Your Feedback:

January 20, 2003

---

- Troops at Risk in Djbouti
- Protests Are All about Politics
- Evacuation Would Send Wrong Message

---

Troops at Risk in Djbouti

Officer Violated Operational Security

I am writing in response to the Marine officer who wrote of poor security conditions at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti ("Marines At Risk in Djibouti," Guest Column, DefenseWatch, Jan. 15, 2003). I am one of the "lazy Army MPs" - as the Marine officer described us - doing force protection there.

While some of the comments that the Marine officer made are true, there are reasons for it or we have no control over it.

I would also bring up that in the Army they teach us about Operational Security. That is, if there something is going on, you don't tell anyone who doesn't have anything to do with it. The other day, the Marine public affairs officer allowed the news media to tape the Quick Reaction Force responding to a drill. Why not just put up a list of our weapons systems and names on TV?

The Guest Column author, if he indeed is a Marine officer, should be able to address any problems he has to his chain of command, especially since all the base leadership are Marines. Also, this person stated that there are no serpentines entering the camp because they were knocked down by locals. Here is the truth: One part of the serpentine got knocked down by a Marine truck and has since been repaired.

The writer spoke of the caliber of our weapons. If he has a problem with that, he should address it to the secretary of the Army. We don't decide what weapons we do or don't have.

Yes, all the hiring of locals is done through an agency, because before the Marines got here we almost had a riot when over 500 people showed up at the main gate to get two jobs. No one carries weapons on post because we have a "Cantina" that is open seven nights a week and serves beer. We have been arguing against having the "Cantina" and not carrying weapons since we got here.

Maybe if the Marines weren't too busy playing volleyball and getting drunk, they would see the changes that are happening every day. Maybe they should try to help instead of just complaining about it. We MPs have been here much longer than any of the Marines and have seen great improvements.

To the Guest Column author I say, if you want to point fingers and find fault, talk to the Marines. They are in a position to change most of these things. The MPs are subordinate to them. We are only doing as we are told.

--John Keene

Editor's Note: It was the decision of SFTT editors to withhold the officer's name in order to protect him from any negative consequences of publicly voicing concern over the security situation at Camp Lemonier.

Djibouti Is French for Beirut

After reading the article from the Marine Corps officer currently serving in Djibouti, I must say that if his report is true, I cannot believe the stupidity of his commanders for allowing this situation to continue ("Marines At Risk in Djibouti," Guest Column, DefenseWatch, Jan. 15, 2003).

I served in Beirut in 1983, and we were hobbled at that time by very restrictive Rules of Engagement, with tragic results. You cannot send American fighting men into a hostile zone with unloaded weapons or forbid them to fortify positions for their own defense!

When we first arrived in Beirut on Feb. 14, 1983, the positions we occupied were not well fortified. The ridiculous reason given was that we did not want to appear "hostile" or give the impression that we were there to fight. As incidents occurred and our battalion was blooded, we were at least allowed to build up our fortifications, but was it wise to wait until something happened which necessitated their construction?

When we first arrived in Beirut, we were not even allowed to insert a loaded magazine in our weapons. Again, as incidents occurred we were allowed eventually to insert a magazine, but the weapon was always on safe and no fire could be returned without the authorization of an Officer or staff NCO, and only after they had pleaded their case through a ponderous chain of command all the way to Washington and back.

I question the common sense of commanders and political handlers who, despite the historical record, would continue to commit American servicemen to a hostile zone and place ridiculous and dangerous restrictions on them. Someone needs to stop this nonsense and dig those boys in and arm them continuously so they can defend themselves!

--Michael Fullarton

Does the President Know about This?

In response to the Marine officer's column ("Marines At Risk in Djibouti," Guest Column, DefenseWatch, Jan. 15, 2003), all I can say on this issue is, "Remember Beirut." It is our commander-in-chief's job to make sure our Marines and other members of our armed forces are able to defend themselves in any situation. Who can we contact to bring this issue to the forefront?

--Sharon Fiely

Djibouti Situation Is Intolerable

I lost a friend and shipmate in Beirut: Sergeant Maj. Fred Douglas. I have been told by men who were snuffies in Beirut prior to the terrorist bombing that they had no weapons and if they had weapons (on patrol) there was no ammunition for same. Fellow U.N. peacekeepers thought of them as madmen.

The situation in Djibouti is intolerable ("Marines At Risk in Djibouti," Guest Column, DefenseWatch, Jan. 15, 2003). The commanders on scene should be replaced at once. Do we need another few hundred body bags, much hand wringing, apologies, and red faces? We need more commanders in the grain of Lt. Gen. "Chesty" Puller and Gen. George Patton - someone with a pair of brass balls.

My prayers are with our Marines harm's way on the Horn of Africa. Prayers may be all that they have between themselves and eternity.

