Starting Month #10 in our Deployment Away from the US- Gut Check Time

Last year at this time I spent a weekend in the Hamptons. I was getting ready for a long vacation in August: a one week golf trip to Ireland with a bunch of classmates from West Point, followed by a two week trip to South Africa. It was an incredible summer...what a difference a year can make!

Last year I was "summering in the Hamptons" and this year I'm "summering in Baghdad". Although I live in Tikrit I go to Baghdad often. Like the commute from NYC to the Hamptons, the commute from Tikrit to Baghdad can be hell...it's only 150 miles, but with the IEDs, suicide bombers, ambushes...I usually opt to take a helicopter. It costs a little extra, but I figure it's worth it...

Today we start our tenth month away from the United States. This time of the year is usually my favorite time of year in the US- taking vacation, hitting the beaches, the pools and hiking in the mountains. This is the worst time of year in Iraq. Soldiers coming back from leave become quickly depressed...(there should be a psychological term for the condition...."Post Leave Depression" or something like that). Temperatures here reach their highest in July and August. When I flew back from Baghdad the other day, the temperature on the airfield at mid-day was 132 degrees Fahrenheit. We're not wearing linen and cotton like they are in the Hamptons this time of year- we're in full combat gear with body armor, leather boots, helmet and weapons. All together the gear weighs around 80 lbs. It's kind of hot and more than a little uncomfortable...

This is the "gut check" time of our deployment when people have to fight through boredom, complacency and homesickness- not to mention the strain of extended combat operations. This is when the leaders- the officers and the NCOs- have to put aside their personal issues and lead. Most of the soldiers I'm with have been away from their families now for fifteen months (they left their families in Massachusetts in May '04 to deploy to Ft. Drum, New York) and have four months before they'll be living at home again with their family. Despite the long deployment, as strange as it might seem, morale is very high. We're starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Even though this rotation has seen a surge in the insurgent attacks and casualties, we've also seen the incredible success of the elections and are readying ourselves for another election this fall to ratify the Constitution on October 15th. Most people are worn out but feel very good about what they are doing here- in my opinion.

Most soldiers are very comfortable in their jobs here. Most have trained in the Army for years and have been performing their specific Iraq jobs, often under fire, for nine months now. We do not know our exact date of departure from Iraq and if we did it would be classified. However, most units leave at the one year mark. We have ninety days until we reach our one year mark- 26 October. This means we're "short" in military terms.

The average daily temperature is in the mid one hundred teens. For the troops who are out on patrol every day these temperatures will test their physical endurance and their mental stamina. But the vast majority of troops are not out in the field- the majority are in the rear. For those in the rear the days are not nearly as bad, with most of the day spent in air conditioned quarters and offices on a Forward Operating Base (FOB). This is a unique war. Nearly all the soldiers throughout Iraq have decent, air conditioned quarters and eat three hot meals a day. Only when outside the FOB (Forward Operating Base) does it get uncomfortable. At least 95% of our casualties occur outside of the FOBs, but yet most people never leave their FOB.

For those who do not leave the FOB, this is a very comfortable and very safe (statistically) overall. Everyone has internet access, air conditioning, access to phones, and decent food. This phase of the war has to have the best conditions of any Army in combat in history- all things considered. We control the air and we have fire superiority. We have better weapons, training, soldiers, intelligence and support than the insurgents. When you consider what other American units have faced in other wars- we have it very, very good.

The re-deployment back to the US will be as complicated as the initial deployment to enter Iraq. A tremendous logistical effort is made to transport people, equipment and gear all back to the US. Many of our soldiers are already involved in this effort. Our replacement unit is preparing to come to Iraq- undergoing the same process we underwent for five months prior to deploying into Iraq.

Many people in the States, and even many in Congress whom I've met, had no idea that National Guard soldiers end up with such a long time away from family (such as our unit's eighteen months.) Most people believe that both the regular army and the national guard both have the same one year deployment away from families. That is not the case. Both have one year deployments in Iraq- but the National Guard has a much longer time away from family.

The Army has chosen to deploy troops in Iraq for one year tours. The Marines serve seven months. The Navy and Air Force serve four month tours. The majority of servicemen in Iraq are from the Army and the Marine Corps.

The reason for the increased total length of a deployment for the National Guard vs regular army is the train up time. The regular army does not have to be sent away from their homes prior to going to Iraq- that is what they do for a full time living. The National Guard does need a train up time. This means that a one year tour becomes a much longer time away from home and family.

