Donna Diane

“Violence and progress exists in Afghanistan and sometimes the violence blinds us to the progress because it’s so heartbreaking to see innocent people murdered for no reason by an enemy who intentionally fights from among innocent people.”

“We have the most ethically grounded military in the history of warfare and yet somehow we are not getting the message out that we are the good guys.” General James N. Mattis, USMC July 27, 2010

We are at war but I suppose most people didn’t take the time to watch General Mattis testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee today in review of his nomination as Commander of U.S. Central Command. Now of course you know I watched every second of it and boy was I glad that I had read the book Imperial Grunts. It was a tremendous primer for understanding the scope of responsibility tasked to the Commander of CENTCOM and the reason for so many questions regarding CENTCOM’s relationship to countries outside it’s Area of Responsibility. There is so much more than the war in Afghanistan for my Favorite Four Star to contend with and he knows the current situation as well as the history of every country he will deal with during his time at CENTCOM.

It is clear from General Mattis’ testimony that he is a builder and not a destroyer as some would like to portray him. He is the kind of man who understands that war is won by both violence and diplomacy and he knows how to effectively employ both methods to win. If President Obama and our politicians give him the support he deserves, he will win in Afghanistan.

On to the bones of the hearing: most of the questions the senators asked were relevant. A couple of them took the opportunity to take a swing at President Obama which I felt was misplaced in such a venue. The comments, in my opinion, were on target but of course General Mattis can only advise the President, he cannot and would not control him, and I think our senators were watching my Fave to see how he would react to those questions. Well of course he was totally diplomatic and appropriate with his responses!

Now I want to talk a bit about Senator Lindsey Graham’s behavior in this hearing. He was adversarial and puerile. First he tried to get General Mattis to say just how 90,000 documents made it into the hands of Wikileaks. While that is current news, General Mattis has worked outside of the Pentagon for at least the last ten years, and I wonder if Graham wasn’t fishing to get my Fave to say something inappropriate regarding the incident. Second, has this guy been sleeping for the last 10 years? Did he miss all the coverage on this war being fought against insurgents, or maybe he doesn’t know what an insurgency is. (Note to me: Send Senator Lindsey Graham Mao’s book On Guerrilla Warfare.)

On top of Senator Graham’s seeming lack of knowledge regarding the kind of war we are fighting I found his mandate to General Mattis to get Europe to pony up more funds for the war exasperating. Shouldn’t that responsibility be left to diplomats and politicians, or maybe Senator Graham thinks this is one more job for the Marines because no one else can get it done. SENATOR GRAHAM – General Mattis will have enough to do running CENTCOM, perhaps you can put pressure on the people who are really supposed to work on Europe for funding instead of misplacing that responsibility on a top COMBATANT COMMANDER.

In fact, I found the same undertone in most of our senators’ questions, the expectation that General James N. Mattis should shoulder the responsibilities that belong to others: get funding from Europe, get the message across to Americans and allies that we are the good guys, find out how the Pentagon leaked 90,000 classified documents, and on and on.

Thank God my Favorite Four Star has some strong and broad shoulders! The world is a safer place with him at the helm of CENTCOM.

The games that have been afoot over choosing the next Commandant of the Marine Corps were for naught. Those within the Navy who have a negative agenda for the Marine Corps and an administration that wants gays openly admitted to the military have been bested by fate. For that I say “thank you” to General Stanley McChrystal.

Regarding General James F. Amos

I’m sure that six months ago the thought of being selected as the next Commandant of the Marine Corps had not entered General Amos’ mind.  That job just never goes to aviators and we are fighting a ground war so reasoning dictates that General Mattis or Lieutenant General Dunford would have been a better choice. They are, in the parlance of the Marine Corps, “grunt” generals, and more connected to the Marines on the ground doing the face to face fighting than our aviator General Amos.

With that said, I believe General Amos won’t be the push-over that our Secretary of Defense believes he is. That is after all the reason Robert Gates selected Amos over Mattis and Dunford.  Gates, or someone he is fronting for wants to make some significant changes to the Marine Corps and they know that the current Commandant General Conway, and General Mattis and Lieutenant General Dunford will strongly oppose those changes.  Gates knows Conway, Mattis and Dunford are tenacious and victorious in battle so he selected the guy he thinks he has the best chance of defeating.

