Earl,
It wasn't the battalion from 10th Mountain Div that compromised the success of Op ANACONDA. They were merely one of two manoeuvre battalions committed to a Divisional-level plan which was fundamentally flawed from the outset. The other battalion came from TF Rakkasan (3rd Bde, 101st AB Div), and they encountered similar difficulty in seizing their assigned blocking positions. Unfortunately, that is what happens when mission planning is based on fundamentally flawed intelligence and you land in a kill-zone dominated on three sides by an enemy whose strength you underestimated by at least 100%, and who is already holding your objective areas on the high ground. Try fighting up the side of a mountain against those odds. Oh, and do so without the assistance of mortars or artillery because the mission planners have elected to rely solely on attack aviation (battle-damaged and withdrawn during the first 20 minutes) and close air support (largely ineffective for the first 3 days due to weather). All things considered, I'd say that the mixed Bde(-) that air assaulted into the Shah-i-Kot did pretty well under some very adverse circumstances which were not of their own making.
Any good-sized book-store with a decent military section should have a copy of "Not a Good Day to Die", which gives a detailed account of the mission planning and subsequent events of Op ANACONDA. It is well worth the read, and does not hesitate to apportion blame at the highest levels. Some U.S. folks have heart-ache with various portions of the book, but by and large it struck me as a fairly accurate and non-partisan account of the key events that I recall hearing in the TF Rakkasan CP prior to launching our follow-up mission (Op HARPOON).
Fellow Army.ca Readers,
I can state categorically that "This Man's Army" is nothing more than sensationalist "war hero" fiction couched in the context of an actual operation (HARPOON). As I have already exposed over on SOCNET, the author's recollection of events is so rife with errors of fact and full of delusional self aggrandizement as to be laughable. If you review the thread linked above you will see that when I directly challenged him Exum waffled, qualified his statememts, and eventually gave what amounts to a "mea culpa" regarding his misrepresentation of the facts.
Exum's loose allegations of a Canadian "war crime" in particular, prompted an NIS investigation which concluded earlier this year. The investigation included interviews with many members of 3 PPCLI BG as well as "Strike Coy" from 10th Mountain Div - including Exum himself. The NIS investigators found zero evidence that such an event had occurred and completely exonnerated 3 PPCLI BG of any wrongdoing. And THAT my friends, is the danger of sensationalist military "journalism" such as Exum's - where the "facts" are distorted or conveniently disregarded and fiction is inserted to enhance the tale for public consumption. Unfounded allegations such as those made by Andrew Exum can easily result in a media feeding frenzy that automatically (and unjustly) tarnishes the reputation of a fine unit - regardless of the truth. Which is why utter bull-crap like Exum's needs to be immediately and forcefully challenged, and then thoroughly investigated. Ideally, before the inevitable media storm ensues. We were fortunate this time, in that 3 PPCLI BG's reputation remains unsullied. No thanks at all to Exum, however. He simply didn't "get it", and for that he is an utterly contemptible buffoon.
Please don't confuse "This Man's Army" with legitimate military non-fiction. It most certainly does not meet even the most basic of non-fiction criteria.....
FWIW.
