I'll take decisions that confuse me for a $100 Alex

[Ron Humphrey]

Could someone explain why this is a good decision or at least makes sense in being more beneficial than it is problematic?

From todays roundup-


The US military has barred Iraqi interpreters working with American troops in Baghdad from wearing ski masks to disguise themselves, prompting some to resign and others to bare their faces even though they fear it could get them killed.

[Cavguy]

Could someone explain why this is a good decision or at least makes sense in being more beneficial than it is problematic?

From todays roundup-

Yeah, I thought it was not worth the effort and frustration it will entail, burning bridges with terps, and just plain ill-advised.

Hope it doesn't cost us some good terps. Good ones are hard to come by.

[Tom Odom]

It is classically bad IO

A friend of mine offered a blog piece on it today


Monday, November 17, 2008
Masks: A PSYACT Themselves (http://psyopregiment.blogspot.com/)

Having discussed interpreters in the previous post, let me turn my attention to the issues of masks themselves. The quote below reminds me of a 1929 line from then Secretary of State Henry Stimson, “Gentlemen don’t read other people’s mail.”

[jkm_101_fso]

I can't imagine what idiot came up with this rule.

I am willing to bet it has something to do with the same leaders that love PT Belts in the chow hall.

Found this quote in the Chicago Tribune today:


"We are a professional Army, and professional units don't conceal their identity by wearing masks," Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a U.S. military spokesman.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-iraq-masksnov17,0,4707457.story

Wow. I'm speechless at our stupidity.

[reed11b]

This is just another sad chapter in the on-going failure of the military to protect it's Iraqi resources. We should absolutly be offering amnisty to Iraqi's that have endangered there life to help us, even if it is on a temporary basis. We should also facilitate any other options that will allow them to feel safe as possible.
Reed

[reed11b]

It is classically bad IO

A friend of mine offered a blog piece on it today

Good blog find, I bookmarked it.
Reed

[Entropy]

We are a professional Army, and professional units don't conceal their identity by wearing masks," Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a U.S. military spokesman.

The good LTC might have a point if the terps were members of our "professional Army."

[MikeF]

that the remaining terps are the ones that actually work for different insurgent groups as intelligence collectors. Guess what- the counter-intelligence folks will always be those that speak the best english and have a smile on their face....

Wow...I'm speechless so I'm gonna quit typing and go back to my hole.

Amazing, the moment I start to believe we're getting smarter and actually "maturing" as GEN Casey believes, I'm brought back to reality.

Honestly, this is worse than Boston trading Babe Ruth.

v/r

Mike

[bismark17]

Typical of us always wanting to fight with one hand tied behind our back. Trying to apply our system of 'justice" on our battlefields is doomed to failure. Another example of too many lawyers being placed into positions of responsibility.

[Ken White]

know why my hair is so gray. 50 year of idiocy, that's why -- and it's getting worse instead of better... :mad: :mad: :mad:

I feel sorry for that poor LTC spokesperson -- he had to say that with a straight face...

Nuts. I mean the ones in Baghdad (or Tampa -- that sounds like some of their idiocy...) :rolleyes:

[Schmedlap]

We are a professional Army, and professional units don't conceal their identity by wearing masks," Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a U.S. military spokesman.

The mindset embodied in that message - the belief that you can just declare something to be "what a professional force does" and then have others embrace it due to your flawless reasoning - never ceased to mystify me. Without any explanation as to why such a claim is valid, or inquiry into whether it is true, or thought as to whether it makes any sense, it is just supposed to be accepted and become standard procedure.

[jkm_101_fso]

I'm sorry, but I cannot get over this. It is insane.

I was responsible for getting an interpreter killed in Iraq, I have to do something about this.

If anyone knows or can find out what G.O. is responsible for this decision, please let me know. I'm going to make some calls on my end.

I will find out who is responsible for this and I will contact them personally. Maybe it won’t help anything. But I can't sit idly by and watch innocent Iraqis get killed or lose their jobs.

I'm starting with LTC Stover. I realize he is probably not the one who made the call, but he knows who did. I am going to contact him on AKO. I recommend those that can, should as well.

Below is a picture of Adwan Taher and I on patrol. I took him on a mission near his village; a big mistake on my part. His identity was compromised by a local thug and he was shot to death in front of his family a week later.

[Hacksaw]

Air Assault - go get em!:mad::mad::mad:

[Ski]

In a war full of outrageous stupidity from start to the current state of affairs, I do believe this may be the dumbest and most counterproductive decision I've seen yet.

Way to go boys. Be proud of the fact you just condemned hundreds if not thousands of men and women to death.

[Jedburgh]

In a war full of outrageous stupidity from start to the current state of affairs, I do believe this may be the dumbest and most counterproductive decision I've seen yet.
No, the worst ones were made early on (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1424).

[Ski]

If you consider the planning phases, you would be correct.

[Ken White]

he considered most of the first 18 months; both theaters...

[Stevely]

jkm - good luck to you, you are doing the right thing.

This is so dumb, it's really criminal, and probably whomever made this decision should be charged with negligent homicide.

If nothing happens officially, maybe you can send it to Comedy Central so they can do a piece on it for the Daily Show? Best place to go for the responsible to be subject to the public scorn and ridicule that they richly deserve.

[MikeF]

jkm's reaction is stong.

I fully support it.

Unfortunately, we're dumb...We have yet to mature as an instution as far as we would wish to consider.

