A reporter friend of mine, who preceded my own Afghan embed, still shakes his head at getting a parking ticket on Bagram. As he wrote at the time: "[H]ere’s the question: What’s the punishment? As soldiers here like to say, “What are they gonna do, send me to Afghanistan?”

Citation here:
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/03/25/bringing-order-to-a-lawless-land/

To build on the anti-reflective safety belt theme of this post: The more-than-urban-legend, less-than-fact that the wrong color belt on Bagram would make you suspect for prostitution. Can't make stuff like that up, either.

OK Tom, since you are an astute observer of military affairs and have visited military units over the past few years advising them on how to do effective counterinsurgency operations before they deploy, what say you the military expert on how to emplace discipline in a military organization? Where do you draw the line? What is OK and not OK in terms of blowing off rules and policies and enforcing them?

Please share your expertise on these matters with your readers?

Colonel Gentile,
I am not sure what you are referring to here--"have visited military units over the past few years advising them on how to do effective counterinsurgency operations before they deploy." Please tell me more.
Thanks,
Tom

My first thought was "What sort of f*ckery is this?"

On further reflection, there is probably a good reason for enforcing high visibility clothing for pedestrians on a large installation like Bagram where there is a mix of vehicle and foot traffic - i.e. someone probably got run over by a truck. Traffic control in rear areas like Bagram is definitely within in the MP mission.

The MPs could have cut the guy a break though. What kind of ticket does someone get at Bagram? Is it payable by check? Is there a traffic court set up for contests?

I remember a sort-of similar incident involving a traffic stop of one of our Humvees traveling under IR light and NODs because they weren't displaying any headlights or tail lights. The driver was plenty indignant, but it made sense to us once we thought it over.

What are they going to do, kick you out of the war?

From the CSM's perspective, grunts aren't happy unless they have something to complain about. Might as well make the "injustice" have the collateral benefit of pedestrian safety.

And yes, senior staff NCOs actually do think that way. Especially the motivators who run FOBs.

to answer the question on Is it payable by check?...the answer is that military traffic tickets are simply peices of paper that go to the commander of the Soldier's unit. The Commander can take whatever action he or she wants, this could be to toss it in the trash, counseling, or NJP if there have been multiple offenses.
Tickets like this go nowhere, most commanders shrug them off, or just remind the NCO leadership to enforce the rules. That being said, the rule to wear reflective belts on the Air Base (most air Bases all over) did not come from nowhere, and the enforcement by MPs probably came out as leaders (NCOs, Officers) were not enforcing the rule.
On the authors comment about MPs needed for ANP training, rest assured that the MPs on Bagram have other duties other than the 30 minutes they were told to do that. This would include investigating any crimes from barracks theives etc...In a perfect world the MPs would not be used for crap like this, but if anyone out there lives in the perfect world, tell us how to get there.

Has anyone ever met an MP or an Air Force security-squadron weenie who wasn't a complete idiot?

Something I saw on a visit to Kandahar Air Field in 2008 - a MWR building that had four signs at the building entrance listing prohibited items and actions. I wanted to take a photo of the signs, but one of the listed prohibitions was taking a photograph of the signs!

Another KAF story: I heard the exact same complaint from two different Police Mentoring Teams stationed in Kandahar Province. In both cases, the teams traveled to KAF (for one of the teams a three hour trip) to pick up a needed spare part. However, since they picked a weekend to make the trip they found that the office was closed and they were unable to secure the part.

In the garrisons I have last served, they largely limit PT to routes that are closed for traffic -- yet still require PT belts as a uniform standard.

I'm curious as to the last incident of a Soldier getting seriously injured by a car during PT. I've been in for 20+, and have never heard of one. And I doubt it is because of the PT belt.

I get the sentiment that if is saves one life it is worth it, but to me it smells of a degree of risk aversion that permeates the Army.

A lot of posts don't allow to to even run off of "approved routes" during PT hours -- scared that someone might twist an ankle on rough ground (that was how it was explained to me by the III Corps safety office.)

Oddly, when I rotated through Bagram on the way home, they prohibited ballistic glasses when running during PT. I know more Soldiers whose ballistic glasses saved their eyes from mortar/ied fragments that those hit by cars.

