Official U.S. Army Natick Report on Field Equipment Lessons Learned in Afghanistan 07/21/2002 Problems: ignored The following is an unvarnished report from a Senior NCO who fought in Anaconda. I made some punctuation and spelling corrections. Clarifications in brackets [ ]. Following his AAR is links to see the "official" report visually as power point slides and below that, the written text. Rakkasan lessons learned By a 187th Regiment 1st Sergeant "I would like to pass on a few things learned during our recent deployment. It won't be in a specific order so bare with me. I guess the biggest lesson I learned is nothing changes From how you train at jrtc. We all try to invent new dilemmas and hp's because it's a real deployment but we end up out-smarting ourselves. Go with what you know, stick with how you train. Some of the things in particular were Soldier's load, because you're in the mountains of Afghanistan you try to invent new packing lists, or new uniforms. Some units went in with gore-tex and polypro only, when the weather got bad they were the only ones to have cold weather injuries that needed to be evaced. We've all figured out how to stay warm during the winter so don't change your uniforms. It was never as cold as I've seen it here or Ft Bragg during the winter. Because of the high altitude's and rough terrain we all should have been combat light. That's the first thing you learn at jrtc [Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana], you can't fight with a ruck on your back. We packed to stay warm at night. Which was a mistake; you take only enough to survive until the sun comes up. We had extreme difficulty moving with all our weight. If our movement would have been to relieve a unit in contact or a time sensitive mission we would not have been able to move in a timely manner. It took us 8 hours to move 5 clicks. [Editor that's less than 1 mph] With just the [Interceptor hard body armor] vest and [Enhanced Tactical Load Bearing Vest or the MOLLE vest] lbv we were easily carrying 80 lbs. Throw on the ruck and your sucking. We out-smarted ourselves on how much water to carry. We took in over 12 quarts per man on our initial insertion, which greatly increased our weight. In the old days you did a three-day mission with 6 quarts of water, and that was on Ft Campbell in the summer. Granted we were all heat exhaustion [casualties] at the end but it's more than do-oable. I say go In with six quarts, if your re-supply is working than drink as much as possible keeping the six quarts in case re-supply gets weathered out. We also over tasked our helicopter support bringing in un-needed re-supply because we've lost a lot of our needed field craft. We didn't even think to take iodine tablets [to purify water from melted snow etc.] until after we got on the ground. If you're in a good fight your going to need all your birds for medevac and ammo re-supply. Bottom line is we have to train at the right Soldiers load, relearn how to conserve water. [Editor: CARRY THE DAMN AMMO YOU WOULD IN COMBAT NOW IN PEACETIME!] How many batteries does it take to sustain for three days etc.? Take what you need to survive through the night and then wear the same stuff again. The next day, you can only wear so much snivel gear. It doesn't do any good to carry enough to have a different ward robe [set of BDUs] every day. Have the bn invest in gore-tex socks, and smart wool socks; our battalion directed for every one to wear gore-tex boots [Intermediate Cold Weather Boots] during the mission, you can imagine how painful that was. 71 gave up my boots to a new Soldier who didn't have any so I wore jungle boots, gore-tex socks and a pair of smart wool socks and mv feet never got wet or cold even in the snow. You need two pairs [of boots] so you can dry them out every day. All personnel involved hated the lbv its so constricting when you wear it with the vest, then when you put a ruck on it cuts off even more circulation. I would also recommend wearing the body armor during all training, I doubt if we'll ever fight without it again. It significantly affects everything that you do. Equipment wise, our greatest shortcomings were optics and organic or direct support long-range weapons. After the initial fight all our targets were at a minimum of 1500m all the way out to as far as you could see. Our 60[mm] and 81[mm]'s accounted for most of the kills. Next was a Canadian Sniper team with a MacMillian .50 cal [sniper rifle]. They got kills all the way out to 2500m. The problem with our mortars was there as a 24 hour [Close Air Support] cas cap. And they wouldn't fly near us if we were firing indirect. Even though our max ordnant: [how high mortar rounds arc into the sky] was far beneath their patterns. Something for you and your alo [Air Liaison Officer] to work out. The other problem was the Air Force could never fly in small groups of Personnel, I watched and called corrections on numerous sorties and