Pentagon May Punish GIs who Spoke Out on TV

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
by Robert Collier
The San Francisco Chronicle

Fallujah, Iraq -- Morale is dipping pretty low among U.S. soldiers as they stew in Iraq's broiling heat, get shot at by an increasingly hostile population and get repeated orders to extend their tours of duty.

Ask any grunt standing guard on a 115-degree day what he or she thinks of the open-ended Iraq occupation, and you'll get an earful of colorful complaints.

But going public isn't always easy, as soldiers of the Army's Second Brigade, Third Infantry Division found out after "Good Morning America" aired their complaints.

The brigade's soldiers received word this week from the Pentagon that it was extending their stay, with a vague promise to send them home by September if the security situation allows. They've been away from home since September, and this week's announcement was the third time their mission has been extended.

It was bad news for the division's 12,000 homesick soldiers, who were at the forefront of the force that overthrew Saddam Hussein's government and moved into Baghdad in early April.

On Wednesday morning, when the ABC news show reported from Fallujah, where the division is based, the troops gave the reporters an earful. One soldier said he felt like he'd been "kicked in the guts, slapped in the face." Another demanded that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld quit.

The retaliation from Washington was swift.

CAREERS OVER FOR SOME

"It was the end of the world," said one officer Thursday. "It went all the way up to President Bush and back down again on top of us. At least six of us here will lose our careers."

First lesson for the troops, it seemed: Don't ever talk to the media "on the record" -- that is, with your name attached -- unless you're giving the sort of chin-forward, everything's-great message the Pentagon loves to hear.

Only two days before the ABC show, similarly bitter sentiments -- with no names attached -- were voiced in an anonymous e-mail circulating around the Internet, allegedly from "the soldiers of the Second Brigade, Third ID."

"Our morale is not high or even low," the letter said. "Our morale is nonexistent. We have been told twice that we were going home, and twice we have received a 'stop' movement to stay in Iraq."

The message, whose authenticity could not be confirmed, concluded: "Our men and women deserve to be treated like the heroes they are, not like farm animals. Our men and women deserve to see their loved ones again and deserve to come home."

After this one-two punch, it was perhaps natural that on Thursday, the same troops and officers who had been garrulous and outspoken in previous visits were quiet, and most declined to speak on the record. During a visit to Fallujah, a small city about 30 miles west of Baghdad, military officials expressed intense chagrin about the bad publicity. And they slammed the ABC reporters for focusing on the soldiers' criticism of Rumsfeld, Bush and other officials and implying that they are unwilling to carry out their mission.

COMPLAINTS CALLED ROUTINE

"Soldiers have bitched since the beginning of time," said Capt. James Brownlee, the public affairs officer for the Second Brigade. "That's part of being a soldier. They bitch. But what does 'bad morale' really mean? That they're not combat-ready or loyal? Nobody here fits that definition."

The nervousness of the brass has a venerable history. It has long been a practice in American democracy that the military do not criticize the nation's civilian leaders, as Gen. Douglas MacArthur found out in 1951, when he criticized President Harry Truman's Korean War strategy -- and was promptly fired.

Yet several U.S. officers said privately that troop morale is indeed low. "The problem is not the heat," said one high-ranking officer. "Soldiers get used to that. The problem is getting orders to go home, so your wife gets all psyched about it, then getting them reversed, and then having the same process two more times."

In Baghdad, average soldiers from other Army brigades are eager to spill similar complaints.

"I'm not sure people in Washington really know what it's like here," said Corp. Todd Burchard as he stood on a street corner, sweating profusely and looking bored. "We'll keep doing our jobs as best as anyone can, but we shouldn't have to still be here in the first place."

Nearby, Pfc. Jason Ring stood next to his Humvee. "We liberated Iraq. Now the people here don't want us here, and guess what? We don't want to be here either," he said. "So why are we still here? Why don't they bring us home?"
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
So I guess there's freedom of speech as long as you agree with the government.

I heard something yesterday about them considering calling up reserves or national guard or something, what's next the draft?

Some people are starting to say this is or could turn into a modern day Vietnam. I don't think that's the case yet, but Bush2 better stop singing, it's my party and I'll leave when I want to, or who knows.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Another article on this matter, including some memorable remarks from both sides of the issue ...

