U.S. Army Defies Bush

It's very late. Does the President know what the Army is doing? On the issue of women in land combat, it seems no one is in charge. High-level civilians are circumventing law and policy, members of Congress are being misled and decorated generals seem to have lost all perspective.

President Bush has been a strong leader on national defense, which makes it difficult to understand why he is saying one thing, but the Pentagon is doing another.

During an interview with the Washington Times in January, Bush declared, "No women in [land] combat." He was referring to current Defense Department regulations that exempt female soldiers from land combat troops such as the infantry and from smaller support companies that "collocate" with them.

If the Defense Department wants to change those rules, federal law requires formal notice to Congress 30 legislative days (approximately three months) in advance.

Despite these directives, Army officials are implementing plans that would force (not "allow") female soldiers into smaller forward support companies, which operate with land combat troops 100% of the time. These unprecedented assignments will needlessly complicate combat missions and undermine the progress of Army "transformation," which is complex enough.

The Defense Department has sent out contradictory signals on this issue. Early in November 2004, several flag officers told congressional staffers that they had no intention of repealing the collocation rule. A different briefing by Human Resources Policy Director Col. Robert H. Woods, Jr., to Army Staff Director Lt. Gen. James Campbell, inside the Pentagon on November 29, called for elimination of the regulation.

On January 13, Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey assured House Armed Service Chairman Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.) that the Army has not changed or violated Pentagon regulations. Eleven days later, the secretary's office prepared a "Women in the Army Point Paper" that indicates otherwise.

The four-page document--which is described as "unofficial" but is being implemented anyway--actually changes the wording and meaning of the Pentagon's collocation rule. It also alters the "gender codes" of 24 of 225 Army positions--mostly mechanics--in a typical forward support company (FSC), opening up 10% of these previously all-male positions to women. This arbitrary change in status, which is comparable to being "a little bit pregnant," clearly violates current Defense Department rules. FSCs differ from transportation and other support units that come and go intermittently. All soldiers are at risk, but FSC personnel are trained to operate in constant proximity with land combat troops that engage in deliberate offensive action against the enemy.

During a February meeting at the Pentagon with an associate and me, Army Secretary Harvey and Gen. Richard Cody, the Army vice chief of staff, confirmed that female soldiers are serving in forward support companies. Thirteen of the newly co-ed FSCs recently deployed to Iraq with the 3rd Infantry Division. This does not violate the rules, the officials told us, because female soldiers will not be collocated with combat troops when the battle begins.

This made no sense until we received the "Women in the Army Point Paper" from Harvey's office. This document includes a subtle but consequential change in Defense Department rules, which the Army is not authorized to make.

Current Defense Department regulations exempt female soldiers from support units that collocate with troops, such as the infantry, which are "assigned a direct ground combat mission." The Army's revised version adds the word "conducting" to that definition. This creates a new collocation rule, which applies only when a combat unit is actually "conducting an assigned direct ground combat mission."

Army officials claim that the new wording--call it the "collocation catch"--makes it unnecessary to provide legal notice to Congress, since the rules have not been changed. This is not a valid argument, but even if it were, how would the plan actually work?

Imagine a hapless battalion commander standing in front of a gender-mixed support company, telling the men that they will go forward to the battle, but the women will not. After that divisive moment, he will have to find a way to send the women elsewhere.

"Beam me up" transporter machines are in short supply. An active duty infantry officer estimates that it would take one Chinook, two Blackhawk, or six Huey helicopters, or two five-ton trucks, or 12 up-armored Humvees to evacuate 24 fully loaded female soldiers in a single forward support company.

That's assuming that the women would be willing to go. A female officer wrote to the Center for Military Readiness: "That is ridiculous. When does the combat begin?...[C]ommanders in the field will not follow those guidelines." The Army's top leaders told me, "They will have to."

So, field commanders are supposed to decimate their own support troops (remove 24 of 225) at times when they are needed most. A former armor officer described that scenario as "nuts." Responsible combat battalion leaders will not allow sophistry or semantics to detract from mission requirements.

The battlefield has changed, but land combat realities have not. When an infantry soldier is wounded under fire, his ability to survive may depend on a single male support company mechanic who can lift and carry him to life-saving emergency care. A female mechanic trained with "gender-normed" standards could not do the same. Under the Army's equivocal plan, there might not be any support soldier nearby at all. So much for "train as we fight" and the concept of "unit cohesion," which depends on mutual trust for survival in battle.

