entirely ignoring the time-honored yard sale - and Middle Eastern - tradition of haggling.

"I'm not a haggling kinda guy," he shrugged as he and Mr. Szescila hauled the refrigerator toward its new home. "I'm a guy who's gotta pick up some people at a helipad."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

When you make people into narcissistic snobby egomaniacs and send them to a foreign country which as they would sneer is full of "civilians" (lesser life forms "who never served a day in the marine uniform" etc. ad nauseum) and have them walking around vulnerable on foot and in absurd wheeled trucks is it any wonder there will be atrocities?

USMC Massacre: What do you expect from the snobby U.S. military?

1. Now Soldiers in Iraq are getting "classes" on ethics? Too late? "Better late than never"?

Or how about "whitewash" hypocrisy when the U.S. military culture is UNETHICAL?

You cannot turn morality "on" and "off" like a light switch...either you got it or you don't...and the snobby rank-conscious, blind obedience U.S. military doesn't have morality or COMPETENCE.

SOUND BYTE:

The U.S. military mistreats its men according to their rank, how do you think they'll treat an Iraqi WITH NO RANK?

2. And this same snobby military does not want people of lesser rank with tracked armored vehicles that they can dominate situations themselves with; they want them on a tight "leash" via electronic radio and computer screen inside a weak, wheeled truck so they can't do much except ask headquarters, "Mother May, I?" and die-on-cue when they drive down the predictable road and get blown up by the enemy.

Is it then a surprise that when faced with their own deaths that they are powerless to stop, that marine egomaniac snobs lash out and massacre Iraqi civilians?

The question you should be asking is how long before the weakling marine seeking peer approval from the mother USMC turns on American "civilians" and does the same?

Thios is why the founding fathers distrusted large standing armies---and marine corps (plural) as threats to civil liberty.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060518210709990001)

Updated: 12:27 PM EDT

Pentagon Silent on Allegations of Massacre by marines

U.S. Troops Killed Innocent Civilians 'In Cold Blood,' Rep. John Murtha Said

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, AP

WASHINGTON (May 19) - Military officials say a criminal investigation into a firefight in western Iraq that left at least 15 civilians dead is not complete, but they did not dispute a congressman's charges that the attack by marines was far worse than originally reported.

Officials in the Pentagon and at U.S. Central Command would not say Thursday whether Rep. John Murtha was correct in saying marines killed innocent women and children "in cold blood" during the attacks last November. Murtha, a marine and war hero in Vietnam, said U.S. troops overreacted, and nearly twice as many people were killed as first reported.

"There is an ongoing investigation; therefore any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process," said marine Lt. Col. Sean D. Gibson, spokesman for the marine element of U.S. Central Command.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in an interview Thursday with Fox News Channel, said the department is investigating the matter, and "needless to say, we have to take seriously allegations of that type. And they're under investigation, and they will then be handled in the normal order of things."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he would not comment on the veracity of Murtha's remarks but said individuals will be held accountable if it is determined they did something wrong. He added that U.S. troops "are facing a host of enemies in a tough and challenging environment every day."

A criminal probe into the fire fight in the western town of Haditha is being conducted by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Whitman said it's not clear when the investigation will be completed.

About a dozen marines from the 3rd Battalion, 1st marine regiment, 1st marine division, are being investigated for war crimes in connection with the fire fight to determine if they violated rules of military engagement.

During a Wednesday press conference on Capitol Hill, Murtha said the investigation will show that "in fact there was no fire fight, there was no explosion that killed the civilians in a bus. There was no bus. There was no shrapnel, there was only bullet holes inside the house where the marines had gone in."

Murtha has been a consistent ally of the armed forces as a member of Congress. He has called in recent months for the United States to get out of Iraq.

A videotape taken by an Iraqi shows the aftermath of the alleged Haditha attack: a blood-smeared bedroom floor and bits of what appear to be human flesh and bullet holes on the walls.

The video, obtained by Time magazine, was broadcast a day after Haditha residents told The Associated Press that American troops [marines] entered homes and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl, after a roadside bomb killed a marine. [USMC brass REFUSE to replace trucks with multiple armor-layered tracks]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/soldier-gets-90-years-in-iraq-rape/20061116174909990021?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Updated: 02:40 AM EST

Soldier Gets 90 Years in Iraq Rape-Murder Case

By RYAN LENZ, AP

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (Nov. 17) - A Soldier was sentenced Thursday to 90 years in prison with the possibility of parole for conspiring to rape a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and kill her and her family.

PIC

AP: An Iraqi girl was raped by U.S. Soldiers in this house in Mahmoudiyah on July 5. The girl and her family were later killed.

More Coverage:

· marine Sentenced in Slaying of Iraqi Man

Watch Video: Link Here

--Talk About It: Post Thoughts

Spc. James P. Barker, one of four Fort Campbell Soldiers accused in the March 12 rape and killings, pleaded guilty Wednesday and agreed to testify against the others to avoid the death penalty.

"This court sentences you to be confined for the length of your natural life, with the eligibility of parole," said Lt. Col. Richard Anderson, the military judge presiding over the court-martial.

