If the Commandant...

[nittany03]

I don't know what the maximum penalty for being stupid is per the UCMJ but I think these kids are about to find out.

If only:

Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134
Specification: In that Seaman Apprentice Joseph Schmuckatelli, USS NEVERSAIL (CVN-93), United States Navy, on active duty, did, on or about 12 January 2012, at or near Naval Station San Diego, California, wrongfully exhibit such flabbergastingly heinous stupidity as to render himself unfit for further consumption of oxygen.

 

[Brett327]

Exactly what they are doing. I'm just stating a fact. They are doing a very good job fighting the PR war. Worked in the past, and it will continue to work, no matter how transparent it is to a very few.

Transparent in what sense? Had you stopped to consider that some of the Afghan people we're trying to help might be horrified that their relatives/friends were killed then desicrated in the most obscene and offensive manner possible? Who among us wouldn't be?

This may just be a PR battle in your mind, far removed as it is from anything that happens on the ground in Afghanistan, but this war is up close and personal to a whole lot of Afghan people there who aren't insurgents or really even care about politics. They just know that their house got blown up and their childhood friend's dead body got pissed on by an American Marine. You can't divorce what you obviously perceive as a frivolous "PR battle" and the "real" one we're trying to win by getting these people to trust us and their national government. That fight is one in the same.

Brett

 

[jmcquate]

Transparent in what sense? Had you stopped to consider that some of the Afghan people we're trying to help might be horrified that their relatives/friends were killed then desicrated in the most obscene and offensive manner possible? Who among us wouldn't be?

This may just be a PR battle in your mind, far removed as it is from anything that happens on the ground in Afghanistan, but this war is up close and personal to a whole lot of Afghan people there who aren't insurgents or really even care about politics. They just know that their house got blown up and their childhood friend's dead body got pissed on by an American Marine. You can't divorce what you obviously perceive as a frivolous "PR battle" and the "real" one we're trying to win by getting these people to trust us and their national government. That fight is one in the same.

Brett

And that is the delicate balence of COIN. My personnel theory is we are not good at it becuase we were never a colonial power.

 

[Brett327]

Neither the British nor the French were very good at COIN either. They lost insurgencies in America, S. Africa, Afghanistan, Ireland, Indo-China, Algeria, etc, etc. Japan, while not technically a colonial power, did carry on long-term occupation of China, only to get it's ass kicked by Mao's insurgency. If you want to see a good example of where a nation was brought to the breaking point by an insurgency, then came back to successfully defeat it, take a look at Peru vs. Sendero Luminoso in the 80s and 90s.

Common theme in a failed COIN strategy: misapplication of force.

Brett

 

[jmcquate]

Malaysia? The basis of our successful COIN in Viatnam after 1969.

 

[MPH]

The thing is, if our strategy to combat terrorism is to create an Afghanistan with a functional government that is able to address the needs of its citizens, we've got to make that government a viable and attractive alternative to the Taliban. It's not that we're trying to win over the hard-core insurgents. We are in a tug of war with the insurgents for the loyalty of the everyday Afghan citizen who can choose between supporting the insurgency or the Afghan government. To the extent that we are associated with the Afghan government, the Afghan citizen's opinion of the US matters.

Brett

Why bother pretending we have the political will in this country to affect a positive result when we exit Afghanistan? 99% of Afghans are going to do what 99% of any nation would do: 1) Sit on the fence and play both sides 2) See who wins 3) Say you were on that side.

We're certainly not building permanent American bases in Afghanistan... and the President talks about it every day... everyone knows we're leaving. The only party with the strength to create even a farce of stability has announced it's abandoning them... They care less about us pissing on their people than they do about not pissing off the people who will be in charge when we're gone. They'll have time to be angry or forgive us (depending on who's in charge) after a few years when the smoke starts to clear.

 

[nittany03]

And that is the delicate balence of COIN. My personnel theory is we are not good at it becuase we were never a colonial power.

You could argue that if the colonial powers were any good at it, they might have remained colonial powers longer.

 

[Brett327]

Why bother pretending we have the political will in this country to affect a positive result when we exit Afghanistan? 99% of Afghans are going to do what 99% of any nation would do: 1) Sit on the fence and play both sides 2) See who wins 3) Say you were on that side.

We're certainly not building permanent American bases in Afghanistan... and the President talks about it every day... everyone knows we're leaving. The only party with the strength to create even a farce of stability has announced it's abandoning them... They care less about us pissing on their people than they do about not pissing off the people who will be in charge when we're gone. They'll have time to be angry or forgive us (depending on who's in charge) after a few years when the smoke starts to clear.

