PDA

View Full Version : US Army Captain uses some tactics not in the FMs.



BadKarma26
09-23-2004, 01:22 PM
On Ground in Iraq, Capt. Ayers Writes His Own Playbook
Thrust Into New Kind of War, Junior Officers Become Army's Leading Experts

By GREG JAFFE Staff Reporter, The Wall Street Journal

RAMADI, Iraq - In the space of four minutes in May, two Humvees in Capt. Nicholas Ayers's unit were hit by roadside bombs. In the chaos, one vehicle was left alone as soldiers, injured and under fire, took cover in a school and radioed for help.




By the time Capt. Ayers arrived on the scene, Iraqis had looted the Humvee's machine gun and high-tech gun sights. Losing equipment to the enemy is a mistake that can ruin an officer's career. Standard Army practice holds that the area should be searched immediately.

Instead, Capt. Ayers, 29 years old, took a risk. He went to the village sheik's house. As a sign of respect, he said, he wouldn't search the village. But he gave the local leader 48 hours to find and return the equipment. "If we don't get the equipment back, I am going to come back with my men and tear apart every house in this village," he recalls saying. If the gear was returned, he promised to reduce patrols in the area.

The gamble ran counter to Capt. Ayers's training, which states that the longer troops wait to search an area, the less chance they'll find what they are looking for. His bosses told him he had made a huge blunder. Two days later, though, the sheik returned every scrap of looted equipment to the Army. Later, he would pay a heavy price for that move.

"I was floored," Capt. Ayers says. "The incident made me rethink the tactics I was using, my relationship with the local sheiks. It made me rethink just about everything."

Fighting the volatile, growing insurgency in Iraq is putting increased responsibility on younger, lower-ranking officers, who are learning through improvisation and error. For the Army, the heavy reliance on officers such as Capt. Ayers is a significant change. As the war in Iraq has turned into a far different kind of battle than the Army expected, it is triggering major shifts in how the service uses and equips soldiers and remaking its historically rigid and hierarchical command structure.

In May 2002, before the Iraq war, a study commissioned by the Army's top-ranking general concluded "the reality in the Army is that junior officers are seldom given opportunities to be innovative, plan training or to make decisions; fail, learn and try again."

Earlier this summer, the same team, led by retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, concluded: "Junior officers have become the experts on the situation in Iraq, not higher headquarters." The fast-moving insurgency is forcing lower-ranking officers, who spend more time in the field, to take a more prominent role.

Sharing Knowledge

Captains are sharing lessons via e-mail and on Web sites such as www .companycommand.com. Subjects range from dealing with sheiks to teaching a heavy-armor unit, accustomed to fighting inside 70-ton tanks, how to patrol on foot with rifles. Lt. Gen. William Wallace has told superiors that officers returning from Iraq who attend the Army's elite Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., know more about counterinsurgency than their instructors. The change has forced instructors there to shift from traditional lectures to discussion-oriented classes. "This is entirely a bottom-up war. It is the platoon leaders and company commanders that are fighting it," says Maj. John Nagl, third-in-command of an 850-man battalion based nine miles from Fallujah.

It's a shift the Army never made in Vietnam -- the last time it fought an insurgency. In that war, the Army fought essentially as it had in World War II, with large formations commanded by senior officers and lots of firepower. Younger officers in the field advocated a different approach, involving smaller patrols and the training of local forces, but the Army rejected such ideas, says Maj. Nagl, who wrote a 2002 book on insurgencies.


More From WSJ.com


· Kerry Takes Risk in Shifting Focus to Iraq
· Firm Finds Gold Recycling 'E-Waste'
· Junior Officers Write Playbook in Iraq


Maj. Nagl concludes the Army was "organizationally disposed against learning how to fight and win counterinsurgency warfare." Recently the Army's top officer, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, gave copies of Maj. Nagl's book "Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam," to all his four-star generals.

When Vietnam ended, the Army didn't significantly change its way of operating. Instead, it was eager to return to its roots and prepare for more-conventional battles against the rigid Soviet Army. In 1987, Col. Robert Leicht, then a professor at the Army's Command and General Staff College, set out to teach a class on counterinsurgency warfare. He visited the Army's John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School in North Carolina, looking for lessons from the Vietnam era. "The old graybeard there told me that in 1975 he was told to get rid of all the Vietnam stuff," Col. Leicht says.

'Pathological Resistance'

Today, some question whether the Army is changing fast enough. Bruce Hoffman, who served as a senior U.S. adviser in Baghdad on counterinsurgency this year, says the U.S. military has shown an almost "pathological resistance" to adapting to the demands of guerrilla fighting. Like many experts, he says the Army's success in Iraq will depend largely on the ability of officers on the ground to come up with new solutions to defeat the insurgency. Battling guerrilla warfare depends less on firepower, and more on human intelligence, cultural sensitivity and reconstruction.

