Samarra: soldier's e-mail devastates Pentagon's account

[Zebo]

Samarra: soldier's e-mail devastates Pentagon's account

"The convoy which was attacked while driving through Samarra was not a supply convoy as reported, but was carrying large amounts of new Iraqi currency to stock local Iraqi banks and US greenbacks used to pay for goods and services the US forces need to accomplish their missions in Iraq. This convoy was heavily guarded by Abrams Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. It was akin to a huge Brinks Truck delivery.

The reports of 54 enemy killed will sound great on the home front, but the greater story is much more disturbing and needs to be told to the American Public. When we received the first incoming rounds, all I could think of was how the hell did the Iraqis (most of these attackers being criminals, not insurgents) find out about this shipment? This was not broadcast on the local news, but Iraqi police knew about it. Bing, Bing Bing, You do the math.

Of greater importance in the scale of the attack and the co-ordination of the two operations. Iraqi Rebel Guerrilla Units elements still retain the ability to conduct synchronized operations despite the massive overwhelming firepower 'Iron Hammer' offensive this month.

Hack, most of the casualties were civilians, not insurgents or criminals ... During the ambushes the tanks, brads and armored Humvees hosed down houses, buildings, and cars while using reflexive fire against the attackers. One of the precepts of 'Iron Hammer' is to use an Iron Fist when dealing with the insurgents. As the division spokesman is telling the press, we are responding with overwhelming firepower and are taking the fight to the enemy. The response to these well co-ordinated ambushes was as one would expect. The convoy continued to move, shooting at ANY target that appeared to be a threat. RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] fire from a house, the tank destroys the house with main gun fire and hoses the area down with 7.62 and 50cal MG fire. Rifle fire from an alley, the brads fire up the alley and fire up the surrounding buildings with 7.62mm and 25mm HE rounds. This was actually a rolling firefight through the entire town.

The ROE [rules of engagement] under 'Iron Fist' is such that the US soldiers are to consider buildings, homes, cars to be hostile if enemy fire is received from them (regardless of who else is inside). It seems to many of us this is more an act of desperation ... We really don't know if we kill anyone, because we don't stick around to find out ... the logic is to respond to attacks using our superior firepower to kill the rebel insurgents. This is done in many cases knowing that there are people inside these buildings or cars who may not be connected to the insurgents.

The belief in superior firepower as a counter-insurgency tactic is then extended down to the average Iraqi, with the hope that the Iraqis will not support the guerrillas and turn them in to coalition forces, knowing we will blow the hell out of their homes or towns if they don't. Of course in too many cases, if the insurgents bait us and goad us into leveling buildings and homes, the people inside will then hate us (even if they did not before) and we have created more recruits for the guerrillas.

The Commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Colonel Frederick Rudesheim, said after this battle that 'We are going to continue to take the fight to this enemy. This is the most significant contact we have had to date in the city of Samarra. We are going to have to respond accordingly.'

This is a great attitude for a combat commander to have when fighting an armored force, but Colonel Rudesheim is not trained in Counter-Insurgency and my soldiers are taking the heat. We drive around in convoys, blast the hell out of the area, break down doors and search buildings; but the guerrillas continue to attack us. It does not take a George Patton to see we are using the wrong tactics ... Much of Samarra is fairly well shot up. The tanks and brads rolled over parked cars and fired up buildings where we believed the enemy was. This must be expected considering the field of vision is limited ... Not all the people in this town were hostile, but we did see many people firing from rooftops or alleys that looked like civilians, not the Feddayeen reported in the press. I even saw Iraqi people throwing stones at us, I told my soldiers to hold their fire unless they could indentfy [sic] a real weapon.

Since we did not stick around to find out, I am very concerned in the coming days we will find we killed many civilians as well as Iraqi irregular fighters. I would feel great if all the people we killed were all enemy guerrillas, but I can't say that. We are probably turning many Iraqi against us and I am afraid instead of climbing out of the hole, we are digging ourselves in deeper."

A Combat Leader

Text

 

[maluckey]

So you would blame a soldier under fire from a residence, when he shoots back? I guess that we all should teach our soldiers to allow the enemy three free shots before we respond.

