Posted on 03/26/2011 5:30:59 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
It will go down in history as one of the U.S. military's worst battles in Afghanistan. And according to the families of the soldiers who died there, the history written by the U.S. Army is biased and inaccurate.
Relatives of those killed in Wanat, at a combat outpost in the rugged mountains of northeastern Afghanistan, say the Army is covering up mistakes made by the dead mens' commanders and placing blame on a junior officer who was simply following orders.
A military investigation that followed, led by Marine Lt. General Richard Natonski, blamed the deaths in part on dereliction of duty by superior officers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade and called for career-ending reprimands for company, battalion and brigade commanders up the chain.
Those recommendations were approved by Gen. David Petraeus, then chief of U.S. Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Army Secretary James McHugh then tasked Gen. Charles Campbell, the chief of the Army's Forces Command at the time, with reviewing Natonski’s investigation and taking appropriate action regarding the recommended letters of reprimand. After reviewing Natonski’s investigation and meeting with the chain of command, Gen. Campbell concluded that the officers were neither negligent nor derelict and rescinded the letters of reprimand.
(Excerpt) Read more at afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com ...
The revised report cited in this piece is a complete sham and whitewash, and essentially blames the dead.
Quagmire.
Shades of Firebase Ripcord/O’Reilly from Vietnam War.
Typical Army stuff. I’m surprised they didn’t blame it on a Sergeant, but there was a dead Lieutenant available that fit the bill nicely.
You are 100% correct. The excuse given by Campbell only aggrivates the situation. Imagine being told you son’s death was caused by incompetent leadership but we can’t get rid of that leadership because it would endanger those left standing.
I was raised an Army Brat up to my junior year in HS. I received my welcome letter the year out of HS and enlisted. This is the same sorry crap I ended what would have been an Army career that was my intension when I joined.
My heart felt condolences to the families of those lost and wounded over someone’s more important concern of looking good for the JCS dog and pony show. I seem to recall this was during the time of the Stanley McCrystal soiled command of handing out the p*ssy restraint medals.
Isn’t it amazing how all of the so-called leaders who advance under times of a liberal CIC are most often the ones who managed not to be fragged?
NOTE TO SELF
Intention, not intension. But then again the tension may be getting to me.
It looks to me that the Army held the commanders responsible up the command level to the point where Obama administration politically appointed civilians white washed the story, probably to avoid bad news for Obama’s fighting of the Afghan war.
Reminds me of stories I heard from Army vets who served in Nam. This is not a cover up. This is just a bad evaluation of an event that never should have been allowed to happen. It is also a good example of what happens when army officers become managers and not war fighters.
Being an old sailor, this kind of Bravo Sierra reminds me of the USS Iowa and the Navy’s attempt to posthumously crucify Clayton Hartwig.
Time and time again, the Federal government will prove that it is an untrustworthy, incompent steward of the nation's best interests . . . and these stories of incompetence on a battlefield halfway around the world only serve to reinforce that.
This is not why the founding fathers did not want standig armies. If they liked militias so much why did they create standing armies? probably because most militias were signed up from 60 to 90 days and then had to be released which usually happened right in the middle of a campaign. Another reason, they were undisciplined mobs, and couldn’t stand up to a regular army with fixed bayonets. The Americans did not win major battles against the British until they started using regulars with a few exceptions.
Very true. Even after, for that matter.
Guerrilla warfare doctrine did not exist, and American leaders did not realize they didn't need to win battles. That, in fact, fighting and routinely losing battles almost lost them the war.
For the most obvious example, Washington attempted to defend NYC, which against a superior navy was quite impossible. That he did not lose the war at that point was due only to the most amazing combination of luck, British complacency (not incompetence) and weather.
Even a novice knows tha you don’t set up an outpost in a ravine surrounded by mountains.
Who picked this site? The Commanders, not some low level officer OR the troops are esponsible for this outrage.
Even the Talis probably couldn’t believe their good fortune.
With Commanders like this....BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW.
Well it worked out ok for the French at Dien Bien Phu.
Oh, wait...
Part of the Vietnam analogy not to be missed is that the VC and NVA were willing to take horrificly unfavorable casualities ratios in order to kill a few Americans. They understood that every dead GI was a propaganda victory, like Tet, where they got shellacked on the battlefield and won a huge victory in the American media.
Before our global empire-building age began around the turn of the 19th/20th century, some of the most effective fighting forces this country ever had were small units with a closed leadership system rather than massive forces with a bureaucratic leadership. I would include Vermont's Green Mountain Boys, Daniel Morgan's Virginia Riflemen, Francis Marion and his "Marion's Men," and the Texas Rangers.
In some cases these units were too effective, for they were great fighting forces but were totally unreliable for an organized Federal nation-building effort. The Green Mountain Boys, for example, went from heroes of the American Revolution with the sacking of Ticonderoga and Crown Point in 1775 to a band of "outlaws" in 1777 when they declared that Vermont would be an independent nation (this is why Vermont is conspicuously absent among all of the Northeast colonies in the original thirteen states) and the Continental Congress tried to compel Gen. George Washington to subdue them.
A FOB set in a bowl.(low ground) Top commanders fault.
Air support mission redirected. Top commanders fault.
Lack of personal supplies. Every leaders fault.
Only so many troops to do so many patrols. Top commanders fault.
Drones redirected. Top commanders fault.
Lack of personal supplies.(water) Every leaders fault.
Nine troops dead due to an entire units leadership letting 200 enemy forces surround and attack the FOB and let it get worse after ‘Contact’ is called in. Top commanders fault.
Bad ground to begin with, as you say. Looks like Army forgot old adage,”Take the HIGH ground!”
Saw a film on TV that showed this valley. Like you say, I wondered who in hell picked THAT place to begin with?
Just sad for our troops and their families...
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.