Honestly, I believe Gates has sorely underestimated General Amos because he is an American and a Marine first. If he damages the Corps he also damages our country and our Marine aviators, I just can’t see a Marine General doing that. But what is a small minded adversary to do when your choices are limited to Marines to lead the Corps! Perhaps Gates and the people for whom he is a proxy would have preferred to choose an Admiral to lead the Marines.

Regarding General Stanley A. McChrystal

He was a poor fit with leading the war in Afghanistan from the beginning. Don’t construe that to mean he’s not a good General, however few Generals are good at all things.  For the last twenty years General McChrystal’s career has been focused on special operations. When it came time to command regular ground forces any connections he may have had with traditional ground forces were twenty years old and like brain synapses, when connections are not used they deteriorate. He failed to connect with his troops, his immediate subordinates and just about anyone except for those in his specialty. That failure made him ineffective as a leader and vulnerable.

Regarding General David Howell Petraeus

Oh this fellow is easy to talk about. First and foremost he is genuinely respectful of all branches of our military and all ranks. As an excellent leader he knows how to exercise control over subordinates so they feel respected and compelled to do their duty. Plus, who knows if he likes our current President or not and that’s exactly the way it should be, our military should exhibit no politics. President Obama is his boss and Petraeus respects that.

Petraeus’ is no prima donna. His intent is to win and thus he is open to ideas that may enhance his chance to win. If winning and securing America and freedom means having tea with bin Laden then that option will be on the table and he will execute it with authority, dignity, and prowess.

Geeze, what a mess General Petraeus has to clean up!

Regarding General James N. Mattis

I am pleased that my favorite four star, Marine General James N. Mattis, has been selected to head CENTCOM, it’s the circuitous route that carried him there that I find disheartening. He should have been selected as Commandant of the Marine Corps with Lieutenant General Dunford as the Assistant Commandant. After all, Dunford is a young man and we can have him as the next Commandant. I like to get all the mileage I can out of my excellent Marine Corps Generals. But oh my God, a Mattis-Dunford team would have been impossible for the Navy and Gates to control! Their combination in Iraq proved they are a formidable pairing.

The Mattis-Petraeus pairing is also formidable. Someone asked me today if General Mattis’s selection to CENTCOM made him General Petraeus’ boss. I suppose so, but the two will act synergistically with neither having to impose one’s will over the other. That’s what they do.

Lieutenant General John R. Allen

Well, this fine general has been royally screwed by SECDEF Gates. Had all things gone as they should have Mattis would be Commandant, Petraeus would have taken Afghanistan, Allen would have been the next commander at CENTCOM, and Amos, another fine general who has served with honor would have retired or been selected for a command commensurate with his experience.

I don’t know if General Mattis and Lieutenant General Allen get along, but I’m sure that because they are Marines they will come together as a team and leave the job better than when they found it. – Hard to do considering they are following Petraeus!

Regarding the Press

Holy cow! If I read one more story focused on General Mattis’ remarks in 2005 I’m going to gag. The press fixates on things that are often misinterpreted. Those 2005 remarks by Mattis showed that he respects freedom and women enough to fight for them.  I have a story that demonstrates General Mattis’ personality and command skills far better but is rarely repeated. I’m telling it from memory so you will get an abbreviated version.

During Desert Storm Colonel Mattis who was commanding the 7^th Marines at the time came upon a few of his Marines who had found the body of a badly mutilated Iraqi woman. His Marines were quite ready to kill some Iraqi soldiers they had found nearby because they were sure these soldiers had committed the atrocity. Colonel Mattis, himself enraged by the act, suppressed his anger and urge to revenge her horrible murder by killing the Iraqi soldiers and simply detained them. As it turned out the Iraqi soldiers were innocent of the woman’s murder.

– Ladies and gentlemen of the press, that is leadership at its best… That IS Jim Mattis. He does the right thing even when he is experiencing rage.

So, the fate referenced by General David Monroe Shoup, another favorite Marine, has bested our SECDEF and those to whom he is proxy. They may have placed General Amos at the helm of the Marines, but Mattis is still active duty and trust me, the Marines will support each other and do the right thing for our Corps and our country.

