Overview of the Michael Yon Saga

*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita*

War on Terror News accepted Michael Yon's challenge to research, and put together this fact-based series, using Yon's own words found on the public record:

02/12/2011

Overview of the Michael Yon Saga

"To sin by silence, when they should protest, makes cowards of men." Abraham Lincoln?

I hope with this overview of the Michael Yon Saga, I can wash my hands of him. I have no doubt he'll try to spark new controversies, and there will always be a question of whether it is better to ignore the attention whore, or to apply the attention his bad behavior warrants. I didn't undertake this series lightly, but the record had to be corrected. I will not allow him to dictate my actions via bullying nor threats.

But Yon has an international audience, and by his own standard, he should be debunked.

Because I have ignored Yon for so many years, I was unaware of much of his behavior. I was surprised that he had banned Mary Ann, one of the most prolific volunteers in the very organization which he endorses. In my research I found out why: she had asked Yon, and another Journalist to correct a story that credited her for things she had not done. Consequently, it also had him playing the role of a hero, which he later admitted was nothing more than sending an email. While Yon eventually changed his story on his dispatches, he left the original intact elsewhere. The Daily Mail had picked up the story based on Yon's original, and emails with the author, and while it was corrected according to The Daily Mail's policies eventually, the linked source still contains some misperceptions.

Yon had demanded I research, and he also asked his fans to find my name, rank, and unit. The problem was and still is that his definition of research is reading his site and buying his book. He plastered his links all over Blackfive. But it was when I began getting emails from people Yon thought knew me, indicating he was bullying them, that I put some pressure on him. When he began interrogating good people on Facebook, I responded at his site. He certainly didn't seem to like what he had grabbed hold of, but he should understand that threats only embolden a Veteran, and bullying innocent bystanders is not an endearing trait.

But this isn't about me. In Yon's words, I'm just calling the ball where it fell. On the eve of what he would explode into an international incident, he was praising General McChrystal, and complaining that American Generals were commenting on the chances of the American Hockey Team in the Olympics. Hockey is not my bag, but that was a big game. I won't bemoan those that watched, particularly those that got a break from combat to do so, but evidently Hockey is something Yon hates. I don't know why, but it is. I didn't see any complaints from him that Troops watched the Super Bowl...

Read the rest of this here.

Will these facts change anyone's mind about Yon's motivations? Will Yon's own words, captured and highlighted in WOTN's detailed examination, affect Yon's income, or reputation, among his die-hard sycophants? We cannot know,for sure, but one thing I DO know: sometimes we all have to break our silence, and speak up against even the most (apparently, and temporary) 'revered' public figures, even in the face of fervent detractors. To do otherwise is to condone unacceptable behavior. In this case, Yon attempted to smear and sully the reputations of honorable men. He very publicly attacked more than a few, and attempted to threaten careers of men far better than himself. He also claimed credit for events which were not his to claim. As WOTN demonstrates, Yon's own words provide irrefutable proof of the truth.

Will Yon - or his followers - learn anything from this series? We cannot predict. All any of us can do is speak up, and answer falsehoods. WOTN has answered Yon's falsehoods - and the truth is now part of the permanent record.

My quote of the day: “Popularity is the easiest thing in the world to gain and it is the hardest thing to hold” (Will Rogers)

Yon OPSEC Violations

*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita*

What is OPSEC, and why does Michael Yon keep denying that he has ever violated these vital rules which should be followed by all of us in a time of war?

From War on Terror comes the next installment relating to the Tarnak Bridge incident.
Read on:

02/10/2011

Yon OPSEC Violations

Yon seems ignorant of what OPSEC is or how his actions impact the lives and safety of Our Troops. Last week, CJ Grisham demonstrated a blatant OPSEC violation but he didn't compare it to the book answer on it. CJ's example could not have been a more textbook example and I will use it here, along with other examples. Yon challenged detractors to demonstrate these examples, but when CJ showed him one, he claimed he was just helping improve security, because changes were made before the enemy had a chance to use it.

Sorry Yon, an OPSEC violation is an OPSEC violation. What changes this (Yon fans) is that the situation is not what it once was. The Military, not Yon, changed the situation. Both Yon and his "source" were at fault in this publication of weaknesses in base defenses. I can publish this now, because the conditions that made it an OPSEC violation no longer exist. Note the dates.

