Lt. Col. Allen West

[Ryoukai]

Hey Riley, you ignorant ass bitch, why don't you throw around a few more racial slurs for no real reason aside from your hill billy racist culture. Yeah, not so funny when the shoe is on the other foot, is it. "Krauts" and "Japs"...honestly, are you really and stupid? Strange that you attack communists when you listed your favorite as coming from China. Excuse me, your good friend, disgustingly overt hypocrisy, is at the door.

 

[vegita1220]

Slasher has a point:

If a terrorist was time-sensitive(that's synonymous with "right the F now") information regarding a nuclear weapon within the heart of one of America's major metropolitan cities, I doubt anybody here would hesitate to beat him, his family, or whatever the F it took to get that information IMMEDIATELY. This may seem irrelevant but it actually isn't:
We value those many million lives and are willing to let one person suffer unduly in order to get that information.

What LtCol West did was he placed the lives of his men and civilians above that of the poor sucker getting interrogated. Now you may be saying 2 million is not the same as a couple of hundred. Well, how many lives IS worth beating somebody up? In the eyes of LtCol West, I think even three or four would have been enough. To quote Heinlein, "Men are not potatoes."(Meaning numbers don't matter) 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.

In other words, I think what slasher is saying is only when you've served in the military and understand the bond of camaraderie formed in combat can you understand why West did what he did.
Of course, I don't really know if that's what he meant. Furthermore, I'm not saying whether what he did was even ethically right or wrong.

Personally, I think he was fulfilling his duty as a military officer to preserve the lives of his men AND accomplishing his mission. Correct me if I'm wrong gentlemen(and any ladies) but that IS those are the two ultimate reponsibilities of military officers, right?

 

[flynavy]

Kimphil, you're ****ing ignorant. I am around Marine Corps reservists every day. I know that any one of them would have done what Lt. Colonel West did to save their men. I am in the Naval Reserve hoping to switch to the Marine Corps. I can tell you I probably would have acted the same way. I do not know as much as active duty military personnel by far, but what I have learned has instilled in me a sense of respect and protectiveness for my comrades. Officers' duty is to lead, help, and protect the men and women under their command. Just be glad that there are brave men and women that are willing to walk right into combat so that you don't ever have to.

 

[kimphil]

Here's a hypothetical situation to consider.

I'm a commander and my men are surrounded by an enemy with superior firepower. I leave my position waving a white flag to signal surrender. When the enemy comes out to apprehend me, my men ambush the enemy and kills them. We've accomplished our mission--the enemy is dead and my men are alive and we get to go home and see our families. Happy ending.

Am I a hero? Hell no, I'm a coward. I've just committed a war crime. Because of my selfish (not selfless) desire to see myself and my men live, I've endangered every man that may choose to surrender in the conflict I'm a part of.

When the PLO use ambulances to transport weapons (a charge leveled by the Israelis) and subsequently the Israelis attack ambulances and kill non-combatants, that's a consequence of violating the rules of war.

Your terrorist with the nuke scenario (wasn't that the plot of last season's 24?) doesn't apply. You're talking about an enemy combatant (let's use that term) targeting non-combatants, not an insurgent (the Iraqi in question) targeting military personnel (West and his soldiers). That's not terrorism, that's war.

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by flynavy
Kimphil, you're ****ing ignorant. I am around Marine Corps reservists every day. I know that any one of them would have done what Lt. Colonel West did to save their men. I am in the Naval Reserve hoping to switch to the Marine Corps. I can tell you I probably would have acted the same way. I do not know as much as active duty military personnel by far, but what I have learned has instilled in me a sense of respect and protectiveness for my comrades. Officers' duty is to lead, help, and protect the men and women under their command. Just be glad that there are brave men and women that are willing to walk right into combat so that you don't ever have to.

I'm "****ing ignorant" because I can understand the difference between right and wrong? Do us all a favor. Stay in the Navy. The Marine Corps doesn't need cowboys that ignore the rules of war that inconvenience them.