The unit that I am with was deployed from Boston, Massachusetts and sent to Ft. Drum, New York in May 2004 (I was fortunate and did not get activated until September). For five months the unit trained at Ft. Drum prior to deploying to Iraq. During that five months the soldiers had a few weekend passes to visit their families. By the time they return to their families after this tour they will have spent eighteen months living away from their families with a couple of visits home. That's a lot longer than most people in the US would believe.

There are several different mental games that are played by soldiers in Iraq to count down the days remaining or the total number of days deployed. I've never served time in prison, but I would think the mental process is the same. People here talk like they are "doing time." The only difference is that we don't get cable TV or conjugal visits. The optimists here look at how much we've done and percentage wise how little we have left...and how we might even get out early. The pessimists look at how long 90 days can be...and what can go wrong in the mean time. It's very interesting to see how people deal differently with the same situation.

August will be a tough month mentally for the unit with 90 days remaining- while in the middle of the summer. Once Labor Day passes we will be very "short". We'll begin to pack and ready ourselves to be replaced by another unit coming in from the United States- for Operation Iraqi Freedom IV...the fourth one year rotation of troops. Many of those replacing us will have served here during OIF I- the initial invasion of Iraq in April 2003. For them, this next tour will likely be a much different tour than their first. Iraq has changed quite a bit since 2003.

For us, we'll be happy to have completed our year in Iraq and be home in time for the holidays. We're short- but we still have three months left to go. This is "gut check" time.

"How is it that Iraqis still do not have reliable electricity, clean water or proper sewage systems after two years?"

OK- we need to hire a public relations department. The United States has a great story to tell over here. Unfortunately, since the very start, we've packaged our support in Iraq poorly. There is progress here. But our progress in Iraq needs to be explained, positioned and packaged properly. We labeled all of our efforts here as "Re-Building Iraq" as if we were restoring it back to the successful developed nation that is once was in the past. This set the expectation that every project undertaken by the coalition was our responsibility to return Iraq to a better condition. The yardstick against which we now measure success is by developed, First World standards and anything short is a failure and/or a disappointment. Judging Iraq's progress by Western standards made success in Iraq all but impossible from the start.

We finished "re-building" a long time ago. We are now "developing" Iraq. There is an enormous difference between the two. The original mission should have been "Re-building and Developing Iraq" with clear objectives on what was to be "re-built". Of the $18.4 billion appropriated by the US Congress for "Re-building Iraq", the majority would have been classified as "developmental" funds and very little was actually "re-building".

What difference does the name make? An enormous difference. By naming all of our efforts "re-building" Iraq we have assumed implicit blame for how the systems became so backwards by Western standards and therefore some responsibility to make Iraq a first world economy. We also set ourselves up for disappointment and to always fall short of success.

The term "Re-building" also implies some responsibility for the current condition, as if at one point, the system had been so much better, but through the war became damaged. None of the projects that I'm involved with here in Iraq were situations caused by the coalition. The majority of our projects are upgrading infrastructure that is 50 years old or more- or more frequently- never existed under Saddam. How is this "re-building?"

We recently built two business centers to help improve the development of private enterprise in Iraq. There was nothing like this in the past. These are great successes considering they never existed in the past, were built by the coalition, and are now functioning for the betterment of Iraqi society. When labeled as "Re-building" they come under scrutiny as to "well, what have they produced?" When labeled as "development" they are obvious successes.

USAID claims that 70% of development projects in third world countries fail. Developing third world countries is incredibly challenging.

By labeling our efforts as "re-building" we set ourselves up for disappointments and guaranteed we'd always fall short. As an example, say $10 million is set aside for developing a new highway that previously didn't exist from city X to city Y. It's scheduled to be completed in 12 months. Say we only succeed on 75% of the project on time. Under the name "Re-building" we are accused of falling 25% short and failing the Iraqi people. Had this been considered a "development of Iraq" project, we rightfully could claim that we had incrementally benefitted Iraq's transportation system, and although behind our schedule, progress is clearly being made. In reality in Iraq right now, in areas such as water, electricity and sewage- the difference between being called "re-building" and "developing" are tremendous. The US public, the international community, and the Iraqi people themselves have now set their expectations far too high based on the initial concept of "Re-Building Iraq."