Doublethink definitions have consequences. The Army's revised collocation rule sets a new precedent for all land combat support units subject to Defense Department regulation. Absent intervention, this will affect all Special Operations Forces and eventually the Marine Corps. The "Women in the Army" blueprint even presumes to eliminate multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and Stryker brigade reconnaissance surveillance target acquisition (RSTA) squadrons from the list required to be all male.

Why is this happening? More than one general has told me that the objective is to "grow" the careers of female officers, including their own daughters. This is careerist groupthink, which cannot justify incremental changes that will force the majority of enlisted women and men to pay the ultimate price.

A May 2004 Pentagon briefing speculated about insufficient "inventory" of male soldiers for the combat support companies, but presented no data to support that concern. If there are shortages of men, officials who retained gender-based recruiting quotas for women--including Defense Under Secretary David Chu, his deputy, Charles Abell, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, and Personnel Vice Chief Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck--should be held accountable for their failure to plan ahead.

The military needs sound leadership on personnel policies, not problematic decisions by default. Members of Congress should insist on compliance with the law requiring advance notice of proposed policy changes, including the effect of the revised collocation rule on women's exemption from Selective Service registration. Officials might claim that the new wording is "pre-decisional" (even though it appears in the Army's official magazine Soldiers). If that is so, immediate revocation should not be too difficult.

The ultimate responsibility to bring the Army back into compliance with law and policy resides with the commander in chief, President Bush, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The time for principled leadership is now.

Well,

In Germany alone, you had over 250,000 refugees from Bosnia at the height of the conflict. Because of the proximity to the Balkans and the refugees in country, the Germans have a lot of literature and good information on the topic of rape during the crisis in the Balkans.

The first one is a transcript of an official German government parliament session where these rapes were discussed.

http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/13/039/1303991.asc

Key is this: “Der Deutsche Bundestag stellt fest:
Frauen waren in besonderem Maße Opfer des Krieges in Bosnien-
Herzegowina. Die Massen- und Einzelvergewaltigungen und
Nötigungen von Frauen wie ihre Entführung in Zwangsbordelle
sind erschreckende und abstoßende Verbrechen. Diese
Vergewaltigungen wurden im Krieg als strategisches Mittel
eingesetzt, sie wurden geplant und befohlen.“

***Translated: „The German Bundestag assesses: women were in special mass of victim of the war in Bosnia Herzegovina. The measures rapes and single rapes and constraint of women as well as its kidnapping in compulsion board yard are frightening and repulsive crimes. These rapes were used in the war as a strategic means, they were planned and commanded.“

Some assorted readings on this topic use http://ets.freetranslation.com/ to translate:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/11/0,1872,2027531,00.html

http://www.sonntagsblatt.de/1995/ds-34/vergew.htm

http://www.taz.de/pt/2001/03/02/a0107.nf/text

http://www.zeit.de/archiv/2000/3/200003.sfor_.xml

There was even an expo where hundreds of pictures to the topic were shown. The photographer was Ursula Meissner.

http://www.aachener-friedenspreis.de/seminare/RedeMedicaMondiale.pdf

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/0/0,1872,2022304,00.html

http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/509566.html?eid=509766

Bottom line is this. Rape was common place in Bosnia. That is a documented FACT. What may or may not be true is whether it was sanctioned and supported by the Serbs. It is hard to prove that it was an organized operation that was blessed off on by higher. The fact that rape was prevalent is undeniable. The German government believes them to have been state sponsored while others question this. For the victim this is academic.

In WWII it was no different. In another forum in the FR the rapes of Berlin were discussed. Even the History Channel makes reference to this in a program. Somewhere around 100,000 women are believed to have been raped by the Soviets in the immediate time after the fall of Berlin.

Rape in war is common place. It is to be expected but a taboo topic. It is sensitive and does not fit into the world picture we want, so we ignore it. At the point they used to have classes for female cadets on how to prevent rape. This was considered singling females out. So the class was eliminated. Not because it’s a bad class or not needed. Nope, it just didn’t “feel” good and make everyone happy. The shear existence of the class insinuates that there is an issue with females in the military.