There is a legend passed down among the FBI agents who pass through Bagram. Back in 2008, when the MPs first started ticketing for PT belts in force, some commander got so mad at the vast amounts of soldiers, civilians, and contracters who ignored the policy, that it was dictated that anyone caught without a PT belt during hours of darkness would be arrested. Well, an FBI agent new to BAF decided to walk down Disney to the DFAC for some dinner. He did not know the PT belt rule. He was promptly arrested by a PV2 MP. The FBI station chief actually had to go down to the MP station to get the special agent released from custody. The ticket citation is framed in the FBI office on Bagram to this day.

Someone, somewhere show me some record of one soldier getting hit by a vehicle in theater - that could have been prevented by that belt? If you can, I'll show you a f'ing stupid soldier who deserved to get hit.

I fought that stupid rule tooth and nail and was told to "shut up and dig LTC." The tragedy is that I had to then enforce that rule - because I ain't that guy who points the dirty finger at higher. Actually, I let my CSM do that dirty work, and he started by making sure I was always wearing mine, sigh.

Might be worth it to the young-ens amongst us to realize that sometimes your boss is trying his best and it still isn't good enough. Also realize that some things are worth falling on the sword and some are not. Sadly, Joe doesn't know how often his/her boss went to bat and won (so something stupid was prevented), he only knows when they lost.

I hate that f'ing belt.

The reflector vest thing is chickensht to be sure. When i was a squadron commander in baghdad in 2006 I argued hard to end all of the frills for the remfs like salsa night and all of the silly focusses and get concentrated on the mission at hand.

Some of you dont like it, but Tom Ricks himself needs push back at times. I called him out correctly as an adviser, which is a function he has performed to the US military over the years. He has in fact been asked to speak to combat brigades getting ready to deploy and i have no doubt that questions were asked of him things like what have you seen that works and doesnt work in the coin fight in iraq and afghanistan. When he answers those questions based on his current observations then he is in a sense advising. I am told he recently gave a graduation speech to the ROTC Georgetown class and he spoke of the best qualities for leaders to lead soldiers in combat. He works at a major think tank called CNAS which we all know does advisory work for policy makers. So my characterization of him as a military adviser is correct and fair.

So I ask him in that regard as a military expert and adviser where does one draw the line with discipline and enforcing standards. So if he is going to chunk up a post like this one, well then lets hear his thoughts on the matter.

Sorry. I've been lurking here for a while. I just completed 15 months as the Senior Advisor to a certain Afghan Minister who is on their National Security Council.

Several have opined that MPs ought to be out training Afghan Police.

A worse idea probably does not exist.

I used the words "trainers", "mentors" and "advisors" for a reason. Each has different mission sets (and individual requirements). I will be interested in seeing responses.

Back to subject.

MPs are NOT trainers, mentors or Advisors. Even more important, MPs do not have ANY experience relevant to what an Afghan Police Officer (Provincial Police, ANCOP or CNPA, for example) needs in terms of training, mentoring or advising. Finally, MPs do not perform the kinds of law enforcement missions (with respect) that civilian police (and especially, Host National police) do. Thus, its no different than the continuing incompetence I saw (Aviation officers with no LE skills, language, or other training "advising" Afghan police).

Respectfully,

hossra

Yes, we have all seen crazy chickenshit in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what I have not heard anyone mention (except for Hunter briefly) is whether or not they "raged against the machine."

Two incidents during my final (stop lossed) OIF tour with pogue CSMs both ended with me telling them to get fucked. Both of them blustered and melted down, with no real consequences. Was it a professional reaction? No way. I could have handled it with more tact.

But I was tired, and I ultimately did what I always wanted to do, and it ended fine. They got mad, I walked off, and I wasn't wearing a reflective belt when the altercation began or when it ended.

Thanks to all. Confirms some of what I have been thinking about lately. And also reinforces the Best Defense counterintuitive law of blogs: The quality is found not in the posts but in the comments,
Best,
Tom

I was in the Navy and did support for NSW. On my 09 deployment to Iraq we caught so much crap from Army when SNCOs we went to BIAP and would swing by the PX. Every time any person from my unit went there, some Army E-7 or E-8 would try to correct the sailor for not wearing a reflective belt; as of when I got out of the Navy earlier this year, we didn't wear reflective belts but that could have changed.

