Finally - Marines Do Right by Chessani

Marine Escapes Charges In 24 Killings In Iraq

Los Angeles Times
August 29, 2009

CAMP PENDLETON--The Marine Corps has decided not to seek to reinstate criminal charges against a former battalion commander for a 2005 incident in which his troops killed 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq.

Instead, the Marine Corps will convene a Board of Inquiry to hear testimony and recommend whether Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani should be demoted to major for purposes of retirement.

Even if such a recommendation is made and then accepted by the Secretary of the Navy, Chessani's retirement pay would still be based on being a lieutenant colonel.

The Marine Corps had sought to try Chessani for dereliction of duty for not ordering a war-crimes investigation when his Marines killed the 24, including three women and seven children. Chessani, who was not present during the killings, reported to his superiors that the deaths, while tragic, were the result of fighting between Marines and insurgents.

A court-martial judge threw out the charges after ruling that it was improper for a Marine lawyer who investigated the Haditha shootings to sit in on meetings with the general who decided to bring the charges.

--Tony Perry

Fingers, the Taliban, and Sex

Taliban Threat To Chop Off Fingers Of Afghan Voters

By Ben Farmer
London Daily Telegraph
August 15, 2009

TALIBAN commanders have threatened to chop off the fingers of anyone caught voting in next week?s presidential elections. Insurgents in southern Afghanistan said fingers found bearing the indelible ink used to mark voters would be removed.

“We will know those who cast a vote from the ink, and his finger will be cut off,” a commander warned villagers in the south of the country.

The Taliban ruling council, led by Mullah Omar, has called on Afghans to boycott the election, described them as an American sham and told its fighters to block roads to polling stations.

President Hamid Karzai?s heartland is in the rural Pashtun south, where kinsmen could deliver crucial votes for his re-election campaign. But the risk of violent retribution from the Taliban and the prospect of re-electing a president who has attracted intense criticism for his policies in the final weeks of campaigning could dissuade many from turning out.

Mr Karzai faces a second round run-off because he is now unlikely to win by the 50 per cent of votes required.

As the presidential campaign entered its final week yesterday, human rights advocates accused Mr Karzai of betraying Afghanistan's women for votes after it was disclosed that he had ratified a controversial law said to condone marital rape.

The president's recent decision to free five convicted drug traffickers, including the nephew of his campaign manager, was also questioned by a minister in charge of hunting down Afghan opium lords.

Mr Karzai addressed thousands of supporters in the north-east city of Herat as it emerged that controversial legislation governing family life for the country?s Shia minority had been rushed through to become law.

The president was forced to reform the original draft in the face of international outcry earlier this year when it was found to rule that a woman had to satisfy her husband's sexual desires at least every fourth night.

But the amended version, which has quietly come into force after being published in the country?s official gazette, still maintains that a husband can stop feeding his wife if she does not submit to him.

Brad Adams, Asia director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said: “Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists.”

The law also grants custody of children only to fathers and grandfathers.

Afghanistan: How To Define Victory?

White House Struggles To Gauge Afghan Success

By David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker
New York Times
August 7, 2009


WASHINGTON — As the American military comes to full strength in the Afghan buildup, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with a long-promised plan to measure whether the war is being won.

Those “metrics” of success, demanded by Congress and eagerly awaited by the military, are seen as crucial if the president is to convince Capitol Hill and the country that his revamped strategy is working. Without concrete signs of progress, Mr. Obama may lack the political stock — especially among Democrats and his liberal base — to make the case for continuing the military effort or enlarging the American presence.

That problem will become particularly acute if American commanders in Afghanistan seek even more troops for a mission that many of Mr. Obama’s most ardent supporters say remains ill defined and open-ended.

Senior administration officials said that the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, approved a classified policy document on July 17 setting out nine broad objectives for metrics to guide the administration’s policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Another month or two is still needed to flesh out the details, according to officials engaged in the work.

General Jones and other top National Security Council aides, including Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, gave an update to top Congressional leaders over recent days.

But as the Bush administration learned the hard way in Iraq, poorly devised measurements can become misleading indicators — and can create a false sense of progress.

That is especially difficult in a war like the one in Afghanistan, in which eliminating corruption, promoting a working democracy and providing effective aid are as critical as scoring military success against insurgents and terrorists.

For instance, some of the measures now being devised by the Obama administration track the size, strength and self-reliance of the Afghan National Army, which the United States has been struggling to train for seven years. They include the number of operations in which Afghan soldiers are in the lead, or the number of Afghan soldiers who have received basic instruction.