While the account varies from the official one, I take this so-called nameless (and sourceless) "commanders" complaint as that of a disgruntled soldier, who doesn't know his place in the Army, and as such is suspect. If he was indeed a commander, then he could....gulp....command his troops not to fire at the potentially high civilian casualty target. He would then be forced to take whatever was thrown at him by the attackers who would then hide in schools, hospitals, and the like. Soon enough, U.S. casualties would result, and then the Peaceniks would scream. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you do, the peaceniks scream that you kill an innocent, and if you don't, they scream you lost a soldier. So this commander, frustrated about his job, fires off an E-mail, complaining about doing his job, via E-mail, which is non-secure, and againt policy. It's also against policy to give operational details to anyone outside of the chain of command, without approval from higher. I doubt that he had such approval.

War is ugly, messy, brutal, and kills. Soldiers of all people should recognize this. They also know that they have a Chain of Command, and internal ways of ironing out disagreements of policy. Wesley Clarks removal from his post in Kosovo was for doing just what this "commander" just did.

 

[Witling]

Maluckey. It's been my experience that the chain of command doesn't work for sh!t in these situations. You're likely to get back something like, "Gee, Pvt. Clod, we can't run the army just to suit you." The fact is that we've given 19 year olds some extremely powerful weapons. When they hear "bang," they start hosing things dow..

I agree with your statement about the nature of war. An extemely good reason for not engaging in one unless there is a need. As a peacenic, let me close with "How are those weapons of mass destruction coming along?"

 

[LunarRay]

The tactic used to 'fight' the bad guys in Iraq is perhaps the only one available to the good guy forces. It expects the civilians will force the bad guy from their homes and towns to fight in the desert. Well.. I doubt it will work. The Iraqi cannot just call it quits on their brothers in arms. They are forced by their historical belief system to render aid to their brethern even at the cost of their own lives. In fact, they believe it to be the will of Allah if they do die or lose their homes or whatever as so many of the links provided in this forum have indicated.
When Whitling was a boy, Francis Marion used similar tactics against the Red Coats as the Iraqi bad guys use now and with similar results. When you can't defeat an enemy in even combat you use asymeterical warfare. Peace in Iraq is for the Iraqi to gain. Their equilibrium will come when their actions merge with their faith. It may take a heavy Saddam like hand to keep internal peace. It is a much different culture than the West's and we can't hope to change it with dollars or our massive force. They are a poor people whose value is in God, their God and according to them, their God ain't ours.
I think the only way to win in this game is not to play.

 

[Witling]

Francis Marion, the swamp fox? I knew his brother well.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: maluckey
So you would blame a soldier under fire from a residence, when he shoots back? I guess that we all should teach our soldiers to allow the enemy three free shots before we respond.

While the account varies from the official one, I take this so-called nameless (and sourceless) "commanders" complaint as that of a disgruntled soldier, who doesn't know his place in the Army, and as such is suspect. If he was indeed a commander, then he could....gulp....command his troops not to fire at the potentially high civilian casualty target. He would then be forced to take whatever was thrown at him by the attackers who would then hide in schools, hospitals, and the like. Soon enough, U.S. casualties would result, and then the Peaceniks would scream. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you do, the peaceniks scream that you kill an innocent, and if you don't, they scream you lost a soldier. So this commander, frustrated about his job, fires off an E-mail, complaining about doing his job, via E-mail, which is non-secure, and againt policy. It's also against policy to give operational details to anyone outside of the chain of command, without approval from higher. I doubt that he had such approval.

War is ugly, messy, brutal, and kills. Soldiers of all people should recognize this. They also know that they have a Chain of Command, and internal ways of ironing out disagreements of policy. Wesley Clarks removal from his post in Kosovo was for doing just what this "commander" just did.

I think this thread is as much about the discrepency of the Official report and the Reality, then about the tactics themselves. When I first saw this on the news, Iraqi eyewitnesses said very much the same things as this "commander" has said, that being that the casualty count of Iraqi's was much lower and was mostly civilians.

Concerning the tactics: They seem intended as much as a security blanket then a useful tactic. High bodycounts, shows of extreme force, and bullet ridden or blown up buildings may seem to be effective to the American Public, but to the Iraqi they are a reminder and confirmation of a foreign power occupying their country. Anyone anywhere would seek to remove such a foreign force that shows such little regard for one's neighbours, family, friends, and countrymen.