"The big challenge the Army faces is harnessing the experience of the young field officers and incorporating it into training and doctrine," Mr. Hoffman says.

Army officials say the service is adapting to new demands. Gen. Schoomaker says the Army is in the midst of the most wide-ranging changes since World War II, aimed at better preparing it for the kinds of wars it is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I've compared this to tuning a car engine while the engine is running, which is not only a complex task but dangerous as well," he said recently.

In Capt. Ayers's sector, in the heart of the Sunni triangle, locals nicknamed him "Mosool Kabeer" or "Big Chief." In addition to running raids and patrols, his duties have included overseeing a 200-man Iraqi police force and millions of dollars in reconstruction projects. Earlier this year, local guerrillas felt so threatened by him they distributed fliers in town offering a reward for his assassination.

The vast geography of the region is one reason young officers are given such latitude to innovate and make decisions. Capt. Ayers is one of four company commanders who report to Lt. Col. Thomas Hollis, whose battalion is responsible for about 1,500 square miles. In the kind of warfare he was trained for -- using tanks, heavy artillery and air power -- his unit would cover one-tenth of that area.




"I tell my captains you have to understand the inner workings of the communities in your area," Col. Hollis says. "You have to figure out who the key leaders are, you need to know who their relatives are, and what businesses they are involved in."

Capt. Ayers and his peers are far less influenced by the Army culture that has long viewed firepower-intensive, tank-on-tank battles, like the 1991 Gulf War, as the epitome of land warfare. Many of today's captains were in junior high school when the 1991 war was fought. Capt. Ayers, the son of a Vietnam veteran, grew up in Southern California, and went on to attend the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Before coming to Iraq in August 2003, the defining event of his career was his deployment to Kosovo.

In Kosovo, Capt. Ayers was in charge of four small towns, populated by a total of about 4,000 people. Based on his experience there, he knew he had to figure out who was in charge of the area. In Kosovo, that was easy. Each town had a mayor. In Ramadi, there is a confusing network of more than 100 tribes, subtribes, sheiks and subsheiks. Loyalties shifted. "I quickly learned that everyone here likes to say they are in charge," he says.

To get a grip on who was really running things, Capt. Ayers sent his men out with a survey. He asked the locals who their top sheik was and then crosschecked the answers against what the sheiks were telling him.

Capt. Ayers also set out to win over his sector's police force. Because local police know the culture, speak the language and are aware of age-old grudges, they are far more likely to spot the enemy. When Capt. Ayers first asked the Iraqi police to patrol with his men, they told him they wanted nothing to do with Americans. After weeks of fruitless negotiations, he cajoled two patrolmen into his Humvee. Between midnight and 1 a.m. they drove through his sector's empty streets, as Capt. Ayers tried to assure them they could work together.

He met with the police chief, Lt. Col. Mohammed Saleh Taher, almost daily, shared meals with his family and got vehicles, guns and body armor for his men. Soon Capt. Ayers convinced the police chief to fire anyone who refused to patrol with the Americans. Desperate for a paycheck, the Iraqi police climbed into the U.S. Humvees.

Brutal Attacks

The public cooperation drew brutal attacks from the insurgents. In January, they murdered Col. Mohammed and three of his bodyguards at the colonel's home. Two days later, they attacked the police station, killing five more Iraqi police officers.

After the murders, Capt. Ayers handed out crisp $100 bills to the families of Col. Mohammed and the bodyguards so they could bury their dead. Most of the families were poor, some living in houses with broken windows. "Col. Mohammed was a good friend of mine," he said, as he handed out the money and expressed condolences. "We are working to make sure that whoever did this will not get away."

Col. Mohammed's family told him that the police chief's second-in-command had played a role in the chief's murder. Capt. Ayers believed the second-in-command was involved with the insurgency. He felt safer dealing with the third-in-command, Col. Mohammed's brother -- even though locals and other police officers said the brother had a drinking problem and had been extorting money from his men in exchange for promotions.

"I knew [Col. Mohammed's brother] wouldn't have me killed and I couldn't say the same for the alternatives," says Capt. Ayers. Working with Col. Hollis, he arranged to have the second-in-command transferred to a city near the Syrian border. Despite suspicions, there wasn't definitive evidence that the man had been involved with the murder of Col. Mohammed or the insurgency. No one has been arrested for the killings.




The murdered colonel's brother was promoted to chief of police, even though locals complained he continued to extort money from his officers.

"How much corruption is too much?" Capt. Ayers asks. "That's something they don't teach you before you come here."

Capt. Ayers took lessons from his fellow captains. In April, Capt. Jesse Beaudin convinced a friend from the U.S. to send backpacks, notebooks and pencils for schoolchildren. Kids mobbed troops for the goods whenever they went out on patrol. "The kids provided security. No one attacked us when we were surrounded by children," Capt. Beaudin says. After hearing about this tactic at the dining hall, Capt. Ayers's men also wrote home requesting school supplies.

