Many servicemembers, veterans, and civilians alike remain confused on what precisely is permissable if one wants to uphold "the law" (i.e. regulations). This confusion intimidates many servicemembers, who falsely believe they are not allowed a lot of things, simply because someone, somewhere, told them they signed away their constitutional rights by joining the Army.
I hope to set that straight with this: a reference guide to a few useful Army regulations.
Since the first thing everybody loves to hit IVAW on is wearing the uniforms at IVAW events:
30–1. Occasions of ceremony
a. As used in this regulation, the phrase “occasions of ceremony” means occasions essentially of a military character, at which the uniform is more appropriate than civilian clothing. These functions include, but are not limited to: military balls, military parades, weddings, and military funerals; memorial services, meetings and conferences; or functions of associations formed for military purposes, of which the membership is composed largely or entirely of current or honorably discharged veterans of the Armed Forces or reserve components. Authority to wear the uniform includes wear while traveling to and from the ceremony or function, provided the travel in uniform can be completed on the day of the ceremony or function.
Was this written for IVAW? In all honesty, I must confess no! This was probably written for organizations like the Audie Murphy society, or the VFW, or associations of certain units. But whether they intended it for us or not, the fact is that it still applies, and they cannot deny it to us without denying it to all. IVAW is an organization largely made up of active duty or honorably discharged veterans of the Armed Forces of active components. It holds many events at which the uniform is more appropriate than civilian clothing: such as ruck marches, military training simulations such as Operation First Casualty, etc. So long as the uniform is being worn correctly, this is entirely legal.
You will see this exhibited often for things like runs, as well, where without specific permission from the commander, Army soldiers will run in their PTs, simply because they can't imagine anything more appropriate for running than PTs. Or, for example, the Bataan Memorial Death March, which does not require you to receive permission from your commander, but allows active duty and veterans to attend in uniform-because it is an event essentially of a military character.
While your commander might no doubt sputter over this, the fact is that even though they are entirely different in his mind, they are not entirely different in the actual rules set down.
Then there's DoDI 1334.1(2005): Wearing of the Uniform
3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
3.1.1. At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended (reference (c)), as (long list exerpted)
IVAW has not been designated by the Attorney General as a group which is to be avoided. IVAW seeks to enable others to their rights under the Constitution, and is a patriotic organization.
3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.
If it is quite clear that there is no inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest, then this does not apply. I'm not sure who might think that the Army does sponsor IVAW members, as the Army's official policy is pretty pro-Iraq-war at the moment, but just in case, members are usually pretty clear to make the differentiation.
3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.
Once again, I repeat my commentary. The key words there, I believe are "Which may imply Service sanction of the cause". If the servicemember has taken actions to ensure that it cannot be mistaken for service sanction of the cause, they should be in the clear. The problem isn't servicemembers being political: it's them being perceived as an official movement. Of course, no one tries to do this to pro-war supporters. I don't notice that guy who spoke at a Bush rally getting prosecuted (and that falls under some other regs on partisan political activity, too!)
Now, I'm beat, I'm going to let all of you legal eagles try to pick this apart at your leisure. I need to sack out for a bit before work. I've got more to talk about, but it'll have to be later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
"So long as the uniform is being worn correctly, this is entirely legal."
Show me once where that is happening. I have yet to see it at a single IVAW event. Usually the flag is upside down (not in AR 670-10) and more often it is only the blouse. Usually the IVAW member in question is unshaven, does not button up the blouse. If you can show me once where I have complained about an IVAW wearing the uniform the uniform correctly, I will iddue an apology.
This is weak. Very weak.
Jesus, my typing stinks, but you get the idea.
It's not all about you, TSO! :)
That I can recall, you haven't complained about the uniform being worn correctly. I have been seeing it at IVAW events, but I also go to a lot more of them.
However, there are a lot of other blogs throughout the net which have complained about it, and people in real life. So, thus this.
I disagree with your entire premise right from the get go. So, why don't you show me where a "pro-war" troop wore his uniform at a rally? Bush events do not qualify, since he is in-fact the commander in chief. Which is also why when Nancy Pelosi invites soldiers to the State of the Union address they wear their uniforms.