I’m not sure how the Army would feel about it, but General James N. Mattis would be the perfect man to replace General McChrystal who will likely resign later this week over a candid interview in Rolling Stone Magazine.

Mattis, who doesn’t give a lick about being popular would always keep the objective in mind. Bad press wouldn’t bother him and his immense knowledge of not just warfare but of the world, his adaptability, and his strong sense of morality make him the right choice for the job.  He’s also capable of successfully dealing with our waffling SECDEF and President – a talent that McChrystal lacks.

Currently our troops on the ground in Afghanistan have been left hanging without the kind of support they need to win the war. That’s due to many considerations being given to Karzai, NATO, and the fear of being lynched by the press when civilians are killed by mistake.  Only a really tough and savvy Commander can handle all that.  Mattis can breach the divide between Command and infantryman that has been generated by the current Command while keeping civilian casualties at a minimum. He will also balance Karzai, NATO and the press as best as possible.

Mattis will win if sent to Afghanistan.

Is another Chowder Society needed? My gut says yes!

Updated June 15, 2010 to reflect on Gen Amos.

Robert Gates does not like the Marine Corps. From needing a committee to decline a Medal of Honor for Sergeant Rafael Peralta to canceling a vehicle that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has supported for the Marines, the warning signs have been there all along.

Is Gates obfuscating the true issue? The Department of the Navy wants to use the existing and unprotected LCAC to land Marines because Gates and the Department of the Navy claim we will never have to land Marines on a hostile beach again. How totally absurd to believe that you can accurately predict how warfare will unfold and that every thug who initiates hostile action against the US and our allies will abide by Gates’ assessment. It seems likely to me that we will indeed need the capability to land on a hostile beach so what is actually at play here with Gates and cutting the EFV?

Cutting funding for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle gives Gates the appearance of being fiscally responsible. But it goes further to open the door for finding other ways to reduce the size and power of our Marine Corps under the guise of saving money, and therefore places our freedom and country in greater danger. Why greater danger? Because only the Marines can be sent to war with Presidential approval alone, congressional approval is not necessary for the initial deployment of Marines to protect us from eminent danger. Thus they defend us while our government decides how to proceed in the long term.

The Marine Corps accounts for approximately six percent of our military budget and the cost per Marine is $20,000 less than the cost of a serviceman from our other services. Our Marines are already on a strict budget with very little fluff. They are not trying to expand and take over the duties of the Army, Navy or Air Force. They are simply trying to make their force more efficient and effective. Getting Marines to the war quickly and in good shape certainly makes them more effective. Tinkering with the Marine Corps budget and equipment needs makes no sense to me at all, why would you want to weaken the one military service that can defend us at a moments notice, especially in this dangerous era?

Since it makes no sense to attack the Marine Corps budget in the face of the other services who never run lean, I ask: is there something more afoot here than budget cutting? What is Gate’s ulterior motive and is he the front man for someone else?

For those who read history, I see signs that we may be in need of another Chowder Society. I think whoever becomes Commandant will certainly need the behind-the-scenes support of the other contenders to help defend and strengthen the Marine Corps. In fact, all of our Marines need to be united in this effort.

I do believe that Gates respects the sacrifice of our service members. I once saw a video of him amid caskets returning from Iraq. The emotions on his face revealed a man who felt deeply for our fallen warriors. However, it’s evident that he’s weak and easily persuaded to do the bidding of other high level officers and politicians.

So, General Mattis, LtGen Dunford, LtGen Allen, and all other Marines: regardless of who is selected to be Commandant, your importance to the Corps extends beyond that position. We will need all Marines to act to defend and strengthen our precious Marine Corps. Even though I have no right to ask any Marine to do more than they have already done, I do ask my Marines to keep an eye open and if necessary emplace another Chowder Society.

The ghosts of Twinning, Thomas, Krulak, Hittle, Heinl, Edson, etal are watching….

On a final note, I hope to see LtGen Allen heading CENTCOM after Gen Petraeus.

