Printable View
Thought I'd pass this on. Looks interesting.
60 Minutes spent over two months with a Green Beret unit, as they trained a group of Afghan soldiers, and then went into battle with them against the Taliban.
Lara Logan's report, examining a strategy requested by the president to train more Afghan troops, will broadcast this Sunday, January 31, at 7 p.m. ET/PT, on CBS.
v/r
Mike
Found on:http://blog.freerangeinternational.com/ and in this report today Babatim reports: http://freerangeinternational.com/blog/?p=2610 (please ignore the photo of the intrepid reporter).
Here is a taste:Quote:
Of course the segment has all the annoying crap one associates with Special Forces – only using first names, wearing sunglasses to “protect their identity,” and digitizing all who do not have sunglasses on, as if the Taliban has an arm in America which is going to hunt these guys down some day. The Taliban do hunt down ANA Commandos in their home villages and kill them, but none of the ANA commandos have their faces digitized or identities hidden.
Tim tends to get irritated with the rock-star status of the ODA guys in Afghanistan. He's a man who favors substance over appearance and I'm with him there, but I think he carries it a little too far sometimes.
Lara Logan report on Green Berets. I will watch it for the entertainment value.
Yep, definitely many lessons on what not to do in that clip.
The Free Range International post is humorous, but still spot on.
...and did not protect their identity. All those guys were recognisable to anyone taking an actual interest.Quote:
– only using first names, wearing sunglasses to “protect their identity,” and digitizing all who do not have sunglasses on, as if the Taliban has an arm in America which is going to hunt these guys down some day.
Where I come from, if you talk to a camera, you're simply disqualifying yourself from the description of "quiet professional." There is no good reason to do it. Nothing wrong with USSF, but this was mistake.
Here's the link if you missed the initial viewing.
I thought the report was odd if not disturbing. One thing that I would submit that transcends the color of your beret- if you don't live in the area where you operate and don't know the people, then everything will appear a threat.
I was left considering the question-
What is a quiet professional? I used to think it was the Hy Rothstein's in El Salvador and the Jim Gants in A'stan.
Mike
I thought the report was quite underwhelming. The focus was on beards and glasses, 2 incidents of friendly fire and two children getting shot.
Agree. Two months of embed with an ODA and this is the story they got? It’s a failure for CBS from a journalistic perspective and a PR failure for SF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Infanteer
This piece was in no way representative of what SF is doing; and was not approved by the SF community for that very reason. Freedom of the Press at work. Unfortunate, because there are some great stories that could have been told just as well.
Not in my lane, but when CBS crossed this bridge and burned it behind them, they made it harder for for their peers to get it right in the future as well. Perhaps that is where the saying "Twice cautious once burned" comes from...
This simply misleads the populace, misrepresents some of our finest soldiers, and some of Afghanistan's as well, and makes life harder for all the real media pros out there. (I had Richard Threlkeld embedded with me for the Arab Coalition push into Kuwait back in '91 and he was both honorable and professional. He could have filed a much sexier story by ignoring my request to not mention our presence within the Coalition. Thanks Dick, whereever you are.)
The funny thing is, from the interviews and the title of the piece ("The Quiet Professionals"(!)), I got the definite impression that Lara Logan was more than a bit starstruck by the team members and wanted to produce a positive story. The video told a different story. As FRI noted - if this was the most positive vid they could put out, what got left on the cutting room floor?Quote:
This piece was in no way representative of what SF is doing; and was not approved by the SF community for that very reason. Freedom of the Press at work. Unfortunate, because there are some great stories that could have been told just as well.
That's good to hear. I realized what this report reminded me of- the Army of One recruiting video from 2000-2001 where some dude ran solo through the desert without wearing a blouse. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob's World
On a serious note, sir, can this mentality be a by-product on the hyper-infantry teams that solely do training in rear areas and conduct targeted direct action raids instead of living amoungst the populace?
Mike
It was a high-profile media embed - certainly coordinated through ISAF PAO at least. I don't think SF can claim "no approval". I think the FRI commentary was spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob's World
However, this seems to be a recurring theme - media crews shadowing "un-representative" units. Do we just poorly select where we send media or is it truly more representative of how we operate and we prefer not to see our faults. I got the impression that Lara Logan was so awestruck by her 6'1" benchpressing stud that she probably cut it in the least bad way possible.