But beyond that, you attempting to get IVAW to wear uniforms properly will be roughly as successful an endeavour as my moving the moon using only the power of my brain.
Army Sergeant
You need to look at the regulation, whose number I can no longer remember but was originally called The Guidance On Dissent. This should clear things up for you. Check the Sir! No Sir! archives for the complete text. It was ratified into general regs in 1996 and is so quaint and outdated it still talks about underground newspapers and I fear this section might be applied to blogs.
James
My time was in the part of the Army that gets dirty, so I never had a copy of AR 670-10, Furnishing Uniforms or Paying Uniform Allowances to Civilian Employees. I can't speak to what it says or doesn't say about the display of the flag. I am pretty familiar with Title 4 USC, however, which in Section 8 authorizes the flag to be flown upside down as a signal of dire distress.
As to uniforms, AR 670-1 authorizes the wear of the uniform at IVAW events, period. Incomplete or improperly worn uniforms and beards are a different issue entirely, and one to be dealt with administratively by chain of command. I'm confident that all active duty IVAW members are quite conscious of their status and wear the uniform flawlessly if they do decide to wear it at events. Most others probably aren't too concerned with getting rated "Excellence" under military bearing on their next NCOER.
Still, it amuses me to hear the fashion police scream. It's a weak scream.
"My time was in the part of the Army that gets dirty, so I never had a copy of AR 670-10, Furnishing Uniforms or Paying Uniform Allowances to Civilian Employees."
Yes, well I served as a leg, earning a CIB as well, and I got a copy of it at PLDC, and again a BNCOC. I didn't realize certain MOSs were exempt from the Regs, excepting Special Ops, so I assume you are either a D Boy or Greenie Beenie. So thanks for your service.
I see you've overlooked something. Check out:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf
Specifically,
4.1.1.3
Happy to help!
Grammatical point re quoted regulation:
3.1.3 has a comma after the word 'demonstration'. This means the clause coming after the comma is more in the way of explanation rather than a restriction. You cannot wear at the listed events because it might imply official endorsement, not "unless you think the event is outrageous enough that no one could possibly think it was endorsed".
You also left out para 3.1.4. IVAW in general and Winter Soldier in particular are intended primarily to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
3.2.3 governs former military personnel. No wearing entire or in part other than at specifically listed events. Which political rallies and protests are not.
ilo,
The correct citation is AR 670-1.
However, the real issue with AR 670-1 is not merely wearing the flag upside down in violation of para 28-18, but with para 1-10j(1) and (2)
Which anyone who passed a promotion board in the Army at any time in the past 50 years should be competent to look up. Unless you are too busy attacking someone's fat-fingering the regulation number to give a damn.
While screwing around the IVAW website, I noticed this picture.
http://ivaw.org/node/2719
Please explain how this gagglefuck of dirtbags wearing semi-random pieces of assorted uniforms can be represented by a professional Soldier as correct wear of the uniform. I hold my breath in anticipation.
Argh. It ate my damn comment on my own blog.
Anyway: a little less eloquently this time:
Just A Decurion, I do not believe the comma means what you believe it means. The Army doesn't generally include explanations just for fun in its regulations, and "Why That Is A Regulation" doesn't often make a regular appearance. The text is what it is.
Also, I do not believe that being a member of IVAW discredits the military service, and would be happy to defend that item at court-martial if required.
As to the issue of 3.2.3-you would be correct, IF 4.1 didn't authorize additional approval authorities for the wear of the uniform, said approval authorities which are the same authorities who approved AR 670-1, which in 30-1 takes a more lenient stance. This is legal, because they were permitted such leeway in the DoDI itself.
As for the photos of the ruckmarch: I never claimed that everyone in IVAW always wears all uniforms correctly: I simply said that when they did so, they are acting legally in certain situations. Also, admittedly the photo is grainy, but it looks like at least three members are wearing the uniform correctly, given that the cover they are wearing is authorized for field use iirc.
jad-
I disagree that IVAW in general and Winter soldier in particular are intended to bring any discredit at all upon the military. It disgusts me to see what is being done to the military by short sighted partisan concerns with extremely close ties to successful profiteers. The institution of the Army is the second biggest victim of this war, after the Iraqi people. Maybe this makes me a bad person, but as bad as I feel for the Iraqis I feel worse for my Army.
