Vietnam Re-Visited: The Public Feast of the Military

Today a new CNN story broke... and as we know, CNN stories get played over and over and over again, literally pounding the issue into our heads... the stories usually get re-played about every 30-60min. for at least 24 hours... don't get me wrong, I myself love the CNN format... but for all it's good points, it has one really big drawback: INDOCTRINATION.

This new story I speak of is about an unofficially released military video shot from the perspective of a pilot of a fighter jet, called in by U.S. ground forces to drop a precision-targeted bomb onto a group of insurgents that were fighting the U.S. ground forces. The video, obviously shot from the sky, shows a very large group of people moving down a street, spread out across the whole street and filling the width of it almost entirely... from my observation, I would guesstimate the total number of people to be 100-200 people. After the pilot was positioned over top of the crowd, he radioed down to his contact on the ground. I forget the specific title of that person's role (for all you Army grunts out there, please forgive my lack of understanding of your MOS's)... it was something like Combat Engineer or something along those lines... CNN explained that the soldier was located WITH the ground forces and his job entails visually confirming what the situation is on the ground before giving the "OK" to the pilots to drop the munitions. This particular soldier was queried by the pilot and was asked to confirm that the large group of people in front of them were the hostiles and to give the "OK" to take them out. The soldier on the ground gave his confirmation and approval. A few seconds later you hear the pilot tell the soldier, "10 seconds to detonate"... and roughly 10 seconds later, the bomb exploded exactly on top of the crowd.

Now here's the twist that is just being put out now in the media: the "experts" are asking things like "where was the 'Combat Engineer', was he on the ground with the forces or was he removed in some base??? How do WE know that those people were indeed threats??? Why would a large group of insurgents just gather in some big mass easy target in the street???" And other such questions are being asked by similiar so called "experts"... but the questions themselves aren't what I find so upsetting... it is the FORUM that these questions are being asked/presented in that I have a problem with.

You'd think we would have learned from Vietnam: we should NOT nit-pick and tear apart our military members in public forums... it doesn't contribute to anything except the morale decline of service members across all branches. In our societ, we have a duty to ask questions and debate issues, and military strategies should really be no exception... however, it is best to leave those debates to our nation's 'think tanks", our Congressional meetings, our Defense meetings, and other similar forums that are more or less "closed door"... and NOT put on the national and international news! The average American simply cannot understand the issues because the average American has never been in war, or even simulated war, and thus can't know what it's like to be in such a position that you feel calling in air support is your only choice. I have to a few combat fire simulators, and even though I knew that the sting of a bullet hitting me would only be temporary because it was actually just paint, being overwhelmed by the "enemy" really got the blood going! The average American is just too distanced from such a situation and really has no real perception of what it's like to be down there... to put such stories in front of them is just going to cause the public's support of our troops to decline to the low points of the Vietnam War. I believe it's irresponsible, unpatriotic, and yes, immoral.

Now, I don't pretend to have more weight and experience than these "experts"... after all, I don't know any of their backgrounds and my experience of combat was limited to being on a naval ship in the middle of the Persian Gulf and nothing even close to being a grunt. But, in support of those grunts, here's my two-cents on the issue: CNN confirmed that the Combat Engineer WAS INDEED on the ground WITH the forces under assault. They stated that that was normal procedure and that the job of the Combat Engineer is to be a set of eyes on the ground to provide visual verification of the situation at hand before giving authorization for air support. Now let me see if I get this right: This is this man's JOB... and he was there on the ground PERSONALLY WITNESSING what was going on... WHY ARE WE QUESTIONING HIM??? I mean, honestly... are we accusing him of LYING or being uncapable of doing his job??? What gives us, the American public, the right to question his integrity or his expertise??? ARE YOU A COMBAT ENGINEER??? Do you know ANYTHING about being a Combat Engineer??? No. So we have no grounds to question him, IN A PUBLIC FORUM... now, the experts have every right and duty to bring these things up in 'closed' forums (not necessarily closed, but it shouldn't be in the news).

Another one they asked: "Why would a large group of insurgents amass in the street with no cover and just walk down the street, open to getting gunned down???" Oh c'mon... are we really that naive??? I thought EVERYONE saw "Black Hawk Down"... yknow, in Mogadishu when the helicopter had crashed and huge large groups of violent citizens amassed in large groups in the streets without taking cover and began to travel down the streets towards the helicopter??? Put it another way... here's this large mass of people... and the U.S. ground forces are reporting that they are taking fire and call in air support... while waiting for air support to show up, certainly the ground forces are firing back in an effort to slow the advancing group... now, if this were a 'peaceful' group, wouldn't they all have ran, dispersed, and taken cover??? Of course they would have! This could more likely be an example that the 'trained' insurgents have suffered serious casualties and that they just don't have the numbers they used to... perhaps they are taking in large groups of 'untrained' recruits and just sending them on suicide missions that stand no chance of actual success... it wouldn't be the first time that this tactic has been tried in the Middle East... the Iran-Iraq war saw Iran utilizing this technique AS DE FACTO STRATEGY... Iran had a vastly larger population that Iraq and so could afford to send wave after wave of suicide marches against Iraq. That's another interesting parallel... the idea has been broached that these 'insurgents' are being created by Iran, and now we see an Iranian strategy possibly being utilized... but, I digress...

To sum it up: To bring these sorts of questioning attacks and levy them against our service members will only serve to demoralize them, and to instill anger in the American public against our military members. It serves NO other purpose. These sorts of questions should NOT be brought up the public media, as the "public" is not qualified to discuss these types of issues... it is wholly unfair to our men and women in uniform who are on the ground and whose lives are at risk 24 hours of the day every day... I believe those troops were indeed threatened and did what they felt had to be done to defend themselves. From the CNN report, it was apparent that they were not questioning whether or not established protocols had been followed. It is fair to question PROTOCOLS at whatever level, but not the specific actions of a unit under fire... it just isn't fair.

If as a Nation we don't refuse to entertain this line of thinking immediately, we will quickly decline and find ourselves in those dark days of the post-Vietnam era when G.I.'s were equated in many people's minds as "baby killers" and "warmongerers"...