On Violence

(Today's post is a guest post by longtime reader Matty P. If you would like to guest write for us, please check out our guest post guidelines. We look forward to publishing reader posts on future Thursdays.)

Since I was twelve, I've trained in sparring. In Tae Kwon Do, two men face one another on a square mat and attempt to strike one another to draw points. Two points are awarded for a strike to the head and one point is awarded for a strike to the torso. For the less experienced; the lower degree belts, this meant that quite a bit of your round was spent rapidly shooting out roundhouse kicks to the opponent’s flank with your favored leg while the opponent fired back the same. As the degree of experience progresses and the belt level becomes more elite, the flailing and constant motion give way to tactical strikes, an increase in blocking, and lateral movement. While it may be apparent that two competitors are "fighting," they are in fact not.

During my third sparring competition, I defeated one opponent (just barely) and prepared to spar a second opponent of comparable skill level and weight. Prior to the match we shook hands and bowed. When the referee said fight, we began. My focus was on quickly striking the other guy's side with sliding round houses (which were fairly new to me at the time) and then quickly retreating. Some connected drawing points, but most missed or were blocked. Midway through the match, I threw the same type of kick but this time, decided not to retreat. I attempted a back kick right to his stomach. As I connected with his torso, his kick landed square on my face breaking my nose.

The referee stopped the match. My nose dripped blood and began to swell. As with any sport, in Tae Kwon Do there are risks of injury due to the contact involved. We wore pads to prevent skeletal or soft tissue damage. Striking of the face and groin is prohibited. But mistakes happen. Strong kicks lead to falls which lead to the occasional broken bone. Quick spins and a moving target lead to unintentional contact to the groin or face. I gave and received my share, a fact visibly evident as my face showcases a broken nose that never set correctly. 

Sparring is not fighting. I've fought people since I the first grade. There are similarities of course. There may be spectators, just as there are if you spar. And usually in a fight, there is a great deal of flailing by someone inexperienced. Still, there is no ref, which means there are no rules, which means it's not a competition. When you fight, someone your mindset is different. You're not considering points and strategy, you're considering how (and how much) you want to hurt this other person. 

Fighting is chaotic. Real fighting isn’t like movies or television. A fighter never just throws a straight punch to be easily blocked resulting in a counter punch. An angry and aggressive person, regardless of gender and age is unpredictable. They can do anything from bullrush you to throw heavy objects to wielding improvised weapons. This results in a response fueled most likely by instinct rather than training.

In college, I stood up to a guy hassling a female friend of mine. Outside after he called her a "whore" I attempted to defend her honor while pleasantly buzzed. I remember twisting on the ground with a guy pressing his head hard into my stomach while simultaneously swing both arms toward my ribs. I tucked in and jammed my elbows down on his collar bone to force him off. I left the conflicted bruised and with a torn collared shirt. 

Sparring is competition. Fighting is chaos. While sparring resembles a chess match of moves with counters, strategy and skill, a fight is propelled by anger and a lack of logic where two combatants clash with unpredictable and detrimental results.

Whenever I hear a critic claim that Rules of Engagement (ROE) gets our Soldiers killed, I always want to scream, "Well, what's your [expletive] alternative? (If you want to know who the ROE critics are, check out my post “Why Leaders Make the ROE.”) Since ROE opponents rarely provide specific alternatives to the ROE, I am going to take their anti-ROE position to its (il)logical extreme.

Our current rules of engagement specify, in broad terms, that our Soldiers and Marines must positively identify targets as exhibiting hostile intent. That intent could be firing a weapon, or preparing to fire a weapon (including an IED), but hostile intent must be present; our Soldiers always have the right to self-defense.

So what is the direct opposite of our current ROE, the other end of the spectrum? It would be that any Soldier or Marine could target anyone they want, regardless of identification or hostility (short of intentionally shooting their own men). This ROE would not hold Soldiers as legally responsible for anyone they kill regardless of the circumstances.

