Schoomaker Hopes to Create Warrior Ethos

[farmgirl]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040122/ap_on_re_us/schoomaker_interview_2

Army Chief Hopes to Create Warrior Ethos

Thu Jan 22

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

FORT POLK, La. - The wars in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) are stretching the Army razor-thin, but the service's top general says the stress also has produced abler soldiers and opened a rare opportunity to change how the Army organizes to train and fight.

It also is giving Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, who spent much of his career in the secretive Army Special Forces, a chance to instill in soldiers a "warrior ethos," or fighting spirit.

The wars have forced the Army to deploy all 10 of its combat divisions, call up tens of thousands of reservists, prohibit soldiers from retiring, and at the same time keep its commitments as peacekeeper in the Balkans and defender in South Korea (news - web sites).

"There is a huge silver lining in this cloud," Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said in an Associated Press interview this week after watching an Iraq-bound National Guard unit from North Carolina hone its combat skills amid towering pines on this central Louisiana Army post.

"War is a tremendous focus," he said. As a large institution, the Army "tends to perfect what it knows," he said, rather than seek change. "Now we have this focusing opportunity, and we have the fact that (terrorists) have actually attacked our homeland, which gives it some oomph."

Schoomaker, 57, hopes to parlay these trying circumstances into progress toward ensuring the Army remains relevant in the global war on terrorism. That does not mean making the Army larger, as some in Congress prescribe, he says, but instead organizing it differently and making it more agile.

On the question of whether the Army needs to expand, Schoomaker is in sync with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who coaxed him out of retirement last August to take the top Army job. That issue remains to be settled, however, as many in Congress plan to push for an increase of 40,000 soldiers.

This and other issues have been sources of tension between Rumsfeld and some of the Army brass, most notably Schoomaker's immediate predecessor, Gen. Eric Shinseki, who warned at his retirement ceremony of the dangers of executing a "12-division strategy with a 10-division Army."

Since becoming Army chief, Schoomaker has made a point of visiting U.S. soldiers around the country and around the world, including two visits to Iraq. A burly former college football player, he is at once informal and deadly serious.

At each opportunity during two days at Fort Polk's Joint Readiness Training Center, Schoomaker, dressed in desert combat fatigues, handed soldiers a silver "dog tag" inscribed with what he calls the essence of the warrior ethos:

"I will always place the mission first.

"I will never accept defeat.

"I will never quit.

"I will never leave a fallen comrade."

He cited the insurgency in Iraq as a real-world test of soldiers' commitment to those words. Soldiers there must resist the temptation of complacency, of underestimating their enemy, he said.

"Real warriors never take their eyes off the horizon," he told one group. "You're like a wild animal in the woods. You pay attention to your instincts. You've always got your rifle within reach."

Careful during the AP interview to avoid implying shortcomings by his predecessors, Schoomaker nevertheless said some in uniform have become too wedded to convention, schedule, doctrine and the comfort of routine.

"You can't create armies and expect to be effective on the battlefield if their culture is only to practice," he said. "There's got to be a certain appetite for what the hell we exist for."

"I'm not warmongering," he said. "The fact is we're going to be called and really asked to do this stuff."

In fact, since shrinking by about one-third in the early 1990s, the Army has been called upon repeatedly — in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. And since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it has been asked to do more in Afghanistan and Iraq than some think can be sustained over time.

Schoomaker, however, is more optimistic.

He says that while he has not reached a final decision, he strongly doubts that recruiting more soldiers is the way to relieve the stress created by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"You aren't stronger just because you have more people," he said.

He likened the idea of expanding the Army to pouring water on sand.

"It would go right through the sand and disappear," he told one group of officers. He estimated that adding 40,000 soldiers would cost $6 billion a year — money that may be available in the short run but likely to disappear once the war against terrorism abates.

The solution, he said, is to make better use of the troop strength already in the Army, which is authorized in peacetime to have 482,400 soldiers but has grown in wartime to about 493,000.

Schoomaker said he has freed 5,000 soldiers from assignments that can be accomplished by civilian contractors, and plans on doing the same with 5,000 more. He believes he can free up another 10,000 or so by ending the traditional practice of moving soldiers to new assignments every two years.