 

[phrogdriver]

I don't believe in hanging the man out to dry. However, he knew he was breaking the rules by his actions. In the heat of the moment, decisions had to be made. Once that moment's over, one has to face the music. The degree of violation isn't huge. He doesn't deserve the brig, but he definitely doesn't deserve a command, either.

You can't just let him slide. Whether our enemies are civilized or not, we are the good guys. We are superior to the Islamofascists (to borrow a term from Michael Savage). We have to set the high ground. This officer threatens a prisoner's life. Let this go because of extenuating circumstances, and what's the next guy going to do? Hook jumper cables to an EPW's balls? Shoot one prisoner in the head to scare his buddy? "Well, it was is the heat of battle...We need 'take charge' leaders out there..."

This is besides the practical reasons we treat prisoners well. It's easier to have an enemy surrender that to fight him. He's not going to surrender at all if we treat prisoners like crap. Why did the Germans fight like hell against the Russians in the last days of WWII and surrender to us? Besides, if you go to SERE school, you'll learn than information gained under duress is generally crap. Psychological pressure works much better than physical if your goal is intel rather than propaganda. It just takes more time and more discipline.

I have been in a few contingency ops. Admittedly, probably not as hairy as what LtCol West's unit was in. However, if I stretched the rules on the ground or in the air to accomplish a mission, I wouldn't expect any accomodation for having done so.

 

[TNWhiskey]

Kimphil, as a point of reference the Iraqi's actually did fein a surrender and cost 13 Marines their lives.

Also, the Nuke reference is relevant...We're fighting non-Iraqi insurgents, not Iraqi's for the most part who indeed are targeting civilian buildings and infrastructure in addition to Iraqi Police and Coalition forces.

I guess rather than route out the bad guys by threatening a few of their conspirators we should simply bomb every country from which they come from, because that puts a uniformed military in play, right? This isn't war as usual...Remember the Colonials didn't play by the established "gentelmen's war" the British and French fought back in the 17th and 18th centuries...the point is War evolves, the Geneva convention while still relevant for the most part was established for massive engagements fought under different circumstances...i.e. 99% of combatants wear a uniform and you know who's on who's side other than spies.

Once war evolves into playing hide and seek in the population, alla the Viet Cong it gets nasty as history shows. The Viet Cong didn't hesitate to torture American GI's to put fear into their comrades...I'm not totally learned in the Vietnam war but did we do that first? So our guys start cutting off their deads' dicks and putting them in their mouths for payback...My point while being better than the other guy is desired and ideal, WAR IS HELL...if guys start getting cut up, electrocuted, and otherwise tortured then yeah I would draw the line...but roughing them up and threatening to kill them so what...We know that West would have paid a HUGE price if he would have actually killed him, he simply took advantage of the fact that Iraqi apparently didn't know the rules of war and took the threat for real...I call that calculated to brutal. Of course I will say this...I wasn't there so in all reality I didn't see what he allowed his men to do so I could be defending someone who actually DID do something wrong. From the facts known I say he did his duty.

 

[vegita1220]

kimphil, if you're unhappy about the nuke in New York, change that to buried nukes in lead containers buried in various places under the First MarDiv if you'd like.
whiskey, my nuke reference can be changed to package of C4 in baghdad if you don't like that reference either. The whole friggin point is, people's lives are at risk and you have a choice to do something...what do you do?

Enemy combatant targeting military personnel again...still willing to let thousands of US soldiers die? That's a lot of flags, coffins, and letters all because you were unwilling to push some guy around. I hear in 24 they also threatened the guy's family...

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. It's not just about staying alive(great song), it's also about accomplishing the mission. Is it right? Personally, I agree with you that that's wrong. But that's because of a sense of honor instilled in me by society/upbringing/other pyschology term.
In other words, my point is: isn't it possible if not even right to "play dirty" under the right circumstances? And in that case, what defines the right circumstances? I don't think I wanna go there.
And it's not like we can just accept all the regs and international treaties: are you really gonna bitch out a Marine officer who takes off his rank insignia during combat? Or a Navy corpsman who decides to pack heat and cover over his red cross armband in combat?
Ok now i'm just rambling so I think I'll take a break.

