The best heroin our taxes can buy

J, over at the Armchair Generalist, has a post about a Philadelphia Inquirer story (geez, this better be good, I’m blogging about a blog about a news article…talk about an echo chamber) that described how a marine unit (an element of the 24th MEU) has set up shop in a poppy growing region and allowed local farmers to continue harvesting their crop.  I can only assume the marines will allow the harvest to begin that long, winding journey to the streets of Europe, Asia and the U.S.

J is a big proponent of eradication efforts to destroy the poppy harvest in Afghanistan but I remain skeptical.  Quite frankly, I don’t think there’s any realistic way to destroy the whole (or even a significant amount) of the crop and our puny efforts to do so will only result in the following outcomes:

1. Hostility among the local population towards the U.S./coalition
2. Increased prices (and profits) for the Taliban/drug runners due to reductions in supply (perceived or real)
3. Increased poverty among Afghan farmers

I would argue (and have) that the solution is for the West to buy the poppy crops and destroy them after purchase.  In this way you could deprive insurgents/drug traffickers of both a major source of income and supply of their product and prevent the further impoverishment of Afghan farmers.  While this wouldn’t be a good long term solution, it would go a long way in taking the initiative away from the insurgents and force them to either find alternate sources of revenue or fight to hold poppy producing territory.  This would also contribute to winning that ‘hearts and minds’ campaign we keep hearing about among the local population.

Once you’ve got the poppy farmers on the payroll, the goal then should be to build the infrastructure up as quickly as possible so those farmers can transition to legitimate crops which can be sold on the open market.  One of the problems facing farmers is that crops which could be profitable can’t get to market now without significant spoilage because of the lousy transportation system.  Poppies stand up pretty well to the hardships of long transportation routes.

So the marines protecting the farmers and their opium crop may be denying the Taliban some revenue in their work but that’s not clear at all.  The Taliban may just demand their cut from somewhere higher in the distribution chain.  EIther way, it doesn’t deprive narcotics processors or traffickers from their revenue (and may even benefit them now that their fields are secured free of charge courtesy of the U.S. government) which means they will be staying in business. 

So how well would the Taliban function with $100 million less in revenue every year?  I don’t know, but I’d sure like to find out.

A failure to communicate…

A recent posting from the [My] State Failure Blog turned me on to the work of John McHugh, a photojournalist who’s been spending a lot of time in Afghanistan.  I haven’t gone through his Guardian work yet but this video really brought me back to my time there.

One of the most fundimental challanges in being a solider in a foreign land (not to mention trying to run a successful counterinsurgency campaign) is communicating with the local population.  Even though there were way too few troops in country when I was there, there was a constant shortage of translators.  The majority of translators are locals who happened to know some english (just how much varied greatly) and were not suppossed to be privy to sensitive information.  There were also U.S. citizens, frequently immigrants from Afghanistan, who returned either to help out their new country, their old country, cash in on the $15,000 per month paycheck they were earning or some combination of all three.  Many of these people were given security clearances and therefore were able to be present during sensitive discussions, planning or negotiations.

The demand for translators with clearances (all the ones I knew of hired via private contracting companies) was huge.  So huge, in fact, that many of us had suspicions that corners were cut in the hiring and vetting of many of these interpreters (not to mention the fact that many of them had questionable language skills).

Translators present two significant problems:  errors in translation and abuse of position.

Errors in translation are similar to what you see in the video.  I can’t tell you how many times I asked a local a question, heard him give a lengthy response and then have the interpreter tell me “He says ‘Hi’.”  You then have to decide if you want to get into it with your interpreter and make him tell you everything that was said.  Even then, you can’t be sure if you’re getting the correct translation.