In addition, he expects to gain more soldiers for combat positions as the Pentagon (news - web sites) consolidates and reorganizes forces in Europe and South Korea.

These measures, taken together, could free 25,000 to 30,000 more soldiers to move into combat units. Schoomaker said this and other means of reorganizing could allow the Army to expand its combat brigades from the current 33 to as many as 48, without taking in more soldiers.

"We're on the edge of a whole new era in terms of what we're being asked to do," he said.

[Royal]

Before anyone jumps down my throat, a caveat.

I think that Gen Shoomakere is the best thing to have happened to the Pentagon in decades. I also think that the ethos of the warrior has a very important part in the makeup of anyone in the military. If you havn't got it, you're in the wrong job.




"I will always place the mission first.

"I will never accept defeat.

"I will never quit.

"I will never leave a fallen comrade."

That said, I have issues with all but one of Gen Shoomakere's tenets.

"I will always put the mission first" - no problem there.

"I will never accept defeat"/"I will never quit" - sometimes (particulary in small unit Ops something goes wrong and defeat becomes inevitable. Two examples from recent British military history;

NP8902 - the Royal Marines stationed in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded - they fought until they ran out of ammunition and then were ordered to surrender by the Governor. They came back as M Coy 42 Commando, were instrumental (with the SAS, SBS and M&AW Cardre) in the recapture of South Georgia and fought through the Falklands themselves.

B20 - Forget the questionable leadership. The men who surrendered were exhausted, hypothermic, out of ammo and in some cases injured. All returned to Regimental service. One is still serving.

Should these brave men have fought to the death, to no real purpose other than a kamikaze idea of valour?

"I will never leave a fallen comrade" - This is a tenet I have personal issues and I know many across the pond will disagree with me. I shudder to think how many good men have died (and in some cases compromised the mission) to help a fallen comrade. In my view, tenet #1 overrides this. I also think that those who are selected for so called 'high speed' units are well aware of the nature and risk involved in their work. Most, I beleive, would say leave me and carry on.

Just my two cents.

[NcDeuce]

I agree, the military needs someone like Schoomaker to freshen things up.


Since becoming Army chief, Schoomaker has made a point of visiting U.S. soldiers around the country and around the world, including two visits to Iraq. A burly former college football player, he is at once informal and deadly serious.

Edit: http://www.somf.org/wall_images/w_o_schoomaker_pete.JPG
He's been around the block!

Our battalion cadre informed us about the new warrior creed a couple weeks ago and we should be learning it very soon.

[crazyman]

rotc up here in NY has started instituting training along the "warrior ethos" line as well. The general has a helluva plan, really. recruiting new soldiers and building new divisions could well take a decade. His plan will still take time (even with fully trained soldiers it will still take a year or two before an entirely new brigade is ready to go into the field) but his idea of more teeth, less tail has merit.

[Argyll]

Royal wrote

"I will never leave a fallen comrade" - This is a tenet I have personal issues and I know many across the pond will disagree with me. I shudder to think how many good men have died (and in some cases compromised the mission) to help a fallen comrade. In my view, tenet #1 overrides this. I also think that those who are selected for so called 'high speed' units are well aware of the nature and risk involved in their work. Most, I beleive, would say leave me and carry on.

Unless you were in a Jock Regiment you'd say"get up you lazy bas*ard,there's no fuc*ing way I'm carrying you or yer poxy gear"!

I'd go along with what Royal says on this,as your very own survival,and mission plan and succes maybe compromised by struggling with your buddies body,when your E&E is dependant on staying alive,what is more important in Military terms having one dead operator,or having 6 more captured trying to bring him home?

I remember a quote from a Vietnamese General who said something like
"When we shot the first American,his friends went to help him,so we shot him to,and when his friends went to help them we shot them to......killing them was easy"

Nobody likes to leave a comrade behind,but survival sometimes dictates it.

[California Joe]

There is valor and there is stupidity. Mission first. The guys that get hit know that.

