Posted on 04/15/2007 2:12:23 PM PDT by RedRover
How much force can a squad of Marines generate in self-defense before it is considered "excessive"?
That question is now out of the hands of Marine officers and noncoms in the field. The question will be decided in courts-martial.
This is absolutely unprecedented. Applying the concept of "excessive force" to men under fire is absurd enough. But turning "excessive force" into murder charges is the beginning of the end of our war against Islamofascism.
Seeing the President of the United States labeled a liar and a war criminal by the media for seven years ought to give the DoD a clue. The media cannot be placated. They openly root for America’s disgrace and defeat. Nonetheless, the DoD is succumbing to media pressure even though our media is entirely in sympathy with the enemy.
Allowing the media to dictate policy during wartime is insane. Here’s just one example of why. The media made something out of nothing in the Abu Ghraib Prison fiasco. Nonetheless, due to the outcry, the DoD changed its policy about detentions. For a captured prisoner to be considered a combatant, it became necessary to produce two signed affidavits from coalition or Iraqi forces attesting to that fact. No affidavits, no detention. The result was that half of the 2,500 muj captured during the battle of Fallujah were released within seventy-two hours. The most infamous released detainee was Safaa Mohammed Ali. Nearly a year, later he detonated a suicide vest and murdered 57 people attending a wedding party in Amman, Jordan.
Fortunately, no military court has (so far) convicted a Marine on the basis of "excessive force".
The first test was the Lieutenant Ilario Pantano case in April 2005. The defense played a television interview, with Stone Phillips of NBC’s Dateline. This is an excerpt of what was played for in the investigating officer in Lieutenant Pantano’s Article 32 hearing.
PANTANO: I give [two suspected insurgents] a command in Arabic to stop. They continue [to move] and then there was this moment of quiet. I felt, I could feel like the oxygen getting sucked out of my lungs. I could feel that this thing was happening. There was this beat and they both pivoted to me at the same time, moving towards me at the same time and, in that moment, of them, of them disobeying my command to stop and pivoting to me at the same time, I shot them.
Pantano's concern was that they might have grabbed a hidden weapon or were lunging for his. From just ten feet away, he emptied one magazine from his M-16 rifle, then reloaded and emptied a second, firing a total of fifty to sixty shots.
PANTANO: I didn't wait to see if there was a grenade. I didn't wait to see if there was a knife. And, unfortunately, there are a lot of dead soldiers and Marines who have waited, too long. And my men weren't going to be those dead soldiers or Marines and neither was I.
PHILLIPS: And the idea of maybe firing a warning shot?
PANTANO: There wasn't time for warning shots. There was time for action and I had to act. It becomes very personal. It stops being about war and moving blue arrows and little pieces and big pieces and hold this bridge and take this ground. These guys tried to kill me. That's what I'm feeling and the language that's going through my head at that point was no better friend, and no worse enemy.
But, even if Pantano did act in self-defense, the number of bullets he fired and his reason for doing so raised serious questions.
PHILLIPS: You emptied a magazine. And emptied a second magazine.
PANTANO: The speed it took me to wipe the sweat off my brow is how quickly you fire and reload a magazine. I shot them until they stopped moving.
PHILLIPS: Fifty rounds, sixty rounds to stop them?
PANTANO: Stone, unfortunately, combat is a pretty ugly business. What's the right number of rounds to save your life? I would say its until there is no more threat.
At the end of the hearing, the investigation officer, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Winn submitted a 16-page report to the Second Marine Division commander, Major General Richard Huck, recommending that all charges be withdrawn. Major General Huck concurred and Lieutenant Pantano was exonerated.
The Haditha case, and now the Afghan Highway case, is on the horizon. Sometime soon (maybe) the government will actually begin the Article 32 process. And, once again, our government will attempt to win a murder conviction based on an argument of "excessive force".
It should be a requirement that the investigating officer, and jury if any of these cases go to court martial, have served in Fallujah. It would put the concept of "excessive force" in its proper context.
