First MILITARY Personnel Killed by Hostile Fire in Afghanistan

FOX News Channel | January 4, 2002

[MeekOneGOP]

First MILITARY Personnel Killed by
Hostile Fire in Afghanistan

That is all they really said. More to follow per FOX News Anchor. . .

[Smogger]

We did in 2 months what the old Soviet regime failed to do in 10 years in Afghanistan.

A common misconception. The Soviets installed a puppet regime and attempted to occupy Afghanistan. We have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that we have no intention in occupying even small portions of Afghanistan.

The Taliban, and Al Qaeda are basically a light infantry units. I don't think that there should have ever been any doubt that they would fail to hold cities (or any fixed installation) in the face of our aerial onslaught. This is why they retreated from every major decisive battle. Their desire is to lure us into a long guerilla war. Our desire is to see them wiped of the face of the planet. We are a long way from achieving our goals, and if we cannot stomach even a single casualty we are further then we think.

[MeekOneGOP]

Well, if those distinctions don't matter, then I would say the WTC workers were the first Americans killed in this war. I think the newsies just need to make every headline as dazzing as posible, and a FIRST is always 'flashier' than ANOTHER.

---

Yep. Citizens, not military or CIA personnel. Although, some of those in the WTC are some of those. Ditto with the Pentagon hijacking attack. . .

[Gamma-131-I]

As a military wife and mother I have awaited casuality reports, praying my phone doesn't ring, no one knocks at my door...

My mother tells a story of a day while my dad was serving in Saigon in 1969. She said that one day two airmen knocked at our door. When she opened it and saw there were two of them, she slammed the door in their face without saying a word or giving them a chance to say one themselves. It took them a couple of seconds to realize what she thought they were there for before one of them finally was able to call in to her and explain that they weren't from the group that notifies the relatives of casualties. I can't remember what they were there for now. (I was six at the time and don't remember it myself.) It took my mom a few minutes to settle down after that one.

Based on this, I know for a fact that you're not exaggerating in the least.

I hope your husband and son return to you soon in full health and good spirits.

Gamma

[cavador]

Is this the second Purple Heart medal given out or is there more that have been hushed up? I cannot believe that this is only the second Us Soldier maimed or killed since the battles against Al Qeida and the Taliban started.Considering the amount of enemy wounded or killed.The first casualty was the Special Forces guy at the Mazaar prison in the north of Afganistan. The latest casualty will get a heroes welcome home.(postomustly)

[Gamma-131-I]

We had better darned well look like we've all got ice water in our veins if we want to win this war. Weakness invites attack; strength deters it. Our enemy is watching to see how we react to such events. He's looking to see if we can take a punch.

I've read a number of your responses in this vein and while I think I understand what you are trying to say, I have to respectfully disagree to this extent at least.

I'm not sure that we're really reacting as you are trying to portray it. We are sad. That doesn't mean we are anywhere even remotely near ready to quit. If anything, in this war at least, I think it makes us want to hit them all the harder, and anyone that doesn't see that the tears are more tears of rage than tears of fear or sadness is going to learn the error of not knowing their enemy. Sun Tzu is as applicable to them as it is to us.

The closest I've seen to the kind of reaction we've been having to this whole attack since September 11th is the reaction of the Brits to the Blitz. We get sad, we adapt our lives to the new dangers, but we continue on, knowing that we will hit back harder and more effectively and that we will win in the not so distant future (at least as history goes.)

Another important thing to bear in mind is that our enemy isn't the only one looking at our reactions. Our own forces read it as well, and our reactions mean a great deal to how effectively they fight. One of the most demoralizing factors to our troops in Viet Nam was the impression they got from the news services that the people back home no longer supported what they were doing. I'm sure one of the biggest fears for them now is that support for them will collapse at the first sign of American blood. So far, that hasn't happened, and I don't think they will interpret this report as a sign that it has either. More depends on the public reactions after this report than this one itself. We'll wait and see how that goes, but the polls I've seen to this point all seem to indicate that Americans are in support of this war even if it costs us thousands of casualties.

But the reaction you propose may be as damaging to our troops as overreacting in the direction you are warning against. If they start to feel that we don't care if they die or not, they might get demoralized as well. One of the things that keeps them going is remembering that the people here care for them. So in this case, I think it's good that they see that we do. So we shouldn't be afraid to show that we are saddened by the loss of one of our own, as long as we also show that we remain undeterred by it. That's going to be the harder trick to get pushed through the media if you ask me, given their general world-view.