Under the plea agreement, Barker got a life sentence but will not serve more than 90 years in prison, Anderson said. He will be eligible for parole in 20 years.

Barker, 23, showed no reaction when the sentence was read. Afterward, he smoked a cigarette outside as a military bailiff watched over him. He grinned but made no remarks as reporters passed by.

Earlier Thursday, Barker wept during his closing statement, accepted responsibility for the rape and killings and said violence he encountered left him "angry and mean" when it came to Iraqis.

"I want the people of Iraq to know that I did not go there to do the terrible things that I did," Barker said, his voice quivering as he began to weep. "I do not ask anyone to forgive me today."

After Barker's sentencing, military prosecutors declined to comment because three other Soldiers have yet to be tried in the case. Defense attorneys planned a news conference.

Barker confessed Wednesday to the crimes as part of a plea agreement to avoid a possible death penalty that requires him to testify against the others.

In his closing statement, Barker said Iraq made him angry and violent. "To live there, to survive there, I became angry and mean. The mean part of me made me strong on patrols. It made me brave in fire fights," Barker said. "I loved my friends, my fellow Soldiers and my leaders, but I began to hate everyone else in Iraq."

During testimony intended to show the judge that Barker could be rehabilitated, Barker's fellow Soldiers described weeks with little support and sleep while manning distant checkpoints.

Capt. William Fischbach, the lead prosecutor, told the court that such conditions were no excuse for Barker, who led the group to the family's house, and that no one deserved such unspeakable horrors.

"This burned-out corpse that used to be a 14-year-old girl never fired bullets or lobbed mortars," Fischbach said as he held pictures of the crime scene. "Society should not have to bear the risk of the accused among them ever again."

The killings in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad, were among the worst in a series of alleged attacks on civilians and other abuses by military personnel in Iraq.

The defendants are accused of burning the girl's body to conceal the crime. Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, 24, and Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman, 22, members of the 101st Airborne Division along with Barker, have also been charged. Cortez has deferred entering a plea, and Spielman will be arraigned in December. Pfc. Bryan L. Howard, 19, also deferred entering a plea at his arraignment in October.

Private Steven Green, 21, pleaded not guilty last week to civilian charges including murder and sexual assault. He was discharged from the Army for a "personality disorder" before the allegations became known, and prosecutors have yet to say whether they will pursue the death penalty against him. In earlier testimony, Barker described in detail how he raped Abeer Qassim al-Janabi with Cortez and Green before Green killed the girl, her younger sister and parents.

"Cortez pushed her to the ground. I went towards the top of her and kind of held her hands down while Cortez proceeded to lift her dress up," he said. "Around that time I heard shots coming from a room next door." Howard, Cortez and Spielman could face the death penalty if convicted. Cortez and Spielman are both being held in confinement, and Howard is restricted to post.

Barker did not name Spielman and Howard as participants in the rape and murders but said Spielman was at the house when the assault took place and had come knowing what the others intended to do. Prosecutors on Thursday said Howard had been left behind at a checkpoint.

11-17-06 02:33 EST

OBSERVATIONS

1. Do you think these 101st Sky Soldiers would have been so embittered against Iraqis to do atrocities had they been in M113 Gavin armored tracks?

We don't. Even as weak, narcissistic red neck please-thy-peers snobs if they had not been sent into Iraq's streets on foot and in wheeled trucks in a shoot-them-because-I-have-no-armor-protection bad situation (CONOPS) they could have absorbed some enemy fire without losing their self-control over time. We're sure if a study were taken it would show units that were in armored tracks commit less atrocities than those in trucks and on foot. Even the U.N. is smart enough to have its men in armored tracks.

The problem here is a "glass jaw" light infantry that cannot freely maneuver with protection in closed terrain because it has no M113 Gavin light armored tracks. You can and you should say the MISSION of occupying Iraq is wrong (see point #3), but if you do this you leave the light infantry off-the-hook and let them evade the fact that their FORCE STRUCTURE is wrong and needs to be fixed. We will relive this debacle again during a fight we DO need to win.

2. Do you think if these Soldiers were older would they have done the atrocities?

Furthermore, sending young, arrogant militarist snobs to occupy ANY country a year at a time is an invitation to disaster. If we had a Non-Linear Battlefield Stability Corps doing a smart CONOPS in armored tracks only as needed to do security creating maneuvers composed of OLDER more mature Soldiers there would be no atrocities. Why do we say this? Older men realize DEATH is real and that since they are themselves older IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEM. These are people not likely to lash out on other human beings in the same situation. Young men on the other hand, think they are going to live forever. When they go to a war zone and see that they not only will not live forever in their current physical bodies they might DIE TODAY before living a full span of life as they see with horror happening to their buddies all around them. This creates tremendous RESENTMENT and ANGER at life in general and its just too easy to turn that rage against the civil population caught in the middle.

We also think the All Volunteer Force (AVF) is BS, too. It draws the worst of our populace into military service in a ratio of 50% narcissists, 49% economic beenie boomers and less than 1% actual selfless warrior professionals. We need to get the full involvement of our population to get some adults into our military or you can kiss America goodbye.