--Tom Constantine

Officer's Comments 'Inappropriate'

I am the wife of one of the soldiers of the MP company serving in Djibouti. I found the Marine officer's guest column about the MPs at Camp Lemonier to be very offensive ("Marines At Risk in Djibouti," Guest Column, DefenseWatch, Jan. 15, 2003). The MPs are not the ones who decide where to put up the barriers or when to surrender your weapon. It's a command decision.

I thought it was very ignorant of the writer to put the blame for those decisions on my husband and his fellow soldiers.

Furthermore, could he have been any more specific as to where they are all stationed? I don't know about the Marine Corps, but this was an undisclosed location as far as the Army was concerned. If anyone is jeopardizing the situation, it is people like the writer, who gave this information to the public.

This is the time when our country needs to be united. We are already separated by those opposed to war and those in favor of it. The last thing we need is for our military to be separated by branches. The MPs are over there risking their lives just as the Marines are, and they deserve respect. It was totally inappropriate for a Marine (especially an officer) to tell the general public that our soldiers are lazy.

The thing I find most humorous of all is that my husband served four years in a Marine Corps grunt battalion, and now because he's in the Army, he's lazy and incompetent? The only person I see who is incompetent is the officer who wrote the letter. He has let the world know in a very detailed description where our soldiers are, the lack of security at the gates, and many other confidential details. 

He has just drawn a bull's-eye on everyone stationed there.

--Amanda S. Lee 

No Respect for 'Covert Jarhead'

I am disappointed in the article about security flaws at Camp Lemonier ("Marines At Risk in Djibouti," Guest Column, DefenseWatch, Jan. 15, 2003). The Marine officer should be man enough to sign his name and should be telling this tale to someone who is actually in a position to do something about it. Instead he, and, sadly, sftt.us, have done nothing but generate concern over something which is entirely out of the hands of those who paid the most attention to this article.

Get real. Call the Pentagon? Who should we ask to speak to, and what evidence should we give them to make them jump through hoops - the claims of an  anonymous piece of brass on an internet site?

I am not naive enough to believe that there aren't shortcomings in every military operation, and you can bet that no one on the face of this earth is more concerned about the safety of those troops than I am. However, I do believe there is a better way to expose errors (if and when they are found) than to paint a fat bull's-eye on a specific location.

Whether there is truth in the officer's claims or not, I am sure there is an enemy feeling braver today than he did last week. Thanks so much for adding that concern to the dose I've already been having to take on a regular basis.

I'm a sad and offended Army. These deployments are hard enough to get through without your soldier being publicly insulted by a covert Jarhead.

--Debbie Gibbons

Top of Page

Protests Are All about Politics

In response to Paul Connors' article on dissent ("Pro and Con: Protesting the Invasion of Iraq," DefenseWatch, Jan. 15, 2003), I will state for the record that as a U.S. Army Gulf War veteran, I have some reservations about the upcoming war in Iraq. Those reservations are more along the lines of whether we have sufficient forces, supplies and proper equipment for the mission than any misgivings about our right to take action against Iraq.

That said, I have serious trouble taking the anti-war protestors seriously. They say they are against this war, are all about global peace and that force resolves nothing. I'd buy that if I had seen more of them active during our two wars with Serbia during the 1990s. As it was, they were nowhere to be found. On college campuses, there was widespread support for the war among the usual anti-war suspects on the political Left.

The only difference is which party is in charge in the United States. The current war protests are not about the well-being of the American soldier, or about any general distaste for warfare in general. It is all about politics and overthrowing the current political leadership.

--Steven Francis Murphy

Top of Page

Evacuation Would Send Wrong Message

Lt. Col. George Amadio's Guest Column on the need for giving a Non-combatant Evacuation Order (NEO) in South Korea ("Evacuate Civilians from Korea," DefenseWatch, Jan. 15, 2003), has a lot of merit and he hits on some valid areas of concern. 

My only area of concern is his comment, "I realize that to order a dependent evacuation en mass at this time would likely cause a panic situation in South Korea, and that the North would be tempted to exploit this - especially if South Koreans conclude that we are abandoning them."

I don't think that implementing an NEO would cause the South Koreans to think we are abandoning them. I think Lt. Col. Amadio missed the greater possibility - that both Koreas will see this as a precursor to us going on the offensive and causing paranoia in the North, leading them to decide to strike before we did. In such a case, our issuing the NEO for Korea because we think the North may attack might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Instead, as soon as things began heating up over the North Korean nuclear program, U.S. forces in Korea should have immediately ceased all subsequent command sponsorship of dependents. Had this been done, over the last few months the U.S. military could have significantly reduced the presence of non-combatant American citizens in the country and gradually worked on decreasing the number of civilians in-country, instead of all at once.

-- John Bloodgood, Master Sgt. USAF

--endtext--