Just pause and imagine this scenario.

Soldiers could drop as many 2,000 pound bombs on as many villages as they want. A Soldier could line up villagers and shoot them one by one to get answers. During a fire fight, any person moving, fleeing or running is a viable target, any person regardless of age, intent, or hostility. There would be no consequnces for our Soldiers actions.

Obviously, the “Free Fire ROE” is impossible. No one could support it. At a minimum, there have to be some rules to prevent needless civilian casualties, genocide and torture. ROE opponents must acknowledge at least some form of ROE. So while you can criticize the specifics of our current ROE, you can’t condemn the concept wholesale.

(The other obvious problem with the “Free Fire ROE” is that it removes all ability of commanders to control the fire of their men. Commanders need to control the the fight; ROE allows that.)

Is there a way to take a pro-ROE position to its extreme? There is. If Soldiers couldn't ever shoot anyone, that would hamstring an Army into paralysis. It would, but that is why you don't take things to extremes, and you have a reasonable ROE that keeps Soldiers and civilians alive.

The problem isn't ROE, it is bad ROE.

(Click here for our review of "Where Men Win Glory")

I can usually guess if I will enjoy a book before I read it. For instance, I loved Into the Wild and Under the Banner of Heaven (which I read months ago, but held off on publishing my thoughts because the book is so controversial). So when I heard Jon Krakauer was tackling the life of Pat Tillman, I was all for it.

That is, until I read the reviews. Two individuals whose work I greatly admire--Dexter Filkins and Abu Muqawama (nee Andrew Exum)--massacred Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman, so I didn't know what to expect.

Andrew Exum writes a mostly critical review, with several good points. For instance, he explains in simple terms that, "blaming the Bush administration for all that has befallen the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan unfairly excuses the military itself for the many errors it made." I couldn't agree more. He also charges Krakauer with borrowing a little too heavily from Steve Coll and Lawrence Wright for his background information.

I think Exum, probably without realizing it, takes too much of Krakauer's criticism to heart, and this colors his review. Where Men Win Glory isn’t really about the whole US Army; it is much more about the elite Army Rangers--Exum's former unit. When the Rangers show up in Where Men Win Glory, they read like power-crazed frat boys. Army Rangers belittle new recruits, follow senseless time schedules, and ultimately covered up and lied about Pat Tillman’s death. The elite US Army Rangers look like amateurish jerks, far from their reputation.

And I wish Abu Muqawama would have responded to this. Pat Tillman is the best of the best, so why did he desperately want to leave this vaunted organization? Exum does agree that the officers in charge of the Tillman situation made gigantic errors, but I don't think he addresses the subtle condemnation of the Rangers as an outfit.

Andrew Exum's review ended up raising plenty of controversy. Because of his close relationship with both the Army Rangers and General Stanley McChrystal--Krakauer criticizes both in Where Men Win Glory--Jon Krakauer took issue with Exum's percieved bias. I agree that Exum probably had some bias, but no more than any officer or former officer trying to rationalize the actions of the larger military.

Dexter Filkins also took issue with Where Men Win Glory for mostly stylistic choices, not the content as Abu Muqawama did. It seems like his main point is that he wanted more Afghanistan scenes, and less background into Pat Tillman's life. I disagree though. Pat Tillman's life is inseparable from the background that led to his death. Afghanistan, the Rangers, the cover up, and even the Jessica Lynch rescue provide the context for why he gave his life in Afghanistan.

Finally, I recommend this article by Charles McGrath because it has this killer quote by Krakauer: "There are a lot of officers who will risk their lives for their country, but damn few who will risk their careers." I couldn't agree more.

I call it the “Michael Crichton/Tom Clancy Character Syndrome.” When every character is not just good, but the best, ever. In Jurassic Park, for example, there's the best geneticist, the best computer programmer, and the best big game hunter. Tom Clancy's John Clark is the ultimate spy and Jack Ryan is the ultimate analyst. In Crichton/Clancy novels, no one is just "the guy who's ok at stuff."