So as I said at the beginning, the fact that we will note with sadness the loss of our first military casualty to hostile fire should never be construed as a sign we're ready to give it all up. If our enemies do try to interpret it as such, they will be making a grave miscalculation. But then, they've already managed to make quite a few of those, so I wouldn't be surprised by another one at this point. In that case, we can't afford to cater to their stupidity.

Respectfully,

Gamma

[mystery-ak]

When my husband was in Panama and then in the Gulf War....everytime the media announced there was a US casualty my heart broke.
Those few hours of not knowing *who* is unbearable...so when I read or hear responses like those above I want to scream out for those families who will answer that knock on the door.

Two years ago my brother and sister-in-law went out to dinner and a movie, when they turned the corner to their house a Navy car was in their driveway.
Two Navy personnel had been waiting hours for them to return to tell them that their son Philip was killed(accident) aboard ship.
Needless so say they were both devastated.
I went home to arrange with the Navy to get Philip home and his funeral, my brother could not do this.....he still has not recovered from his son's death.

So everyday I say a little prayer for all our soldiers and their families that they may never have to go through this.....

[MeekOneGOP]

Is this the second Purple Heart medal given out or is there more that have been hushed up? I cannot believe that this is only the second Us Soldier maimed or killed since the battles against Al Qeida and the Taliban started.Considering the amount of enemy wounded or killed.The first casualty was the Special Forces guy at the Mazaar prison in the north of Afganistan. The latest casualty will get a heroes welcome home.(postomustly)

---

No, Mike Spann, a CIA guy was killed in Mazar-i-Sharef. Others have been killed by "friendly" fire. This is the first MILITARY soldier killed by enemy fire. . .

CIA officer Mike Spann, in this undated family photo, is the first American known to be killed in combat in Afghanistan. Johnny ``Mike'' Spann, 32, who entered the Marine Corps and then joined the CIA in June 1999, was killed in action during a prison riot at Mazar-e-Sharif. His body was recovered Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2001 the CIA said, without providing details on the circumstances of Spann's death. (AP Photo/Family Photo via the CIA)

[Mr_Magoo]

It is quite another thing for the entire nation to fall apart over one man. A nation that cannot tolerate combat deaths cannot win its wars; or so it will seem to their enemies. We invite attacks if we do things that cause the enemy to question our resolve. Calling attention to a single casualty will do just that. It makes us look like we can't do what it takes to win. That will invite further attacks, albeit to the attackers' destruction. Several here have stated that we Americans value each and every life. If that's true, then we ought to be careful not to do things that invite attack and thus lead to more deaths. We ought to behave in a manner that causes the enemy to fear us rather think us soft.

We are weak to morn a loss of one of our own???

Not the way I see it.

Let's look at the score the same way that the talitubbies see it first hand.

Talibin and al Quaida deaths = thousands
U.S. deaths = 1

That don't look weak to me! To be honest, that makes us look damn strong.

The simple fact that there has only been one death is the story. Can you show me any other war ever fought with a death toll like this lopsided? If a talitubbie ever read this death toll, he would have an Ex-Lax moment.

[daughterofSOG]

Ballad of the Green Beret Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler and Robin Moore copyright 1966 Fighting soldiers from the sky Fearless men who jump and die Men who mean just what they say The brave men of the Green Beret CHORUS: Silver wings upon their chest These are men, America's best One hundred men will test today But only three win the Green Beret Trained to live off nature's land Trained in combat, hand-to-hand Men who fight by night and day Courage peak from the Green Berets CHORUS Back at home a young wife waits Her Green Beret has met his fate He has died for those oppressed Leaving her his last request Put silver wings on my son's chest Make him one of America's best He'll be a man they'll test one day Have him win the Green Beret

[sneakypete]

Those who think us mourning the loss of someone (whose life is so precious), is a sign of weakness, would be All talk and NO action in the same situation as those who have died or were injured.

I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you. Yes,it is only proper that we stop and reflect on the sacrifice this young man and his family have made,but that doesn't mean we need to make a Cecil B.DeMille production out of it. War involves killing AND dying. I can assure you this young man and his teammates understood this very well.

[sneakypete]

I hope the last face he saw was that of a fellow-American....

