Or for a much shorter power metal summary:
Or for a much shorter power metal summary:
Bowe Bergdahl deserted and lived with the Taliban for 5 years. At best he’s a deserter. From many, if not most, stories – he’s a traitor – as there are reports from Special Operations forces members already of how activity in the AOR he disappeared from suddenly got more deadly as he taught the Taliban/AQ better ways to kill US troops.
As more of the information came in, my unit, along with others in the community, simply stopped looking for him. As for the videos of Bergdahl in military and Afghan attire, we were privy to analyze and dissect all of the “unedited” video. We realized that he had vowed to help the Afghan people (meaning Taliban), and teach them tactics he had learned through his training. As for what he may have taught them, we are not sure, but we can say that American casualties and the amount of attacks in the area did increase following his capture.
Army MSG Mark Allen was another of the many soldiers on many missions who went out looking for a lost American – who went searching for a fellow soldier – but what he got for his efforts was a bullet to the brain.
“Meet my husband, injuries directly brought to you by the actions of this traitor. He can’t give an account of what went down, because he can no longer speak. Now, which guy is a ‘hero’ again?!? Sick.”
Sergeant 1st Class Mark Allen of Bravo Company, 48th Brigade Combat Team of the Georgia Army National Guard was critically wounded south of Kabul in Afghanistan on July 8, 2009. He had been in Afghanistan for one month, after serving in Iraq for nearly a year. SFC Allen was engaged in a furious firefight with the enemy when he was struck by sniper fire. The sniper’s bullet pierced his armored helmet and passed through the frontal lobe of his brain.
SFC Allen suffered a massive trauma stroke not long after sustaining the gunshot wound. A craniotomy (removing part of his skull) was immediately performed in Afghanistan to relieve pressure on his brain and make room for swelling. He was then transferred to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany the following morning where another craniotomy was performed to ensure minimal damage from swelling. The majority of his frontal lobe and part of his parietal lobe were removed to save his life. On Sunday, July 12th, he arrived at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.
Mark is transferred to the James A Haley Veteran’s Hospital in Tampa, Florida in August of 2009. He has been rehabilitating there for more than two years. He is unable to talk or walk, and requires 24-hour care. He has limited use of his right hand, but no purposeful movement in any other extremities. Mark is very aware of his surroundings, has retained memories and recognizes his loved ones. He laughs and smiles when something is funny, he cries when he’s upset. He is able to follow commands with his right hand, hold objects, use his fingers to indicate numbers, and can correctly nod his head to answer questions most of the time.
MSG Mark Allen is a hero who selflessly went out to rescue a fellow American soldier from a fanatical enemy known for beheading those they capture. He did his duty from Iraq to Afghanistan, and his life was destroyed and nearly lost on a rescue mission – a rescue mission to save a deserter who abandoned his post and sympathized with the enemy.
At least six died for the deserter Bergdahl, and many more lives were devastated, like the lives of MSG Mark Allen and his family.
Update 2: Not going to put this above MSG Allen, but worth seeing. Via Drudge, from UK Daily Mail:
A captured American soldier is training Taliban fighters bomb-making and ambush skills, according to one of his captors and Afghan intelligence officials.
Private Bowe Bergdahl disappeared in June 2009 while based in eastern Afghanistan and is thought to be the only U.S. serviceman in captivity.
The 24-year-old has converted to Islam and now has the Muslim name Abdullah, one of his captors told The Sunday Times.
A Taliban deputy district commander in Paktika, who called himself Haji Nadeem, told the newspaper that Bergdahl taught him how to dismantle a mobile phone and turn it into a remote control for a roadside bomb.
Nadeem claimed he also received basic ambush training from the U.S. soldier.
Update: Bergdahl the traitor, again.
…Afghans from a nearby village say: “There’s an American here looking for someone who speaks English so he can talk to the Taliban.”
The search for Bergdahl put troops in a vulnerable position. Attacks increased as U.S. movements became easier for the Taliban to predict, Bergdahl’s angry fellow soldiers said, speaking out for the first time now that he had been rescued.
