Sept 11..... 12 years on

I am reminded today of a speech once give to british Soldiers on the eve of the war in Iraq in 2003.

I find this as good and arguably as good as the famous Henry the Fifth Speech by William Shakespeare.  the war IN Afghan is almost over for Canadians and will now transfer to our Afghan allies... we hope the lesson we taught them are well learned.

Time will tell

Pentagon on 911

As Lieutenant Colonel (Commanding Officer) of the 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment of the British Army, Collins gave a rousing eve-of-battle speech to his troops in Kuwait on Wednesday 19 March 2003.

“

We go to Iraq to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them. There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory. Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you. If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves. It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow. The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity. It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the Mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family. The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please. If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation. [Regarding the use by Saddam of chemical or biological weapons] It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack. As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north.

Here are two articles that best showcase that the truth is sometimes not from an American perspective and not a Canadian perspective but a Afghan perspective.

    

People who had suffered the most during the war against terror in Afghanistan are undoubtedly the citizens, the villagers who had nothing to do with terrorism. They suffered at the hands of militants who want to take over their country and at the hands of those who are seeking to oust the terrorists. Their country, Afghanistan has been labeled as a terrorist country and the innocent Afghans are paying for it in one way or another.

ANA watching Panjawai

For almost eleven years the people of Afghanistan suffered, hoping that one day the war against terror would come to an end and they’d be able to live their lives peacefully, the way they lived before, but nothing happened. Now, in the past few months things have changed a little bit. Afghans are now standing up against the Taliban insurgents on their own.

The uprising in the district of Panjwai stands out because it is the first in southern Afghanistan which is the spiritual heartland of the Taliban movement. It is a huge accomplishment because it is a region where the militants thrived despite N.A.T.O. and American operations. It is being considered as the most significant uprising against the Taliban.

Reuters

It began in February when the villagers along with police forces began the revolt in this region which is known for its rich vineyards and orchards. The Panjwai Uprising is also a very good example of how the government and its people can stand together in the face of adversity and accomplish great things for the country. According to a report, almost hundred village elders have vowed to keep fighting against the militants on Monday. The Taliban have vowed to return but the villagers are ready to face them when they do.

The Taliban were laying mines in the orchards. Villagers weren’t aware of the location of the mines and would only know when someone got killed. The people are fed up of all the terrorism and deaths. They want to get rid of this mess. So, theyhave joined the government forces to oust these terrorists who have destroyed the peace of their country. These people are a brilliant example of the fact that they have the courage to fight for their country even if they lose their lives doing so.

The Panjwai uprising will forever be remembered as an effort the common man of Afghanistan made to restore peace. It is something that must be respected, appreciated and encouraged in each and every way. They would be the people who will hopefully create a new image of the war-plagued country: a new tolerant and peaceful Afghanistan.

Despite the uprising the Americans still hold to the belief that Canada failed in its mission, the Afghans and of course the Canadians disagree

WASHINGTON—American reluctance to confront Canada over its weak military hold in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar province was among the costlier blunders of the war in Afghanistan, a new book alleges.

 Excerpts published Friday by The Washington Post describe the rising concerns of a team of U.S. military advisers who were stunned in 2009 when an unnamed senior Canadian intelligence official in Kandahar told them, “I have no idea what’s going on inside the city.”
 
The sheer thinness of Canadian boots in Kandahar — only 2,830 soldiers, mostly assigned to headquarters and support roles, with fewer than 600 going on patrol — contrasted against more than 9,000 British soldiers deployed in the less populated and less strategically important neighbouring province of Helmand, Washington Post senior correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran writes in Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan.
 
But when the U.S. reassessment team returned to Kabul to learn why more Canadians had not been deployed, they were told by the U.S. Maj.-Gen. Michael Tucker, then the director of operations for all NATO troops, “It is wrong to tell a (Canadian) commander, from this level, to put troops in Kandahar city.”
 
Sitting next to Tucker in that Kabul meeting was Andrew Exum, an influential counterinsurgency strategist and former Army Ranger platoon leader, battle-hardened by earlier deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Exum’s notes from that Kabul encounter are excoriating. “This guy is a jackass,” Exum wrote of Tucker’s hesitance to direct the Canadians. “Kandahar — not Helmand — is the single point of failure in Afghanistan.”
 
When Exum and his reassessment team investigated further, the book alleges, they were told by U.S. Army Brig.-Gen. John “Mick” Nicholson, that the Americans were reluctant to ruffle feathers in Ottawa.
 
“(Nicholson) emphasized that the Kandahar mission was Canada’s largest overseas deployment since the Korean War. Military leaders in Ottawa were reluctant to ask for more help — some were convinced that security in Kandahar was improving, others didn’t want to risk the embarrassment,” writes Chandrasekaran.

