Posted on 11/06/2003 4:44:20 AM PST by Jeff Head
The following is Lt. Col. Allen B. West's own candid comment regarding the situation he faced in Iraq, as reported by the Washington Dispatch on November 5, 2003:
"I have never denied what happened and have always been brutally honest," said Col. West. "I accept responsibility for the episode, but my intent was to scare this individual and keep my soldiers out of a potential ambush. There were no further attacks from that town. We ... apprehended two other conspirators (a third fled town) and found out one of the conspirators was the father of a man we had detained for his Saddam Fedeyeen affiliation. "Colonel West takes personal responsibility for his actions. He makes no bones about it, he threatened this Iraqi spy bodliy harm to get information from him. And that is what he was, a spy working within the Iraqi Police Force that has been established and supported by the coalition authority. As a spy, under the so-called rules of war, I believe he could have shot the man. Perhaps that is an angle that should be explored.
In either case, Colonel West's actions no doubt saved the lives of Americans...the lives he is principally responsible for...and that was his motivation.
He understood that while he may have violated the rules (and he admits to and takes responsibility for this as well)...he also understood he was going to do what had to be done, in a war zone, to save the lives of the men under his command.
The rules were written by men and women sitting in safe seats far away from combat and the brutal reality of the moment. For the most part they are good rules and should not be violated. But there are times when the SHTF that you have to do what you must to save the lives of those you are responsible for, American lives, and accomplish the mission. Colonel West knew his greater responsibility and he performed it, regardless of personal cost. The trait of a true leader in my book.
President Truman incinerated tens of thousands of Japanese to save hundreds of thousands of Americans...and in so doing he also saved millions of Japanese. In today's world and PC nomenclature this might be considered a war crime...a violation of the "rules". But back then it was heralded by the soldiers as a God-send...and by Americans back home as what had to be done to end the war. People who had seen for themsleves the cold reality of four years of World War.
That generation is dying out and it seems we have forgottent their experiences and the lessons.
The reality is, that by scaring this man in the fashion he did...West not only saved American lives...he saved the lives of Iraqis as well.
God bless you Colonel West...you've got my back any time!
Charlie Mike.
Attacking the commander has always been a military objective. That the commander wishes to thwart such an attack does not take it out of the realm of the professional conduct of operations and devolve it into merely a personal vendetta by Col West against this Iraqi, or Iraqis in general. This is most assuredly a military threat and appropriate military action to resist is Col West's sacred duty as prescribed by the traditions of service of this great country.
Brilliant!
IMHO, Lt. Col. West acted in a time-critical combat situation to accomplish his mission and minimize casualties (I will use that instead of the term "loss of life" to address your assertion regarding loss of life). He did so knowing the risks and willing to be accountable for them. His decision...his judgement panned out and the mission was accomplished and in all likelihood, casualties were averted.
I would rather have it this way, than to have had the attack pan out so we could see and discover first-hand whether or not if American lives were lost.
I appreciate your concerns and arguements...and agree with some of them. I also appreciate the way you have carried yourself in the discussion while you have been under some pretty direct fire.
Most of all, I appreciate your service to our Republic, irrespective of whether I agree with you on this particular issue.
I believe we both agree that West is willing to be accountable and that now that accountability will play itself out in the military proceedings. I believe that all of the info will come out in that proceeding and that the military court will make an appropriate decision for the military based on all of the info and West will face the accountability.
Having said that, I will support his actions, in either case, because IMHO they helped accomplish the mission and minimize US casualties and were taken at personal risk in order to do so.
West's risk and his willingness to accept accountability for them are, in my book, actions and service above and beyond the call of duty.
This needs to be highlighted.
JAG is not troops on the ground in foxholes carrying rifles. They are a bunch of lawyers, in the service, back in airconditioned buildings, probably not even in theater. And they answer to the court martial convening authority, who is the senior commander with troops on the ground in theater.
It is normally the senior commander in the "area" and I would guess it is Gen. Abizaid. Nothing in particular meant against Gen. Abizaid who by all reports is a fine officer, but the military of the last so many years being what it is, whether the commander has combat experience is a hit or miss kind of thing.
How did West's actions become known at all?
Did somebody rat him out?
According to the UCMJ assault is a punishable offense. The UCMJ is silent on LTC West. Whether LTC West committed assault is to be determined in a finding of fact. Assault, as in all crimes, requires criminal intent. Talking to my neighbor while holding a pruning hook in my hand is not a crime. Telling him to stop calling the police about my son's stereo while holding the pruning hook in a threatening manner is.
The first step in any Aricle 15 proceeding is to determine whether the charges should be disposed of administratively or whether it should go forward to a hearing before the appropriate commander. The commander has the same kind of discretion that a public prosecutor has.
One of those things is that fact that our soldiers are expected, in addition to necessarily following orders, to think for themselves as well. Officers particularly are not ordered in every jit and tottle regading their mission and all of the contingencies that surround it. Thye are expected to be able to, and trained to think and take initiative.
They are also duty bound to not obey illegal orders and thertefore must have a solid education and footing on what their orders are, but also on what constitutes their highest duties to the constitution are so they can recognize illegalities.
This case does not involve West disobeying illegal orders. I mention it only to add to the earlier statements oin this post regarding intitiative.
West was operating in a very time-critical, combat environment. He evaluated the situation and made a decision. It was a decision calculated (by his own admission and one I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on) to accomplish his mission andminimize US casualties. He knowingly violated a minor in order to effect that decision successfully.
He immediately owned up to it and was willing to take accountability.
His judgemnent and his decision panned out and he was successful in his aims.
Now...he face the court and the legal proceedings associated with his, what I consider to be, monor violation. That is fine and in order.
The method some of the prosecutors are using is out of order in my opinion, but that will all wash out in the proceedings IMHO. I believe West will be vindicated and hope that there will be an offical review of those particular rules as they relate to how West went about effecting his decision. He did not harm anyone, he did not intend to harm anyone. He did intimidate them and make them believe that the life and death threat their enemy plan posed to his troops excended to them right there.
Anyhow., just my opinion and thoughts on the matter.
I support West in his decision...in his willingess to be accountable...and in the military proceedings.
Sorry for the length.
Best Fregards.
Some of them voice legitmate concerns we should all consider.
I just disagree with them for the reasons I have stated on this thread, and summarized in post 238.
I believe that what West did rises to the "above and beyond the call of duty" level. He was aware of the rules and the risks and he did what he had to do in a time-critical, combat environment to Charlie-Mike and to minimize US casualties.
He immediately reported his own actions and his judgement and decision was vindicated by evetns that followed.
For the willingness to take the risk in the face of serious personal consequences, for the willingness to be accountable...and for being right, he should be lauded IMHO.
If not, then I still agree with what he did and am sorry for the consequence they would bring down on his head...and my respect for his willingness to be accountable for his actions is then only magnified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.