Not me. I hope the last face he saw was the dying face of the enemy soldier that shot him.

[sneakypete]

And I don't think that heavier casualties, God forbid, would change the nations will either.

I do. It would give the anti-military and pro-socialist politicians and media the excuse they NEED to strike up the "let's get our soldiers out of there!" bandwagon. Jackson and Sharpton would be out there moaning about "how young black American soldiers are losing their lives,while we are spending money to keep them in danger that could better be used to rebuild our cities",etc,etc,etc. The only reason they haven't done this already is because they haven't had the excuse of high casualities. One thing you can bet on is that they already have their speeches written.

[sneakypete]

Is this the second Purple Heart medal given out

Of course not. Purple Hearts are given for wounds received in combat,not neccessarily for a combat-related death.

or is there more that have been hushed up?

Why would they have been hushed-up? The people who would have earned most of them would have just had a bandage applied and gone back to work. This is how these people earn their livings. Sometimes literally.

[sneakypete]

No, Mike Spann, a CIA guy was killed in Mazar-i-Sharef. Others have been killed by "friendly" fire. This is the first MILITARY soldier killed by enemy fire. . .

A couple of things,here. The first is that Spann did NOT earn a Purple Heart. Unless he had been "sheep dipped",he was a civilian working for the CIA when he died. The only people who get Purple Hearts are active-duty military members.

The second thing is that you do NOT have to die to get a PH. You only have to be wounded due to enemy action. In some units even that wasn't neccessary. There are people in support units who have put themselves in for PH's for being injured in jeep accidents while in a war zone,and received them.

[Brad’s Gramma]

I am way too tired to read this whole thread, and I KNOW I'm jumping in to a pot of boiling water....but I sure hope you're in a better mood tomorrow.

[homeschool mama]

***A couple of things,here. The first is that Spann did NOT earn a Purple Heart. Unless he had been "sheep dipped",he was a civilian working for the CIA when he died. The only people who get Purple Hearts are active-duty military members. ***

Spann was once a Marine in Special Ops. Would that make a difference in his receiving a purple heart? Or would a man need to be currently active in the military to receive one?

[sneakypete]

Spann was once a Marine in Special Ops.

Spann was a Marine,but wasn't Special Ops. I don't think any Marines are.

Would that make a difference in his receiving a purple heart? Or would a man need to be currently active in the military to receive one?

You have to be on active duty,and wounded as a result of enemy action. If you are wounded by one of your buddes by accident,you don't get a PH. If you are wounded by "friendly fire" you don't get a PH. Or at least you are not supposed to get one.

BTW,I'm sure the CIA has their own award for wounded and/or killed field service officers,but I have no idea what it is called.

[sneakypete]

BTW,to follow-up on this,the fact that he is NOT supposed to receive a PH doesn't mean he won't get one. Remember the 4 soldiers in Bosnia who were captured by the Serbs and beaten? They got PH's AND Bronze Star's for surrendering in a non-declared war zone. Things have really changed since the 60's. I actually knew guys who were wounded in Laos and Viet Nam leading actual combat patrols during the 1959-1961 period,and they couldn't even get service-connected disability for their injuries because there wasn't a "declared war" going on there at that time,and because "we weren't there". Same thing with a lot of the valor awards for SOG people who worked in Cambodia and Laos during the VN war. Since we "weren't there",it was hard to get a medal for your actions.Try to tell a VA rating board that you were wounded in Laos or Camodia in 1968 and they would laugh at you.

[homeschool mama]

**Spann was a Marine,but wasn't Special Ops. I don't think any Marines are. ***

Hmmm.. I thought SpecOps were Marines...could that be Navy instead? Marines are a branch of the Navy, right?

[sneakypete]

Hmmm.. I thought SpecOps were Marines...could that be Navy instead? Marines are a branch of the Navy, right?

"Spec Ops" is short for Special Operations,as in un-conventional warfare operations. It was originally just US Army Special Forces for the ground force,and the US Air Force for some transportation help. The SEALS did some water-related Spec Ops missions,and they are considered to be a un-conventional force. Of course,the Air Force,Navy,and Marine Corps all provided tactical air support for Spec Ops operations.

Spec Ops now includes the Army Rangers,and is a joint command that has elements of all the services. I am sure there are Marine officers and NCO's assigned as laison people in case of emergency,but the USMC itself is not a part of this force as far as I know.

This has been expanded now to include