Fortunately, there will still be O's and E's here that follow orders.

Regardless of the friends that we lose from those that refuse to consider.

All the way...

v/r

Mike

[120mm]

jkm's reaction is stong.

I fully support it.

Unfortunately, we're dumb...We have yet to mature as an instution as far as we would wish to consider.

Fortunately, there will still be O's and E's here that follow orders.

Regardless of the friends that we lose from those that refuse to consider.

All the way...

v/r

Mike

O's and E's do not have to follow illegal orders, and they can disobey orders and regulations that are OBE by facts on the ground.

I see this particular order as qualifying under both counts.

[jkm_101_fso]

I got in contact with a friend that just left MND-B and he said that Major General Jeffery Hammond, 4th I.D. Commander and MND-B commander implemented this policy back in September. My buddy said in SEPT when Hammond implemented the policy for Baghdad units, 20% of their 'terps quit that day. He said that LTC Stover gave his BN the same reasoning that he gave to the public (professional army excuse). Stover must be 4th I.D. PAO, I am assuming.

Not sure if this mask ban applies to all of Iraq, or if GEN Ordierno or LTG Austin has implemented it. But apparently it's been going on in Baghdad for months.

[Ken White]

Got all the Captains together at Hood after the Yingling article about the failures of Generals appeared and told them Yingling could not judge because he'd "never worn the shoes of a General" or something along that line?

Apologized to a few sundry Shieks because a Troop had allegedly used the Koran for a target?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[jkm_101_fso]

Got all the Captains together at Hood after the Yingling article about the failures of Generals appeared and told them Yingling could not judge because he'd "never worn the shoes of a General" or something along that line?

Apologized to a few sundry Shieks because a Troop had allegedly used the Koran for a target?

YES. SAME EXACT GUY.

You forgot to mention that he made a U.S. COL kiss the Koran in front of said Shieks...

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/images/2008/05/19/artqurankisscnn.jpg

I would have refused that order.

[Ken White]

Where do they find them...

P.S.

me, too -- refuse that foolish order, I mean. Publicly and loudly.

That may not have been as abysmally stupid as Wesley Clark's order to Mike Jackson not to let the Russians get to Pristina but it's undeniably wrong for many reasons -- and I doubt it changed a thing with the locals...

[jkm_101_fso]

It appears as though this new policy is exclusive to MND-B, not all of Iraq, thank goodness. Will continue to monitor.

[J Wolfsberger]

Ya'll are assuming he wants the US to win. If you assume he wants the US to lose, the decision makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

[jkm_101_fso]

Ya'll are assuming he wants the US to win. If you assume he wants the US to lose, the decision makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

By "He" do you mean MG Hammond?

[J Wolfsberger]

By "He" do you mean MG Hammond?

Yes. In addition to putting his name in the post, I should probably have written it to cover every dolt who had a hand in making this policy.

[Granite_State]

From George Packer's blog:



Standing on a principle in the shape of a land mine, the U.S. military has banned Iraqi interpreters from wearing face masks. “We are a professional Army and professional units don’t conceal their identity by wearing masks,” Lieutenant Colonel Steve Stover, a military spokesman, wrote in an e-mail to the Post, whose account continued: “He expressed appreciation for the service and sacrifice of the interpreters but said those dissatisfied with the new policy ‘can seek alternative employment.’” LTC Stover was pleased to report that the contractor that hires interpreters is having no trouble meeting its quota.

I’m sorry, LTC Stover, but this is stupidity and callousness posing as rectitude. For years, Iraqis working with American units were allowed to hide their faces so that they could keep their heads on their necks. The new order has already led to firings and a significant number of resignations, as well as desperate measures—one interpreter smearing his face with mascara, another hoping that a new beard will keep his identity secret. This is the kind of order that headquarters dreams up and combat troops detest.

Exactly what code of conduct is being maintained here? Iraqis aren’t in the American chain of command. They don’t take an oath; they don’t fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If they did, they would be given regulation uniforms. They wouldn’t be allowed to use aliases. They would be housed on bases rather than obliged to make the dangerous trip home every night. They would receive pensions, health insurance, and death benefits. When one of them gets killed, the military would hold a ceremony. The widow would receive a flag. A grateful nation would remember.

I’m guessing that the military has decided face masks are off message: the surge worked, so the “terps”—the most vulnerable targets in Iraq, and among the most prized—are safe. They’re not, and they never will be, which is why the State Department has finally begun to improve efforts to repatriate our Iraqi allies here. Meanwhile, the Pentagon suddenly seems determined to get them killed or laid-off back in Iraq—just when we were learning how to do things right.

This is a worrying sign, and not just for the interpreters. It suggests that as the U.S. pulls out of the neighborhoods and cities next year, as required by the new security agreement just approved by Iraq’s cabinet, the military and the Obama Administration will be tempted to conceal a situation that might well be rapidly deteriorating. Face masks save interpreters’ lives, but as a form of strategic communications during wartime they get people killed.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/

[jkm_101_fso]

Yes. In addition to putting his name in the post, I should probably have written it to cover every dolt who had a hand in making this policy.

http://pao.hood.army.mil/4ID/leadership/leadershipindex.html

http://pao.hood.army.mil/4ID/staff/staffindex.html

[jkm_101_fso]

According to Vet Voice, a project of VoteVets.org, Congress is now involved:


Iraq Interpreter Mask Ban: Congress Gets Involved
by: Brandon Friedman
Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 02:07:59 AM EST

It's not just the troops, translators, and media who are furious over the move to ban Iraqi interpreters from wearing masks to conceal their identities. Now the U.S. Congress is getting involved:

Thirteen members of Congress and an association of interpreters this week urged the Pentagon to rescind a policy that prohibits interpreters who work with U.S. troops in Baghdad from wearing ski masks to conceal their identity.
The U.S. military command for the Baghdad region said it began enforcing the mask ban strictly in September because masked interpreters undermined the professional image the military strives to project. The military also said the sharp reduction in violence in Baghdad has made wearing masks unnecessary.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and 12 members of the House of Representatives on Thursday sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urging him to allow interpreters to wear masks.