Combat historian Patrick O’Donnell was there. Here is his description of what he saw during a house clearing. Before the Marines entered, the house was hit with a satchel charge, a bag filled with 20 pounds of explosives, that nearly tore the building in half.
The [Marines] failed to take into account the effect of muj drugs. Hearing footsteps coming from the shattered house, they assumed other members of the platoon had entered the building. Suddenly, two dusty, black-clad jihadis, hyped up on adrenaline, emerged from the rubble to engage the Marines. The men were bleeding from the eyeballs, but they managed to get a few rounds off before Hackett killed both of them with his M4, a shortened version of the M16.
Another muj wearing an explosive vest was attempting to escape through a mouse hole when he ran into Bryan and Vaquerano. "His face was filled with surprise when he saw us. I think he knew he was about to die," recalled Vaquerano.
The jihadist lunged at Vaquerano.
"Shoot him!" yelled Bryan to Vaquerano. "Shoot him!"
Vaquerano remained motionless. Bryan shot the man twice in the stomach.
Bryan shot him five more times.
"F*ck!"
The drug-crazed muj kept on coming. "As he reached up with his bloody arm and tried to choke us, Bryan put a ten-round burst into him," recalled Vaquerano.
Even after putting seventeen rounds into the muj's body, Bryan still had to shoot him in the head to prevent him from detonating his vest. As the muj's eyes rolled back and he finally expired, Bryan crouched down and put out his middle finger. "F*ck you!"
Stunned, Gunny Hackett turned to Bryan and Rosalez. "How the hell did they survive?"
Or this:
As Stokes tried to take [two muj fighters] prisoner, one of the terrorists made a desperate move. According to Stokes, "The other guy stood up and grabbed the muzzle of my weapon. I threw him against the wall. He landed next to the RPG and tried to grab it. I shot him point blank in the face." Grantham and Stokes walked out of the building, and Sojda and Hanks walked in.
Despite his horrible face wound, the fighter shot by Grantham was only playing dead. "Hey, this guy is alive!" Hanks shouted as the insurgent went for an AK lying across his stomach.
Sojda quickly took action. "I could see him breathing. Grantham had put a bullet in his head, his brains were out on the floor. As he went for the AK, I grabbed his bayonet and put it right in the center of his chest and twisted it. A normal person would have died with a bullet hole in their head and multiple stab wounds, but he wouldn't die. I figured he was meant to live, so I pulled the weapons away from him and left."
Drugs had given him superhuman ability to absorb punishment. Nearly all of the mujahideen 1st Platoon would encounter during the battle were high on a cocktail of drugs.
Do the JAG-happy boys in the DoD even know the nature of the enemy we're facing?
It is practically inconceivable for a Marine, or any soldier, to be convicted of murder based on the “excessive force” argument. But with anti-war political opportunists controlling military appropriation committees, perhaps the inconceivable will happen. With cases on the horizon, we’re all about to find out.
It is what you get when you allow LIBERALISM and ANTI-MILITARY non-patriots get into the military fighting process in any way. A massive travesty.
Well said. That’s exactly where we are.
The indictment should be on .223, not Marines. Less lethal calibre, more shots fired and more people with their panties in a wad over how many rounds it took to take the bad guys down.
“It is what you get when you allow LIBERALISM and ANTI-MILITARY non-patriots get into the military fighting process in any way”
And it has hurt us but good!
In ordinary combat? Absolutely not. The problem is if and when you have Mi Lai-style situations, where American soldiers go ape and take out civilians. Such has happened, and is inevitable when you send twenty-somethings out with guns to kill people. That doesn't make it acceptable.
Now, telling the difference between a civilian and an insurgent is not easy. No one disputes that - but the UCMJ demands that soldiers act reasonably. The rules of engagement require that you reasonably believe the target is a threat before engaging - you cannot indiscriminately shoot anyone who speaks Arabic.