On patrol

“To Exum and others on the team, however, it seemed that U.S. commanders thought that managing the NATO alliance was more important than winning the war.”
 
Exum, a fellow with the Washington-based Center for a New American Security, was brought on as part of a group of outside advisers convened by Gen. Stanley McChrystal when he was appointed the top commander in Afghanistan in 2009.
 
But the Americans had their own reasons for wanting to avoid Kandahar at the outset of the Obama administration, Chandrasekaran writes in Little America, which is based on more than 70 interviews with U.S. government and military officials directly involved in Afghan war policy. 

Foremost among them was the Pentagon’s own struggles in locating senior troop commanders willing to dispatch thousands of additional forces to Afghanistan after so many years of rolling deployment to the region.
 
One of the few with a “zeal for Afghanistan” was Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway. But Conway “drove a hard bargain” with his Pentagon counterparts, insisting that any fresh Marine deployment must involve “a contiguous area” where the U.S. Marines would wield total control, including support from Marine helicopters and supply convoys.
 
“These stipulations effectively excluded Kandahar,” writes Chandrasekaran. “The geography of the province, and the Canadians’ desire to hold on to the key districts around Kandahar city, made it nearly impossible to carve out a Marine-only area there.
 
“Helmand was the next best option, even if it was less vital.”
 
By that time, the Canadian military had already asked for help in Kandahar province, although the number of reinforcements requested was still small compared to the presence in Helmand province.

 
In January 2008, an independent panel led by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley issued a report recommending that Canada extend its mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009, on the condition that NATO deploy a battle group of about 1,000 additional soldiers to back up Canadian troops in Kandahar.
 
The report also called on the Canadian government to provide troops with surveillance drones and large helicopters as another condition for extending the mission.
 
Canada managed to secure those extra troops – and thereby meets its conditions for extending the mission to 2011 – when the United States committed to sending 1,000 soldiers to the southern province after France decided to join the war efforts.
 
The Americans took control of Kandahar City in 2010 following a decision by U.S. President Barack Obama to flood southern Afghanistan with troops.
 
Canadians troops were left in charge of Panjawai, Dand and Daman districts until Canada ended its combat mission there in July 2011.
 

Panjawai

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay responded to the allegations by praising the work of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
 
“Canada has played a leadership role in the UN-mandated, NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, both through the previous combat mission in Kandahar and our current training mission centred in Kabul. Working alongside our international partners, our Canadian Forces personnel have made tangible strides to improve the lives of the Afghan people, and have made great progress in helping them to increase their nation’s safety and security,” MacKay’s press secretary, Joshua Zanin, wrote in an emailed statement on Friday.
 
With files from Joanna Smith
Foremost among them was the Pentagon’s own struggles in locating senior troop commanders willing to dispatch thousands of additional forces to Afghanistan after so many years of rolling deployment to the region.
 
One of the few with a “zeal for Afghanistan” was Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway. But Conway “drove a hard bargain” with his Pentagon counterparts, insisting that any fresh Marine deployment must involve “a contiguous area” where the U.S. Marines would wield total control, including support from Marine helicopters and supply convoys.
 
“These stipulations effectively excluded Kandahar,” writes Chandrasekaran. “The geography of the province, and the Canadians’ desire to hold on to the key districts around Kandahar city, made it nearly impossible to carve out a Marine-only area there.
 
“Helmand was the next best option, even if it was less vital.”
 
By that time, the Canadian military had already asked for help in Kandahar province, although the number of reinforcements requested was still small compared to the presence in Helmand province.
 
In January 2008, an independent panel led by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley issued a report recommending that Canada extend its mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009, on the condition that NATO deploy a battle group of about 1,000 additional soldiers to back up Canadian troops in Kandahar.
 
The report also called on the Canadian government to provide troops with surveillance drones and large helicopters as another condition for extending the mission.
 
Canada managed to secure those extra troops – and thereby meets its conditions for extending the mission to 2011 – when the United States committed to sending 1,000 soldiers to the southern province after France decided to join the war efforts.
 
The Americans took control of Kandahar City in 2010 following a decision by U.S. President Barack Obama to flood southern Afghanistan with troops.
 
Canadians troops were left in charge of Panjawai, Dand and Daman districts until Canada ended its combat mission there in July 2011.

Panjawai Road

 
A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay responded to the allegations by praising the work of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
 
“Canada has played a leadership role in the UN-mandated, NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, both through the previous combat mission in Kandahar and our current training mission centred in Kabul. Working alongside our international partners, our Canadian Forces personnel have made tangible strides to improve the lives of the Afghan people, and have made great progress in helping them to increase their nation’s safety and security,” MacKay’s press secretary, Joshua Zanin, wrote in an emailed statement on Friday.
 
