Good or bad. I wonder how a situation like this would have handled in WW2?
Mistakes happen, of course. They call it the "fog of war" which means
that no matter how briliant the plans, they get thrown out as soon as they have
contact with the enemy.
It appears to me, a 23-year military veteran, that this story illustrates
everything thats wrong with today's armed forces. We have few
"leaders" at the top who are willing to make and enable courageous
decisions. Far too many generals and colonels are politicians and managers who
make politically-correct decisions rather than leaders who make courageous ones.
They follow the lead of a Commander-in-Chief who believes warriors should be
given medals for courageous restraint instead of for achieving true combat
objectives (such as defeating the enemy). Our fighting men and women are
burdened with politically-correct, yet stupid and dangerous rules of engagement.
The politically-correct atmosphere and fear of being second-guessed by some
general or colonel in a far-distant comfortable office adversely affects the
judgment of captains, lieutenants and sergeants caught in the heat of battle. It
introduces hesitation when aggressiveness should be mandatory. If Lt. Brostrom
made mistakes, I suspect this is the source of those mistakes. The shame for
mistakes in battle generally should fall on those politicians -- in and out of
uniform -- in high places not on the heroes such as Lt. Jonathan Brostrom.
This sounds pretty typical for the arm chair officers and civilian leaders
trying to keep everyone supportive of this 8-9 year mess in Afghanistan. A high
casualty rate in any one battle is not good PR and blaming one that is no longer
here to defend their actions is par for the course.This so called
war is so micromanaged for PR that we don't even want a high body count reported
on the enemy. Ever wonder why the enemy is never killed in lots of more than 30
at a time? In the world view, more than that is considered a massacre or akin to
running up the score in basketball of an underdog opponent.RIP 1st
Lt. Jonathan Brostrom, you did your duty and your family can be proud of you
I feel sorry for any soldier that has to go and fight a war where the rules of
engagment are such that they cannot fight to win. Bring the troops home and let
the armchair politicians move on to wrecking our economy.
There is no further info given on the Utah "Army" veteran you mention
in the opening sentence. Did you mean Utah "Air Force" veteran?
The Army doesn't blame 1LT Bostrom for any American's death. Blame is reserved
for the enemy.I served in contingency operations on 2 combined arms
assessment teams. Take it from me, no one should ever suggest combat studies
disparage anyone's actions.Their sole purpose is to leverage lessons
learned in combat to increase mission effectiveness and save lives in the
future.Soldiers understand necessity often dictates being placed in
untenable positions, told to do our best with what we're given. Combat studies
examine what training, planning, execution, resources, support, communications,
intelligence, weapons, equipment, and tactics will make what we're given --
better.They don't point fingers.His Silver Star
indicates nothing can ever diminish the heroism of this able leader. Studying
combat attempts to make success in war less dependent on individual heroism.Training, planning, and tactics will be adjusted because of the study.
We pray this family will take some comfort from knowing 1LT Bostrom's sacrifice
will save lives, years into the future.
I agree with procure. If you look at the pictures of the lt., you will see a
Ranger tab. They don't give those out like a doctor gives out lolipops. After
Action reports (AAR's) look at the reality of a situation for later training to
try and make bad situations happen less often. Sometimes the wording od such
evaluations are careless, but it doesn't mean anything has changed. The man
gave his life trying to do the right thing under impossible conditions.As for "Blaine" from Cedar City, I don't know why you think the
President has any sway over who receives awards or medals, but that is not the
case. The Commander in Chief, no matter who that happens to be, has no say in
what citations or medals are awarded, and I think it is really poor for for you
to assign this story to something as cheap as your (or any person's) personal
This is a poorly written article with hardly any new information in it. What
did the Army conclude and what are they claiming his fault was? DN is better
than printing partial stories like this.