Troops in Iraq allowed to drink beer on Super Bowl Sunday!

[nathanm]

The WaPo didn't get the full story. Stars & Stripes had an article on this back before Christmas. At the time, it only applied to MND-Baghdad. They followed up recently, with reactions from other units. From the sound of it, MND-B will be the only command allowing its members to drink beer. Even MND-Center soldiers living on the same bases as MND-B won't be allowed to drink. Luckily, I'm in Qatar for a pass, enjoying my 3 daily beers.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

lift on the beer ban will only be in the Green Zone.

[Coldstreamer]

Don't worry. We're stoopid too. After happily conquering 2/3 of the globe (especially you...sorry about the White House again by the way) whilst blind drunk, we operate an all dry policy in both theatres, rather than the perfectly manageable 2-can rule which sufficed during the dark days of Northern Ireland and indeed the Balkans. God forbid we should treat the boys like adults. Countless Yes Men Lemmings will bleat that there are now no G1 discipline issues whatsoever on operations (2 legs baaad...4 legs good...). Of course they're wrong. I seem to recall 2 cleansing weak beers helped keep the demons at bay after a day of exhuming mass graves in Bosnia and Kosovo. Never mind! At least the Grown Ups get to swill the odd bottle of Red while 'entertaining VIPs'

[Bullmoose Bailey]

I approve of the 2 beer policy as in keeping with the best traditions of Our Army.

Washington I know approved rum; essentially as a weather effects remedy and now I've read he also allowed beer. All from a man who forbade profanity.

I perceive that, even though GEN Odierno's policy has been extended beer will still be missing our base camp.

I'll let you know if it happens. I'm actually cool with the Bitburger etc. that we now enjoy from the NA Lager markets of the world.

[BayonetBrant]

I guess my question about the no alcohol policy and 'breaking' it for the Super Bowl is this:

Do you have to drink to have a good time? I mean, really, are you not going to enjoy the Super Bowl because there's no alcohol present?

I'm not saying adults shouldn't be able to drink, as long as they can drink responsibly. But to say they should have to have a beer, or that alcohol prohibitions are inherently evil under all circumstances certainly sounds like someone with a borderline addiction problem.

[Entropy]

Interesting post on the logistics of Superbowl beer:

Here is how it works: The people at the top said beer would be permitted only at Commanders’ discretion. Once Odierno said it was good then each MND Commander had to decide. Once they decided it trickled down to the Provincial level and finally reached us, about three days before I have to go and pick up 2000+ beers. It gets better. If, by chance, someone on my FOB doesn’t want one or both of their beverages the excess all has to be accounted for and then turned back in no later than three days after the Superbowl. To make the whole thing really convenient beers can only be consumed in the DFAC during the showing of the Superbowl which, I believe, is about 1am to 5am.

[nathanm]

For those who haven't heard, GEN Odierno extended the beer policy to everyone else in Iraq. All the Division commanders outside Baghdad weren't going to allow it, but he overrode them. As to how it will affect readiness? They're reshowing the game later in the day, to allow most others a chance to drink their 2 beers.

[sapperfitz82]

If getting joe some beer is really this big of a hassle, perhaps the problem is with those responsible for getting joe beer, not the policy of getting joe beer.

This truly is the bike helmet generation. I sincerely hope that officers at the lowest levels who have been degraded by such policies as no beer will pull their collective heads out and do something about it when they have the authority.

Those against this idea remind me of the major I worked for who would meekly allow some SF gaurd (that's Air Force, not green beanie) to inspect all our pax for ID cards instead of taking his word that his convoy was secure.

When I brought up that the gaurd has basically just insulted the hell out of his command and compentence, he became incensed with the policy and fired off a few hate mails. Probably to no effect. At least he is saved.

The point is that no man would allow another man to treat him this way, certainly without a great deal of bitching and kvetching. Our society has all but done away with men though, so the ranks are fairly quiet and accepting.

Hope I can remember this rant when I come into my "majority."