Most areas in which we have made progress, such as the business centers, are never given the opportunity to be discussed in the international community. We never get to discuss the many areas in which we've progressed because the naysayers use the same illogical rhetorical questions as evidence that we have made no progress.

The questions most often cited as failures in Iraq have not been addressed correctly in public. "More than two years after the war in Iraq how can the Iraqis not have
1. reliable electricity?
2. clean water?
3. a functioning sewage system?"

All valid questions- each of which could consume a doctoral thesis to answer. But I'll try to summarize the answers here. The simple answer, and the reason I say these questions are rhetorical is that each answer is the same: Iraq never had reliable electricity, clean water or functioning sewage systems. It's a third world country. These answers will likely apply for the next five years at least- so refer here any time the above questions are asked rhetorically in the future.

First, before we answer those three questions individually, let's look at what we destroyed to determine what we needed to "re-build". We destroyed tanks, aircraft, weapons and military bases. We destroyed bridges, airports and roads to prevent the Iraqi army from manuevering. We avoided destroying large electrical production sites and instead targeted the more easily re-built electrical distribution sites (nodes). We avoided destroying any oil production or distribution facilities. In fact, we attacked earlier than expected in order to prevent Saddam from demolishing his own oil fields as he had in Kuwait. 99% of these bridges, bases and roads have been re-built. The electrical distribution sites have been re-built.

For someone who has not traveled throughout Iraq, it might seem from the television that Iraq is a well developed country. All of the television coverage of Iraq show populated cities with people dressed in a combination of Western clothing and Muslim traditional clothing. It appears to be well developed. It is not. I've traveled to thirty-six countries around the world and visited, and lived in, third world countries. Iraq is a very distant third world country on par with Sub-Saharan Africa.

Iraq was and is a third world country by every measurement: income, GDP, literacy, poverty levels,unemployment, etc. Prior to any discussions about how we've progressed, people need to have some type of agreement on where we started when we arrived in 2003. We need to have a baseline- or at least have a range of reasonable possibilities.

As an analogy, let's imagine that we had invaded and liberated two different countries: Sweden and the Sudan. After liberating, we hypothetically stated that we were going to "re-build" these countries. Well, Sweden has a modern and productive infrastructure as opposed Sub-Saharan Africa such as the electrical grid, bridges, water systems and sewage systems. Our expectations would be quite different between the two. In Sweden "Re-building" the effects of a war would be an achievable endeavor and success could be quantified. There would be tangible projects that could be objectively measured such as whether the bridge is either re-built or it isn't. In Sub-Saharan Africa there is very little modern infrastructure. Two years after "re-building" Sweden the expectations would be quite a bit different than had we "re-built" Sub-Saharan Africa. If at the end of two years every person in Sudan did not have electricity, water and sewage, would that be a failure? No. If a person in Sweden did not have electricity would that be a failure? Yes.

Let's call it what it is. We finished "re-building" everything that we destroyed in Iraq. We are now "building" and "developing" this country's infrastructure. For those who have no experience in this arena- "developing" is substantially more difficult than "re-building".

I've traveled all over Iraq and the Iraq I have seen is not what it appears like on TV. 70% of the population lives in rural Iraq. Most of these Iraqis live in mud huts. The average Iraqi is a farmer. Most are illiterate. Most have never had clean water, sewage or reliable electricity. Few have ever had air conditioning in the desert or televisions. Ever.

How can the Iraqis not have clean water? The water system was built in the 50's with old technology at the time. Most of that water system only serviced the cities to less than 30% of the population. A long time before the war the Iraqi system was dilapidated and the most of the population did not have access to potable water. In 1982 Saddam Hussein's government conducted a very detailed analysis on the cost and needs of developing a modern water system to provide water to the Iraqi people. This was done in conjunction with engineers provided by the Soviet Union (as they courted the Iraqis to be part of their communist sphere of influence). The study determined that to implement a modern day water system would cost the Iraqi government $33 billion (in 1982 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, by those estimates it would cost roughly $65 billion to build a complete water system for the country of Iraq. You guessed it, Saddam chose not to build it.

Needless to say the US government and the coalition did not set as a goal the implementation of a modern water system throughout Iraq. There has not been $65 billion approved to do so.

