I'll take decisions that confuse me for a $100 Alex
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-
Quote:
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.
The only thing this measure will ensure is...
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
Sheesh! Unreal. And my wife wants to
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:
UPDATE: MG Hammond's Policy
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.
Face Masks for Iraqi Interpreters Banned
From George Packer's blog:
Quote:
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/
Ask and you shall recieve
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
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/leaders...shipindex.html
http://pao.hood.army.mil/4ID/staff/staffindex.html
New Update from VoteVets.org: Congress Involved
According to Vet Voice, a project of VoteVets.org, Congress is now involved:
Quote:
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...3?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.
Well said. Operating at a lower level
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.
Is there an online text of MG's order or policy ?
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.
End of this specific story ...
or so it seems.
Quote:
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.