Here’s a good one for you: Army Colonel Rhonda Cornum was a Major during Desert Storm when her helicopter was shot down over Iraq and she was captured. She initially told the press that she was treated no differently than the male prisoners during her brief captivity. A year later, however, while testifying before the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, she recanted. Cornum admitted that the Iraqis sexually violated both her and the other captured US woman prisoner. She told the commission that being raped by the enemy should be considered “an occupational hazard of going to war”. This is from the Presidential commission on females in combat.

Many immediately state that rape is a BS argument and discredit it. They simply don’t know how to handle the issue. Some will state “Well, well men can get raped too!” But this is rather rare and the exception. It’s an argument taken to the point of absurdity. A female if taken prisoner, should “expect” the worst. Many of those we fight are not very nice guys nor hold themselves to any code, convention or laws (Look at the beheadings).

Red6

Though I can't read German, your second to last link has photos featuring Borislav Herak, who was thoroughly discredited when two Muslim brothers he "confessed" he were murdered Kasim and Asim Blekic, were found alive and well in 1996, after the war was over. Kasim Blekic had left his home which was on the frontlines near Sarajevo, with his wife and 2 children, and went to Sarajevo where he joined the army. His brother Asim served in the army too. They were living in Bosnia and serving the whole time Serbs were on trial and then convicted of killing them!

The trial of him and another Serb was well publicized and internationalized, yet the phoney Muslim victims never stepped forward and let the lie stand and then the Serbs rot in jail for years. Neither of the brothers, their family, those who knew them, the Muslim government and army, none of them let on that the brothers were not murdered at all. It was only when the uncle of the other Serb, Sretko Damjanovic, saw Kasim when Kasim returned to his village to buy up the livestock of the people there (including many of his former Serb neighbors) did the uncle, surprised and thinking he saw a ghost, get the news out to the press.

Even before the phoney murder victims were discovered alive, and at the trial, the men recanted and said they confessed under torture - they had had ribs broken, kidney injury, teeth knocked out, according to doctors. Also Herak said he "confessed" to wild atrocities - which were featured and highlighted in US and world press - to stay alive. He said he'd have been killed immediately if he didn't tell these stories. The stories became valuable for the Muslims in demonizing Serbs which was why they kept him alive. But they weren't based on hard evidence - there were no dead bodies of the alleged victims - they were just tales he used to buy his life.

SERB CONVICTED OF MURDERS DEMANDING RETRIAL AFTER 2 "VICTIMS" FOUND ALIVE

Jonathan C. Randal, The Washington Post, March 15 1997

SARAJEVO, Bosnia - Sretko Damjanovic, a Serb soldier in the Bosnian civil war, was convicted of genocide four years ago for the murders of five unarmed people, several rapes and various other crimes. Now two of his victims have turned up alive, casting doubt on the testimony that led to his conviction and spurring his lawyer to demand a retrial.

The highly charged case was tried before a military tribunal run by the predominantly Muslim Bosnian government during the dark hours of 1993, when Sarajevo was enduring a long siege under Bosnian Serb artillery. Damjanovic and a friend, Borislav Herak, were convicted together and condemned to death by firing squad, a sentence later reduced to life imprisonment.

JAILED SERBS' `VICTIMS' FOUND ALIVE, EMBARRASSING BOSNIA

By CHRIS HEDGES c.1997 N.Y. Times News Service

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina—In a major embarrassment for the Bosnian government, two Muslim brothers, whose supposed slaying was used as evidence in the most publicized war crimes trial of the war to condemn two Bosnian Serbs to death, have been found living in a Sarajevo suburb.

The finding of the brothers, which has led the lawyer for one of the imprisoned Serbs to file for a new trial, has raised troubling questions about the guilt of the men, currently in a Sarajevo prison, and the death sentence handed down by the military court.

It has exposed what defense attorneys say was the undue haste of the trial, which went ahead without any physical evidence, and the heavily charged political atmosphere that colored the judicial ruling.

The trial, which was widely covered by the international press, was used by the Muslim government to publicize the brutal ``ethnic cleansing'' campaign then under way by the Bosnian Serbs.

The March 1993 trial of Sretko Damjanovic and Borislav Herak was the first attempt by the Sarajevo legal system to try Bosnian Serbs for genocide and other war crimes. It was intended to begin a judicial process that would see those Serbs responsible for the killings of tens of thousands of Muslims brought to justice.

But it was also used to convince Europe and the United States that the Serbs were guilty of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

The case against Damjanovic, 36, now appears especially weak.