So next time someone asks "why after two years do they not have clean water?", you can tell them that it is an unreasonable expectation, whether or not there is an insurgency to fight. Iraq is a third world nation and sadly very few third world nations have clean water throughout their nations. This is a long term goal that the government of Iraq should have in the view of most Westerners. Eventually with oil revenues, a democratically elected government chosen from their own population, might choose to implement a $65 billion water system. Most likely we will not see this occur in the next year, five years, or ten years. So let's be realistic, six months from now, the press should not be asking this question again rhetorically.

"Why is it that after two years in Iraq they do not have sewage systems?" Similar to the first question, Iraq did not have a functioning sewage system in place prior to the war and it still does not. In Kirkuk for example (one of the cities within my area of responsibility) there was never a landfill. Ever. There simply was no place for people to take their garbage. They would just throw away perishable and non-perishable goods into the desert anywhere they chose. I've flown over it. I've driven through it. I've walked through waste. We have worked with the local government to help provide guidance in how to develop a local landfill, explained why it is good for their city, and helped them achieve the development of their first landfill. They now have a landfill in Kirkuk, but they are far from having a functioning sewage system. They do not have the garbage trucks and the infrastructure in place to tax the population, pay for these services, etc.

So the next time someone asks about "basic sewage systems" in Iraq, let them know that they did not have them in the past. It would be an unrealistic goal to expect a New York-level advanced sewage system to have been implemented in Iraq within our first two years, certainly not in the middle of an insurgency. It is easy for someone to argue against this point. Certainly in a country the size of Iraq there are some that have seen their life improve and some that have seen their quality of life deteriorate since we arrived. I've flown over Sadr City (a part of Baghdad) and I have friends who work in the area. Yes, a good reporter will find examples to argue against my case here. But they will be isolated examples. Most of the people are farmers and never had any of these services. And in the cases where the service existed but now does not, whose is at fault?

OK, the often cited problem in Iraq: How is it that two years after the fall of Baghdad that the Iraqis do not have reliable electricity? First, understand more energy in Megawatts is produced per month than was produced in Iraq during Saddam's tenure. Therefore, we have succeeded in "re-building" Iraq if the definition of "re-building" is to get back to their baseline. Using that definition our job and our responsibilities are complete.

We produce more electricity than pre-war and as the major electrical projects are completed more and more electricity will be produced. But that will not solve all the electrical problems.

The three issues that exist with regard to electricity in Iraq are production, cost to the customer and distribution. Production is greater than pre-war and increasing.

Why is cost an issue? Because in Iraq the electricity is free to the citizens. Well what happens when electricity is free? Usage goes through the roof. Virtually no one had air conditioning prior to the war. Now virtually everyone does. Few had TVs and satellite dishes. Now everyone does. So usage/consumption in total Megawatts is up significantly.

During the reign of Saddam, only Baghdad and the area around his hometown of Tikrit received electricity. The rest of the country had little to none. Saddam chose where power would be turned on or off. Now the elected government of Iraq chooses where the power goes. Well, guess what? They have more evenly distributed it. So the areas that in the past did not get electricity now get more, but those who were supported by the corrupt government and received an unfair share, now see less. That is what happens in a democracy, there is compromise.

The bottom line is that the distribution of electricity is determined by an elected government. If they chose to distribute it the same as in the past, those in Baghdad and in Tikrit would have electricity similar to pre-war reliability. But even in these areas, they would likely see some challenges because consumption has increased so significantly. Consumption will likely continue to soar beyond production capacity until the newly elected government begins to charge for the electricity that it produces.

All of these issues...unemployment, literacy, electricity, water, sewage... are all much more complex issues than they seem. This is a country on par economically with Sub-Saharan Africa. The naysayers will say that this is different because Iraq has oil. True, but oil alone will not guarantee any of these major issues change in the next few years- whether or not there is an insurgency.

Remember, the Iraqi government could have developed effective water, sewage and electrical systems over the past thirty years. They had plenty of oil money to do so. They didn't. That is not the coalition's fault. Instead, a corrupt group of leaders raped and pillaged the oil revenues and oppressed and murdered its people. We helped conquer that dictator and remove his tyrannical government. We helped liberate the people. Over the next few decades this liberated population has an opportunity to develop these modern systems over time, with the benefit of its oil revenues and potentially, a healthy productive economy. We "re-built" their country to its original condition prior to the war. We certainly should not be expected to have developed it into a first world country in two years in terms of electricity, water, sewage or any other measure.

