my life, my thoughts, my world.

Given the response to my last entry about the journalistic failures of WikiLeaks, I did my best to ignore this topic. With the level of insanity around the topic today, I can no longer ignore it. If the striking through of my first statements in response to “Collateral Murder” confuses you, allow me to be clear. In no way do I support WikiLeaks. On the surface they appear as a beacon of transparency in a sea of opacity that is the flow of information. If one even chips that surface something far less noble is found. Their continuous claim that as an organization they have attained true objectivity and responsibility in reporting is utterly ridiculous. Cherry picking raw data and packaging it for release as a sensationalized editorial piece is neither objective nor responsible.

In this latest leak, tens of thousands of classified documents from Afghanistan were leaked. From what I have read, and I did admittedly get quite bored somewhere around the 10,000th report, these are almost entirely SIGACT reports. A SIGACT is any report of “significant activity” in an area of operations (AO). What exactly constitutes a SIGACT varies from commander to commander. If Private Joe Snuffy is in an outpost and a traffic officer fires 3 rounds from his AK47 into the sky instead of using a whistle (a practice common in Baqubah during my first tour in Iraq) chances are that action constitutes a SIGACT to his commander. It means absolutely nothing but it will be reported anyway.

The above example is exactly the sort of SIGACT found in the vast majority of the Afghanistan leaks. Several of the reports are of such little relevance that I can assure you, having recorded tens of thousands of SIGACTS myself, the next higher echelon wondered why anyone even wasted the breath to relay the message. This is not to say the entirety of the leaked information is irrelevant but that the majority of it is completely useless drivel. That is, if you understand it. A key problem surrounding the discussion of this leak is that very few people outside the military actually understand these reports. Unfortunately, that does not stop the ignorant masses from opining loudly about the content they’ve read and failed to comprehend.

One of the largest areas to have been discussed in the wake of these leaks is that of civilian casualty reports. Again, without knowing what generates such a report the discussion is rooted in ignorance. Any dead civilian seen by any friendly forces generates such a report. Reading that some unit’s callsign reports four dead and seven wounded civilians near some location in no way indicates by itself that the reporting unit had anything to do with the death or injury of those civilians. Nobody is denying that US-led forces have in fact killed civilians, whether justifiable by ROE or not, but few pay any attention to the very significant number of civilians killed intentionally by other Afghans. Regardless of who does the killing, dead civilians result in CIVCAS (Civilian Casualty) reports.

Perhaps the single most ridiculous claim to come from Julian Assange is “this material was available to every soldier and contractor.” While it is certainly true that each soldier is quite likely granted a provisional secret clearance while deployed in support of combat operations it is patently false to state that each of them is given access to the SIPRnet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). In a given infantry company the number of soldiers with digital access to classified information past the moment they report it is very small. Not all contractors have unfettered SIPRnet access either. You get SIPRnet access only if you need it. That need is not determined by you, but by strict policy enforced by the unit’s intelligence and network sections. It follows quite logically then that those in the best position to exploit the SIPRnet have access to such by means of their position inside the intelligence section.

Furthermore, everyone with a real secret (or higher) clearance and access to the SIPRnet is briefed on what is and what is not authorized. There is nobody with a clearance who is unaware of the nature of their access and the consequences of violating the laws under which that access is covered. This gives rise to the baseless nature of another Assange claim wherein he asserts that because everyone can access the information (which is either a gross misunderstanding on his part, or a bold-faced lie) the US military failed to give due diligence to its informers. Assange, as the face of a secretive organization, ought to know full well that security is an illusion. Many of the people with whom he is associated know this all too well, and work actively to break security mechanisms so that they might be made more secure as a result. The US military did not release the names of Afghans with whom they had worked to the public. Those names were classified, and their secrecy bound by rules and regulations the violations of which carry strict punishment. Someone broke those rules and regulations and provided the information to WikiLeaks who in turn released the names to the public. WikiLeaks released those names. The US military did not. There is no way to mistake who is explicitly at fault for releasing those names to the public: the individual leaker (possibly Bradley Manning), and the publishing organization (WikiLeaks). These leaks quite literally endangered the lives of Afghans trying to do what they believed to be right. Is it hypocrisy for Secretary Gates to say Assange has blood on his hands? Probably. I know I have blood on my hands, and have dealt with that. Assange needs to come to terms with it himself now. A HUMINT (Human Intelligence) source has a very limited lifespan once exposed, and he as exposed many.