Gen.: G.I.s who rip leaders will pay
by Helen Kennedy
The New York Daily News

WASHINGTON - The military will punish demoralized soldiers in Iraq who are bluntly venting their frustration to reporters, the Pentagon said yesterday.
"None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense or the President of the United States," said Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command. "We're not free to do that. It's our professional code. Whatever action may be taken, whether it's a verbal reprimand or something more stringent, is up the commanders on the scene."

This week's abrupt cancellation of homecoming plans for the Army's 3rd Infantry Division unleashed a remarkable and widespread flood of fury from troops who are hot, homesick and hunted by guerrillas.

"If Donald Rumsfeld was here, I'd ask him for his resignation," Spec. Clinton Deitz of the 3rd Infantry's 2nd Brigade told ABC News.

"I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list," said a 2nd Brigade sergeant. "The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz."

Many soldiers are openly asking why they are in a country that wants them out. They complain that their commanders have gone home. Frustration with the powers in Washington is a main theme.

"I can guarantee you they've never stood out in a checkpoint in the heat of the day, day after day, full battle rattle, always wondering if today's the day somebody's going to shoot me. Do they even care?" one soldier told a Knight Ridder reporter.

The 2nd Brigade, in the Persian Gulf since September, had been told it would be home by May, then July, then August. When the announcement came that the deployment was being extended until at least September and maybe beyond, "you could hear a pin drop," said Sgt. 1st Class Eric Wright of the 64th Armored Regiment.

The Code of Military Justice bars officers from using "contemptuous words" against civilian or military leaders. Punishment is rarely stringent, said military law expert Eugene Fidell.

"People always grumble in the trenches," he said. "Typically, administrations are extremely well advised not to throw gasoline on the fire by creating martyrs."

The White House took no public offense at the soldiers' gripes. "We know that they are making significant sacrifices," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "We are going to do everything we can to support them and get them home as soon as we can."
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
980
Tokens
They should be punished by blanket party.

You never give the enemy an edge and these troops put their fellow troops lives in greater danger. End of story.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
"They should be punished by blanket party."

Yeah that would do a lot for stagggering moral.

"You never give the enemy an edge and these troops put their fellow troops lives in greater danger. End of story."

The low moral is no secret.

If the government were intelligent it would look at this message as very valuable feed back. The last time we got into a fight the soldiers didn't want to fight, we had that little cluster phuck called Vietnam.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
The Patriot Act has a long reach. Heaven forbid should anyone not like their situation and have the nerve to talk publicly about it. Before you know it we will see a sacraficial lamb get court martialed for saying what he feels in his heart about a bad situation. "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it". Quote from the movie Hunt for the Red October. It may sum up how a lot of GI's feel over in that hell hole called Iraq. I for one hope they bring them all home, WTF. Saddam is history, let the professional cops take over. I don't have all or even a single answer but I can identify with the troops having spent a year in Viet Nam myself, you count down every day until you your tour is over, not knowing when that date is has to be ten times worse. Bad situation.


wil.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We should reinstate the draft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A reserve system similar to what we used to have, or similar to what Switzerland has today, would be a far better choice. But we're getting closer and closer to the indentured servitude model again, as can be seen i nthis article from WorldNetDaily ...

IN THE MILITARY
Medical workers face military draft
Pentagon plan calls up medics, nurses, doctors in national emergencies


By Jon Dougherty

The Pentagon will draft experienced medical personnel, including medics, nurses and physicians, in the event of a national emergency.


Navy corpsmen carry "wounded" troops during an exercise at Camp Pendleton, Calif. (WND Photo/Jon Dougherty)

The "health care personnel delivery system" is being readied by the Department of Defense, according to a report published by the Newhouse News Service, to cope with military casualties from a large-scale biological or chemical attack. The plan was authorized by Congress in 1987 to deal with large-scale casualties that outstripped the active-duty military's ability to handle them.

The news service also reported the Pentagon is considering other "special skills" drafts, to include military linguists, computer experts or engineers, that could arise from other immediate needs.

"We're going to elevate that kind of draft to be a priority," Lewis Brodsky, acting director of the Selective Service System, told Newhouse News Service.

The plan calls for the president to issue a proclamation ordering 13.5 million health-care professionals to register for a draft within 13 days. Following the proclamation, Congress would quickly pass legislation authorizing the draft of health-care workers aged 20-44, and for the first time in U.S. history, the draft would include women.