Abuse of position can occur with any interpreter but the most serious repercussions occur with the contracted U.S. citizens.  There were so few around, and the pay was so good that interpreters frequently spent much more time in country than soldiers.  When I got there in 2003, there were several interpreters that had been there almost continuously since the war began, and all their work was in one geographical area.  This positioned the interpreters to be a sort of court Vizier.  Many commanders relied on their interpreters to tell them who they should meet, who was friendly and who to trust.  Rumors were rife that some interpreters sold access (’Oh, you want to have a meeting with the commander?  Then you must pay me.’) and influence.

Now, that is way, WAY outside the bounds of what interpreters are suppossed to do.  They, like their name implies, are suppossed to translate.  That’s it.  Just relay what was just said in one language into another language.  Without commentary, opinion, additions or subtractions.  I have to admit, that it took me a while to learn that lesson myself but many (including many much senior to myself) never learned it.  There was a policy in place to rotate interpreters every so often just so that they couldn’t build up a network of clients and abuse their power.  I never saw such a policy enforced although I did see an attempt.  Some young officer (a captain, I believe) responsible for tracking the interpreters sent out a memo saying that all of our interpreters with security clearances would be rotated on a certain day.  Very shortly thereafter, that order was recinded because of an outcry by senior personnel about how much damage would be caused if they lost ‘their’ interpreter.  Now, if all they’re suppossed to do is translate, why do you need a specific person?  You don’t.  But if you’re using that interpreter as a crutch to tell you how to do your job you fight like hell to keep him.

My theory is that the requirements of a counterinsurgency campaign didn’t really sink in during 2003/2004 and many just didn’t know what they were supposed to do.  Who was taught how to deal with local populations?  Who even knew what our broad strategy was?  So it became easy for some to rely on a person who had been there longer and spoke the language.

I only trusted one translator when I was there and he was a local without any sort of clearance.  By the end of our tour we’d try (usually unsuccessfully) to get two interpreters to go out with us so we could have a bit of check and balance.  Competition was intense among interpreters (frequently he who was attached to the highest ranking soldier rose to prominence in their own internal pecking order) and so you could usually rely on them to stab each other in the back and tell you about screw ups.  That was usually all the incentive interpreters needed to do their job properly.

Could you please pass the salt?

Well, if you needed any further proof that the military is scraping the bottom of the barrel, I was just promoted to Master Sergeant yesterday.  I wish I had a ‘way back machine’ so that I could see the expression of the 18 year old version of myself as I tell him I’d be a master sergeant one day.  I seem to recall telling a first sergeant at one point in my early years “I’ll sell pencils on the street before I reenlist in the Army.”

I’m still eating crow over that one (and I’m a vegetarian!)

Common sense prevails in the military?

This morning I was greeted by this story on CNN (I don’t know why I watch it anymore, the lack of real news is astounding) in which they were talking about the shocking (!!!) results of a new study which says that soldiers are reluctant to seek help for mental health problems because they think they will negatively impact their careers.  The announcer was asking how this could possibly be the case and the interviewee wasn’t particularly insightful, just saying that the military was increasingly encouraging soldiers to seek help.

To anyone in the military however, the answer is very clear.  Doors definitely close if you report any instance of mental health issues.  I’ve seen outstanding soldiers denied the opportunity to become officers because at some point in their past (even years earlier) they sought out help for depression or other conditions.  Evaluations by doctors that the problem(s) are under control or no longer remain are irrelevant.

Also, security clearances can be delayed or rejected if the applicant has a history of seeking treatment for mental health issues.  That strikes right at the heart of a soldier’s career since some jobs require a clearance as a prerequisite and in any case they are required as one reaches the senior levels of non-commissioned officer.

It was therefore nice to see that Defense Secretary Gates is about to announce that he’s changing the questionnaire for security clearances so that soldiers will not be required to reveal if they sought help for wartime related mental health issues.  It’s that sort of practical measure that is infinitely more effective than countless press releases and public statements.

And as an aside, let me express my extreme displeasure again at U.S. based news websites that often write stories about studies and reports and then don’t link to the source document.  The BBC doesn’t seem to have a problem placing a few related outside links to each story, why can’t CNN or MSNBC?