"Members of Congress were dumbfounded," Wyden said in an interview yesterday. "The Pentagon's position defies common sense."

At least half a dozen major milblogs, one prestigious magazine, two newspapers, 13 members of Congress, and every Iraq veteran to whom I've spoken about the story think the policy is a careless, dumb idea. On the other side, so far I've heard a single guy--Army Lt. Col. Steve Stover--come out to defend it. So here's my question: Will anyone else at the Pentagon come out to publicly defend this flawed policy? Or are they just gonna leave Stover out there hanging--looking like the bad guy? Who in the Army actually supports this policy?

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=C743E8FEC6B946F02BBD52CD67 8A8F23?diaryId=2230

I called and emailed my Senators (Roberts & Brownback-KS) to get on board with SEN Wyden.

I urge all to do the same, if you can.

[jkm_101_fso]

This came out of Stars and Stripes; mentions the mask ban. Apparently some leaders are ignoring the policy, thankfully.


With interpreters regularly quitting because of safety concerns and translation quality already shaky, a rule instituted by the military in Baghdad in September banning the use of face masks for interpreters has added another potential deterrent to Iraqis interested in working for the U.S.

Interpreters have quit because of the rule and now some troops are looking the other way while their interpreters continue to wear the masks.

"They still have to live in Iraq," said a lieutenant who works in Baghdad and does not enforce the rule.

Military officials have said the rule is aimed at increasing the professionalism of interpreters.

Many interpreters fear for their lives and closely guard their identity, using aliases on the job and keeping jobs a secret even from close friends.

Several hundred interpreters have reportedly been killed since the war began.

One interpreter went as far as painting his face black on the job to protest the mask rule.

"If they said I have to take it off and I have to take the (sun) glasses off, I wouldn’t do this job," said an interpreter who goes by "Eddie" and still wears his mask.


http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=59222

[Schmedlap]

Here is how I would likely approach the issue...

If a General were to issue an order that my Soldiers were not to wear body armor, then would I be required to enforce that? I don't think so, because it would deny them a reasonable measure of protection for no apparent reason. As the "commander on the ground" that would be my call.

That seems pretty analogous to the interpreter's mask and while he is not one of your Soldiers, he is definitely an asset in your unit and an individual for whom you are responsible.

Can any JAG's out there tell me if I'm way off base with this reasoning?

[jmm99]

Without downloading the entire MCM .pdf (which would be a good idea, though), that Manual's text is here. Your example is not an unlawful general order:


Explanation.

(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
....
(c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm

The GEN may have read the article by the Marine SGT and decided to lighten up his infantry. The GEN has no obligation to explain his general orders to an LT. Your option is to protest the order up the chain.

Please note there is a very gray and limited exception:


(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in general orders or regulations can be enforced under Article 92(1). Regulations which only supply general guide-lines or advice for conducting military functions may not be enforceable under Article 92(1).

This seems to be good, general advice:


Because some orders are issued with the expectation that they will be obeyed immediately, the act of questioning could be a violation. While no formal process exists, several possible approaches can be taken:

• In a respectful tone and manner, request clarification of the order.

• Request the officer reissue the order in the presence of a third party.

• Request confirmation of the order by a superior officer. If still unsure, advise your superior that you believe the order is unlawful.

• Request confirmation of the order by the commanding officer.

• Refuse to obey the order if you still believe that it is unlawful. Remember that you are morally and legally obligated to obey all orders that are presumed to be lawful just as you are obligated to disobey any order that is "patently unlawful."

Before you act, think carefully about the consequences. Military courts have consistently held individuals responsible for their actions. They will hold you liable for disobeying lawful orders as well as for obeying orders that are obviously illegal.

http://www.lifelines.navy.mil/lifelines/MilitaryLife/MilitaryCareers/FitnessReportsEvaluations/LL_002593

[J Wolfsberger]

the order does leave room for "creative compliance." The order, as presented here, states "ski masks." It says nothing about scarfs to cover the lower face, wrap around sun glasses, or even Groucho Marx glasses, complete with false nose and mustache.

The response could also include clarification of the critical element of stupidity. For example, "Sir, I want to be certain I understand. You want me to ensure that the AQ terrorists can properly identify our critical intelligence assets. Is that correct?"

[120mm]

Without downloading the entire MCM .pdf (which would be a good idea, though), that Manual's text is here. Your example is not an unlawful general order:



http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm

The GEN may have read the article by the Marine SGT and decided to lighten up his infantry. The GEN has no obligation to explain his general orders to an LT. Your option is to protest the order up the chain.

Please note there is a very gray and limited exception:



That is a very limited and legalistic way to look at it. As a commander, at any level, I reserve the right to disobey any "order" I choose to, based on two criteria.