they could never hit the targets. My verdict is if you want it killed use your mortars. Pay close attention to ti-hz direction of attack your ALO is bringing in the CAS. Every time it was perpendicular to us we were hit with shrapnel. Not to mention the time they dropped a 2,000 lbs [bomb] in the middle of our company, it didn't go off by a sheer miracle I'm sure. [Marine] Cobras and 2.75" [rockets] shot at us. Also, once again, they were shooting perpendicular to our trace. Aviation provided the most near misses of all the things we did. I recommend all sl's [Squad Leaders] and pus [Platoon Sergeants] carry binoculars with the mils reticle. Countless times tl's [Team Leaders] and sl's had the opportunity to call in mortars. More importantly is leaders knowing how to do it. Our bn has checked all the blocks as far as that goes. Guess what they still couldn't do it. Especially the pus contrary to popular belief its not the pl [Platoon leader] who's going to call it in its the Soldier in the position who will. If you don't have the binos guess what? You have to wait for somebody to run to the M240[B Medium Machine Gun] position to go get them. Also same goes with not knowing how to do It, you have to wait for the FO [artillery or mortar Forward Observer] to move to that position. Plugger [AN/PSN-11 Global Positioning System] battle drill is the way to go, even with the civilian models [Signals are unscrambled now thanks to President Clinton]; the contour interval on the maps is outrageous so terrain association was difficult. Range Estimation was probably the most important or critical thing you do. If you close on your estimation you'll get the target. We all carried in 2 mortar rounds apiece and that was more than enough. We took mix of everything; the only thing we used was wp [White Phosphorous] and he [High Explosive]. All together we took in at least 120 rounds as a company air assault. Its was always seats out due to the limited # of ac [aircraft] and the # of personnel we had to get in. That presents a few problems. Offloading a CH-47 on a hot lz [landing zone] packed to the gills is an extremely slow process (2-3 minutes). Landing was the most dangerous part. While we were there just because of the conditions and terrain, if you crash without seats and seatbelts your going to have a lot of broken bones. If possible maybe you could send in the first few lifts with seats in, that will get the helo off the lz much quicker then following ac seats out. Food for thought Just like the Vietnam the pilots were courageous and will do all and even more of what you ask of them. However, re-supply was a big difficulty. Problem was they never put the right package at the right place and you know what that means, especially when its 120mm mortar rounds that fell into a deep ravine. Fix was put a lno [Liaison Officer] on the bird with grids frequencies's and call signs. Our S-4 had a group of supply sergeants that would accompany the re- supply's. Also as the S-3 push the birds down to the company freqs. That killed us the whole time. Bn would never push the birds down to us so they were always landing in the wrong place or dropping off resupply in the wrong place. Same with AH-64s [Apache Attack helicopter gunships] we always say give them to the user but we never do it. We always had to relay thru the S-3 to give corrections. Flying was by far the most dangerous thing we did while we were there. The environment was extremely harsh. The cold wasn't that bad, its the hard cold dry wind that will eat you up like you wouldn't believe. Chapstick, chapstick, chapstick, sun screen, sun screen, sun screen. [4x2 All-Terrain Vehicles made by John Deere] Gators, didn't hold up to good, that place eats up tires like you wouldn't believe. [Editor: why we need TRACKED vehicles] They're a great thing to have when their running. Also there real easy getting them into to the fight, getting out is a different story, your always scrounging for ac when its time to go. So be prepared to leave a few Gators. [WTFO?] We used the [Javelin missile Command Launch Unit infared thermal sights] clu's a lot, every night for that matter. Beautiful piece of equipment. They consume a lot of batteries and add a lot of weight. After it snowed, two in the company stopped working until they dried out a few days later. Other than that they held up real well. Go in with a good or should I say great [battlesight] zero on all your weapon's. We never got a chance to re zero while we were there. Also zero all your spare weapons for replacements etc. On our last mission I hit a dud M203 [grenade] at 75m with one round from my M4 using my M68 [Close Combat Optic]. It held a zero great. A 1SG [1st Sergeant] doesn't normally abuse his weapon like a young Soldier does though. However, if they treat their weapons like tiller nintendos they should be alright. Our bn bought the ammo bags for the M240[B Medium Machine Guns] from London Bridge, they