You mentioned that there are "specifically listed events" where the uniform is authorized for wear by former personnel. Anyone who passed a promotion board in the Army at any time in the past 50 years should be competent to look up those specifically listed events, but I'll help you out:
From 670-1, paragraph 30-1, subparagraph a:
"These functions include, but are not limited to... functions of associations formed for military purposes, of which the membership is composed largely or entirely of current or honorably discharged veterans of the Armed Forces or reserve components." Going out on a limb a bit, I'll mainain that specific permission in 670-1 constitutes authorization by competent authority.
I won't paste the text from paragraph 28-18, but I will ask you to read it again. Its only concerns are the location on the sleeve and that the star field faces front. Also read 4USC Section 8.
Yes, I mocked tso's fat finger a bit, but he didn't seem to notice it when he quoted me. It does look silly to see him claiming to have received two copies of that reg, though.
Still, both of you seem quite vehement about IVAW members not being in the proper uniform. That's great. It's also an issue for those individuals' chain of command to address. I was never bothered by other people not being in exactly the perscribed uniform, unless they worked for me. I'm still not. Regulations aren't laws, but are guidance for commanders, providing a default norm for behavior and procedure in the absence of specific orders. Being in an improper (according to regulation) uniform is not an offence against the Army as a whole, but simply a demonstration of what one's commander allows.
In the early years of this war, everyone over there was a gagglefuck dirtbag, according to you. We had brown uniforms, but not everyone had brown boots. Everyone had green vests, and just about everyone had green parkas. General Franks (yes, he's a dirtbag, but not because of his uniform) was regularly photographed wearing his ECWCS jacket liner as a jacket. It was mix and match and wear whatever you happened to get issued, if it happened to fit. We didn't have any fashion police with us.
Army Sergeant--
I can see arguing that at a meeting of IVAW, or a funeral, or something of that nature, falls under 30-1.
However, wearing it at protests, public demonstrations, interviews, marches, rallies, etc are specifically prohibited under 1-10j(1). And that's really what the IVAW was formed to do, and the source of the contempt directed at you.
Don't just cherry pick the regs, read the whole thing. Barracks room lawyering gets more privates in trouble, and you should know that.
And which three? The female in the second rank looks to be wearing soft shoes and a PT t-shirt, but it is possible that is just the craptastic photo quality and the angle of her foot. The rest are either definitely wrong, or obscured enough that I can't tell.
ilo--
point 1) If think you can take a US flag replica and face it upside down on the correct arm and keep the stars facing forward, you're welcome to try. Look at the stupid little diagram.
point 2) Article 92, UCMJ would seem to indicate otherwise.
point 3) B Co, 299 EN BN, 1st BCT, 4th ID. On-ground in Kuwait 01 APR 03. Operated out of FOB Omaha just outside Tikrit for most of the rotation. The blown-out Iraqi Air Force base we stayed in at first didn't rate a name. Don't lecture me on what things were like in OIF I. Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs. And yes, on the FOB we had uniform standards. You didn't bounce around in watch cap and soft shoes while in DCUs. You also didn't wear elements of civilian and military clothing together. Nor did you grow a beard. At least not in our battalion on the FOB. What happened on some of the remote OPs, stayed on some of the remote OPs.
point 3b) There is a world of difference between a combat zone and a political protest or march. If you can't tell the difference, see a competent mental health professional.
JAD-
If I were inclined to wear the flag upside down, I would simply get a patch intended for the left sleeve and voila! The star field is in the front. I'm not so inclined; I think it's stupid. It's not, however, disrespectful of the flag nor, it would seem, a violation of the reg.
Article 92 is a wonderful article. So is article 2. I did mention that IVAW members on active duty are aware of their situation and would likely be splendid examples of military appearance. Army Sergeant isn't the one doing the cherry picking here.
I didn't say we didn't have uniform standards- I said that our standard uniforms didn't fully comply with the reg, and that it was okay. I'll say it again: being in an improper (according to regulation) uniform is not an offence against the Army as a whole, but simply a demonstration of what one's commander allows.
You sure do load a lot of invective into a simple discussion about clothing. It seems your dislike of IVAW is motivated not so much by a firm belief in the administration's lies before the war, but mainly by some odd uniform fetish.