It pops up occasionally in non-fiction writing too, especially if you deal with people who live at the extremes of life as Jon Krakauer does in his books. He brings real--and exceptional--people to life. He does a better job than most biographers in probing mankind's limits, physically and mentally.

Krakauer has written about men climbing the world's the tallest mountain, a person who dropped out of society, and the extremes of religious fanaticism. Do the extremes of violence--war--fit into his world? Absolutely. In Where Men Win Glory, he takes on one of our nation's most exceptional contradictions: Pat Tillman, the intelligent football player who dropped a lucrative NFL contract to join the Army Rangers. Overall, he tells Pat Tillman's story well, with perhaps a bit too much applause. In the last quarter of the book, when he takes on the military's handling of his death, he excels at revealing the US Army leadership as one more concerned with PR than mission accomplishment.

Krakauer loves his characters. In Into the Wild, the main character is a recluse, but sounds like the smartest, most gifted, most charismatic recluse who ever walked the earth. Even the violent extremists in Under the Banner of Heaven come across as the most violent, most charismatic extremists you will ever meet. He might not love them, but he certainly admires them.

And Pat Tillman is equally impressive. A professional football player with an extremely high GPA from the University of Arizona is nothing to laugh at. But it seems like he has no faults in Where Men Win Glory. His being an obnoxious American to French people is downplayed as just a guy having some fun. His assault on an innocent student during high school comes across as nothing more than an accident.

After you get past Krakauer's near-worship of Tillman, the work takes off. When I was finished, I understood why Tillman joined the military, and why, until the end, he was conflicted about going to combat. Krakauer captures the bizarre duality of wanting to excel in your job--fighting wars--but detesting the slaughter and devastation that come with it. He also captures the crucial moments of fear Tillman felt, and Tillman's growing frustration with the US Army and the US Army Rangers; all emotions I understand.

But Where Men Win Glory has one central theme bigger than Pat Tillman's tale, and Krakauer argues it very well: the military is a CYA place. When mistakes are made, the military does what it can to avoid punishing those responsible, and then obscures the truth if needed. This happens three times in Where Men Win Glory: the Jessica Lynch rescue, a Marine Corps friendly fire debacle in Nasiriyah, and the death of Pat Tillman. In each case, dramatic mistakes were made; in each case, the military never blamed its subordinate commanders. And in each case, the initial press releases deliberately misled the media.

Maybe the Jessica Lynch rescue, or the history of Afghanistan, or countless other asides take us too far from the Tillman tale. Or they help weave a tapestry that was Pat Tillman's life, and death. And when writing about Pat Tillman's death, you can't ignore the military's impulses to cover up every mistake they make.

I was laying prone on the rocky ground, something I hardly ever did in Afghanistan.

My heart pounded so loudly I thought it would break through my chest. I had never been more nervous. I feared for my life.

I was sitting at the rocky outcrop on the southern part of the Korengal Outpost, the KOP. Taliban swarmed up the hillside, surrounding me. The men who were with me fell back; I couldn't stem the retreat. I knew at that moment I would die on that hill.

And then I woke up, alone in my apartment in Vicenza, Italy. It was the worst nightmare I'd ever had. In my dream, I had returned to the Korengal Valley, later nicknamed the "Valley of Death." I only spent a couple months in the Korengal, but it felt much longer. The place haunted me before I arrived in Afghanistan; it still haunts me.

All these memories came back when I saw the photos of the Korengal Valley last week. Instead of US forces fighting for the population, it is now controlled by the insurgents I fought against.

Quick heads up:

Michael C just had a guest post published at Problogger titled, "9 Things Bloggers Can (and Can’t) Learn from the Army" Check it out.

(To read the entire "War Memoirs" series, please click here.)

Last week I wrote up a (preliminary) list of things I felt should be included in every post 9/11 war memoir. Of course, the moment I published the post, I realized I left something out: failure. Specifically, a lack of connection between the what happens in the memoir and what happens in the larger war. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, this means an explanation of why we are (or were) failing.