Update 3: Joint Chiefs is saying Bergdahl will be investigated for desertion.
An older piece, but one worth bringing up. Marine Captain Katie Petronio explains:
As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.
She lists her experience in combat zones, and it’s pretty extensive. She was attached to combat units for a long time. She earned that middle ribbon in the top row.
This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.
03 being infantry in the Marine Corps. There’s also no reason women should be in the 08 field (artillery) or the 18 field (armor).
Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in.
Thank you, ma’am.
Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?
As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. …
She lists her bonafides and background, and she would have been the kind of candidate that do-gooder political correctness social engineers would’ve loved.
She sadly ran into the unfeeling, uncaring thing that is reality.
I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.
I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country.
Again, this is all from a woman who’s been there and done that, explaining how physically the task is simply incompatible.
By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported.
Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
If you don’t have the time to read her whole column, she has plenty more reasons to explain her points if you’re still unconvinced.
Which once again leads me, as a ground combat-experienced female Marine Corps officer, to ask, what are we trying to accomplish by attempting to fully integrate women into the infantry?
For those who dictate policy, changing the current restrictions associated with women in the infantry may not seem significant to the way the Marine Corps operates. I vehemently disagree; this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force. In the end, for DACOWITS and any other individual or organization looking to increase opportunities for female Marines, I applaud your efforts and say thank you. However, for the long-term health of our female Marines, the Marine Corps, and U.S. national security, steer clear of the Marine infantry community when calling for more opportunities for females. Let’s embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda. Regardless of the outcome, we will be “Semper Fidelis” and remain focused on our mission to protect and defend the United States of America.
Unlike Captain Petronio, I don’t applaud any organization that seeks to put substandard candidates into roles they aren’t fit for. She’s polite enough to give them credit for “meaning well”. But as I’ve said every time, it’s not a measure of character or of value of the individual’s desire to serve or their individual bravery.
It’s simply that if you aren’t biologically set up for success in a grueling environment and it’s a necessity that you succeed, then you shouldn’t be put in that position just so some ideologue politically-correct social engineers can congratulate themselves at cocktail parties and say how wonderful they are for giving you the “opportunity” to have your bones ground down in the mud because you never should have been there.
But there are still hard-leftist groups who advocate for “equality” where there is none and actively want women in combat. Noteworthy that their counterpoint speaker to Petronio is a man.
And their board of directors is awash in leftists, none of whom will ever have to answer for the failures they wish to create.
QUANTICO, VA. — Fifteen female Marines began enlisted infantry training this week as part of the Marine Corps’ ongoing research into which additional jobs it should open to female personnel, officials said.
The women will attend the Infantry Training Battalion course at Camp Geiger, N.C., on an experimental basis, focusing on the 0311 infantry rifleman program of instruction after the first few weeks of training, said Leon Pappa, a retired lieutenant colonel with Training and Education Command who oversees the research. They will not receive the 0311 military occupational specialty if they graduate, but Marine officials will note it in their record for tracking purposes.
“We’re not changing the standards on how we track performance,” Pappa told reporters in a meeting here Wednesday. “We’re doing it the same way we do it for the males.”
I’ve already explained how women in combat MOSes is a bad idea, in Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six. One of the biggest consistent arguments, not just from me, but from plenty of other combat vets, is that not only is there no real benefit to adding women in combat-specific roles for a variety of physical and social reasons, but also that when they invariably fail, some social engineer will change it so that women will succeed. 2+2 will be made to equal 5.
Combat is a heartless monster, and while training can be gender-normed to uselessness by political correctness, combat will not accede to social planners’ designs.
Someone will have to carry a substandard troop’s weight. There are already substandard men who sneak by. That there will be a whole category of substandard women, protected by politics, will help no one, and will harm the mission, the men who have to carry the extra weight, and the women who should never have been put there to begin with. It will also hurt the superhuman amazon who might have been able to pass an unchanged standard and do the job with a waiver – she won’t be challenged to meet a grueling standard, she’ll be able to pass the weaker one.