The Pentagon would then inform the Selective Service System of the number of personnel needed for each of the 62 medical specialties. The news service said a separate draft lottery would be held for each specialty.

The Defense Department believes it could draft up to 80,000 personnel – surgeons, dentists, nurses, X-ray personnel, paramedics, etc. – within several months of the draft through the Military Entrance Processing Command.

The news service said the plan, however, isn't well-known among the medical community.

"If you were to ask 10 doctors, maybe one might have heard something about it," Dr. Marybeth McCall, chief medical officer at Crouse Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y., and an Air Force veteran, told the news service.

According to the Selective Service website, the medical draft would "provide a fair and equitable draft of doctors, nurses, medical technicians and those with certain other health-care skills if, in some future emergency, the military's existing medical capability proved insufficient and there is a shortage of volunteers."

It would "draft a very small percentage of America's health-care providers into military service. Impact on the availability of civilian health care would be minimal."

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which created the country's first peacetime draft and formally established the Selective Service System as an independent federal agency.

"From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means," says information posted on the Selective Service website.

The draft ended in 1973, near the close of the Vietnam War, and reverted to an all-volunteer force. Registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but resumed again during the waning days of President Jimmy Carter's administration in 1980, in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.

Men who reach their 18th birthday are required by law to register for the draft. Newhouse News said Selective Service maintains 2,000 active draft boards around the country that would handle appeals for exemptions, deferments and postponements.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the U.S. was not considering a military draft to fill combat ranks even after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"No heightened measures have been undertaken to bring the nation closer to the re-establishment of conscription" following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., Selective Service said in a statement issued in November 2001.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
And the echo chamber goes:

bleet bleet
You never give the enemy an edge and these troops put their fellow troops lives in greater danger

What ARE you talking about?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
980
Tokens
Low morale is normal in the military. I was in the military. You make low wages, work long hours and eat terrible food. I never met anyone that was excited about being at sea or in the field for 6-9 months, it sucks.

The problem with the soldiers crying and complaining to the media is it shows weakness to the enemy and therefore gives the enemy hope. This may get one of their fellow soldiers killed.

They should keep their mouths shut while others are in the line of fire.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,103
Tokens
wilhiem

thanks for that post

lets pray they all come back safe and soon

outandup- you are a fvkin dipshit
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
980
Tokens
I never call names first, you fukin asshole.

What is not true about my last post you pos?

I was there you sorry asshole.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,103
Tokens
out
what does low wages,terrible food, being at sea for 6 months have to do with anything. the people in the navy loves the sea and ocean. people love the military life. their father and brother was in the service so their sons go to the miitary.people would die to go to west point.

what the soidliers are complaining about is their sittingducks getting KILLED. they need more soldiers to protect each other but the govt doesnt want more soldiers there. their conplaining about the objective. alot of these soldiers are not trained for this policeing.

their worried about getting KILLED not low wages & food. you dipshit

my parner got shot today and is dead at 23. his wife is a widow with a 1 year old who doesnt have a father no more
WHAT THE FVK MEATLOAF, MEATLAOF AGAIN
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
Out,

What was wrong with your last post is basically your typical closed minded, shut up believe the government, do what the government says attitude. You seem to forget that it's a civic duty to question the government when it's wrong, that's just part of a healthy democracy. Remember that's what finally got us out of Vietnam.

Of course moral will be low in times of combat, that's why I said the low moral is no secret. The difference is that these guys have had their return home delayed 2 or 3 times. This isn't WWII, they weren't sent "for the duration". Yes they are soldiers, but the are also U.S. citizens with the right to free speech, how would you feel if you could be prosecuted for questioning your employer.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
980
Tokens
fuk off.

kaya,
then we agree morale is always low in the military. when your in the military you give up your rights of free speech. you can't have guys running around saying whatever.

i was in, i did 9 month deployments and no one had anything good to say. yes now you add the bullets flying and it makes if 100 times worse.

we know the US is not going to pack up and run until the job is complete so what good does it do for the guys to be crying on tv, that's all.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
127
Tokens
The problem with the soldiers crying and complaining to the media is it shows weakness to the enemy and therefore gives the enemy hope. This may get one of their fellow soldiers killed.

I agree with Out on this. While it's natural to want to go home, these soliders did sign-up of their own free will. They should not air this stuff in public.