In Iraq, between the invasion of 2003 and the semi-civil war of 2006, something went wrong. If you wrote a memoir about that period, I'd like to know why you think we struggled for three years, and how you feel about this. Afghanistan is a mess that is getting messier. If you served in Afghanistan, I'd like to know how you feel about a war that has taken ten years to possibly lose. Of the war memoirs I've read, only The War I Always Wanted provided this kind of historical context.

I don't necessarily want to know why the failures happened. This is the purview of essays and opinion pieces--which, ironically, most memoir authors write to promote their books. (Mullaney opined on both The Colber Report and The Daily Show about Afghanistan; just today I listened to Matt Gallagher discuss the Apache shooting video.) Memoirs aren't about politics, but human emotion. And I can't think of a more powerful human emotion than the reaction to failure.

So why do authors omit failure?

First, the standard war memoir narrative doesn't necessarily lend itself to this sort of reaction. Usually the story is: Soldier gets trained, Soldier gets deployed, a quick afterword, and the memoir ends. This doesn't excuse it though. Most memoirs were written years after the conflict; writers had the opportunity to reflect on their experience and choose not to.

Second, we have a hard timing owning up to failure. No one wants to think that they specifically contributed to losing a war. In the words of A Farewell to Arms, "what has been done here could not have been done in vain."  No one wants to think their time, stress, energy and lives have been given away foolishly. No one wants to think they were a part of a wasted effort. And yet the first three or four years in Iraq were just that. And no one wants to think they lost a Solider in a war the country was ignoring. And yet the first seven years in Afghanistan were just that.

And I want that reaction.

There is a connection to COIN here. Some of the memoirs depict Soldiers not practicing COIN, the invasion of Iraq in particular. And yet apart from a few asides, no author (except Brandon Friedman) really states that the lack of troops and the overwhelming number of civilian casualties led to Iraq's future troubles. Evan Wright writes in Generation Kill's afterward that he's actually surprised the Iraq War lasted so long.

Michael, when reviewing this post, wrote that a platoon leader usually doesn't have much impact on the larger war. I agree. While that might be true, that doesn't stop Soldiers from saying they helped win wars. Hell, people my age still talk about World War II as if they helped contribute to the victory. If you talk about victory, then you need to talk about failure as well.

(Ed. Note: trish pointed out below that this criticism doesn't apply to pre-9/11 war memoirs and I agree. I've changed the post to reflect that.)

It's called a full arrest. Our patient's heart has stopped or doesn't have the ability to supply the body and brain with the blood they so desperately need. In order to correct the situation we assault the patient's body. It sounds like a back ally beating. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not a gentle process. Chest compressions require forcing the chest wall in a direction opposite of its normal direction of expansion. More often than not, ribs break. If done improperly a portion of the sternum can sever. Or the xiphoid process can detach and puncture an internal organ. More than that, the compressions have to be timed correctly with precise depth while simultaneously allowing for recoil so the heart can not only pump blood, but fill up with blood as well.

The Army loves football. Two sides face off, taking ground and battling to a violent finish, what's not to like?

I also love football. And today I want to connect it to counter-insurgency.

Most people watch football by "following the ball," meaning they focus on the player holding the football. They ignore, for the most part, the other players on the field. The quarterback takes the ball from the center, then throws it to a receiver down field, and the viewer watches those players the whole time. The camera follows the ball; so does the average viewer.

Why is this? Because the action is the exciting part of the play; its the sexy part. I mean, the player with the ball is the only one who can score. He's also the one who is going to get hit.

But it isn’t the whole story.

Regular viewers hardly ever watch the offensive linemen during a play. Even hardcore fans would struggle to name an offensive linemen. No one chooses linemen for their fantasy leagues. They're the unsung heroes of the gridiron, primarily because fans are too busy watching the ball. Every great run, and every great pass, has an offensive linemen creating the play. Watching the ball means you are missing the offensive lineman, the defense and the creation of the play.

