• Lack of leadership to blame for soldiers' bad behavior

    The Obama administration is trying to contain the fallout from newly-published photos showing U.S. soldiers posing with the body parts of Taliban suicide bombers. MSNBC military analyst Jack Jacobs weighs in.

    By Col. Jack Jacobs , NBC News military analyst

    News commentary

    Those who have been in combat will testify to the catastrophic insults to the body that modern weapons can inflict. War is horrifying, and nothing can prepare the novice for the destruction that it can cause. Nor do we easily get used to the images of it, and they stay with us forever.

    Recently released by the Los Angeles Times, the grisly photos of soldiers posing with the remains of dead Taliban fighters  have raised a variety of observations: From the notion that they are similar to the harmless pranks of adolescents to the assessment that their publication will be a catastrophe for the American mission in Afghanistan.

    As with most extremes, neither is the case. We should also reject the argument that this incident, the burning of Korans and the deliberate murder of women and children, such as those allegedly carried out by Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, are all the same. 

    No excuses
    Here are the facts: The pictures are about two years old and were of Taliban fighters killed when a bomb they were putting into position detonated prematurely. The photos were sent to the Times by someone who said he wanted to highlight the threat to our troops caused by the poor leadership of the unit, a part of the 82nd Airborne Division.

    But, although the Times suggested that the concern was merely inadequate physical security rather than a climate of generally weak discipline, it is the latter issue that is the most striking.

    When the Times notified the Defense Department that it had the photos, the Pentagon asked the paper not to publish them, arguing that they would incite the enemy to attack Americans. The Times responded that it had an obligation to publish them, citing their readers' right to be informed.

    Pictures taken two years ago showing American soldiers posing with the severed legs of a dead Taliban suicide bomber are being condemned by the Pentagon. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.

    In my view, both the Defense Department and the newspaper are full of baloney: The Taliban don't need any encouragement to attack us, and a big part of the motivation of the Los Angeles Times is to sell newspapers.

    More nuanced has been comment from some quarters that the troops, who were mugging for the camera, were letting off the steam that accumulates under the duress of war; that their actions were in response to having lost buddies to the mindless ferocity of the Taliban.

    While these are understandable reasons, they are not excuses, of course, and the paratroopers' actions were publicly decried by government officials. Many cited long-standing rules, promulgated after similarly embarrassing episodes, stating that such antics are impermissible.

    Lack of leadership
    But the truth is that you can't merely legislate against dumb behavior. In and out of combat, good units get that way because they are well led.

    Poor leadership can create poor units in a very short period of time, particularly under stress. While good leadership can bring any organization through the most horrendous circumstances with only physical scars.

    The leadership of the brigade in the 82nd that is at the center of this photo controversy was evidently already known as weak by the chain-of-command above it. There are many military organizations that have endured more harrowing circumstances with less damage to discipline.

    It is not easy being a leader in uniform, but there is a responsibility attached to it that is found nowhere else in society. Military service is a sacrifice and those who volunteer for it are our patriots. But service is no game, and because so much is at stake, standards of deportment must be extremely high.

    We are frequently reminded of it, but it bears repeating nonetheless: a commander is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his unit, and it is he who sets the standards in his organization. Accepting less than professional behavior will minimize the service and sacrifice of those who have taken seriously their responsibilities as the guardians of our freedom.

    Col. Jack Jacobs was awarded the Medal of Honor for “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty” in the battle he describes above. His first assignment in the Army, in 1966-1967, was in Company C, 2nd Battalion (Airborne) 505th Infantry of the 82nd Airborne Division, the same division as the troops in this incident.

    Click here to read the complete Medal of Honor citation. 

    He is the author of a memoir: “If Not Now, When? Duty and Sacrifice in America’s Time of Need”

     

  • As combat troops leave, Iraq's future still uncertain

    By Jack Jacobs, NBC News military analyst

    NEW YORK – It has been a complicated logistical enterprise, but the president’s goal of reducing the American presence in Iraq seems to be proceeding more or less according to his campaign promise.

