You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Officers faulted in Iraq mission that left 3 troops dead
2007-05-18
Three U.S. soldiers slaughtered in a grisly kidnapping-murder plot south of Baghdad last June were not properly protected during a mission that was poorly planned or executed, a military investigation has concluded. Two military officers have been relieved of their commands as a result of the litany of mistakes, but neither face criminal charges, a military official familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

A report on the investigation said the platoon leader and company commander -- whose names were not released -- failed to provide proper supervision to the unit or enforce military standards. A seven-page summary of the investigation provided to the mouthbreathers at AP also said it appears insurgents may have rehearsed the attack two days earlier, and that Iraqi security forces near the soldiers' outpost probably saw and heard the attack and "chose to not become an active participant in the attack on either side."

"This was an event caused by numerous acts of complacency, and a lack of standards at the platoon level," said the investigating officer, Lt. Col. Timothy Daugherty, in the summary.

... the platoon did not get the supervision or direction it needed.
According to the investigation of last June's attack, Tucker, Menchaca and Babineau were ordered to guard a mobile bridge over a canal to prevent insurgents from planting mines. Other members of their platoon, who were at two locations up to three-quarters of a mile away, heard small-arms fire at 7:49 p.m. When they arrived at the checkpoint about 25 minutes later, Babineau was dead and the others were gone. Daugherty said the soldiers were told to stand guard for up to 36 hours with just one Humvee, and there were no barriers on the road to slow access to them or provide early warning. To expect them to operate an observation post for 24 to 36 hours was unrealistic, he said. "From the time a vehicle was seen, it would have been in front or beside the (Humvee) in a matter of seconds," he wrote.

Daugherty concluded that the platoon did not get the supervision or direction it needed. And he said the unit was hurt by the loss of 10 troops, including several leaders, who were killed in action as well as by the need to shuffle the platoon's leadership three times. Daugherty said there was no malicious intent by the officers who were leading the unit. "Although the leaders in this platoon care and are staying in the fight, the platoon is frayed," he said in his report.

Lt. Gen. James D. Thurman, who was serving as the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad last year, ordered the investigation, and later handed out the punishments. His decision to remove the two officers -- a lieutenant and a captain -- from their commands was a harsher penalty than the one recommended by Daugherty, who suggested they get letters of reprimand. Thurman, who is now commander of Fifth Corps in Heidelberg, Germany, also accepted Daugherty's recommendations that the platoon be ordered to stand down for 10 days to address combat stress and get refresher training. In addition, administrative actions were taken against an unknown number of other officers, but those have not been disclosed because they are protected by the privacy act.
Posted by:Seafarious

#5  The CO was screwed either way. Had he requested more troops, he would have been laughed at, and told to just get it done. So he tried to just get it done, and didn't. Now he is screwed because he had to divide his forces into units too small to defend themselves from any kind of coordinated attack. I've been there....and sometimes in war there are no good options.
Posted by: 0369_Grunt   2007-05-18 10:12  

#4  What Woozle said.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-05-18 09:46  

#3  on either side

Great. Don't terrorists sort of depend on the population they are parasites to not rising against them? I would call that tacitly siding with the terrorists.
Posted by: gorb   2007-05-18 05:22  

#2  "and that Iraqi security forces near the soldiers' outpost probably saw and heard the attack and "chose to not become an active participant in the attack on either side."

Forgot this. Isn't this just dandy ? Not only did they stand by without alerting US forces, they were probably clapping, screaming in joy at Allan's Snackbar, and ululating until they fell down and writhed on the ground. They may have tipped off the perps as to precise location of US troops. Why is it again we give one damn about these camels ?
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970   2007-05-18 01:10  

#1  Now we're on round two. I just hope the outcome is not the same.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970   2007-05-18 01:04  

00:00