Because that's our nation's policy and we don't have the luxury of telling the CinC to fuck off because you think it won't matter in 2 or 3 years, so you can do whatever you please in theater. Fantastic attitude, shipmate.

Brett

 

[MPH]

Because that's our nation's policy and we don't have the luxury of telling the CinC to fuck off because you think it won't matter in 2 or 3 years, so you can do whatever you please in theater. Fantastic attitude, shipmate.

Brett

My point is that we're too busy worrying about the ketchup on our partners hotdog.

I don't think anyone doubts that's the policy, and needs to be followed. Or that pissing on anyone, alive or otherwise, is pretty fucking deplorable.

But how about we quit prattling about how these guys are losing hearts and minds, and stop patting ourselves on the back for putting our own guys in irons (which really won't change anyone's mind), and instead focus on policies to ensure a lasting security in the countries for which we've sacrificed so much blood and treasure. Flavor of the month news stories, and the 24 hour news cycle are making us miss the forest for the trees.

<Insert diminutive use of "shipmate" here>

 

[1rotorhead]

Anybody stop to consider that perhaps these guys were suffering from jellyfish stings and the Marines were actually trying to help them?

 

[Brett327]

My point is that we're too busy worrying about the ketchup on our partners hotdog.

I don't think anyone doubts that's the policy, and needs to be followed. Or that pissing on anyone, alive or otherwise, is pretty fucking deplorable.

But how about we quit prattling about how these guys are losing hearts and minds, and stop patting ourselves on the back for putting our own guys in irons (which really won't change anyone's mind), and instead focus on policies to ensure a lasting security in the countries for which we've sacrificed so much blood and treasure. Flavor of the month news stories, and the 24 hour news cycle are making us miss the forest for the trees.

<Insert diminutive use of "shipmate" here>

While I'll give you props for employing my favorite Harry Callahan line of all time...

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Nobody is suggesting that this incident is going to make or break the war -that die has pretty much been cast, but when you talk of "policies to ensure lasting security," what exactly did you have in mind? Maybe the best policy would have been to not get involved in a ground war in Asia, but thats not the policy that was taken 11 years ago. We have to live in the world we have, not the one we wish we had. Even if you believe that Afghanistan is a lost cause, we're going to have thousands of pink bodies crawling around there for years to come. Discounting the incremental effects of these types of PR incidents does a disservice to those having pot shots taken at them. To the extent that our best COIN strategies are, however imperfect, the best way we know of reducing the violence level in Afghanistan, every single incident that conflicts with that strategy detracts from the safety of our troops. Go read FM 3-24, then tell me with a straight face that this incident is "no big deal."

Brett

 

[Jim123]

Maybe the best policy would have been to not get involved in a ground war in Asia

And never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

Go read FM 3-24, then tell me with a straight face that this incident is "no big deal."

If you don't mind, I'll piggyback on this suggestion and say narrow it down to the second chapter (read the rest later).

 

[PropAddict]

Sebastian Junger had an interesting op-ed in theWaPo today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ng-the-enemy/2012/01/13/gIQAtRduwP_story.html

It's an old argument (and I like Arlo Guthrie's presentation better), but his crux is summed up nicely in the quote:

"There is a final context for this act in which we are all responsible, all guilty. A 19-year-old Marine has a very hard time reconciling the fact that it’s okay to waterboard a live Taliban fighter but not okay to urinate on a dead one."

For my part, I damned well knew the difference between strategic value and wanton desecration when I was 19 and I think it insults our junior troops to say they colectively don't.

 

[phrogpilot73]

It may be an old argument. But I think you picked the wrong quote, which sums up his article even better.

But of course they have dehumanized the enemy — otherwise they would have to face the enormous guilt and anguish of killing other human beings. Rather than demonstrate a callous disregard for the enemy, this awful incident might reveal something else: a desperate attempt by confused young men to convince themselves that they haven’t just committed their first murder — that they have simply shot some coyotes on the back 40.​

It doesn’t work, of course, but it gets them through the moment; it gets them through the rest of the patrol.​

​

I hate to admit, but those of us who have never faced ground combat probably don't understand what was going through their mind. This is the closest we'll ever come to explaining it.​

 

[Brett327]

Both interesting side of that issue. I guess in my mind, there's a distinction between understanding the psychology of an admitedly shitty situation, and using that understanding as the basis to condone the resultant behavior. We ask a lot of our military members at all levels of rank and expertise. I don't expect your MK 1 Mod 0 19 year old infantry guy to appreciate the finer points of international politics, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they stow the camera if they need to engage in coping mechanisms that are outside acceptable norms of behavior. I would guess that most people in their chain of command would be understanding if they saw this incident go down, but as soon as it enters the public domain, then everyone has to appear outraged, etc, etc.

Brett