worked great. Knee pads are a must, needless to say not all personnel had some msr stoves are the shit, and they burn any kind of fuel. Quality sun glasses probably more important [as] would be safety or shooting glasses. Bolle goggles are the way to go if you can afford it. We had one guy who was hypothermic one night, the medics and a wool blanket saved his ass. Green wool still can't be beat. Fleece gloves are the best. We also eventually (after we were done) received Barrett .50 cals [2+ km range] for our snipers. Their M24's [308 caliber, 7.62mm range only 1 km] never got used because of the extreme ranges. I think each company should have one. Or a sniper team or a M2 [Heavy Machine Gun] with crew. Lots of thermite grenades and C-4, we used them a lot our engineers were great Proficiency with the M203's [Grenade Launchers] right now there isn't a viable sight for the M-4 [5.56mm Carbine], so lots of practice with Kentucky windage. Lots of HE also mounting brackets for the [an/] peq-2 [Night laser aiming device] for the AT-4's [M136 84mm disposable rockets] the smaw-d [Disposable version of 83mm shoulder fired medium assault weapon rocket launcher] comes with one. Also the smaw-d is smaller, easier to carry and hits significantly harder. Won't collapse a cave but will definitely clear it. Soldiers did great you can always depend on them. They are extremely brave and want to fight. Gotta do realistic training, they'll do it just like we teach them, they'll patch a bullet hole just like you taught them in EIB, but they won't take off the Soldier's vest to check for more bullet holes etc. Because of the extreme ranges you need the 3x adapters for the [AN/PVS-7B Night Vision Goggles] nvg's There's a lot more I could talk about but probably better left unsaid on e-mail. Hope this gives you some food for thought" PROBLEMS FOREWARNED: The 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne) since 1997 has online; www.geocities.com/equipmentshop offered and detailed through U.S. Army official channels; commercial, off-the- shelf and equipment modification solutions to almost every problem listed (and then some like ahumm, SOLVING THE SOLDIER'S LOAD) in the appalling recent U.S. Army Natick Afghanistan Report (which is viewable here). As we also forewarned, the u.s. marine designed "MOLLE" gear has been a COMPLETE and utter failure in Afghanistan service--even for the short time marines made a token ground appearance and fled back to their ships as the U.S. Army dodges the RPGs, mortars and AKM rounds to hunt down and kill the enemy terrorists. The bottom line is, closed-minded and small-minded people (we know all about them, don't we?) are running the Congressionally-mandated and funded Army's Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) which could have PREVENTED this sad state of affairs by some low-cost purchases. Want to make a suggestion to SEP? SEP Home Page Make a Soldier Equipment Improvement suggestion to SEP How about posting a suggestion to someone that DOES CARE? Got bad gear, Soldier? Nobody listening? Post your ideas at Brigade Quartermasters: they'll get good gear to the good guys (you) www.actiongear.com/bbactiongear2/main.asp Defense Week August 12, 2002 Pg. 1 Afghanistan Exposed Flaws In Army Field Gear: Report By Nathan Hodge An internal Army survey has found a number of flaws in gear used by infantry Soldiers in Afghanistan during combat operations. According to the document, U.S. Soldiers found much to praise about their gear. But they also singled out problems with vital pieces of equipment such as body armor and boots. In addition, they reported weapons that malfunctioned or were difficult to maintain, including the M4 Carbine, M9 Pistol and the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. The survey was conducted this spring, but its findings have not been publicized. It was provided to Defense Week by someone concerned about the quality of personnel gear. The document provides an inside look at shortfalls in equipment on which Soldiers' lives and missions often depend. However, the Army office that is reviewing the report says the findings are nothing new and that the service is already in the process of fielding better gear. In mid-March, U.S. Central Command asked the Natick Soldier Center, the Army's laboratory for developing and testing new Soldier equipment, to evaluate the performance of Soldiers' small arms and field gear. Army Lt. Col. Charlie Dean of Natick traveled to Afghanistan to interview soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Division who took part in Operation Anaconda, the last set-piece battle in Afghanistan; Natick also surveyed 10th Mountain Soldiers after they returned to Ft. Drum, N.Y. The Army declined to make Dean available for an interview, saying he was going on temporary duty overseas. Steve Pinter, deputy project manager for Soldier Systems at the Army's Program Executive Office-Soldier (PEO-Soldier) at