There were enough WTF moments in that video to make me pause.
Ok, I didn’t like the piece either. I also saw a lot of things that I didn’t like. To say that the reporting of the SF team was somehow not “blessed off” on just doesn’t make sense. Of course it was blessed off on. The Special Forces leadership for quite awhile has been trying to generate publicity to sell itself. This piece was just as bad as the piece that was done by National Geographic a couple of years ago, only the team didn’t get the TV crew and some of their team members killed. As a Special Forces soldier who recently retired I can tell you, and it pains me to say this, but this was an accurate portrayal of today’s Special Forces. What is and has happened in the Special Forces community is very complex. The Special Forces community since 9/11 has gone through major transformations. No longer do you have seasoned NCO’s on a team who are experts at what they do and who are truly the “seniors” in their respected MOS’s. I have seen teams where both “juniors” and “seniors” have graduated the Q-course at the same time, neither of them will get the mentorship they deserve. Now compound this with a new Team Leader who just graduated along with some of his NCO’s who by the way could very well have been 18X’s and who don’t have any true military back ground or leadership experience except for what they received in the Q- course or should I say “AIT”. For a Team Sgt this is a huge problem, because he is now not just trying to mentor a new Team Leader that doesn’t know a whole lot but now he has to treat his team like an over glorified Infantry squad. Not what Special Forces was meant to be. I truly believe as others have expressed that 60 minutes probably tried to do their best to make the team look good and for the average viewer with no military background they probably thought it was a good report. However, for those of us who know and understand what we saw, this piece was truly an embarrassment to Special Forces. I could go on but wont, the whole subject saddens me because I care so deeply.
I watched the video. While I wish that there had been some structure that portrayed the effort to develop the Afghan Commando, the video did relate how challenging this mission is. That this SF unit is somewhat optimistic about the AN Commando unit's prospects and determined to see it through speaks well for their training and selection.
Some thoughts:
The FSF unit in question is supposed to become relatively elite by Afghanistan standards. Given what you can draw on their performance (the ND that resulted in the fratricide and the follow on ND) they have a long way to go to get to a standard that they can perform their tasks adequately. While this raises some issues about what the assessment criteria for these future commandos may be, it does not change that the difficulty of the mission for the ODA. That they are able to perform it at all says a great deal both about our (U.S.) capabilities and willingness.
While video shows the result of the warning shots, it probably does not tell all. We don't know what the threat was, all we know is that it was an operation and he was establishing a blocking position I believe with one other Afghan commando. He stated he fired 2 warning shots into the road in front of the oncoming truck. I suppose he selected that aim point as to give a visual signature where the driver (watching the road) would probably best see it. Allot of guys I know in similar conditions would not have fired any warning shots - most of the FSF I've met at that level of development would very well have unloaded a belt of PKC - especially if the likelihood was they were related to the enemy, an enemy who may very well have been handing them their lunch for some time.
In my view the SF soldier showed restraint and set a good example. Further when the 2 boys were wounded, treating their injuries would appear to have become a priority - I believe it would have been regardless of if the cameras were there or not. My guess is there was still a threat, and bringing in a MEDEVAC bird can be a risky event. But he did it, and in the process showed how U.S. forces take responsibility for their actions, and again set an example for the FSF unit.
If ISAF wants a detailed look at what it takes to generate, employ and sustain the ANSF to a point where they can carry the load on their own, then they need to make an offer to a news network that produces an objective look at the subject. My guess is the 60 minutes crew negotiated a deal that they thought would boost their ratings. Looking over the average comments on the piece on the 60 minutes site, there is some good and some not so good. While the piece may not be as we want it, it does show American soldiers as dedicated, optimistic, willing to endure wounds and return to the same ANSF unit. Given how things sometimes go down in the real world, I'd say it is good to at least give the 99 + % of Americans who do not serve some idea of how hard it is to do this job.
Best, Rob
When I was with a JSOTF, the BN Commander blessed off on every single photo and approved or vetoed every embed ( usually more of the latter).
I finally got to watch it myself... I thought it was okay, but as some have mentioned, Lara seemed incredibly enamored with "Martine" (sp)...Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF
I imagine Martine is now embarrassed about this little exchange:
Lara: "Is that burning sensation... commonly described as pain?"