First, do I think it is a "moral" order. Screw what's legal. If I reasonably expect that the order will result in an immoral result, I'll tell the CoC to sit and spin and force them to relieve me. I would then fight them tooth and claw with every weapon at my disposal, up to and including the court of public opinion, if General Moron forces me to.

Second, as the commander on the ground, I have the power to disobey any order I don't agree with for tactical or technical reasons. Unfortunately, the JAG-driven, risk-averse micro-manager types have lost sight of what constitutes "command". If I am a commander, you can give me a mission, but you cannot necessarily give me "orders". (See "Major Dundee" the movie, for an illustration).

Of course, once a commander chooses to maximize his/her command perogative, he/she must dig the Sicilian equivalent two graves.... Because the consequences will probably leave a mark.

[Ken White]

but having cumulatively several years of tactical command in combat, I always did what you suggest. I termed this "Professor White's Patent Policy of Selective Neglect."

To eliminate the negative and civilian connotations, this was re-named in the late 60s by The World's Greatest Major (then, later TWGLTC and TWGC *) as "AR 100-White, Selective Combat Compliance"

* As such he also assisted in development of AR 350-White, Training to Exceed Doctrinal Bounds.

Seriously -- You have to do what's right, that simple.

[Ski]

This thread gets more depressing and embarrassing as the days pass.

Nice to see that this particular GO has been allowed to become a Divsion Commander, and one of my classmates at CGSC was present at the 4th ID "Captain's Round Up", and said it was beyond insulting to their intelligence.

Looks like there's a trend emerging.

[Ken White]

depressing and embarrassing? What's the trend?

Serious questions both.

[jkm_101_fso]

Here is how I would likely approach the issue...

If a General were to issue an order that my Soldiers were not to wear body armor, then would I be required to enforce that? I don't think so, because it would deny them a reasonable measure of protection for no apparent reason. As the "commander on the ground" that would be my call.

That seems pretty analogous to the interpreter's mask and while he is not one of your Soldiers, he is definitely an asset in your unit and an individual for whom you are responsible.

Can any JAG's out there tell me if I'm way off base with this reasoning?

I think an important question is:

Who will be held responsible if an interpreter or their family are harmed as a direct result of this policy?

My vote is MG Hammond.

What should his punishment be?

[Entropy]

I just read MG Hammond's bio. The only thing that jumped out at me is that his masters is in special education. That just seems like an odd degree choice for an arty officer.

jkm 101 - I sure hope no one gets hurt before the policy is changed.

[jmm99]

First, my Art. 92 post was specifically addressed to Schmedlap's body armor example - it didn't address the mask removal flap because I do not have all of the facts. Thus, my question in this post's header.

It makes a difference legally whether it is an order or a policy - both terms have been used in this thread. The legal issue of unlawfulness of an order will be decided, if pushed to a CM, by the CM's military judge.

-----------------------------
My movie reference to unlawful orders is Paths of Glory (Kirk Douglas, in the movie, a lawyer as well as a soldier), which is usually said to be an anti-war flick. Rather, it is a story of one idiot general with a reckless disregard for life; another higher level general who is adept at politics - and also cares not for his troops; and a lot of lower level poor b...tards who react in different ways.

And, while we are talking about "reckless disregard", chew on this one. "Culpable negligence is a degree of carelessness greater than simple negligence. It is a negligent act or omission accompanied by a culpable disregard for the foreseeable consequences to others of that act or omission." (MCM 2008, IV-65). If someone dies as a result, that is the basis for an Article 119 charge of involuntary manslaughter.

So, if the general's face mask removal order is that, the MG and each officer who executed the order could be charged under Article 119. That is the legal argument for it being an unlawful order.

------------------------
The chant of "JAG-driven, risk-averse micro-manager types" is not particularly useful to any sort of reasoned discussion.

[Schmedlap]

That is a very limited and legalistic way to look at it. As a commander, at any level, I reserve the right to disobey any "order" I choose to, based on two criteria.
...
Second, as the commander on the ground, I have the power to disobey any order I don't agree with for tactical or technical reasons.

I suspect that 120mm is correct on this one. Granted, this was 12 years ago, but I recall reading an incident in Hackworth's autobiography in which he was tried for disobeying an order in combat. He writes about how flabbergasted he was at his lawyer for not saying a word throughout the proceeding until, finally, after lengthy arguments by the prosecution, his lawyer stood and simply quoted some regulation that says, in effect, "the commander on the ground gets the last call." And that was all it took. He was free as a bird. And that bird did not change.


I think an important question is:

Who will be held responsible if an interpreter or their family are harmed as a direct result of this policy?

My vote is MG Hammond.

What should his punishment be?

An accurate and well-informed bullet in his OER. And by "well-informed" I make the optimistic assumption that there is more to this decision than what is in the public record.

[120mm]

The chant of "JAG-driven, risk-averse micro-manager types" is not particularly useful to any sort of reasoned discussion.

I apologize for coming off that way, but I think the point is still valid. And I think it applies equally to the face-mask OR the body armor issue.

I've encountered two basic kinds of commanders at BCT and higher levels. The first type is of the majority, and they are the ones who pass legal opinion straight down to their subordinates without even adding flavor to it. They tend to be "yes-men" or "there's nothing I can do about it-men". They basically elevate the JAG section to command of their unit.

