Feral Jundi

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Afghanistan: Did Afghan Police Kill U.N. Guard Louis Maxwell On Accident, Or On Purpose To Take His Gun?

One official who had seen the video said “it looks like an execution”.

Mr Maxwell came down from the roof after the attack and was shot minutes later officials said.

The video shows Mr Maxwell wounded in a group of Afghan police when a single shot is fired, Stern reported.

He screams and collapses to the ground. None of the police reacts.

Three more shots are fired, then a policeman takes Mr Maxwell’s weapon from next to his corpse and leaves.

The motivation for the shooting is unclear from the video and an official said it was possible police had mistaken Mr Maxwell, an African American, for a foreign terrorist.

Stern reported another theory was that the Afghan police officer wanted to steal his sophisticated assault rifle.  

*****

   What I would like investigators to talk about is the video that was taken of the whole thing. If the video ‘looks like an execution’, then that should throw up some red flags.  Read the initial report based off of what was seen in the video, and this does not at all match up with what the UN briefing is talking about?  Where is this video and where is Louis’ HK G36 rifle? Someone please make sense of all of this, because this smells.

   I also want to direct the readership to a guy that was within 50 meters of this incident when it happened and has been writing about it in his blog called Knights of Afghanistan.  Both he and Tim Lynch have talked about the rifle and the possible motivation of the police to kill Louis for that rifle. Or how a convenient friendly fire accident could help put that rifle into an officer’s hands. I guess there could be confusion as well, but take a good look at the picture below and tell me that Louis looks like a Taliban or Al Qaeda operative.  I didn’t know the booger eaters were carrying high end 5.56 HK’s with ACOGs mounted these days? Who knows, but I do know that there is video that needs to be looked at by some independent media out there, or a third party investigator.

   Louis is a veteran (former Navy) and a contractor that laid down his life in the defense of others. The main stream media might not care about the sacrifice of this contractor, but we do.  It is the least we can do, to make sure the story gets straight and the truth gets out there.-Matt

Edit: 04/28/2010- Here is the cellphone video of the incident.  Louis looks like he was leaning against the hood of the Vehicle and possibly wounded already, and officers were walking away with his weapon.  Then he was shot at multiple times until he went down.  If you look at the police around him, they are not looking in the direction of the sniper or combatant shooting at Louis, they are looking at Louis as he is being killed.  The officer holding Louis’s gun is not running away or taking cover, nor are any of the other officers.  They are just standing around and watching Louis get killed.  Watch the video and let me know what you think?

   I also found the press briefing the UN secretary gave in regards to Maxwell’s death and his weapon.  They do have his weapon in their control.  Why this took so long to come out, I do not know.  They have been pressed about the location of the weapon in other briefings, without any clarification.

Edit: 04/29/2010- I made a mistake about the designation of G36, and I apologize.  Sometimes I miss this stuff.  It appears that the rifle is not a K version, but a C version. Thanks to my readership for catching this, and giving me the heads up.  Here is the definition of the C version from wikipedia:

G36C: This subcarbine (C—compact) model is a further development of the G36K. It has a shorter barrel (than the G36K), and a four-prong open-type flash hider. The extremely short barrel forced designers to move the gas block closer to the muzzle end and reduce the length of the gas piston operating rod. The handguard and stock were also shortened and the fixed carry handle (with optics) was replaced with a carrying handle with an integrated MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail. The dual optical sight found on the standard G36 and G36K models was replaced with a set of rail-mounted detachable iron sights that consist of a semi-shrouded front post and a flip-up rear sight with two apertures of different diameter. The short handguard has six accessory attachment points, one of which could be used for a vertical grip. 

Edit: 04/30/2010 – Louis Maxwell was not a Marine, and according to news out of Miami in his obituary, he was in the Navy.  I have no clue what his MOS was, and maybe he was attached to the Marines at one point or another.  Who knows.  Here is the report.

G36K up top, G36C on bottom.

Louis Maxwell, Navy.

——————————————————————

Louis Maxwell

HK G36C with ACOG scope…In the hands of hero Louis Maxwell. 

Afghan police likely killed U.N. staff by mistake: U.N.

By Louis CharbonneauMonday, April 26, 2010

United Nations investigators believe that Afghan police mistakenly shot and killed four U.N. employees during a Taliban attack in October 2009, U.N. officials said on Monday.

Susana Malcorra, a top U.N. peacekeeping official, made the remark in a briefing about a U.N. board of inquiry into an October 28 Taliban attack on a guest-house in Kabul that resulted in the deaths of five U.N. employees.

She described confusing circumstances in which Taliban attackers and Afghan security forces who responded were dressed in identical police uniforms.