Update: With Gate’s recommendation that General Amos be the next Commandant I see history repeating itself. Eisenhower selected David M. Shoup to be Commandant because he believed he could control him. Eisenhower was wrong. My guess is that General James F. Amos will take good care of the Marines.

U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe (wired.com)

The following are my thoughts regarding the arrest of SPC Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, who boasted of giving classified U.S. combat video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to whistleblower site Wikileaks. He also took credit for leaking a video of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online in April. The video grabbed headlines because it showed a deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad that killed several civilians.

Let me preface my remarks with a question. If a murderer is not caught by law enforcement and processed through our judicial system and you know who that murderer is, would you punish that person yourself, outside of our rule of law?

The answer to my hypothetical question must be “no” if we are to consider ourselves to be a civilized country.

Spc Manning found the helicopter video stored in a JAG officer’s directory and rather than let the Judge Advocate General’s office proceed with whatever they were planning, Manning decided to tell the world through the media.

On behalf of all Americans this 22 year old made an executive decision. He decided Army Intelligence was corrupt and so he disregarded the systems we have in place to protect ourselves and freedom. Rather than work constructively to improve Army Intelligence he decided to discredit it. After all, working to improve the system would take a lot of time and dedication, going to the press provided instant gratification (regardless of the consequences.)

Did this man have role models to reinforce this type of behavior? I say yes.  I recall in the fall of 2006 that a secret report written by a Colonel in Marine Corps Intelligence was leaked to the press by Tom Ricks. There have been many other leaks: White House leaks, Pentagon leaks, with each being tolerated by the public and thus fostering the idea that it’s okay to leak secrets to the press.

What a destructive mindset: crippling our intelligence systems by tolerating leaks to the press! Disclosing information that undermines the role our intelligence organizations play in securing America and freedom and putting our troops at risk. Those troops are our children, parents, and siblings, yet we allow the press to endanger them each time we tolerate the leak of secret information.

Let me be blunt, Spc Manning must be tried for treason and (if found guilty) given the most severe sentence possible.

We must also examine our vetting of intelligence personnel and design a system more rigorous in excluding those capable of such betrayal. As well the American public must become less tolerant of a press corps who routinely betrays our country for monetary gain.



Please feel free to copy this letter and mail it to Secretary Mabus. There is power in numbers.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

The Honorable Ray Mabus
Secretary
Department of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington DC, 20350-1000

Dear Secretary Mabus,

I am writing to vehemently express my disapproval of the naming of a San Antonio class amphibious transport dock ship after the late Representative John P. Murtha. Traditionally our naval vessels carry names that our service members can be proud of. That will not be the case for the USS John P. Murtha.

I refer specifically to Representative Murtha’s unconscionable proclamation to the press that the Marines at Haditha were cold-blooded murders. Had Representative Murtha been truly concerned about justice he would have made sure the cases involving Haditha were properly investigated and then prosecuted. Instead he used the incident to create a media circus for personal political gain; all the while disregarding the welfare of Marines serving in combat.

One of the more insidious repercussions from Representative Murtha’s circus was the doubt he placed in the minds of Marines as they prosecuted one of the most violent and morally bruising wars in the history of our country.

Luke S. Larson addresses this doubt in his recent novel Senator’s Son that is based on his experiences in Iraq as a Marine Corps infantry officer. On page fifty-eight he writes:

YOU WILL BE JUDGED BY LAWYERS WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN A FIREFIGHT.

This is Murtha’s legacy to the United States Marine Corps, and in fact to all military services of the United States of America. Murtha has personally placed the idea into the minds of combat leaders who make split second decisions of life and death, that if they fire, regardless of the circumstances they will be investigated in a media circus just like the Haditha Marines. I wonder how many Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen have been wounded or died because their reactions were slowed by the doubt placed in their mind by John P. Murtha.

This man does not deserve to have a ship named after him. That will immortalize the insult he has delivered to our military. Imagine the feelings of the sailors and Marines serving on the USS John P. Murtha. What will their emotions be as they traverse the seas in constant vigilance protecting our country while aboard the namesake of the man who double-crossed our military? Will they feel the same pride they do when serving aboard the USS San Antonio, New Orleans, Mesa Verde, Green Bay, New York, San Diego, Anchorage, Arlington, or Sommerset? I think not! Will one split second of doubt or disgust created by John P. Murtha kill those sailors and Marines?

