• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Posted on Soldiers for the Truth

Bill Smy

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
01-20-2005

Guest Column: No Relief in Sight for the Lincoln

By Ed Stanton

It has been three weeks since my ship, the USS Abraham Lincoln, arrived off the Sumatran coast to aid the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Dec. 26 tsunami that ravaged their coastline. I'd like to say that this has been a rewarding experience for us, but it has not: Instead, it has been a frustrating and needlessly dangerous exercise made even more difficult by the Indonesian government and a traveling circus of so-called aid workers who have invaded our spaces.

What really irritated me was a scene I witnessed in the Lincoln's wardroom a few days ago. I went in for breakfast as I usually do, expecting to see the usual crowd of ship's company officers in khakis and air wing aviators in flight suits, drinking coffee and exchanging rumors about when our ongoing humanitarian mission in Sumatra is going to end. 

What I saw instead was a mob of civilians sitting around like they owned the place.  They wore various colored vests with logos on the back including Save The Children, World Health Organization and the dreaded baby blue vest of the United Nations.  Mixed in with this crowd were a bunch of reporters, cameramen and Indonesian military officers in uniform. They all carried cameras, sunglasses and fanny packs like tourists on their way to Disneyland. 

My warship had been transformed into a floating hotel for a bunch of trifling do-gooders overnight.

As I went through the breakfast line, I overheard one of the U.N. strap-hangers, a longhaired guy with a beard, make a sarcastic comment to one of our food servers.  He said something along the lines of â Å“Nice china, really makes me feel special,â ? in reference to the fact that we were eating off of paper plates that day. It was all I could do to keep from jerking him off his feet and choking him, because I knew that the reason we were eating off paper plates was to save dishwashing water so that we would have more water to send ashore and save lives. That plus the fact that he had no business being there in the first place.

My attitude towards these unwanted no-loads grew steadily worse that day as I learned more from one of our junior officers who was assigned to escort a group of them. It turns out that they had come to Indonesia to â Å“assess the damageâ ? from the Dec. 26 tsunami. 

Well, they could have turned on any TV in the world and seen that the damage was total devastation. When they got to Sumatra with no plan, no logistics support and no five-star hotels to stay in, they threw themselves on the mercy of the U.S. Navy, which, unfortunately, took them in. I guess our senior brass was hoping for some good PR since this was about the time that the U.N. was calling the United States â Å“stingyâ ? with our relief donations. 

As a result of having to host these people, our severely over-tasked SH-60 Seahawk helos, which were carrying tons of food and water every day to the most inaccessible places in and around Banda Aceh, are now used in great part to ferry these â Å“relief workersâ ? from place to place every day and bring them back to their guest bedrooms on the  Lincoln at night. Despite their avowed dedication to helping the victims, these relief workers will not spend the night in-country, and have made us their guardians by default. 

When our wardroom treasurer approached the leader of the relief group and asked him who was paying the mess bill for all the meals they ate, the fellow replied, â Å“We aren't paying, you can try to bill the U.N. if you want to.â ? 

In addition to the relief workers, we routinely get tasked with hauling around reporters and various low-level â Å“VIPs,â ? which further wastes valuable helo lift that could be used to carry supplies. We had to dedicate two helos and a C-2 cargo plane for America-hater Dan Rather and his entourage of door holders and briefcase carriers from CBS News. Another camera crew was from MTV. I doubt if we'll get any good PR from them, since the cable channel is banned in Muslim countries.  We also had to dedicate a helo and crew to fly around the vice mayor of Phoenix, Ariz., one day. Everyone wants in on the action. 

As for the Indonesian officers, while their job is apparently to encourage our leaving as soon as possible, all they seem to do in the meantime is smoke cigarettes.  They want our money and our help but they don't want their population to see that Americans are doing far more for them in two weeks than their own government has ever done or will ever do for them. 

To add a kick in the face to the USA and the Lincoln, the Indonesian government announced it would not allow us to use their airspace for routine training and flight proficiency operations while we are saving the lives of their people, some of whom are wearing Osama bin Ladin T-shirts as they grab at our food and water. The ship has to steam out into international waters to launch and recover jets, which makes our helos have to fly longer distances and burn more fuel.

What is even worse than trying to help people who totally reject everything we stand for is that our combat readiness has suffered for it. 

