Behind the cover: Marine lieutenant’s firing causes uproar over rules of engagement
April 16th, 2012 | Afghanistan Behind the Cover Capitol Hill Infantry Sangin | Posted by Andrew deGrandpre
This week's cover story, written by Marine Corps Times' Pentagon bureau chief, Andrew Tilghman, examines the case of 1st Lt. Josh Waddell, who was fired after his commander accused him of violating the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.
First Lt. Josh Waddell ordered his men to take out an insurgent last fall in Afghanistan, and that decision has come back to bite him pretty badly. Now, the 25-year-old finds himself at the center of a contentious debate over the rules of engagement and the potentially disastrous career implications for those deemed to have violated them.
When the incident occurred, Waddell was the executive officer for his company with 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, which oversaw security in the Sangin district of Helmand province. He was subsequently fired from that job, given a lousy fitness report and told he would not be recommended for promotion. His father, a retired Navy SEAL commander, has gotten involved — and made enough noise to capture the attention of some in Congress, who are pushing for creation of ROE “review boards” that would afford troops an independent review of any administrative action stemming from alleged violations. But some worry that would serve to undermine the chain of command.
Also this week, staff writer James K. Sanborn has an exclusive first look at the Corps’ plan to develop new functional fitness tests, part of the service’s evaluation of opening additional ground combat jobs to women. The goal is to establish gender-neutral standards for physically rigorous tasks required of Marines whose primary mission is to close with and destroy. As we reported in February, the Corps is opening to women about 400 jobs in six types of battalions. Officials said then that this was a precursor to implementing broader changes. These new strength tests are a key piece to doing so.
This issue is on newsstands now. To read it immediately, click here and subscribe.
Behind the Cover: The plan to cut the Marine Corps
August 15th, 2011 | Behind the Cover Capitol Hill Leadership Manpower The CMC The Sgt. Major of the Marine Corps | Posted by Dan Lamothe
For nearly a year, the Marine Corps’ top officials have stayed on message with two main points regarding manpower: A drawdown wouldn’t begin until after the war in Afghanistan, and it would reduce the service to 186,800 Marines.
Those points were reinforced early this year with the release of the Corps’ force-structure review recommendations. It called for a 13 percent reduction in ground combat forces, but stuck with that 186,800 end-strength figure.
It’s time for a reality check. In light of the nation’s financial trouble, that plan may not be feasible. In this week’s Marine Corps Times cover story, we outline what could happen instead, relying on interviews with top service officials, past reporting and a look at previous drawdowns.
Commandant Gen. Jim Amos acknowledges that force reductions could now begin as soon fiscal 2013, which begins next October. He and Sgt. Maj. Mike Barrett, the Corps’ top enlisted Marine, offer up their thoughts and advice to Marines, but acknowledge life in the Corps will soon be a whole lot more competitive.
To check the story out, pick up this week’s Marine Corps Times on newsstands. You also can read it online by subscribing here.
Behind the Cover: The debt deal’s effect on the military
August 9th, 2011 | Behind the Cover budget Capitol Hill | Posted by Dan Lamothe
If you’ve been following the news coming out of Washington, D.C., you know that the financial and political realities of our nation are coming together in a great, big mess.
The recent agreement reached to cut the U.S.’s deficit could have widespread impact on the military, especially when a 12-member “super committee” in Congress begins hunting for $1.2 trillion in federal budget cuts by mid-November.
The debt deal will reduce defense spending by $350 billion over the next decade, and potentially as much as $1 trillion.
This week’s Marine Corps Times explores all those themes, but also drills down into how specifically it could affect active-duty and retired Marines.
A variety of pay and benefits cuts are on the table, alarming many who have served their country. Congressional editor Rick Maze lays them out in a comprehensive cover story.
To get the details, check it out this week’s edition on newsstands now or subscribe here online.
EFV: At what cost to the Corps?