I urge you to undo this heinous act of naming a ship for John P. Murtha, the man who would betray anyone for political gain.

Respectfully,

An excerpt from the field notebook carried by Colonel David M. Shoup during the battle of Tarawa:

“If you are qualified, fate has a way of getting you to the right place at the right time – tho’ sometimes it appears to be a long, long wait.” For Shoup, the combination of time and place worked to his benefit on two momentous occasions: at Tarawa in 1943 and as President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s deep selection to become the twenty-second commandant of the Marine Corps in 1959.

From Utmost Savagery by Col Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret.)

From left to right: LtGen Allen, LtGen Dunford, Gen Mattis.

Later this year a new Commandant of the Marine Corps will be selected and speculation is beginning to coalesce over who the choice might be. In January a short list of contenders emerged and was reported by the Marine Corps Times as:

-LtGen John R. Allen, deputy commander at Tampa, Fla.-based U.S. Central Command.
-LtGen Joseph F. Dunford, commander of I Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif.
-Gen James N. Mattis, commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command out of Norfolk, Va.

The scuttlebutt I’ve heard has pared that list down to two contenders: General Mattis and Lieutenant General Dunford. You could read the official biographies of these men, but they are simply listings of jobs and commands held and provide no details that give insight into the character of these Marines.

Both Mattis and Dunford have been written about numerous times in the historical books of the War on Terror and both men have been described as inspirational and fearless leaders.

However there is much more available on the internet concerning General Mattis. Video and audio recordings of his speeches and interviews have allowed me to watch his face as he speaks and listen to the intonation of his voice. These experiences along with the text of speeches he has given, reveal clues about the fine character and integrity of this consummate warrior. I’ve watched, listened to, and read every scrap of information out there on General Mattis and I’ve hunted mostly in vain for such information on Lieutenant Generals Dunford and Allen. There is simply not enough public information on Allen and Dunford to make a good comparison of their qualifications.

However I wonder if it really matters which of these Marines is selected. In 1959 when Major General Shoup was selected to become commandant over more qualified lieutenant generals, the ulterior motive of President Eisenhower was to downsize the Marine Corps.

David Shoup had joined the Corps after passing through Army ROTC, and the President believed that the Major General would be sympathetic to his belief that the Marine Corps should be restricted to units no larger than regiments. By the time President Eisenhower left office in 1961 he had submitted a budget for a Marine Corps of three divisions and three air wings, numbering a total of 175,000 personnel. General Shoup had managed to reverse President Eisenhower’s opinion of the value of the Marine Corps.

Even though I have a personal bias towards General Mattis because I’ve followed him closely for six years and believe he is the finest military man to ever walk the face of the earth, history has shown us that Lieutenant General Allen, Lieutenant General Dunford, or another Marine may indeed be the right man for the job because as Colonel Shoup wrote in his field diary, “If you are qualified, fate has a way of getting you to the right place at the right time.”

Godspeed to the next commandant, may he preserve and strengthen our United States Marine Corps, America’s most precious resource.

Resources:
The Illustrated Directory of the United States Marine Corps by Chester G. Hearn
Utmost Savagery by Col Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret.)

Sunday morning I surfed to the front page of the Washington Post as usual and found this article:

At Afghan outpost, Marines gone rogue or leading the fight against counterinsurgency?

There are many problems with this piece of writing beginning with its title. Mr. Chandrasekaran frivolously uses the word rogue thus bringing into question the intent of the actions of my Marines in Marjah.

rogue
1. a dishonest or unprincipled person, esp a man; rascal; scoundrel
2. Often jocular a mischievous or wayward person, often a child; scamp

That one word, rogue, implies that BGen Nicholson and my Marines no long honor the ethos of our Marine Corps. That ethos is strongly rooted in heritage, patriotism, discipline, and an undying fidelity to our country and our citizens.

BGen Nicholson and my Marines would NEVER abandon their ethos and they would never lose a battle or war unless ordered to by the politicians back home. (Politicians usually influenced by your kind of irresponsible journalism.)