Transparency is important. Make no mistake about my feelings in that regard. The public, to whom our government is legally accountable, deserves to know what is going on in the name of their protection (and at the great expense of their tax dollars). This means both our government, its agencies, and the public have a lot of work to do. Uncle Sam needs to own up to its mistakes and release information in a clear and direct method the public can understand. The public needs to educate themselves on how to go about understanding, as best they can without the frame of reference gained by experience, that information.

I’ll cut right to the chase with this one. From what? If Manning is guilty as charged, he deserves the full punishment he gets. It’s simply impossible to believe Manning did not know his actions violated at least one punitive article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

There’s a fairly decent chance if you’re reading this you’ve also read my analysis of the sensationalized editorial Wikileaks ran as news. The video that caused most of the stir captures an engagement between an Apache and a group of armed and unarmed men in a posture perceived as hostile to nearby troops. The subsequent 15-6 investigation, which is not just a dog-and-pony show, found no intentional violation of the ROE.

What could Manning possibly have hoped to change by leaking that video? Was he trying to send a message to journalists and photographers that being embedded with men carrying RPGs near a patrol of coalition forces is probably going to get you killed? Perhaps his goal was to urge persons of all professions to exercise personal responsibility and fully realize the dangers of their actions. Somehow I doubt that is the case. Manning has been compared to Ellsberg, but that’s a faulty comparison at best. Ellsberg had a point to make; it would seem Manning does not.

It seems Wikileaks is upset that the Crazyhorse crew hasn’t been charged with the deaths of the Reuters personnel they killed in the leaked video. The argument seems to be that because the identification of the photographer as a man armed with an RPG was made in error that the engagement amounted to cold-blooded murder – something clearly against both military and civilian law. If that is the metric being used – that the clear violation of a well-known law ought to result in the filing of criminal charges – Wikileaks ought to then fully support the charges brought against Manning. It’s very clear that one is only authorized to operate within his or her official capacity on the SIPRnet, and that failing to do so is a violation of the law. It is equally clear that the possession, and/or release, of materials inconsistent with their official markings is a violation of the law.

So, again, from what exactly is it Wikileaks wants to save Manning?

There’s so much to say about the whole ordeal, but sadly much of what has been said has come from a position of sheer ignorance. The ability, and seemingly the desire, of the media to use catastrophe as a means for increased revenue (which is generally understandable given their sinking-ship status) is astounding. If anything, this event (which certainly is a catastrophe) has produced the single largest surge the planet has ever seen in ocean/petroleum engineers. Who knew there were so many subject-matter experts!

Since there’s already been a good amount of discussion I’ll only rehash a few points that irk me to no end:

#1 – The conspiracy theory I keep hearing that BP is intentionally keeping the well gushing into the ocean, as a means of remaining relevant and not having to pay fines or face lawsuits yet, is absolutely the single most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Consider, for a moment, that I spent five years in a brigade level Tactical Operations Center. You’d be correct to assume that I’ve heard quite a lot of very ridiculous things. This theory takes the cake. The operation costs for the equipment involved in drilling an offshore well that hasn’t exploded are astronomical, and are a daily expense. I can’t fathom it being any cheaper to run the equipment needed in response to a blown well. Couple that expense with the lost revenue from the source of profits being largely lost as it spews out of the well, and it become even more impossible to think any organization remotely concerned with profit (we call those businesses – the primary motivation of which is generally profit) would do anything to prolong the agony.

#2 – GO GREEN! Green is completely dependent on oil. No matter how you slice it. Wind? What do you think lubricates the turbines? How much petroleum is used in the manufacturing process of not only the major components but the tooling required to make those components? Solar? Same story. Riding a bicycle takes oil too. When people tout that they’ve “gone green”, stopped eating meat, etc., in an effort to “stick it to Big Oil” they do little more than prove how little they understand about the reality of life and the way the world works. Chances are the tax revenue from Big Oil and its employees happen to fund the subsidies used to start these green movements anyway. I’m all for eliminating the use of petrochemical fuels as go-juice for transportation, and even energy, but in order to make the components I suspect will be required to do that we will still need oil.

#3 – The government should have done something, and the MMS should not employ “the friends of Big Oil!” Is there a magical reason that the government knows how to drill oil better than oil companies? Would a mistake made by a government employee have been less catastrophic than the mistake of an employ of an oil company? Is it somehow believed that government employees have a record of failing to properly do their jobs less often than those of an oil company? People are not perfect. That fact does not change based on their place of employment.