3. Do you think the Army or marines are going to change because of this and other atrocities?

Of course not.

You see it in the language of the prosecutor. He implies that ITS ALL THE FAULT OF THESE BAD APPLES. They are indeed "bad apples" but if you place your Army and marines in situations where the weakest links reveal themselves, then its the organization's fault. As Van Crevald says resisted occupations demoralize ALL the troops over time.

However, there is no such understanding of human nature in the garrison AVF military that plays "From Here to Eternity" games insulated from life's realities. Get rid of the mythical "10%" as the marine corps likes to say. Find a scapegoat and preserve the corrupt status quo. There is no admission that the Army is to blame for a screwed-up light infantry force structure that sets these Soldiers up for failure. The senior officials in both the Army and marines to justify their existence believe they are capable of "full-spectrum operations" meaning they can do all military actions from nation-state nuclear war to sub-national conflict bargain-basement peacekeeping. They can just ad hoc it. Read FM 3-21 the COIN manual. They don't even understand or accept the fact that consent of the governed means THERE IS justification to rebel against a military occupation. From there they digress into foisting all the problems on to the lower-ranking Soldiers sent out on presence patrols like it were lawn care details to as General Ricardo Sanchez said "go figure it out" on their own, leaving him in his comfortable garrison FOB.

Senior Army/mc officials have not stood up and insisted on a sound strategic mission; that melting 3 adverse violently opposed groups into a strong central Iraq nation-state is not possible short of over-riding violent dictatorship. Failing to keep the existing central government Army and government civilians in play after toppling Saddam's hierarchy was our only chance for this. Failing this, dividing Iraq into canton regions defended by LOCAL SECURITY FORCES (rural force/popular forces) and having a weak central government is an attainable mission. U.S. forces out of sight to not incite rebellion could stay at discreet FOBs and be resupplied by picketted MSRs to help train the RF/PFs and a national Iraqi Army, the latter to secure the border, oil infrastructure and Baghdad (capital) and nothing else.

05/18/06 21:05 EDT

The following prescient and excellent article by former marine, Fred Reed is outstanding and explains WHY the marine and army massacres took place. Our comments are in [ ].

On Recent Wars
Things Not Figured Out

By Fred Reed
May 17, 2006

People ask how we got into our splendid mess in Iraq and why we can't get out. The question is a subset of a larger question: Why, since WWII, have so many first-world armies gotten into drawn-out guerrilla wars in bush-world countries, and lost? Examples abound: France in Vietnam, America in Vietnam, France in Algeria, Russia in Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon, etc. Why don't they learn?

The answer I think is that militaries are influenced by a kind of man-call him the "Warrior"-who by nature is unsuited for modern wars. He doesn't understand them, can't adapt to them.

The "Warrior" is emotionally suited to pitched, Pattonesque battles of moral clarity and simple intent. I don't mean that he is stupid. Among fighter pilots and in the Special Forces for example it is not uncommon to find men with IQs of 145. Yet emotionally, the "Warrior" has the uncomplicated instincts of a pit bull. Intensely loyal to friends and intensely hostile to the enemy, he doesn't want any confusion as to which is which. His tolerance for ambiguity is very low. He wants to close with the enemy and destroy him. [Self-validation through war acts; existentialism, a vanity]

This works in [nation-state] wars like WWII. (Note that the American military is an advanced version of the military that beat Germany and Japan.) It does not work when winning requires the support of the population. The "Warrior", unable to see things through the eyes of the enemy, or of the local population, whom he quickly comes to hate, wants to blow hell out of things. He detests all that therapeutic crap, that touchy-feely leftist stuff about respect the population, especially the women. [Because he's a snob] Having the empathy of an engine block, he regards mention of mutilated children as intensely annoying at best, and communist propaganda at worst.

On the net, these men sometimes speak approvingly to each other of the massacre at My Lai. Hey, they were all Cong. If they weren't, they knew who the Cong were and didn't tell us. Calley did the right thing, taught them a lesson. There is an admiration of Calley for having avoided bureaucratic rules of engagement probably dreamed up by civilians [feces in the pyramid of military ego]. War is war. You kill people. Deal with it.

If you point out that collateral damage (dead children, for example) makes the survivors into murderously angry Viet Cong, the "Warrior" thinks that you are a lefty tree-hugger.

Today, the [non-linear, 4th Generation Warfare] battlefield as understood by the enemy, but seldom by the Warrior, extends far beyond the physical battlefield, and the chief targets are political. In this kind of [4GW] war, if America can get the local population to support it, the insurgents are out of business; if the insurgents can get the American public to stop supporting the war, the American military is out of business. This is what counts. It is what works. The "Warrior", all oooh-rah and jump wings, doesn't get it. Vo Nguyen Giap got it. Ho Chi Minh got it.

Thus the furious, embittered insistence of "Warriors" that "We won Tet of '68. We slaughtered them! We won, dammit! Militarily, we absolutely won!" Swell, but politically they lost. It was a catastrophe on the order of Kursk or Dien Bien Phu. But they can't figure it out.