White House officials say they are taking the time to get the measurements right.

In some cases, old measurements are being thrown out. Commanders in Afghanistan say they no longer pay much attention to how many enemy fighters are killed in action. Instead, they are trying to count instances in which local citizens cooperate with Afghan and allied forces.

And in drafting a metric important to senior members of Congress, the administration is considering conducting an opinion poll to determine Afghan public perception of official corruption at national, provincial and district levels. This would give insight into how Afghan citizens view police performance at the neighborhood level all the way up to the quality of national political appointments.

But as the architects of similar metrics in Iraq learned, even the best-constructed measures can miss the larger truth.

In 2005 and 2006, for example, the White House was often citing the “rat rate” in Iraq, a measure of good tips from Iraqis about the location of insurgents or the planting of roadside bombs.

“We thought this was a good measure of how well the public was turning against” Al Qaeda and other insurgents, said Peter D. Feaver, a professor at Duke University who served in the National Security Council at the time. “What we discovered was that the rat rate numbers steadily improved over the course of 2006 — and the violence was rising.”

That experience helps to explain why the Obama administration has taken so much time. But some frustrated lawmakers said the delay might prove costly.

“We have been in Afghanistan now for more than seven and a half years,” said Representative Ike Skelton, a Democrat of Missouri and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “These metrics are required to help make the case for the American people that actual progress is being made, or if we need to change the course to another direction. I think that time is not on our side.”

When President Obama unveiled his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in March, he emphasized the importance of these measures.

“We will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable,” Mr. Obama said. “We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.”

All that now seems unlikely to be completed before his field commanders finish their proposals for carrying out their marching orders. Their recommendations were originally due at the Pentagon within the next two weeks, but Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued expanded instructions for the assessment to the commanders last weekend and gave them until September to complete their report.

Skeptical lawmakers have implored Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to produce what Mr. Obama promised, and they have made specific recommendations of their own.

“The metrics are critically important to keep everyone’s feet to the fire on this and for the public to know how we’re doing and have some ways to measure it and not have just rhetoric,” said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“We all share the president’s goal of succeeding in Afghanistan,” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “The challenge here is how we are going to define success in the medium term, given the difficult security environment we face.”

Senior White House officials say their objectives are grouped in three main categories: counterterrorism, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The counterinsurgency objectives are highly classified and cover a “full range” of efforts to help Pakistan combat the militant threat in its tribal areas.

Others address Pakistan’s ability to maintain and strengthen democratically elected civilian government; the country’s ability to confront and defeat an internal insurgent threat; and international support for Pakistan, including international donors, the United Nations and the World Bank.

In Afghanistan, they would assess suppression of the insurgency; building and strengthening Afghan security forces; shoring up support for the government and reviving the economy; and garnering support from NATO, the European Union, the United Nations and international donors.

More Troops to Afghanistan?

Optimistic Words On Afghanistan

The State Dept was upbeat. More cautious were defense officials. Top brass met Sunday.

By Anne Gearan, Associated Press
August 4, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A day after President Obama's senior defense advisers huddled in Europe to discuss the future of the war in Afghanistan, the State Department yesterday talked optimistically about the conflict that top generals have called a stalemate.

"We believe that this is a struggle that we are now, you know...we have turned a tide," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "We're seeing success in Afghanistan, difficult as it is."

Hours later, five rockets slammed into the Afghan capital, Kabul, one of them near the U.S. Embassy, injuring at least one child, police said. "There's no indication these rockets targeted the U.S. Embassy," an embassy spokeswoman said. She requested anonymity because she was not authorized to release the information.

Crowley's remark came in response to a question about al-Qaeda, the terror network whose shelter in Afghanistan prompted the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Crowley said later he was "not trying to minimize the complexity" of eventual success in Afghanistan.

Defense and military officials have been circumspect about the situation in Afghanistan in recent months, with some of them characterizing the conflict as stalemated.

Even after adding 21,000 troops to expand its war against Taliban insurgents, top defense and military officials are hashing over whether to ask the White House for even more forces in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, flew Saturday to a U.S. air base in Chievres, Belgium, and met Sunday with several advisers including Gen. David Petraeus, who has overall responsibility for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gates and Mullen were given an interim report on security in Afghanistan. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is putting together an assessment of the war that may include a request for additional U.S. forces and resources.