If these are the questions being used as the litmus tests for success in Iraq, we might as well add "How can the majority of Iraqi's be illiterate after two years?"

So let's understand that we have "Re-Built" Iraq to its former very third world condition. Now let's get on with the much more difficult task of developing it into a functioning economy but set our expectations to reasonable levels as such. Every project we complete should be considered an incremental improvement to a third world country and a positive success.

A satellite dish on the ground outside the home of a farmer near Tikrit, Iraq taken from a Blackhawk helicopter by Dan Rice 

The American Red Cross In Iraq

When you serve in the military, history is all around you. It's an important part of being in the service- the traditions, the legacy, the legends. I'm constantly reminded of history here, even as we live through another chapter in American military history.

We received some mortar fire on the evening of the 4th of July. It was, as usual, very inaccurate and no one was hurt. It wasn't until much later after the mortars that one of my more insightful friends reminded me of a familiar song and how appropriate it was for having been shelled that evening.

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Francis Scott Keys wrote the "Star Spangled Banner" on Sept. 14, 1814 after he peered through clearing smoke to see an enormous flag flying proudly after a 25-hour British bombardment of Baltimore's Fort McHenry. Fifty years later a young woman named Clara Barton was tending to our wounded at battlefields all across the Civil War. During the Civil War she started an organization that would become the American Red Cross. One hundred forty years later and patriotic Americans are still serving in the American Red Cross on the battlefields tending to our soldiers.

While our soldiers are away from US life continues for their families. Around 75% of the soldiers are married and most have families. Life and death events- and everything in between- continue to occur in the US. Emergency communications between families and the soldiers are handled by the Red Cross. Two weeks ago the American Red Cross team based on our base in Tikrit had a fire in their office when their air conditioner caught fire. No one was injured but their office was destroyed. The Red Cross is an organization that has many missions, one of them being the support of displaced persons. Ironically the three women who work for the Red Cross were now displaced themselves. The Army gave Elizabeth, Sallie and Melissa temporary space in my small office on the second floor of Saddam Hussein's former palace in Tikrit while their quarters were being repaired.

I usually travel a lot flying from base to base but this week I have been on our Forward Operating Base in Tikrit the entire week. Its been a nice break from traveling and my work has mostly been administrative. I spent a lot of time communicating with soldiers in Baghdad and on our other bases by email and attending staff meetings that would give the creator of Dilbert a lifetime's worth of material... During this week while I have been in the office I was exposed to the Red Cross for the first time and it was a very positive, yet very sad experience.

The primary mission of the Red Cross here is chartered by Congress to provide emergency communications between families and servicemen in Iraq. The three women who work for the American Red Cross operate their team 24 hours a day. They rotate shifts so that at least one of them is manning their phones and computers at all times. I sit right beside the desk that they have set up to run their operations, so I hear every conversation. Normally they work in a private office with couches where soldiers can come relax, talk and receive many of the donated goods that the Red Cross receives- everything from phone cards to cookies. They lost their normal privacy during this temporary period while they were 'displaced persons'.

Due to the sheer numbers of soldiers here- nearly 150,000- the number of emergency messages across the Iraq is staggering- several thousand messages per week. Most of the news is bad news: illness, death, arrests, children misbehaving, and other sad stories. However, the announcment of the birth of a son or daughter is usually good news. Deaths, especially sudden deaths, are frequent and obviously very sad. During the week that they were in our office they notified soldiers of the death of a sister by drowning, the notification to a soldier that a loved one was "Missing in Action and Presumed Dead", the death of a brother involved in a car accident, the death of a son in a car accident, and many other sad announcements. The three women in this office handle between 250 and 300 emergency messages per week.

When the Red Cross in Iraq receives the announcement they reach out to the soldier's commander and pass the notification onto the commander. The commander delivers the news to the soldier. In cases of death or illness the commander will often request the chaplain escort him to notify the soldier. The military provides leave to soldiers for most emergency issues in the immediate family- birth, death, major surgery- and even for the death of grandparents (which I think is a little too generous- given 150,000 combat troops with up to four older grand-parents each). Once notified of an emergency by the Red Cross soldiers are given top priority to travel home. They fly by helicopter to the nearest Air Force base and have priority over all other soldiers to get the first flight home. In most situations soldiers receive two weeks' leave, but often receive longer based on the severity of the personal situation. The trip home is arduous and takes between three and seven days. Travel time is not counted as part of their leave.