Damjanovic was found guilty, based largely on a confession he later said was made under torture, of killing the brothers and a third man, Krso Ramiz, in the trial.

But in yet another blow to the case, the Sarajevo Public Prosecutor's office, according to internal documents, has charged three other Bosnian Serbs—Nenad Damjanovic (not related to Sretko), Vukovic Miro and Jeftic Bozo—with carrying out Ramiz's murder.

During the trial, Sretko Damjanovic recanted his confession and said he had been severely abused by the Muslim police until he signed the document. The court doctor confirmed at trial that Damjanovic had four knife wounds and a broken rib that appeared to have been inflicted while in police custody.

In Damjanovic's confession, he stated that he was responsible for the killing of the two brothers, Kasim and Asim Blekic, who still live in Sarajevo.[!!!]

``The two principal pieces of evidence used to convict my client were his signed confession, where he supposedly admitted to murdering two men who we now know are alive, and the testimony of his co-defendant Borislav Herak,'' said Damjanovic's lawyer, Branko Maric.

``How can my client's supposed confession be considered valid now? And how can the testimony of Mr. Herak, who said he witnessed these alleged murders, also be accepted by the court?''

Government officials were reluctant Friday to discuss the case and the appeal for a new trial.

Azra Omeragic, president of the Sarajevo county court, said there would be an evaluation of the request for a new trial. But she added that the decision was not the responsibility of her office and had been handed over to the public prosecutor's office. She said she did not want to comment further.

The chief public prosecutor, Domin Malbasic, said the request for a retrial had never reached his office.

Herak said in the trial that he saw Damjanovic kill Kasim and Asim Blekic as well as Ramiz. He said he also saw Damjanovic kill three other people who were not identified in the trial. No other witnesses were presented to the court to back Herak's accusations.

Herak confessed to a series of war crimes that included 42 individual killings and 16 rapes that were followed, according to his confession, by the killing of 11 of his rape victims. He said he also witnessed the killing of 220 civilians during Serbian campaigns of ethnic cleansing.

Kasim Blekic, who now raises sheep in a small shed next to his house in the Vogosca suburb of Sarajevo, said he was unaware that his supposed killing had been used to indict Damjanovic until a year ago when Vogosca, which was under Bosnian Serb control, was handed back to the Muslim government as part of the Dayton peace agreement.

Blekic, his wife and two children had fled their small home in Vogosca in May 1993 when they found themselves living along what became the front line.

His house was destroyed in the fighting. Blekic, 43, became an ambulance driver for the army during the war. He and his brother lived in Sarajevo until the fighting ended.

``I didn't return to Vogosca until last year when the Serbs were leaving,'' he said, standing next to a small, muddy pen that held about two dozen bleating sheep.

``I was buying cattle in those days from a lot of the Serbs, including many of my old neighbors. I went to see the uncle of Sretko Damjanovic, an old friend, and he said he couldn't believe I was alive. He told me his nephew had been sentenced to death for killing my brother and me. They all looked at me as if I was a ghost.''

Blekic said he knew Damjanovic and his family. He described his relationship with the condemned man as ``normal.'' He said he never saw Damjanovic in April and May 1992, when the killings were supposed to have occurred.

U.N. international police monitors showed up last summer at Blekic's new house in Vogosca, which once belonged to a Serb neighbor, to photograph him and copy the information on his identity card. But this was the last he heard from the U.N. team.

``We are the only Blekic family in Vogosca,'' he said. ``There are no others.''

At the end of last year relatives of Damjanovic reached his lawyer in Sarajevo with the news. And in December Maric filed a motion for a new trial.

Herak and Damjanovic were arrested in November 1992 by the Bosnian Muslims after their car took a wrong turn and they drove into a Muslim checkpoint.

Let's take a break from the pissing contest and enjoy the following story:
The Battle of Charlie 6
By John B. Dwyer