This summer I was working out in the LIttle Creek Gym when I saw a soldier on a stationary exercise bike. He was wearing a reflective belt.

And just this past month, at Fort Dix I saw a soldier get out of the dry sauna in the locker wearing what - you guessed it, a reflective belt.

If you want a force that blindly follows regulations, this is a good thing. But this sort of conditioning also makes us really struggle at COIN and other more complex military activities than lining up at dining halls.

Commissary of a base inside the borders of the US at about 1300 on a Sunday last month: female soldier in BDUs with a blue reflective belt worn cross body. I considered telling her she looked like a complete idiot, but decided it probably wasn't her fault and kept walking. (It was a joint base with no entry level training commands around, and no base-wide mandate for belts after morning colors.)

If anyone can defend the policy that drove that soldier to look like a moron in uniform I'd be interested to hear it.

I lived at the main Italian-Spanish base in Afghanistan last year. At the political-strategic level, both of those countries are pretty risk averse when it comes to conducting operations in Afghanistan due to the political sensitivities of casulaties (naturally). Nevertheless, I never once saw an Italian or Spanish service member wearing a reflective belt or vest unless they worked on the flight line. Culturally, those guys drive vehicles in an unsafe manner with respect to pedestrians, and it was no different on that base. Honestly, there were a few times when I was surprised someone didn't get struck by a vehicle, day or night. There were never any cases of pedestrians getting hit by a vehicle, however.

As others have noted, wearing reflective belts at FOBs is indicative of the garrison mentality some leaders carry with them on deployments. I think it also reflects (no pun intended) having too many human resources available to do "make-work." If senior NCO leaders have enough soldiers available to do reflective-belt checks, area beautification, etc., then they shouldn't have that many guys deployed. If they're giving soldiers busy work to stave off the boredom of deployment, then they've got the wrong focus. Where are the voices of common sense?

The explosion struck the pipeline west of al-Arish in Sinai, witnesses said. There was a second consecutive blast, about 100 meters away, sources said.

State news agency MENA said the explosion was in al-Sabeel area. Security forces and fire trucks raced to the scene.

Security sources said the explosions were detonated from a distance and that tracks from two vehicles were found in the area. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack.

The pipeline, which supplies gas to Jordan and Israel, was last attacked on November 25. It is the eighth such attack since Mubarak stepped down on February 11. It is the ninth this year, with the first attack a few days before Mubarak was toppled.

Egypt's 20-year gas deal with Israel, signed in the Mubarak era, is unpopular with the Egyptian public, with critics arguing that the Jewish state does not pay enough for the gas.

An executive of the East Mediterranean Gas Co (EMG), which exports Egyptian gas to Israel, said in July that international shareholders in the firm were pursuing legal claims against Egypt for $8 billion in damages from contract violations in gas supplies, following disruptions caused by pipeline attacks.

Egypt doubled the price of gas exported to Jordan last month. Petroleum Minister Abdullah Ghorab said the new price was just above $5 per million BTU, up from $2.15 to $2.30.

The government said this month it would tighten security measures along the pipeline by installing alarm devices and recruiting security patrols from Bedouin tribesmen.
A section of an Egyptian pipeline supplying gas to Israel and Jordan has been blown up in the ninth attack on the energy link since January 2011.

According to witnesses, a section of the gas pipeline west of al-Arish in the Sinai exploded on Monday, and then a second blast damaged the pipeline about 100 meters away, Reuters quoted Egyptian state news agency MENA as saying.

The incident occurred in the al-Sabeel area.

No group or individual has claimed responsibility for the attack.
The prime minister of the United Arab Emirate (UAE) has ruled out the possibility that Iran's nuclear program may include a covert military dimension.

"Iran is our neighbor. They are Muslim, and we lived next to each other for thousands and thousands of years. I don't believe that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon,” Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum said.

CNN quoted Al Maktoum as saying on Wednesday that “What can Iran do with a nuclear weapon? For example, will they hit Israel? How many Palestinians will die? And you think if Iran hits Israel, their cities will be safe?"

The US, Israel and their allies accuse Iran of pursuing a military nuclear program and have used this pretext to press the UN Security Council into impose four rounds of sanctions against Tehran.

