Top General in Afghanistan Expels Marines

[kaur]

Thomas Rid covers media as force variable, quite well in his story "War 2.0"

http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/5956806.html

[SWJED]

30 March Army Times - Readiness of Ousted Spec Ops Unit Questioned by Gidget Fuentes.

The recent expulsion from Afghanistan of the Marine Corps’ first special operations company did more than just put the relatively new leatherneck command in the spotlight. It has made many question whether the company was up to the task in the first place.

The removal of Marine Special Operations Company-Fox came sometime after a March 4 suicide attack and ambush on the Marines’ convoy in Afghanistan left at least eight Afghans dead and another 34 wounded along a highway, about a month after the company had arrived in the country.

The Marines’ response on that day is under scrutiny by at least one major investigation. The region’s top commander, Army Maj. Gen. Frank Kearney — head of U.S. Special Operations Command-Central Command — ordered the expulsion, citing concerns about the unit’s ability to conduct counterinsurgency in the area, a spokesman for Kearney said March 23.

The Army-led investigation into the incident is continuing, and officials were mum on details of the incident. A Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command spokesman said the company would rejoin the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit — with whom it deployed from the East Coast in January — and take on other spec-ops missions in the region as needed.

But conversations in some Marine circles — both active and retired — and on the Internet since the expulsion have stirred speculation about the company’s reassignment, and the Corps’ future in the world of spec ops...

Continued at the link...

[TROUFION]

While I was not a big fan of the MARSOC stand up, as it was/ is draining manpower from the regular Battalions, the opportunity to be a part of SOCCOM is a big deal. I doubt that one screw up out the door will condemn the project. Some heads will roll and review will be done, MajGen Hejlik, a good man, will set it right. MARSOC will recover and excell.

[SWJED]

While I was not a big fan of the MARSOC stand up, as it was/ is draining manpower from the regular Battalions, the opportunity to be a part of SOCCOM is a big deal. I doubt that one screw up out the door will condemn the project. Some heads will roll and review will be done, MajGen Hejlik, a good man, will set it right. MARSOC will recover and excell.

I think you pretty much got it right and I agree as someone who was not a big fan of our Corps joining up with SOCOM in the first place...

[Bill Moore]

I remember our discussions earlier, and I was not a supporter of the Marines joining for several reasons. First they already bring a unique capability to our military. Second they're a relatively young force, and you cannot afford to remove several senior NCO leaders from the ranks and put them in one unit within the Corp.

I think there were several senior members within the Marines who didn't and still don't support the concept, so they could, in subtle ways, make it hard to get the new units off the ground. Furthermore the biggest supporter of it, former SECDEF Rumfield no longer has a vote.

Some commented that they were worried the Army would use this as an opportunity to poke the Marines in the eye over rice bowl issues (we have some who will), but I think there is an equal to greater concern that senior Marine leadership will use this incident as an excuse to get the Marines out of SOCOM.

Who knows a year from now this could be old news, and the Marines continue to build their special operations capability, or they announce that the experiment is over (not over the incident) and that they can better serve America's interest as Marines under the Marine Corp instead of as Marines under SOCOM.

[Ender]

Well, my question would be, if Marines are not responsible why taking away pictures and erasing the films and memory cards!?

Let’s just not forget all those cases and orders in Iraq and Afghanistan about opening fire 180 degrees in protection of troops, and all those, oh so much, examples of civilians killed shooting randomly or in retaliations or for being there, stuck in the middle.

I am not here to accuse any brave and honest solder but I wish to point on those cases of random killings of civilians in retaliation, in some cases all families, or just for being there or looking same. I don’t think that covering after act will help anyone.

Just because you can't identify enemy after they hit do that means to open fire around? How many more enemies do this incident, and all those like it, crated? That’s should be great concern.

Sarajevo,
Respectfully: This is the first I have heard of this and I can promise you two things.

-The first is I probably know a large number of these guys you are referring to... personally.
-The second is that the guys I do know (if they are ummm.. these... cough) are not murderers and if they did anything in the course of that patrol, whether it be fire their rifles or erase "sensitive" material it is because they felt it was tactically the best thing for the mission. Pure and simple. You should look to the instigators and not the responders.

I can not speak on what happened after the patrol and am sure that whatever decision was made was done for appropriate reasons.

I don't know all of the specifics of this particular case but I have to admit my gut tells me when these guys say "complex ambush" they mean exactly what they are saying. If I were you I wouldn't ask why they erased the pictures, that is a no-brainer. Think about it. You are an operator and the enemy (I am presuming from the limited text out there) just sucker punched you with a suicide attack and follows it up in the middle of the populace. Why aren't you pissed that the attack occured at all? There are a number of reasons why I would erase pictures after something if I were them and the most important reason is that I would NOT want my FACE, and my GEAR, and my WEAPONS, and my BUDDIES all being beamed all over the fundamentalist websites of the otherwise peaceful Muslim nations. Who wants to become the next bounty for some murderous little punk with a beef against Allah knows what? That risk is what he faces by allowing the pictures and videos to stay in the hands of the very same people whose sole responsibility to film it in the first place. In today's game we all agree that camera is as deadly as a rifle.