OPSEC definition: A systematic and proved process by which the U.S. Government and its supporting contractors can deny to potential adversaries information about capabilities and intentions by identifying, controlling, and protecting generally unclassified evidence of the planning and execution of sensitive Government activities.

Critical Information Includes (i.e. some of the things we don't want to tell the enemy):

Vulnerabilities in protection or security forces or security plans.
Vulnerabilities of units and weapons and weapons systems.
Vulnerabilities to attack.
Vulnerabilities of sensors and other capabilities to detect attack.
Vulnerabilities of defensive dispositions.

And Allies:
Nations providing current or future support to the U.S.
Vulnerabilities that could be exploited to reduce or eliminate such support.

This thing reads like a textbook example of an OPSEC violation. The thing is so blatantly wrong, that I'm forced to believe that whoever wrote it, did so as an example of what not to do. Hell, if I were the enemy, I wouldn't trust it wasn't a trap. But a Private, fresh into Basic Training should be able to see this was a bad idea. It screams: Attack us from the Southeast. No, I think Yon was duped. (The red boxes are your clues to what is wrong with this.)

But if this were real, if he truly believed the source, he should have quietly forwarded the information to the command, so they could fix it. He knew he was wrong to publish it. He didn't care if the base got overran. That would have simply proven his attacks on McChystal, or so he would have said.

If it were real, and if the enemy believed it, it would have been easy for the enemy to mass their forces at the Southeast end of the base. It would have been easy for the enemy to figure out that setting up an ambush for a platoon sized element after launching rockets. It would have been easy for them to assess they had 35 minutes to hunker down after an attack. The enemy would know to adjust mortars by 200 meters. Hell, this thing is the forward observer.

As usual, WOTN have done their home work, and lays out clearly, point by point, how Michael Yon violated OPSEC. Go read the rest here.


Part 1 here, and Part 2 here. Part 3 is here.

The First Scalp of Tarnak?

*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita*

War on Terror News continues a thorough, fact-based examination of the events surrounding the Tarnak Bridge:

02/09/2011

The First Scalp of Tarnak?

So, we saw that an irritating attack on the Bridge Over the River Tarnak led to the crusade of an American Journalist to campaign against an allied General, when that General's political masters struck out on a policy the Journalist didn't like. But did he succeed in getting that General fired? Or were his later claims as empty as his early allegations?

Long ago, when I was sitting on a cot in the middle of a hot desert, bored out of my mind, a colleague gave me a book. That book inspired a look into the minds of serial killers, and I crawled inside, reading, analyzing, and learning the things that make a deviant segment of society tick. I am by no means a "profiler," but I've practiced learning what makes segments do what they do, those that think differently than do I, and others whom I wish to think more like. I've studied serial killers, terrorists, islamists, drug kingpins, communist propagandists, rapists, the rich, the employed, and now Yon. This series is the result of crawling into the head of one Journalist, of trying to understand why he says the things he says.

His own words are the key to that, though I will not express my broader conclusions. I will tell you that I don't believe his hype of his greatness. I believe he was mad that Canadian politicians, who had decided that Canada had done her part, and he took it out on a Canadian General, who had nothing to do with the politicians, and nothing to do with the bridge. I think he tries to be the first with the story, even if he has to quote those that were ahead of him, to prove he was first. I don't think he has any special access, or ever has, even if he was able to convince some to conduct an interview because he was a Journalist and at one time was well read by those who were craving what no one else was providing.

But the question here is: Did he take down General Menard? Did he collect his first scalp?

No. He didn't, not even by his own words at the time. It's not that he didn't want to, nor that he wasn't willing to say anything to do so, but in the end, General Menard lost his command for things Michael Yon didn't know about, didn't care about, and didn't alert the world to.

Notice in the first
screen shot that he claims that he broke every story regarding Menard, but that he believes the ND (negligent discharge) and inappropriate relationship were trivial. Earlier, he had challenged a reader to find false allegations he had made about the General. Curiously, he warns others of going off without evidence, while the entire affair demonstrates that he has done precisely that. The Bridge story has already demonstrated his shooting from the hip with rumors that didn't match reality, as well as the fact that he didn't break the story, instead linking to MSM stories for a week....

Yes, there is more, and as previously, this is a MUST READ for a complete and full analysis. Go to WOTN HERE to read the rest of this installment.

[You can also find Part 1 here, and Part 2 here]