The "Warrior" doesn't understand what "victory" means because he thinks in terms of firefights, courage, weaponry, and valor [self-centered narcissism and existentialism to please peers]. His approach is emotional, not rational. Though not stupid, he is regularly out-thought. Why?

It's not mysterious. An intelligent enemy knows that America cannot be beaten at industrial war. So he thinks, "What then are America's weaknesses?" The first and crucial one is that the American government enters into distant wars in which the public has no stake. Do you want your son to die for-get this-democracy in Iraq? You diapered him, got him through school-yard fist fights, his first prom, graduation from boot camp, and he comes home in a box-for democracy in Iraq?

The thing to do, then (continues thinking the intelligent enemy) is to make the Americans grow sick of the war. How? Not by winning battles, which is difficult against the Americans. You win otherwise. First, don't give them point targets, since these are easily destroyed by big guns and advanced technology. Second, keep the level of combat high enough to maintain the war in the forefront of American consciousness, and to keep the monetary expense high. (Inflation and gasoline prices are weapons as much as rifles, another idea that the Warrior just doesn't get. Bin Laden does.) Third, keep the body bags flowing. Sooner or later the Americans will weary of losing their sons for something that doesn't really interest them.

However, the "Warrior" does not grant the public the right to grow weary. For him, America exists to support the military, not the other way around. [Dangerous snobbery that poses a threat tou our own freedoms at home] Are two hundred dead a week coming back from Asia? The "Warrior" believes that small-town America (which is where the coffins usually go) should grit its teeth, bear down, and make the sacrifice for the country. Sacrifice for what? It doesn't matter. We're at war, dammit. Rally 'round. [Fascism] What are you, a commy?

To the "Warrior", to doubt the war is treason, aiding and supporting, liberalism, cowardice, back-stabbing, and so on. He uses these phrases unrelentingly. We must fight, and fight, and fight, and never yield, and sacrifice and spend. We must never ask why, or whether, or what for, or do we want to. [Weak narcissist egomaniac has no objective, self-esteem, its all a test of his penis size]

The public of course doesn't see it that way. [This is because they are ADULTS with self-worth] In 1964, I graduated from a rural high school in Virginia with a senior class of, I think, sixty. Doug took a 12.7 through the head, Sonny spent time at Walter Reed with neck wounds, Studley I hear is a paraplegic, another kid got mostly blinded for life, and several, whom I won't name, tough country kids as I knew them, came back as apparently irredeemable drunks. (These were kids I knew, not all in my class.) It was a lot of dead and crippled for a small place. For what?

Cowardice? I was on campus in 1966 on a small, very Republican, very patriotic, very conservative, very Southern campus. The students, and their girlfriends, were all violently against the war. So, I gather, were their parents. Why? Were they the traitors of the "Warrior"'s imagination? No. They didn't want to die for something that they didn't care about.

This eludes the "Warrior". Always, he blames The Press for the waning of martial enthusiasm, for his misunderstanding of the kind of war we are fighting. Did the press make Studley a paraplegic? Or kill the guy with all the tubes who died in the stretcher above me on the Medevac 141 back from Danang? Did Walter Cronkite make my buddy Cagle blind when the rifle grenade exploded on the end of his fourteen [M14]? Do the Warriors think that people don't notice when their kids come back forever in wheelchairs?

They don't get it.

Not just a cartoon, but reality: Afghanistan Sports Attire PT Madness = Combat Incompetence

Here's some more proof that the Army is clueless and in narrow-minded robotics when overseas reverting to its BS "From Here to Eternity" garrison default of wasting time on sports attire PT narcissism to drive their little internal ego games when staring right in their tactically incompetent faces are unsecured high ground which the enemy is free to surveill all our activities and alert comrades when we take off to run away and laugh or stay and ambush. If we want to be "physically challenged" these Soldiers should get off their egotrips and lug themselves up/down the nearby mountains and man observation post/listening posts to ACHIEVE SIGNIFICANT TACTICAL EFFECTS NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION and when they are pooped and back at the FOB they will have little time/energy to waste running around in shorts offering themselves as easy kills for the Taliban.

SCENE I

Long shot of Iraq and a U.S. marine forward base, zoom in to a large building then cut to the insides of an air-conditioned auditorium...

"Room, Atten-Hut!"

The assembled marines and sailors stand at attention awaiting their commander....as they wait...

Rod Serling walks in...

"Welcome to the closed fraternity of the American military mind....brought to you direct from a forward operating base in a middle eastern country you are all too familiar with...about to come and speak is a Colonel Charles Rogers, a not so uncommon man with a career to direct, that some of us may have run into in different times and places, but who isn't going to let anything or anyone---get in his way of his climb to the top.....that is....until he stepped into the Twilight Zone"...

Rogers walks in.

"Take your seats, be seated."

