Investigating our soldiers to death

World Net Daily ^ | 9 NOV 2007 | David Bolgiano and Jim Patterson

[Arthur McGowan]

For America's combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan � especially sniper teams � a disturbing yet totally unnecessary shadow has been cast over them by tactically and legally ignorant commanders and their lawyers. The end result is our young warriors' persistent exposure to criminal liability for the perceived "crime" of killing the enemy. While tragic for our warriors as individuals, this trend is a dangerous catastrophe on the strategic level. Never before has America sent it's young to war with the untenable burden of being judged in the clear vision of 20-20 hindsight over the manner by which they carry out the very job we sent them to do. This phenomenon demonstrates that we may no longer have the morale and legal will to fight a shadowy and adaptive enemy in the West's worldwide struggle against Islamic extremism.

[omega4412]

On his last hour in office, the President ought to pardon military and contractors for all acts of force used in a combat zone. Exclude sexual assault. A similar pardon for the use of force by Border Patrol agents etc against illegal aliens and smugglers, or those believed to be so.

This pardon would be particularly important if the Dems win. I realize that some people would get away with crimes as a result, but the net effect on justice would be positive.

[centurion316]

This is a very important essay on a subject that has concerned me for some time. The author’s points are right on the mark, IMHO. I don’t know the facts and circumstances of every case, but I am very concerned about the trend.

When I was in combat as long range reconnaissance platoon leader and later a rifle company commander, I understood that my actions and the actions of my soldiers were subject to the laws of land warfare and the UCMJ. I served in Vietnam after the My Lai incident, so I understood the implications of the use of illegal force. But, I was never subjected to the inquistions that seem to be going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Deaths of soldiers due to friendly fire were subject to an Article 15-6 investigations, and two were done while I was a company commander: one for a friendly small arm fire incident and one when my battalion 4.2 in mortar platoon put four rounds in my company perimeter. I know of other investigations when Vietnamese civilians were killed, but I know of no investigation when soldiers killed enemy combatants, VC or NVA. In fact, what happened in those cases was congratulations all around with commanders dropping in to pin meals on jungle fatigues where appropriate.

This trend, if true, is very disturbing, and will render our military incapable of fighting and winning. I think that perhaps we have too many lawyers sticking their noses where they don’t belong, and too many senior leaders who never saw combat as junior officers and NCOs.

[Mr Rogers]

All I can tell you is that one of the Brigades I worked with in Afghanistan did nearly a dozen 15-6s on civilians killed by soldiers. While all of them were ‘bad killings’ - the civilian was not trying to hurt anyone - all of the investigations concluded the civilian had acted suspiciously and the soldier acted within the ROE.

On the other hand, the Army started an investigation into another service’s action...the other service objected when it became obvious there were, shall we say, inconsistencies with the ROE.

In the latter case, I’m convinced someone should have been punished, since it seemed obvious to me that the unit screwed up.

I also have a son-in-law who left the Marines in part because he didn’t believe they would back him up if he found himself facing bad guys hiding behind women and children - which had happened to him multiple times in Iraq.

As you say, this is a very tough issue. I wish I knew what the right answer is.

[centurion316]

I don’t believe in killing civilians. Moreover, its counterproductive in a counterinsurgency. But, many civilians take sides, sometimes both sides. I do recall watching a mother and her small child setting a booby trap. I had them both in my sights and wanted to kill them both. I didn’t. I do know that if I had, there would not have been an investigation.

[Lancey Howard]

(( ping ))

[Lancey Howard]

(( ping ))

[jazusamo]

Excellent piece, thanks for the ping, Lancey.

Never before has America sent it's young to war with the untenable burden of being judged in the clear vision of 20-20 hindsight over the manner by which they carry out the very job we sent them to do.

This is so true and sadly it will cause many of the very best in our military to go elsewhere.

[4woodenboats]

I don’t know the facts and circumstances of every case, but I am very concerned about the trend.

