| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| U.S. military punishes more officers for failures |
| 2010-02-05 |
| The U.S. military has reprimanded an unusually large number of commanders for battlefield failures in Afghanistan in recent weeks, reflecting a new push by the top brass to hold commanders responsible for major incidents in which troops are killed or wounded, said senior military officials. The military does not release figures on disciplinary actions taken against field commanders. But officials familiar with recent investigations said letters of reprimand or other disciplinary action have been recommended for officers involved in three ambushes in which U.S. troops battled Taliban forces in remote villages in 2008 and 2009. Such administrative actions can scuttle chances for promotion and end a career if they are made part of an officer's permanent personnel file. The investigations are a departure for the U.S. military, which until recently has been reluctant to second-guess commanders whose decisions might have played a role in the deaths of soldiers in enemy action. Disciplinary action has been more common in cases in which U.S. troops have injured or killed civilians. In response to the recent reprimands, some military officials have argued that casualties are inevitable in war and that a culture of excessive investigations could make officers risk-averse. "This is a war where the other side is trying, too," said one Army officer who commanded troops in Afghanistan and requested anonymity in order to speak freely. As many as five battlefield commanders have received letters of reprimand in the past month or have been the subject of an investigation by a general who recommended disciplinary action. A sixth commander received a less-severe formal letter of admonishment. None of the investigations or letters of reprimand has been released publicly. The reprimands come amid growing political pressure from lawmakers who have pushed the military to assign greater accountability for incidents in which large numbers of U.S. troops are killed or wounded. The Pentagon's top leaders — Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates — also have been quicker to dismiss senior officers, fostering a change in the overall culture. In 2009 they relieved the top commander in Afghanistan for his stewardship of the war. "The issue of holding people accountable is something Admiral Mullen watches very, very carefully," said a senior military official. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #5 If the Colonel can't figure out how to keep his Spec 4's from being killed, he needs to go. Sorry the job is hard under Obama. Succeed or resign. Those Corporals deserve the best. |
| Posted by: rammer 2010-02-05 22:57 |
| #4 OK, fine. Who is going to hold the flag rank lawyer-led REMFs responsible for the ROE that cause failures in the field? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-02-05 21:59 |
| #3 OTOH BHARAT RAKSHAK/MIL FORUMS > [US INTEL ingeneral]CIA ALLOWS ITS AGENTS TO MOONLIGHT, in order to stem serious Agency-internal probs wid "SPY FLIGHT" INCLUD LOW-PAY. The CIA = US INTEL wants Amer to believe that, despite allowing or tolerating "moonlighting", they can effec control their Agents-Employees from become subject to select ANTI-AGENCY, ANTI-MISSION/SCOPE, ETC. MALICIOUS PARTISAN INFLUENCES??? Read - turn TRAITOR, MAFIA, DOUBLE- or TRIPLE AGENCY, OTHER "FIFTH COLUMN" AGZ THEIR OWN AGENCY + COUNTRY??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-02-05 18:59 |
| #2 The battle at Combat Outpost Keating in Oct 2009 didn't seem to have much to do with restrictive rules of engagement. From the WSJ article cited elsewhere today on the 'Burg: The U.S. military decided to close the outpost in July and August 2009, but delayed the move because of other operations. Such a "mindset of imminent closure" prevented the unit from improving the outpost's defenses even as intelligence reports warned of a planned strike by "a large enemy force," Friday's report said. These inadequate defenses, in turn, have made Keating into "an attractive target" for the Taliban, the report added. Dozens of other vulnerable combat outposts, manned just by a few dozen soldiers, remain in Afghanistan. The report urged coalition commanders to assess "the value and the vulnerabilities" of each of these bases to prevent similar incidents in the future. I keep getting the impression that the military is trying to do too much with too little in Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-02-05 18:56 |
| #1 So Rules of Engagement make it impossible to shoot back at the Taliban. Now the top "brass" have decided to punish officers whose men get shot. Sounds to me like American Hater Obama ("The Commander in Chief's") dream of demoralizing the US military is coming true. |
|
Posted by: |