It was a “very, very chaotic situation in the middle of the night,” she said.

Investigators believe three U.N. employees were shot and killed by the Afghan police while trying to escape from the guest-house, Malcorra said.

(more…)

Monday, April 26, 2010

Medical: Xe Contractor, Wounded In Iraq, Works To Help Others

   This is a great story about a wounded contractor giving back and helping out our wounded veterans.  If you would like to contact Ron, just follow the TBI link below.  On his profile page, you can also see pictures of him in the hospital and with his Mamba team in Iraq.

   The other thought that came to my mind, is the treatment of wounded contractors versus wounded soldiers.  The amount of resources available to the wounded soldier far surpasses the resources available to a wounded contractor.  What I mean by that, is family support networks and support from a soldier’s command is a given, and with the companies, it isn’t.  Some companies do a good job at supporting their guys, where others fall short.  That is the down side with contracting, and just expect that if you get wounded, that you will need all the help you can get from some kind of support network you can form.  That is why guys like Ron are so inspirational.

   You also need someone who knows how to navigate insurance and medical claims, while you are injured.  When I was injured with the smokejumpers, I was assigned a nurse/advocate who did exactly that.  She knew how to navigate OWCP and was there to insure I didn’t get screwed over while I was mentally ‘out of it’.  Because when you are seriously injured, and especially if you have a TBI, a nurse who can help you make sound decisions about your health will be vital.  If there is nothing but pain on your mind, or you can’t concentrate, a lot of stuff can get messed up unless you have someone who can watch your back. An advocate is necessary even if you don’t have TBI, just because some of the processes for getting care can be confusing at times.

   Even your family life needs a support mechanism, because when you are at that level, you are in no shape to be the guy that can watch out for your family.  TAPS , Special Operations Warrior Foundation or Wounded Warrior Project are networks to get a hold of, that can help contractors.  Lining up some trusted friends or family to help out is another.  Planning and being prepared is key, and you cannot expect the company to do this for you.

   Another idea is talk it up on your contracts about what the company did for injured contractors in the past, and formulate a plan from that information. Hell, some companies like in the case with Xe, have continued to employ their wounded contractors. That is awesome and those are the little things that make a world of difference in the life of a wounded warrior, so bravo to Xe and bravo to Ron Grigsby.-Matt

——————————————————————-

Idaho man, wounded in Iraq, works to help others

April 26, 2010

By BILL BULEY

Ron Grigsby didn’t know the man who bought him and his wife and sister drinks the night after an awards ceremony in which he was honored.

But when he went to thank him for the Coke, the man looked Grigsby in the eye and squeezed his hand.

“Bulldog, I was there that day. I watched you die,” he said.

The ever-tough Grigsby stopped, stood and stared. Then a big smile broke out and he gave the man a hug.

“He thought he’d never see me again,” Grigsby says.

The 48-year-old Hayden man did die that day in Iraq. Four times. Each time, they brought him back.

“I went down for the count that day. They had to keep jump-starting me,” he says with a little laugh. “That’s what I call it.”

Grigsby was nearly killed March 21, 2007, while working as an independent contractor for Blackwater in the Middle East. He was part of a convoy, assigned to protect a convoy, when it was hit by enemy fire. The blast threw him more than 40 feet. His helmet was caved in an inch and a half. He suffered multiple injuries that included a broken neck and a traumatic brain injury.

(more…)

Strategy: The Defense Of Farms And Ranches

Filed under: Strategy — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 4:10 AM

   This is a good little post on a subject you don’t hear much about, yet is pretty important to today’s ranchers and farmers along the border with Mexico, or to farmers who are caught in the middle of conflicts throughout the world.  If you look at farms and ranches as a strategic asset of a nation, as do many nations throughout the world do, then defending such places becomes pretty important.  The food of a country comes from these farms, as does the vitality of the economy of some countries.  If an enemy is attacking farms, or soldiers from other wars are crossing a border and raiding farms in order to survive or smuggle weapons or drugs, then that is a direct threat to a nation’s vital resource and citizens. It must be addressed, if a country cares about protecting this economic asset.

   One of the big problems with defending farms and ranches, is the size of the operation.  Ideally a government would help in the defense of these businesses, but for some nations, it just isn’t feasible.  Cost might be a factor, or a lack of manpower might be another factor.  Even politics can limit how much help these farmers and ranchers can get (like with the Mexico/U.S. immigration problem, and the politics that surround that)

   All of that aside, the farmer or rancher still has to protect their land and business (and their lives), and that task becomes increasingly more challenging when that farm is located in a war zone.  Think of the farmers in Iraq or Afghanistan whom have had to deal with the war, and grow food or raise animals at the same time?  Or think about what the Rhodesian farmers had to deal with when it came to cattle thieves and ‘terrs’ attacking farms for food or loot? They implemented Bright Light operations, along with using range detectives, as part of their farm defense strategies. Their solutions to the problems were very interesting to say the least.