"Some of you think you're warriors. You're not. Only those of us infantry who leave the wire are the ones I respect. All you are is a bunch of REMFS"

The Command Sergeant Major Woolworth interjects and laughs; "Sir, we call 'em FOBBITs now"

Rogers turns his head, "FOBBITS? "

"I like that"

"If it was up to me we'd have none of you, you'd all be infantry. Since you're not, I'm going to leave now on our first presence patrol with me in command. I want you to think about the real marines who are taking the real risks and how you need to do everything you can for them. Is that clear?"

The assembled men shout back:

"Sir, Yes, Sir!"

"Good. Let's get going Sergeant Major".

SCENE II

A column of wheeled trucks lined up at the gate.

"What's this, Sergeant Major?"

Captain Spaulding walks up.

"Aren't you my artillery officer?"

"Not anymore, sir. I'm a grunt. Every marine a rifleman"

"Very, well, take your place in our column".

The now very large column leaves the FOB on patrol.

SCENE III

Rogers is conversing with an Iraqi street merchant whose shack is nearby.

"This is my son, LT Rogers, he's my driver. "

"Glad to meet you Colonel and LT Rogers".

"We need you to take this shack of yours down. Its causing our supply convoys to slow down and they are getting blown up and shot at by snipers."

"I can't Colonel this is ALL I have...please...I beg you...."

"I have my orders...you need to understand"

The Iraqi man gets on his knees and begs...

Just as Rogers was to reply, Woolworth runs up with a radio operator.

"Sir, its brigade. There's a firefight in the traffic circle we got to scoot"

Rogers waves his men off.

The Iraqi man full of gratitude stands up.

Both Rogers get into the truck.

"Dad, you know damn well you're under no orders to tear that man's booth down".

"Well, he doesn't. And what did I tell you about not calling me by my rank?"

"Yes, Sir, Colonel."

"Now let's get going."

Bullets begin crashing through the truck's windshield.

"There's your hearts and minds at work, Son. These Hadjis are scum. All we do for them and this is what we get. Let's get moving."

SCENE IV

The convoy drives right into a bomb blast. Vehicles scatter, more are blown up. Both Rogers get out and take cover. Rogers calls for the CSM and radio operator.

"I want an artillery strike on that row of houses, what's the grid coordinates?

Woolworth: "its Sierra Papa 6784055100".

"Colonel Rogers here. I want fire-for-effect on grid coordinate 6784055100"

Base radio operator: "You mean Sierra Papa..."

Rogers: "Stop sharpshooting me Son and get me the goddam artillery".

Radio operator: "Sorry, Sir we have no artillery they are all with you."

Rogers: "What the....?"

Rogers looks back to Woolworth;

Woolworth: "Its true. They're all here. All the FOBBITs."

Rogers: "I want an air strike on"

Radio operator: "No can do, Sir. All the pilots are with you."

Enemy mortar bombs start landing, exploding the remaining trucks.

"Get everyone into those row of buildings!"

The RTO is in the background trying to get help.

Woolworth: "We got wounded men who are going to die if we don't get them back to the FOB. I want to take your truck and get the most seriously injured back"

Rogers obviously upset that his command is going to shit, screams.

"Get the medics to come get them!"

Woolworth: "they're already here with us. Their truck ambulances are all disabled."

Rogers calls to his son,

"Jeff you take the Sergeant Major and the wounded back to the FOB."

SCENE V

Surrounded and trapped, Rogers is about to be over-run when a convoy of cooks delivering hot chow comes upon them and rescues them. Rogers forgets all about his REMF/FOBBIT condescending attitude and promises them all decorations if they save him.

SCENE VI

Rogers and survivors limp back to the FOB. Glad to be alive.

Rogers: "Where's Jeff?"

"Huh?"

Rogers: "LT Rogers. Where is he?"

Distressed, Rogers goes on a rip running from building-to-building of the now empty FOB. There are no FOBBITs to go search for his son.

Finally seeing the error of his snobby "us" and "them" outlook, he's now lost his son, Rogers breaks down in tears.

That's just when the few perimeter guards left open the gate to a man with a donkey cart.

Its the roadside merchant who has a severely wounded LT Rogers on his cart.

Merchant: "I remember he is the son of the kind base commander. The rebels were going to execute him, but I told him he's the husband to my daughter and a part of my family. They let him live".

Overcome with emotion, Rogers in tears hugs his son and gets him to medical care.

SCENE VI

Rogers has the surviving men standing in formation in the open. He has had a change of heart and has something to say.

"I want you all to know I was wrong about all of you.

In fact, even the people who are around...."

A sniper shot cracks through the distance hitting Rogers in the throat who falls as mortars begin landing amongst the men.

SCENE VII

In a hospital room, Rogers is all bandaged up. His son limps in.

He tries to talk, but can't.

"Hi Dad. I'm ok."

Rogers shows relief.

"After the Hadjis got you and some of our guys, we decided to get some 'payback'.

Rogers is alarmed.

"We went back to the area around where our convoy was ambushed. We torched all the buildings around and took care of a lot of rebel sympathizers..we really kicked some ass"

Rogers screams through his bandages and breaks his IV drips causing the nurse to run in.