OTH, the Pentagon should not have kept giving the 3rd ID dates for going home, and then pulling back--that type of action just makes things worse for the troops.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2002
Messages
2,954
Tokens
"The problem with the soldiers crying and complaining to the media is it shows weakness to the enemy and therefore gives the enemy hope. This may get one of their fellow soldiers killed."


yeah, as if the iraqi's watched u.s. news media.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
not the GI's for saying out loud how they feel. CNN is half the problem with these type of issues.

wil.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Interesting to see how this is playing out ... from the establishment of the site Soldiers for the Truth to the ongoing criticism by Lt. Col (Ret) David Hackworth and war of words between LC Hackworth and Donald Rumsfeld.

The below quotes are from an interview with Hackworth published in Salon. Lest you think of him as 'another liberal yaddah yaddah' I think it's worth mentioning that Hackworth is one of the most highly-decorated veterans in the U.S. alive today, and has fought in numerous conflicts. He was also openly and publicly critical of US policy in Vietnam, while he was there, and predicted to the year the fall of Saigon due to the botch job the American government made of 'Nam.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Salon: How long do you think U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq?


Hackworth: God only knows, the way things are going. At least 30 years. Tommy Franks [recently retired commander of U.S. troops in Iraq] said four to 10 years. Based on Cyprus and other commitments in this kind of warfare, it is going to be a long time -- unless the price gets too heavy.

We say it is costing the U.S. $4 billion a month; I bet it is costing $6 billion a month. Where the hell is that money going to come from?

Salon: How do you see the combat situation evolving in Iraq?


Hackworth: There is no way the G [guerrilla] is going to win; he knows that, but his object is to make us bleed. To nickel and dime us. This is Phase 1. But what he is always looking for is the big hit -- a Beirut [-style car-bomb attack] with 242 casualties, something that gets the headlines! The Americans have their head up their ass all the time. All the advantages are with the G; he will be watching. He is like an audience in a darkened theater and the U.S. troops are the actors on stage all lit up, so the G can see everything on stage, when they are asleep or when his weapons are dirty. The actor can't see shit in the audience.


Salon: For many weeks your Web site has described conditions in Iraq as being far more chaotic and unstable than generally reported. Why did the Pentagon try to downplay the problems instead of playing it straight and saying this is a long- term problem for America?


Hackworth: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz made a very horrible estimate of the situation. They concluded that the war would be Slam Bam Goodbye Saddam, followed by victory parades with local Iraqi folks throwing flowers and rice and everything nice, then the troops would come home.


When I examined the task organization, my estimate was totally contrary to this asshole Rumsfeld, who went in light and on the cheap, all based upon this rosy scenario. I never thought this would be a fight without resistance. And there was another guy who thought the same way I did; his name is Saddam Hussein. He looked at the awesome array of forces being set up against him and said, "Wait a minute, no way can I prevail, I tried that in '91 and just saw in Afghanistan what happened to Taliban and Al-Qaida, I will run away for another day."

Saddam is saying, "I am going to copy Ho Chi Minh and the Taliban and go into a guerrilla configuration." It [the invasion of Baghdad] did go Slam Bam Goodbye Saddam, but we are in there so light that we don't have sufficient force to provide the stability after the fall of the regime. We can't secure the banks, the energy facilities, the vital installations, the government, the ministry, the museums or the library. The world was witness to this great anarchy, the looting and rioting that set over Baghdad. There was that wonderful quote by Rumsfeld. "Stuff happens," he said. He flipped it off.


Salon: Do you see any similarities to the U.S. engagement in Vietnam?


Hackworth: The mistake in Vietnam was we failed to understand the nature of the war and we failed to understand our enemy. In Vietnam we were fighting World War II. Up to now in Iraq we have been fighting Desert Storm with tank brigade attacks. The tanks move into a village, swoop down, the tank gunner sees a silhouette atop a house, aims, fires, kills and it turns out to be a 12-year-old boy. Now, the father of that boy said, "We will kill 10 Americans for this." This is exactly what happened in Vietnam; a village was friendly, then some pilot turns around and blows away the village, the village goes from pro-Saigon to pro-Hanoi.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting stuff to say the least. I don't exactly agree with every word Hackworth says here and on his site, but at least he has some credentials which give him credibility in speaking on military matters, unlike most of the voices in the public press at the moment.


Phaedrus
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,828
Messages
13,573,686
Members
100,877
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com