Do the JAG-happy boys in the DoD even know the nature of the enemy we're facing?
This line shows this piece is nothing more than a rant. People like Gen. Patraeus know better than anyone here the nature of the enemy we're facing. It's a counter-insurgency - and in such a situation, a "kill 'em all" approach is disastrous because it makes more insurgents.
Wow! Great column by David Allender.
My only problem with the column is that Allender seems to give George Bush a pass in this whole idiotic “rules of engagement” mess. Last time I looked, President Bush was the Commander-in-Chief. If the scumbag ACLU lawyers at JAG are running the war, then it must be with the blessing of President Bush. And that is disgraceful.
Haditha probe leaves Marines wondering
British Troops In Iraq Are Afraid To Open Fire, Secret MoD Report Confirms
Concur with your view.
I heard from a guy in the 3rd ID who picked up a British .303 at the beginning of the war. When he hit someone, they stayed down for good.
Good article, RedRover. The excessive force issue is an important topic as the WOT continues.
Jude24, there may be some validity to a kill-em all approach inviting more insurgency. During combat, however, a sort-em out approach leads to hesitation and more dead US troops. That too is an important issue in the WOT. Where’s the crossover? How many dead or injured troops are acceptable to prevent the insurgents from using civilan casualties as a propaganda tool?
There's more to it than that. Civilian casualties are not just propaganda tools, but are, in fact, the fuel that creates more insurgents.
Well, noone wants innocent civilian deaths, period. But the question is what’s acceptable - more dead and injured troops or deny a propaganda tool to the insurgents? I don’t think it’s a fact that civilian casualties are the only fuel that creates more insurgents. The insurgents themselves put civilians in harms way to create the dilemna in the first place. The insurgents have lots of reasons why they decide to terrorize Iraqi’s or Afghanees or our troops, not just civilian casualties. If we never kill another civilian in Iraq, do you think the insurgents/terrorists will just fade away? I don’t.
5-38. Insurgents use unlawful violence to weaken the HN government, intimidate people into passive or active support, and murder those who oppose the insurgency. Measured combat operations are always required to address insurgents who cannot be co-opted into operating inside the rule of law. These operations may sometimes require overwhelming force and the killing of fanatic insurgents. However, COIN is “war amongst the people.” Combat operations must therefore be executed with an appropriate level of restraint to minimize or avoid injuring innocent people. Not only is there a moral basis for the use of restraint or measured force; there are practical reasons as well. Needlessly harming innocents can turn the populace against the COIN effort. Discriminating use of fires and calculated, disciplined response should characterize COIN operations. Kindness and compassion can often be as important as killing and capturing insurgents.5-79. Commanders should emphasize that counterinsurgents must remain friendly towards the populace while staying vigilant against insurgent actions. Commanders must ensure Soldiers and Marines understand the rules of engagement, which become more restrictive as peace and stability return.
7-22. Even in conventional combat operations, Soldiers and Marines are not permitted to use force disproportionately or indiscriminately. Typically, more force reduces risk in the short term. But American military values obligate Soldiers and Marines to accomplish their missions while taking measures to limit the destruction caused during military operations, particularly in terms of collateral harm to noncombatants. It is wrong to harm innocents, regardless of their citizenship.
7-23. Limiting the misery caused by war requires combatants to consider certain rules, principles, and consequences that restrain the amount of force they may apply. At the same time, combatants are not required to take so much risk that they fail in their mission or forfeit their lives. As long as their use of force is proportional to the gain to be achieved and discriminates in distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants. Soldiers and Marines may take actions where they knowingly risk, but do not intend, harm to non- combatants.