[Dmitri]

I agree that if someone falls with wounds, its not too smart for everyone to rush blindly to him forgetting everything else, everything depends on the situation, but you can hardly call someone with a leg shot off a "lazy bastard". Its not an easy thing to see your friend struggling and just leave him behind, if the situation permits, I would do everything possible to help him and try to save him. Might as well take some extra risk, the business isn't very safe anyway...
Schoomaker should definately be a great leader for the Army, who esle but the guy with all that combat experience, serving in SF and Delta?? I think its great! woot

[Argyll]

Dmitri,it was a joke mate!
Its a typical Jock squaddie joke,it's the same thing as asked in first aid,in the Army....Question"What do you do when you come across an unconscious casualty"
Answer"wipe yer **** and leave the money on her bedside table!!"

[California Joe]

Dmitri,it was a joke mate!
Its a typical Jock squaddie joke,it's the same thing as asked in first aid,in the Army....Question"What do you do when you come across an unconscious casualty"
Answer"wipe yer **** and leave the money on her bedside table!!"

Hehe. Funny as hell. I like how the people that have never been soldiers don't get the fact that real soldiers find humor in the most disturbing of situations. Gallows humor

[ibstolidude]

There is valor and there is stupidity. Mission first. The guys that get hit know that.
As we like to say

It is a fine line between hardass and dumbass...

[Dmitri]

I like how the people that have never been soldiers don't get the fact that real soldiers find humor in the most disturbing of situationsIf you are refering to me, I am one now, just never came across jokes like that, then again, brits have different sense of humour

[Royal]

If you are refering to me, I am one now, just never came across jokes like that, then again, brits have different sense of humour

We do indeed. Another example from a Marine in 40 Commando in 1982 wounded by an anti-personell mine;

"Aaaagh, I've lost my f**king leg"
"No you havn't mate, it's over here"

[ibstolidude]

I like how the people that have never been soldiers don't get the fact that real soldiers find humor in the most disturbing of situationsIf you are refering to me, I am one now, just never came across jokes like that, then again, brits have different sense of humour
Didn't you just graduate basic & AIT?

What MOS?

[James]

If you are refering to me, I am one now, just never came across jokes like that, then again, brits have different sense of humour

We do indeed. Another example from a Marine in 40 Commando in 1982 wounded by an anti-personell mine;

"Aaaagh, I've lost my f**king leg"
"No you havn't mate, it's over here"

rofl

[Dmitri]

Didn't you just graduate basic & AIT?

What MOS?Well, I'm not a veteran, but its been year and a half now..
EDIT: 11B

[ibstolidude]

Didn't you just graduate basic & AIT?

What MOS?Well, I'm not a veteran, but its been year and a half now..
EDIT: 11B
it was funny.. you'll see that humor more and more as you biuld a bond with your unit especially after you deploy together.

when doing medical training I was required to do so many ambulance hours...the jokes were non-stop about what they saw...it was not out of disrespect it was a way for the men to cope.

It is much the same way in the context used here.

[11F5S]

Schoomaker should definately be a great leader for the Army, who esle but the guy with all that combat experience, serving in SF and Delta?? I think its great! woot

There's a whole lot more to running the Army than having combat and SOF experience.....Only time will tell if Pete Schoomaker is the right man for the job.

[Ichhabe]

If you are refering to me, I am one now, just never came across jokes like that, then again, brits have different sense of humour

We do indeed. Another example from a Marine in 40 Commando in 1982 wounded by an anti-personell mine;

"Aaaagh, I've lost my f**king leg"
"No you havn't mate, it's over here"

rofl

Wit all respect... That must be the whittiest comment ever... And I mean ever.
Considering tatooing it on my back. ;)

[Seiyuuki]

"I will never leave a fallen comrade"

With regard to that...I read somewhere, don't remember anything specific:

I guess it was a special operation, but one of the soldier was wounded mortally. His comrades basically dig a makeshift grave as fast as they could, place their fallen comrade in the grave, cover it up and mark the location with their GPS.

They later came back to the area when thing die down and recover the body and gave it a proper burial.

