Lt. Col. Allen West

[wink]

I think it is worth noteing that the two most senior/experienced guys, the ones with the "T-shirt" (frogdriver and myself), are more closely aligned with kimphil then the rest of ya (it must be 10 degrees in hell).

BTW TNwhisky, I must have missed your logic. I didn't say all Democrats are hate America firsters. I said only the folks that call West a brutalist are hate America firsters. So if I have you right, you think all Democrats are calling West a brutalist, ip so facto, YOU think all Democrats are hate America firsters. Am I putting too fine a point on it?

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by vegita1220

The white flag scenario...well, consider you're in Africa and you're holding a valley between a civilian refugee column and a genocidal mob of maniacs like the countless one's we've seen in recent years who take no prisoners. You're also running low on ammo, and you've been completely cut off. Still gonna "play fair?" You'll be indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians on top of the men under your command.

I know I SAW this movie! This is the plot to Tears of the Sun. I am in love with Monica Belluci.

Too bad she wasn't featured more in Matrix Revolutions.

We can play amateur Tom Clancy and come up with an improbable scenario where narco-terrorist-facist-fundementalist carnie folk kidnap my family while at the same time holding Los Angeles hostage with a surplus Soviet suitcase nuclear weapon (it could happen!) forcing me to set aside the rules of war out of desparation to save my family and millions of Californians.

Fortunately, the day-to-day decisions a commander might have to make are more mundane. Phrogdriver makes the point I'd ignored because I thought it was assumed--We're the good guys. It's arrogant to think that because we feel our cause is just we can ignore the rules of war that inconvenience us.

If force protection and/or accomplishing the mission is valued to the extreme that we disregard how we conduct ourselves during war, we can rationalize any behavior, be it something as minor as what Lt. Col West did up to marching over to the closest village and putting a bullet in the head of every woman and child to prevent them from providing aid and comfort to the enemy. When you engage in a rationale to do whatever it takes, you're on a slippery slope.

Using the rationale that we can treat POWs in Iraq as enemy combatants and do as we please is also problematic. Besides the obvious reason of decency, the "enemy combatant" designation is of dubious legality. The reason why the government can detain prisoners without due process is not because it necessarily has that right, it's because "Gitmo" (a military facility on foriegn soil) doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts (with the possible exception of the Supreme Court) who might otherwise tell the administation it can't deny detainees due process. The "enemy combatant" designation was created because of 9/11 and might not be a precedent that has a future. Besides, it seems that only suspects apprehended in Afganistan or connected to Al Qaeda get sent to Gitmo. Also, due process is the only aspect of the Geneva Convention that is ignored by the "enemy combatant" designation; in all other respects, the detainees are treated as POWs according to provisions of the Geneva Convention.

One more thing, watched 60 Minutes tonight. Rummie was talking about Saddam. He made it clear that Saddam would be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Convention, despite the fact that some of his actions post-invasion might make him ineligible for its protection. Seems like Rummie's reading this thread.

 

[TNWhiskey]

kimphil I've got to give you credit...and please DO NOT read this in sarcastic tone...this is probably the most clearly defined and well thought out post I've seen by you...Though I may still not agree in every and most facets, the point about believing we're the good guys does play a huge role in my thinking...anyway interesting angle and putting yourself in the other guys shoes makes it easier to see your point. That being said, I still don't believe from the facts I've read and heard that he did anything wrong in that situation...

Oh and the fundamentalist carnie stuff is good too.

The enemy combatant would take lawyers getting on here for any of us to truly understand and I don't think there's any International or Constitutional law experts on the forum so I don't dare touch it...

Damn it I told someone I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore and I've broken my word...I'm out.

 

[Flash]

I have to agree with Wink and Phrog on this matter. I would like to bring up something that I have not seen yet. I learned first hand when I went through SERE that when you beat a person while interogating them, you usually receive bad information from the person you are beating. I have read several books on POW's that back this up and I am sure that many people on the forum are familiar with the prisoners in Vietnam and how unreliable the information that the North Vietnamese recieved from our guys. This has been shown to be true with police interogations as well.

As a matter of fact, one of the most effective interogators in modern warfare was a German Luftwaffe NCO who was famously nice. He treated the prisoners with the utmost respect and was very amiable with them, gaining a large amount of useful information in the meantime. After the war he was sponsored by some former POW's that he questioned to come to either Canada or the US.

My point being is that even though LCOL West thought he was doing the right thing it is a notoriously ineffective way of doing it. The point was made that we did it the right way in WWII and we still won, the same holds true today. We are better than our enemies, we don't have to sink to their level. I think LCOL West got off really light and he should consider himself lucky. He should not recieve a pat on the back or be lauded for what he did.

As for the commentator job at Fox News, they are already employing one retired officer who obeyed unlawful orders, why not add to their distingushed list.....(It is a joke, you are suppose to laugh!)

