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

[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?

[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...



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.

[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.

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/leaders...shipindex.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...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.

[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?s...&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/punit...es/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/lifeli...ions/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/punit...es/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?