12BOEFX

A bit of both, I think. There are obviously those who don't want us there and I completely understand that. This is their country that we're walking and driving all over. One of the things that always bothered me is that on patrols, we obviously can't walk in the road (IED's), so we spread out off the sides of the road. Most people in Afghanistan are some sort of farmer, and we'd have no choice but to just walk all over their crops and their land. It sucks, and I still feel horrible about it even though most people would consider that a small thing. It's the small things like that though that make you realize why some of them don't like us.

And some of them certainly did appreciate the removal of IED's. We were on a clearance patrol once and this elderly gentleman ran up to us to let us know that anti-American forces had just planted a new batch of IED's a few kilometers up the road. Our interpreter talked to him and the gentleman said that he has grandkids that walk to school that way. His information turned out to be good, and I'm sure he didn't have to worry about his grandkids being blown up walking to school.

There are three primary methods they use downrange to set off IED's.

• One is a remote controlled detonation in which the person intending on setting off the IED sits at an observation point some distance away. When the intended target drives or walks over it, he hits a switch that sends a signal to the antenna and sets that IED off. This isn't usually very successful now because, without getting into specifics (OPSEC), the military has a device that is both carried and loaded into vehicles that disrupts and blocks all telecommunication signals in its range. No signals get into the bubble unless they're our own encrypted signals.

• Another method would be a command wire detonation. This means that they actually physically run a wire from the IED to their observation point, hook it up to the switch and manually press it when their target drives/walks over it. This was never really successful with us because we adapted after our first IED det to a specific ground formation. Basically, there are two dismount teams, one on each side of the road. They go slightly ahead of the convoy and spread out into a Y shape. This way they're out clearing the tree lines or any other area where there might be an OP. Here, I drew you a shitty picture to show roughly what I mean.

• The last method, and the most dangerous, is the good old fashioned pressure plate. Basically what this is is two plates (can be made of everything) with a spring connecting them. There's a wire on each plate and they're both connected to the explosives. When someone passes over it or steps on the pressure plate, the two wires on each plate connect and complete the charge setting the IED off. This is the most dangerous because whether or not it goes off completely depends on how good your guys with the metal detectors are, or how good your Husky driver is. It is completely subject to human error.

Just to be technical however, we're not "IED dismantlers". We're combat engineers. Our job is to find them. There are certain classes you can take to be authorized to disable up to a certain size and type, but EOD typically handles all of the IED disposal in a route clearance package. At least that's what it was like for my RCP downrange. We always had EOD attached on a clearance mission.

I understand where people who think the way you do come from. The reasons we went to war with both Iraq and Afghanistan were not entirely truthful, and that's something I carry with me everyday. The only thing you've said that I take objection to is your statement on the Taliban. I don't know how much you know about them, but before we got there they were executing men and women in the street for offenses as slight as walking with someone who's not an immediate relative. The human rights abuses have definitely gone down since we've been there. there are parts of Kabul now where women can walk around in jeans and a shirt without much fear for their lives. In the Taliban era, they would be hunted down, raped and killed for that. Corrective rape still exists in parts of the country. Female genital mutilation, etc.

In my opinion, I've never even been a fan of the pro-military stance that's expected of Americans. In truth, the only real reason to support the military is that they're willing to do a job that you aren't. If they weren't, you might have had to go involuntarily. That's why the draft exists; to fill slots in the military that people aren't volunteering for. I mean you can say that you'll resist all you want but it would be hard when they're waving a felony conviction and prison time in your face if you don't go.

I know you're tying to rile me up, but it's not going to work. I'm a pretty objective person and I realize why people are anti-war, why they disapprove of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. And I agree with them on many points. My reasons for wanting to fight the war having nothing to do with the US military's reasoning.

Oh, I would fight back the same as they are. I've always understood their mentality in fighting us, and I don't blame them or hate them. It's just war. I respect your opinion though, and you're certainly entitled to it. We may have originally went to Afghanistan under false pretenses, but then I remember what the Taliban was like when they were in charge of Afghanistan and I realize that regardless of how the US got there, I might as well do that best I can while I'm there.

For the same reason that if someone started shooting at you in the US and you shot back and killed them you wouldn't go to jail either. In all seriousness though, I don't know how familiar you are with ROE and EOF, but no one ever started shooting unless they were being fired upon first, per the rules of engagement. None of us ever fired a round otherwise.