Ft. Belvoir, Va., downplayed the findings, saying: "From the PEO's perspective, there was very little, if any, new information in the report." [Courtney Massengale] PEO-Soldier manages the field gear in question. In an interview, Pinter said the Army is already readying better equipment. But the service just hasn't given it to Soldiers yet. "It's a function of fielding it to the entire force in quantity," he said. Ill-fitting armor For instance, the report found the standard-issue ("ALICE") rucksack was a poor fit with the Army's new Interceptor Body Armor. The 16.4-pound body armor consists of a Kevlar vest, detachable neck and groin guards and a pair of ceramic plates that slide into front and rear pockets. The vest alone can protect against shrapnel and 9mm pistol rounds. When inserted, the ceramic plates can halt 7.62mm rifle bullets-the same ammunition used in the Kalashnikov assault rifles favored by al Qaeda fighters. During Operation Anaconda, Soldiers reportedly removed the back plate to increase their mobility, because the ALICE backpack was a poor fit. Pinter explained that the body armor is designed to complement a new and improved rucksack called the Load Carriage System, not the older ALICE pack. "The direction from senior Army leadership was everyone going into theater would have the new body armor, for obvious reasons," he said. "So if you were in a unit that had the new body armor and the old rucksack, there were some compatibility issues when you wore the back plate of your body armor. ... When you put the new body armor with the new load carriage, they are compatible." Undoubtedly, the new body armor saved many lives. According to after-action reports, almost all of the wounds suffered by Soldiers during Anaconda were in the extremities, suggesting that the helmet and body armor did a good job of protecting the head and vital organs. But at least one Soldier may have suffered a fatal wound because of a poor fit. According to the report: "Proper sizing [for body armor] was an issue. One Soldier was killed when he was shot through the side and the bullet passed between the front and rear armor by the sizing straps." No vest can offer complete protection from a high-powered rifle round. But if worn correctly, the body-armor system is supposed to reduce the chance of that happening. "I am not familiar with that particular instance," said Pinter. "However, the body armor that we're talking about does not cover the entire body, for obvious reasons. The plates basically cover the chest area and the back area ... and there are areas that the Soldier's still vulnerable." The body armor problem was one of several. Operation Anaconda was conducted at high altitudes, and Soldiers complained their desert boots were not suited to the task. [Editor they are HOT WEATHER not mountain boots!] In addition, Soldiers paid for a lot of key items out of pocket, including flashlights, CamelBak hydration systems, weapons-cleaning kits, flexible gloves and miniature binoculars. Pinter pointed out that the Army is phasing in items like the CamelBak, but it will be "numerous years" before every Soldier can be issued one. "Actually the Army is currently issuing CamelBak with the new Load Carriage System [backpack]," he said. "However, we are in the very early stages of fielding the new Load Carriage System, and so not every soldier has CamelBak." [Editor: "LCS" is a misleading term to cover up the fact that its the failed marine designed MOLLE system that's being fielded] Into the circular file? Pinter said PEO-Soldier's current product manager, Lt. Col. Dave Anderson, "is in receipt of the report. He and his team are taking a hard look at the issues that were brought up. I'd like to note, though, that some of these issues may be anecdotal." [Editor: more pooh, poohing] Also, Pinter said it is impossible for the Army to tailor gear to everyone's satisfaction: "When you talk about the individual uniforms and clothing and equipment, everyone has their own taste. It's the responsibility of the leadership to field something that's credible and operationally suitable across the force. Generally speaking, if you have a hundred Soldiers, not all hundred Soldiers are going to like the way the equipment is worn and utilized." [Patronizing attitude displayed here] That is the sort of view that infuriates Mike Sparks, a former active-duty infantry officer who runs a discussion group and web site (geocities.com/air_mech_strike) devoted to Army equipment. He called the report a "whitewash" and suggested it would be merely filed away. "These people don't want to solve problems and face problems," he said. Sparks advocates a more bottom-up approach to fielding better gear, with the Army more actively soliciting input from the Soldiers who wear the equipment. "Why can't the Soldiers have a [part in the] decision-making process to decide what gear the Army pays for?" he asked. Pinter said there are "several