 

[maluckey]

True! True! Whitling, but the person is question is not a Private, rather supposedly an Officer, and a Commander at that. Chain of Command is the lawful Military way to air grievances. Any other way is B.S., and should be dealt with accordingly. That's why the "commander" didn't give his name, rank, unit, or any sort of proof to back his claims. He knew it was wrong to go to the press, and he isn't worth much to his troops as a commander. A good Commander must be willing and able to do that which he expects his troops to do, or his effectiveness and credibility is lost. I guess that he expects his troops to break ranks and do as they please, if they are to follow their leaders example. This isn't a white collar business, and the faith of troops in their Commander is very important to life or death, not just an inconvenience and a little stress.

 

[LunarRay]

You are correct, maluckey. The perfect 'war machine' is one that is perfectly suited to the task at hand. A force who think only of the objective and execute it according to plan. The men must act like the machines and not allow any other influence to enter into their consciousness but their orders and training. The machines don't think but, the men do. They are us! Notwithstanding excellent training and all that goes with that, these men are feeling human beings unable to just pass off on the destruction of civilian collateral damage especially when they are told that is the objective.. to destroy anything that houses the enemy and dang the civilians cuz maybe it will stop the next one from happening. We ain't perfect war machines, us Americans. We don't mind waring on an army but, we don't cotton to waring on civilians even when they are aiding and abetting... something in our genetic make up, I guess. We are as we are and we'll suffer the consequences if our supreme commanders in the field don't consider the reality of the men under arms... all the realities. This is a war based on time. Iraqi folks know this and we know this. In time we, the civilian population, will force an end to what we don't like going on. It has already started. It is the reason for the tactic invoked. You know this and I know this and the Administration knows this. More importantly to them though is the date in November and how many of us will have moved over to the other side by then. It is the reason for the spin at home on all this.. it is as much a political war as a physical one. As I see it..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: maluckey
True! True! Whitling, but the person is question is not a Private, rather supposedly an Officer, and a Commander at that. Chain of Command is the lawful Military way to air grievances. Any other way is B.S., and should be dealt with accordingly. That's why the "commander" didn't give his name, rank, unit, or any sort of proof to back his claims. He knew it was wrong to go to the press, and he isn't worth much to his troops as a commander. A good Commander must be willing and able to do that which he expects his troops to do, or his effectiveness and credibility is lost. I guess that he expects his troops to break ranks and do as they please, if they are to follow their leaders example. This isn't a white collar business, and the faith of troops in their Commander is very important to life or death, not just an inconvenience and a little stress.

Did you read the article? Didn't think so.

This soldier didn't "go to the press". He sent an e-mail to retired Colonel David Hackworth. Hackworth says he knows the soldier and has followed his career for eight years. It is Hackworth who published the e-mail and Hackworth who is protecting the soldier's identity.

Re. your criteria for a "good commander", please show us where this man failed to do his job. He did what he was supposed to do. He just doesn't like it. He has regrets about the high cost in civilian casualties. He also seems unhappy with the way this incident was distorted by the Pentagon and Bush administration. Horror of horrors, this solidier is a human being with a conscience. No wonder you scorn him.

This story reminds me of stories that came out of Vietnam. We know now there were atrocities committed by U.S. forces during the Vietnam war. It took a lot of courage and moral character for soldiers to speak up about those atrocities. Sadly, then as now, some apologists will attack any soldier who shows this moral character, insisting a soldier's role is to blindly follow every order, not just without hesitation, but without thought.

No thanks. That would be a scary world.

 

[Tab]

Reguardless, this current tatic wont help them get any public support from Iraq.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: maluckey
True! True! Whitling, but the person is question is not a Private, rather supposedly an Officer, and a Commander at that. Chain of Command is the lawful Military way to air grievances. Any other way is B.S., and should be dealt with accordingly. That's why the "commander" didn't give his name, rank, unit, or any sort of proof to back his claims. He knew it was wrong to go to the press, and he isn't worth much to his troops as a commander. A good Commander must be willing and able to do that which he expects his troops to do, or his effectiveness and credibility is lost. I guess that he expects his troops to break ranks and do as they please, if they are to follow their leaders example. This isn't a white collar business, and the faith of troops in their Commander is very important to life or death, not just an inconvenience and a little stress.

Did you read the article? Didn't think so.

This soldier didn't "go to the press". He sent an e-mail to retired Colonel David Hackworth. Hackworth says he knows the soldier and has followed his career for eight years. It is Hackworth who published the e-mail and Hackworth who is protecting the soldier's identity.

Re. your criteria for a "good commander", please show us where this man failed to do his job. He did what he was supposed to do. He just doesn't like it. He has regrets about the high cost in civilian casualties. He also seems unhappy with the way this incident was distorted by the Pentagon and Bush administration. Horror of horrors, this solidier is a human being with a conscience. No wonder you scorn him.