The trip was organized in secret, and Gates traveled without his usual throng of staff and reporters.

McChrystal's study is expected to recommend a significant expansion of the Afghan armed forces and a reorganization of U.S. and NATO operations. Any request to expand U.S. forces would be on top of the 21,000 increase Obama approved earlier this year.

That brings the total to 68,000 scheduled to be in the country by the end of 2009 - about double the figure at the same time last year.

With 74 foreign troops killed - including 43 Americans - July was the deadliest month for international forces since the start of the war in 2001.

The civilian death toll also climbed yesterday as a Taliban bomb tore through a crowded street in western Afghanistan's main city, Herat, killing 11 people, hurting dozens, and critically wounding the district police chief it targeted, officials said.

UK: In Afghanistan to topple Al-Qaeda

We're In Afghanistan To Topple Al-Qaeda, Says Armed Forces Minister

By Michael Evans, Richard Beeston and Catherine Philp
London Times
August 4, 2009

British troops are fighting in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from using it as a base to plot terror strikes against Britain, a defence minister said yesterday.

Responding to criticism that the Government had failed to explain its strategy in the Afghan campaign, Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, said British troops were battling against an insurgency that, if it were to succeed, “would provide free rein to the terrorist capacity that inspired, planned and provided support for attacks like those of 9/11, of 7/7, and many more besides”.

Mr Rammell insisted that although al-Qaeda?s main base was now in Pakistan, the presence of British and American troops and forces from 40 other countries in Afghanistan was essential to prevent terrorists surging back into the country. He said that the terrorist threat to Britain would be “significantly greater” if the Taleban were allowed to regain control of Afghanistan, bringing al-Qaeda with it.

“We don?t want to be in Afghanistan for ever, that?s why our strategy is to provide greater security by building up the Afghan National Army, which is currently 90,000 and is rising to 140,000,” he said. Mr Rammell was the latest government minister to try to explain to the public why Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan.

His views were echoed by Nato?s new chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish Prime Minister, who called on European countries to match the US commitment and prevent Afghanistan from becoming “a Grand Central Station of international terrorism”.

Mr Rasmussen said that Nato?s survival could depend on more European troops to dispel the perception that Afghanistan was a US operation. “If the Americans are to continue to regard Nato as relevant, so Europe has to do its part,” he said. General Stanley McChrystal, Nato?s top commander in Afghanistan, is preparing to demand thousands more US troops to train and support a vast parallel surge of Afghan troops, placing him on a collision course with President Obama.

General McChrystal, who will submit a review to the White House and Nato headquarters next week, was appointed by Mr Obama in the belief that he would not demand more troops. His demands, though, are backed by Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, who said that without a doubling of Afghan troops, from 150,000 to 300,000, the conflict could be lost.

Middle Eastern counter-terrorist sources said that while Nato was focusing its military effort on Afghanistan, al-Qaeda had been allowed to rebuild itself after the deal signed by Pakistan in 2006 with elders in the tribal regions, which lifted the threat of attack against al-Qaeda. One source told The Times that “2007 was the best year for al-Qaeda since 2001, because many hundreds of foreign volunteers came to fight for them”.

Only the campaign by the Americans, using unmanned Predator spy drones armed with Hellfire missiles and precision-guided bombs, had succeeded in making inroads into the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. In 2008 and so far this year, 20 commanders had been killed, the sources said.

Mr Rammell said that the Government?s strategy embraced Afghanistan and Pakistan. “For Britain to be secure, Afghanistan needs to be secure, Pakistan needs to be secure,” he said, speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Of the people arrested in connection with terrorist offences in Europe over the past few years, a significant proportion have been trying to engage in insurgencies in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Some people, he said, believed that the West “brought this on ourselves, that if we hadn?t gone into Afghanistan and Iraq, all would have been well”. He said that George W. Bush, the former US President, could not be blamed for al-Qaeda?s atrocities. “This strand of thinking ignores the reality that the planning of 9/11 took place while Bill Clinton was in the White House and the prospects for peace in the Middle East were closer than they had been for a generation,” he said.

It is understood that a Conservative administration would consider appointing a Minister for Afghanistan who would attend Cabinet meetings when Afghanistan is being discussed and complement the Defence and Foreign Secretaries.

William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “The Prime Minister must make clear which minister has primary responsibility for our policy in Afghanistan and the Government should make quarterly reports to Parliament, covering Britain?s objectives, the progress made in achieving them and the resources required.”