I have to admit, you write of noble ideals and concepts and there is a part of me that wishes that the "enemy" were as you described him but I fear the people you are defending are not who you think they are. I know a large number of Sunni and Shi'a Iraqis who would categorically disagree with much of what you say. I hope for a better way as well but if we can not admit that a small portion of your Muslim brethren do not believe as you and that they are working to the detriment of all than we are going to have a very difficult time finding peace in all of this.

Ender

[Ender]

From the link above from SWJED:

Maj. Cliff Gilmore, a spokesman for Marine Special Operations Command said

..."The unit responded to the ambush and the local population perceptions of that response have damaged the relationship between the local population and the Marine special operations company."

My knee jerk response to that statement is if they knew they had dirt on these guys or suspected that they had dirt that the tone would be less about messed up relationships and more about investigations. I hope I am right and that "redeploying" them to Kuwait (and then Iraq?) was a diplomatic gesture or political maneuvering.

[Sarajevo071]

Sarajevo,
Respectfully: This is the first I have heard of this and I can promise you two things.

-The first is I probably know a large number of these guys you are referring to... personally.
-The second is that the guys I do know (if they are ummm.. these... cough) are not murderers and if they did anything in the course of that patrol, whether it be fire their rifles or erase "sensitive" material it is because they felt it was tactically the best thing for the mission. Pure and simple. You should look to the instigators and not the responders.

I can not speak on what happened after the patrol and am sure that whatever decision was made was done for appropriate reasons.

Well, I hope you will understand why I didn't trust your words and stick with what I know... Even that I went silent giving up on proving all ready known truth, I still stayed on that case waiting for confirmations...

Here is something that you can find interesting:

Probe: Marines used excessive force

U.S. military commander has determined that Marines accused of killing civilians after a suicide bombing in Afghanistan last month used excessive force, and he has referred the case for possible criminal inquiry, The Associated Press has learned.

The initial investigation of the March 4 incident, in which up to a dozen Afghan civilians are reported to have died, concluded that the Marines' response was "out of proportion to the threat that was immediately there," a senior defense official said Wednesday.

....

The case has also been referred to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service for a broader criminal inquiry, the official said.

Another official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the initial military investigation concluded that there was a "reasonable suspicion" that the Marines violated the rules for the use of deadly force, and that crimes, possibly including homicide, may have been committed in the aftermath of the convoy being struck by a car bomb.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/...es_afghanistan

Respectfully to you and your friends: I know what I’m talking about.

To me, this is "just" another Haditha (or any other massacre that was committed but shushed away, pictures/videos erased) and just proving my point that I tried to made in this tread. But, who knows... Maybe your friends will get slap on the wrist like many others in Iraq and Afghanistan and Marines will get to go home early. It’s just bunch of “head rugs” dead anyways… Maybe couple kids… Means nothing much anymore.

[jcustis]

Gentlemen,

If this applies to you, take the admonishment on board.

We are not going to stick each other in the eye over who is more right than the other, especially on a situation that we only know 1/10th of a percent about.

I didn't catch any drama earlier in this thread, but it need not start now. Be forewarned.

EDITED TO ADD: I know we usually raise issues and debate them because we do think we are right, but the tone of the thread just took what I perceived to be a unecessarily personal tone. Continue to mill about smartly.

[hostagecow]

I'm a former Marine officer and historian, have been following the Nangahar situation (some would call it Haditha 2.0 or My Lai 3.0, your pick) and was wondering what others thought...how much interservice rivalry was involved, whether Gen Kearney's decision to expel the MARSOC unit was an attempt at counter-propaganda. I was in Ramadi last summer and listened to a few Army officers complain about having to work alongside the criminal of Haditha, i.e. US Marines.

Obviously, it's a very complicated situation but one that seems to embody a lot of the issues that have come to define the SWJ community, i.e. the role of the media in the Long War, the uses and limitations of force, soft power, etc.

[marct]

Hi Hostagecow,

We had some discussion of it here, but I haven't heard much since then.

Marc

[Xenophon]

But to assume automatically that the Taliban were even capable of spiriting away the weaponry to achieve an IO victory, frankly, imputes a lot more competence to the enemy than I have seen evidence of.