Ok Michael, how does this relate to counter-insurgency?

The Army only watches the ball during counter-insurgencies. The ball in this case is the death of American Soldiers. The event that leads to that death, for example an IED, is only the end result of a long process. An IED ambush requires reconnaissance, logistics, intelligence, bomb-making, local support, information operations and finally, direct action. But both maneuver commanders and intelligence specialists primarily care about the final explosion, not the whole process. The IED explosion is like the touchdown, everything before that is the action away from the ball.

We spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, on countering IEDs at the point of impact. We notice explosions. We care about the so-called “kinetic” events. But those are like following the ball, not following the creation of the play.

Strategically, as a nation, we follow the ball--meaning the death of American Soldiers. That is really the only metric that the American public cares about. It is like tracking touchdowns, but no other statistic on the battlefield.

As a military, we get distracted by the sexy part of the insurgency--the IEDs--and we ignore the complex part of the insurgency--everything else. We have improved (read the Flynn report and the Petraeus counter-insurgency manual) but we have a long way to go.

I was in the middle of a shura in Pashad, when I received an urgent call from my Company Headquarters. Instantly my mission changed from peaceful shura to hurried cordon and search at a suspected insurgent cache. I paused for a moment to figure out my course of action, then excused myself from the shura.

Parked in front of an ANP (Afghan National Police) checkpoint, I quickly told the ANA (Afghan National Army) soldiers--our patrol was loaded with forty ANA in addition to my sixteen men--and ANP leaders we had to go. My men remounted our vehicles; the ANA did the same, just not quite as fast. I was working my personal radio to get more information, head some yelling, and I looked up.

In front of my truck, an ANA soldier aimed a rocket propelled grenade launcher at an ANP soldier about seven feet in front of him. The lever was cocked, and he was ready go.

Uh-oh. (I used different wording at the time.)

As I moved behind my truck, I told everyone to button up inside their vehicles. More ANA and ANP began to square off. The yelling got louder. At this point, my interpreter had no chance to translate my yelling. So I did the only thing I could: I hopped into my vehicle and hoped that both sides would see the insensibility of going Mexican stand-off on each other at less than ten paces (especially silly considering an RPG probably won’t even detonate at ten meters).

As my platoon watched inside our armored boxes, and a surprising number of ANA guys not even realizing what was going on, an ANA First Sergeant arrived. He restored order by slapping the ANA guy holding the RPG, and gesticulating to his men to get in their vehicles. The ANP checkpoint commander took control of his men shortly after that.

Crisis averted.

In hindsight I realize how surreal this event was. It's the equivalent of the LAPD pulling firearms on the National Guard during a riot. And from what I hear, Iraq went through similar types of turf wars. No matter, Afghanistan will have trouble as long as the Army and Police don’t get along. The only real positive note, is that the ANA and ANP leadership eventually got their men under control.

(In defense of the ANA, the Soldier with the RPG thought there were people smuggling lumber through the check point, something that is technically illegal. Konar Province has a huge problem with smuggled goods: semi-precious gems, lumber and ores. Still a weird time to start enforcing the law.)

To succeed in Afghanistan, we need security. The success of both the ANP and the ANA in achieving security will either make or break our efforts in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I had to watch these two groups--each struggling to come to terms with their role in a future democratic Afghanistan-- point loaded weapons at each other.

(To read the entire "War Memoirs" series, please click here.)

If memoirs are supposed to be true, a snap shot of life in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam, why do so many memoirs feel…not true?

It isn't because the authors lie; it is because they omit. My gut instinct--and this has been born out in my reading--is that Soldiers don't always tell the full truth; war is too ugly, too brutal, to present it fully. The most interesting details are often the most painful, embarrassing or immoral. Some writers would rather focus on leadership or politics, others want to focus on honor and good deeds.