On November 8, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claimed in its latest report that Iran had engaged in activities related to developing nuclear weapons prior to 2003, adding that such activities “may still be ongoing.”

Iran dismissed the report as "unbalanced, unprofessional and prepared with political motivation and under political pressure by mostly the United States."

Tehran says that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, it has the right to acquire and develop atomic technology for peaceful purposes.
Russia has announced that it has no plan to join sanctions imposed on Iranian oil exports by the European Union (EU) as the decision is politically motivated.

"I heard yesterday [Tuesday] that Russia was asked to join this embargo...Today, Russia is not taking even a single ton of Iranian oil and we don't have any plans to increase our import share of Iranian oil,” Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said on Wednesday.

Speaking on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress in Doha, Qatar, the Russian minister further stated that Moscow did not need to join the embargo “because we are not consuming Iranian oil at all.”

Asked if Russia would back an EU-led embargo on Iranian crude to pressure the country over its nuclear ambitions, he said, "Do you realize the consequences of the decision once it is made? It's quite obvious that this time the decision is based on political matters. In this situation we [must] try to be as neutral as possible."

Shmatko said that Moscow would continue to discuss Iran's alleged plans to build a nuclear weapon in "other forums" such as the UN Security Council.

Earlier on Tuesday, economic adviser to the Emir of Qatar Ibrahim Al Ibrahim said imposing sanctions on imports of Iran's oil by the EU will damage the global oil industry.

"This isn't good for the energy industry, it isn't good for the exporting countries, it isn't good for the consuming countries," Al Ibrahim said on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress, adding that energy shouldn't be used for political purposes.

On November 21, the United States, Britain and Canada imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran's energy and financial sectors over Tehran's nuclear program.

EU foreign ministers also imposed new sanctions against 180 Iranian individuals and companies on December 1, though they fell short of imposing an embargo on the country's oil sector.

Head of the Majlis (parliament) Economic Committee Arsalan Fathipour warned on Saturday that if the West imposes sanctions on the country's energy sector, global oil prices will soar up to USD 250 per barrel.

The US, Israel and their allies accuse Iran of pursuing a military nuclear program and have used this allegation as a pretext to convince the UN Security Council to impose four rounds of sanctions on Iran.

Iran has refuted the US-led allegations, arguing that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Russia has announced that it has no plan to join sanctions imposed on Iranian oil exports by the European Union (EU) as the decision is politically motivated.

"I heard yesterday [Tuesday] that Russia was asked to join this embargo...Today, Russia is not taking even a single ton of Iranian oil and we don't have any plans to increase our import share of Iranian oil,” Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said on Wednesday.

Speaking on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress in Doha, Qatar, the Russian minister further stated that Moscow did not need to join the embargo “because we are not consuming Iranian oil at all.”

Asked if Russia would back an EU-led embargo on Iranian crude to pressure the country over its nuclear ambitions, he said, "Do you realize the consequences of the decision once it is made? It's quite obvious that this time the decision is based on political matters. In this situation we [must] try to be as neutral as possible."

Shmatko said that Moscow would continue to discuss Iran's alleged plans to build a nuclear weapon in "other forums" such as the UN Security Council.

Earlier on Tuesday, economic adviser to the Emir of Qatar Ibrahim Al Ibrahim said imposing sanctions on imports of Iran's oil by the EU will damage the global oil industry.

"This isn't good for the energy industry, it isn't good for the exporting countries, it isn't good for the consuming countries," Al Ibrahim said on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress, adding that energy shouldn't be used for political purposes.

On November 21, the United States, Britain and Canada imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran's energy and financial sectors over Tehran's nuclear program.

EU foreign ministers also imposed new sanctions against 180 Iranian individuals and companies on December 1, though they fell short of imposing an embargo on the country's oil sector.

Head of the Majlis (parliament) Economic Committee Arsalan Fathipour warned on Saturday that if the West imposes sanctions on the country's energy sector, global oil prices will soar up to USD 250 per barrel.

The US, Israel and their allies accuse Iran of pursuing a military nuclear program and have used this allegation as a pretext to convince the UN Security Council to impose four rounds of sanctions on Iran.

Iran has refuted the US-led allegations, arguing that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Thanks

Admin of agenda software