Senator John McCain authored a great article about the Red Cross entitled "In Support of Do Gooders" that appeared in the Wall Street Journal after the Abu Gharib scandal. Abu Gharib had caused attention to be focused on not only the military but also on the organizations whose role is to be the 'watch dogs' against such abuses. It can be located at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005151

There has been discussion about servicing these emergency Red Cross calls from outside of Iraq- from a safer area such as Kuwait. It would seem that with today's telecommunications systems that notifications could be handled from remote sites and the notifications sent into commanders in the field from afar. In theory this might be a logical assumption. If this was the United States Army deployed into Canada (instead of Iraq) that might be a reasonable administrative decision.

The reality here in Iraq is that the telecommunications systems are challenged and the organizational situation on the ground are constantly changing. Units and individual soldiers move from location to location and the primary design of the Army's communication systems is not to support family notifications. The Red Cross could probably perform its mission from outside Iraq but it can certainly perform its role better by being here in Iraq. By being here amongst the troops they can learn more about what is happening and better support the troops that they are notifying. The notification system is not simply a one-way Western Union style role. The notification process includes two-way dialogue between the Red Cross and the Commander, and then between the Red Cross and the soldier. It is both more effective and shows the Red Cross flag in support of our troops in combat, which is reassuring and reflective of the original mission of the Red Cross.

I've been in the room when soldiers came by to get advice on issues related to emergency leave and to help get counseling for their issues and situation. I've often excused myself to give the grief stricken soldiers some privacy. Although the Army has many chaplains here in Iraq to help soldiers cope with the many issues of life and combat, these Chaplains are still military officers and are still in uniform. It is nice for the soldiers to have the opportunity to speak with someone not in uniform- just to have a friendly ear.

The amount of good that this team does is disproportionate to their small staff size. Clara Barton would be proud.

For anyone interested in helping soldiers in Iraq I would highly recommend donating to not only the Red Cross, but specifically to the Military support that the American Red Cross provides to our soldiers here in Iraq and throughout the world.
Their donation link is at: https://give.redcross.org/

4th of July Weekend- Celebrating the Birth of a Nation with IED Fireworks

As Americans begin to celebrate the 4th of July and the 229th Anniversary of the birth of our democracy, we are in Iraq celebrating the first anniversary of the birth of their country with real fireworks. July 4th 1776 was one of the most pivotal days in the history of mankind. Yet the first anniversary of the birth of America in 1777 had battles being fought throughout the Union. The future was far from certain and the Revolution would be fought for six additional years. We had lost more battles than we had won at that point. The 4th of July weekend in 1777 actually saw the Union lose yet another battle when the British captured Ticonderoga.

Here in Iraq their first anniversary is also being celebrated under fire and the future is far from certain. The birth of the Iraqi nation as a free and democratic nation will likely be a pivotal point in the history of the Middle East. In Iraq last week we experienced some fireworks that I will not soon forget.

The experience reminded me of another experience and the lessons learned when I was much younger- as a Second Lieutenant fresh out of West Point. It was late 1988 and I had just completed my officer basic course. I competed for and was selected to attend Ranger School- the toughest course that a junior officer can attend. It was going to be done at the worst time- in the winter. Ranger School is an eight week course that includes severe sleep and food deprivation. After completing five weeks of the eight week course we were in the Jungle Phase of Ranger School based in Eglin Air Force Base near Panama City, Florida. We had not slept in three straight days and we were on a foot patrol in the swamps experiencing the lessons of "sleep deprivation". It was pouring rain and we were on a patrol that started at about 2200 hours.

We as students would be randomly assigned leadership positions each day and rated on our leadership skills. A passing grade would help you graduate that phase and move on to the next phase and eventually to graduating the course and being entitled to wear the Ranger Tab. Failing a patrol meant having to either leave the course or start that phase over with the next class as a "re-cycle"- something no one wanted to have to re-experience. Every day the instructors would randomly select students to lead the squads and platoons. For the majority of us on most days we'd simply be followers- regular soldiers.

This day in February 1989 I drew the short straw and was selected to be the platoon leader in charge of 40 Ranger students. I say the "short straw" because one has a much better chance of graduating if picked to lead on the first day after getting sleep. The troops are in better spirits and motivated. Getting picked to lead for Day Three with no sleep in the middle of a rainstorm- well, it's an uphill battle and a definite leadership challenge.