[WARPIG]

The Warrior Ethos is not some new development. It has been an integral part of the combat soldier’s way of life since he first set foot in a pair of boots. It has been part of the soldier’s creed long before this article.
The extracts that the Old Man focuses on are not rules or doctrine. Saying that you disagree with one point or the other doesn’t really make sense. The Ethos, like the word means, is a philosophy, not a set of rules. The ethos is the attitude, motivation, and desire to not only win our nations wars, but to do so no matter the adversity, with honor, and with the utmost determination.
This is what the Warrior Ethos is defined as:


All Soldiers Are Warriors.
The Warrior Ethos is embodied in the desire to win our nation’s wars despite every adversity.
The Warrior Ethos Is:
The will to win with honor.
The refusal to accept failure.
The unrelenting and consistent determination to do
what is right and to do it with pride.
The Warrior Ethos:
Fuels the fire to fight. Creates victory out of the chaos of battle, no matter how long it takes, no matter how much effort is required. Forges confidence, and fosters the quiet, calculating, and deadly spirit that wins battles and campaigns. Enables Soldiers to overcome fear, hunger, deprivation, and fatigue and accomplish the mission.
The noblest aspect of the Warrior Ethos is the tight fabric of loyalty to one another and to collective victory.
The Warrior Ethos drives the heavily loaded infantry soldier into the icy wind, steadily uphill to the objective. It spurs the tank driver to cross the LD into the unknown. It drives the bone tired Medic to always put others first. It pushes the sweat-soaked gunner to keep up the fire. It urges the truck driver across the frozen trails because fellow soldiers need the supplies.
All Soldiers Are Warriors.
The Four points listed in the article are an extract from the Soldier’s Creed.

I will always place the mission first. This means that the mission is what is foremost in the warrior’s mind. Not getting home, not trying to do as little as possible and to stay as safe as possible, but to accomplish the mission no matter the adversity.

I will never accept defeat. A simple premise. Never accept defeat as long as you have the means to fight. If your soldiers do not have the ability to do so.. you don’t have the means to fight. It is not a call to Kamikazi martyrdom.

I will never quit. Never quit. Really does this need explaination? Does it mean never surrender? Well, I think if we wanted to say that.. we would have. It simply means, do not quit, no matter the adversity.

I will never leave a fallen comrade. We are an Army of voluntary warriors. To leave another warrior behind is nearly sacrilige. Unlike the Russian Army whose officers would shoot any soldier who appeared to be retreating or even halting the forward movement… we hold our soldiers in higher regard. We no longer consider our soldiers as tools but as the “warriors” and all that that implies. It does not mean that when my buddy is cut down by machine gun fire, that I have to rush into the kill zone and try to retrieve his carcass. It does mean that if I am wounded, or captured that my squad will not leave me for dead. They will protect and retrieve me. That gives a warrior an amazing bond to his fellow warriors. It gives captured warriors the hope and drive to survive and resist. It gives us that bond that allows us to trust in our unit.

Look into the Warrior Ethos a little more. The focus on it now is to try and focus our Army. To take the smaller force we have now and to sharpen, harden, and lighten the already deadly weapon we are today. Making our Army more competent and our soldiers more skilled. If you look at the way the Army Infantry soldier "looks" today... we appear more and more like our special or elite Rangers, and Special Forces. We equip, train and fight in the way that they have and continue to try and raise the bar.

[Royal]

Warpig - thank you for your clarification.

I fully agree that a 'warrior ethos' is nothing new and is something that most of us absorb and live by unconsciously.

I withdraw my comments about defeat and quitting in light of your elaboration.

I'm afraid that I still violently disagree with you over the 'I will never leave a fallen comrade'.

I still think that too many good men have died for the sake of recovering corpses, that said I have very little religious belief, when I am dead, I am dead, that's it. What happens to my corpse is of little interest.

I do not advocate the Soviet example that you used, but I do believe that it is often wasteful of lives and detrimental to the mission to attempt to recover casualties under fire.

I will use the battle on Takur Ghar last year as an example. In no way do I doubt the skills or bravery of the SEALs, Rangers and aircrew involved. I simply consider it a criminal waste of brave and skilled men for an 'ideal'.

The loss of Petty Officer Roberts was one of those tragic incidents that happen in war. The use of a second Chinook and the subsequent loss of that aircraft and a USAF NCO (whose name I'm sorry to say escapes me) was totaly avoidable. The deployment of a Ranger QRF was understandable with the remaining SEALs and USAF on the ground, again it was a tragic mistake that caused it to set down on the sumit.

All in all 4 Rangers and 2 USAF NCO's were killed and many others wounded in order to recover a corpse.