The second type, which appear to be in the minority, develop a fundamental command philosophy which, while they DO consult with, and listen to the advice of legal council, they have the wherewithal to balance legal opinion with command responsibilities. And that includes having the backbone to disregard legal council when it stands in the way of moral issues and mission accomplishment.

If we, as leaders, just followed orders and policy, there would be no need for commanders. Unfortunately, the Art of Command is a rare skill. One hopes it's not a dying skill.

I'm sure that Jack Fletcher at Midway wouldn't have been particularly interested at what JAG had to say on the issue. Of course, I'm of the opinion that he was right to launch his deckloads at a beaten and out of range enemy. And that he was properly exercizing command authority.

[Ken White]

...The chant of "JAG-driven, risk-averse micro-manager types" is not particularly useful to any sort of reasoned discussion.A very valid point.

However, 120mm also has a valid point as he explained later. Reasoned discussion is good but emotional reaction to extreme provocation is hard to suppress.

Let me assure anyone who hasn't experienced them that Commanders who are "JAG Driven, risk averse, micromanager types" (any one or two or all three) are definitely an 'extreme provocation.' I disagree with 120mm on one point; I think they're in the minority, slightly -- but they're out there...

[jmm99]

or so it seems.


Page last updated at 08:03 GMT, Saturday, 6 December 2008
Iraq translators' mask ban dropped
By Humphrey Hawksley
BBC News, Baghdad

The Pentagon has rescinded a controversial decision that banned Iraqi interpreters working for US troops in Baghdad from protecting their identities by wearing ski-masks.

The ban was meant to reflect the improved security situation - in which interpreters were no longer afraid of retaliation. But that is not the case.
...
Col Willoughby said the mask ban had now been lifted and that decisions could be made at an operational level.

"We ask them not to wear masks," he said. "But troop commanders can make that determination."

Zeeman does not give his real name and does not want his face filmed.

He has worked without a mask for some time, realising that it helps the hearts and minds campaign. "But the decision needs to be in my hands, not in the hands of someone in Washington who knows nothing about how we work."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7768041.stm

Two points:

1. If the story is accurate, the removal policy was based on a PR idea "to reflect the improved security situation" - in short, political spin motivated an order or policy which adversely affected operations. That is a form of "micro management", which has plagued us since Korea and Vietnam in my lifetime.

2. The revised order or policy specifically allows commander discretion within the "commander's box" - which has been the thrust of this thread.

Thus, sometimes the system doesn't work, but manages to correct itself - which seems the case here.

[Ken White]

...1. If the story is accurate, the removal policy was based on a PR idea "to reflect the improved security situation" - in short, political spin motivated an order or policy which adversely affected operations. That is a form of "micro management", which has plagued us since Korea and Vietnam in my lifetime.Far, far more likely, the issue was really about a dumb order given without regard to anything but one Flag Officers personal preferences and the spin involved is in trying to save said Star child from excess embarrassment. He embarrassed himself and no one else by issuing the order but the Army does not like to second guess or countermand its Generals publicly (else others might start to do the same thing... :wry: ) unless they can wiggle it so they had to get him out of it this way.
2. The revised order or policy specifically allows commander discretion within the "commander's box" - which has been the thrust of this thread.More spin, same rationale -- though there is a slight possibility a senior person is trying also to send a subtle 'don't micromanage' rocket to his Colonels and Generals... :cool:
Thus, sometimes the system doesn't work, but manages to correct itself - which seems the case here.I'd say too frequently the system doesn't work and that it usually manages to correct itself. The real issue is just that, the self correction. There's no way we're ever going to preclude human folly. I've seen bad orders issued by Corporals, Captains and Colonels as well as Generals; that's never going to be avoidable. The good news is that system generally works and it works better now than it ever did because of the interchange of information by everyone as in this thread -- and the fact that interchange gets surfaced to the top and forces them to fix the stupid stuff more rapidly than in the past... ;)

I think it's noteworthy that this thread started with a bad thing; the dumb order. Yet it should be a reassuring thread to all because the majority sentiment -- as you said -- was opposed to the order which is now history.

[jmm99]

Hey, 120mm - "Don't apologize, Mr. Cahill; it's a sign of weakness." :D

Seriously, if I were wounded by comments unfavorable to lawyers, my "Purple Hearts" would fill up my house and office. And, truth in lending, I'm a very harsh critic of lawyers (myself included) when they screw-up.

One of my clients gave me a "lawyer joke cartoon" when he moved away (it still is up on my office "cartoon board"), he saying: "You're the only lawyer I've met who has a sense of humor, particularly with respect to lawyer jokes."

Now, briefly, as to your substantive comments:


1. I've encountered two basic kinds of commanders at BCT and higher levels. The first type is of the majority, and they are the ones who pass legal opinion straight down to their subordinates without even adding flavor to it. They tend to be "yes-men" or "there's nothing I can do about it-men". They basically elevate the JAG section to command of their unit.

2. The second type, which appear to be in the minority, develop a fundamental command philosophy which, while they DO consult with, and listen to the advice of legal council, they have the wherewithal to balance legal opinion with command responsibilities. And that includes having the backbone to disregard legal council when it stands in the way of moral issues and mission accomplishment.

I leave it to the players to sort out which is majority or minority.