Afghan Rambos

The Washington Post yesterday described the creation and deployment of Afghan commandos to fight the Taleban.  The article makes the 4,000 soldiers sounds very impressive and it sounds like the U.S. is putting some significant time and resources in training and equipping these forces.  I found this quote very interesting:

In marksmanship, for example, commandos fire more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition in their initial training alone, while the average Afghan soldier fires 60 rounds in training each year.

This got me thinking about the training we recently did at Ft. Dix and my comments about how the Army plays it cheap with weapons training when it comes to many of its soldiers.  That 60 rounds of ammunition per soldier per year is about the same amount that I’ve received ever since I’ve been in the army with the exception of when I was mobilizing (and it that case I doubt I fired more than 200 rounds).  I’ve always questioned just how proficient a marksman you can be when you only shoot one day a year, under unrealistic conditions with a minimal amount of ammunition but what do I know?  As I’ve said before, training has gotten better over the years but there’s still this approach that neglects training (at least among the reserve component) to do minimal training until the word comes down to mobilize and then there’s a mad dash to cram as much training as possible in a short period of time.  I think that’s the wrong way to approach it since (as anyone who’s crammed for a test can tell you), there’s just no way you can expect soldiers to absorb and retain the flood of new information and procedures as well as if they were involved in training over the long term where they could be exposed to these procedures and tactics repeatedly.

But that’s not why I wanted to blog about this news item.

I haven’t done any research on this but I wonder if there are any examples of fragile (or failed) nation states developing elite military units which didn’t end up abusing their power?  It’s not a huge leap from counterinsurgency force and death squad if there’s no effective control of the military.  The Karzai government doesn’t have a great deal of control in many parts of the country and I doubt there’s deep loyalty to the new Afghan state system.  So, we’re in a precarious place here.  The development of the force and their apparent competence is definitely a good sign.  In many ways though, that was the easy part.  What needs to happen now (just like in Iraq) is a strengthening of the legitimacy (both perceived and actual) of the central government.

Hidden casualties

This story from the AP caught my eye about the scale of mental health problems arising from our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The latest estimates are that approximately 300,000 soldiers are suffering from some sort of mental health issues, including depression, PTSD and anxiety.  That’s about 18% of the total number of forces that have deployed.  The really bad news (that’s right, it’s even worse) is that only half of those suffering from such problems are seeking help.  The rest are suffering without treatment or ’self-medicating’.

The shame of that is that there is help available for soldiers.  This is one area where there have been significant improvements since I returned home in 2004.  Military OneSource offers a range of services (including free counseling) for soldiers.  It’s run by a contracted company (Ceridian) which would normally make me dubious but it does make their claims of confidentiality seem more trustworthy than if such services were being provided by the Department of Defense.  That’s important because soldiers are often reluctant to seek treatment for mental problems via the military medical system because they are afraid it would negatively impact upon their career.  I’ve known people who’ve had career doors shut because they were treated for depression or similar issues years in the past.  Unfortunately, even though the military (at least the Army) has gotten better at encouraging soldiers to seek help there is still a stigma about those who actually attempt to get help.

I imagine the costs of these mental health problems will be following us around for years.  The question will be once troops are eventually pulled out of Iraq will there be any will to properly fund treatment for all these vets?  My suspicion is that most Americans desperately want to pretend that Iraq never happened (and, I suspect, most have made that transition anyway) and I fear that soldiers from that conflict are going to get the short end of the stick as a result.  After all, Iraq has been supplemented by the economy and why Obama won’t wear a flag pin as the most important issues facing the country today.  I can’t imagine there will be more pressure to attend to wounded veterans when we aren’t actively involved in combat operations.

Mission Accomplished

Well, it seemed to last much longer than it actually did, but my military training is finally finished and I can go back to ‘normal’ working hours.  In the past 16 days we got over 630 soldiers to fire the 240B machine gun on three different ‘tables’.  It was an exhausting experience.

