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.
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.
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
Yep. A Commander-in-Chief with some stones could do something about it. Hope we get one.
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.
I believe this is the objective.
"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,