With files from Joanna Smith

Even a Navy seal hero can have a tough time....

• News
• World news
• US militaryEmail

Navy Seal who allegedly shot Bin Laden says US military has abandoned him

Retired commando alleges he's been left without healthcare or financial support as he struggles to adapt to a new civilian life

• Ed Pilkington in New York
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 February 2013 18.55 

The Shooter describes to the magazine the 15 seconds in which he says he killed Bin Laden in this Abbottabad compound. Photograph: Saeed Shah/MCT via Getty Images

A retired Navy Seal who claims to have killed Osama bin Laden by shooting him three times in the forehead has accused the US military of abandoning him to his fate without any financial support, healthcare or security protection as he makes the hard transition to civilian life.

The former commando was a member of the team of 23 Navy Seals that stormed a house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on 2 May 2011 and killed the world's most wanted terrorist, according to Esquire. An article in the magazine, written in collaboration with the Center for Investigative Reporting, tells the commando's story as apparently the last person to see Bin Laden alive.

But it is the Navy Seal's caustic comments about his treatment at the hands of the military as he seeks to make the shift back to civilian life that are attracting most attention. The "Shooter", as he is anonymously referred to, tells the magazine that after the Abbottabad raid he felt burned out and decided to take early retirement three years before the official requirement of 20 years' service.

As a result, he said: "my healthcare for me and my family stopped. … I asked if there was some transition from my Tricare to Blue Cross Blue Shield. They said no. You're out of the service, your coverage is over. Thanks for your sixteen years. Go fuck yourself."

He bitterly remarks that if he had been killed on a special-ops mission, his family would have fared much better than the reality of his retirement. "If I get killed on this next deployment," he told Esquire before he made his final mission to Afghanistan before leaving the navy: "I know my family will be taken care of. College will be paid for, they'll be fine.

"But if I come back alive and retire, I won't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of for the rest of my life. Sad to say, it's better if I get killed."

He was also critical about the lack of security protection he and his family have been provided in the wake of the Bin Laden killing. He told Esquire that the best he was offered was a witness-protection programme similar to that provided for Mafia snitches – he could be given a new identity driving a beer truck in Milwaukee, he was told.

The Seal told Esquire that he had expected the military at least to enhance security at his home which he shares with his wife and children. "Maybe some courtesy eyes-on checks. Send some Seabees over to put in a heavier, metal-reinforced front door. Install some sensors or something. But there was literally nothing."

The navy, responding to questions from MSNBC, said that it could not corroborate the Shooter's account of events and his post-retirement treatment. "We take seriously the safety and security of our people as well as our responsibility to assist sailors making the transition to civilian life. Without more information about this particular case it would be difficult to determine the degree to which our transition programme succeeded."

The commando's criticisms of his treatment are all the more excoriating because of his status, according to Esquire, as the Navy Seal who took down Bin Laden. He describes to the magazine the 15 seconds in which he apparently made history by shooting the spearhead behind 9/11.

"I shot him, two times in the forehead. Bap! Bap! the second time as he's going down. He crumpled onto the floor in front of his bed and I hit him again, Bap! same place … He was dead. Not moving. His tongue was out. I watched him take his last breaths, just a reflex breath."

Experts in veteran care said Esquire had gone too far in its summary of the official response to the Seal's 16 years in the navy. The article says that on retirement he received "nothing. No pension, no healthcare, and no protection for himself and his family."

Derek Blumke, who until last month ran the national mental health programme of the US Department of Veteran Affairs, pointed out that as a combat veteran the Seal would be entitled to healthcare for the next five years as well as disability benefits for life relating to any injuries incurred during military service. But Blumke, who worked for six years as an air force electrician and now heads Student Veterans for America, said that the commando's anxieties about the transition to civilian life were representative of the difficulties faced by thousands of retiring service members every year.

"When I left the air force in 2005 it was the scariest time of my life. I was terrified that I wasn't going to be smart enough to succeed," Blumke said.

Zach Iscol, a former marine captain who runs Hire Purpose, a group that matches military veterans with civilian companies, said the department of defense had made strides in recent years in improving its help for veterans. "Historically, the military is so focused on the mission of war that it hasn't done a good job in setting up those leaving the services for success in civilian life, though that's changing."

Iscol predicted that the Shooter's doubts about his ability to find a meaningful role in civvy street would prove to be unfounded. "As an operator in the Navy Seals he has incredibly marketable leadership skills that countless companies would be delighted to benefit from."