A number of soldiers from the NJ National Guard are getting ready to deploy to Iraq later in the year and I’ve been able to observe how some of them are preparing for that deployment over the past 4 months.  It’s been very interesting to compare the training and preparation these soldiers are getting with the training I received before mobilizing in 2003.

The training I received back then was substandard in virtually all areas.  Basic soldier skills which were ignored up to that point (because, according to the leadership, we’d get lots of refresher training on them in the unlikely event we were ever called to war) were passed over because (ready for this?) everyone assumed we had been maintaining our proficiency in them for years.

Combat training was minimal because we weren’t a combat unit and our leadership couldn’t conceive a scenario where such training would be necessary (despite evidence in the early days of the Iraq war that support units were, in fact, finding themselves in combat).  To be fair to the leadership it must be said that additional training would have cut into their drinking time and so would have placed an undue burden on them.

The training I’ve observed (especially that conducted at the armories) has been much better than what I encountered.  The one exception that I can see is weapons training.  Given how much soldiers are going to rely on their weapons, I think more time (much more time) needs to be spent getting soldiers proficient with the weapons they’ll be expected to use.  When I entered the army I received one full week of training in the M-16.  I learned how to take it apart, put it together and shoot it (again and again).  After that, in the reserves, training is limited to firing the weapon for a couple of hours, once a year.  When getting ready to spend a year in a war zone, the army gives (at best) a few hours of instruction and then throws you on the range to ‘qualify’ (which is a minimum number of targets you need to hit in a specific time period).  The whole thing is more about checking off a box than actually conducting any meaningful training but that’s all they get.  That’s a shame since soldiers more proficient in weapons use means less ‘collateral damage’ which is a definite boon to any hearts and minds campaign.

I can’t help myself

While getting myself ready for this military training I had to get a new helmet band for my helmet.

Now, we were told that we could get our names and blood types sewn onto the helmet bands as well. If they left it at that everything would be fine. Unfortunately, they just couldn’t leave well enough alone.

“Under no circumstances is anything else authorized to be put on the band.”

Within an hour I was down at the alterations place trying to figure out what I should get sewn onto my band. I knew it was petty but I really couldn’t help myself. It was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. I was compelled to non-conformity.  What’s wrong with me?!

Oh well, hopefully I at least non-conformed in a cool way…

Break out the camo…

I’m getting ready to do a three week stint of military duty so after next week I expect posting to get real sparse (that’s an optimistic prediction…I’m expecting to not have enough time to even check back here).  I’ll be training soldiers to fire the M-240B machine gun…

I have to admit, I’m not really a gun nut but the M-240B is pretty nice.  Easy to take apart, put back together, use and clear.  I could probably teach a ten year old to use one in short order…

Oh, wait.  I guess that’s not a good thing, is it?

I’ll definitely need to get one once the zombie uprising begins though.  Or when our evil alien overlords decide the time is ripe to strike.  Or when robots become sentient and decide to take over the earth.

Anyway, I’m hoping the experience will enable to take some good photos.  I’ve been neglecting my camera and I’ll need something to jar me out of the bone numbing dullness of three weeks of watching guys spend all day shooting thousands of rounds at paper targets.

You’ve got a village idiot? Big deal, we’ve got a national one.

I’m really proud of my service in the military and my tour in Afghanistan.  I have a lot of positive emotions and memories from that time.

Under no circumstances, however, would I ever refer to time in a war zone as ‘romantic’ like Bush just did a few days ago.

“I must say, I’m a little envious,” Bush said. “If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.”

“It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger.”

Hmmm…if going to war is so exciting and romantic, I wonder how hard he tried to convince his kids to go.  Oh…I see the qualifying statement:  “and not employed here”.  I guess that means this fantastic, romantic experience should be reserved for unemployed (or unemployable) losers?  Is that how this guy sees people in the military?

I have to admit, there was a time when I would have thought that being in a war zone would be exciting and yes, maybe even a bit romantic.

Then I grew up.