View Full Version : Army accused of covering up mistakes at Battle of Wanat
variablebinary
03-26-11, 06:39
Heart breaking story of Wanat. Most of us are familiar with it, but the press continues to probe and try and determine why senior officers put these men in this location without proper support.
With the dad being a retired LTC, hopefully this doesn't just get swept under the rug.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/25/army-accused-of-covering-up-mistakes-in-afghan-battle/
Cagemonkey
03-26-11, 08:17
Heart breaking story of Wanat. Most of us are familiar with it, but the press continues to probe and try and determine why senior officers put these men in this location without proper support.
With the dad being a retired LTC, hopefully this doesn't just get swept under the rug.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/25/army-accused-of-covering-up-mistakes-in-afghan-battle/Thanks for posting this, I wasn't familiar with this story. What a shame. I hope some good eventually comes out of this. Even a novice like myself knows that one should hold the high ground. Too bad we don't use Napalm any more.
The current 173rd Airborne Brigade Commander was just relieved of his command. He took command several months after the battle at Wanat.
(http://www.stripes.com/news/173rd-airborne-commander-relieved-of-duty-1.138902)
SeriousStudent
03-26-11, 11:12
From the Army report sweeping everything under the rug:
General Campbell’s review of the battle excuses the commanding officers' inattention to a platoon under threat, concluding that due to the busy schedules being kept by the commanders and other troop engagements in the area, "It seems reasonable that these officers' attentions were devoted to more pressing matters."
What is more pressing than your own beloved Soldiers staring death in the face? :(
But what do I know? I was just a stupid grunt, a Marine rifle squad leader. I was never a General.
So the Army relieved a brigade commander, and ended his career. But unless they publicly announce what it was for, there really is no "teachable moment" for the other officers, or the public.
My prayers go out to the families of those brave, brave Soldiers that fought at Wanat. May their sacrifice always be remembered.
Boy, we've come a long way. In WWII command mistakes and friendly fire incidents killed thousands of soldiers and rarely, if ever, were there public investigations and national news coverage, much less command firings.
Men die in war, frequently because somebody else on their side ****ed up, however; based on the posted information, these soldiers died as the result of enemy action. It wasn't dehydration or lack of heavy equipment that killed them, it was the enemy. I'm not attempting to minimize the loss the families of the dead soldiers have suffered, but our collective inability as a nation to "suffer" losses in war is a little disturbing to me. What happens when we start fighting an enemy that aren't a bunch of goat-herding amateurs?
ETA: And no, I'm not excusing the commanders if they had truly erred.
[Flame suit on]
What is more pressing than your own beloved Soldiers staring death in the face? :(
Why, ADM Mullen was visiting - gotta make sure the brass are safe...
Sadly, when the upper ranks of the officer corps is composed of a high percentage of ticket-punching politicians, it's understandable how something like Wanat could happen. Not saying it wasn't tragic & heads shouldn't roll, just saying I understand how it could happen.
Belmont31R
03-26-11, 13:48
Boy, we've come a long way. In WWII command mistakes and friendly fire incidents killed thousands of soldiers and rarely, if ever, were there public investigations and national news coverage, much less command firings.
Men die in war, frequently because somebody else on their side ****ed up, however; based on the posted information, these soldiers died as the result of enemy action. It wasn't dehydration or lack of heavy equipment that killed them, it was the enemy. I'm not attempting to minimize the loss the families of the dead soldiers have suffered, but our collective inability as a nation to "suffer" losses in war is a little disturbing to me. What happens when we start fighting an enemy that aren't a bunch of goat-herding amateurs?
ETA: And no, I'm not excusing the commanders if they had truly erred.
[Flame suit on]
We fight a lot better now, and have a lot more resources to fight with than we did in WW2. Now there is really no excuse to stick soldiers out there like that with little to no water and in an indefensible position. We put a lot more emphasis on fighting smarter now than human wave attacks. So when gross errors are made like this people get held accountable...or at least they should be.
And commanders got relieved or reprimanded all the time in WW2.
We fight a lot better now, and have a lot more resources to fight with than we did in WW2. Now there is really no excuse to stick soldiers out there like that with little to no water and in an indefensible position. We put a lot more emphasis on fighting smarter now than human wave attacks. So when gross errors are made like this people get held accountable...or at least they should be.
And commanders got relieved or reprimanded all the time in WW2.
Fair points.
ETA: I'm probably hypersensitive to "news" media shenanigans. The motivation for stories like this has less to do with accountability (something I'm definitely in favor of) and more to do with making the military look bad. So I tend to react with incredulity when I see such stories covered.