Oh, no. I disagree with IVAW. But that's one of the fun things about the Constitution that I swore to defend, people get to have what ever weird political beliefs make them happy. We can disagree all day long, and as long as no one starts a fist-fight that's all there is to it. I'm going to continue to fight in Iraq because I believe in the mission and because I don't see an alternative that doesn't have far more catastrophic consequences than continuing to do so. For the record, I've been twice for a total of 25 months and am about 90 days out from my third deployment. I've re-enlisted twice since March 2003, and both times it was in a combat zone. I put my money where my mouth is.
What I do despise and dislike is the increasing amount of political activity in the Army. There is going to be a certain amount regardless--an elected official is our CinC and more elected officials control our budget. But I believe that wearing uniforms to political protests in violation of Army and DoD regulations is not wrong merely because it violates regulations. It is wrong because it is part of increasingly polarized political activity in the ranks, and that is bad for the Republic in the long term.
Arguing that it is legal to do so under regulation when it clearly is not (AR 670-1 1-10j(1) and (2)) goes further down the unprofessional road, and I feel like pointing this out.
I note that no one has cracked a copy of 670-1, read the above-cited paragraph, and attempted to tell me that it is inapplicable to IVAW public protests in any way, shape, or form. This is an interesting and internet-specific approach to debate. When presented with facts, you attempt to change the debate. Original point was that it was legal under regulation to wear uniforms to protests. I said, "No, it says right here that it isn't legal." You say, "Well, breaking regulations isn't a big deal anyway." I say, "It is to active duty Soldiers covered by the UCMJ." You resort to accusing me of a uniform fetish.
I'll bet you were a real pain in the ass to your NCOs, and made Specialist at least twice. :)
Briefly as I can make it, because I'm packing out:
Just A Decurion:
The issue I see in the conflict between 30-1 and 1-10j is, what do you do when both apply?
For example, just to take one: there was an event last year where public demonstration and memorial service were one and the same. In such a situation, which portion of the regulations applies?
I think the ground is very murky on such items as 'Operation First Casualty' type tactics, or ruckmarches without signs or chants. (I don't think a ruckmarch is what is prohibited under 1-10j, especially given that ruckmarches and training for ruckmarches in uniform, especially for Bataan, happens every day.) As does the wearing of the uniform in runs-how many breast cancer runs, or leukemia runs, or (insert cause here) runs have you seen soldiers running while wearing PTs, even when not approved by specific authority?
As for which three:
1. Male, first squad, second soldier.
2. Male, first squad, fifth soldier
3. Male, second squad, fourth soldier is blurry, but looks correct albeit with lots of cold-weather gear
The soldiers or former soldiers in the back look correct also but you can see less of them, so I wasn't going to claim it.
On point 3b) Training for field environments is generally acknowledged to constitute field environment for the purposes of uniform, customs and courtesies, etc. Thus, a ruck march I could easily see falling under that provision. It's not a pretty parade.
You have an interesting point about increasingly polarized political activity in the ranks, though I'm not sure it's just emerging-I think it's been growing for a long, long time.
Also, I've never argued that breaking regulations is no big deal, and I've got GCMs and no UCMJ. Sorry to disappoint.
JAD-
I was a pain in the ass to my senior NCOs mainly because I pissed off a lot of officers. My senior NCOs disagreed with me but recognized where I was coming from. They also saw that that even while I was constantly trying to undermine the war effort, I was giving even more energy to our mission. I didn't lose any rank (it surprised me, too), mainly bacause the NCOs above me backed be when they were able to. The one time command really came gunning for me, they had an idea to try to get me to disobey a legal order. I obeyed it and they mostly gave up trying for me after that. I put my money where my mouth was, too- come ETS, I voted with my feet. Which Iraqi mission is it that you believe in by the way? Eliminating WMD, liberating an oppressed people or responding to 9/11?
I agree with you fully about political activity in the ranks being a bad thing- and it's bad for the military immediately as well as long term. The problem is that the war in Iraq is a partisan political activity that the military had dumped on it. It's bad for the military and the country and if I didn't point that out, I'd be complicit. Calling attention to a problem isn't the same thing as causing the problem. Speaking out is an effort to fix the problem.
