Categories
Making Today’s Colt M1911
“Leave No Man Behind” is a creed and ethos often repeated and adhered to by various units and soldiers. The interpretation of the phrase is applied to the treatment and extraction of the seriously wounded, the recovery of the body of military members killed in action, and the attempts to rescue or trade for prisoners of war.
Despite being widely known and repeated in the U.S. Military, “leave no man behind” is not represented in any official military doctrine or publication. It is a culture of the armed services, which carries significant risk.
A recent article reported the Air Force’s recommended upgrade of Tech. Sergeant John Chapman’s Air Force Cross to the Medal of Honor for his actions during Operation Anaconda, an attempt to rescue Neil Roberts, a SEAL who had fallen from a helicopter after being struck by enemy fire.
The article highlights the decision of a Navy SEAL Chief, serving as the leader of the team that Sergeant Chapman was supporting, to withdraw from the mountain top position while under heavy enemy fire. The Chief believed that Sergeant Chapman had been killed, and made the decision to withdraw his team, which already had multiple wounded members.
The basis for this upgrade is drone imagery, improved by new technology to show a clearer feed of the actions occurring on the ground. The Air Force reports that Sergeant Chapman, despite being left behind and seriously wounded, can be seen continuing to provide suppressive fires for a helicopter attempting to insert a quick reaction force of Rangers, as well as engaging in close quarters combat with Al Qaeda fighters before ultimately being killed in action.
In total, seven troops were killed in this engagement, now referred to as the Battle of Roberts Ridge. Much of the criticism of this decision revolves around the principle of “leave no man behind.” Should troops go to such lengths to rescue fallen comrades, pulling additional resources and risking additional casualties?
The X’s and O’s Perspective – Rescue Mission with Strategic Implications
“Leave No Man Behind” is not based on the tactical necessity to recover the wounded or missing. It is a dangerous task to those troops undertaking it, potentially exposing themselves to ambush from an enemy who understands our cultural necessity to recover a comrade.
Once that soldier is wounded or missing, he is no longer an asset to accomplishing a mission. In fact, he or she is a significant hindrance that takes combat power away from mission. Even more so, the decision to conduct a rescue or recovery mission can change policy and the face of a conflict.
There are numerous examples of the dangers associated in following “Leave No Man Behind.”
The Battle of Mogadishu is a well-known engagement, in which a Task Force was directed to capture an associate of the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The shoot down of a task force helicopter and ensuing recovery efforts led to the death of eighteen U.S. soldiers, seventy-three wounded, and the capture of Warrant Officer Michael Durant following the crash landing of his helicopter. The loss of life led to a policy change by the Clinton administration and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. forces in Somalia.
In 1972, Captain Roger Locher was shot down over North Vietnamese territory during a major aerial operation to slow the transport of North Vietnamese Army troops and supplies into the south. Captain Locher was able to escape and evade capture for twenty-three days despite being far behind enemy lines.
All units under the command of General John Vogt were ordered to stop operations (to include major bombing campaigns of Hanoi,) and focus on the rescue effort. Captain Locher was successfully recovered, after approximately 150 U.S. aircraft were redirected to find and rescue him
From a foreign military perspective, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) once utilized the “Hannibal Directive” as a policy for units and commanders when IDF soldiers have been captured or abducted. It consisted of a massive procedure to bomb all possible escape routes, assuming the risk of killing the abducted soldier. Reports of the use of “Hannibal Directive” are controversial due to the high probability of collateral damage and IDF assumption that a soldier should rather be killed than captured.
The last use of the directive is reported during the 2014 Israeli-Gaza incursion, when Lieutenant Hadar Goldin was believed to be captured, pulled into a Hamas tunnel system in the Gaza Strip. The use of the directive was criticized by the Israeli public and international community, and was heavily publicized by media outlets.
The implications of these examples have been significant in foreign policy (Somalia), operational objectives (aborted Hanoi bombing strike), and media coverage (Hannibal Directive) leading to public criticism. They all stem from the reallocation of combat forces to aid in the rescue or recovery of personnel, despite the costs, under the culture of no man left behind.