The battalion's captains also worked together to fashion a solution to attacks on supply convoys. In April, the attacks were so severe that some military fuel sites in western Iraq were down to two days' worth of fuel. Units were running low on water and food.

Most of the convoy attacks began with a remote-detonated roadside bomb. The Army had long assumed most of the bombs were laid at night. Capt. Ayers sent out small teams of snipers with night-vision equipment to pick off people planting bombs. They couldn't find any.

Talking with fellow company commanders, Capt. Ayers guessed that the bombs were being laid during the day. He theorized the locals were too scared to stop the insurgents or to turn them in to the Americans. Capt. Ayers asked his boss, Col. Hollis, if he could pull some his troops out of the villages and post them on highway overpasses around the clock. Instead of trying to catch the insurgents, he would try to deter the attacks with an overt presence.

The roadside bombs stopped almost overnight. In May, Col. Hollis ordered his other company commanders to adopt the same approach. Since then there hasn't been an attack on the 38 miles of highway overseen by the battalion -- a huge change from April when the U.S. was losing a service member to injury or death on the stretch every 36 hours.

Although the tactic has been effective, soldiers hate sitting for hours and watching traffic. They worry that cutting back on neighborhood patrols has given insurgents free rein in town.

On a recent day, Capt. Ayers and his troops jumped in their Humvee and raced toward a giant column of smoke rising near the police station. Insurgents in a white Opal sedan had fired into an Iraqi truck that had been hauling equipment for the Americans. When the wounded truck driver pulled over, insurgents set the vehicle on fire.

At the scene, Capt. Ayers picked up the spent shell casings to identify the weapon the insurgents used. He interviewed witnesses and studied the skid marks the truck had left on the road. The Army had never trained him for detective work, but he picked up these skills on the job.

When the fire was extinguished, the charred truck was towed to the police station. The next morning, insurgents launched a rocket attack on Capt. Ayers's base. The barracks' windows were blown open, but no one was hurt. A similar attack in May killed eight soldiers. Later the same day, insurgents lit the charred truck, still parked in the police department's lot, on fire again. The terrified police didn't try to stop them.

Capt. Ayers went back to the police station and confronted the new police chief, Maj. Khalid Ibrahim, who had been appointed by the new Iraqi Interior Ministry. (The previous chief, whose appointment Capt. Ayers had arranged, had been transferred for firing his pistol at one of his officers and demanding money from his officers.)

"How could you let this happen?" Capt. Ayers asked Maj. Khalid, pointing to the still-smoldering truck.

"I am very sorry," the 50-year-old chief said.

"You don't need to apologize to me, you need to do better," Capt. Ayers replied.

The chief promised to step up patrols in the area where the rockets were fired.

Back at his barracks, surrounded by pictures of his wife and two children, ages 1 and 2, Capt. Ayers seemed to be looking for something positive in the day's events. The new chief is an improvement over his predecessor, he said. "Every day that Iraqi police station is still standing is a victory. It is a small bastion of government control," he added.

Last week, after 12 months in Iraq, Capt. Ayers returned to his home in Kansas. He's prepared a tome full of advice for his replacement. In the book are histories of the local sheiks and tribes, their grudges and fleeting alliances. There is a section on funeral etiquette.

He also wrote a section on the sheik who helped him get the machine gun back. A few days after the incident, insurgents, angry that he had aided the Americans, murdered the sheik's son. "I thought if he had enough influence to get the stuff back, he also had enough influence" to protect his family, Capt. Ayers now says. "I was wrong." Capt. Ayers says he advised his replacement to handle the sheik with deference.

Capt. Ayers, who was recently selected by the Army to teach at West Point, has begun to think about how a young soldier could prepare for what he's been through. Before deploying to Iraq, he and his soldiers fought a giant mock tank battle at the National Training Center. It wasn't helpful.

Instead, he says, "I guess I'd drop soldiers in a foreign high school and give them two days to figure out all the cliques. Who are the cool kids? Who are the geeks?" he says. That would be pretty close to what he has been doing in Iraq, he says, with one big exception: There would also have to be people in the high school trying to kill the soldiers.

Uncle Sam
09-23-2004, 02:39 PM
Good read. Unconventional war, requires unconvential tactics.

Trident-za
09-23-2004, 02:40 PM
Very interesting, thanks.

Fintin
09-23-2004, 02:43 PM
Good read. Unconventional war, requires unconvential tactics.

good to see that we are learning...my country rocks

kinghk
09-23-2004, 02:58 PM
Instead, Capt. Ayers, 29 years old, took a risk. He went to the village sheik's house. As a sign of respect, he said, he wouldn't search the village. But he gave the local leader 48 hours to find and return the equipment. "If we don't get the equipment back, I am going to come back with my men and tear apart every house in this village," he recalls saying. If the gear was returned, he promised to reduce patrols in the area.



Threatening to destroy the property of civilians is not exactly a human kind of warfare.

