Anyone who knows the details care to fill us in? I’d rather not subscribe to the website just to read the rest of the article.
Same here WSJ crossed the line with me.
Use your noggin to get around the firewall.
Here’s a bit more:
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-story-of-colonel-joe-dowdy-mattis.html?m=1
According to a deep understanding of maneuver warfare I acquired in three minutes of googling, Col. Dowdy was relieved for not being sufficiently aggressive in pressing the front lines of assault. Depending upon which source you read, he did so because he chose to take a detour, held up advancing for three days , feared casualties or chemical weapons, realized his unit was a decoy, didn’t want to sacrifice his men just to beat the Army into Baghdad, didn’t understand maneuver warfare doctrine, and/or got conflicting orders from higher.
Probably, the reason he was relieved was that he wasn’t sufficiently aggressive in his advance for Gen Mattis and Mattis wanted to take a shot across the bow to his other officers that he wanted hard chargers in the advance. Possibly he was relieved because Mattis wanted the Marines in Baghdad before the Army, and Dowdy ruined their chances by being cautious. With the fog of war and spectre of chemical warfare still a realistic threat, it’s unlikely anyone did anything wrong. It’s not like he slapped a malingerer
Summary (Based on some historical knowledge of the battle and reading articles on it). The Marines 1st Divisiion was supposed to arrive in a synchronized fashion with the ARmy’s 3d Division to focus combat power at a single point on Baghdad at the same time, and at a speed that would ensure the Iraqi command would be in chaos because they couldn’t react to such a rapid advance. Mattis made it clear in mission pre-brief the day before that optempo was THE critical factor, no excuses to his regimental commanders. COL Dowdy halted his regiment due to a strongpoint near Nasiriyah, when he could and should have plowed through the gap, and was relieved of duty in order to make an example of the consequence of failing to follow the commander’s intent.
Well, “”being fatigued beyond normal” and “not employing the regiment to its full combat potential,” he says, quoting from the document. It also said he was “overly concerned about the welfare” of his Marines”
Incident 2: Not getting a runway fixed on a captured airfield.
“Col. Dowdy’s regiment was camped about 50 miles southeast of Kut. He had his men capture a nearby airfield so supplies could be airlifted in. The next day, Gen. Mattis dropped by to check on his men — and was infuriated by what he saw: A cratered runway and a Marine captain sitting on a bulldozer reading a paperback book. The captain said he hadn’t been given an order to fix the runway.
A few hours later, Col. Dowdy says, he got an earful from Gen. Mattis, who said he should have made sure the job of fixing the runway was done. Col. Dowdy now says he should have issued a written order. He considered stripping the bulldozer operator of his command, but thought better of it. “If you fire everyone who makes a mistake, pretty soon you’re standing there all by yourself,” he says.”
Incidnet 3: Probably the fatigued line.
“.... The regiment suffered its first casualty when a rocket-propelled grenade blew through a Humvee door and severed a captain’s hand, according to men on the scene.
As bullets flew and the captain was being hauled out by helicopter, Col. Dowdy, two days without sleep, slouched in his Humvee, with his staff around him. He fell asleep.”