It was all over by 5:30 a.m. April 3, 2003. Lt. Col. Ernest P. "Rock" Marcone's Task Force 3-69th Armor had defeated three Iraqi brigades and captured the key bridge over the Euphrates 20 miles south of Baghdad known as Objective Peach. At the tip of the 3rd Infantry Division's spear pointing towards victory, they had what its leader called "the best armor mission in the world -- lead the attack, blow a big hole in the enemy's defenses, get the rest of the division and V Corps in position to finish off Baghdad."
Seizing that objective, the Al Kaed (Leader) Bridge, defined the decisive battle. Four hundred meters long with concrete columns that could easily support a 70-ton Abrams tank, it had to be captured. As Rock Marcone put it: "You never cross the river, you can't win." Because it was so vital, the Iraqis deployed the Medina Division's 10th Brigade, an armored brigade, and a Special Republican Guard commando brigade to defend it. In his book "American Soldier," Gen. Tommy Franks tells of an intercepted message from the Medina Division's general to his brigade commanders. "The message was simple -- and frightening: 'Blood, blood, blood.'" And the general commanding all Republican Guard units in the area ordered the bridge demolished before American forces could cross it.
On April 1, nine days and 350 miles after Lt. Col. Marcone's task force had roared across the berm into Iraq, they were in position to assault the objective. A and C Companies, 3rd-69th Armor along with B and C Companies, 3rd and 2nd Battalions, 7th Infantry, and A Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, supported by artillery and attack aviation, had battled past a 250-foot escarpment, taken the Al Kifle bridge and fought through an apocalyptic two-day sandstorm. Now they faced the dangerous Karbala Gap, where vehicles were channeled through an 1,800-meter-wide strip and where chemical weapons were expected to be used. To divert and disperse Iraqi units in the area, V Corps ordered five simultaneous attacks. The strategy worked. Deployed in a "power dive" formation, Lt. Col. Marcone's 1,100-man force charged through the chemical-weapons-free Gap, meeting and overcoming moderate enemy resistance.
The decisive battle began at 11:30 a.m. April 2. Lt. Col. Marcone sent his scouts ahead to reconnoiter. Three miles down the road they encountered Iraqi forces and came under mortar fire. Maneuvering away from it, they called in artillery and air support as Capt. Chuck O'Brien's A Company tanks executed a flanking attack, three platoons abreast. An hour and 15 minutes later they had routed the enemy and the rest of the task force fell in behind them into another power dive formation. Nearing the bridge, A Company was firing at targets at distances ranging from 10 to 1,000 meters away, some of them truck-borne rocket-propelled-grenade teams. During this fight, Staff Sgt. Steve Smith's tank was hit by an RPG that severed hydraulic power and filled the turret with smoke. He and his crew kept fighting, cranking the turret manually. Iraqis began moving through tall grass for the kill. They never had a chance as company tanks laid down lethal protective fire. When their missions were completed that day, A Company had been in combat for six straight hours.
Captain Dan Hibner's engineers, protected by 3-7th infantrymen, had the dangerous daylight job of motoring out beneath the bridge in 15-foot boats to locate and cut the demolition wires. To give them some cover, Lt. Col. Marcone ordered a smoke platoon forward. The occluding pall they generated was augmented by artillery smoke rounds. At this point, Iraqis detonated their charges. Only a few exploded, damaging the northern span, leaving three lanes open. The bold engineers persevered and soon rendered the bridge safe.
At 4:30 that afternoon Capt. Jared Robbins' C Company tanks and Capt. Todd Kelly's 2-7th infantrymen charged across the bridge. Muddy terrain forced C Company into a hasty arc-shaped defensive position for the expected enemy counter-attack. At 11:30 the Iraqis started coming. What became known as the Battle of Charlie 6, lasting until 2:30 a.m., had begun. It was the biggest tank-mechanized engagement of the war. With their 120-mm main guns, thermal sights and combat-tested crews, the Abrams tanks, supported by artillery and attack aviation, proved to be deadly in the night. In the aftermath, over 20 armored vehicles had been destroyed. Over 600 Iraqis had been killed in action.
The rest of task force had since secured the near side and then crossed the Al Kaed bridge, engaging and defeating 3 enemy brigades. It was indeed "blood, blood, blood," and it all belonged to the Iraqis.
Summing up the victory, Lt. Col. Marcone compared it to the achievements of Maj. Gen. "Tiger Jack" Wood's famed 4th Armored Division of World War II:
"We fought 3 major battles, defeated 7 enemy brigades and sustained only 3 killed KIA and 60 wounded total. The task force's accomplishments were historic in proportion. It was given more responsibility, covered more ground, fought more battles, accounted for more enemy formations destroyed and took fewer casualties than any other task force in the theater. We were a 'perfect storm' of men and machines combined into an unbeatable force."

John B. Dwyer is a military historian, author and Vietnam veteran, 1/69th Armor and 1/14th Infantry, 1968-69.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.