I understand the ideal, but I'm afraid I do not agree with it.

[NcDeuce]

Warpig - thank you for your clarification.

I fully agree that a 'warrior ethos' is nothing new and is something that most of us absorb and live by unconsciously.

I withdraw my comments about defeat and quitting in light of your elaboration.

I'm afraid that I still violently disagree with you over the 'I will never leave a fallen comrade'.

I still think that too many good men have died for the sake of recovering corpses, that said I have very little religious belief, when I am dead, I am dead, that's it. What happens to my corpse is of little interest.

I do not advocate the Soviet example that you used, but I do believe that it is often wasteful of lives and detrimental to the mission to attempt to recover casualties under fire.

I will use the battle on Takur Ghar last year as an example. In no way do I doubt the skills or bravery of the SEALs, Rangers and aircrew involved. I simply consider it a criminal waste of brave and skilled men for an 'ideal'.

The loss of Petty Officer Roberts was one of those tragic incidents that happen in war. The use of a second Chinook and the subsequent loss of that aircraft and a USAF NCO (whose name I'm sorry to say escapes me) was totaly avoidable. The deployment of a Ranger QRF was understandable with the remaining SEALs and USAF on the ground, again it was a tragic mistake that caused it to set down on the sumit.

All in all 4 Rangers and 2 USAF NCO's were killed and many others wounded in order to recover a corpse.

I understand the ideal, but I'm afraid I do not agree with it.

I believe at the time the men who organized a rescue effort, the Navy SEAL's status was unknown. Therefore, I thought the men made the right decision.

AF = Jason Cunningham

[California Joe]

On this issue I would definitely defer to the BTDT's. This warrior ethos stuff can't be taught anyway. Because it's on a laminated card in your wallet doesn't mean you are a warrior. Royal, as usual presents a well thought out arguement. Emotions are secondary to completing the mission.

[Royal]

I believe at the time the men who organized a rescue effort, the Navy SEAL's status was unknown. Therefore, I thought the men made the right decision.

I'm aware of why the rescues went in, but I'm afraid that this is where it comes down to a tough command decision.

It does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to work out that a wounded man who has fallen from an aircraft into the centre of an enemy Platoon plus sized position will very quickly be dead.

[Tane Angle]

I don't think Pete Schoomaker would support people leaving a man behind if necessary, and certainly wouldn't be one to micromanage small unit decisions like that. From what I understand, he's all for free-thinking and adjusting as necessary. And if it was a choice between running 50 feet in one direction to blow a mission-important bridge or 50 feet another way to get a body, well you can bet that Schoomaker would get the job done. Otherwise, if the bridge is taken by the enemy, the dead die in vain, no? Bad example, but he was called out of retirement and held practically every command in the SOF/CT pipeline for a reason-he's a man who gets the job done.

Having said that, Schoomaker was an important part of the always-aborted operations in the 1980s in SE Asia and Lebanon to rescue POWs and American hostages respectively. The intelligence teams took pictures of those POWs in the camps. Schoomaker almost definitely knew the name and face of the POW he would be rescuing by heart. That changes a man.

The "never leave a man behind" ethos was strengthened by those abort orders; it sent a clear message: Bring everyone home the first time, because the politicians will not give you a second chance to rescue a POW. It wrote off POW rescues. Yes, we did one in Iraq, but that's a bit of a different scenario from a time of supposed peace with the nations/groups holding Americans in the 80s.

Pete Schoomaker is very likely still feeling very strongly the mental effects of hearing those abort orders. And when someone who was there in the 80s says "never leave a man behind," he's in large part saying "I'm sorry, but even with all the stars on my collar, they will tie my hands and keep me from helping your man." I think Schoomaker would like the political world to be different, but I also think he's intelligent enough to know that military experts are rarely listened to on military issues.

So to sum up this overly long post, Schoomaker isn’t dictating, he’s warning soldiers about how even generals will be ignored if political reasons for leaving a man behind exist.