 

[wutzu]

If you think Lt. Col. West got a raw deal, you're not alone. This is a thread on military.com that all of you guys should check out if you haven't already.

http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTo...69719858&m=8191998786&r=8191998786#8191998786

Send money to LtCol. West c/o Larry King to show support for troops doing what has to get done.

 

[slasher]

Kimphil,

the 4th Geneva Convention applies to uniformed service members of recognized nation-states. It makes no provisions for terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters etc. and that's how I justify it. That's why Bush can hold those people in Gitmo with no due process--they are terrorists, NOT soldiers.

And Vegita had me pegged, too bad it went over your head.

Since you're so fond of hypotheticals, here's one for you. Say your immediate family members are kidnapped and they're about to be executed. You manage to corner someone who's involved in the kidnapping. Are you telling me you wouldn't do WHATEVER it took to extract the necessary info from the kidnapper in order to save your loved ones, the consequences be damned? I shouldn't hope so.

Because those are the same types of familial bonds soldiers form. I would do ANYTHING to save my "brothers," who cares if it meant my career--at least they would be safe.

 

[phrogdriver]

Since we're dealing with hypotheticals...someone drew the conclusion that since it's all right to torture someone to save a city, then it's also okay in order to save one or two troops. So, as long as we're riding the train to its logical conclusion, this means that any intelligence that might help to any degree, however small, is worth threatening the lives of, or torturing prisoners. So, if we do that, how is it that we're better than the enemy?

There are a lot of gray areas here. LtCol West may not deserve the brig, but he doesn't deserve for his actions to be endorsed. He threatened a prisoner's life, and the prisoner blinked. The question is whether LtCol West was willing to carry out his implied threat. Would he be a hero if he'd blown the brains out of an unarmed man? If you endorse threatening prisoners, by extension you also believe in capping them at some point. Maybe that looks really tough and bad ass in the movies, but in real life, that's called wrong.

The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with this argument. Right and wrong is what it's about.

To those who say that our enemies have never followed the rules of war and that's an excuse for us, that's a damn good reason why we should continue to do the right thing. We beat the Germans and Japanese doing the right thing, and we'll do the same here.

 

[TNWhiskey]

Well said phrogdriver...Damn good argument.

I want to agree with you, but I can't on an emotional level...how do you allow troops to die when it can be avoided? (note: that I still don't advocate ruthless torture or execution in any case)...AND how does this tie in to the notion that you should never give up those under your command if they have a way to resist (i.e. threaten someone who you know is weak minded)? I know its reaching a bit but nevertheless takes the discussion on from a new angle.

 

[vegita1220]

phrog, I'm not saying my hypotheticals should be accepted as gospel. I'm trying to use them to show the dangers of excusing actions because as "riding the train to the logical conclusion" says, it's really hard to know when to draw the line...1 million people? Three? Two hundred? One?

What I'm trying to do is to show what might have been going through West's mind, which is that in his mind his actions were probably justified in his perspective. I'm using my hypotheticals to show how easily somebody could easily equate one million strangers to a battalion he probably saw as his own family, and even kids.

 

[slasher]

While it's a good point, I don't believe parts of that are true. There's a big difference between making a threat and carrying it out. We all know this to be true. Because if talk implied intention, then MANY of us here would be imprisoned for murder. I'd rather be beat for info than psychologically mind-F$*#&! for it--bruises heal, psychological trauma doesn't--that comes from personal experience.

btw, I do have a problem with how West carried out his mission--I'm simply playing devil's advocate. lol

 

[BigWorm]

You are never going to run into a black and white decision where if I torture this guy, then two guys live where as if I don’t torture them they are going to die. Ultimately, there is no line, just a leadership challenge. If you want to use the movie example, I think Platoon is more fitting than the nukes. Do you side with Barnes or Elias?

Look at the goal of liberating Iraq. We say that Sadam is a threat to society because of his morality and want to put a new government in his place. What ground do we have to say that we are moral and right by our actions if we don’t do it the right way.

If you haven’t read Warfighting (MCDP-1) I recommend it, you can download it off tbs.usmc.mil it’s a quick read and will give a better understanding of how everything ties together.