The rain was coming down in buckets and we were patrolling through the wet, cold swamps of Florida. Enduring the sleep deprivation, the cold, being wet and not eating much while having to continue to march forward...well it was quite uncomfortable to say the least. Many Ranger students were quitting at that point in the training. It was pretty miserable. That experience on its own would have made a lifelong impact. But it was just beginning.

Since I was patrol leader I turned to count the soldiers as they walked past me in a Ranger file through the swamps. I was the only one facing to our rear when I saw the lights coming in the sky above the trees. We were deep in the swamps and therefore I thought I was having a hallucination (which we had all experienced up to that point when severely sleep and food deprived). But this time was different. This time it was no hallucination- this time it was real. An Air Force C-141 aircraft (707 equivalent) had made the fatal mistake of flying too low trying to land at the nearby airfield on Eglin during the storm. The aircraft hit the trees and exploded throughout the swamps. It was only around 500 meters away from us when it hit. The exploding jet fuel gave the appearance of a napalm strike from left to right for about a thousand meters. It was surreal. It was sudden and it was shocking. We were lucky to have not been in its path.

Prior to the crash we had all been excited to get some sleep that night. We knew the Army had to let us sleep eventually and we had been in the school for five weeks. Three nights' without sleep was usually the maximum and people were showing the effects. We'd been up for three straight days. When the plane crashed we knew we weren't going to get any sleep, though no one cared about that any longer anyway. Our adrenaline was pumping and it was a life or death situation. The rest of the night was spent on rescue missions- sending out teams to the nearest intersections, sending medics into the site, trying to get anyone on the radio but due to the storm we couldn't reach anyone.

After hours of searching we determined that everyone on the aircraft was dead. There was no one left to rescue. All eight people who had been on the plane were dead. The aircraft had been empty except for the crew of seven and just one very unlucky passenger. It could have been much worse had it been filled with a hundred or so passengers. We worked all night and the sun came up while we were still on the mission. Afterward, we were all very sad that we had not been able to save anyone. We were exhausted and expected that the Army would allow us to sleep. We had transitioned from a training mission to a real world mission and people were dead. Of course, we thought, the army would let us rest. We were wrong.

The Ranger Instructor (RI) told us that in combat you don't get "time outs" and that you have to continue the mission no matter what. Frankly, even then I thought to myself "well we all know that- why do we have to practice that?" But that was today's lesson. Despite the loss of eight servicemen- we would not take time to mourn the dead, recognize the rescuers or get much needed and deserved rest. We would continue the mission. Between the loss of lives and the loss of our potential sleep (as minor as we realized that was in relation to the loss of life), we were very down. But we continued on our mission. All day we prepared for a patrol that night, executed the patrol, and finally after four days of being awake, we were able to lie on the ground and get some sleep.

Fast forward sixteen years. Last Friday we were driving on a patrol near Balad, Iraq. Our vehicle was targeted by a roadside bomb (the army calls them Improvised Explosive Devices- IEDs). Somewhere lurking in the shadows within around 200 meters must have been an insurgent with a remote control device. We were driving at around 50 mph. He pressed the button and "boom!!" a huge explosion occurred right in front of our HUMVEE and rocked our vehicle. For us, an otherwise peaceful and sunny day was shattered by the explosion. The sight, sound, feel, and smell of the concussion were all instantaneous. When you read combat stories after the fact it seems like everyone was ready, the momentum was building, the background music started like in the movies, and then boom, as expected, the situation escalated. But in reality there is no bell that rings prior to an event like this to give you a warning. It just happens out of the blue and once it happens, there is no "time-out". We spend hours, days, weeks and sometimes months of boredom with no major incidents and then suddenly it happens. And there is no break once it starts. Every second matters at that point and the training kicks in.

The vehicle had been hit with the blast and with a lot of shrapnel. It was a large explosion (probably several artillery shells attached to a remote control detonator). We were immediately blinded by oil from the engine that was hit and covered the bullet proof windshield. The windshield was also blasted with the explosion and shattered. Amazingly, our gunner, exposed up on the top of the vehicle was not hit. He's a great kid with a quick wit- he yelled down that he was OK and I was relieved to know that he had survived the blast. He hung in there and would not abandon his post, despite the obvious blast to his body that he had experienced from the concussion. He could have lowered himself into the vehicle and not lost any respect but he stayed upright scanning for the insurgents who had hit us. Our driver, a 49 year old sergeant did his best to control the vehicle while we were at high speed. This is the second IED that has hit his vehicle and he controlled the vehicle both times, saving his crew both times by his actions. There are many casualties from accidents caused by IEDs since we are driving at high speeds to elude the IEDs.

