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.