    The Israelis had a similar problem when trying to defend their farms, and the Haganah was their answer. I even talked about US ranchers and farmers dealing with thieves, indians and competitors during the Range Wars in the US back in the 1800’s.  All of these historical incidents required protecting farms and ranches, and there just isn’t a lot out there for farmers and ranchers to refer to for the defense.

   The latest drug war in Mexico spilling over the border and impacting farms and ranches in the US is also another reason why we should talk about this.  When ranchers are getting killed by armed thugs along the border, and the US is not providing enough man power or resources to protect these farms and ranches, well then discussions about the defense of farms becomes pretty relevant.

   Farms and Ranches are also a target for terrorism, and biowarfare attacks against food and livestock is a concern.  It takes planning and resources to ensure these vital national assets are getting the protection they need.  There are also problems with drugs on farms, with individuals trying to grow marijuana on crop and range lands, with the hopes that the farmer will not notice or worse yet, turn a blind eye because they fear the growers/criminals.

   So with that said, let me start off the conversation with a fascinating post at the Small Wars Council about the subject.  I provided a link, so if you would like to further research or contact the author of the original post, you can do so.  Also I would like to thank Cannoneer #4 for bringing this stuff up to my attention, and he has an excellent blog post about such things.

    I know one thing, having tracking skills along with some kind of combat arms background, would be a big help in the defense of these farms and ranches. Especially if farmers start contracting range detectives for such a thing. If the readership has any more resources for the defense of farms and ranches, go ahead and post that in the comments section or I will add it as an edit. –Matt

—————————————————————–

A Farmer At War

By Trevor Grundy and Bernard Miller

—————————————————————–

Rhodesian Farmers Defensive Arrangements

(from the Small Wars Council forum)

 I knew many Rhodesian farmers and have visited many farmsteads over the years. At every farm, defensive arrangements were made up to suit their particular situation and infrastructure. The following would be a general overview:

 1. Most farmers fitted hand-grenade grills to the outside of all windows. Doors leading outside were likewise security grilled.

 2. Many farmers built thick walls about a meter in front of bedroom windows to stop bullets, but particularly to deal with RPG 7`s. Beds were never placed against the outside walls of a farmhouse.

 3. It was usual to have a designated safe room within the farmhouse that could be defended until support arrived. Sometimes this was a central corridor that allowed the farmer to move into other rooms to attack those outside through the windows. In the loft or ceiling over the safe room, some farmers laid sand bags to deal with possible mortar attack.

4. Every farmhouse in a given area was linked by a radio system called “Agric Alert”. This allowed radio contact with other farmers who formed their own defence units, usually under the umbrella of PATU (Police Anti-Terrorist Unit), which would react to a call from one of their neighbours for assistance. Another means of alarm raising was the use of a signal rocket – The Agric-Alert system was not done away with after the war, such was the lack of trust in Mugabe`s promises. It performed admirably as well when dealing with criminal activity such as stock theft. The alert system arranged for all farmers to check in with each other at a given time in the morning and evening as a means of monitoring their status.

(more…)

Mexico: Cartels Take It Up A Notch And Focus Their War On Authorities

    Public Safety Secretary Minerva Bautista was among the wounded but was recovering from non-life-threatening injuries, according to the state attorney general’s office. She was traveling in a bullet-resistant sport utility vehicle.

   State Attorney General Jesus Montejano told the local Milenio television station that the attackers used assault rifles, grenades, a grenade launcher and a powerful .50-caliber sniper rifle whose rounds are capable of penetrating bullet-resistant materials.

  “In the ambush, they used concentrated fire from these types of weapons, forcing her and her escort to crash into a trailer truck that they had pulled across the road,” Montejano said.

***** 

   I posted three stories here, that are pretty telling of where Mexico is at with their war against the cartels.  There are two ways to read this.  Either the cartels are threatened more by the government and authorities, or the cartels are thinking in terms of taking the fight out of the authorities so they can continue to eradicate their competition.  So is the government a threat, or are they just getting in the way?  Interesting stuff, and this first article below goes into the various angles on this.

   My personal thoughts on it, is that the cartels will do whatever they need to do in order to win control over the drug markets.  If law enforcement or government officials directly or indirectly help their competitors, they will do what they can to remove that element of the equation.  Because I really think that if the cartels were purely focused on combatting the government, we would see way more deaths of officials.  The death toll figures support this as well, with most of the deaths in the war being members of the drug cartels. But this could change, and we will see how this goes.