What happens when we start fighting an enemy that aren't a bunch of goat-herding amateurs?
[Flame suit on]
I'll bite. The guys we're fighting now are hardly goat herding amateurs.
I'll bite. The guys we're fighting now are hardly goat herding amateurs.
The hard truth is that we are fighting hardened, experienced, goat-f**king professionals.
Sending in part-timers and guys who just a year ago were high school hipsters and relying solely on us having superior technology and larger weapon systems is a recipe for needless losses when the leadership component is wrong in any way.
Belmont31R
03-26-11, 13:56
I'll bite. The guys we're fighting now are hardly goat herding amateurs.
Exactly. A lot of people don't realize a lot of these guys have been fighting their entire lives....especially in Afghanistan which has basically been in a constant state of war for decades. Russians, Taliban take over, US, and they fight each other if theres no infidels to fight. Before we got there in late 2001 the Taliban was fighting the NA.
The majority of our troops are 18-21 year olds who's only prior military/war experience is watching movies and playing video games. Its a testament to our training and technology we do as good as we are.
And commanders got relieved or reprimanded all the time in WW2.
True. Often for "human wave" tactics and other relics of the 19th century.
Exactly. A lot of people don't realize a lot of these guys have been fighting their entire lives....especially in Afghanistan which has basically been in a constant state of war for decades. Russians, Taliban take over, US, and they fight each other if theres no infidels to fight. Before we got there in late 2001 the Taliban was fighting the NA.
The majority of our troops are 18-21 year olds who's only prior military/war experience is watching movies and playing video games. Its a testament to our training and technology we do as good as we are.
Perpetual war, does not, a warrior make.
What makes our military what it is is a professional NCO core, something these stooges don't have.
Most of what passes for "fighting" with these guys is taking their rifle out of its corner, humping up to a pre-assigned location, spraying a magazine or two (and maybe lobbing a grenade) in the general direction of whoever their enemy is that day while yelling, "Allahu Akbar!!", then going home (or getting waxed). They hardly engage in maneuver warfare. Terrain, time, birth rate, and ability to blend with the "friendlies" is why they outlast invaders.
The guys who exhibit more than that are usually moonlighting ANA we trained.
Of all the enemies we've faced historically, the Taliban/AQA are most closely akin to the Viet Cong. The VC's record of action against the U.S. military was awful.
But we are way OT.
The hard truth is that we are fighting hardened, experienced, goat-f**king professionals.
While I agree with your assessment CIA Director Leon Panetta says at the most there are only 50 -100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/cia-director-panetta-exclusive-intelligence-bin-laden-location/story?id=11027374
Afghanistan is a waste of time, money and American lives.
Here's a better link to the above: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/cia-at-most-50100-al-qaeda-in-afghanistan.html#CIA: At most, 50-100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
montanadave
03-26-11, 15:50
I recall watching a segment on one of the TV news magazines, possibly 60 Minutes, that chronicled the battle at Wanat. The main focus was on the efforts of Lieutenant Jonathan Brostrom's father, a retired army colonel whose son was killed at Wanat, to push for an investigation into what happened that day. After enlisting the aid of Senator Webb of Virgina, an investigation was initiated which ultimately led to letters of reprimand being given to several commanding officers.
The segment filmed Colonel Brostrom (ret) and a number of other parents of soldiers killed that day gathered at a meeting with the Army, during which they anticipated the Army to officially acknowledge the mistakes that contributed to the loss of American lives at Wanat. Instead, an army general walked into the room and read a prepared statement to the family members stating the Army had exonerated all officers in the chain of command, had removed the letters of reprimand from the files of the officers previously sanctioned, and no further action was being taken.
The shock, anger, and frustration of those family members who had lost their sons was chilling. As was the sense of betrayal.
Its seems the only honor with respect to Wanat was that of the men who fought and died for one another that day and their family members who sought to uncover the truth and hold someone accountable in the months and years afterwords.
The whole thing made me want to puke.
SW-Shooter
03-26-11, 17:11
Politically correct "winning of hearts and minds ROE kills more of our troops than anything. The brass needs to put their ass out on the line one time to see that, but it'll never happen.
Generals don't win wars, boots on the ground combatants do. For those that thinks Petraeus is the cats meow, he's just a C-hair better than the wet noodles that serve under and came before him. If you can't tell I have zero respect for anything above a full bird Combat Arms officer. Nothing worse than a pogue S2, S3, and S4. I'd love for senior staff of those shops to serve in a FOB once.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-26-11, 17:13
Heartbreaking and sad. God Bless those warfighters and RIP. Med die in war, and the job of a leader is to kill the enemy and keep their men alive. The officers at company, bn, and even brigade level were far too concerned with showmanship than warfighting in my opinion. For the blame to be placed on a young LT's head is just disgusting. Shit rolls downhill only for a short time, and then it makes it's way back up very quickly. I hope the truth is brought to light and justice is served, thats all we can hope for. Let this be a true learning experience for all ranks.
Politically correct "winning of hearts and minds ROE kills more of our troops than anything. The brass needs to put their ass out on the line one time to see that, but it'll never happen.
Generals don't win wars, boots on the ground combatants do. For those that thinks Petraeus is the cats meow, he's just a C-hair better than the wet noodles that serve under and came before him. If you can't tell I have zero respect for anything above a full bird Combat Arms officer. Nothing worse than a pogue S2, S3, and S4. I'd love for senior staff of those shops to serve in a FOB once.
Along with that thought, when was the last time a U.S. general grade officer was killed in battle? How about a full bird Colonel? Seems to me they don't make it to the front lines the same way they used to. Perhaps that causes them to lose perspective?
Perpetual war, does not, a warrior make.
What makes our military what it is is a professional NCO core, something these stooges don't have.
Most of what passes for "fighting" with these guys is taking their rifle out of its corner, humping up to a pre-assigned location, spraying a magazine or two (and maybe lobbing a grenade) in the general direction of whoever their enemy is that day while yelling, "Allahu Akbar!!", then going home (or getting waxed). They hardly engage in maneuver warfare. Terrain, time, birth rate, and ability to blend with the "friendlies" is why they outlast invaders.
I've had to read AAR after AAR (Marine Corps and Army) in preparation for my BNs deployment next week and unless everything we're getting is inaccurate I think you're getting it slightly wrong. In several provinces the organized Taliban will only fight when they think they can win. They use the type of fighting that suits them (IEDs, snipers, harassing fire) and will bide their time until they find a weak spot and exploit it. One USMC platoon commander we spoke with got caught in an L shaped ambush and within a couple minutes the enemy was trying to roll up on his platoon.
You'll get the occasional 'tard who wants to jihad and spray his AK but by and large most of the easy targets have been killed already. They are not recruiting faster than we kill them.
Submariner
03-26-11, 19:01
Here's a better link to the above: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/cia-at-most-50100-al-qaeda-in-afghanistan.html#CIA: At most, 50-100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
So that's why we've been there ten years.:rolleyes:
War Is a Racket (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm)
So that's why we've been there ten years.:rolleyes:
I quoted someone who probably knows better than you or I. Do you think the Director of the CIA has a little more intel on the situation than anyone posting here?
We've been there for 10 years and have spent roughly $1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS which is consequently destroying our country's economy, wasting thousands of lives and making huge corporations richer.
Redman, previous incompetence is no excuse for current incompetence.
Gutshot John
03-26-11, 20:09
We've been there for 10 years and have spent roughly $1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS
Uhm, source please? That figure is grossly overstated. Maybe Afghanistan AND Iraq but I would bet that it's still less than that.
Uhm, source please? That figure is grossly overstated. Maybe Afghanistan AND Iraq but I would bet that it's still less than that.
Here's $1.121 trillion as of 9/2/10. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Time to go eat raw fish with the wife but I will find it and post it later.
And you are correct when saying it is both. I was responding to another poster when they said 10 years I assumed they meant both.
Gutshot John
03-26-11, 20:23
Here's $1.121 trillion as of 9/2/10. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Time to go eat raw fish with the wife but I will find it and post it later.
And you are correct when saying it is both. I was responding to another poster when they said 10 years I assumed they meant both.
Fair enough.
Uhm, source please? That figure is grossly overstated. Maybe Afghanistan AND Iraq but I would bet that it's still less than that.
Multiple sources indicating $1.6 Trillion dollars from 2002 - 2008:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SSR4U80&show_article=1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/14/iraq.usa1
Gutshot John
03-26-11, 21:21
Again that figure represents the GWOT, not just Afghanistan which is the figure I disputed.
That said, just a bit of google and averaging the estimates puts the $1.6T figure in dispute.
Your initial citation had a cost of $1.1T with an average cost of $10B a month over 8 months and you're not even close to $1.6T.
I've had to read AAR after AAR (Marine Corps and Army) in preparation for my BNs deployment next week and unless everything we're getting is inaccurate I think you're getting it slightly wrong. In several provinces the organized Taliban will only fight when they think they can win. They use the type of fighting that suits them (IEDs, snipers, harassing fire) and will bide their time until they find a weak spot and exploit it. One USMC platoon commander we spoke with got caught in an L shaped ambush and within a couple minutes the enemy was trying to roll up on his platoon.