So I developed a litmus test of things that, if authors are being intellectually honest, they will include in their war memoir. What qualifies for the litmus test? Something that is unavoidably common in war but that is left out because it is, again, sordid, embarrassing, illegal or immoral.

What isn't included? Some things seem immoral, but are faithfully mentioned in every war memoir (smoking, an uncomfortable reference to porn, post-deployment drinking, etc.) because they are so common. Some things (atrocities, rape, war crimes) are not universal to every Soldier's experience. Some things are considered embarrassing, like PTSD, but almost every memoir I read ended with a Soldier having trouble adjusting to home. (Clint Van Winkle's Soft Spots is the memoir to read on the subject.) I'm also aware that for each example below I could find a memoir that mentions it. The point is that most don't.

Anyways, without further ado, the list:

1. Masturbating – Unlike past wars, Soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t have access to an easy supply of women. (GIs had the French and Italian women in WWI and WWII; Grunts had Vietnamese women) And while Fobbits at Bagram Airfield can always have sex with each other, for the all-male world of the infantry, masturbation is probably their favorite recreational hobby. Yet of the dozen or so memoirs I've read, it's been mentioned twice.

2. Dogs - Dogs are ubiquitous in a war-zone (Tom Ricks has an entire series dedicated to them) and they are thematically powerful--as I wrote here. So they should be side characters in every war memoir.

3. Dogs Dying - Dogs--like people, civilians, and Soldiers--tend to die in war-zones. A lot. Sometimes Soldiers kill them; sometimes they die by accident. Either way, their fate should be mentioned.

4. Animals Dying - Less common, but fascinating. Again, read this post. While dogs tug at the heart strings of every Soldier, cats, horses, and other animals get caught up in the violence as well. (H/T to @Trishlet)

5. Civilians Dying - It happens. It happened a lot on the invasion into Iraq. It happened a lot when the insurgency exploded. An honest memoir will deal with this messy truth about any war.

6. Bad Soldiers - If you're a platoon leader leading 20 or more men, one of your Soldiers sucks. Young Officers seem eager to explain the faults of their bosses, but not their men. This is probably the most difficult thing for an author to include in a war memoir.

7. Fear - Perhaps you weren't afraid. Good for you. But the best passages describe what Soldiers feel, and fear is perhaps the most dominant emotion of war. How could it not be?

8. Outside Plots - Plot lines that don't have to do with war inform the reader to the larger picture. Jarhead and The Things They Carried did this really well. (H/T to @Brandon Friedman.)

9. Funny Things Happening During Fire Fights - My brother ate oranges after a fire fight. Guys say funny things. War is more comedy than action movie. (H/T to @Schmedlap.) This could apply to humor in General (more to come on this.) Also why I'm eagerly awaiting Kaboom, Orange County Library System.

Of course, someone can follow this list too closely. As I wrote before, there is such a thing as war pornography, an obsession with the muck and dirt and blood. Some prose never gets past it. The solution is a balance, terror and fear, love and beauty, heroism and despair. War tilts the balance, but it is too complicated to be presented simply.

There is another point. You might not want to write about these events as they actually happened. And that's why I wish writers embraced the freedom war novels, and and avoided the problems of war memoirs. If you have any things you'd like to see in war memoirs, please include them below in the comments.

The last time I brought up contractors, I asked hyperbolically, "Are military contractors (nee mercenaries), immoral?" My answer was yes, because of the fraud, waste and abuse endemic to the system.

A "spirited" debate followed with poster Mark over the amenities offered on super FOBs (Forward Operating Bases). I loathe the existence of Green Beans, Burger King, and Salsa Night on bases like Bagram Airfield. He and Gunslinger pointed out that the funds that support these places are not the same that, for example, procure Hescos or build infrastructure. They're right, but I will never like the fact that we support 30,000 troops who conduct zero patrols, and mostly work five days a week.