February 4th, 2011 | budget Capitol Hill Vehicles | Posted by Gidget Fuentes
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle goes for a swim at Camp Pendleton, Calif., last summer.//Lance Cpl. John Robbart III
With ringing endorsements from the Pentagon’s top leader and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Jim Amos to kill the program, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle’s fate is close to being sealed. But the EFV remains a contentious issue as big defense contractor General Dynamics continues with its push to save the program, with some help from congressional members who say nixing the EFV is akin to killing the Marine Corps itself.
Beating the drum is Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., an Iraq veteran who now represents California’s 52nd district. In recent weeks, Hunter has taken his pro-EFV argument to various newspaper op-ed pieces, saying the Marine Corps would “lose its core competency” without it, and he noted that other top leaders – he didn’t identify but would include retired commandant and Gen. Jim Conway – had enthusiastically supported the EFV as a “top priority.”
So why the change in tune? It’s all about money, specifically what getting the EFV would cost in real terms to the Marine Corps, says a senior Department of the Navy official. “The Expeditionary Fighting vehicle is doing pretty well. It’s had a very troubled history,” Navy Undersecretary Robert “Bob” Work told a mostly-defense contractor crowd during the West 2011 conference on Jan. 26, noting the $3.3 billion investment in the program so far.
But the decision to cancel the EFV is not about its capability, Work insisted, but about the drain on the bank needed to support other requirements, notably ground combat vehicles, if the Marine Corps went forward with the program. From 2018 to 2025, he said, the EFV would consume from the Marine Corps’ budget 100 percent of the average of all ground combat vehicles, 50 percent of all Marine Corps procurement, and 90 percent of historical operations & maintenance dollars for ground combat vehicles.
Navy Undersecretary Robert Work//Navy photo
“It would not make a difference if that vehicle could do everything it said it can do. We simply cannot afford it,” said Work, a retired Marine Corps artillery officer and seasoned budget analyst before he took the bureaucratic post in 2009. “The opportunity costs…are too high.” The decision to cancel the program was made by the commandant, Gen. Jim Amos, he said, “and the secretary concurred.”
The $2.8 billion saved in canceling the program will help fund ground tactical vehicles. That’s $500 million toward the new amphibious vehicle – he expects the initial solicitation will be made by 2013 – $1 billion to extend the life of the current fleet of AAVs, $400 million to accelerate by three years the initial operating capability of the Marine Personnel Carrier, $200 million to recapitalize Humvees, and $700 million to recap light-armored vehicles and other vehicles.
“The EFV is an exquisite, wonderful capability,” he said, but the cost is too high. The smarter thing, he insisted in speaking with reporters, is to focus on funding vehicles that would fill the Corps’ requirement for 12 battalions of lift, which is either a 8-4 or 6-6 split between the next amtrac and wheeled MPC. “It’s going to be decided on the Marine Corps’ own terms. The secretary of defense has said, you’ve convinced me on the need for amphibious assault capability – a two MEB capability – you’ve convinced me that an armored tractor is a good thing to have in the Marine ground mobility portfolio, but you can’t afford to spend on the EFV,” he said.
Remembering Lance Cpl. Josh Birchfield, a face in Afghanistan’s security contractor problem
October 8th, 2010 | Afghanistan Capitol Hill Infantry | Posted by Dan Lamothe
The defense community and national news outlets are buzzing this morning about a Senate report that says U.S. security contractors have hired local warlords and thugs to private security, putting the lives of U.S. service members in danger.
For perspective’s sake, here’s colleague Rick Maze’s coverage of the report. The Associated Press story is also circulating widely.
It’s hard when you’re reading the reports to not immediately think of Lance Cpl. Joshua Birchfield, who died in Farah province, Afghanistan, on Feb. 19.
While the Senate’s report covers incidents that occurred in 2007 and 2008, Birchfield would appear to be a 2010 poster boy of a Marine who was a casualty to the poor hiring of Afghan contractors.
Marine officials confirmed in March that an investigation into Birchfield’s death found that he was fatally shot when an Afghan security contractor fired at a group of Marines. The incident was first reported in February, after a TV station in Chicago was apparently contacted by a service member who witnessed Birchfield’s death.