Rod Serling walks in.

"Exhibit A, a man who said he needed nobody.....as he stepped on their toes to become a general officer....realizes too late that we all have value; to even include the enemy;

....its just too bad you only saw this on the Twilight Zone."

The Generals who order the weak economic co-dependants and lesser-ranking narcissistic egomaniacs around like it was garrison lawn care

The "Presence Patrol" mentality = Delegating Dirty Work

The "presence patrol" mentality now esconced in the new COIN manual FM 3-24 (LTG Petraeus is co-author with I-enjoy-killing marine general Mattis) despite being a miserable failure in Iraq for over 3 years, is senior generals getting to live in comfortable palaces on FOBs as they delegate the dirty work of appeasing the masses to lower ranking Soldiors who try to cut deals with them. Its just the garrison mentality back in the states of the generals and colonels and majors ordering lower ranking personnel to mowe lawn and polish floors, except this time its to expose themselves to constant enemy ambush to placate the locals or to kill/capture the rebels to "tidy-the-area". Its not lower ranking "empowerment" its snobby delegating the dirty work to have lower ranking Soldiers to do all the work and try to overcome SYSTEMIC problems CREATED BY THE SENIOR OFFICERS. For example, maybe the best CONOPS is to rehire the old Army and create town/village RF/PF security forces to keep rebels out, not have U.S. forces enter/leave villages/towns which exposes them to road ambushes and yields control right back to the rebels? Real empowerment would not be a top-down, one-way RHIP tidy-my-area drill, it would be the lower ranking Soldiers sitting at the table of the councils of war and CHANGING THE SYSTEMIC PARAMETERS of the operation with their input so we have a WINNING CONOPS. "Presence patroling" is senior officers trying to have junior Soldiers do their jobs without their power, funds and authority to change the conditions so they can at least have a chance to succeed. Details:

www.combatreform.com/johnpaulvann.htm

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072201004.html

In Iraq, Military Forgot Lessons of Vietnam
Early Missteps by U.S. Left Troops Unprepared for Guerrilla Warfare

By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer

The real war in Iraq -- the one to determine the future of the country -- began on Aug. 7, 2003, when a car bomb exploded outside the Jordanian Embassy, killing 11 and wounding more than 50.

That bombing came almost exactly four months after the U.S. military thought it had prevailed in Iraq, and it launched the insurgency, the bloody and protracted struggle with guerrilla fighters that has tied the United States down to this day.

There is some evidence that Saddam Hussein's government knew it couldn't win a conventional war, and some captured documents indicate that it may have intended some sort of rear-guard campaign of subversion against occupation. The stockpiling of weapons, distribution of arms caches, the revolutionary roots of the Baathist Party, and the movement of money and people to Syria either before or during the war all indicate some planning for an insurgency.

But there is also strong evidence, based on a review of thousands of military documents and hundreds of interviews with military personnel, that the U.S. approach to pacifying Iraq in the months after the collapse of Hussein helped spur the insurgency and made it bigger and stronger than it might have been.

The very setup of the U.S. presence in Iraq undercut the mission. The chain of command was hazy, with no one individual in charge of the overall American effort in Iraq, a structure that led to frequent clashes between military and civilian officials.

On May 16, 2003, L. Paul Bremer III, the chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-run occupation agency, had issued his first order, "De-Baathification of Iraq Society." The CIA station chief in Baghdad had argued vehemently against the radical move, contending: "By nightfall, you'll have driven 30,000 to 50,000 Baathists underground. And in six months, you'll really regret this."

He was proved correct, as Bremer's order, along with a second that dissolved the Iraqi military and national police, created a new class of disenfranchised, threatened leaders.

Exacerbating the effect of this decision were the U.S. Army's interactions with the civilian population. Based on its experience in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Army thought it could prevail through "presence" -- that is, Soldiers demonstrating to Iraqis that they are in the area, mainly by patrolling. "We've got that habit that carries over from the Balkans," one Army general said. Back then, patrols were conducted so frequently that some officers called the mission there "DAB"-ing, for "driving around Bosnia."

The U.S. military jargon for this was "boots on the ground," or, more officially, the presence mission. There was no formal doctrinal basis for this in the Army manuals and training that prepare the military for its operations, but the notion crept into the vocabularies of senior officers. For example, a briefing by the 1st Armored Division's engineering brigade stated that one of its major missions would be "presence patrols." And then-Maj. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then the commander of that division, ordered one of his brigade commanders to "flood your zone, get out there, and figure it out." Sitting in a dusty command tent outside a palace in the Green Zone in May 2003, he added: "Your business is to ensure that the presence of the American Soldier is felt, and it's not just Americans zipping by."

The flaw in this approach, Lt. Col. Christopher Holshek, a civil affairs officer, later noted, was that after Iraqi public opinion began to turn against the Americans and see them as occupiers, "then the presence of troops . . . becomes counterproductive."

The U.S. mission in Iraq is made up overwhelmingly of regular combat units, rather than smaller, lower-profile Special Forces units. And in 2003, most conventional commanders did what they knew how to do: send out large numbers of troops and vehicles on conventional combat missions.