In a strictly platonic, respectful way: :hug:

Have a good one, and just some thoughts…

[farmgirl]

I don't think Pete Schoomaker would support people leaving a man behind if necessary, and certainly wouldn't be one to micromanage small unit decisions like that. From what I understand, he's all for free-thinking and adjusting as necessary. And if it was a choice between running 50 feet in one direction to blow a mission-important bridge or 50 feet another way to get a body, well you bet that Schoomaker would get the job done. Otherwise, if the bridge is taken by the enemy, the dead die in vain, no? Bad example, but he was called out of retirement and held practically every command in the SOF/CT pipeline for reason-he's a man who gets the job done.

Having said that, Schoomaker was an important part of the always-aborted operations in the 1980s in SE Asia and Lebanon to rescue POWs and American hostages respectively. The intelligence teams took pictures of those POWs in the camps. Schoomaker almost definitely knew the name and face of the POW he would be rescuing by heart. That changes a man.

The "never leave a man behind" ethos was strengthened by those abort orders; it sent a clear message: Bring everyone home the first time, because the politicians will not give you a second chance to rescue a POW. It wrote off POW rescues. Yes, we did one in Iraq, but that's a bit of a different scenario from a time of supposed peace with the nations/groups holding Americans in the 80s.

Pete Schoomaker is very likely still feeling very strongly the mental effects of hearing those abort orders. And when someone who was there in the 80s says "never leave a man behind," he's in large part saying "I'm sorry, but even with all the stars on my collar, they will tie my hands and keep me from helping your man." I think Schoomaker would like the political world to be different, but I also think he's intelligent enough to know that military experts are rarely listened to on military issues.

So to sum up this overly long post, Schoomaker isn’t dictating, he’s warning soldiers about how even generals will be ignored if political reasons for leaving a man behind exist.

In a strictly platonic, respectful way: :hug:

Have a good one, and just some thoughts…


Thank you Tane. As always, your post was very insightful and well written. It's nice for the rest of us to get input from someone who has actually been a part of those situations.

:hug:

[WARPIG]

Great viw points.
I agree that the Warrior Ethos isn't a skill. But, it can be taught. Of all the things that go on in battle.. there is only one thing you can change.... your attitude. The way you decide to perceive things is of your doing and it can change everything. It can turn adversity to opportunity. It can change fear into courage. It turns loss into sacrifice.

Never leaving a fallen comrad encompasses more than dead soldiers. But yes, there comes a point when putting lives at risk to recover a corps is not a price worth paying. That choice is not up to the command. They may try and excercise that choice but in the end it is up to the soldiers at risk to make a moral decision. War and battle is an emotional endeaver. As much as we like to say it is not, as much as we attempt to cut off and shut out that part of us.. it is deeply woven into every fiber of battle.
The sacrifice one soldier makes to save another.. is emotional..not logical. The sacrifice one soldier makes to complete the mission... is emotional.. not logical. Warriors are that. The ethos makes that tangible. It is taking the technical fighting edge that we train everyday and creating a moral and emotional link to what, and why we do what we do. Soldiers who epitomise and display this are called warriors. There is also a word for those who are tested and rise above the adversity. It is called Valor.

The soldier in me sees the logic in putting the mission above my emotional need to protect even my dead comrads. The warrior in me knows that I cannot deny the emotion that defines the honor I place, especially on my dead comrad. Because whether I believe in why I am sent to fight, who I am sent to fight, and where I am sent to fight is unimportant. But the warrior next to me..... is everything.

[Argyll]

I wonder then where Scott Speicher fits into the ethos?

[farmgirl]

I wonder then where Scott Speicher fits into the ethos?


It's my understanding that our government has never given up looking for him. However, I don't know this for a fact. It's what I've read and heard on shows like 60 Minutes. Perhaps someone with more knowledge would care to comment as well?

[Argyll]

I heard the opposite,the intel was there around 91 to state that he was alive,and well,and being held by the Iraqi's possibly as a tool for bartering,I've seen some website state details about it,in how the CIA refused to let anything be done.................sounds familiar eh Tane?

[Resevoir Hogs]

From my experience the leave no man behind policy is an important part of warrior ethos. It doesn't mean take stupid risks to grab a wounded or dead buddy. Anyone who's served in a combat unit knows that casevac is the last thing you do in a battle. It simply means that when mission permits take care of your fallen brothers. It certainly helps the moral of troops to know that if everything goes to **** there will be someone who will eventually get you home.