Why It Matters
It is important to note what “Leave No Man Behind” means to those in uniform.
While not captured in doctrine, there are few things more reassuring to a soldier about to enter combat that his brothers and sisters in arms would spare nothing in attempts to get him back. To the families of those fallen, the catharsis of being able to bury their own cannot be overstated or even understood by those who have not been in that sad and unfortunate position.
As found by a study by the U.S. Army War College, “Combat Motivation in Today’s Soldiers,” the motivations have not changed in war over time. They fight for one another, built through the bond of shared misery, loyalty, and love. It is not surprising then that soldiers would go to such lengths to never leave a man behind, despite the risks and possible failure.
In the case of the Navy SEAL Chief who made the decision to withdraw after believing Sergeant Chapman had succumbed to his wounds, his decision should not be controversial or criticized. He made a decision in the heat of intense enemy fire, with the knowledge at hand. Gaining a birds eye view from a drone feed can be a significant asset, but it is a shameful prospect to criticize when enabled through replayed footage taken from thousands of feet overhead, many years after.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the commander on what he is willing to risk to ensure no man is left behind. It is a heavy burden, and may not be worth the loss of others in terms of mission accomplishment. These are decisions made in seconds, and will not be perfect. It is an unenviable position, and one he or she will undoubtedly debate for a lifetime.
Sources:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub179.pdf
http://archive.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/2006_0925-Wong_critique.pdf
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA622819
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/hadar-goldin-hannibal-directive
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.608693
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1173/MR1173.chap2.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/world/asia/seal-team-6-afghanistan-man-left-for-dead.html?emc=edit_th_20160828&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=50217936&_r=0
Staff Officer: “See this? No? Perfect! Learn from it!”
ARLINGTON, Va. — In a stunning display of military efficiency, the Department of Defense has released a white paper about white papers, printed on white paper.
“We felt it was important to clarify the role of white papers in military policy and strategy,” said Air Force Brig. Gen. Dick Ryder, a veteran spokesman for the Department of Defense. “And what better way to do that than with a white paper?”
The white paper, which is printed on several hundred pages of white paper, outlines the history and importance of white papers in the military. “They’re essential for documenting our thoughts and strategies,” Ryder said. “Without them, we’d be lost. I use white papers to better understand how to think about world events, how to better understand technological advances and even the fundamentals of communicating with my wife and children.”
The white papers white paper also includes best practices for writing and distributing white papers, as well as tips for creating visually appealing white paper presentations.
“Best practices range from sharing the white papers on Mil Twitter, printing the mean Tweets responding to said white paper and crying in a bathtub while reading those responses,” said white paper white paper author, Army Maj. Brighton Fatsnacks. “Other options include email, forcing hard copies upon subordinates and stashing them in the magazine racks inside toilet stalls. Staff meetings also receive lengthy treatment within my opus as a means of propagating white papers.”
“We know that some people may find white papers to be dry and boring,” Brig. Gen. Ryder continued. “But we firmly believe white papers can be an effective tool for communicating complex ideas and strategies to other boring bureaucrats with nothing else to do with their days. Or at least justifying the salaries of the field grade action officers who churn them out over weeks and weeks of pointless revisions.”
The white paper has been met with mixed reactions from the military community. Some have praised the document for its thorough and informative approach, while others have criticized it for being too long and unnecessarily complicated.
“I don’t know why we needed a white paper about white papers,” said one disgruntled servicemember. “Couldn’t they just send out an email or something?”
Other critics have been skeptical for other reasons. “I tried to read it, but I couldn’t even see the text,” said one frustrated reader. “It was just a big white blob on a white background. How are we supposed to learn anything from a white paper about white papers, printed on white paper, when it’s also printed in white ink?” The Department of Defense stands by its decision to print the white paper about white papers on white paper with white ink.
“We believe that it’s the best way to keep the information secure,” said Brig. Gen. Ryder. “After all, if you can’t see it, you can’t read it.”