Pandy
09-23-2004, 03:03 PM
Instead, Capt. Ayers, 29 years old, took a risk. He went to the village sheik's house. As a sign of respect, he said, he wouldn't search the village. But he gave the local leader 48 hours to find and return the equipment. "If we don't get the equipment back, I am going to come back with my men and tear apart every house in this village," he recalls saying. If the gear was returned, he promised to reduce patrols in the area.



Threatening to destroy the property of civilians is not exactly a human kind of warfare.

and shooting up our troopers and stealing the ARMY'S property is not really good also... he just played fire with fire... and it worked.

kinghk
09-23-2004, 03:12 PM
Instead, Capt. Ayers, 29 years old, took a risk. He went to the village sheik's house. As a sign of respect, he said, he wouldn't search the village. But he gave the local leader 48 hours to find and return the equipment. "If we don't get the equipment back, I am going to come back with my men and tear apart every house in this village," he recalls saying. If the gear was returned, he promised to reduce patrols in the area.



Threatening to destroy the property of civilians is not exactly a human kind of warfare.

and shooting up our troopers and stealing the ARMY'S property is not really good also... he just played fire with fire... and it worked.

What separates the US army and the Iraqi insurgents is that the US army is supposed to act civilised. Threating to destroy the entire village because someone stole US property is not a civilised act. What would you have said if the cops threaten to destroy your neighbourhood because some dumbass stole something from the police?

East
09-23-2004, 03:31 PM
You have a very valid point KingHk, and I agree with you. But the Army had to get their equipment back, if they had of just done a search right away they may have not retreived it. So by doing what he had done then there would be some kind of definite kind of retribution if they didn't comply, which would make them think twice before doing it again. They push...then push back. I can't say whether it was right or wrong but it definitly was effective.

Uncle Sam
09-23-2004, 03:33 PM
Instead, Capt. Ayers, 29 years old, took a risk. He went to the village sheik's house. As a sign of respect, he said, he wouldn't search the village. But he gave the local leader 48 hours to find and return the equipment. "If we don't get the equipment back, I am going to come back with my men and tear apart every house in this village," he recalls saying. If the gear was returned, he promised to reduce patrols in the area.



Threatening to destroy the property of civilians is not exactly a human kind of warfare.

and shooting up our troopers and stealing the ARMY'S property is not really good also... he just played fire with fire... and it worked.

What separates the US army and the Iraqi insurgents is that the US army is supposed to act civilised. Threating to destroy the entire village because someone stole US property is not a civilised act. What would you have said if the cops threaten to destroy your neighbourhood because some dumbass stole something from the police?

It's military equipment. This is not some neighborhood in Iowa, this is a war zone. He never threatened to destroy anything..."If we don't get the equipment back, I am going to come back with my men and tear apart every house in this village"

Tear apart is a figure of speech meaning search thourougly.

Ayura
09-23-2004, 03:34 PM
This is a two way argument, and noone is going to win.


Personally, I can see both sides of whether it is right or not. But, at the end of the day, they get there equipment back, and everyone goes to sleep.

Trident-za
09-23-2004, 03:44 PM
Tear apart is a figure of speech meaning search thourougly.

I take it you haven't personally had much experience with searching in an "enemy" village? I've been involved in lots of them, and they generally involve... well, tearing things apart. The bad guys tend not to "hide" stuff in plain view.

Just saying....

P.S. It can be a very **** experience too... not much fun watching a marriage break up because your search for weapons found a stack of ****o mags :( (well, I didn't enjoy it anyway)

Gatling
09-23-2004, 03:58 PM
Bluff, maybe, or was he serious? I guess we'll never know, but so long it has worked out okay, I have no problem with that.

AFACadet
09-23-2004, 04:31 PM
This is excellent. I was hoping I would start seeing things like this.

Most of you don't know that we fought this war already, but 100 years ago. The situations and complexities were the same, the conventional war ended just as fast, but the real war started after. HQ had no idea what was going on, and Washington D.C. was trying to fight the war from their desks. Men were getting killed by countless insurgent attacks and it was hard to see who were the friends and who were the enemies. bruital public executions of village members by insurgents kept them in line and caused them not to help the Americans. Tribal fighting between the groups was common. This war took place in the Philippines, and while most of you have heard the spun history of that war, almost no one has studied how it was fought, the conditions, and the people--Iraq is a mirror image.

We were floundering in the Philippines until a few things happened.

1. Washington D.C. and the generals stopped trying to fight the war, and Lts or Capts were given command of 4,000 or 12,000 people (both troops and villages). As the article states, these men knew what their individual villages were like. They knew the local conflicts and rival tribes. The knew how to work their individual villages most effective and the tactics best used for that area.

2. Because of the above, the situation started turning around. We eventually won in the philippines, not because of vastly superior firepower or strength, but because the individual villages began liking the Americans better than the insurgents or rival fighting tribal members.


If the US starts embracing this same policy of letting the local commanders take control and do what needs to be done for that individual area, the situation in Iraq will slowly start resolving itself--not overnight, or even over a couple months, but it will happen.

Trident-za
09-23-2004, 04:38 PM
Good post, AFACadet.

Hearts & Minds VS Brute Force? I'm really glad the more blood-thirsty members of this forum have nothing to do with planning.... hopefully a few of the top guys in the US have studied history too.

Uncle Sam
09-23-2004, 04:40 PM
Tear apart is a figure of speech meaning search thourougly.

I take it you haven't personally had much experience with searching in an "enemy" village? I've been involved in lots of them, and they generally involve... well, tearing things apart. The bad guys tend not to "hide" stuff in plain view.

Just saying....

P.S. It can be a very **** experience too... not much fun watching a marriage break up because your search for weapons found a stack of ****o mags :( (well, I didn't enjoy it anyway)

Um, Yeah I do actually. I was in the U.S. Army.




Tear apart is a figure of speech meaning search thourougly.

I was being facetious...

fa·ce·tious

adjective

1. supposed to be funny: intended to be humorous but often silly or inappropriate

Just in case you didn't know what facetious meant. :P

Trident-za
09-23-2004, 04:44 PM
I know what it means, perfectly well. But your post of a bit silly (not humorous at all). Sorry, but it had nothing to do with reality.... I responded to that, didn't realize you were trying to be "funny".

Uncle Sam
09-23-2004, 04:46 PM
I know what it means, perfectly well. But your post of a bit silly (not humorous at all). Sorry, but it had nothing to do with reality.... I responded to that, didn't realize you were trying to be "funny".

Maybe you should've asked first, huh?

Trident-za
09-23-2004, 04:50 PM
I know what it means, perfectly well. But your post of a bit silly (not humorous at all). Sorry, but it had nothing to do with reality.... I responded to that, didn't realize you were trying to be "funny".

Maybe you should've asked first, huh?

Maybe I should have.... but it seemed like a pretty serious thread, and your response seemed serious. Want to take this ensuing personal issue to PM, instead of ruining a good thread ? I'd be much happier to do it that way.

Uncle Sam
09-23-2004, 05:02 PM
I know what it means, perfectly well. But your post of a bit silly (not humorous at all). Sorry, but it had nothing to do with reality.... I responded to that, didn't realize you were trying to be "funny".

Maybe you should've asked first, huh?

Maybe I should have.... but it seemed like a pretty serious thread, and your response seemed serious. Want to take this ensuing personal issue to PM, instead of ruining a good thread ? I'd be much happier to do it that way.

No need. Both points were made. Movin' on. Cool?

Trident-za
09-23-2004, 05:08 PM
Yeah, fine :)

East
09-23-2004, 06:54 PM
Congradulations gentlemen you've just avoided a potential flame war. I for one salute you. (serious post with a humourous delivery) Just so I dont confuse anyone.

Durandal
09-23-2004, 07:00 PM
The military needs to get ever drop of information out of this guy because HE represents the future.

He was trained using doctrine that has not chAnged too much since fall of the Soviet Union. There needs to be a 180 degree change and this one that will lead it...or help it...or both.

Burncycle
09-23-2004, 07:58 PM
Improvise, adapt, overcome :P

He resolved an issue without further loss of life on either side. That's tact.

I'm so tired of soldiers doing something well, and then their own people do everything they can to bust them for it.

Pardo's push (the guy who saved his wingman by pushing his F-4 out of harms way over vietnam). The other thread about the british being charged for murder (for shooting an Iraqi who was attacking them). This situation. It happens all the time.

If he had screwed up, and things didn't work out, then maybe he should get busted, yeah. That's a risk he, as an officer and leader, gambled with and won. If he had failed, he still would have taken responsibility for it; that's his job.

Over and over you see instances where unorthodox methods are the best methods. This type of action should be commended, a perfect example of thinking outside the box and getting the job done.

Searching the "immediate area" after an IED attack is a good way to get more troops killed. This officer's lateral thinking not only opened a more secure line of relation and communications with the influential local community, he's made the american position in the area better in the long run for it. We lack cultural understanding and HUMINT, and without that, we won't be winning those "hearts and minds".

Give him a freakin medal.

szr
09-23-2004, 09:28 PM
Instead, Capt. Ayers, 29 years old, took a risk. He went to the village sheik's house. As a sign of respect, he said, he wouldn't search the village. But he gave the local leader 48 hours to find and return the equipment. "If we don't get the equipment back, I am going to come back with my men and tear apart every house in this village," he recalls saying. If the gear was returned, he promised to reduce patrols in the area.



Threatening to destroy the property of civilians is not exactly a human kind of warfare.

and shooting up our troopers and stealing the ARMY'S property is not really good also... he just played fire with fire... and it worked.

What separates the US army and the Iraqi insurgents is that the US army is supposed to act civilised. Threating to destroy the entire village because someone stole US property is not a civilised act. What would you have said if the cops threaten to destroy your neighbourhood because some dumbass stole something from the police?What separates the US Army from the Iraqi insurgents is that the US Army is expected to fight with both hands tied behind its back.

And good work, Capt. Ayers.

kinghk
09-25-2004, 05:34 PM
Instead, Capt. Ayers, 29 years old, took a risk. He went to the village sheik's house. As a sign of respect, he said, he wouldn't search the village. But he gave the local leader 48 hours to find and return the equipment. "If we don't get the equipment back, I am going to come back with my men and tear apart every house in this village," he recalls saying. If the gear was returned, he promised to reduce patrols in the area.



Threatening to destroy the property of civilians is not exactly a human kind of warfare.

and shooting up our troopers and stealing the ARMY'S property is not really good also... he just played fire with fire... and it worked.

What separates the US army and the Iraqi insurgents is that the US army is supposed to act civilised. Threating to destroy the entire village because someone stole US property is not a civilised act. What would you have said if the cops threaten to destroy your neighbourhood because some dumbass stole something from the police?What separates the US Army from the Iraqi insurgents is that the US Army is expected to fight with both hands tied behind its back.

And good work, Capt. Ayers.

The US army liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Liberators don't use mafia-tactics to solve problems, thats something occupiers do. Yes, Capt. Ayers did get his equipment back, but the cost was a total loss of respect for the US Army for the people in this village. I guess it's better to loose a maching gun than pissing off a village, perhaps the next time Capt. Ayers show up in the village, the locals will open fire at him.

szr
09-25-2004, 05:40 PM
I guess it's better to loose a maching gun than pissing off a village, perhaps the next time Capt. Ayers show up in the village, the locals will open fire at him.They won't do it with Capt. Ayers' machine gun.

kinghk
09-25-2004, 05:43 PM
The US army liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Liberators don't use mafia-tactics to solve problems, thats something occupiers do. Yes, Capt. Ayers did get his equipment back, but the cost was a total loss of respect for the US Army for the people in this village. I guess it's better to loose a maching gun than pissing off a village, perhaps the next time Capt. Ayers show up in the village, the locals will open fire at him.

They won't do it with Capt. Ayers' machine gun.

So? There is no lack of firearms in Iraq, a lost machine gun is a piss in the ocean.

szr
09-25-2004, 05:45 PM
The US army liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Liberators don't use mafia-tactics to solve problems, thats something occupiers do. Yes, Capt. Ayers did get his equipment back, but the cost was a total loss of respect for the US Army for the people in this village. I guess it's better to loose a maching gun than pissing off a village, perhaps the next time Capt. Ayers show up in the village, the locals will open fire at him.

They won't do it with Capt. Ayers' machine gun.

So? There is no lack of firearms in Iraq, a lost machine gun is a piss in the ocean.You miss the whole point. It's all piss in the ocean to you.

kinghk
09-25-2004, 05:49 PM
So? There is no lack of firearms in Iraq, a lost machine gun is a piss in the ocean.You miss the whole point. It's all piss in the ocean to you.

Well, explain to me what the point is then.

szr
09-25-2004, 06:00 PM
So? There is no lack of firearms in Iraq, a lost machine gun is a piss in the ocean.You miss the whole point. It's all piss in the ocean to you.

Well, explain to me what the point is then.The point is the second you make it seem like they can engage in activities to the detriment of the US, and go uncontested, you've lost any influence you may have had. They will walk all over you.

American Patriot
09-25-2004, 06:02 PM
Liberatees don't steal machine guns from liberators

Durandal
09-25-2004, 06:17 PM
The US army liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Liberators don't use mafia-tactics to solve problems, thats something occupiers do. Yes, Capt. Ayers did get his equipment back, but the cost was a total loss of respect for the US Army for the people in this village. I guess it's better to loose a maching gun than pissing off a village, perhaps the next time Capt. Ayers show up in the village, the locals will open fire at him.

Actually, there is nothing in this article to suggest your "opinion".

Quite the opposite.

This is fairly similar to the laws in Pakistan when the national government deals with the outlying tribes.

If the government is after a criminal or terrorist and the individual in question was seen taking refuge in a village the leader of the village is told to surrender/deal with the bad guy or have the entire village arrested.

They, as in this situation, are given a choice between doing the right thing and being allowed to go on, life as usual, OR doing the wrong thing and suffering as a result.

Is it heavy handed?

Yeah.

Is it necessary?

Unfortunately, yes.

The Cpt.'s remarks were not threats. It was a reality. Return the gun which one of your people stole (an illegal and immoral act) a choice of good.

Or...

Keep the gun, proving to us you cannot be trusted and you lack the morals you claim to have and thus identify you and your village as a place of criminals, and give us reason to search for it.