[Tane Angle]

Argyll, I think he, unfortunately, falls into the "sorry, you're out of luck category." A lot of people wanted something done, but...yeah I'll stop writing before I start getting really pissed off.

He was the one white guy in Iraq. Sometimes it was 50,000 dollars, sometimes it's compromising photos, but guards, cooks, interrogators, they're not infallible. Everyone whispers to someone, and all that whispering gets back to the US. How does that Burke quote go? The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing? People try to do good, and they're turned away.

I hope I don't sound too cynical or angry, but well, I am cynical and angry. Blatantly good course of action, blatantly heartless bad one. How is that a difficult decision? How does somebody choose the wrong one?

[Royal]

Never leaving a fallen comrad encompasses more than dead soldiers. But yes, there comes a point when putting lives at risk to recover a corps is not a price worth paying. That choice is not up to the command. They may try and excercise that choice but in the end it is up to the soldiers at risk to make a moral decision.

Warpig, I respect your views over many on this board, but as I've got the bit between my teeth on this one, I've got to disagree.

That choice is very much up to the command, whether at the tactical level on the ground or back in a nice comfy Ops Room, through the Ops Controller (or whatever else you call them).

It is the job of the commander at both levels to rise above the emotional level and maintain control of and focus on the mission.

If you accept that, it is the responsibilty of the commander to exert that control over the emotions of those 'in harms way', even though he (or she) may be in harms way themselves. That's why they're paid more. To command.

[Tane Angle]

Argyll, military and civilian intelligence usually have rough relationships, but I'll say this about the other side: the CIA gets blamed for a lot of stuff that they either didn't do or were ordered to do by polical powers. But yeah, sounds all too familiar. So much for politicians learning from their mistakes. :roll:

[farmgirl]

Argyll, I think he, unfortunately, falls into the "sorry, you're out of luck category." A lot of people wanted something done, but...yeah I'll stop writing before I start getting really pissed off.

He was the one white guy in Iraq. Sometimes it was 50,000 dollars, sometimes it's compromising photos, but guards, cooks, interrogators, they're not infallible. Everyone whispers to someone, and all that whispering gets back to the US. How does that Burke quote go? The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing? People try to do good, and they're turned away.

I hope I don't sound too cynical or angry, but well, I am cynical and angry. Blatantly good course of action, blatantly heartless bad one. How is that a difficult decision? How does somebody choose the wrong one?


I stand corrected. I have to say that I was hoping that this was one time that what I heard on TV was the truth. :(

[Tane Angle]

farmgirl, you're right actually. People always look, and continue looking. In Laos, people were constantly looking, hence how Schoomaker would have known the man who's cell he would take down.

Go. Such a simple word. Only two letters, one syllable, so sweet to the ears, yet so difficult for some people to say. All that was asked for were two letters. And they never came.

[California Joe]

More's the pity.

[farmgirl]

More's the pity.


No doubt. That makes me incredibly sad.

[WARPIG]

Never leaving a fallen comrad encompasses more than dead soldiers. But yes, there comes a point when putting lives at risk to recover a corps is not a price worth paying. That choice is not up to the command. They may try and excercise that choice but in the end it is up to the soldiers at risk to make a moral decision.

Warpig, I respect your views over many on this board, but as I've got the bit between my teeth on this one, I've got to disagree.

That choice is very much up to the command, whether at the tactical level on the ground or back in a nice comfy Ops Room, through the Ops Controller (or whatever else you call them).

It is the job of the commander at both levels to rise above the emotional level and maintain control of and focus on the mission.

If you accept that, it is the responsibilty of the commander to exert that control over the emotions of those 'in harms way', even though he (or she) may be in harms way themselves. That's why they're paid more. To command.

I can see your point.
A leader does have the ability to control what his soldiers do. If I command my squad to fight off an amush to protect a dead body... they would probably do it. Was it the right decision? I don't think so. Too many details to think of. If I can secure that fallen comrad later, my duty is to keep the Joes I have left alive. On the other hand.. If I tell them to move out and leave the corpse.. will they? Much of my trust and respect for the Warriors I serve with is that they hold my life and death more important than their own. They can also expect that I feel the same. I think we have to both concede that it is both a strength and a weakness.
The choice does lie with the soldier at risk in the end.