I haven't been trying to change the subject, I've been trying to answer you. You did find a prohibition in 1-10. 30-1, pasted into the parent post, specifically authorizes the uniform for former members at events of groups "composed largely or entirely of current or honorably discharged veterans." Do you read the regulation to imply that those current soldiers are prohibited from wearing the uniform when specific authorization is given to people who aren't even in any more? 1-10 itself gives instructions on how the uniform should be worn in circumstances that 1-10 fails to specifically authorize.
You never said "It is to active duty Soldiers covered by the UCMJ." except in your most recent post, but we do agree on that. I said earlier that I expected active duty IVAW members to be in proper uniform. Breaking regulations can be a big deal, but being in an incomplete or mixed uniform doesn't seem to be. We still had uniform standards in the desert even though they didn't meet 670-1's requirements. Were we all bad people for adhering to standards given by our command? Individuals' uniform wear is generally something handled at a very low level without involving legal proceedings, and in the case of people not currently on active duty there isn't even a mechanism in place to deal with it (see Article 2, UCMJ). With such latitude given to even low level commanders to set standards and enforcement being an NCO issue, it looks like the Army itself sees it as a minor issue.
I'm sorry if I offended you with the fetish question, but the Army has a system in place to deal with this and you seem quite incensed that it isn't thorough enough. I'm sure you enforce uniformity as you see best, just like I did and just like Army Sergeant does. But these aren't your soldiers and it's not your reg, so leave it to their commands to enforce or fill out a DA Form 2028 with your reccommended changes and send it to HQDA. That's more constructive than simple name calling.
"The issue I see in the conflict between 30-1 and 1-10j is, what do you do when both apply?
For example, just to take one: there was an event last year where public demonstration and memorial service were one and the same. In such a situation, which portion of the regulations applies?"
I don't see a conflict. As far as I can tell, 30-1 requires the uniform to be worn correctly, in accordance with the remainder of the regulation. In other words, if you are going to wear the uniform under this paragraph, then you should wear it in accordance with the rest of the regulation. You get a haircut, shave the beard, and most relevant to this discussion, also refrain from the political activity that is prohibited under 1-10. Personally, if I were going to play this fine line-walking game, I'd get an opinion from JAG.
"Operation First Casualty" is a protest, street theater and imaginative, but a protest.
Adam Kokesh is pictured in a beard and the Washington Post quotes Geoff Millard as shouting, "How does occupation feel, D.C.?!" This indicates to me that 1) Correct uniforms were NOT being worn, and 2) It was intended as political protest. From the brief article I read, if you participated you can of course correct any mistaken impressions I might have. Besides, if you want to present it as a "simulation of training" the IVAW folks need to be humping the weight of gear that a Soldier would be humping in Iraq. Not boonie caps and no body armor.
As for ruck marches, well it depends. Slap a political message on it, and it's a protest. I would have to look at the specific event and the publicity that the IVAW chooses to associate with that event.
"You have an interesting point about increasingly polarized political activity in the ranks, though I'm not sure it's just emerging-I think it's been growing for a long, long time."
Yeah--at one time within living memory, Soldier's didn't so much as vote. I'm not sure that this was not a bad idea, when your Army is composed of long-service professionals. It's been changing for years. I personally step on political discussions at the office. I don't think that having Active Duty folks wearing uniforms at protests or political activities is a step in the right direction. By all means, participate in political process. Don't get the uniform involved in it.
Ilo:
Tone down the rhetoric a couple notches and we might have a conversation worth having. But I've been in Iraq a lot more recently than you have, and I have a different perspective.
As for characterizing this war as a "partisan political activity" that is simply so strange that I can't respond to it without an explanation of what precisely you mean. It's a sad commentary on the state of this country if we can't view a war through any other lens than a partisan one.
As for the rest of your comment regarding uniform regulations. I've said my piece on the subject, and you're tap-dancing at this point.
Just a Decurion:
For the record, JAG's opinion seems to differ according to who's in the office that day. An Army JAG officer told me that I was legally correct, at least until some commander wanted to specifically outlaw it and then it would be a legal battle. I'm told other JAG officers have given different answers. Hard to say. It really is a very fine line.