The Afghan Elections - Amb Karl Eikenberry

In Afghanistan, A Time To Debate And Decide
By Karl W. Eikenberry
Washington Post
August 3, 2009

In the run-up to Afghanistan's presidential and provincial council elections on Aug. 20, Afghan and international political elites and journalists will pass judgment on the past five years. But only the Afghan people can decide who will best lead their country for the next five.

Afghanistan's elections present an opportunity for the country's citizens to create a future of prosperity and peace for their children. Five years ago, with guid! ance from the international community, Afghanistan held its first elections and began the process of building a new state -- a complex and difficult effort following 25 years of invasion, civil war, oppression and foreign-inspired terrorism. This time, Afghan authorities bear the full responsibility for fulfilling their people's right to choose their leaders, with the international community assisting, not leading. But none of this will matter unless the voters have a real choice and know what each candidate stands for. There must be a serious debate among the candidates and by the Afghan people.

The issues at stake are numerous and weighty. How will the next president finish building a strong army and police force respected by the people and fully capable of providing security? Can the nation's wealth be used for investment and development in an accountable manner? How will young people be educated and trained to develop the human capital that Afghanistan needs to mo! ve forward? What policies will be adopted to encourage the return to A fghan society of those who renounce ties with international terrorism and the use of force while accepting the constitution of the nation? What are the candidates' ideas for governing Afghanistan; how, for example, should the provincial councils evolve to give a real voice to Afghans across the land? And how can the international community better partner with Afghanistan to achieve peace, justice and economic progress?

In March, President Obama announced a new U.S. strategy that includes a major commitment of American men and women -- civilian and military -- to Afghanistan, as well as important new financial contributions to help accelerate development. We will continue to work with the next Afghan administration to field capable and sufficient Afghan National Army and police units; to support effective government personnel systems; to help combat corruption; to provide financial assistance to key Afghan institutions; to promote agricultural development; to address de! tention issues; to support Afghan-led reconciliation efforts; and to fix contracting practices. All of these efforts must be underpinned by accountability on both sides. The international community looks forward to strengthening its partnership with whichever candidate emerges from the elections, based upon a renewed spirit of cooperation.

So it is not just the Afghan people who need to understand the candidates' platforms and plans. We members of the international community need to know these things, too. The United States is one nation among a great partnership of more than 40 NATO and non-NATO countries that have joined with the people and government of Afghanistan. We have lost our sons and daughters, just as Afghans have, and we have invested significant development assistance during difficult economic times. Our commitment is extraordinary and long term. We are prepared to forge ahead based on common interests and mutual obligations. We stand with absolute impar! tiality regarding who should be president of Afghanistan. But all of u s will benefit from clarity as to what policy goals we should expect from the next administration.

This is an exciting time to be in Afghanistan. Walking through the bazaars of Helmand, Wardak, Kunduz, Herat, Uruzgan, Khost and numerous other provinces where the Afghan people are defending against destabilizing forces, I have seen their hope and thirst for progress. Candidates -- some prominent, some relatively new to the national stage -- are for the most part embracing their responsibility to discuss the issues. Ongoing televised debates remind me that, though we may be separated by barriers of language and culture, the democratic process in Afghanistan is like our own: an intense competition of political ideas to the benefit of the common citizen.

On Aug. 20, Afghan men and women will travel great distances -- in some cases, unfortunately, under threat of attack -- to make their voices heard. In the final weeks of this election season, the Afghan people deserv! e to know the platforms and implementation plans of each candidate. And so do we. The stakes are high and the opportunity great for all of us. The Afghan people and international community must be positioned to move quickly in partnership immediately after the inauguration of Afghanistan's next president. We have no time to lose as we work together to deliver peace, justice, economic opportunity and regional understanding.

It is time for a serious debate.

The writer is the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. He has served five years in the country in civilian and military capacities, including as commander of international forces from 2005 to 2007.

USS JASON DUNHAM, USMC

Warship honors Marine who died protecting comrades

By DAVID SHARP
Associated Press

BATH, Maine - Marines flushing out Iraqi insurgents after an ambush came upon a column of vehicles. A van with a father and son. A pickup truck. A tractor. A BMW with a couple of sheiks. And a Toyota Land Cruiser with four young men, all of them insurgents.