[Tane Angle]

By the way, I know that I probably sound like a broken record with all this, so my apologies for that. I suppose that I'm still not super happy about those decisions, and want our future decision makers, perhaps some of them here, to make better choices. I don't want those men to have died in vain.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Royal]

Mature, reasoned, adult discussion (thank you Tane & Warpig in particular) on www.militaryphotos.net . Things are looking up :lol:

[NcDeuce]

WASHINGTON - A new chief of staff of the U.S. Army, the 35th chief of the nation's senior service, has taken the helm. His name is Pete Schoomaker, and he's about as tender as woodpecker lips.

http://www.military.com/pics/Galloway_080603_pic1.jpg
General Peter Schoomaker appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee at a confirmation hearing on his nomination to be Army Chief of Staff.

Much of what he's done and seen in more than 30 years of active-duty service is classified above Top Secret. He was, for a time, an operator in the Delta Force, the Army's super-secret counter-terrorism force. Schoomaker was present on the ill-fated 1980 hostage-rescue mission into Iran that ended in fire and failure.

His memories of that night, when what was intended to be a lightning strike into the heart of the enemy's capital to rescue the U.S. Embassy hostages dissolved into disaster at a desert landing strip, are clear and painful:

"Twenty-three years ago I stood ... in the Iranian desert on a moonlit night at a place called Desert One. I keep a photo of the carnage that night to remind me that we would never confuse enthusiasm with capability. Eight of my comrades lost their lives. Those of us who survived knew grief ... we knew failure - but we committed ourselves to a different future," Schoomaker said in his arrival message to the Army.

In the wake of that searing failure, the nation created the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), and with it an organization that could undertake missions like the one in Iran with success, not failure, built into the planning and execution. Years later, Pete Schoomaker commanded SOCOM and helped build and shape an organization that put more than 13,000 special operators on the ground in Iraq.

But an old comrade says this is what you really need to know about Pete Schoomaker:

"In 1978 Charlie Beckwith (the legendary founder of the Delta Force) sent him and the other young bucks we had selected on one of the exercises we used to evaluate and train them," said L.H. "Bucky" Burruss, also a veteran of Desert One.

"We parachuted each of them singly onto one of the Fort Bragg drop zones, had each of them link up with a 'partisan' who issued him a weapon and the task of walking miles alone from the drop zone, infiltrating a building in the cantonment area and killing a target with live ammo - all within a nearly impossible timeframe."

Burrus adds, "Captain Schoomaker did (this mission) successfully, although we noticed he was limping when he finished. It wasn't until the next day that we discovered he had broken his foot on the jump."

Gen. Schoomaker, who was summoned out of 2 1/2 years of retirement by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld after several three- and four-star generals turned down the job of Army chief, is now turning his attention to a plate full of problems.

In his arrival statement, Schoomaker said the United States is at war with terrorism worldwide and must win.

"War is both a physical reality and a state of mind," Schoomaker declared. "War is ambiguous, uncertain and unfair. We become more flexible and more adaptable. We must anticipate the ultimate reality check - combat. We must win both the war and the peace. We must be prepared to question everything: What is best for the nation? What must endure? What must change?"

Schoomaker praised the soldiers who are his Army, and their families, as well as the National Guard and Army Reserve units that are "indispensable, full members of the team." He quoted the late Gen. Creighton Abrams, a commander in the Vietnam War who became Army chief himself: "People are not in the Army; they are the Army."

In testimony before Congress last week, Schoomaker, 57, said he and Rumsfeld had agreed that between them they would have an "open and honest dialogue." Asked if he thought the Army needed more people, Schoomaker replied that he did. "It's one of the things ... we are going to have to look at immediately."

Schoomaker testified that he believed U.S. troops would be in Iraq a long time, and no one should be looking for a quick or easy solution. "If you look at history, in the Balkans and elsewhere, you will find that thinking in the short-term isn't the way to go."

If Secretary Rumsfeld thinks he's found a softer, easier Army chief to deal with after the retirement of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, his nemesis for the last two years, he should disabuse himself of that notion. Pete Schoomaker doesn't roll over and he never quits.

Good article by Joseph L. Galloway