I immediately called in the report on the radio to the rest of the convoy. Everyone is buttoned up in their HUMVEEs and information needs to be passed on quickly. If a vehicle is disabled and stopped people need to know. If the vehicle is still moving and can get out of the kill zone the others need to know to keep going. I notified the convoy that we were hit, had no casualties, we were still rolling, but the vehicle was severely damaged and might not be able to keep going.

IED attacks are often coordinated with an ambush and we all immediately knew that the greatest threat once we survived the initial IED was from secondary IEDs or small arms fire from an ambush. We drove the vehicle around 500 meters out of the kill zone before it needed to be towed. Our commander was driving in another vehicle and jumped out to connect the tow bar to the vehicle in front of us. Getting out of a vehicle in this environment is extremely dangerous- with the potential for snipers and other IEDs set up in coordination with the initial ambush. Having a full Colonel (which is one grade below General) get out and do this was inspiring for all the troops. I can't imagine there are too many times that a full Colonel personally hooked up a tow bar of a disabled vehicle in the combat zone!

Frankly I still don't believe we needed the lesson in Florida to know that there are no time-outs in combat, it is fairly intuitive, but it reminds me of that lesson taught to us a long time ago in the cold swamps of Florida.

All things considered we were unbelievably fortunate. We made it to the next Forward Operating Base and to safety. We were taken to the hospital and examined as a precautionary measure. We all had the typical symptoms from experiencing a close explosion- ringing in the ears, aches and pains, headaches, but we were alive, not seriously wounded…and very lucky. We ended up in the same trauma center where I had taken my friend Mark a week earlier. The same crew was on shift. At first I experienced a "deja vu" moment until I realized we were in the same hospital- it had all happened so quickly I hadn't pieced it together. In military hospitals all the specialists become "general practice" doctors. I was treated by a doctor who had "BAD ASS" on his surgical cap. I of course, had to ask. "I'm a proctologist". Hmmm... I wondered if he was assigned to me because of my personality.

While we were in the trauma room in Balad another crew was brought in from a HUMVEE on a different convoy. While we had been lucky that day they had not been. One of their crew had his luck run out that day. We saw him brought in on the gurney with a head-wound from their IED and it made our experience all the more real.

This story is not unique at all here. There are hundreds of attacks each week against coalition forces- most of them are IEDs. Many have much worse outcomes than we had that day. Our HUMVEE was brand new and fully up-armored and for that I am very thankful to Congress, the Department of Defense, and General Motors.

While we thought the incident was over, unfortunately it was not. The Army mistakenly decided to notify our families that we had been involved in an IED attack and that we had been taken to the hospital. Normally the military only notifies families when a member is a casualty- and we had not been- so this was a foul up. They called the family of each soldier in our vehicle. A sergeant in the US called my parents to tell them. It's hard to explain the feelings of anger, disappointment and frustration when a mistake of this magnitude is made. I've since calmed down and understand how this could happen.

The military is struggling with the advance of technology and the sad fact that families need to be notified before they hear from someone accidentally. With email, cell phones and land line telephones, the nightmare scenario is to have a family find out the wrong way. For instance if a soldier phones home to his wife and says that Lieutenant XYZ was killed or wounded that day, and have that wife call the family of the deceased to send condolences, prior to that family being notified. Unfortunately for our families- they were notified of an incident in which none of us were wounded.

I received a passing grade for leading the patrol that fateful night in Ranger School in 1989. We had already completed the Mountain Phase of Ranger School prior to going to the Jungle Phase in Florida. The last phase of Ranger School was about to begin. But in February 1989 as we trained and prepared to fight the only other Super Power- the Soviet Union- we thought the last phase was probably the least applicable to our future. We had spent four years at West Point studying, training and preparing for a war against the Soviets on a European battlefield. We hopped on C-130s to fly across the United States to parachute into Utah to begin the next and last phase for us which would be, ironically, the Desert Phase.