IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 909-10
October 05, 2010
DOD Identifies Army Casualty

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

Sgt. Brian J. Pedro, 27, of Rosamond, Calif., died Oct. 2 in Pol-e-Khumri, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. He was assigned to the 2nd Engineer Battalion, White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

For more information the media may contact the White Sands Missile Range public affairs office at 575-678-1134.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 908-10
October 05, 2010
DOD Identifies Army Casualty

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

Spc. Joseph T. Prentler, 20, of Fenwick, Mich., died Oct. 4 in Mama Kariz, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his military vehicle using an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, Vilseck, Germany.

For more information, the media may contact the U.S. Army, Europe, public affairs office at 011-49-6221-57-8098 or email ocpa.pi@eur.army.mil .

Stratfor’s George Friedman:

The government did not recommend that Americans not travel to Europe. That would have affected the economy and infuriated Europeans. Leaving tourism aside, since tourism season is largely over, a lot of business is transacted by Americans in Europe. The government simply suggested vigilance. Short of barring travel, there was nothing effective the government could do. So it shifted the burden to travelers. If no attack occurs, nothing is lost. If an attack occurs, the government can point to the warning and the advice. Those hurt or killed would not have been vigilant.

I do not mean to belittle the U.S. government on this. Having picked up the intelligence it can warn the public or not. The public has a right to know, and the government is bound by law and executive order to provide threat information. But the reason that its advice is so vague is that there is no better advice to give. The government is not so much washing its hands of the situation as acknowledging that there is not much that anyone can do aside from the security measures travelers should already be practicing.

Interpretation One: It’s cynical. Providing the warning covers the administration’s ass — well, somewhat — if ultimately an attack manifests. But everyone recognizes that the economic interest associated with business travel is large. So you get a warning with little instruction or clarity.

Interpretation Two: It’s responsible. Everyone recognizes that the economic interest associated with business travel is large. And no one can really say with certainty that the capabilities associated with the plot are marginal. So you get a warning with little instruction or clarity, because there’s little instruction or clarity to be had. That’s what resilience in an age of terrorism requires.

You tell me…