But as Mark pointed out in the comments--and was reported by a variety of news sources--General McChrystal has decided to drastically limit the accoutrement on these bases. The reason, as the guys at Ink Spots point out, is that logistically Afghanistan can only support so many programs. And unfortunately the patties of Burger King and the espresso of Green Beans have to go.

I think the best quotes come from this BBC piece. "This is a war-zone, not an amusement park," the blog written by Command Sergeant Major Michael T. Hall says. "In order to accommodate the troop increase and get refocused on the mission in hand, we need to cut back on some of the non-essentials." As McChrystal says, "[the extra amenities] served as a distraction to the military mission." The word "distract" perfectly describes the situation.

To help shed some light on the subject, Starbuck over at Wings Over Iraq pointed us towards these two, somewhat older articles. The first by Max Boot--who I don't always agree with--wonders whether the US Army has actually mastered the logistics issue of warfare, but has gone too far. He quotes the old aphorism, "amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics," then lampoons it with modern day examples.

Mountain Runner--a good regular read--agreed and makes a very good point: the worst part of Burger Kings and Salsa Night is that they create a "little America" mindset. This echoes the ideas of The Ugly American, who harped on the lack of American cultural understanding, with our modern issues.

And since military contractors/military acquisitions continue to provide delightful stories of ineptitude, we'll finish today's post with some of the more ridiculous recent news about our favorite people:

- It looks like Secretary Gates finally overhauled the senior mentor's program. This program allowed retired Generals to triple dip in both retirement pay, contracting work, and government consulting.

- And in a follow up to our post from our last contractor link dump, the draw down in Iraq is being mismanaged by contractors. If you want to know why we oppose contracting, it is because they over-charge the government when they can.

- And finally, our favorite villain, KBR. The federal government recently sued KBR over contract fraud for the Iraq war. And since everyone wants a piece of them, some soldiers are suing KBR saying they knowingly allowed US Soldiers to be exposed to carcinogens.

Quick heads up:

Eric C just had two guest posts published this week. The first is over at Unique Blog titled, "Bad News: The Gatekeepers Still Exist." Eric C likes this post, it's an analysis of new media vs. old media.

Eric C also had a guest post published on MaxBlogger. It's kind of conceited, and Eric promises it isn't his fault.

Check them out.

On a hot day in the spring of 2008, my platoon manned a routine traffic control point in Eastern Afghanistan. It was us, a small group of Afghan Border Police, miles of empty countryside, and a trickle of civilian vehicles.

As soon as I got my men into position, I went to the nearest compound to set up an impromptu shura. After a bit of coaxing, I finally got the eldest male to come out of his dwelling. He matched the physical description of a key Taliban sub-commander, and he acted suspicious. He even told me his name--the same name as the Taliban sub-commander. (This may seem odd, but our battalion had already captured three known Taliban throughout the deployment, all because they used their real name. Afghans will lie for hours about what they do, but they always seem to use their real name. More on this interesting phenomena in future posts.)

Part of me was worried: the Taliban sub-commander I was looking for traveled with an entourage of 20-50 armed fighters. Luckily, we had an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) overhead. Linked to our Brigade headquarters, who had direct communication with my battalion headquarters, that in turn was linked to my company command post, who could talk to me on an FM radio, the UAV spotted the Taliban posse heading towards my position.

My commander radioed, “Destined 4-6, be prepared, Brigade says they spotted 100 Taliban moving towards your position. Current location at grid XXX-XXX.”

My platoon jumped into action, thankful that network-centric warfare had provided us the early warning.

What amazing technological network allowed this to happen? A variety of systems with equally convoluted acronyms: I plotted the Taliban position on a map system called the Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below, or FBCB2. The FBCB2 links into another system called the Command Post of the Future, or CPoF. In addition to those two networks, every command post uses email, internet chat, and adobe chat. And to watch everything, the US Army has unmanned aerial vehicles; drones that can travel hundreds of miles, and hover over the battlefield for hours.

These networks allow Generals, Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels to (micro) manage fights in ways they never could before, as they were on that hot day in the spring of 2008.