The investigation report, obtained by Marine Corps Times through a Freedom of Information Act request, says Birchfield, of 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines, out of Twentynine Palms, Calif., was mortally wounded in the head when a security guard working for a local company opened fire on a squad of Marines.
They had stopped in a dry riverbed during a combat foot patrol in Farah province, where 3/4 had operated for months.
The contractor was turned over to Afghan prosecutors for “future criminal proceedings,” Brig. Gen. Lawrence Nicholson, then the top Marine in Afghanistan, wrote in a letter accompanying the investigation report.
“This tragic event reminds us of the dangers and uncertainties of conducting counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan,” Nicholson wrote. Birchfield’s “fellow Marines and the squad’s corpsman did everything possible to save his life, but his wound was too severe.”
Birchfield, a rifleman, was wearing body armor and a Kevlar helmet when the incident occurred, the report said. Although portions of the 17-page report were redacted, it describes the events leading up to Birchfield’s death.
The squad was about an hour into a foot patrol when it arrived at the riverbed to establish an observation post, the report said. Shortly before sunrise, the Marines noticed a security checkpoint manned by Afghan contractors nearby. The exact distance is redacted in the report.
The first shots rang out about 80 minutes later, the report says. Moments earlier, one of the Afghan contractors had “appeared to observe” the Marines’ position before climbing down from the checkpoint’s roof and vanishing behind the building. As bullets landed around them, the Marines quickly fired off flares to let the Afghans know they were friendly.
Local Afghan companies hired and paid the contractors to safeguard their employees and equipment, according to a fact sheet prepared by the Marine Corps.
Citing an e-mail from a service member at the scene of Birchfield’s death, Chicago TV station WLS-TV reported March 2 that the Afghan guards were using opium, and the shooter was found with “copious amounts of wet opium on him shortly after the shooting.” No drug use is mentioned in the Corps’ report.
Dissecting the Mattis-to-CENTCOM reaction
July 9th, 2010 | Afghanistan Capitol Hill General officers Infantry Iraq | Posted by Dan Lamothe
Gen. James Mattis, the presumed next commander of U.S. CENTCOM. (Associate Press photo)
It’s been about 24 hours since the Pentagon announced that Gen. James Mattis has been nominated to take over U.S. Central Command, and it has been met within the Marine Corps with the reaction most military observers expected.
In short, the typical Marine response: “Su-weet!”
There’s many reasons for that. Mattis, commander of the initial Marine invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously has a track record as an innovative military thinker, but he’s also a leader who goes the extra mile for Marines in hostile environments.
An example: Far removed from day-to-day Marine operations, Mattis advocated behind the scenes for more potent rifle ammunition last year due to concerns about the stopping power of the standard 5.56mm M855 round used since the 1980s. He didn’t pull those concerns out of the air. Undoubtedly, he heard things he didn’t like directly from the grunt community.
I was in Afghanistan last month before Assistant Commandant Gen. James Amos was nominated to become the next Marine Corps commandant. At the time, most speculation over who would replace Gen. James Conway focused on Mattis and Lt. Gen. Joseph Dunford, the current commander of I Marine Expeditionary Force, out of Camp Pendleton, Calif. Nearly universally, junior enlisted Marines I spoke with were in favor of Mattis becoming CMC.
As one lance corporal put it: “Dude, I f—ing love that guy. He’s a WARRIOR.” The Marine had never met him.
If anything, that shows the level of respect that Mattis has in the Corps. With his occasionally salty language and straight talk, rank-and-file troops relate to him, even now, as he closes in on 60 years of age and the end of his career.
Undoubtedly, some U.S. senators will ask him to explain his infamous “It’s fun to shoot some people” comments in 2005, but that did little, if anything to hurt his credibility with Marines, especially when the full context of his remarks are considered. In fact, many are still fond of quoting another legendary Mattis comment, made in 2003 in a meeting with Iraqis: “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f— with me, I’ll kill you all.” (Here are some of his most famous quotes.)
