You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Army told not to send Manning to Iraq
2011-01-29
WASHINGTON — Investigators have concluded that Army commanders ignored advice not to send to Iraq an Army private who's now accused of downloading hundreds of thousands of sensitive reports and diplomatic cables that ended up on the WikiLeaks website in the largest single security breach in American history, McClatchy has learned.

Pfc. Bradley Manning's direct supervisor warned that Manning had thrown chairs at colleagues and shouted at higher ranking soldiers in the year he was stationed at Fort Drum, N.Y., and advised that Manning shouldn't be sent to Iraq, where his job would entail accessing classified documents through the Defense Department's computer system.
So it was clear he had a problem, and unfortunately the Army screwed up.
But superior officers decided to ignore the advice because the unit was short of intelligence analysts and needed Manning's skills. The commanders hoped they could address Manning's discipline problems in Iraq, the officials told McClatchy, but then never properly monitored him. The result was a "comedy of errors" as one commander after another assumed someone else was addressing Manning's problems, one official said.

Investigators are now considering whether they should recommend disciplinary action against at least three officers in Manning's chain of command. Investigators must submit their findings to Army Secretary John McHugh by Tuesday.
Just like in the Fort Hood shooting case, people up the chain of command had concerns and didn't do anything -- or at least enough -- about it.
Investigators looking at Manning's case found that while the military had followed procedures in giving Manning a security clearance, more questions should have been asked about whether he should retain it once he displayed disciplinary problems.

At one point, Manning, who joined the Army in 2007, saw a mental health specialist, officials said, but it's unclear what came of that meeting. He was deployed to Iraq in 2009 and served there until he was arrested in May, shortly after the first WikiLeaks posting in April.
Wonder if the security clearance service knew about the mental health visit?
Manning, 23, isn't cooperating with investigators, and prosecutors still don't know how the hundreds of thousands of documents and files he allegedly downloaded reached WikiLeaks.
We may never know, but we can still hang him.
Posted by:Steve White

#13  So many of our problems in both Iraq and Afghanistan arose because Rumsfeld and company, plus many generals in the Pentagon and CENTCOM believed the US could not only conguer these nations but also reform their societies with a relatively small number of troops on the ground. They convinced Pres. Bush, and themselves, of this, and it is a seductive argument, its big selling point was that fewer troops on the ground was supposed to mean fewer dead soldiers.

I could be wrong, but I think the bolded part is contrary to everything we've seen in the history of military operations. Maybe he meant fewer dead enemy soldiers.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2011-01-29 17:42  

#12  There is no perfect. One of the lessons unlearned from the rebuild of the nadir in the 70s, is that its better to have an undermanned squad of 7 motivated and good soldiers out of 10 men, then to add two or three trouble children to fill the Unit Status Report check box on manning but who'll pull everything down.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-01-29 17:08  

#11  Thank you for explaining, Rifle308. And for what you and your team did.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-01-29 17:08  

#10  The problem of shortages of personnel, whether in absolute numbers or within MOSs, has came up repeatedly in my readings about US military disasters in Iraq. The fiasco at Abu Ghraib was due in part to a lack of enough MPs and senior soldiers to keep an eye on things, the horrible rape of an Iraqi 14 year old girl and the brutal murder of her whole family was lead by a bastard who got into the Army despite having a criminal record because the Army was short of enlistments (There is a book out reviewing the situation of the unit this bastard and his accomplices belonged to, it reports the unit had too few troops for the mission it was assigned, so they were over worked and there were leadership issues. This lead to low morale and discipline problems.), and now it comes out that Manning went to Iraq despite being unstable because there was a shortage of intelligence analysts.

So many of our problems in both Iraq and Afghanistan arose because Rumsfeld and company, plus many generals in the Pentagon and CENTCOM believed the US could not only conguer these nations but also reform their societies with a relatively small number of troops on the ground. They convinced Pres. Bush, and themselves, of this, and it is a seductive argument, its big selling point was that fewer troops on the ground was supposed to mean fewer dead soldiers. What it nearly meant was mission failure.