1. I suspect, that in many cases, this is a cop-out, with the JAG being used as a convenient excuse. That kind of guy is simply a "yes man" prone to make excuses. But, there are types who do slavishly follow legal advice (which is only a "from better to worse" WAG). An example from my world is a client who lets his lawyer negotiate a contract. My clients negotiate their own contracts - unless they are completely untrainable and unteachable. My process is to go over the contract with the client line by line - and drill every legal pitfall into his or her head. Then, my client, having been briefed on all the pitfalls I can see and tricks I know, goes forth to do battle - usually successfully. After all, it is the client's money (not mine); and the client's line of business (about which I usually know little).

2. This guy is basically my kind of client (see preceding paragraph). In fact, the first guy probably will not survive the first interview. Another type who will not survive that interview is a client who (1) knows more law than I do; or (2) is going to go ahead with what he wants, regardless of what I say; or (3) treats me like a mercenary (you will do this), even if I totally agree with what he wants to do. Fortunately, I've been in a position over the course of my somewhat specialized practice to reject clients of those types. Not all lawyers are that fortunate.

Now, a serious question to you. You covered your degrees of freedom re: orders coming from on high. Let's say you are a company commander. Does that same freedom of action apply to your platoon, squad and fire team leaders - and to the guy who is ordered to be the tip of the spear on point - as to your orders ?

Another truth in lending: Besides ranting about lawyers (usually for incompetence, sometimes for ethics), I also can easily turn to ranting about "micro-management" in military matters. As a kid, I read of it in Korea (especially as the lines stabilized); as an adult, the same as to Vietnam - except more so. On that point, you are preaching to this choir.

-----------------------------------
Now, to Ken


Reasoned discussion is good but emotional reaction to extreme provocation is hard to suppress.

Another truth in lending: My personality is such that I don't get emotional about most generalized aspects of a situation. Individual aspects, yes - e.g., people I knew killed or chopped up in Vietnam, etc. - which extends into more generalized areas related to that. I am now to the point where I can recognize that others have those generalized emotions, but they are usually foreign to how my mind ticks.

Part of that is suppression of "emotional reaction to extreme provocation" - cuz, yours truly has a horrible temper; and gets very bad thoughts about what to do with the provoker. Had that "anger management" issue since I was a kid. So, I'll often come across as cold - and "legalistic" is a good term for it.

[Cavguy]

Back O/T, it seems the ban is now lifted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7768041.stm).


The Pentagon has rescinded a controversial decision that banned Iraqi interpreters working for US troops in Baghdad from protecting their identities by wearing ski-masks.

The ban was meant to reflect the improved security situation - in which interpreters were no longer afraid of retaliation. But that is not the case.

[Ken White]

Back O/T, it seems the ban is now lifted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7768041.stm).early today. It's up thread.

[Bill Moore]

I just want to add to the chorous of WTF over? This is beyond stupid. I sure would hate to be in country when this decision was made, and then have to tell my terp that it is now safe (all the bad guys surrendered or simply went away), so you must remove your mask when you're out with us, because we're a professional army and we don't hide behind masks, and neither should you. Yea, I know you have family in country, and I know we can't protect them if you're compromised, but, but, O.K. I'll call the idiot who made this decision and let him explain it to you.

[Schmedlap]

My unit was replaced in 2005 by a Brigade commanded by a notorious O-6, whose career has since ended. A Brigade policy that he implemented was that turret gunners would STAND in their turrets AT ALL TIMES. Brigade policy! Our "policy" (formulated at the lowest level) was that you remained low until the shooting started so as to make it a little more difficult to give the enemy the initiative. His rationale for his Brigade policy? I paraphrase: "We're American Soldiers and American Soldiers don't hide from the enemy!" Brilliant.

[jkm_101_fso]

My unit was replaced in 2005 by a Brigade commanded by a notorious O-6, whose career has since ended. A Brigade policy that he implemented was that turret gunners would STAND in their turrets AT ALL TIMES. Brigade policy! Our "policy" (formulated at the lowest level) was that you remained low until the shooting started so as to make it a little more difficult to give the enemy the initiative. His rationale for his Brigade policy? I paraphrase: "We're American Soldiers and American Soldiers don't hide from the enemy!" Brilliant.

I think I know who you are talking about. Yeah, he was a legend alright. Not the kind you want to be.

As for the Ban, I am glad this is finally over! For those of you that contacted me PM/email and let me know that you wrote or called your Senators/Representatives in regard to this, thank you for the support!

Maybe we helped, maybe not; but the endstate is where it should be. I hope those involved with the formulation and implementation of this policy are sorry and will someday publicly admit they were wrong.

I hope that no Iraqis were harmed because of this.

We may never find out.

[120mm]

Now, a serious question to you. You covered your degrees of freedom re: orders coming from on high. Let's say you are a company commander. Does that same freedom of action apply to your platoon, squad and fire team leaders - and to the guy who is ordered to be the tip of the spear on point - as to your orders ?

Yes. Because, in reality, the guy at the tip of the spear is either going to do what he wants, anyway, (and then lie about it) or default to doing nothing, (in the spirit of self-preservation) if he or she isn't fully empowered and developed to understand mission-type orders.

Which makes it necessary for the commander (as well as those subordinates' peers) to be prepared to act in accordance with his/her subordinates' actions, should they succeed or should they fail.

I hear a chorus of "yeah-buts" every time I broach this subject, followed by protests of soldiers' inherent stupidity and inability to be trusted from a large portion of those who object to the concept, but I've seen it work in various organizations to good effect.