For what it’s worth, here’s reaction from some other military observers:
This is the best news I have heard in a long time. Just when I think Gates has lost his touch, he revives my faith by doing something like this. Readers of this blog will know that I think Mattis is terrific.
It is probably safe to say it’s unanimous here that we support the nomination of General Jim Mattis for command of Central Command.
We have many emails and accounts of General Mattis’ leadership during the battle of Fallujah. He was the co-author of the COIN manual for the Marines and the Army. He is the warrior monk.
There is no more brilliant or capable general officer that Jim Mattis. He has made a life time study of the art of war. Name a battle and he will quote you chapter and verse of its history.
He’s not a yes man and the appointment is kind of a surprise.
Gates has his moments.
Those are three distinctive blogs, and their authors frequently don’t see eye-to-eye. In this case, however, simpatico.
Rules of engagement again questioned on Capitol Hill
June 29th, 2010 | Afghanistan Capitol Hill Infantry | Posted by Dan Lamothe
Cpl. James Kirkpatrick, of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, makes a long leap across a canal east of Marjah, Afghanistan while on patrol May 24. Kirkpatrick's squad was later attacked during that same patrol in a coordinated attack. (Thomas Brown/Staff)
Rep. Walter Jones is back at it.
The Republican congressman with Camp Lejeune, N.C., in his backyard has again picked up the drumbeat calling for a congressional review of the rules of engagement used by the U.S. military in Afghanistan.
In a letter released Friday, Jones again asked House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, D.-Mo., and ranking member Howard “Buck” McKeon, R.-Calif., to hold a “classified hearing” in which military leadership explains the rules under which rank-and-file troops conduct operations outside the wire. The letter is also signed by Reps. Jeff Miller, R.-Fla., and Doug Lamborn, R.-Colo.
“As you are fully aware, recent media reports have increasingly raised the issue of the current Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Tactical Directives in Afghanistan,” the letter said. “We feel it is imperative that the Full Committee hold a classified hearing on this issue as soon as possible in order for Members to better understand whether the current Rules of Engagement and Tactical Directives are the best policy for our servicemembers fighting bravely in Afghanistan.”
It isn’t the first time Jones has called for a review of ROE, the classified guidelines under which Marines, soldiers and other U.S. service members fight. As Marine Corps Times has covered ad nauseum, they’ve been criticized repeatedly in recent months, including in an October cover story in our magazine.
In previous interviews, House Armed Services Committee staffers have said an open hearing on ROE would not be possible due to the classified nature of the discussion. A classified briefing before the whole committee is unlikely unless more members call for it, a committee staff member speaking on background told me in October.
An interesting footnote to the whole discussion: Jones, Miller and Lamborn use comments in the recent blockbuster Rolling Stone article that led to the demise of Gen. Stanley McChrystal to bolster their argument. They point out that a Special Forces operator who spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan told Rolling Stone that “every real soldier will tell you the same thing” about the ROE — that it puts lives in danger.
Coming off my recent embed with 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, in Marjah, it came as no surprise to me that Rolling Stone was able to find troops frustrated by the ROE defined by McChrystal. For example, Marines I went on patrol with in Afghanistan expressed dread over dealing with spotters, who observe Marines on patrol and drop back as they advance, only to disappear completely when nearby insurgents working in coordination with the spotters open fire.
Since the spotters carry no weapons, Marines say they are not allowed to fire on them, even though their involvement in a pending attack is obvious. As one corpsman said before we came under fire in May, it always starts with “one guy pointing.”
In a telephone interview, Jones told me this afternoon that he continues to hear ROE concerns from “moms and dads” in his district regularly, and believes the whole armed services committee needs to hear about the restrictions U.S. troops face.
“To me, it just sounds like a chaotic situation,” he said. “If we’re going to send them over there and keep them there, for God’s sakes, they need to be able to defend themselves.”