As Marines began searching the vehicles, the driver of the Land Cruiser jumped out and attacked Cpl. Jason Dunham. The two men tumbled onto the dirt road. Two Marines ran up to assist but Dunham cried out, "No, no, no, watch his hand!"

A grenade exploded, rocking the narrow street.

Dunham, 22, of Scio, N.Y., mortally wounded as he saved his comrades that day, will be honored Saturday at the christening of the Navy's newest destroyer, the USS Jason Dunham. The young corporal who threw his Kevlar helmet and his body onto the grenade became the first Marine since the Vietnam War to receive the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military honor.

His mother, Deb Dunham, said she can't think of a greater tribute.

"It keeps his name alive and his memory alive. And that, as a parent, is what's important, so that people don't forget what our men and women are doing with the fight for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a cost to pay," Deb Dunham said.

Deb Dunham, who'll christen the ship with champagne at Bath Iron Works, will be joined by her husband Dan and their other three children.

Dunham's company commander, Maj. Trent Gibson, and other Marines who served with him in Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, will attend. First Sgt. John Ferguson, who heard Dunham's last words before the grenade blast, saw the insurgent and the three Marines sprawled on the ground when the dust settled that April 14, 2004.

"I thought for sure all four were dead," he said. Amazingly, though, Lance Cpl. William Hampton and Pfc. Kelly Miller, both suffering burns and shrapnel wounds, rose to their feet. Dunham never regained consciousness and died eight days later.

While Dunham's name will always be synonymous with his actions on April 14, 2004, his parents remember a young man who wasn't perfect, growing up in the small town in western New York. He excelled at sports but wasn't the best student. He often forgot to take the trash out, they said.

But he always had a tendency to look out for others.

"Jason had the biggest heart on this planet. He was always looking out for everybody else and their welfare. When they were sad, he would make them laugh. He was that way all through his childhood growing up, and in the Marine Corps also," Dan Dunham said.

He was an unlikely choice for squad leader because he hadn't seen combat. But Ferguson, who selected him, liked what he saw: "He didn't brag or boast about his abilities. He never yelled. In fact, the whole time I knew him he only yelled once or twice. He led by example."

Dunham took his role as squad leader seriously. He extended his enlistment so he could serve a full combat tour with his fellow Marines, and he vowed to make sure his squad made it home alive.

The rest of them did.


The Iraqi insurgencywas gaining momentum when Dunham's unit arrived in Iraq's dangerous Anbar Province and set up shop in 2004 near the Syrian border.

Kilo Company lost its first Marine on April 9 in an ambush, so the troops were already on edge five days later when they heard explosions while on patrol in Karabilah. The battalion commander's convoy had been ambushed, so Dunham's unit set off to engage the enemy.

His squad came across a line of vehicles fleeing and decided to search them.

The old Land Cruiser was of particular interest because it had four young men in it. Miller got there first, and three Iraqis hopped out and fled, Gibson said. Then the driver jumped out and attempted to choke Dunham. Dunham drove his knee into the man, and they fought on the ground. Miller struck the man with a telescoping baton and tried to put him in a choke hold, to no avail. Hampton, too, charged to the scene. No one but Dunham saw the grenade before the blast. Afterward, the suicide bomber got to his feet and was shot dead.

Later, Gibson, the company commander, returned to the bloody scene and found pieces of Dunham's helmet. He also found the pin from a grenade on the ground, next to the attacker's body. Another hand grenade and weapons including rocket-propelled grenade launchers were discovered in the Land Cruiser.

Dunham's response was not by the book. Marines are taught to hit the deck, facing away, to minimize shrapnel wounds from a grenade, Gibson said.

But Dunham had his own ideas. He'd told fellow Marines he thought the best approach would be to cover the grenade with the helmet and bullet-proof body armor, they said. In fact, he even demonstrated the technique. Little did he know that he'd employ the technique two weeks later.

"Dunham had thought about it quite a bit. He decided that you could cover it with your helmet to help diffuse the blast," Gibson said.

Dunham, whose Medal of Honor was announced in 2006, is one of four soldiers to receive the medal for actions in Iraq.

Gibson said Dunham's example serves as an inspiration to Marines. "More than just being written up for a medal, it's really what kind of example he set in sacrificing himself, in committing himself so completely to the protection of his Marines," Gibson said.

The USS Jason Dunham will go to sea with several mementoes donated by his family, including his dress blue uniform and a baseball bat. The warship carries the motto: "Semper Fidelis, Semper Fortis," which is Latin for "Always Faithful, Always Strong."