[sapperfitz82]

That unit's situation is due directly to our policy of not having doctrine defenses regarding pro-wire and claymores, something I ran into over and again in that country. Beer or no (in the case of that OP, no) we are always going to be prone to massive wave assualts. And I would take a drunk E1 with a good spread of claymores over a sober one without a single protective mine any day. Not that we have to choose, I just don't care for the red herring.

[Schmedlap]

That unit's situation is due directly to our policy of not having doctrine defenses regarding pro-wire and claymores, something I ran into over and again in that country.

Not sure if that's a policy or not. Granted this was Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, but we had claymores in OIF III. Lots of 'em. I remember it vividly because 3 months after we emplaced them, we were informed that we were not permitted to do so unless the - get this - the DIVISION COMMANDER personally improved their emplacement. No kidding, I had to draw detailed sector sketches (using Microsoft Paint) of every OP, strongpoint, and our patrol base, showing the detailed position of about 40 claymores (12-digit grids to each), orientation (in degrees), where the trigger mechanism(s) would be, and give detailed orders regarding when it would be detonated, and then email this up the chain to Division. Of course, I had nothing better to do, right? We were running a 24/7 graphic design and Kinko's office in that lovely, dust-covered patrol base. This small task was nothing in comparison to submitting individual award packets for each Soldier, for each CIB and service award, in triplicate (4 or 5 times because Bde and Div kept changing the standards).

Thankfully, two months later, the Division Commander graciously gave his warmest blessings for the emplacements (we never recovered them while awaiting his approval). Given the detailed information that he requested about the emplacements, I expected lots of changes to be dictated. But, apparently, our judgment was flawless. He did not direct us to change a single thing - not even turning a claymore one degree to the north or shifting it 2 meters to the east - nothing. This was very encouraging and reassuring to those of us who were insecure about our tactical competence. Had we detonated them prior to receiving his approval, I'm not sure how that would have been received. Thank goodness the General did not slough off a decision of such far-reaching strategic importance onto his subordinates.

Nobody ever questioned our use of concertina or pickets. I guess they were just assuming some risk in allowing us to figure it out for ourselves.

[Ken White]

the British Forces in the Borneo Confrontation had to go to London to get specific permission to fire SS-11 Missiles form RAF Helicopters...

Too much peace time is bad for Armies...

Beats the alternative, tho'

Well, maybe.

[Ken White]

This truly is the bike helmet generation.

It's always nice to know there are others out there...

[reed11b]

This truly is the bike helmet generation.

I just found my new signature, thank you sir!
Reed

[Entropy]

Those against this idea remind me of the major I worked for who would meekly allow some SF gaurd (that's Air Force, not green beanie) to inspect all our pax for ID cards instead of taking his word that his convoy was secure.

When I brought up that the gaurd has basically just insulted the hell out of his command and compentence, he became incensed with the policy and fired off a few hate mails. Probably to no effect. At least he is saved.

That security guard doesn't make up ID-checking requirements on his own. Security (to include when and how ID's are checked) come from the installation/base/whatever commander or his/her designated representative. The SF guy was just doing his job by enforcing the current security posture and he insulted no one. If anything, the major insulted the installation Commander by complaining about his/her security measures. The reason there was no reply was probably because the guy was doing his J-O-B.

I've done basically the same thing. If there's some person I don't know in one of my classified briefings, I have every right, and indeed it is my duty, to ask for proof of the proper clearance, and I will ask. That's not an insult either. That's my job, and my authority to protect classified information does not get thrown away simply because someone happens to be a higher rank than me. This is often called "positional authority" and is separate from authority based on rank.

Obviously, in such cases, proper customs and courtesies must be observed and such positional authority should not be abused.

[RTK]

This truly is the bike helmet generation.

AKA the Similic generation: in memory of the enzymes that made kids tough back in the day, kept them from whining, breaking bones, and being general pansies; enzymes that are present in breast milk but were left out of the chemical makeup of manufactured formula.