He did not threaten to level the village, rape woman and children, or set mosques aflame. He and his men would have gone door to door, doing a search, tossing each room of each house. Yes, it would have been disruptive to daily life, yes, people would have been scared, and yes some things might have been broken.

The reality though is that you either do the right thing or the bad thing. The Captain decided to do the right thing. Give them a choice.

In conflict human beings to do not have the luxury to act as they would in a civil society where laws are respected and police men do not worry about having their police station car bombed.

We need more people like this intelligent and commonsense Captain.

NcDeuce
09-25-2004, 06:18 PM
The US army liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Liberators don't use mafia-tactics to solve problems, thats something occupiers do. Yes, Capt. Ayers did get his equipment back, but the cost was a total loss of respect for the US Army for the people in this village. I guess it's better to loose a maching gun than pissing off a village, perhaps the next time Capt. Ayers show up in the village, the locals will open fire at him.

They won't do it with Capt. Ayers' machine gun.

So? There is no lack of firearms in Iraq, a lost machine gun is a piss in the ocean.

I suggest you re-form your opinion. You lose a weapon at any time, whether it be during training or combat, your ass is grass. Then again, you are probably not in the military. I'd love to see someone try to explain that losing your M4 is "piss in the ocean" to a company First Sergeant, CSM, or OIC.

kinghk
09-25-2004, 07:35 PM
This is fairly similar to the laws in Pakistan when the national government deals with the outlying tribes.



So? Although this custom might be used in other countries as well, it doesent meen that its good.




If the government is after a criminal or terrorist and the individual in question was seen taking refuge in a village the leader of the village is told to surrender/deal with the bad guy or have the entire village arrested.

They, as in this situation, are given a choice between doing the right thing and being allowed to go on, life as usual, OR doing the wrong thing and suffering as a result.

Is it heavy handed?

Yeah.

Is it necessary?

Unfortunately, yes.

The Cpt.'s remarks were not threats. It was a reality. Return the gun which one of your people stole (an illegal and immoral act) a choice of good.



The goal does not justify the way you use to solve things. Stealing equipment is ofcourse a criminal act, but thretning to have a razzia in the entire village is not much better. Most civilised nations have laws where the police is entitled to get a search warrant to have razzias in a house. Why should the Iraqis not have the same rights as you have?




Or...

Keep the gun, proving to us you cannot be trusted and you lack the morals you claim to have and thus identify you and your village as a place of criminals, and give us reason to search for it.



What would you say if the police in the US used the same tactics on your neighborhood?

kinghk
09-25-2004, 07:40 PM
I suggest you re-form your opinion. You lose a weapon at any time, whether it be during training or combat, your ass is grass.



Generalization, this might be true in the US miitary, but not neccesarly in all of the world armed forces.




Then again, you are probably not in the military.



True, I have finished my military career.




I'd love to see someone try to explain that losing your M4 is "piss in the ocean" to a company First Sergeant, CSM, or OIC.

Losing a weapon in peace time is unacceptable, but losing a weapon after a firefight in a war zone is something else. I would have understand the use of this tactic if the capt. had lost a tactical nuke or something, but not because of one machine gun.

Javehn
09-25-2004, 08:04 PM
The US army liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Liberators don't use mafia-tactics to solve problems, thats something occupiers do. Yes, Capt. Ayers did get his equipment back, but the cost was a total loss of respect for the US Army for the people in this village. I guess it's better to loose a maching gun than pissing off a village, perhaps the next time Capt. Ayers show up in the village, the locals will open fire at him.


Someone should pay a visit to a middle east ... :lol:
All what you say is very valid ... In other side of the globe .
I am not shure which country you came from , but it's likely to get familiarised with the menthality . People in middle east respect strong people . They respect people who speak strongly . That doesn't mean they will not respect someone who speaks softly , but as first encounter you should show your toughness . Otherwise , they will consider you spineless person . It's pretty funny for me at list to hear your opinion , because the kids of this villadge would play soccer with guys (in the meaning , that they will piss on them and disrespect them ) that would act the way you suggest . You think it's cruelty for the captain to speak like that ? For them it shows that you are the person not to fuk with . Any other approach on this matter would drag very very different outcomes then you suggest . To considered as a dirt that can be ignored is not the situation you would like , and it's the opposite of hearts and minds - that captain would loose his respect , in a place were respect is a big deal . All the captain did is a simple "Honnor game" , when one side pushing other side with words (you understand that the captain will not really flat the villadge) , and they see who will last longer under the threats . The man who won the honnor game is a serious and respectable person . If the captain would come and would nicely ask , it is possible that he would be pissed upon . You should give respect , but demand respect as well , and you will be respected . This is the way it was spoken and acted there for centuries , and they are cool with it . And the Captain both gave respect (he will count on Mofti to bring the weapon and not search villadge in first 24 hours) , and demanded respect (played honnor game) . He did well , pretty well .