On a personal note, my two tours in Iraq, Fall 2003 to Fall 2004, and all of 2005 were examples of the shortage of people in general and Intel Analysts in particular. I changed MOSs when I went from the Regular Army to the Texas Army National Guard, from 11M to (then)96B. My first trip to Iraq was because the Division Rear of the 82nd Airborne did not have enough S-2 (Intelligence) folks. The 82nd had control of the Al Anbar area at the time. When I went back in 2005 (I volunteered) with another Texas Guard unit the Battalion I was assigned to had the FOB security mission as well as some VIP escort duty. The S-2 section at the FOB was one Intel trained LT , one intel analyst qualified soon to be E-5 sergeant (me), one enlisted trained on ground radar, and a cook. The cook was put in the S-2 section because she was a super fast typist. Fortunately both of the other enlisted had good heads on their shoulders so we did okay. We did 24/7 operations in the BN TOC with 2 shifts of 12 hours, two people on day shift and one on night shift. Every few months we rotated people between day and night shifts. Therefore, at times, one of these enlisted, the female cook for example, was virtually unsupervised for months on end while having complete access to the Secret Internet Network – just like Manning. Again, fortunately, both of those soldiers were not traitors.
Rifle308
Posted by: Rifle308   2011-01-29 16:58  

#9  one commander after another assumed someone else was addressing Manning's problems,
As the old saying goes. assume makes an ass out of u and me.
Posted by: tipper   2011-01-29 15:08  

#8  If he threw a chair at me, I'da wrapped it around the little flit's head...
Posted by: tu3031   2011-01-29 13:53  

#7  Old Spook, betcha there are a lot of servicemen (in certain categories) making trouble to disqualify from being deployed.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-01-29 13:35  

#6  Bottom line: some people screwed up, and the Army is going after them. More importatnly, Manning knew what he was doing was wrong, and did it anyway.

The little traitor should never see the light of day as a free man. reduction in rank to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 40 to life, with a bad conduct discharge at the end.

Posted by: OldSpook   2011-01-29 11:10  

#5  Whoever his 1SG and squad leader were, they dropped the ball bigtime if this little shitbird was doing things like that - he should have at least been counseled, formally, and maybe a company grade Art15 with extra duty. With those in place, the CO and Bn Cdr would have had much more firm means to deal with the little traitor.

Usually if something is sever enough to push beyond a company grade Article 15 (come to the BnCdr's attention), then that's when they pull your ticket.

Being weird is allowable in MI, we had one interrogator in our "Tactical Exploitation" unit who would talk to the flagpole at night from time to time, but was otherwise vary capable.
Posted by: OldSpook   2011-01-29 11:07  

#4  Commanders have a lot of responsibilities. It's voluntary, one can decline the assignment. If you don't want to do the job, then don't stop someone else who can and will. And yes, one of those jobs is to monitor the behavior of their troops. They rely upon the chain of command, but when one soldier exhibits abnormal and aberrant behaviors it's suppose to be get everyone's attention.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-01-29 10:27  

#3   The result was a "comedy of errors" as one commander after another assumed someone else was addressing Manning's problems, one official said.

And as we all know, commanders have nothing better to do than to monitor a enlisted man and his mental problems.
Posted by: badanov   2011-01-29 09:57  

#2  At one time assaulting co-workers and insubordination to superiors would have gotten unit discipline if not a dishonorable discharge.
Posted by: tipover   2011-01-29 02:34  

#1  But superior officers decided to ignore the advice because the unit was short of intelligence analysts and needed Manning's skills

Think a letter of the findings will be in the aforementioned superiors' personnel file for lookie when promotion and assignments come up. Nah, I don't think so either. Good old boyism triumphs over accountability.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-01-29 00:06  

00:00