Few U.S. Soldiers seemed to understand the centrality of Iraqi pride and the humiliation Iraqi men felt in being overseen by this Western army. Foot patrols in Baghdad were greeted during this time with solemn waves from old men and cheers from children, but with baleful stares from many young Iraqi men.

Complicating the U.S. effort was the difficulty top officials had in recognizing what was going on in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at first was dismissive of the looting that followed the U.S. arrival and then for months refused to recognize that an insurgency was breaking out there. A reporter pressed him one day that summer: Aren't you facing a guerrilla war?

"I guess the reason I don't use the phrase 'guerrilla war' is because there isn't one," Rumsfeld responded.

A few weeks later, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid succeeded Gen. Tommy R. Franks as the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East. He used his first news conference as commander to clear up the strategic confusion about what was happening in Iraq. Opponents of the U.S. presence were conducting "a classical guerrilla-style campaign," he said. "It's a war, however you describe it."

That fall, U.S. tactics became more aggressive. This was natural, even reasonable, coming in response to the increased attacks on U.S. forces and a series of suicide bombings. But it also appears to have undercut the U.S. government's long-term strategy.

"When you're facing a counterinsurgency war, if you get the strategy right, you can get the tactics wrong, and eventually you'll get the tactics right," said retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a veteran of Special Forces in the Vietnam War. "If you get the strategy wrong and the tactics right at the start, you can refine the tactics forever, but you still lose the war. That's basically what we did in Vietnam."

For the first 20 months or more of the American occupation in Iraq, it was what the U.S. military would do there as well.

"What you are seeing here is an unconventional war fought conventionally," a Special Forces lieutenant colonel remarked gloomily one day in Baghdad as the violence intensified. The tactics that the regular troops used, he added, sometimes subverted American goals.

Draconian Interrogation Ideas

On the morning of Aug. 14, 2003, Capt. William Ponce, an officer in the "Human Intelligence Effects Coordination Cell" at the top U.S. military headquarters in Iraq, sent a memo to subordinate commands asking what interrogation techniques they would like to use.

"The gloves are coming off regarding these detainees," he told them. His e-mail, and the responses it provoked from members of the Army intelligence community across Iraq, are illustrative of the mind-set of the U.S. military during this period.

"Casualties are mounting and we need to start gathering info to help protect our fellow Soldiers from any further attacks," Ponce wrote. He told them, "Provide interrogation techniques 'wish list' by 17 AUG 03."

Some of the responses to his solicitation were enthusiastic. With clinical precision, a Soldier attached to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment recommended by e-mail 14 hours later that interrogators use "open-handed facial slaps from a distance of no more than about two feet and back-handed blows to the midsection from a distance of about 18 inches." He also reported that "fear of dogs and snakes appear to work nicely." The 4th Infantry Division's intelligence operation responded three days later with suggestions that captives be hit with closed fists and also subjected to "low-voltage electrocution."

But not everyone was as sanguine as those two units. "We need to take a deep breath and remember who we are," cautioned a major with the 501st Military Intelligence Battalion, which supported the operations of the 1st Armored Division in Iraq. "It comes down to standards of right and wrong -- something we cannot just put aside when we find it inconvenient, any more than we can declare that we will 'take no prisoners' and therefore shoot those who surrender to us simply because we find prisoners inconvenient." Feeding the interrogation system was a major push by U.S. commanders to round up Iraqis. The key to actionable intelligence was seen by many as conducting huge sweeps to detain and question Iraqis. Sometimes units acted on tips, but sometimes they just detained all able-bodied males of combat age in areas known to be anti-American.

These steps were seen inside the Army as a major success story, and they were portrayed as such to journalists. The problem was that the U.S. military, having assumed it would be operating in a relatively benign environment, wasn't set up for a massive effort that called on it to apprehend, detain and interrogate Iraqis, to analyze the information gleaned, and then to act on it.

"As commanders at all levels sought operational intelligence, it became apparent that the intelligence structure was undermanned, under-equipped and inappropriately organized for counter-insurgency operations," Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones wrote in an official Army report a year later. Senior U.S. intelligence officers in Iraq later estimated that about 85 percent of the tens of thousands rounded up were of no intelligence value. But as they were delivered to the Abu Ghraib prison, they overwhelmed the system and often waited for weeks to be interrogated, during which time they could be recruited by hard-core insurgents, who weren't isolated from the general prison population.

In improvising a response to the insurgency, the U.S. forces worked hard and had some successes. Yet they frequently were led poorly by commanders unprepared for their mission by an institution that took away from the Vietnam War only the lesson that it shouldn't get involved in messy counterinsurgencies. The advice of those who had studied the American experience there was ignored.

That summer, retired marine Col. Gary Anderson, an "expert" in small wars, was sent to Baghdad by the Pentagon to advise on how to better put down the emerging insurgency. He met with Bremer in early July. "Mr. Ambassador, here are some programs that worked in Vietnam," Anderson said. It was the wrong word to put in front of Bremer. "Vietnam?" Bremer exploded, according to Anderson. "Vietnam! I don't want to talk about Vietnam. This is not Vietnam. This is Iraq!"