I did not participate in OFC, though I will point out that training in the States for combat in Iraq often also takes place sans body armor, especially enough for everyone at the same time. One could almost argue that they were realistically portraying the equipment-poor Army. I kid, I kid, but it's painfully true in many regards.
When I first came in, I tried to step on political discussions-primarily because they got so ugly. Now I don't, because I think they're necessary. But I do see what you mean-when a large segment of the population is voting based on who's going to give them more money/benefits/whatever they want, and the person who wins gets to make their pay, you have an interesting situation.
I'm primarily advocating the legal right for soldiers if they choose to wear their uniform at certain IVAW activities, and suggesting that if they do so, I would personally like to see correct uniforms, which are legal. I'm not saying all active duty should protest in uniform. I myself wouldn't even wear a uniform to a large scale protest march with signs, etc. It's a murky legal ground, and I will attest to the fact that it is REALLY easy to make a mistake when you're walking such a fine line.
JAD-
As briefly as possible: We invaded Iraq. Why? Our existing invasion plan was scrapped and remade on the fly. Why? The invasion plan, as executed, ignored stated reasons for the war and the considerations of the postwar. Why? The answers I come up with point to partisan political motives, not critical national interests. I'd be interested to hear the answers you come up with, and how your more recent perspective on Iraq fits into that context.
Tap dancing? I'm just looking at the enforcement policies of a reg that you're not satisfied with. Either submit your suggested changes to HQDA or show up at IVAW events with a bunch of blank counseling statements... or tone down your rhetoric.
"I did not participate in OFC, though I will point out that training in the States for combat in Iraq often also takes place sans body armor, especially enough for everyone at the same time. One could almost argue that they were realistically portraying the equipment-poor Army. I kid, I kid, but it's painfully true in many regards."
Really, it's not. I've served in 4th Infantry Division, 1st Armored Division, and now in 36th Engineer Brigade. At no time since 2003 have I seen a training exercise (or firing range for that matter) conducted without body armor. You're not making any points with this line of argument. I've got a little bit of knowledge of military history, and what I've seen fielded in this war blows my mind. Systems that didn't even exist as a set of requirements on a paper in the Pentagon in 2003 have now gone through four and five generations of upgrades. HMMWV armor has gone from M-998 soft-tops with no doors (mid 2003) to M-1151s with so much armor that it is starting to destroy transmissions. My wife is a National Guard Soldier and she has an IBA with SAPI plates.
"When I first came in, I tried to step on political discussions-primarily because they got so ugly. Now I don't, because I think they're necessary. But I do see what you mean-when a large segment of the population is voting based on who's going to give them more money/benefits/whatever they want, and the person who wins gets to make their pay, you have an interesting situation."
The Active Duty side of the house is a tiny segment of society and virtually meaningless in national-level elections.
"I myself wouldn't even wear a uniform to a large scale protest march with signs, etc. It's a murky legal ground, and I will attest to the fact that it is REALLY easy to make a mistake when you're walking such a fine line."
And that's the bottom line.
"We invaded Iraq. Why?"
Wrong question. It's no longer relevant. It was relevant 2002-2003.
We invaded Iraq 5 years ago this month. What is the current situation on the ground, and where do we go from here? That's the question I'm asking, and the things I've seen in Iraq make me believe that the counterinsurgency mission can be accomplished. Hence the consequences of continuing to fight are better than the consequences of withdrawing.
You can't unfuck. "Withdraw now" is neither military strategy, nor a birth control method.
And that's our most fundamental difference: Your main concern is how to best prosecute the war that we're in. Mine is whether the war is something we should even be involved in.
I'm in touch with your aversion to withdrawal, though- I still see it as our moral obligation to fix that mess no matter how much it costs us because it's our fault. It was only a few months ago that I changed my stance on withdrawal. Yes, massive force is required there to have any security at all, but as long as it's Americans holding those rifles then it won't really succeed. In the mission of pacifying Iraq, the US flag on the sleeves of the occupying force is a handicap that outweighs all of the capabilities that we bring. The fact that the soldiers are American makes it too easy for factions there to keep the violence going. We need to be replaced by other forces (and we should do what we can to fund them without them being seen as our stooges), but we won't succeed the way we're trying. Sure, we can hire all the insurgents we can find, but we can't hire all of them.