You'll get the occasional 'tard who wants to jihad and spray his AK but by and large most of the easy targets have been killed already. They are not recruiting faster than we kill them.
It is entirely possible my information is out of date, it comes from guys who got out and are with me in the G.I. Bill "club" at school, a fair mix of officers and enlisted. The most recent is 3 or so years off deployment and he was field grade.
I stand corrected on the Taliban's degree of sophistication.
variablebinary
03-27-11, 05:11
Thanks for posting this, I wasn't familiar with this story. What a shame. I hope some good eventually comes out of this. Even a novice like myself knows that one should hold the high ground. Too bad we don't use Napalm any more.
This is not a new story, but I think more people need to be made aware of it.
I took an oath knowing full well there is a chance I could be killed, however, in taking that oath, I also expect my superiors to always be looking out for me and my fellow soldiers and not making decisions that will increase the chances of being killed.
Why set up an outpost where the enemy has 360 degree high ground positions where they can reign all kind of havoc down on your position; an prime example of what I regard as bad decision making.
Battle Of Wanat from Taliban perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC5vHuoKNs0
Battle of Wanat from American Perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMz9Tbu-B1I&feature=player_embedded
Vids are outdated, but at least we can get a glimpse of the sheer horror those soldiers had to deal with.
And no one be stupid. Do not underestimate these people. They may not have iPods and cable TV, but don't assume they don't know how to fight,
Officers neglect their duties, men die, army thinks there was a justifiable excuse.
Enlisted man takes inappropriate photo, world goes into a tizzy, criminal charges, long sentence.
Maybe I am over simplifying but I wanted to draw a contrast.
Cagemonkey
03-27-11, 09:09
Officers neglect their duties, men die, army thinks there was a justifiable excuse.
Enlisted man takes inappropriate photo, world goes into a tizzy, criminal charges, long sentence.
Maybe I am over simplifying but I wanted to draw a contrast.
Very true. Example, Officers get RELIEVED of their duties as a consequence of bad leadership or behavior. Enlisted men get Non Judicial Punishment or receive a Court Martial. One seems more forgiving or less harsh then the other.
Cagemonkey
03-27-11, 09:21
This is not a new story, but I think more people need to be made aware of it.
I took an oath knowing full well there is a chance I could be killed, however, in taking that oath, I also expect my superiors to always be looking out for me and my fellow soldiers and not making decisions that will increase the chances of being killed.
Why set up an outpost where the enemy has 360 degree high ground positions where they can reign all kind of havoc down on your position; an prime example of what I regard as bad decision making.
Battle Of Wanat from Taliban perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC5vHuoKNs0
Battle of Wanat from American Perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMz9Tbu-B1I&feature=player_embedded
Vids are outdated, but at least we can get a glimpse of the sheer horror those soldiers had to deal with.
And no one be stupid. Do not underestimate these people. They may not have iPods and cable TV, but don't assume they don't know how to fight,Its hard to believe in this day and age that US Military Officers could be so tactically inept and negligent. Calculated risk is one thing, near suicide is another. I can understand baiting ones enemy like we did in Khe Sahn, knowing that their was a plan in place to establish a Hammer and Anvil effect. This wasn't even comparable to Dien Bien Phu, this was just shear stupidity and unprofessionalism. Nothing can bring backs the US lives lost, but heads should roll. For all you active duty guys out their, stay safe and watch your ass because it seems no one else will.
Gutshot John
03-27-11, 09:22
I would submit that being relieved of command is in most cases far more punitive than most NJPs but Officers get court-martialed as well. Is a court martial justified in this case. It sure sounds like it as an Article 15 usually isn't the result of someone being killed.
I would agree that the "zero defect" mentality is unsustainable on both the enlisted level as it is on the officer level. Instead of acknowledging this they severely punish soldiers who might well deserve a second chance while systemically covering for incompetent officers.
montanadave
03-27-11, 09:34
A frequent complaint heard during the Vietnam-era was officers being rotated in and out of combat units to "punch their ticket" so as to allow them to continue up the promotion ladder.
Are we witnessing the same type of situation today? And is it happening with reserve officers, allowing them to retire at a higher pay grade? An acquaintance of mine did a six-month rotation through a field hospital in one of the neighboring 'stans and it allowed him to retire at the rank of full colonel, with an accompanying bump in benefits.