Retiree-who-doesn’t-have-to-fight-with-them Pappa says that there’s no change in standards on how they track performance. That doesn’t mean the requirements are necessarily the same, just the tracking is the same. Because buried in the bottom of the story is this, about women who failed the Infantry Officer Course:
The research is similar to work that began here last year at the Infantry Officer Course. Female volunteers have been allowed to try the grueling course, but none has passed. The next version of IOC begins next week, and the Corps expects four female volunteers to participate, Pappa said. (ST: Emphasis mine.)
Note those few words there – “the next version of IOC“. Not “the next session”, not “the next class”, not “the next group of candidates”. The “next version of Infantry Officer Course”.
If you were going to buy a new car and had to order it from the factory to specific specs just how you wanted it, and you asked “when will it be here?” and they said “the next group of cars comes off the line next month”, you’d probably be thinking your car was on the way pretty soon, built to exacty what you wanted. If you asked “when will it be here?” and they said “the next version of cars comes off the line next month”, you’d be wondering what changed. What happened to the car you ordered, that you wanted built to your specifications? You’re not getting “the next order of cars” or “the next allotment” or “the next run”, you’re getting “the next version“.
The behind-the-scenes is most likely what has played out every time. Retiree Pappa is tasked with making sure women pass the course. Instructors at the IOC are told “the women will pass the course”. Their jobs, their careers, their futures are on the line. Politics will order a lowered standard, and failures will be passed.
Everyone in the military has seen it in one form or another already (what immediately comes to mind is one male academic failure who failed his MOS school final, but was passed anyway because he was well-liked… he went on to show himself to be a coward in Iraq).
No one in the military will benefit, everyone will be hurt. The only benefit is in the cocktail party leftist political correctness social engineer circles, politicians and elite snots who will pride themselves on creating a more equal military, patting themselves on the back with false comparisons to righting historical wrongs that their own progressive party inflicted on others. They’ll say how wonderful and progressive they are, and good men and women will die for their desire to see “progress” where such a thing is a physical impossibility.
Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and West Point graduate, fears that won’t happen. He spells out what he sees as the dangers of opening combat billets to women in his new book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat. His key concern is that, under political pressure, the military will ease its standards, resulting in a less-capable force. Battleland recently conducted this email chat with him. …
What do you see as the three biggest risks to letting women serve in the combat arms?
There are a multitude of risks—far more than most people realize, especially those without military experience. Among the many risks I discuss in “Deadly Consequences” are these three:
– First, standards will be lowered. As a practical matter, there has to be a certain minimum number of women in combat units for the policy to succeed. That can be accomplished only by “gender norming” the standards for combat service. Lower standards will inevitably degrade combat effectiveness, and the nation will be less secure. There is also good evidence that the policy will harm military recruitment and retention.
– Second, women who serve as ground combatants, whether by choice or under compulsion, will suffer disproportionate physical and psychological harm.
– Third, the already serious problem of sexual assault in the military will get worse. Notwithstanding the Administration’s wishful thinking, this prediction is borne out by the statistics.
There is nothing to gain from this. There is much to lose.
On the battlefield, there is no agency to appeal to for gender bias. The enemy, the weather, the conditions, the misery do not care that things aren’t fair.
Torsion bars don’t care if you’re too weak to change them. Track doesn’t care if you’re too weak to break it and rebuild it.
You can yell at artillery shells all you want that they’re sexist for weighing too much, but they will not care.
90 pounds of gear on your back does not care… and the inability to do any combat job gets passed on to someone more competent, who then has to carry two loads instead of one.
Your buddy who needs your help does not get lighter just because you’re a girl (or a weak man who only meets a girls’ standard).
Men who do these jobs have to be physically strong athletes. Those who can’t meet the standard are a continuing drag on their unit and/or are mustered out.
The few individual women who could meet the standard (and could probably get waivers and be welcomed into units that might find utility for them) are not who is being looked at here. This is a push for cocktail party circuit politicians to say “look at the good social justice thing I did for women” that will put girls into positions that break many men, and will break women much faster and much worse.