An aircraft carrier is an instrument of national policy and the big stick she carries is her air wing. An air wing has a set of very demanding skills and they are highly perishable. We train hard every day at sea to conduct actual air strikes, air defense, maritime surveillance, close air support and many other missions â “ not to mention taking off and landing on a ship at sea. 

Our safety regulations state that if a pilot does not get a night carrier landing every seven days, he has to be re-qualified to land on the ship. Today we have pilots who have now been over 25 days without a trap due to being unable to use Indonesian airspace to train. Normally it is when we are at sea that our readiness is at its very peak. Thanks to the Indonesian government, we have to waive our own safety rules just to get our pilots off the deck. 

In other words, the longer we stay here helping these people, the more dangerous it gets for us to operate. We have already lost one helicopter, which crashed in Banda Aceh while taking sailors ashore to unload supplies from the C-130s. There were no relief workers on that one.

I'm all for helping the less fortunate, but it is time to give this mission to somebody other than the U.S. Navy. Our ship was supposed to be home on Feb. 3 and now we have no idea how long we will be here. American taxpayers are spending millions per day to keep this ship at sea and getting no training value out of it. As a result, we will come home in a lower state of readiness than when we left due to the lack of flying while supporting the tsunami relief effort. 

I hope we get some good PR in the Muslim world out of it. After all, this is Americans saving the lives of Muslims. I have my doubts. 

Ed Stanton is the pen name of a career U.S. Navy officer currently serving with the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group.
 
While I understand his frustration, he sounds like an officer who has had the great luxury of being able to spend his entire career inside the nice neat bubble of high tech naval warfare without too much concern for the "real world"past the end of  his anchor rope. I am sure that I could offer you an equally passionate article by a US Army officer serving here in Afghanistan who would extoll at length the virtues of the same organizations that the naval officer slags. Welcome to the complex world of the Three Block War, where things like carrier groups may be of  more political value in supporting aid workers than in delivering strike missions. In fact, in some situations, vessels like the Lincoln may be of little use in modern warfare. I'm not suggesting he has to like it: I'm saying he has to widen his perspective a bit.

Cheers
 
This exact e-mail was posted in the "As usual the Americans get nothing but love for their sacrifices" thread which has been locked.
 
pbi said:
While I understand his frustration, he sounds like an officer who has had the great luxury of being able to spend his entire career inside the nice neat bubble of high tech naval warfare without too much concern for the "real world"past the end of   his anchor rope. I am sure that I could offer you an equally passionate article by a US Army officer serving here in Afghanistan who would extoll at length the virtues of the same organizations that the naval officer slags. Welcome to the complex world of the Three Block War, where things like carrier groups may be of   more political value in supporting aid workers than in delivering strike missions. In fact, in some situations, vessels like the Lincoln may be of little use in modern warfare. I'm not suggesting he has to like it: I'm saying he has to widen his perspective a bit.


"GREAT LUXURY"," NICE NEAT BUBBLE","LITTLE USE" I guess this must give the Officers and Sailors who serve aboard their Countries Ships a great fuzzy warm feeling. I can't wait to hear your opinon on the Ground Crews of the Air Force.

[FIXED YOU QUOTE BOX - INFANTEER]
 
GREAT LUXURY"," NICE NEAT BUBBLE","LITTLE USE" I guess this must give the Officers and Sailors who serve aboard their Countries Ships a great fuzzy warm feeling. I can't wait to hear your opinon on the Ground Crews of the Air Force.
Ships

I think you're reading my post very selectively. If you go back and look at the complete context, you will see what I am trying to get at. Don't just pick out the bits that offend you.   And think in terms of the type of conflict that is most common today, and that US joint forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently operating under.

And, just BTW, I don't question the value of the air force ground personnel because certain types of air functions are of great use in the type of warfare being fought under the heading "Three Block War". I know, because I work in a US joint HQ where I see this every day. Perhaps, in some situations, even a carrier air group might be useful. But, quite often, armoured divisions, B1s and huge expensive warships may be of very limited use: it all depends. They didn't do much to stop 9-11, did they? And, I think, the recent change of direction in US defence spending, away from Navy and Air Force wish lists toward   the more basic needs of an Army configured for the most likely types of conflicts, tends to support my view.
My point is that the officer seems surprised to discover that these civvies are a feature of the modern operational landscape, and also I suggested that perhaps he   might want to listen to some of his US Army brethren here in Afghanistan who have learned to work alongside these people, as odd and unmilitary as they may be.