It imputes a lot more competence than the Taliban has to come up with the idea, but IO is well known and practiced by the various terrorist groups aligned with the Taliban. See Hezbollah's use of civilians as shields in Lebanon. I wouldn't put it past any of these to gather civilians at sites likely to be hit by American fires, like an ambush site, just so that the civilians will become casualties and bring an easy IO win. Once that idea gets handed down by upper AQ echelons or even simply copied by the Taliban, it wouldn't take a lot of competence to pull it off.

[TROUFION]

Let's get this straight, no side in this or any conflict is above reproach. The baseline difference is that here-today the Coalition, NATO-US forces do not deliberatly target civilians as a means of terror based coercion. Those who have faced battle understand that 30 seconds of combat is a very long time, within that time frame hundreds of actions take place, far faster than the average human can think. Reaction: the time it takes to squeeze a trigger; the speed of the bullet once it is fired is far faster than the time it takes to discern the difference between a non-uniformed insurgent and a non-combatant civilian. Once fired the bullet cannot be pulled back. Psychology: there is a thing called emotional contagion and terrain amplification, these affect everyone particularly in combat. Emotional contagion is a generally unanticipated response to tone of voice, facial expression or body language that illicits an involuntary empathic reaction and Terrain Amplification is the use of terrain (human and physical) to mask or amplify the strength of a military force, generally causing it to seem larger and more effective than it actually is. The goal of any good ambush. IED attack or guerilla force action is to combine terrain amplification and emotional contagion to increase the shock of an ambush or percieved ambush causing a negative emotional response to the ambushee increasing fear and over-reaction. -TROUFION

AP Story on Human Rights Watch: Rights group: Taliban targets civilians, By ALISA TANG, Associated
Press Writer

The Taliban and other militant groups are committing war crimes by targeting Afghan civilians, killing nearly 700 last year, according to a report issued Monday by Human Rights Watch that also pointed to dramatically escalating violence since 2005.

The death toll caused by the Islamic groups is more than three times the civilian deaths attributed to U.S. and NATO forces, which have been criticized for excessive use of force in civilian areas.

In the latest suicide attack against the Western-backed government, a bomber in the relatively stable north struck a crowd of police on Monday, killing 10 and wounding 32.

The New York-based rights group said the number of suicide attacks spiked to 136 last year from 21 the previous year as the Taliban turned to increasingly indiscriminate, Iraq-style tactics. The surge in violence made 2006 "the deadliest year for civilians in Afghanistan since 2001," the report said....

___

On the Net: Human Rights Watch

[Stan]

Hi Sarajevo !

Please allow me to further explain herein:

I have two points and do not pretend to defend anyone with these, merely explain my thoughts and my thought process.

The Media, specifically Mr. ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

Do a quick 'dogpile' search and see what he's all about. Now that you generally know who he is, you can better assess the way he 'pens'. For example, in September of 2006 he wrote: "The Army is ending its best recruiting year since 1997" which created nothing more than Bravo Sierra everywhere. He even wrote about 'air samples being taken from a nuclear blast.

Hell, I don't know too many people (Marc is one of them) that can discuss nuclear fallout and insurgency all in one breath.

Fact is, these stories are barely true. They do however make for some good paper sales

The Military: It seems every time we hear CID or Criminal Investigation, we conclude immediate wrong doing. That's not at all the case. This is the CID's job, be it Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines. A military commander can only go so far. He or She then determines (and not all the time) whether such investigations should continue, or worse, He or She is not even capable of performing said.

Going to your link (allow me one more pathetic rant):

A U.S. military commander has determined that Marines accused of killing civilians after a suicide bombing in Afghanistan last month used excessive force, and he has referred the case for possible criminal inquiry, The Associated Press has learned.

"A US Military Commander and Associated Press has learned"
Is there any information there ? Which US Military Commander ? WTF does 'has learned mean' ? Where did this Bravo Sierra come from ?

Here's a better one:

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe's results have not been released. The findings have been forwarded to Central Command, which has responsibility for U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

This Chicken Sierra wishes to spread Sierra but has no 'nuts'. Forwarding issues to the appropriate command is also a very appropriate and normal situation much like the CID.

I hope this helps just a tad, but more than happy to explain.

Regards, Stan

[Sarajevo071]

Hi, Stan

This is the newest... Hope it helps explaining situation better. This is not first, not the least time, for some unit to open 360 degres fire on everyone in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I believe you know that.

No sign Marines were fired upon
by Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post, April 15, 2007

A preliminary US military investigation has found no evidence that Marines came under small-arms fire before they killed and wounded more than 40 Afghan civilians in a village near Jalalabad last month, the US commander who ordered the inquiry said yesterday.

Members of a Marine Special Operations platoon shot at scores of civilian vehicles on a highway after their convoy was attacked by a suicide bomber March 4.

Although the Marines reported taking enemy fire and seeing people with weapons, Major General Frank Kearney, head of Special Operations Command Central, said yesterday that there is no evidence the platoon came under small-arms fire after the bombing.