I'm reminded of the scenario in "Ender's Game" where Ender decides to not do formations and coordinated maneuvers, but instead trains small groups to act independently, and to recognize and exploit other small groups' successes, without top-down direction.

[Ken White]

Yes. Because, in reality, the guy at the tip of the spear is either going to do what he wants, anyway, (and then lie about it) or default to doing nothing, (in the spirit of self-preservation) if he or she isn't fully empowered and developed to understand mission-type orders.

Which makes it necessary for the commander (as well as those subordinates' peers) to be prepared to act in accordance with his/her subordinates' actions, should they succeed or should they fail.Absolutely!
...but I've seen it work in various organizations to good effect.Likewise. Good units invariably operate in that mode in my observation. Invariably.

[J Wolfsberger]

Yes. Because, in reality, the guy at the tip of the spear is either going to do what he wants, anyway, (and then lie about it) or default to doing nothing, (in the spirit of self-preservation) if he or she isn't fully empowered and developed to understand mission-type orders.

I've always made the effort to lead my teams by establishing technical goals, constraints on achieving them, and providing as much as I can get in the way of requested resources. After that, I let them plan out who, what, when, where, how, etc. I.e I try very hard to follow the principle of Auftragstaktik.

Besides, people who give orders they know won't be obeyed, or worse, ought to be disobeyed, only succeed in undermining their own authority.

[Ski]

Thank God this nonsense has ended. Hopefully no one was killed because of it.

[RTK]

My unit was replaced in 2005 by a Brigade commanded by a notorious O-6, whose career has since ended. A Brigade policy that he implemented was that turret gunners would STAND in their turrets AT ALL TIMES. Brigade policy! Our "policy" (formulated at the lowest level) was that you remained low until the shooting started so as to make it a little more difficult to give the enemy the initiative. His rationale for his Brigade policy? I paraphrase: "We're American Soldiers and American Soldiers don't hide from the enemy!" Brilliant.

Aside from the obvious force protection issues, that's in complete violation of every rollover drill protocol I've ever seen. Nametag defilade is the standard so that the poor truck gunner, tank commander, loader, Bradley commander or Brad Gunner don't get squished by the massive vehicle when it ends up track side up.

That's about 6 ways to stupid and not taking care of Soldiers.:mad:

[Cavguy]

My unit was replaced in 2005 by a Brigade commanded by a notorious O-6, whose career has since ended. A Brigade policy that he implemented was that turret gunners would STAND in their turrets AT ALL TIMES. Brigade policy! Our "policy" (formulated at the lowest level) was that you remained low until the shooting started so as to make it a little more difficult to give the enemy the initiative. His rationale for his Brigade policy? I paraphrase: "We're American Soldiers and American Soldiers don't hide from the enemy!" Brilliant.

Lemme guess ... a certain 101st commander who commanded a ranger company in Somalia?

[Ski]

Who has been the Chief of Training at FORSCOM post-BCT command? Hmmm....

[jkm_101_fso]

Lemme guess ... a certain 101st commander who commanded a ranger company in Somalia?

Exactly what I was thinking.

I wasn't in 3rd BDE...thankfully.

[Hacksaw]

The association of 101st AASLT alumni hereby waive all rights and claims to said commander... He was formed (oddly) well before his arrival in Clarksville...

[jkm_101_fso]

Written by Mike Breen, a friend of mine from FAOBC.



The debt we owe Iraqi interpreters
After the foolish mask ban, more protection is a must.
By Michael Breen

The Iraqi pointed at me, pointed at his watch, and mimed an explosion. He'd been shouting frantically since he arrived at our small forward operating base minutes before, but like most American soldiers, I didn't speak Arabic. Had he come to warn us or to threaten us? Car bomb? Another mortar attack? When and where? Looking around desperately, I spotted a young woman in her early 20s bounding toward us. Wissam, one of our Iraqi interpreters, had arrived. After a brief conversation with the man, she turned back to me and said, "He says there is an IED [improvised explosive device] on the main road to Haswa. Good thing you have me around, I think."

For a platoon leader on the streets of Iraq, a trusted interpreter can be the difference between a successful patrol and a body bag. At great personal risk, interpreters bridge the language gap, guide soldiers and marines through unfamiliar streets, serve as cultural advisers, and make crucial introductions. American strategy in Iraq hinges on building positive relationships between US forces and Iraqi communities, a task that would be impossible without dependable interpreters.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1209/p09s02-coop.html

[jkm_101_fso]

Ban was reversed sometime ago, but with caveats, apparently:


Iraqi Interpreters May Wear Masks
Pentagon Gives Battalion Commanders Discretion to Disregard Ban Policy
By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service

BAGHDAD, Feb. 13 -- Iraqi interpreters working with the U.S. military in Baghdad are again allowed to hide their identity during certain missions, after a Pentagon decision to grant battalion commanders the discretion to disregard an earlier policy banning interpreters from wearing masks.


Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, disclosed the reversal last month in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). But several interpreters and American soldiers in Baghdad said they were unaware that battalion commanders can waive the mask ban for "high-risk" missions.


Battalion commanders, who oversee between 500 and 800 soldiers, cannot delegate the lifting of the ban to junior officers. Wyden, as well as soldiers and interpreters, said they remain concerned that any restrictions preventing interpreters from shielding their identities put them at risk.