And yes , loosing weapon is pretty serious deal . This captain can smoke cigi outside his camp and get shot by the same pistol or whatever he lost just yesterday to some fanatic kid . Remember , you are not talking war here . It's partly stabilisation mission partly low intencity conflict , and different set of rules (somewhere in between wartime and training condition) . You have to interact with the same civilians from day to day , which one of them can be armed with your own pistol under the shirt . What Army you served ? I presume European country with possible UN missions ? Dude , I have to tell you respectfully that hugging and loving attitude will not work everywhere in this world .
I say , personal initiative . At last some officers in Iraq start to get it . Some problems demand non regular solutions . Infact , the hard words of that officer saved them from firefight , just like that .

Durandal
09-25-2004, 09:09 PM
The goal does not justify the way you use to solve things.

Actually, in some cases it does. This was in NO WAY an extreme case. Get that through your head.



Stealing equipment is ofcourse a criminal act

Hmmm...I guess you have had experience with one of your men losing a weapon and then dealing with the consequences of another or several dying from that same weapon, used by murderers? It is NOT JUST a criminal act. It goes beyond that.



but thretning to have a razzia in the entire village is not much better.

Oh, come off your high horse. You have the F*CKING gall to try to make moral equivalents!!!???


Most civilised nations have laws where the police is entitled to get a search warrant to have razzias in a house.

*snort* You honestly believe it is that cut and dry? You do realize that the choice is actually a step up from what they used to enjoy? Right? If they had stolen a machine gun from the Iraqi army they would have had a death squad in there. They, however, got a choice...give us the gun or get searched...not lined up against a f*ucking wall and shot.


Why should the Iraqis not have the same rights as you have?

Iraqis are guaranteed whatever rights they have in THEIR constitution. Hell, the rights I have in the UNited States differ from a whole host of nations.


What would you say if the police in the US used the same tactics on your neighborhood?

Of course not, we have a constitution that protect us from such intrusion...and laws. We are also a nation that has PEACE between its people. There are no truck bombs going off daily. There are no Canadians and Mexicans filtering across the border to wage a holy war, capture civilians and cut off heads. We also have a police force that does its job. OUR civilians obey the laws and when they do not, a curfew is established and anyone on the streets gets arrested.

Comparing Iraq to the United States is such utter tripe I begin to wonder if you are simply not baiting us rational folk.

The problem here is that you consider certain things absolutes and from that absolute you judge everything without consideration of the reality of that region.

Iraq is NOT Western Europe. It is not Japan. It is not the United States. It is Iraq. it is a place of turmoil, chaos, and destruction, with islands of peaceful existence here and there. You cannot wage a conflict against this enemy using methods you would use in Chicago or "hometown, USA" because Iraq is not those places and to make them equivalents is fallacy.

vryhpyammoadded
09-25-2004, 10:13 PM
We were floundering in the Philippines until a few things happened.

1. Washington D.C. and the generals stopped trying to fight the war, and Lts or Capts were given command of 4,000 or 12,000 people (both troops and villages). As the article states, these men knew what their individual villages were like. They knew the local conflicts and rival tribes. The knew how to work their individual villages most effective and the tactics best used for that area.

2. Because of the above, the situation started turning around. We eventually won in the philippines, not because of vastly superior firepower or strength, but because the individual villages began liking the Americans better than the insurgents or rival fighting tribal members.


If the US starts embracing this same policy of letting the local commanders take control and do what needs to be done for that individual area, the situation in Iraq will slowly start resolving itself--not overnight, or even over a couple months, but it will happen.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
Ah, hierarchical bureaucratic paralysis, the officer initiative lockstep. Micromanagement sucks! The main reason I left the Army way back when. Well that and the X. Anyway…
I cannot agree with you more but, can this become doctrine in these days of www, satellite phones and battlefield networking? Then again, war does have a way of filtering out the ****’s leaving those with agile, pragmatic minds to lead the way. We can only hope.

Rakki
09-26-2004, 12:27 AM
....When the captain threatened to "tear apart every house" he wasn't talking about getting a bulldozer in and flatten the village. He was telling the sheikh that if those equipment weren't returned, then he's gonna come back in FORCE and if they didn't like the patrols in the street, those patrols are going to be IN THE HOUSE.

So the sheikh had two choices - and either way, the Americans are going to get their kit back - but in one of those ways, every house in the village was going to be searched from top to bottom with much wailing and gnashing of teeth and possibly breaking of furniture.

BadKarma26
09-26-2004, 12:59 AM
I think the point of the article is that field grade and junior officers are interacting with the village leadership in order to create better relations. The captain in the article used diplomacy rather than force in order to get the weapons back.

iflu
09-26-2004, 01:10 AM
one word, clever.

Durandal
09-26-2004, 02:30 AM
I think the point of the article is that field grade and junior officers are interacting with the village leadership in order to create better relations. The captain in the article used diplomacy rather than force in order to get the weapons back.

Yep.