#4 – We don’t plan for the worst! That’s a bit deceptive. It’s entirely possible that we recognize that in many cases the worst is something the likes of which we cannot possibly contain. There are safety features on an airliner but if the worst happens nobody will survive. It’s a known risk but we all board planes anyway. I won’t pretend to know all the variables present in several thousand feet of water, but I suspect someone associated with that particular project has a fair idea. It may well be that the answer to “what do we do if it blows up”, in face of those variables, is “I have no idea.”

Don’t take this as a lack of compassion or care. The loss of life on the rig, in the ocean, and on the shores is beyond tragic. I was born on the Gulf of Mexico. I love seafood. I want to see this well capped and cleaned as quickly as possible. BP, Transocean, et al certainly need to be held fully accountable for any negligence on their parts. That said, running around throwing stones does not help engineer a solution in any way.

Critical note: I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a helicopter pilot. Thousands of you viewers have come here via click-through on a widely disseminated, and poorly researched, article found here.

Warning: The video content contained within this post is likely to greatly disturb those who have not seen these things many times before. People die. It is real. War, as they say, is hell. Updates below.

To start things off, I will come right out and say I support WikiLeaks in their endeavors to bring about transparency in government. The government promises to do such things and fails time and time again. That said, I have several problems with their presentation of “Collateral Murder,” the video immediately below this paragraph. These errors do nothing to lend to the credibility of this organization, and if there is any desire to promote anything but transparency and truth I will cease any inkling of support immediately.

Critical Update: In the time since I wrote this post, it has become abundantly clear that WikiLeaks is undeserving of my support. They continue, time and time again, to editorialize information and then present it as hard fact. My analysis remains, but my support for the organization does not. Their stated charter is noble; the methods they use are not.

For those unaware of my background, I have spent quite a lot of time (a conservative estimate would be around 4500 hours) viewing aerial footage of Iraq (note: this time was not in viewing TADS video, but footage from Raven, Shadow, and Predator feeds). I am certain my voice can be heard on several transmissions with several different Crazyhorse aircraft, as I have called them to assist troops on the ground more times in my 26-months in Iraq than I could even attempt to guess. I need no reassurances to determine the presence of an RPG7 or an AK-variant rifle, especially not from a craft flying as low as Apache (even after the video has been reduced in dimensions to a point at which it is nearly useless).

Several commenters on Twitter and YouTube have expressed a great deal of anger towards the United States and members of its military. Many of them, unsurprisingly, have wished death on us all. Part of the problem, which is far more complex than I have the time or desire to fully discuss, lies in the presentation of above video.

What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer.

WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience.

Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable.

At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error.

(note: It has to be taken into consideration that there is no way that the Crazyhorse crew had the knowledge, as everyone who has viewed this had, that the man on the corner of that wall was a photographer. The actions of shouldering an RPG (bringing a long cylindrical object in line with one’s face) and framing a photo with a long telephoto lens quite probably look identical to an aircrew in those conditions.)

I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. Any of the officers with whom I served are well aware that I would continue voicing that recommendation until ordered to do otherwise. A few of them threatened me with action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for doing so. Better officers than they, fortunately, were always ready to go to bat for me and keep that from happening. That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed.

(note: The above is based on the number of times footage from a UAV under my unit’s control produced visual evidence that showed a lesser threat level than that reported as possible by either attack aviation or troops on the ground. Such footage may not have been available during this incident, and as such if the camera was thought to be an RPG the engagement of the personnel was well within any ROE I have ever seen. By making the call, I mean that I have quite literally been the voice heard over the radio clearing an engagement. It is important to note that while I was a position to influence the decision, the actual decision was not mine to make – that falls to the officer-in-charge, not the non-commissioned officer-in-charge.)

The point at which I cannot support the actions of Crazyhorse 18, at all, comes when the van arrives somewhere around 9:45 and is engaged. Unless someone had jumped out with an RPG ready to fire on the aircraft, there was no threat warranting a hail of 30mm from above. Might it have been prudent to follow the vehicle (perhaps with a UAV), or at least put out a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for the vehicle? Absolutely without question. Was this portion of the engagement even remotely understandable, to me? No, it was not.