I don't wish to make unfounded accusations. I just want a clearer understanding of what's taking place in Afghanistan.
Belmont31R
03-27-11, 13:39
A frequent complaint heard during the Vietnam-era was officers being rotated in and out of combat units to "punch their ticket" so as to allow them to continue up the promotion ladder.
Are we witnessing the same type of situation today? And is it happening with reserve officers, allowing them to retire at a higher pay grade? An acquaintance of mine did a six-month rotation through a field hospital in one of the neighboring 'stans and it allowed him to retire at the rank of full colonel, with an accompanying bump in benefits.
I don't wish to make unfounded accusations. I just want a clearer understanding of what's taking place in Afghanistan.
Yes they still make the rounds.
Spurholder
03-28-11, 14:52
Are we witnessing the same type of situation today? And is it happening with reserve officers, allowing them to retire at a higher pay grade? An acquaintance of mine did a six-month rotation through a field hospital in one of the neighboring 'stans and it allowed him to retire at the rank of full colonel, with an accompanying bump in benefits.
Docs are done differently - especially in the reserve component. Having trained, experienced docs on the ground requires a little flexibility, and special treatment. So yeah - they get shorter tours, better quarters and more...and unless USUHS starts pumping out experienced surgeons by the dozen every month, we'll continue doing it.
Spurholder
03-28-11, 14:55
Heart breaking story of Wanat. Most of us are familiar with it, but the press continues to probe and try and determine why senior officers put these men in this location without proper support.
With the dad being a retired LTC, hopefully this doesn't just get swept under the rug.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/25/army-accused-of-covering-up-mistakes-in-afghan-battle/
Thanks for posting this. Wonder if CENTCOM will now do what it did in response to the "Collateral Murder" fiasco, and put the entire 15-6 investigation on their NIPR server for anyone to access?
A frequent complaint heard during the Vietnam-era was officers being rotated in and out of combat units to "punch their ticket" so as to allow them to continue up the promotion ladder.
Are we witnessing the same type of situation today? And is it happening with reserve officers, allowing them to retire at a higher pay grade? An acquaintance of mine did a six-month rotation through a field hospital in one of the neighboring 'stans and it allowed him to retire at the rank of full colonel, with an accompanying bump in benefits.
I don't wish to make unfounded accusations. I just want a clearer understanding of what's taking place in Afghanistan.
Reserve physicians do 90-120 day deployments every 18-24 months so that our civilian practices do not collapse. The danger is variable. For example, combat support hospital staff are very safe since they are on big FOBs. Field surgeon positions can get very hairy. Having said that, the director of U Penn's trauma program was killed on 12/24 in Mosul by a mortar that hit his quarters.
About 80% of the physicians are technically competent at their deployment job. Most of those who struggle were put in theater to fill positions that are completely different from their civilian practice (i.e. an internist filling a field surgeon slot with a high trauma volume that should be handled by an emergency physician). A small but significant number are incompetent and are hiding from civilian practice with frequent or back-to-back deployments. They get by in theater because the Army needs warm bodies, and their 90-days end before anyone realizes how bad they are. A very small number are allowed to committ daily malpractice because they are a protected minority - think Ft. Hood....
kaltesherz
03-28-11, 23:29
Perpetual war, does not, a warrior make.
What makes our military what it is is a professional NCO core, something these stooges don't have.
Most of what passes for "fighting" with these guys is taking their rifle out of its corner, humping up to a pre-assigned location, spraying a magazine or two (and maybe lobbing a grenade) in the general direction of whoever their enemy is that day while yelling, "Allahu Akbar!!", then going home (or getting waxed). They hardly engage in maneuver warfare. Terrain, time, birth rate, and ability to blend with the "friendlies" is why they outlast invaders.
The guys who exhibit more than that are usually moonlighting ANA we trained.
Of all the enemies we've faced historically, the Taliban/AQA are most closely akin to the Viet Cong. The VC's record of action against the U.S. military was awful.
But we are way OT.
I don't know what you saw in Afghanistan, but those that show up to Taliban Amateur Night don't live very long, and they know that. They've been fighting for 30 years and they're pretty damn good at it, and they should be: we trained and equipped them. They use tactics, sometimes our every own. Hell my old Squad Leader found a Ranger handbook when he searched an abandoned camp. They even bound. They fight when they know they have the advantage and walk away or blend in with the locals when they don't. They use IEDs because they're effective. They watch and they learn, sometimes incredibly fast. Remember, they don't have cable, so they'll watch you day and night and figure out your weaknesses. Sure, we still kill scores of them, but don't ever sell them short.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.