avenues" for taking troops' suggestions. The congressionally mandated Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) provides annual funding to PEO-Soldier to take ideas from industry and from the field, he said. Sparks was skeptical of that approach. "This is why a lot of our gear sucks," he said. "Most colonels I've run into are concerned more with form than function and are not techno-tactically oriented and candid." He suggested the Army tap the expertise of "gear gurus" in individual units, giving them the chance to train at Natick. "These gear experts would go to Natick Labs and be school trained on the proper fit and wear of all Army equipment and have field living [survival skills] taught to them," he said. "They can advise commanders that a hot- weather desert boot is not a mountain boot and how to properly size Soldiers for body armor so a bullet doesn't sneak by and kill them." GEAR PROBLEMS LOW-PRIORITY WHEN IT COMES TO MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO The Afghan power points below show a number of gear problems that many of us have solved and proposed solutions through SEP and Natick channels all for naught. The Brits have a plastic ammo box for their M240-type medium machine guns. We could have upgraded the Kevlar helmet with a better chinstrap and suspension, offered the Nomex flyer's glove with a little insulation and in a black color, ALICE rucksacks could have synthetic frames and quick-release buckles, issued a chest binocular/NVG pouch and provided a toothbrush/shaving razor cartridge attachment point on the end of the MRE spoon years ago. However, the decision makers generally don't act on Soldier inputs. The Afghan gear report is likely going to "whitewash" systemic failures so this is why we are calling on a Soldier board to be formed and given the money, authority and time to make Soldier gear decisions to prevent recurring failures like experienced in Afghanistan. Whoever is ruining SEP should be replaced by someone who listens and ACTs on suggestions for improvement by Soldiers instead of pooh-poohing (ignoring) them with words like "dislikes" and "anecdotal". Tell the families of the dead Soldiers that their son's death was "anecdotal". If a piece of gear doesn't work, gets left behind or gets someone killed it isn't some trivial matter. The enemy terrorists got away from our Anaconda cordon and search operation while we were bogged down with equipment, a lot of it bad, so this is not a small matter. Details: www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/realmountaindivision.htm Solution: Soldier TA-50 Board and Subject Matter Experts in every Army unit OK. I think you see we are furious, and rightfully so. Here is THE ultimate solution. We've just learned that its a "Council of Colonels" that meets to decide gear for us grunts for the SEP program to "type classify" (tested to "perfection" to be declared Army kosher) when it should be the lower-ranking gear gurus who are actually humping (carrying) the machine guns, rockets and mortars from every Army command representing their specific climes/places/missons. This is why a lot of our gear sucks. Most Colonels we've run into are concerned more with form than function and are not technotactically oriented and candid. SGTs, LTs and CPTs should decide on our new gear. The expertise of the natural "gear gurus" should be tapped and have them designated as a "Master TA-50 Specialist"---an additional skill identifier (ASI). These gear experts would go to Natick Labs and be school trained on the proper fit and wear of ALL Army equipment and have field living (survival skills) taught to them so they can advise Commanders that a hot weather desert boot is NOT a mountain boot and how to properly size Soldiers for body armor so a bullet doesn't sneak by and kill them. The Army's Master TA- 50 Specialists would also train the Soldiers in their companies how to wear and maintain their TA-50 as well as be pro-active about getting better gear. The Army is strangely an organization that goes "camping" yet hasn't trained itself how to "camp". Lay on top the need for combat mobility 4-7 mph which requires smart loading and constantly improved equipment, its clear that a Soldier from every Company in the Army should go to "gear school" to become a Master TA-50 Expert. To fund this we should cancel the un-needed LAV-III/Stryker deathtrap armored car purchases and upgrade superior tracked M113A3 Gavins into IAVs for the IBCTs. Call them tracked IBCTs or "Gavin Brigades". An Army bureaucrat informs us that Company Commanders can buy with unit funds whatever gear they need for their men from the GSA Catalog and CTA 5900 (not Army "type classified" but available for purchase: "good enough" using Army funds) but this is something that's not pro-actively done and known about. Have you ever heard about this? GSA catalog is on CDs Supply Sergeants have so it takes a bit of looking when it should be on