Martine: "Yeah... but it's only pain if you acknowledge it... you don't have the luxury of self-pity."
That was a little over-the-top.
And I agree that it's sad that this is all they got out of over two months... I hope there are future segments coming out.
To clarify, yes release was approved; but there was much about how the story was gathered and shaped that was not above board and professional. Likewise the story it tells is not accurate. They had an opportunity to tell a sensational story about what has become the pride of the ANA and a very competent, self-suffienct SOF unit. Instead they shaped their focus to tell a sensationalized story. Judging by the commnets above, one that most are quite happy to take the baited hook and run with. That's too bad, because winning the war of perception is everything in COIN.
I have nothing else to say about that. I will stick up for the CDOs though. Once you've gotten to know their commanders, have visted their compounds, have seen them in action against the enemy, and seen how they plan, rehearse, execute, and AAR their own operations with tremendous professionalism; the way they engage the populace they encounter on the objective to ease their fears while competently and confidently conducting actions on the objective and sensitive site exploitation; I think the professional soldiers out there would assess that this is a major success. Not for SF, who conceived and built this capability; but for Afghanistan. I know I did.
Okay, but these are elite soldiers, right?
Warning shots with a suppressed M4? Who is supposed to see or hear that? So very Iraq 2005 .... <sigh>
Neil,
This is not a dig at SF, but I would just say that "Elite" and "Special" are not synonymous. "Special" is about a set of capabilities. "Elite" is a degree of skill or proficiency.
Speaking of 2005, I recall doing a joint op with my Infantry unit and an ODA. My Soldiers were a little more motivated than normal because they were working with an ODA. After the mission ended, they were all extremely disappointed and I asked what the problem was. They thought the SF guys were going to be doing some crazy, hollywood super-Jedi-knight-elite crazy stuff. But, "sir, they did the same thing we do. They just have better equipment." The look of disappointment in that Soldier's eyes made me think of how a child feels when he learns that Santa isn't real.
Not to mention he came running around a bend in the road and probably appeared right in front of them just before firing the shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavguy
I don't want to Monday morning quarterback these guys' actions too much, but it's a good learning opportunity: place yourself in the driver and passengers' shoes.
Having discussed this, I'd agree with you on 60 Minutes dropping the ball big time and publishing junk. They could have followed my Platoon around for a few months and taken all the bad moments to make a story like that (the usual #### that happens to all deployed units); doing so meant missing the real nuts and bolts of the COIN battle that is being fought right now and actually, at least to me, could be an interesting story to tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob's World
and that is just part of it. They're also to an extent at least more trusted to do risky things simply because the death of Joe Tentpeg or even LT Butterbar may arouse a Mother's ire but the death of SFC Rock, SOF warrior is tolerated because he opted for work that was (supposed to be) more dangerous. Plus he's been doing it for a while so the folks at home are hardened a bit in comparison to families of the 'kids.' Add the fact that he's from an organization that gets more training dollars and is smaller so the knowledge of skills is enhanced and thus trust is more willingly givenQuote:
Originally Posted by Schmedlap
It isn't more dangerous really. It may be slightly so for a brief period but there's a lot more down time away from troop units so less total exposure in time. Consider then that a great many of your 'kids' had / have more combat time and dare I say combat experience than most of those SOF folks. A number of them have as much or more combat capability also.
We're all supposed to be in this together but we sure weren't back in my day and it seems worse now. Shame.
Setting aside, for a moment, that this little piece of "journalism" is about Green Berets, I mean Quiet Professionals, I mean US Special Forces, any American professional soldier that watches this report must feel some disgust and/or shame. For example there's a classic laugh or cry? moment when the knucklehead getting ready to smoke the Commandos flags his terp. There are the excuses made after cool guy pops two kids in the back of a van. I felt bad about myself, and my chosen profession, when he next pulled the ugly American move of screaming "Get off the bike" in English... because, you know, the guy on the bike probably speaks a lot more English than Dari or Pashtu.
Look, I'm not armchair quarterbacking these guys. There's no way to condense two months with a team into a 15 minute article. But there was some really amateurish stuff going on there and I can't help but wonder who gave this thing the green light.
