October 4, 2006
A Soldier's Story -- Kory Turnbow on 'staying the course'
"Stay the course."
Did President Bush somehow forget to add "damn the torpedoes" before
issuing his favorite lamentable inanity?
Besides really being a political strategy (or, strategery, if you will) that
has failed to date with no sign of any uptick or turnaround, it's a cover-thy-ass bromide that is resulting in the public
viewing of greater presidential buttcrack--and what a delightful image that is!. More importantly, this
arrogant obliviousness is contributing to greater U.S. and Iraqi death
and dismemberment. We need good ol' Dr. Phil to march on the Oval
Office and pose the question he asks of guests whose actions and
behavior is resulting in on-going brick wall banging--"how's that
working for you?" But then again, those guests are seeking help out of
their personal quagmires, not simply ignoring their fate or being
supported by enablers.
Well, here's a soldier who has put his life directly in the line of
fire but doubtlessly now an unpatriotic one who hates America and now
deserves to be dragged through the streets of Mogadishu if the
Coulter/Malkin corps could snap their fingers and order it--of course,
they wouldn't personally partake in such an action as blood is sooooo
hard to get out of satin and lace:
"Soldier's Story essay by Kory Turnbow Publication Date: 9/27/06
I've been asked by
numerous friends and acquaintances since my return home in December of
last year what I think of the War on Terror, or the War in Iraq. I get
the impression that they are typically looking for a sound-bite reply,
like I can somehow sum up the situation as a "win" or "lose" like the
talking heads on the Fox News Channel.
I believe
Afghanistan will go down in history as a successful U.S. military
campaign and Iraq will likely go down as a modern-day Vietnam. People
think I'm crazy when I say this. After all, as one friend pointed out,
"What's the difference between them? Aren't they both Islamic
countries?"
...My other big
cause for concern at my level was never, and I repeat never, receiving
a coherent mission or intent statement for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
According to all the doctrine that I had been taught beginning in ROTC
and continuing throughout my military career, a soldier needs two
things to be able to do his job effectively. The first is a mission
statement. This should be a short statement consisting of who, what,
when, where, and perhaps most importantly, why we are doing what we are
doing. The second thing is the commander's intent. Essentially, this
boils down to what the commander would like to see happen, and tells us
his intended result. This helps clear the fog of war; lower-level
commanders and soldiers can make decisions that will help further the
commander's intent, even if the mission becomes unworkable.
Every mission and
intent statement I ever saw on this deployment was a huge Power Point
slide dissertation written by someone with too much time on his hands.
Not one meant anything to me as a commander, and I always tried to
create a clear, concise mission statement for my troops during the
various operations I sent them on. I don't fault my commanders, nor the
Division Commanders, or even the Theater Commanders. I believe that
this problem went all the way to the top, with perhaps our Commander in
Chief making it the clearest: "Stay the Course." In hindsight, perhaps
that's what those Power Point slides were supposed to mean after all
nothing.
During my stay in
Iraq, I began to hate the words "Stay the Course." After months (or
perhaps a year) of searching for what we were really doing in Iraq, I
finally heard what I was looking for from Brigadier Gen. Alan Gayhart,
the 116th Brigade Combat Team Commander. It was late July 2005, as I
recall, and he was addressing his Brigade Officer Corps as part of an
officer development program: "So long as the Iraqi Civil War doesn't
start here, on our watch, we will have been successful in our job." My
months of searching were at an end. It was at that point that I began
to question why we were even running missions at the pace we were
running them to begin with. After all, the patrols had become nothing
more than moving targets. They rarely captured any insurgents, and when
they did, they were released back on the streets again within days,
with $5 cash in their pockets for every day they spent detained
provided by the U.S. for the inconvenience of being detained...
...Based on my
experience in Iraq, the present strategy of withdrawing our troops as
the Iraqi Army and Police are able to stand up is not going to be
effective. This is because the Iraqi Ministry of Defense (MoD) and
Ministry of Interior (MoI) are horribly corrupt and not adept at
managing their resources. It is quite often that an employee or
minister will embezzle funds (provided by the U.S.) that would
otherwise be used for paying employees or buying equipment for the
security forces. Another favorite trick is to divert money to the
minister's own city, instead of spending it in other areas that might
require the funds more, due to an insurgent buildup in that area. But
the corruption doesn't stop there; it goes down to the provincial and
local levels in much the same manner. Perhaps the worst is at the local
level, where the local Sheik will attempt to (and be generally
successful at) installing commanders into his local IA barracks or IP
station who suit his political affiliation at that time. This leaves
the Iraqi troops on the ground with no other resource than their U.S.
advisors to keep them functional and apolitical."
To read the rest and please do because he offers insight I've never read about before on the planting of IEDs, go here.
.
top
RSS feed
|