This story reminds me of stories that came out of Vietnam. We know now there were atrocities committed by U.S. forces during the Vietnam war. It took a lot of courage and moral character for soldiers to speak up about those atrocities. Sadly, then as now, some apologists will attack any soldier who shows this moral character, insisting a soldier's role is to blindly follow every order, not just without hesitation, but without thought.

No thanks. That would be a scary world.

Yes, also should mention that the Nuremburg trials entrenched the idea of personal responsibility(following orders is not a defence). The Modern soldier must have a conscience and not be an atomaton(sp).

 

[Gravity]

Well said Maluckey!

 

[AndrewR]

Every report I read on the subject said that the convoy was carrying money to a bank or banks. First problem with this "revelation" of a letter. Second MAJOR problem is that many reports I read discussed how "civilians" were grabbing their weapons and joining the fight, which makes me wonder why this "combat leader" makes such a distinction between civilians and combatants when unofficial accounts of the battle blurred the line between those two camps. Most of his assertions are speculations on the probability of what happened, and one of his main implied ideas, that they should spend more time in the area to assess what happened, is only likely to get himself and others under him killed -- good idea. Third, and lastly, here's another unattributed Hackworth attack on U.S. military commanders, a tactic on which Hackworth-less (as he is sometimes called) has built his post-military career. More of the same.

 

[maluckey]

Bowfinger...I read it. I can't find any chain of command where Hackworth is part of the operation. The Commander must have known that Hackworth would go to the press. I call it accessible deniability at best.

This Commander had no business sharing operational data with someone not in the lneed to know. Even less business sending this data on a non-secured line. Hackworth had even less business sharing the contents of this questionable message. IG are the two letters this commander needs to know if his chain of command will not listen. Hackworth is not IG, or even active duty.

Lunar Ray, I wish it was that simple, that all people could just hug and be done with it. M. Begin once stated that the life of a soldier is a Paradox (I paraphrase), and that to make peace he must make war, and to stop bloodshed he must take lives.

It is the nature of war. It hasn't changed in thousands of years, and certainly not just because GWB is in office. Elect who you wish, but it won't change the way war is waged. People die, either yours, theirs, or sometimes both. While there are tyrants in the world, there will be war. I'm just glad that China, or Syria isn't the worlds only Superpower.

 

[LunarRay]

My issue is regarding just that... the reality of life. Here we have a soldier, an officer whose job is military. He is firstly human and as such he is subject to the human process. He is not a perfect war machine and should not hold the lives of others under him in jeopardy.. but, are there that many who could be the perfect war machine.. I've not seen any.. well.. save my BIL (USMA '70) but, even he has a thinking process not, I suppose, unlike our subject fellow here. He would probably not write to Hackworth but, would try to change the policy from within.. I suppose the higher up one is the more they feel they have the power to effect change.. our fellow wishes change but has not the power and for that reason he needs being clandestine.. or maybe it just relieves the stress..

 

[Dari]

I think AndrewR hit it on the head. Not only was the bank transfer well known, but civilians picking up arms lose their innocence. In that instance it becomes "kill or be killed." It's amazing how people here will believe anything so long as it tarnishes the military.

 

[Witling]

I don't think anybody "believes anything" that will tarnish the military. But the opposite side is to think that the military is always right. Like any large organization, the make mistakes and lots of 'em. The standard line is "They were firing on us." That's what they said when the tank blew out the 13th floor of a hotel loaded with western reporters, all of whom testified that there was no firing coming from the hotel.

I do agree, however, that if you pick up a weapon, you're on your own. I don't expect people in combat to attempt to make fine distinctions about whether someone holding a weapon is willing to use it.

 

[LunarRay]

The instinct to survive alone would cause me to shoot back at whoever held a gun.. and I've a bad aim..

 

[Zebo]

The problem I have maluckey Is this whole culture of spinning Fumbles into tuchdowns and leader even get promoted or thier lies.

 

[maluckey]

Zebo, for once I'm in agreement with you. I think it sucks when people spin things to suit them. It happens though, and you can either let it get to you, or try to change it without resorting to the same methods that the spin doctors use, knowing that at least you tried your best. Maybe I'm an eternal optimist, but I generally believe that some people will listen if you speak to them as adults. There are always those that act like three year olds, but they get theirs in the end. No person can remain a liar forever. eventually they are seen for what they are.