the www for all Soldiers to see. What we need is a Soldier's Board of lower ranking gear experts who will review new gear, get it on the GSA Catalog/CTA 5900 and then publish an annual focused list throughout the Army encouraging Commanders/units/individuals to buy these items. Apparently its ok for units to fund-raise to build up a unit fund or this purpose, too so not having the money is not an obstacle. This list of authorized field gear on GSA/CTA 5900 should be placed on the Army Knowledge Online (AKO) secure web site so any Soldier can see what the Soldier Board recommends they get ASAP. Every year, every Major Army Division (Airborne, Air Assault, Light, Mechanized, Armored etc.) and separate unit (2nd ACR, 172nd Arctic Brigade, SF, Rangers) has ITS SOLDIERS select by vote a field gear representative who will travel to Fort Benning, Georgia to decide for the rest of the Army what off-the-shelf Soldier gear to buy and what gear to develop. Every unit has at least one "gear guru" right for this job; a pro-active Soldier who studied field gear and on his own tinkers and tests what works and does not. THE CHAIN OF COMMAND DOES NOT SELECT THE GEAR BOARD SOLDIERS. Some out-of-touch Army General does NOT select some political yes-man to be on the board to keep the troops ill-equiped and "in their place". Some DA civilian with a ponytail going through perpetual mid-life crisis does NOT decide what items are bought or developed, THE SOLDIERS DECIDE. No "Council of Colonels". Its the individual Soldier's lives that are at stake not some bureaucrat in a comfy office with one retirement already under his belt longing for the good 'ole days when the equipment they had sucked and everyone liked it. What the Soldier TA-50 Board decides AUTOMATICALLY become AUTHORIZED Soldier optional wear/use items without the current kill-joy, politically correct "uniform board" having one say in their decisions. They do a great job keeping everyone miserable and without esperit de corps during garrison hours; the field Soldier's attire should be guided by FUNCTION decided by the mud-Soldiers. Each year a list of acceptible alternatives will be decided on by the Board for Soldiers to buy/use on their own option. Each year the board will decide on commensurate with the SEP budget what items will be bought/issued to enhance Soldiers immediately. And each year the board will see what industry and Natick Labs have "cooking" and provide feedback. Airborne! The Staff 1st TSG (A) WE TOLD THEM SO! The British Royal marines in Afghanistan have 7.62mm ammo boxes so their M240B-type medium machine guns are ready-to-fire, why not the U.S. Army's? 1. 7.62mm ammo bag/box www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/mmg.htm www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/pab.htm 2. (Cargo) Rigger's belts www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/rigger.htm 3. Covers for Sun, Wind, Dust Goggles, anti-fogging and optics camouflage www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/camie.htm www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/nofogofwar.htm 4. Nomex flyer's gloves beefed up to be more sturdy, enough to rappel/fast rope www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/gloves.htm 5. Smaller binos with MILS reticle and NVG chest pouch www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/nightvision.htm www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/binos.htm 6. Better poncho liners/LWSB www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/lwsb.htm 7. ALICE rucksack frame and snap fixes (use FASTEX) www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/rucksack.htm 8. Use combat MAG-1 glasses instead of brown birth control glasses www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/glasses.htm 9. Better Kevlar helmet chinstrap/suspension www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/chinstrap.htm 10. Better boot designs www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/boots.htm 11. Better body armor (gunshield) www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/gunshield.htm NEWS RELEASE from the United States Department of Defense No. 415-02 (703)697-5131(media) IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 12, 2002 (703)428-0711(public/industry) SOLDIER DIES OF WOUNDS RECEIVED IN AFGHANISTAN The Department of Defense announced today that Sgt. 1st Class Christopher James Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, N.M., died on Aug. 7 as the result of wounds received in action in Afghanistan on July 27. Speer was one of five Soldiers wounded in the same incident and had been evacuated to Germany for medical care. The other four Soldiers' injuries were not life threatening and they were treated at Bagram. Speer was assigned to Headquarters U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C. [Web version: www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2002/b08122002_bt415-02.html]