Some American soldiers, who often refer to interpreters as "terps," say they enforce the ban laxly or not at all. "Telling a terp that his country is safe when he doesn't feel it's safe is as pretentious as it gets," said an Army captain in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was criticizing his superiors. "The terp-mask thing is just the latest disconnect between what happens on the ground and what people want to be happening on the ground. We're in full-on dress rehearsal now. I think we're in such a hurry to get out of here, we're wanting this place to be safer than it really is."


Full story HERE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021203504.html?wprss=rss_world)

My obvious concerns are:
1. What constitutes a "high-risk" mission? High risk for who?
2. BN CDR cannot delegate to junior officers...aarrrggghhhh!!!

[1258dave]

Name a GO who has been held responsible for anything. A CPT loses a piece of gear, or a Soldier, there is a 15-6 etc, but if a GO is losing the war nobody appears to care.:mad:

[Ken White]

E-Ring cannot win a war....:mad: :rolleyes:

[Schmedlap]

Name a GO who has been held responsible for anything. A CPT loses a piece of gear, or a Soldier, there is a 15-6 etc, but if a GO is losing the war nobody appears to care.:mad:
I don't think that is productive criticism.

It is a fairly simple matter to determine whether a piece of gear is lost through negligence. If it is, then the individual is held accountable. If not, then it's "written off." The assignment of a very specific duty (maintain accountability for this item), the breach of that duty (failed to maintain accountability of the item, demonstrated by the inability to produce it upon demand, in a timely manner), results in an easily quantifiable liability (cost of the item, minus depreciation, if dictated by regulation), and a means of fulfilling it (statement of charges, etc, as dictated by regulation).

In order to assign blame for "losing the war" to a GO, it seems that we would need to nail down the following and I would assert that reasonable people could disagree on most, if not all of these...
1) Was it winnable to begin with?
2) How do we define "winning?" (part of the current debate regarding Afghanistan)
3) To which GO(s) do you assign any or all of the blame to, since you've got multiple GO's having RIP/TOA'd*?

Even if the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, you often don't know whether you're winning or losing until after the fact.

I think we generally recognize the reality that warfare is an incredibly unpredictable and chaotic enterprise for which we are rarely prepared. Other threads in this forum lament a CYA mentality among our leaders for things like body armor and safety precautions. Imagine how out of control this would be if we held inquisitions to assign blame to our GO's when public sentiment turns ugly on a war. If we're going to go that route, I'd say that we test it upon the civilian leaders first and see how it works.

* - I presume that RIP/TOA can be used as a verb, just as "Google" can be.

[jkm_101_fso]

ALCON,

I recently got an email from a friend that works on a legal team that helps interpreters (and families) that were wounded or killed in Iraq. The group is helping these interpreters and their families with owed compensation from their employers (primarily Titan/L3). He told me that if I knew of an interpreter that was killed or wounded and did not (or family did not, in case of death) receive due compensation from a contractor, to let him know and he would research the case and try to help them get their money.

If any of you know of an interpreter that was wounded or killed and are aren't sure if compensation was paid, contact me via PM (if you'd like) and I'll give you my buddy's contact information. Here is his email to me:


Hey Jake,

Something came up and I thought of you. The legal team I'm on that represents Iraqi interpreters is looking for cases where an interpreter employed by US forces was injured or killed. The injury or death doesn't need to have occurred "on the job," and the terp may have been employed through a contractor (we're especially interested in Titan/L3).

The reason for all this is that terps who are injured or killed are legally entitled to compensation (to their families in the case of death), but the contractors have so far been welshing on the deal and screwing the Iraqis. We think we've figured out how to make sure the terps get what they deserve, but we need a specific case or cases to bring.

If you're comfortable doing it, and you know an interpreter who was injured or killed in Iraq, drop me a line. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns about it, too.

Thanks,

Jake

[Ken White]

This WaPo story
LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021203504_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2009021300180&s_pos=) says that only in Baghdad is there a 'no mask' edict and the other two area commands have no such order???

Doesn't add up...

Nor does DoD involvement other than answering the mail to Congress; though even that is odd. They used to send that stuff to the Command involved and tell them to respond directly to the Congroid.

Seems likely if the WaPo is correct and only Baghdad has done this that the problem is all in-country??? (Heaven Forbid I have to apologize to E-Ring... :( )

Somethings awry...

[120mm]

L3/Titan has a horrific finance department. They still owe me a couple grand for my last job 9 months ago, and I know folks who haven't been paid for a couple years.

Frankly, I would recommend distrusting L3 Com and its subordinates. But I attribute their not paying money owed to incompetence, not outright greed. I could be wrong, however.


ALCON,

I recently got an email from a friend that works on a legal team that helps interpreters (and families) that were wounded or killed in Iraq. The group is helping these interpreters and their families with owed compensation from their employers (primarily Titan/L3). He told me that if I knew of an interpreter that was killed or wounded and did not (or family did not, in case of death) receive due compensation from a contractor, to let him know and he would research the case and try to help them get their money.

If any of you know of an interpreter that was wounded or killed and are aren't sure if compensation was paid, contact me via PM (if you'd like) and I'll give you my buddy's contact information. Here is his email to me:



Thanks,

Jake

[Schmedlap]

We always paid our interpreters (or next of kin) directly. I think out of CERP funds, but I forget. There were about 7 classes of funds at the time - maybe it was a different fund. Regardless, it was a swift process. And I'm pretty sure that half of them were obtained via L3/Titan.