   None the less, these are still attacks on the state.  And when the cartels start using .50 caliber sniper rifles (see second story below), grenade launchers, and assault rifles against armored motorcades in well coordinated ambushes, I tend to take notice.  Unfortunately, the next level will probably be more usage of IED’s in these ambushes and all of the rules of Iraq and Afghanistan will apply to this latest evolution of the drug war.

   The third story is another disturbing tale about cartels purposely attacking law enforcement.  Seven officers killed is pretty bad, and that indicates to me that the cartels have absolutely no fear or respect for law enforcement.  They are just obstacles that need to be removed, so they can focus on the bigger war of gaining territory for their drug operations. Thanks to Doug and others for sending me these stories. –Matt

——————————————————————

Body Guards

An injured bodyguard of Mexico’s Michoacan state’s public safety secretary walks with help from a police officer after being wounded during a shootout in Morelia, Mexico, early Saturday. A fellow bodyguard lies dead. 

Mexico says cartels turning attacks on authorities

By MARK STEVENSONThe Associated PressSunday, April 25, 2010

MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s drug cartels have changed tactics and are turning more attacks on authorities, rather than focusing their fire on rivals gangs, the country’s top security official said Sunday.

Interior Secretary Fernandez Gomez-Mont said at a news conference that two back-to-back, bloody ambushes of government convoys – both blamed on cartels – represent a new tactic.

“In the last few weeks the dynamics of the violence have changed. The criminals have decided to directly confront and attack the authorities,” Gomez-Mont said.

“They are trying to direct their fire power at what they fear most at this moment, which is the authorities,” he said.

Officials here have long said that more than 90 percent of the death toll in Mexico’s wave of drug violence – which has claimed more than 22,700 lives since a government crackdown began in December 2006 – are victims of disputes between rival gangs.

Mexican drug gangs have been known to target security officials. The nation’s acting federal police chief was shot dead in May 2008 in an attack attributed to drug traffickers lashing back at President Felipe Calderon’s offensive against organized crime.

But such high-profile attacks were rare in comparison to inter-gang warfare. But after the large-scale attacks on officials Friday and Saturday, “casualties among the authorities are beginning to increase in this battle,” Gomez-Mont said.

On Saturday, gunmen armed with assault rifles and grenades attacked a convoy carrying the top security official of the western state of Michoacan, in what appeared to be a carefully planned ambush.

The official survived with non-life-threatening wounds – she was traveling in a bullet-resistant SUV – but two of her bodyguards and two passers-by were killed. Of the other nine people wounded, most were bystanders, including two girls ages 2 and 12.

(more…)

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Publications: RAND–How Insurgencies End, By Ben Connable

The RAND study found:

Modern insurgencies last approximately 10 years and the government’s chances of winning increase slightly over time.

Withdrawal of state sponsorship cripples an insurgency and typically leads to its defeat, while inconsistent or impartial support to either side generally presages defeat.

Pseudo-democracies do not often succeed against insurgencies and are rarely successful in fully democratizing. 

*****

   This first story and introduction from RAND is a run down of the conclusions of the study.  What I like about studies like this, is that they draw upon a wide array of past insurgencies, and it tries to find patterns and consensus. That is good, and we should be learning from these insurgencies.

   The last point up top in the quote, is the one I am concerned with. Can we do this with a weak government?  Or can we do business with the tribes and local leadership of cities and towns until we get a good government in place?  The article below points out that it is possible to do this without a strong government, but it certainly does not help the effort.  Check it out. –Matt

——————————————————————

Study highlights problems for U.S. strategy in Afghanistan

Ben Arnoldy

April 23, 2010

NEW DELHI — While current U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine in Afghanistan broadly conforms to historical best practices, the Taliban have a number of advantages that have produced insurgent success in the past, according to a new study of 89 past and ongoing insurgencies worldwide.

The factors that favor the Taliban include receiving sanctuary and support in another country, learning to be more discriminating in their attacks and fighting a government that’s weak and reliant on direct external support.

The historical trends suggest that the Taliban’s Achilles heel would be the loss of their Pakistani sanctuary, while the principal American vulnerability is Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s weak pseudo democracy.

The study, said the author, cannot be predictive, but it can help the U.S. address or exploit these vulnerabilities.

“A lot of the things being done in the current (U.S. military) plan are along the lines of successful things we’ve seen in the study,” said Ben Connable, the lead author of “How Insurgencies End,” published by the RAND Corp. in Washington.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress