ALERT: THIS IS NOT THE DAILY BLOG POST!
AS THE TITLE STATES, THIS POST REGARDS CONTROVERSY AND CONJECTURE SURROUNDING THE LEADERSHIP OF BRAVO COMPANY/1ST PLATOON WHILE IN IRAQ. THIS IS NOT THE DAILY BLOG POST DETAILING YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR YESTERDAY'S TRIAL BLOG, SCROLL DOWN OR CLICK HERE.
You may recall that earlier this week, we heard testimony from one Eric Lauzier, more specifically, his opinion on the leadership he experienced while serving in Iraq.
As I wrote on Monday:
The most controversial person to testify yet, Eric Lauzier was called to the stand. He testified about leadership, because he HAS been discharged from the Army and will suffer no repercussions from his testimony. He nearly vilified the army:
When asked about Sgt. Fenlason(the commanding officer over the co-defendants who wasn't present at TCP2 on March 12th), he appeared to become testy, saying “that man was tactically incompetent. He had what, sixteen years of service, with only four of those years spent ‘on the line’. He never fired his weapon and he’d never been fired at, he hid out at TCP1 the entire time, in fact I think he told me ‘I’ve never seen an insurgent before.’ He was a ‘hider-and-slider.’”(A hider-and-slider is a term used to describe an Army officials who “hide” from combat while sliding up the ranks). He was asked about the Combat Stress program and it’s reputation. He told the court that he overheard Cortez ask Fenlason for permission to go to Combat Stress. According to Lauzier, Fenlason’s response to Cortez was “you want to take that punk ass route? Go right ahead.”
AS THE TITLE STATES, THIS POST REGARDS CONTROVERSY AND CONJECTURE SURROUNDING THE LEADERSHIP OF BRAVO COMPANY/1ST PLATOON WHILE IN IRAQ. THIS IS NOT THE DAILY BLOG POST DETAILING YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR YESTERDAY'S TRIAL BLOG, SCROLL DOWN OR CLICK HERE.
You may recall that earlier this week, we heard testimony from one Eric Lauzier, more specifically, his opinion on the leadership he experienced while serving in Iraq.
As I wrote on Monday:
The most controversial person to testify yet, Eric Lauzier was called to the stand. He testified about leadership, because he HAS been discharged from the Army and will suffer no repercussions from his testimony. He nearly vilified the army:
When asked about Sgt. Fenlason(the commanding officer over the co-defendants who wasn't present at TCP2 on March 12th), he appeared to become testy, saying “that man was tactically incompetent. He had what, sixteen years of service, with only four of those years spent ‘on the line’. He never fired his weapon and he’d never been fired at, he hid out at TCP1 the entire time, in fact I think he told me ‘I’ve never seen an insurgent before.’ He was a ‘hider-and-slider.’”(A hider-and-slider is a term used to describe an Army officials who “hide” from combat while sliding up the ranks). He was asked about the Combat Stress program and it’s reputation. He told the court that he overheard Cortez ask Fenlason for permission to go to Combat Stress. According to Lauzier, Fenlason’s response to Cortez was “you want to take that punk ass route? Go right ahead.”
I have received a response from Mr. Jeff Fenlason himself, regarding these allegations, which he requests that I post. It is as follows:
"Thanks.
I am not worried too much about what people think about me
anymore. They are entitled to their opinion - and I have mine about many of them as well! As you know, what you have been told or heard in court does not represent the whole story, just the parts of the story that suit different people's need. I have consistently believed that this case is unique, that it has leadership and other complexities that the Army should spend time looking at, and that to tell any story accurately you have to see the same issue from all sides equally.
There are those who were in my platoon who did not like, nor agree with my decisions. That's fine. They were not asked to make those decisions. I was and did. I have never shied away from hard questions regarding them. They were then, and remain tactically sound. Not because I say so, but because the Army said so. I have been investigated, judged, examined, defined etc pretty thoroughly. Somebody's opinion of me in an email or anonymous post doesn't really matter much.
In the world of instant editorial that we live in, people should be careful to opine about anything without all the facts. For example, Ms. Mellor's comments the other day that I responded to I thought were spot-on. Her post yesterday however shows an lack of understanding of the law. And yet she is entitled to her opinion.
Jeff Fenlason"
I am not worried too much about what people think about me
anymore. They are entitled to their opinion - and I have mine about many of them as well! As you know, what you have been told or heard in court does not represent the whole story, just the parts of the story that suit different people's need. I have consistently believed that this case is unique, that it has leadership and other complexities that the Army should spend time looking at, and that to tell any story accurately you have to see the same issue from all sides equally.
There are those who were in my platoon who did not like, nor agree with my decisions. That's fine. They were not asked to make those decisions. I was and did. I have never shied away from hard questions regarding them. They were then, and remain tactically sound. Not because I say so, but because the Army said so. I have been investigated, judged, examined, defined etc pretty thoroughly. Somebody's opinion of me in an email or anonymous post doesn't really matter much.
In the world of instant editorial that we live in, people should be careful to opine about anything without all the facts. For example, Ms. Mellor's comments the other day that I responded to I thought were spot-on. Her post yesterday however shows an lack of understanding of the law. And yet she is entitled to her opinion.
Jeff Fenlason"
No comments:
Post a Comment