The troops continued shooting at perceived threats as they traveled miles from the site of the attack and hit several vehicles carrying civilians, he said.

…

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...p1=MEWell_Pos3

[Stan]

Hi Sarajevo !
Sorry, took a while to go through the myriad of articles.
Most of all the hits are worded exactly like Ann Scott Tyson's and I wanted something different to view. Makes me wonder who is copying from whom anymore.

Again, I am not here to defend either side, but trying to provide an objective approach as a soldier and now civilian who has been to Afghanistan several times (with firearms and dead fear).

Strange, I found contradictory text at the Washington Post where Ann reportedly works:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...400603_pf.html

The six-Humvee convoy had stopped at another U.S. camp near the Pakistan border and was on its way back to Jalalabad when a Toyota van moved to the shoulder along with other oncoming traffic. The van suddenly swerved between the first and second Humvees, and the suicide bomber detonated the bomb, Kearney said.

Marines in the convoy believed that they were taking enemy fire from several locations along the sides of the road, Kearney said. They deemed vehicles along the road threats and shot at five or six of them -- one because it failed to respond to their direction, and another because it appeared to be trying to force them in a certain direction, Kearney said.

"They reported receiving enemy fire from a number of locations. . . . They believed they saw folks with weapons," he said.

I cannot comment on what they saw, only they can. I can however look at the circumstances that led up to the shootings and would only wonder what the service men were feeling. Certainly nothing good comes to mind. With that, the following shouldn't surprise anyone:

The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission released its report on the incident yesterday, along with a separate, more general report on violations of international humanitarian law across the country in recent months. The second study said actions by the Taliban, Afghan national forces and international forces regularly put civilian lives at risk.

What the General had to do was logical, but does not assume guilt:

"If we employed them and they had another engagement . . . they would never get a fair judgment regardless of what occurred," Kearney said. The Marines are easily distinguishable because they wear different uniforms from other U.S. forces.

Regards, Stan

[Sarajevo071]

Stan,

I am failing to see (from that quote you provide for me) where is said that someone shoot at Marines? Reading like this, that Marines ”believed that they were taking enemy fire…” I see no contradictions with article I posted. And I posted that one only to show you particular names since you said last one was to vague and with no names or ranks.

Now, how some strangers who invade their country can order them how to drive, where and punish them (shoot at them, maim or kill them) if they fail to obey them or understand they foreign langue-is totally different issue. I do not raising those questions since this is not place for it but I think it should have some merit in making decisions to kill people.

On the end, you went there to “help” not to “conquer”. Right?


Regards,

[tequila]

Stan,

On the end, you went there to “help” not to “conquer”. Right?

That is rather inflammatory. I doubt you can construct a genuine model whereby the U.S. is in Afghanistan for imperialistic reasons. We went to Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban, not for conquest or to help the Afghan people. Yet, despite incompetence and criminal under-funding and under-resourcing, the U.S. is trying to help the Afghan people set up a genuine representative government.

Despite this awful incident where innocents were killed, it is important to keep the bigger picture in mind before we resort to such anti-imperialist rhetoric. If you want to use such words, you must justify them.

[Stan]

Glad to see you back, Sarajevo !

I am failing to see (from that quote you provide for me) where is said that someone shoot at Marines? Reading like this, that Marines ”believed that they were taking enemy fire…”

It is perception. I admit, hard to explain when you stuff yourself under the vehicle and huddle down. Perception then becomes everything.

I remember your PMs to me about your life in New York. A place I have visited only twice in 49 years. You think it's home, but for me it's a battle field. Perception my friend !

"Marines in the convoy believed that they were taking enemy fire from several locations along the sides of the road, Kearney said. They deemed vehicles along the road threats and shot at five or six of them -- one because it failed to respond to their direction, and another because it appeared to be trying to force them in a certain direction, Kearney said.

Now, how some strangers who invade their country can order them how to drive, where and punish them (shoot at them, maim or kill them) if they fail to obey them or understand they foreign langue-is totally different issue. I do not raising those questions since this is not place for it but I think it should have some merit in making decisions to kill people.

I don't know much about an invasion, I was invited there five times.
Yes, directing traffic in any foreign country without language and cultural background would be hard to do.

They had just survived an VBIED jammed between their convoy and following that, I think I would have a hard time with more vehicles, even if they didn't understand hand signals.

I understand your stance, but I am unwilling to convict those without the burden of proof.

Glass 3 miles later is not in my opinion proof of anything.

Take care, Stan

[Sarajevo071]

I agree.

I understand everything what you said and I am humble with job that you did there... You will always have my deepest respect for that, Stan. Hope you will remember that.

Thank you for your input and conversation.

night