Cheers
 
pbi said:
I think you're reading my post very selectively. If you go back and look at the complete context, you will see what I am trying to get at. Don't just pick out the bits that offend you.   And think in terms of the type of conflict that is most common today, and that US joint forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently operating under.

And, just BTW, I don't question the value of the air force ground personnel because certain types of air functions are of great use in the type of warfare being fought under the heading "Three Block War". I know, because I work in a US joint HQ where I see this every day. Perhaps, in some situations, even a carrier air group might be useful. But, quite often, armoured divisions, B1s and huge expensive warships may be of very limited use: it all depends. They didn't do much to stop 9-11, did they? And, I think, the recent change of direction in US defence spending, away from Navy and Air Force wish lists toward   the more basic needs of an Army configured for the most likely types of conflicts, tends to support my view.
My point is that the officer seems surprised to discover that these civvies are a feature of the modern operational landscape, and also I suggested that perhaps he   might want to listen to some of his US Army brethren here in Afghanistan who have learned to work alongside these people, as odd and unmilitary as they may be.

Cheers


Thank you for your "Imperial War College Rhetoric of Modern Day Warfare 101". However, the original complaint of the American Naval Officer was the deportment and attitudes of the Civilians (what ever they might represent) and his concern over the no fly restrictions.

Which you replied in fact, "he sounds like an Officer who has had the great luxury of being able to spend his
entire career inside the nice neat bubble of high Tech Naval Warfare without to much concern for "the real world" pass the end of his anchor rope.

Nothing else in your qoutes there after pertains to his complaints, with the exception of maybe he should disregard and accept the Odd, Unmilitary, disrespectfull or ingrate civilians. I would imagine that he is also
working with them, even though his thoughts, attitude and heart might not be in it.

As far as my selectivity goes, yes I am offended of your statement regarding this American Officer which also applies to all the Officers and Crew of the U.S.S.  Abe. Lincoln.

With regard to the Air Force Ground Crews, boy! did you whooooosh over that one.

I may be very wrong, but I feel that any of the Officers and Crew of the U.S.S. Abe Lincoln who are reading this Thread might feel exactly as I do.


 
His complaint is idiotic.

For an officer, his column shows a complete lack of understanding of the modern world, diplomacy, and his chain of command.
He seems more concerned with his own qualifications than what the US Navy and the US Government have authorized.

This man should not be an officer,  and his needing to hide behind a pen name just adds to his lack of credibility.
pbi - you hit it right on the head.

 
old medic said:
His complaint is idiotic.

For an officer, his column shows a complete lack of understanding of the modern world, diplomacy, and his chain of command.

He seems more concerned with his own qualifications than what the US Navy and the US Government have authorized.

This man should not be an officer,   and his needing to hide behind a pen name just adds to his lack of credibility.
pbi - you hit it right on the head.
[/color]

So say you, well thats your opnion. The credibility understanding or complaint is not the point of contention, its "pbi"s be-litling and derogatory statement against this Officer and his Ship.

And for his self serving attitude, which could be the case, his concern re: the no fly, seems to be
founded and why not.

Show me a Serviceman or Woman who hasen't bitched ,complained,disagreed or was really pissed off
with something at one time or the other and I'll show you a candidate for Sainthood.

As for you suggesting that this Gentleman should not be a Officer, I'm sure you are qualified to make this assumption.

Chain of Command. Modern World and Diplomacy, give us a break.

I would like to hear what his Shipmates might have to say regarding this slight

As for pen names, have you ever checked our Profile Lists.
 
Thank you for your "Imperial War College Rhetoric of Modern Day Warfare 101

You're welcome. Thanks for your response. Most gratifying. I was actually getting rather sick of people around here agreeing with me.

