David Nakamura of the
Washington Post has written an article published last Sunday that purports to expose a controversy swirling
around differing accounts about the Battle of Ganjgal in Afghanistan in
2009.
The Military Times has picked up on the allegations and
ran with them, citing a "rift" between Army
Captain Will Swenson, due to receive the Medal of Honor at a White House ceremony today, and
Marine Sgt Dakota Meyer who received the MoH two years ago for his actions in the same
battle.
Captain Will Swenson
Nakamura's account maintains that "… Swenson remains
skeptical of Meyer and the publicity he has sought", though Nakamura does
not provide a quote from Swenson or a source. Nakamura goes on to say
that the Army Medal of Honor web site has posted an account of the battle that
used information that Swenson provided, and quotes Swenson as saying that it is
"not going to mutually support other stories".
Swenson at the World War II Memorial
As for the
Military Times, one must remember that
it and the other
Military Times sites are creatures of Gannett
Publishing and are not official sites of the military. This is not the
first time that one could look askance at an account in that paper and web
site. The story by Dan Lamothe carries the headline of "Rift between
Medal of Honor recipients exposed" and quotes the Nakamura line about
skepticism, but goes no further in fleshing out the allegation.
While differing aspects of the battle have
been questioned, nothing indicates a problem between the two men.
Swenson at the Meyer MoH ceremony
The contention was created by Jonathan Landay, a McClatchy Newspapers
reporter embedded with the composite unit involved in the battle.
Landay, who was at the scene for only the
first ninety minutes of the engagement, relied on statements from Afghan troops
as a principle source.
The fact of the matter is that whatever problem exists is
due to the account put together by the Public Affairs Office of the Pentagon about Meyer,
and the details are minor indeed compared to the overall events in the
battle. It is journalistic fodder to drum up some sort of controversy,
but the story amounts to thin gruel.
Sergeant Dakota Meyer
One major item was the number of Americans involved in the
action, initially set at 13 but later set at 11, due to the fact that two of
them were considered too far away to have a direct impact.
Another contention involves how many Afghan
troops were picked up and evacuated from the kill zone on how many passes of
the vehicles that drove repeatedly into the area.
Another question from Landay is whether Meyer actually
disobeyed orders to enter the battle.
Accounts show that he originally requested to do so but was told to
remain where he was. After the situation
developed further, he again requested to go in but did not receive a
reply. It was then that he and SSgt
Chavez-Rodriguez set out into the fight.
If that is the essence of Landay's questions, then this is clearly an
effort to make something from nothing.
Armchair critics would do well to consider that when one is
engaged in a fight for his life, one typically does not pause to jot down notes
about what happened precisely at what time and what location, or who might be
nearby. Even at my relatively advanced
age, in a profession now outside of the military, I am occasionally involved in
melees in a correctional facility and I have to school myself to note who
responded and what each actor did during the incident, and I typically rely on
comparing notes with the others and videotape. In
situations like the Battle of Ganjgal, the stress is amplified by a magnitude
or two.
As for a contention between Meyer and Swenson, I must specify
the following:
Meyer, upon learning of his upcoming reception of the Medal
of Honor, wrote a letter to Obama to argue Swenson's case, incensed as Meyer
was in knowing that Swenson had received no recognition whatsoever, and
included that Swenson "was the centerpiece for command and control in a
raging firefight that never died down….
Swenson controlled all the helos [once they finally arrived – a major
aspect of the ensuing investigation]. He
picked out targets and kept situational awareness, radioing cardinal directions
and distances. Not everyone can do that
when bullets are continuously hitting the side of your truck. Swenson was not the senior commander; he just took over and everyone
deferred to him. To the extent that
anyone was in charge on the chaotic battlefield over the course of six or seven
hours, it was Captain Will Swenson."
Meyer was quoted shortly thereafter as saying that it was
"ridiculous" that Swenson had been ignored. "I'll put it this way: if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be
alive today."
Meyer had the opportunity to have a 'beer summit' with the
president the day prior to his ceremony, where he again lobbied on behalf of
Swenson.
Meyer has subsequently gone on to write and publish a book, Into the Fire, in conjunction with Bing West, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, in which he continues to argue for Swenson.
The effort of Meyer in supporting Swenson is not, I expect,
limited to simple recognition. There is
every indication that Swenson was politically pilloried by some elements in the
Army for his blistering comments in his after-action interview about the deadly
lack of support from higher command, which eventually resulted in two officers
receiving Letters of Reprimand, effectively ending their careers, which chided
them for "negligent" leadership that "led directly to loss of
life on the battlefield".
Yet buried in the stories is the fact that the argument is
with the story as published by the Public Affairs Office of the Pentagon. No one is disputing that the actions of Sgt
Meyer during the battle are worthy of a Medal of Honor; even Landay admits as
much. The later elements of these
stories allege that the Marine Corps pumped up Meyer's story in an effort to
have a MoH awarded to a living Marine, the first since Viet Nam, and cite the
defense of the actions of the PAO by Lt Col Chris Hughes, but none of them state
that Hughes is in the Army, not the Marines.
Swenson went on to resign his commission and has been living
in the area of Seattle, refusing all requests for comment until now.
He has not spoken of the
controversy about his nomination or why it was lost
(reason enough for a better inquiry), but one
of his few recent comments is that he often escapes to the mountains near his
home to find solitude in his "forced early retirement".
A "forced early retirement"? Now that alone is reason for a separate
investigation. Civilians can be
protected as whistleblowers when they bring to light unfavorable information,
as he did. But how is Swenson any
different from them?
"Forced," perhaps, by the realization that he would never be promoted, or else he'd make major and that would be the end. As for the WaPo, it's not exactly home to a lot of veterans and, in any case, controversy sells better than heart-warmers.
ReplyDeleteYour pondering about the phraseology of his leaving the service is a viable argument, but it is nevertheless a question that needs to be answered. Either he was directly forced out, or he was shown the handwriting on the wall, but either way, both answers need to be addressed.
DeleteAs for the WaPo and their reporters' "expertise" -- as well as all other media sources -- I am continually stupefied at the inane comments made within newspapers and their electronic equivalents, even from "war correspondents". How they can get so many elements of a story so wrong never ceases to amaze me, particularly when some of the points are so easily checked. The military is a separate culture (one of the particular topics that I write about), but the civilian reporters and the academic experts by and large simply have no clue.