Try the site in my tagline. It was built and maintained by FReeper RedRover, and is the single best source of every case that has been reported.

Thanks for the ping, Lancey

[Lancey Howard]

This trend, if true, is very disturbing, and will render our military incapable of fighting and winning.

Yep. A Commander-in-Chief with some stones could do something about it. Hope we get one.

[Travis McGee]

Were the goat herders spared by the doomed SEAL squad merely noncombatants, or were they in effect scouts for the Taliban? It’s a tough area to decipher, and worse when you know that the media and the JAG corps will crucify you if you make the wrong decision (in their REMF eyes.)

[Cannoneer No. 4]

We may no longer have the morale and legal will to fight a shadowy and adaptive enemy

There has to be some certainty that the cause is just, that our defenders are good and that the enemy has brought their demise upon themselves, or America will never win another war. Our leaders owe us some serenity on that point, our defenders must remain good, but We The People owe our leaders some followership and our defenders the benefit of the doubt. WE have a duty to resist assaults on our morale and efforts to undermine the war effort. A nation that continually proves itself unworthy of its defenders will someday have none.

[freema]

This trend, if true, is very disturbing, and will render our military incapable of fighting and winning.

I believe this is the objective.

[Girlene]

Thanks for the ping, Lancey. Good article on what sppears to be a dangerous shift from warfare to lawfare. From the article,

The end result of this disturbing trend is, as one soldier recently put it, "Battle Command via 15-6" – referring to Army Regulation 15-6, the rulebook for conducting command-directed investigations. Such investigations often improperly judge the righteousness of a line-of-duty engagement by the end result or the amount of political fallout it generates.

One of the authors, David "Bo" Bolgiano, I believe was also an expert witness for LCpl Justin Sharratt, Haditha Marine, and testified at his hearing on the use of force in combat environments here. Words Twice, thought you might find this article interesting.

[Thunder 6]

Thanks for the ping. I wrote this on another thread several months ago:

"This was one of the most difficult dilemmas faced by my Soldiers in Iraq. You put a kid with a rifle or crew served weapon on a check point. It’s dark, and a vehicle comes barreling at him. He’s only got a fraction of a second to choose between three options, and two of them are bad:

1) Shoot, and it’s just a knucklehead driver (or worse, a family...it happens) you’ve just wounded or killed.

2) Don’t shoot, and it is a VBIED who kills you and every other trooper at the CP.

3) Shoot, and it’s VBIED driver you have just stopped.

Happens everyday. You are now him. What do you do?"

My unit engaged a number of civilians, and every engagement prompted a 15-6. There was a significant level of pressure from the Iraqi government to do these as well. What they do for the Chain of Command is document exactly what happened...for training purposes, but also to cover the soldier later if there was some question (like a civilian lawsuit) on what happened, and determine what (if any) compensation would be paid. This often seemed to be what the Iraqi's cared about most...

It is very uncomfortable for the unit, and all of ours fell within the ROE at the time, but you often wondered when the next kid was going to hesitate to engage because he was afraid of being prosecuted.

There are very, very few clear cut cases of "there's a bad guy, whack him" in a counterinsurgency. We just have to set our guys up to succeed the best we can. The UCMJ is the best way I can think of to take care of our own...it's not perfect, but it does protect the soldier. My problem is when individuals, or groups a world away who have never been in their shoes demand "investigations".

Regards,

[centurion316]

Very well said. My concern about the trend of investigations is that they will become witch hunts conducted by people who have no idea what conditions combat soldiers face. Applying the uniformed lessons from Law School and Police Academy to the life and death decisions that soldiers have to make on a daily basis is a slippery slope indeed. Leaders, and the military more generally, have an obligation to protect their soldiers from these politically motivated star chambers.

[Thunder 6]

I appreciate your response...I fear I am the official “thread-killer” of FR! The long term judgement on this will be made (as usual) by the troops, who will begin to vote with their feet, or not enlist if this begins to really drive the culture.

Regards,