The officer's message, as I interpret it, is that all these civvies are really unecessary and unpleasant diversions from the "real" business of warfighting. His comment on the dreaded blue T-shirt of the UN is, to me, a key indicator.As I expressed before, I certainly understand that he might be uncomfortable with the idea of having these civvies on his warship. However, I get the distinct impression that like so many people in the military today, especially people in the US military who have probably had very little to do with the conduct of the type of war being fought in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, he doesn't realize (at least IMHO) that they are a part of the modern battlespace: like it or lump it. That was my interpretation: evidently quite different from yours. I was also why I attempted to offer what I believe would be a contrasting assessment from US military people who are directly involved in these types of ops in Afghanistan (and, by extension, Iraq).

The rest of my post (and of my other post) was my method of giving the background to my opinion. I am fond of explaining my opinions: perhaps this is a failing of old age. Evidently it would be much better that I don't bother.

With regard to the Air Force Ground Crews, boy! did you whooooosh over that one.

Ho ho. Good pun. Obviously my explanation of my attitude toward the utility of airpower didn't cut much ice with you either. Suffice it to say that I don't base my opinion on the Imperial War College syllabus, or on any other academic syllabus either, actually. I try to base my comments on what I have observed and learned from the places I have been and the things I have seen and done. While this does not make me an expert on aircraft carriers, it certainly gives me a perspective on the relative roles and usefulness of various types of forces and weapon systems.

What, I might ask, do you base your comments on?

Cheers.
 
SFTT ran a follow-up, which puts things in a bit different light:

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/...mand=viewone&op=t&id=3&rnd=156.96301815797076

Guest Column: In Defense of Civilian Relief Workers


By Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Vorce USN

As a Navy helicopter pilot flying humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions to the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, I was startled and dismayed by the inaccuracies of Ed Stanton's guest column (â Å“No Relief in Sight for the Lincoln,â ? ­DefenseWatch, Jan. 20, 2005). While I can't comment on the actual individual who drafted the article (he chose to hide behind a pen name), his writing is indicative of a disgruntled officer who hasn't actually seen the true scope of the devastation ashore or the work that is being done by his shipmates to help.

The people of Indonesia genuinely appreciate our assistance. There are homemade American flags that the hungry and injured have made and display in the makeshift landing zones where we drop off medical supplies, food, and water to prove it. My heart swells with pride (and I choke up a little) every time I see hundreds of displaced persons cheer, salute and flash a big smile or a thumbs-up when my crewmen are off-loading boxes marked with red, white, and blue stickers that proclaim, â Å“Food from the American People.â ?

The Indonesian government (rightly so) is in charge of the overall relief effort underway on the western coast of Sumatra. Last time I checked, it is their country.   Simply put, we are here to aid them with their recovery. We are merely one part of what could end up as the largest relief effort in history. The resources and personnel of the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group are working in concert with the   people of Indonesia, other nations, militaries and a host of non-governmental relief agencies including US AID, Red Cross & Red Crescent Society, WHO, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, and the WFP.

The civilians that have been transported by our helicopters and have been hosted aboard the carrier are not a â Å“traveling circus' of aid workers or â Å“trifling do-gooders.â ? On the contrary, these are professionals who have years of experience in mitigating human suffering and tragedy.  

While there are many highly trained men and women deployed alongside me, there   are few (if any) who have expertise in the prediction of malaria transmission vectors, the proper disposal of tens of thousands of human remains, creating a system to match orphaned children with distant relatives, reviving an entire economy, prioritizing bridges or roads to be re-built, or any of the other skills sets that are so critical to disaster relief.

I find it curious that Mr. Stanton complains about having to wait in line to get food behind men and women who are supporting the same mission as his brothers and sisters in arms. He fails to mention that, in addition to a hot meal or two and a bed to sleep in, the carrier is providing planning space to aid in coordinating the operation, computer and communications assistance, and video teleconferencing services for lead international relief workers and organizations. Comparable facilities in Sumatra have been completely destroyed or are without power.

The key to the U.S. military's withdrawal from this operation is a speedy turnover with international organizations that can provide the same services and support-the very reason that they were onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Stanton's description of an aircraft carrier as an â Å“instrument of national policyâ ? is accurate. The belief that the offensive strike capability of the air wing she carries is the only way to project this policy is flawed.