    But anyone who thinks that there will be no U.S. forces in Iraq is mistaken – we will continue to suffer casualties and spend money while the fractious politicians in Baghdad try to get a grip on their fragile democracy.

    Sadly, the odds of long-term success are long.

    Combat troops say 'So long'
    We are withdrawing combat troops, but we will leave behind a substantial support base of Americans to help the wobbly Iraqis: technical experts, logistical support, engineers, air power, administrative people and a host of other assistance that the Iraqis desperately need. Some will be located in Iraq, and some will be based in nations bordering Iraq, but they will remain in the region for a long time to come.

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    U.S. troops will help provide local security, but the American combat role will be formally terminated. The thousands of soldiers, Marines and airmen left behind will serve as advisers, formed into mobile teams to train Iraqi military and police units. As we discovered in Vietnam and a number of other places, advisory work is slow, labor-intensive and frustrating.

    Advisers have no authority over the Iraqis and must battle disinterest, ethnic tension, illiteracy, ineptitude, fear and corruption, all formidable opponents. Terrorists, separatists and the disaffected will have to be found and eliminated or converted, but in the meantime there will be violence. And strategic regional threats, Iran chief among them, will complicate Iraqi military recovery. Getting the Iraqis into fighting trim will be neither quick nor easy.

    Lights need to come on
    Not all of Iraq’s problems are security troubles. A good example of the many other things that need to be fixed is the electrical power grid. It does work, but only occasionally and not in a predictable way. Even if residents can become inured to an intermittent and insufficient supply of electricity – commerce can’t.

    A viable commercial sector is a principal element of stability, and economic activity will not grow until we help the Iraqis generate adequate, reliable electricity. In a country that has consumed billions of dollars in American aid, this important task is not supposed to be difficult to accomplish.

    Whatever else one can say about President Barack Obama's decisions on national security – and there is plenty to criticize – one can’t accuse Obama of failing to keep his word on Iraq.

    Then an Illinois state senator, Obama voted against the invasion, and he has been consistent in saying that it was a waste of resources and distracted us from the objective of eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    But Obama also has announced that, beginning in less than a year, he will order a withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan as well.

    Presumably, he intends to fight the Taliban from a distance with remotely piloted aircraft and with the occasional special operation. Although these instruments are cost effective, they are not decisive in an asymmetrical conflict, and so his pledge to defeat the Taliban, which requires more time and troops, is a hollow one.

    Different challenges, same goal
    In most respects, Iraq and Afghanistan are as different as can be. Iraq was a centrally governed political entity for a long time; Afghanistan is a loose collection of tribes. Iraq has a history of successful agriculture and industry since ancient times; Afghanistan is mostly desolate and is among the poorest countries on earth.

    But Obama's strategic objective in Iraq is startlingly similar to that in Afghanistan: establish and support a stable democracy that can defend itself against its enemies. However, like in Afghanistan, it is not clear that there is much to support in Iraq just yet.

    There is a continuous, paralyzing and often violent argument among Iraqis about parliamentary representation, about the method of voting, about the distribution of resources, about almost everything – basic concepts on which citizens must concur if the political machinery is to operate at all. Debate is healthy, but paralysis is not, particularly in a nation that is at risk without strong leadership from Baghdad.

    Everything we are doing in Iraq, and everything we continue to sacrifice, is for the purpose of giving the Iraqis safety, stability and prosperity.

    We deposed a dictator and put in his place a system designed to deliver political power to those who did not have it before, but in the process we are leaving the Iraqis without the leadership it needs to survive.

    In the wake of our departure, Baghdad's weakness is liable to encourage the rise of another despot, demonstrating something we learned during our own revolution but have evidently forgotten: installing democracy takes time and patience, two valuable resources in short supply.

    Jack Jacobs is a Medal of Honor recipient for heroic actions during the Vietnam War.