All in all, the engagement clearly went bad. I would have objected when I was a private first-class pulling triple duty as an RTO, driver, and vehicle gunner. I would have objected when I was a sergeant working well above my pay-grade as the Brigade Battle NCO. My assessment is based on my experiences in that very theater of operations. I did not see a threat that warranted an engagement at any point. I did, however, see the elements indicating such a threat could develop at any moment. (note: As I did, in fact, already know several things about the situation when I viewed this footage I cannot say with any certainty that had I viewed the exact same footage at the time of the incident that I would not have concluded the camera was an RPG as well.) People can make their judgements however they wish, but what is clearly visible is not the entire picture. I’ll also say that I’ve seen Crazyhorse elements do some pretty drastic maneuvers to protect troops and civilians alike. Those pilots have saved the lives of my friends many times, and a bad shoot is not going to ruin them as far as I’m concerned.

Update: I have seen several mentions of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle running over a body off in the rubble. This is highlighted at some point in the video. Crazyhorse 18 misidentifies a Canon zoom lens as an RPG7, but WikiLeaks has managed to identify a HMMWV as a BFV. I’m not even sure how that’s possible. The transcript also has the ground commander calling on the BFV crew to “drop rap” – there should be an ‘m’ between the ‘a’ and the ‘p’ – ramp is what it should read.

WikiLeaks claims to seek to shed the light on the truth, yet continues to allow such gross errors in reporting stand unchanged. There are many veterans with thousands of hours experience in both analyzing aerial video and understanding the often-garbled radio transmissions between units. It is not unreasonable to think any number of us would be willing to make sure everything is identified correctly, and all jargon is translated appropriately, before things go to the presses. Promoting truth with gross errors is just as shameful as an unnecessary engagement.

Technical issues have prompted the temporary disabling of comments on this post. As soon as I fix the problem, I will turn them back on. The exchange of dialogue is important, and will be restored as soon as possible.

Comments are back up, seems my theme did not know what to do with that many comments.

Comments are down again. If anything is unclear, I’m sure there’s an explanation somewhere in my responses to various comments.

The title of this post sums up two of the most important tools one must have when dealing with the Department of Veteran Affairs. Filing a claim, to any of the VA’s many departments, is a daunting task. Translating the form-letter responses the VA sends once your claim is received requires mastery of the foreign language spoken by the department. For many veterans, this is too much to handle on their own.

After reading several of the comments on my Post-9/11 GI Bill saga post, I decided a post was necessary to provide some sort of advice to my brothers and sisters at arms. The sort of advice that might give veterans a glimmer of hope in the dark cave that is waiting for the VA to process a claim. The sort of advice nobody gives you when you separate from the service, or decide to file your first claim with the VA.

Rule #1 – Be patient.

We all want our benefits, and we all want them now. That simply is not going to happen, and pacing back and forth hoping tomorrow is the day you get your money is only going to stress you out. If you are like me, you already carry too much stress from your time in the service. Do yourself a favor, and roll with the punches. Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease – so squeak on, but do not expect same-day action from the VA.

Rule #2 – Be persistent, and proactive.

You will get mountains of mail from the VA. Most of it has nothing to do with anything. Some of it is crucial to your claim. That means you’re going to have to read it all. Buy a shredder, as most of it belongs there. When the VA makes contact with you, make contact back with them immediately if there are any discrepancies whatsoever. If there is something that does not add up, tell the VA it does not add up. Keep telling them until you receive official notice, that would be more mail if you’re wondering, from the VA that there was a problem on their end and they are correcting it. Never take a “we will take care of this right away” over the phone as resolution. Just like in the service, if it is not on paper it never happened.

Rule #3 – Get assistance.

Whether this is your first claim, or your fifteenth claim, an extra set of eyes is invaluable. Any mistake, no matter how small, will likely result in your claim being delayed even longer and ultimately denied. Many veteran service organizations exist, and most of them have workers dedicated to helping veterans file claims. I am a Life Member of Veterans of Foreign Wars and a member of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Both of these organizations can provide important information on filing your claim, and drum up support for you while you fight for approval of your claim. Though you may feel alone, know that you are not.

Rule #4 – Be prepared.

As I said earlier, if it is not on paper it never happened. Hopefully, you kept copies of everything your branch of service ever gave you. That is, if you were lucky enough to get a copy for yourself in the first place. Your official records will be the first thing that is checked. The probability your file is incomplete is about the same as the probability that the sun rises in the east tomorrow.