Here in Indonesia, such an assumption is a slap in the face to the sailors who volunteered to go ashore and load thousands of pounds of rice into helicopters each day in the tropical heat. It fails to take into account the talent of the ship's engineering teams that were able to repair generators at the local hospital and restore electrical power. It overlooks the heroism of the Navy medical personnel who saved countless lives in the wake of the tsunami's devastation. It doesn't begin to calculate the strategic value of clothing donations, a soccer ball tossed from a helicopter, or a handful of candy given to children who have lost everything they have.

With respect to the media, the only negative portrayal of â Å“Operation Unified Assistanceâ ? (the name given to the U.S. military's regional response to the tsunami disaster) I have seen was Mr. Stanton's. The Indonesian press has praised our work and questioned the paucity of relief assistance from other Islamic nations. Military service members often complain that the media â Å“doesn't get it rightâ ? and fails to cover all of the positive work we do.

This time the media got it right and Mr. Stanton got it wrong.


Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Vorce is assigned to Carrier Air Wing 2 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 71). Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
 
Hmm. Interesting, wouldn't you say, Fast Eddy? Seems like I'm not the only one with some misgivings about the orginal post: here we have one of  his own USN peers challenging him. Hmmmm.

Cheers
 
One of Stanton's comments stood out.  He said you could just turn on the TV to assess the damage done in the tsunami.

We crucify any decision by Ottawa or Washington based of faulty intelligence - and this forum especially lambastes the media for skewed presentations.  Now this "officer" is going to recommend that damage assessments be done by watching CNN?  Ludicrous.
 
pbi said:
Hmm. Interesting, wouldn't you say, Fast Eddy? Seems like I'm not the only one with some misgivings about the orginal post: here we have one of   his own USN peers challenging him. Hmmmm.

Cheers


In your original reply to this Officer a.k.a. Ed Stanton "Great Luxury etc." which
you felt reflective of his career. And that his career and service was aboard the U.S.S. Abe. Lincoln,
therefore it must apply to all that serve aboard also. It is this reference that I find objectable, I feel that at
the very least its a uncalled for slight against the Ship and Crew.

I neither condemned nor endorsed this Officers complaints, your comments and appraisal in general are not in
question. This also applies to any future posts with regard to his complaints or attitude by this Forum.

I am also fully aware of the Aid and Services provided by the Ships Company of the U.S.S. Abe. Lincoln, before and after Ed Stantons post.


 
Isn't there an expression to the effect "there's usually three sides to every story ..."?

First of all, isn't it a fact of life that sailors and soldiers see things differently - "boots on the ground" have a different perspective when they can actually smell the impact area ...

In contrast, when you're onboard ship, I'll politely point out that you're "in another world".
(oh, and as for Air Force ground crew - if it weren't for them, the Army and Navy wouldn't get any air support ... so, they're all on my Christmas card list ... just in case you were wondering ...)

"Stanton" isn't entirely out to lunch - some NGO's and media are poop-pumps, pure and simple.
However, we end up going full circle ... and it ends up being a matter of perspective once again - if there are some rotten apples in the basket, do we throw out the entire basket ... or try to salvage the good ones?

Finally, for your reading entertainment ... here's my letter to the editor (unpublished, at this time) on the topic of NGO's, in response to remarks made by an executive of CARE:

To paraphrase A. John Watson's vitriol, I'm tempted to "throw up" every time I hear a self-serving NGO executive criticise Canada's military deployment of the DART to Sri Lanka.

Oddly enough, he "forgot" to mention that 100% of any public donations delivered by Canada's Army goes directly to humanitarian assistance - not one penny is skimmed off the top for salaries, hotel rooms, or "administrative overhead" (as is all too often the case with many NGO's ...).

Thus, it must be pointed out that such rash comments by NGO executives are suspect inasmuch as they're not objective - in fact, they're only defending their own "rice bowl" (especially if their salary is actually paid from public donations ...).

Personally I've seen some good work by NGO's when I visited Bosnia and served in Afghanistan, but I've also seen shameful waste - the personification of "amateur" - NGO employees living in hotels and roaring around in expensive SUV's (again, unwittingly paid for by public donations), while our Canadian soldiers were sleeping in tents and the local populace walked or used animal carts.

For this reason, I don't make donations to NGO's who buy Mercedes jeeps and pay their employees more than me.
 
bossi said:
Isn't there an expression to the effect "there's usually three sides to every story ..."?


Agreed,very well put and I did enjoy your letter.

 
Back
Top