As I worked with my company commander to identify the exact location of the Taliban entourage, my platoon sergeant got my men ready. My section sergeant put our sharpshooter in position, and repositioned the squad automatic weapon. My team leaders checked weapons and ammunition. We were on edge; we were ready.

I, meanwhile, checked the coordinates Brigade had relayed. I looked up. I checked again. I rechecked.

My platoon sergeant called me on the radio. “Sir, I don’t think those grid coordinates are correct.”

“No, they're right,” I replied. “The UAV is just looking at a herd of sheep.”

And so they were. "Network-centric" warfare isn't a panacea for counter-insurgency, or war in general. It doesn’t cut through fog of war, so much as allow the fog to creep up to levels previously unimaginable. The US Army constantly praises its small unit leaders for their initiative, but it then develops technology so that Generals can call in air strikes and micromanage the fight.

I don’t mean to discount all UAVs, or all communication advances, that combine to make our new "network" technology. But very few technologies have made life easier for the companies on the ground, the level where counter-insurgencies are waged. I'm not anti-technology; I am anti-micromanagement.

(A note on Operational Security: Many of the details in this story could be fleshed out because I have to keep some names and capabilities secret. I hope everyone understands. Also, this dialogue is not accurate but an approximation.)

(Today's guest post is by Matty P. If you would like to guest write for us, please check out our guest post guidelines. We look forward to publishing reader posts on future Thursdays.

Quick note: The views of guest writers are not necessarily the view of Michael C or Eric C. For our take, please check out the comments below.)

I have chosen to forgo my scheduled post on why Top Gun is one of the top 30 Naval Avionics films of all time (just above Iron Eagle 9: Navy Planes and Stealth with Jamie Fox) to address a growing threat: Nazi Zombies. They are on the rise and threatening to rip away not just our way of life but our basic human rights. Mainly, the right of not having our flesh gnawed on by the soulless undead.

In recent years, the threat of zombie armageddon has been steadily encroaching on our culture. The best and brightest have saturated the media with warnings. In 1968, George Romero was the first to speak against the festering menace with his documentary The Night of the Living Dead, in which seven people in a small town in Pennsylvania attempt to fend off the first documented zombie attack.

Obviously, official government policy is to deny the event ever happened. Bureaucrats denote such occurrences as "fiction" and call those who investigate them “crazy,” yet more and more people have released their tales of zombie survival. From Sam Raimi’s classic Evil Dead series to the newly popular 28 Days Later, awareness of the undead pandemic is spreading. Even written account have reached publication. Max Brooks’ World War Z recounts the testimonials of several of those who were cunning, determined, or plain lucky enough to survive the Zombie apocalypse. 

Still, these tales pale in comparison to the greatest zombie threat to date. I speak of course, of the Nazi Zombie.

This is a game changer. While once we were faced only with creatures who may have once been friends or neighbors, now we face war criminals and men who were likely monsters before they became undead. It’s a development that can cause the novice to zombie combat additional fear and skepticism. Few things are more terrifying than a German SS bearing down after taking three rounds to the chest while chowing down on the remains of PVC Riley (poor bastard), it's dead lifeless eyes looking to you for the next meal that fails to satiate its undead hunger. 

One thing is clear, regardless of what type of zombie horde you face, the only way to ensure survival when they begin to overrun society is to be prepared. Always have a reserve supply of food and a fortified place to hold up until the walking dead pass by. Keep yourself fit so you can out pace the slow moving rotting corpses. Conserve your ammo and practice your aiming. Body shots are useless, take out the brain and you take down the zombie.

But these are just a few tips. Not enough to guarantee you’ll live to help me rebuild society. Mainly, you must do your research. It’s important to watch the accounts of other survivors and their friends who didn’t make it. What did those survivors do right? What did their friends do wrong? And check out the The Zombie Survival Guide or this wiki. Above all, stay alive, humanity needs you.