I don't know any of those guys. What I do know is that they are all young and I do have a pretty good feel for young soldiers. What I remember back in the good old pre- 9/11 days was that the average age of an ODA was typically on the other side of 30. Further, I was a young dumb soldier once. Older smarter soldiers made me a little less dumb. I didn't see any older smarter soldiers in that video that could help those guys stop being dumb. SOF truths anyone?
I think this may have actually unseated the tank crew ventilating a car with their sidearms as "Most embarrassing 60 minute piece ever".
The emphasis is not that this was the best they could show, but that they showed the worst. Why they would do that is a question they should have to answer, but once again it is obvious to those who see what the camera hides that we are being fed some very misleading "news."Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicsbyothermeans
Indeed, I remember in Desert Storm, we had 4 5th SFG NCOs attached to us. 2 were Vietnam vets, the other two also over 30.
I have not seen the TV item.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmedlap
I do have an understanding of what your men thought as it was similar to my experience in Rhodesia.
I wonder how many people here have access to a copy of Slim's "Defeat into Victory"? In the last chapter "Afterthoughts" he deals with his views on 'special forces' in less than complementary terms. Worth the effort to dig up.
One comment of his certainly rang a bell, "To begin with, they usually formed by attracting the best men from normal units by better conditions, promises of excitement, and not a little propaganda." So true.
The RLI (my regiment) suffered in this way as the best NCOs went across to the Selous Scouts and the SAS and left us constantly playing catch up in the corporal and sgt departments.
A typical SAS 4 man would comprise say an officer, a sgt, a cpl and maybe a trooper. For the strategic 'classic SAS role' this would be understandable like when on Op Cheese they took some bridges out 750km north of Salisbury in Zambia. But over the period of the war these strategic tasks were not that frequent. They also had time to prepare for such ops.
I remember being pulled out of the field and told that I was needed to do a recce on a possible base camp in Mozambique. Would be joined by 2 Selous Scouts that day and would deploy the following night. I took my sgt with me. 24 hours warning and straight off an op. Very different to the normal SF build up for a deployment.
I looked at it like two overlapping circles. There were common areas where we could and did similar tasks. Then there were routine type ops they never did and then there were other tasks they did which we would never attempt.
I never decry the ops these guys did but where I had problems with them was rather their attitude and not any professional jealousy. In fact I can't remember any instances where we worked with them where it did not leave me with a bad taste in the mouth for some reason on another.
They seemed on the one hand to love the "secret squirrel" image while on the other hand yearned to let everyone know what they were up to to achieve the personal recognition (with the glory and adulation). I actually felt sorry for them in many ways. Here you had first class, brave and dedicated soldiers starting to behave like prima donnas. The system allowed them to do that.
JMA, I am curious what some of the central reasons were for those guys going over. I have read numerous passages saying that the special ops elements nipped troops in the process, but the screening process was so exhausting I can only imagine strong volunteers went forward successfully.Quote:
The RLI (my regiment) suffered in this way as the best NCOs went across to the Selous Scouts and the SAS and left us constantly playing catch up in the corporal and sgt departments.
Was the enticement a combination of better equipment, facilities, and pay, or some of the other intangibles like less emphasis on "conventional mindset" soldiering? Or was it typically a combination of all of the above?
I seem to remember the SAS attracted them early on as corporals or even troopies and the selection took no prisoners. Those that made it stayed on. A few who passed did come back saying that they wanted the regular action the RLI saw than the more exciting ops with longer gaps in between.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis
The Scouts selection was more difficult than the SAS (I believe) and there were those who dropped out but even those were absorbed into training and even admin/stores posts in Scouts.
There was a lot of the people wanting to become "heavies" as we termed it (moving to special forces and growing a beard), there were others who needed a change after years of the same and facing years more in a high combat environment (they needed a break which few could look forward to). Then there were the senior corporals and sgts with a hundred contacts or more under the belt taking one look at their new 18/9 year old officers and deciding now is the time to make a move. In a lot of ways going to Scouts pass or fail the selection was a good move from a family point of view and seeking a less stressful environment with more time at home. As the fire force took off the periods of boredom between the moments of intense excitement got shorter and shorter and by the end the fire forces were being called out twice a day (not everyone being directly involved in a contact of course)
So yes most of the best NCOs moved on and so did the "not the greatest" but pretty experienced as well. Fortunately the way the fire force operated it was a tight closely controlled environment where the commander could mange the various personalities to the best effect.
Hope that helps.