Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2002 | 8:27 a.m.
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET SOME COMMON SENSE and realize that our troops, especially those in Special Operations, are fighting a new and difficult kind of warfare?
During the past several months I began to think that common sense had again become the rule of the day. Pictures of Special Operations troops riding horses in the backcountry and bearded troops in Afghan garb on the streets of Kandahar have been coming out of Afghanistan.
Seeking out the terrorists, soldiers and tribal members determined to kill Americans is a tough job under the best of circumstances, but the job was being done. Dressing like the Afghan male with the maturity to grow facial hair, something that is respected in the villages, has given our special combat troops an acceptable appearance unlike one of an occupying foreign army. It also gives them some cover that makes them a less attractive target for their enemies.
There are many good reasons for garrison troops in the United States and other Western countries to be spit and polish in appearance. Even in most combat situations, clean-shaven American troops are the norm. Afghanistan and war in that part of the globe, where troops are forced to be both fighters and diplomats wooing the natives, isn't the kind of warfare most generals have experienced. Any American boy in a U.S. history class can tell you the British Army redcoats were easy prey for the backwoodsmen who fought like Indians. The Soviets learned the same tough lessons trying to fight a European style war with helicopters and armor against the tribes in Afghanistan just a few short years ago.
So why this most recent Pentagon action to shave and put in uniform our Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan? The orders evidently came from the top where the same orders last year gave the Rangers coveted black berets to other less skilled and trained troops. Gen. Eric Shinseki said the change was to boost the morale and give greater pride to the remainder of the Army.
For the Rangers it was a slap in the face, and without better training and equipment it wasn't going to do the regular troops much good. Evidently it made some Pentagon types feel that they had accomplished something and that's all that counts in world of military politics.
When finishing Marine boot camp in the 1940s the thick leather belt and large brass buckle worn with our greens was very distinctive. Almost two years later, when returning from overseas, the belt and buckle were replaced with cloth and a small cheap buckle. Still, up until the day of discharge, most of us wore the equipment issued us before leaving the states. We liked our leather belts and brass buckles.
Berets, belts and buckles may come and go, but this latest nonsense coming from Washington can cost the lives of some of our finest troops. The New York Times tells readers the Pentagon is reacting to complaints made by some civilian charities aiding the local population. In a report from Afghanistan one aid worker is quoted saying, "When soldiers go around wearing blue jeans, sandals, hidden weapons, long hair, it blurs the line -- people don't know who they are." Another told the reporter, "We were concerned that they were dressed as aid workers, driving unmarked vehicles, with no weapons showing, with no evidence that they were combatants." These whiners give the best reasons possible for the Special Operations Forces to look like the local population.
Shame on those generals who are willing to cost the lives of troops to silence the whining nonsense coming from groups like the Catholic Relief Services and the Mercy Corps. If the whiners don't like the way the troops work, then their organizations should reassign them to Paris, London or Washington, D.C., because they don't belong in a combat zone.
archive