I'd also like to hold some people responsible for this mess, and my questions aren't irrelevant at all. You've got a more immediate focus, what with another deployment coming up, but they are important to the big picture- I'm not asking what we're doing in Iraq next week, I'm asking what we're doing in Iraq at all. No one has ever bothered to answer that.
"And that's our most fundamental difference: Your main concern is how to best prosecute the war that we're in. Mine is whether the war is something we should even be involved in."
I'm a Soldier and a citizen, not (primarily) a historian. My standpoint is that more important than historical analysis, we need to have a course of action for moving forward. Which I'm not seeing.
"I'm in touch with your aversion to withdrawal, though- I still see it as our moral obligation to fix that mess no matter how much it costs us because it's our fault. It was only a few months ago that I changed my stance on withdrawal."
The consequences of withdrawal are too great for it to be a viable option to me.
"Yes, massive force is required there to have any security at all, but as long as it's Americans holding those rifles then it won't really succeed. In the mission of pacifying Iraq, the US flag on the sleeves of the occupying force is a handicap that outweighs all of the capabilities that we bring. The fact that the soldiers are American makes it too easy for factions there to keep the violence going. We need to be replaced by other forces (and we should do what we can to fund them without them being seen as our stooges), but we won't succeed the way we're trying. Sure, we can hire all the insurgents we can find, but we can't hire all of them."
I served in al-Anbar Province. 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division. I knew CPT Travis Patriquin. What the hell do you think we were doing there? When we showed up in Ramadi, there were less than 70 Iraqi Police for the entire city of Ramadi. When we left, there were over 2,000. We ARE doing this, you're just not seeing it in the media. Which is why I say I have a perspective on things that you don't.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/how_to_win_in_anbar_v4.pdf
"I'm not asking what we're doing in Iraq next week, I'm asking what we're doing in Iraq at all. No one has ever bothered to answer that."
Again, it's what I refer to as an AAR comment. Half-way through the mission, I'm not interested. You can't unfuck.
Anyone who supports withdrawal needs to sell it to me. Anyone who believes we need to change course in Iraq needs to know what we are doing now, and tell me why their idea is better. Simply whining that we shouldn't be at war is not going to sell me anything, because it's five years too late.
"Wrong question. It's no longer relevant. It was relevant 2002-2003."
"Again, it's what I refer to as an AAR comment. Half-way through the mission, I'm not interested. You can't unfuck."
Now let me get this straight: My main question and two followups are inappropriate to ask because we're still in the middle of things and it's not time for an AAR yet... But at the same time they are irrelevant history?
Wow.
Keep tap dancing, buddy. You're doing an amazing job of it. When you settle on a truth that doesn't require dancing between different realities to sustain, we'll have something to talk about and I'll be able to respect you for something other than your tap dancing skills.
It is history--which is useful for AARs and compiling Lessons Learned (if America as a nation did this collectively, which it doesn't).
But it is irrelevant to the more important question of "what do we do in Iraq today/tomorrow/next week/next month/next year?"
Here's what I mean. If someone says we should withdraw immediately from Iraq, as is the stated goal of IVAW, then I ask "why" as the first question. If the answer has to do with "We should never have invaded in the first place," then the person advocating withdrawal is not arguing based on current situation on the ground. He's arguing based on what he wishes the situation is, or attempting to have an argument that should have happened 5 or more years ago. I dismiss that argument out of hand as irrelevant.
If, on the other hand, you wish to say that the United States should not invade Country X because of analogy to Iraq, then that is a different argument. I deploy it on a regular basis to point out the practical difficulty of, say, stomping a mudhole in Iran. That's the appropriate use of this argument. In action, it generally look like this.
"Look at the difficulty holding Iraq, and you want to invade a country with over three times the population? Stop smoking crack."
You've already told me that we should keep doing what we are doing and that withdrawal has significant negative consequences--so as far as I'm concerned you're in my corner. If you wish to say that you wish it had never happened, I agree up to a point. Lord knows I'm tired to being separated from my wife for these deployments. On the other hand, the world is a better place sans Saddam and Sons.
Is it improper for VFW members to wear VFW uniforms with DAV hats?
Thank you
In principle, a good happen, support the views of the author
i found this post good on army..
Post a Comment