At press time, an Air Force airman was puzzling over how to transcribe a white paper about white papers on white paper with white ink to share on Discord. Other gamers and anime weirdos are already puzzled over why he thinks they will give a shit when no one else does.
As For Class is a boy named Sue, named Ashley. When he isn’t writing for Duffel Blog he also writes fiction.
The Winchester Low Wall single-shot rifle is a slim, elegant, and graceful gun that will assuredly add to your gentlemanly demeanor.
Way back in 1953, Gun Digest asked Col. Townsend Whelen to reflect on his years with single-shot rifles. He summed up with these words:
“The highly efficient bolt action is but a remodeled musket…the lever action a product of America’s unrivalled quantity-production industry…but the single shot, constructed on fine and beautiful lines by a master riflemaker, is a gentleman’s piece.”
At that time, the single-shot rifle was all but dead. It was the coming age of high velocity and ever-increasing firepower, with many predicting that even the bolts and levers would soon be shouldered aside by semiautos.
Like many predictions, those came to pass, sort of, but not right away, and never completely. Fourteen years later, Ruger unveiled its No. 1 single shot to quizzical looks (from some writers) and cheers (from many riflemen), and it has stayed in the Ruger lineup to this day. A new No. 1 with a composite stock and stainless-steel barreled action, chambered for some whiz-bang rimless cartridge, is not exactly what Colonel Whelen had in mind, but it’s still a lot closer to it than any AR ever made.
For reasons many and varied, there remains a coterie of riflemen (not all of them gentlemen, nor claiming to be) that consider the single-shot rifle both practically and æsthetically all they need or want. Now how, you might ask, can that be? It’s simple: In all the world, and including such masterpieces as a Holland “Royal,” there is no rifle more fun to carry and shoot than a vintage American single shot.
Of them all, my candidate for the most fun is the old Winchester Low Wall with original iron sights; straight grip; and longish, heavyish barrel chambered for some friendly old round like the .25-20 or .32-20. There is nothing like a morning wandering the creek bottoms with a Low Wall, watching for…well, just about anything shootable. Squirrels? (They make a nice stew.) Possums? (Very edible.) Raccoons? (Sure, if they’re a problem.)
For that matter, though, you don’t need to see any game, or even squeeze the trigger except on a stray tin can or plastic bottle or a white rock on the far bank. In your mind, you can be something as exotic as a mountain man after a grizzly or as unexotic as the small boy you used to be, on the prowl with your first rifle. There is always an element of fantasizing in any shooting we do—at least there is in my case—and Colonel Whelen pointed out that one of the enduring attractions of the single-shot rifle was its romantic associations, from buffalo runners in Kansas to the lone mountain man to, for the more cosmopolitan, Frederick Selous in Africa.
Such daydreams aside, my personal affection for the single-shot rifle stems from the sheer animal pleasure of using a silky, uncomplicated mechanism, crafted by a master, built to do a specific job and do it well. Some single shots, notably the old German Schützen rifles, make the most elaborate Swiss cuckoo clock look restrained, but at the other end of the spectrum lies the old Winchester Low Wall.
The Winchester single-shot rifle in its various iterations, designed by John M. Browning and originally produced by Winchester from 1885 to 1920, is reputed to be the most common of the old rifles and is not held in the reverence afforded to the Sharps or the Ballard. It’s notable, however, that the last competition rifle Harry Pope built for himself was based on a Winchester High Wall. That’s a pretty good recommendation.
During the mania for high-velocity varmint rifles in the 1930s, many Winchester High Wall rifles were cannibalized for their actions, but the Low Wall did not lend itself to high pressures. As a result, there seems to be a lot of them around, many chambered for interesting and fun-to-shoot cartridges like the .25-20. Personally, I can’t think of a better rifle with which to start off a kid in handloading. But then, nor can I think of a better rifle if you want to reconnect with the kid you once were, when creek bottoms were freely accessible and the odd gunshot did not summon the police.
Will it make you a gentleman? Probably not. But we can pretend about that, too.