• inS

NV Victoria Cross winner let go!

Maybe Apiata's departure relates to pay and conditions - the rest of the Armed Forces are certainly complaining

Opinion by Political Reporter Patrick Gower

There could hardly be a worse advertisement for the New Zealand Defence Force right now.

Willie Apiata, VC, quits - and doesn't even get so much as a goodbye from the top brass.

Yes, the Army's poster boy just walked on out - like over 900 other servicemen and women have in the past two years.

It goes like this - morale is in the doldrums, there's a pay freeze and the Government's cost-cutting reforms have really hurt.

All this adds up to people just not wanting to work for the armed forces as much as they used to.

And now the departed includes none other than Willie Apiata - just how symbolic is that?

His departure from the SAS was broken to the public by a muttering Defence Minister on the way to Parliament yesterday.

The Defence Force then rushed out a bland statement - I strongly suspect they did not know what to say.

And finally it put something out on behalf of Apiata himself.

It was all very disorganised - there was certainly no military-style precision.

It all points to there being some deeper issue to Apiata's departure.

As the rumour mill has it, he's been arguing over getting some extra leave to be with his family (denied by the Government).

And then there are rumours about discipline issues and the like (also denied by the Government) that always circulate when there's a rushed departure like this.

The nature of the release does nothing to quell those - and when they are not true it's simply not fair on Apiata.

Or maybe Apiata's departure relates to pay and conditions - the rest of the Armed Forces are certainly complaining.

Are our SAS and the associated special forces’ soldiers remunerated properly?

Do the SAS have the right numbers to ward off attrition issues?

Are there the right pathways for experienced career soldiers like Apiata to stay in the services?

I'm really surprised there was no exit strategy for Apiata.

There's no special role designated for him, no matter how small to keep him attached to the forces - for want of a better description, some sort of "cushy retirement number".

But the Government/Army has its own programme - the so-called "boot camps". Wouldn't Apiata have been the ideal man for this?

Clearly the Army had no plan for dealing with Apiata - its been a shambles.

Maybe the Defence Force muzzled him because they didn't want media asking about morale and pay issues?

Maybe he didn't want a big send-off - but that doesn't stop something a little more organised than yesterday.

The clumsy goodbye to Apiata is not a good look.

Whatever the reasons behind this, Apiata's final salute from the top brass was not befitting of the great man's deeds.

Response from Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant General Rhys Jones:

I think if the New Zealand public has learnt anything about Willie since he rose to prominence for his remarkable act of gallantry, it is that Willie is an incredibly humble man who has never sought the spotlight for himself.

So too it is in the way he wishes to leave the Defence Force. As Defence Force leaders we will first and foremost be guided by Willie’s own wishes to make the transition to his new role beyond the Defence Force in his own quiet and deliberate way.

It was not the Defence Force that sought to initiate a story but your own brethren. Again, our statement was in accordance with Willie’s wishes.

As regularly voted one of New Zealand’s “most trusted New Zealanders”, I hope Patrick that you will take Willie’s word on this matter - if not my own - that he left his fulltime military role under good terms, and will continue his long association with the Defence Force as a Reserve Force member:

Apiata is going to work for the High Wire Trust - it works with troubled youth.

A roving role up and down the country - he could have been put in a "civilianised role" and paid a decent wedge.

And the very least, they should have given him some sort of send-off where he could extol the virtues of a career as a soldier.

It's clear that Apiata still loves the SAS - he's staying on as a reserve.

And what about the amount the Defence Force has pumped into the marketing and PR "brand Willie"? On those grounds alone it's a loss to the balance sheet.

Put it this way: I can't see the NZRFU acting like this when Richie McCaw finally calls it a day.

----

Patrick, I can assure you and the public of New Zealand that Corporal Apiata, V.C. will get the send-off from the Defence Force that HE wants.

Where he has made public appearances and supported causes, these have been where he sensed he could make a difference to his community and New Zealand.

As Chief of Defence Force, I believe he has earned that right. As to the “rushed” way you claim the NZ Defence Force handled this issue, our statement was of course in response to imminent news media stories we became aware of.

With regard to the other innuendo and gossip you speculate about in your “opinion piece”, all I can do is refer you again to the statement that Corporal Apiata, V.C. made through the Defence Force yesterday afternoon.

“This has been a decision that I have not taken lightly and it is one that has taken me many months to make. I am leaving to pursue my goals and to grow with my family. I am very proud of my service with the NZDF and I am very grateful for all of the support I have received from the NZSAS and the NZDF.”

Become

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Apiata-disgraced-by-Defence-Force-top-brass/tabid/1382/articleID/261847/Default.aspx#ixzz2Brh58w4k