7-24. Ethically speaking, COIN environments can be much more complex than conventional ones. Insurgency is more than combat between armed groups; it is a political struggle with a high level of violence.Insurgents try to use this violence to destabilize and ultimately overthrow a government. Counterinsurgents that use excessive force to limit short-term risk alienate the local populace. They deprive themselves of the support or tolerance of the people. This situation is what insurgents want. It increases the threat they pose. Sometimes lethal responses are counterproductive. At other times, they are essential. The art of command includes knowing the difference and directing the appropriate action.
7-25. A key part of any insurgent’s strategy is to attack the will of the domestic and international opposition. One of the insurgents’ most effective ways to undermine and erode political will is to portray their opposition as untrustworthy or illegitimate. These attacks work especially well when insurgents can portray their opposition as unethical by the opposition’s own standards. To combat these efforts, Soldiers and Marines treat noncombatants and detainees humanely, according to American values and internationally recognized human rights standards. In COIN, preserving noncombatant lives and dignity is central to mission accomplishment. This imperative creates a complex ethical environment.
7-34. Discrimination requires combatants to differentiate between enemy combatants, who represent a threat, and noncombatants, who do not. In conventional operations, this restriction means that combatants cannot intend to harm noncombatants, though proportionality permits them to act, knowing some noncombatants may be harmed.
7-35. In COIN operations, it is difficult to distinguish insurgents from noncombatants. It is also difficult to determine whether the situation permits harm to noncombatants. Two levels of discrimination are necessary:
- Deciding between targets.
- Determining an acceptable risk to noncombatants and bystanders.
7-36. Discrimination applies to the means by which combatants engage the enemy. The COIN environment requires counterinsurgents to not only determine the kinds of weapons to use and how to employ them but also establish whether lethal means are desired—or even permitted. (FM 27-10 discusses forbidden means of waging war.) Soldiers and Marines require an innate understanding of the effects of their actions and weapons on all aspects of the operational environment. Leaders must consider not only the first- order, desired effects of a munition or action but also possible second- and third-order effects—including undesired ones. For example, bombs delivered by fixed-wing close air support may effectively destroy the source of small arms fire from a building in an urban area; however, direct-fire weapons may be more appropriate due to the risk of collateral damage to nearby buildings and noncombatants. The leader at the scene assesses the risks and makes the decision. Achieving the desired effects requires employing tactics and weapons appropriate to the situation. In some cases, this means avoiding the use of area munitions to minimize the potential harm inflicted on noncombatants located nearby. In situations where civil security exists, even tenuously, Soldiers and Marines should pursue nonlethal means first, using lethal force only when necessary.
No one said that COIN was easy on the soldiers and Marines who fight it. That doesn't mean it should be ditched because it's hard and costly.
PHILLIPS: Fifty rounds, sixty rounds to stop them?
So? If they were dead with the 1st then the next 49 are insurance. Big deal!
Put this Phillips guy out in the streets and see if he considers the number of rounds an issue.
Sir, Before I comply with your order to attack, I’ll have to confer with my lawyer on the legality of that order. Would you kindly inform the enemy that they have to wait until my answer comes back?............
I maintain that there has never been a conviction of a soldier or Marine who responded to a direct attack and killed civilians. When all the emoting is swept away, Haditha and the Afghan Highway were responses to attacks And that's why they'll be nearly impossible to prosecute in court while prosecution in the media is a breeze.
I believe the DoD (or, more properly, influential individuals within that sprawling bureaucracy) are urging prosecution of cases that can't be won. And I don't see this as having a salutory effect on the WOT.
If only the JAG had to spend 6-12 months on point in a Force Recon or regular front line unit then we'd see how much happy horse sh#t these f#ckers would shovel around.
thanks for getting my blood pressure up... I was getting sleepy...
these guys are running for office as "Marines" like Murtha when they come back.... doncha know they were "Marines" in the front line of Iraq.....BARF!!!!
I'll tell you how many civilians I'll tolerate to save my brother Marine, a couple of million...cause not one single Iraqi is worth the life of my brother Marine...ever and never.
put a stamp on it and kiss my a## 'nuff said, before I get the hook from the Admon
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.