 

[riley]

I missed all of the conversation over the weekend. Most of you can ignore this post as it responds to Ryoukai's vehement attack on me. I'm an "ignorant ass bitch"? Please, let's look at what I said. I said "Krauts" and "Japs" to distinguish between the Germans and Japanese that our country fought in WWII (by the way - that is what they called them then) to all of the other people of German and Japanese descent. You seem to be the only ignorant one here, well, others post some stupid things, but you are the only one that attacks the person.

My quote on my profile is a Chinese Proverb - those existed long before the communist pinko bastards took over China and turned it into a horrible place. If you can't separate governments from the people that are under their rule - you are stupid.

I do not come from a "hill billy racist culture" - I come from a culture that tells it how it is - the communists are evil and oppressive - they are not misguided - so please take your PC bull$h1t somewhere else - I get it enough from the news.

And, frankly, I thought I went pretty easy on the "krauts" and "Japs" terminology - those a$$holes were about as evil and inhumane as anything ever recorded in the history of mankind.

I'm done now - didn't mean to drift the conversation - please continue with the original thread.

 

[BigWorm]

I think Wink just brought up an excellent point. Whether or not you agree with LtCol West’s line of thinking or not doesn’t really matter. The U.S. embraces a certain code that is fed down to us through our seniors. The higher up the food chain you go, the more of an understanding you are supposed to have of that ethic. At the O-5 pay grade, West was no exception – he made a rational choice to cross the line and face the music.

The relationship between war, politics, and morality is I think the hardest concept to grasp. All the words seem to be opposite each other, but as members of the armed service, it is our responsibility to try and make sense of it.

Kimphil makes some good arguments, rather than writing him off as the little liberal kid, I think you should take a second look at what he is saying. Phrogdriver, as always you get down to the point in an eloquent style that even Marines can understand – Yut!

Originally posted by vegita1220
Another similar perspective may be Cmdr Marcinko, whose philosophy was kill mucho bad dudes and lose zero your dudes and do whatever it takes to do that.

I read his book too. I’m not going to say anything bad, cuz he'll kick my ass, but the challenge I propose is to find an active duty SEAL and ask him what he thinks about Richard Marcinko.

 

[vegita1220]

I think the real challenge at this point probably would be FINDING an active duty SEAL.

But yeah I'd say he's at the rather extreme end of the screw treaties and PC perspective.

 

[BigWorm]

I know I’ve just got a baby dick, and don’t have the grounds to stand upon. The point isn’t to lay judgment but to learn from others. That way when I finally grow some pubs and face a similar situation, I will know that I did my homework from which my decision is based.
You can’t tell me that West thought he was in the clear. His intentions were to look out for his troops, and from most of the media articles I’ve read it sounds like the majority of the country appreciates him for that. I too would rather have a commander that places me over his career. That’s why rather than going through a court martial, he loses a paycheck.
This is an interesting topic, because there are no back and white issues, just leadership challenges. In this particular case, there was no immediate threat – just a man tied up that supposedly has information. What code did the good ol’ Col violate?

928. ART. 128. ASSAULT
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm; or
(2) commits an assault and intentionally inflicts grievous bodily harm with or without a weapon;
is guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.


The point isn’t to maim him as it is to recognize the difference between right and wrong in war.

 

[phrogdriver]

I don't have to have been starting QB for the Niners in order to talk about last week's games. Experience helps, but saying someone doesn't have the right to make conclusions about someone else's actions is ridiculous. If we can only draw on our own experiences and are not allowed to debate the merits of what others have done, where's the learning? We'll stumble through making the same mistakes that have been made before by others. I think I have a fair amount of experience, which I think helps me form opinions, but that doesn't mean that no one else is allowed to tell me anything until he's been in for 9 years too.

 

[NeoCortex]

2 quick things since I started this thread, I was wrong about the Geneva Convention, it was the Uniform Code of Justice. Second, I posted the same topic on a Special Forces Forum, and all of the guys are 100% behind Col. West, they say they would gladly take orders from him. Just to give you some idea of what the SF guys are thinking.

Ben

 

[quickandsure]

Thanks Worm for the code of conduct excerpt. Makes it much more clear. But little ole me is still confused. I heard that Col Weast's position had been attached by civilians civilians armed with guns and grenades. Rather than taking them captive for interrogation, the solders killed them all. One was a 13yo with a gun that did not even work, yet he was shot dead.

Rather than assault, should not the Col be hanged for murder, given the unforgiveable circustances?

Thanks in advance and keep up good work.

 

[NeoCortex]

Any Civilan is no longer a non-combatant if they attack you, or even if they are carrying weapons and you feel they will attack you. This is true for pregnant women carrying bombs or 3 year olds aiming a pistol at you. It is ok to kill them in self defence.

Ben

 

[spsiratt]

Originally posted by Tanya
Thanks Worm for the code of conduct excerpt. Makes it much more clear. But little ole me is still confused. I heard that Col Weast's position had been attached by civilians civilians armed with guns and grenades. Rather than taking them captive for interrogation, the solders killed them all. One was a 13yo with a gun that did not even work, yet he was shot dead.

Rather than assault, should not the Col be hanged for murder, given the unforgiveable circustances?

Yeah, he should be in all kinds of trouble! Why the hell wasn't he able to scare the bad guys enough to make them want to surrender?! Absurd! How could he not know that the 13yo's gun didn't work?! And surely bullets from a 13 yo's gun aren't as deadly as those from a full grown man's. Unbelievable! Yeah, he should be hung out to dry. (this should be dripping with sarcasm, please read it as such.)

 

[Banjo33]

So far this has been a great thread and I think everyone has had an opportunity to learn something. Personally I agree with nearly every one that has had something to share. Points that I would like to expand upon/make a little clearer and opinions that I possess:
1. The rules our country has chosen to follow in regards to POW treatment are not meant solely to protect the POW. As mentioned by BIGWORM and Phrogdriver (both of which are 100% correct) there's also a psychological aspect of it. If our enemy knows that he will be treated fairly, given medical attention, that all of his "human" needs will be met (food, clothing, shelter), treated better by our forces than his own (especially true for the Iraqi's) he is more likely to consider surrender when the "going gets tough." When one of our Commanders goes out on a limb and ignores the "Rules of War" and CMJ he puts EVERY serviceman's (present and future) life in danger. Yes, his intentions may be good (protecting his troops), but there's a such thing as the "snowball effect." A. Enemy soldiers are more likely to fight if they think they will be treated poorly as POW (think of a cat backed into a corner...he's going to cut your butt if you try and catch him) B. Other Commanders will think that bending the rules under the right circumstances won't warrant punishment (and this leads to the comment mentioned earlier...what happens when a POW's life is threatened by this Commander who has already broken the rules and the POW doesn't respond to it? He may kill him just to "set the example." These bent rules have thus gone too far and we are no longer any better than the enemy (see letter A).)
2. On a personal/moral level, I can appreciate Mr West's intent (troop welfare). Fortunately the law is the law and I'm sure he recognized this. I'm willing to bet money he knew what the consequences were for doing what he did and was willing to accept punishment for it. As a leader, you have to be prepared to make these kinds of decisions and be prepared to accept those consequences...that's why we're paid the "big bucks!" It's not an easy job, so we're encouraged to think about these things (STEX anyone?) so we will be better prepared when that time comes.
3. Kimple has made some excellent points and has expressed them in a well thought out manner. Gathering from what I've read he appears the type of person that is going to stick to the rules, no matter the consequences. This is where you really need to think! We had this discussion a few weeks ago about "following orders without question" (That was you wasn't it? I think it was) and it appears he has thought about these things and is trying to accept them. Now, the problem with how we issue orders (at least in the Marine Corps) is that they aren't EXTREMELY specific. We have a "Commanders Intent" that basically spells out what OUR Commander wants accomplished, but it's up to us as small unit leaders to determine the best course of action to accomplish the mission. It also allows us to adapt to the situation as the environment changes without having to ask Our Commander for direction. It's called Initiative and allows us to be more fluid. So, you're keeping the "rules" in mind every time you take action, which is necessary, BUT there are situations (and you fought tooth and nail to get us to realize it) where your personal morals come into play (and I believe this is where LTCOL WEST comes in). You can't allow your morals to direct your behavior. There's a reason we have National Policy and at times when you may want to say "screw it", you've got to be disciplined-think out your reasoning and if you can't justify following the rules then be prepared to accept the consequences. But, I believe these situations are RARELY encountered and then only under unusual circumstances. Do you kill the 4 year old with a live grenade that thinks it's a special toy and wants to share it with you? Are you prepared to accept the consequences when you find out it wasn't a "real" grenade but a piece of fruit? These things happen, quickly, and generally you're protected, but the one time you hesitate some of your men may die. As mentioned before there's VERY little Black and White and a whole LOT of gray.

And Ryoukai, I hate to be drawn into this argument, but I'm a hillbilly and don't resent your remark although I KNOW you meant it as an insult. If you had meant it to classify a type of people from meager background that live without many of life's luxury's and enjoy "living off the land", I still wouldn't have taken offense to it. I think he was using those "names" to reference a group of people that lived at that time and possessed certain beliefs common among that generation. He wasn't saying ALL Germans are krauts (in the derogatory sense) at least I didn't get that impression. Thicken your skin a little and try a tad more Tact. Express your displeasure if it bothers you that much and I'm sure he would be more mindful of his comments, but don't ATTACK him in the way you felt attacked, you're just stooping to his level and that's weak!

I THINK I'm satisfied with what I've typed.

 

[quickandsure]

Lets see if I get this down correctly: Not sure of the numbers but forgive me that detail.

The Col gets a pass on killing 13 civilians, including one 13yo boy that, as it turned out, was not armed with a functioning gun.

The one civilian that he did not kill, but rather captured; he let his boys rough him up a bit, threatened to kill the civilian and actually fired his gun to scare the weeweee out of him. The Col (and boys) said that he did this in order to obtain force disposition information, in order to save more lives, primarily the lives of our fathers, sons, daughters and maybe even mothers. And you are going to fry him for that.

To me that is wacko, I am on the wrong train. I want out.