Gyrenes in Trucks are wrong people/gear to do COIN ops.

Marine shooting in Afghanistan decried

By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer
Sun Apr 15, 3:30 AM ET

KABUL, Afghanistan - A U.S. marine unit broke international humanitarian law by using excessive force during a shooting spree last month that left 12 people dead, an Afghan human rights group said in a report Saturday.

The troops fired indiscriminately at pedestrians, people in cars, public buses and taxis in six different locations along a 10-mile stretch of road in Nangahar province after an explosives-rigged minivan crashed into their convoy on March 4, according to the report by Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission.

Six people were killed near the blast site, while the other six died on the road as the troops sped away, said Ahmad Nader Nadery, the group's spokesman.

The dead included a 1-year-old boy, a 4-year-old girl and three women, the report said. Thirty-five people were wounded in the shootings.

"In failing to distinguish between civilians and legitimate military targets the U.S. marines corps special forces employed indiscriminate force," the report said. "Their actions thus constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian law standards."

The group said its report was based on interviews with victims and their families, witnesses, local community leaders, hospital officials f 2003, and in the two battles in Fallujah the following year.

One reason for that different approach was the muddled strategy of U.S. commanders in Iraq. As civil affairs officers found to their dismay, Army leaders tended to see the Iraqi people as the playing field on which a contest was played against insurgents. In Galula's view, the people are the prize.

"The population . . . becomes the objective for the counterinsurgent as it was for his enemy," he wrote.

From that observation flows an entirely different way of dealing with civilians in the midst of a guerrilla war. "Since antagonizing the population will not help, it is imperative that hardships for it and rash actions on the part of the forces be kept to a minimum," Galula wrote. Cumulatively, the American ignorance of long-held precepts of counterinsurgency warfare impeded the U.S. military during 2003 and part of 2004. Combined with a personnel policy that pulled out all the seasoned forces early in 2004 and replaced them with green troops, it isn't surprising that the U.S. effort often resembled that of Sisyphus, the king in Greek legend who was condemned to perpetually roll a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down as he neared the top.

Again and again, in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, U.S. forces launched major new operations to assert and reassert control in Fallujah, in Ramadi, in Samarra, in Mosul.

"Scholars are virtually unanimous in their judgment that conventional forces often lose unconventional wars because they lack a conceptual understanding of the war they are fighting," Lt. Col. Matthew Moten, chief of military history at West Point, would comment in 2004.

When Maj. Gregory Peterson studied a few months later at Fort Leavenworth's School of Advanced Military Studies, an elite course that trains military planners and strategists, he found the U.S. experience in Iraq in 2003-2004 remarkably similar to the French war in Algeria in the 1950s. Both involved Western powers exercising sovereignty in Arab states, both powers were opposed by insurgencies contesting that sovereignty, and both wars were controversial back home.

Most significant for Peterson's analysis, he found both the French and U.S. militaries woefully unprepared for the task at hand. "Currently, the U.S. military does not have a viable counterinsurgency doctrine, understood by all soldiers, or taught at service schools," he concluded.

Casey Implements a New Tactic

In mid-2004, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. took over from Sanchez as the top U.S. commander in Iraq. One of Casey's advisers, Kalev Sepp, pointedly noted in a study that fall that the U.S. effort in Iraq was violating many of the major principles of counterinsurgency, such as putting an emphasis on killing insurgents instead of engaging the population.

A year later, frustrated by the inability of the Army to change its approach to training for Iraq, Casey established his own academy in Taji, Iraq, to teach counterinsurgency to U.S. officers as they arrived in the country. He made attending its course there a prerequisite to commanding a unit in Iraq. "We are finally getting around to doing the right things," Army Reserve Lt. Col. Joe Rice observed one day in Iraq early in 2006. "But is it too little, too late?"

One of the few commanders who were successful in Iraq in that first year of the occupation, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, made studying counterinsurgency a requirement at the Army's Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, where mid-career officers are trained.

By the academic year that ended last month, 31 of 78 student monographs at the School of Advanced Military Studies next door were devoted to counterinsurgency or stability operations, compared with only a couple two years earlier.

And Galula's handy little book, "Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice," was a bestseller at the Leavenworth bookstore.

---

---

American Soldier sleeping in an Iraqi home...has no empathy/maturity to ask how he'd like it if a foreign Soldier was sleeping in HIS HOME back in CONUS?

Egomaniacs in trucks are wrong people to do COIN ops.

Marine shooting in Afghanistan decried

By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer
Sun Apr 15, 3:30 AM ET

KABUL, Afghanistan - A U.S. marine unit broke international humanitarian law by using excessive force during a shooting spree last month that left 12 people dead, an Afghan human rights group said in a report Saturday.

The troops fired indiscriminately at pedestrians, people in cars, public buses and taxis in six different locations along a 10-mile stretch of road in Nangahar province after an explosives-rigged minivan crashed into their convoy on Ma