Next Mr. Chandrasekaran calls into question the need for my Marines’ campaign in Marjah by quoting but not naming a “senior official.” How on earth could a journalist supposedly familiar with this war in Afghanistan have such a complete and utter lack of knowledge of how this type of war must be waged? Mr. Chandrasekaran, have you been snoozing for the last nine years? Who is the “senior official” and what experience do they have in winning wars?

Mr. Chandrasekaran believes my Marines would be better used in Kandahar where a large battle is reported to be brewing. After all, there aren’t very many people in Marjah and the surrounding areas, not compared to the cities. Perhaps Mr. Chandrasekaran and his unnamed “senior official” have no concept of the history of war in Afghanistan. You know, like how bin Laden found his way to the Hindu Kush during the 1980’s, and how the Soviets controlled the cities but not the lesser populated areas. For your information Mr. Chandrasekaran, the Soviets got their fannies kicked.

Mr. Chandrasekaran perhaps we’ll take the advice of your unnamed “senior official” and just leave Helmand Province on its own. That way as the battle in Kandahar is prosecuted Marjah and the rest of Helmand Province can serve as a safe haven for the enemy to regroup in as they are pushed out of Kandahar. (Just kidding, BGen Nicholson, the incoming MajGen Mills and my Marines would sooner cut off their own arms than lose.)

Mr. Chandrasekaran the title of your article can only be meant to cause trouble between the services and for the very Marines who would gladly give their lives so you can exercise your right to haphazardly practice your trade. Your article fails to make a cogent argument that my Marines have gone rogue but you didn’t mind getting the readership from your irresponsible headline. How many people simply read the headline and erroneously concluded that my Marines had gone rogue?

And Mr. Chandrasekaran, they are MY Marines. I am part of “that country” and “the citizens” they have an undying fidelity to. I proudly claim each and every one of them!!!

Senator Joe Biden demonstrating his complex algorithm that allows him to determine which Marine lives are important and which ones are not so important.

 Well, good old Joe’s at it again. Now he and Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) are saying that my Marines mismanaged a four-year effort to develop hidden video cameras to track insurgents planting roadside bombs. Surprisingly, (wink-wink) the company that developed this system is in St Louis. You know St Louis, MO! I’m sure the location of the company had no influence on Senator Bond’s opinion. (wink again!)

The system is called the Tactical Concealed Video System (TCVS) and never mind that the Marine who is the program manager for intelligence systems, Col Phillip Chudoba, found the system to be unusable. (I mean for crying out loud, he may be a full bird colonel but to our illustrious senators, he’s still just a dumb jarhead! How could he possibly know what he is talking about!?!)
 

Col Chudoba said, “Our operating forces have told us explicitly that this system does not meet their performance expectations. It does not function as it was intended to function. It does not yield the results that they expected.”

Chudoba said the system is better suited for industrial security, not the battlefield. It takes two hours to set up the cameras, antennas and generators, which expose Marines to too many risks “when they emplace it,” Chudoba said.

The camera systems were cumbersome and complex and their batteries burned out, Chudoba said. Today, most of the 15 systems, valued at about $1 million apiece, sit on the shelf.

So let me get this straight, now it’s the responsibility of the Marines to run this company that can’t seem to get it right?

An internal study on TCVS by Franz Gayl (where have we heard that name before!!!), a Marine Corps science adviser, supports the senators’ contention. “The delay in the delivery of, and lack of support for, TCVS reflect gross mismanagement of the TCVS program creating a significant adverse impact on the (troops’) ability to accomplish its mission,” wrote Gayl, who has also criticized the Marines’ MRAP program.

I guess Joe and Kit didn’t share their secret algorithm that gives them the ability to determine that Marine lives lost while setting this thing up are somehow not valuable. I’m sure there is a financial “blood money” element to that algorithm.

Joe honey, what is it? Are all the testosterone vapors coming from my Marines making you a little uncomfortable? Every chance you get you try to undermine my United States Marine Corps, me thinks their brains and awesome manliness must offend thee!

Hey Joe, here’s an idea. Why don’t you go visit Garrison Keillor at Lake Woebegone. I hear there’s no manhood required to get in so you should feel really comfy there!

Kiss Kiss!