John Weisman: Memo to Army Chief of Staff Pete Schoomaker

Military.com ^ | November 3, 2003 | John Weisman

[Ben Chad]

John Weisman: Memo to Army Chief of Staff Pete Schoomaker

November 3, 2003

Dear General:

Now let's see if I get this straight. An officer whose Tikrit-based troops have come under attack from Saddam loyalists becomes aware that an Iraqi detainee has information about a planned ambush of his Soldiers, but the prisoner isn't being cooperative.

The officer then goes to interrogate the detainee -- an Iraqi police officer, by the way -- and in the course of questioning, fires his weapon as a way of making the point that he's serious about obtaining straight answers.

The detainee then tells the truth. The ambush is averted, and Soldiers' lives are saved.

The officer is then:

A: given a commendation.

B: promoted to full colonel for showing initiative under pressure and loyalty to his troops.

C: told to resign his commission immediately or face a court martial.

The correct answer, I'm sorry to have to report, is "C."

Lt. Col. Alan B. West, who aggressively interrogated an Iraqi detainee so that he could prevent an ambush and save his Soldiers lives, is being charged with aggravated assault by his unit's JAG officer.

According to published reports, Lt. Col West allowed two of his Soldiers to "physically agress" the prisoner (an act for which they were later fined), and then West brandished his pistol and fired two shots to scare the man into talking.

For this, the Judge Advocate General's office wants to end his 19-year career and possibly send him to prison for eight years. Meanwhile, idiot officers who get their men killed are being given medals and promotions, and generals who have never come under fire are putting themselves in for Silver Stars.

General Schoomaker, this is madness -- and you have to put a full stop to it right now.

Because this is what happens when lawyers, not shooters, run the military.

This is what happens in the politically correct world in which a secretary of the army (Togo West) hires a consultant who actually drafts a report stating that the Army needs to become less aggressive and more in touch with its feminine side.

This is what happens when the Army culture replaces risk-taking and initiative with hundreds of pages of rules and regulations that hamper war-fighting, degrade unit integrity, and place inane limits on how Soldiers can or cannot conduct themselves in battle.

This is what happens when managers and systems analysts replace Warriors in the command structure.

This is what happens when somewhere along the chain of command, the idea that war is about killing people and breaking things gets completely lost. This is what happens when the Army forgets the words of General George S. Patton, Jr.: "We must be eager to kill, to inflict on the enemy -- the hated enemy -- wounds, death, and destruction."

Now, I'm not in favor of hooking prisoners up to field telephones -- although it has certainly happened in the past. Nor am I in favor of taking the Argentine approach to interrogation, i.e., tossing one prisoner out of a chopper 10,000 feet above the South Atlantic and then posing the question to the second prisoner in the chopper.

Moreover, Lt. Col West's actions came nowhere close to anything that can be called torture. Aggressive? Obviously. Outside the box? Absolutely. But aren't those qualities precisely the qualities we want in our officers?

Because if I were a Soldier serving under West's command, I'd say HOOAH, Colonel, and follow him to hell. Why? Because Lt. Col. West demonstrated something that far too few of today's officers are willing to demonstrate to their men and women: loyalty DOWN the chain of command.

Lt. Col. West put his Soldiers' lives above his own career. That sort of behavior deserves to be praised and rewarded, not given eight years and a dishonorable discharge.

[Ben Chad]

Dear General,

Give Lt. Col. West the promotion he deserves and could you reassign my son from his Marine unit into Col. West's unit?

Yours truly, Ben Chad

[MEG33]

This civilian applauds Col. West.He is going to take it all the way to Court Marshal.There is hope(I hope)!

[kayak]

Outstanding!

Ping lists, anyone?

[SJSAMPLE]

The author makes it sound as if LTC West was demonstrating the firing characteristics of the M9 pistol at the local range. However, the fact is that he violated the rules of interrogation by using a weapon. If this is bad when our enemies do it, why is it OK for us?

The question is: Did LTC West perform an illegal act(s) during the interrogation of the prisoner? Once we answer this, we can move on to either punishing illegal activity or rewarding commendable behavior.

[wdp]

There is a petition to support Lt. Col. West.
Please sign it, this brave soldier did nothing wrong.

http://patriotpetitions.us/colwest/

[Rider on the Rain]

From America the Beautiful:

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!

In my judgment, Lt. Col. West put his country and his men before his own career. Regardless of how this turns out, he will always be one of my heroes, and every time I hear this hymn I'll think of him and be grateful.

[Littlejon]

I am sorry, but what, exactly, did LTC West do to put this prisoner's life in jeopardy? Nothing that I can tell. Did he fire the weapon a few inches from the prisoner's head? Not that I can tell. Did he point it at his head and pull the trigger with no round in the chamber? Nope. All he did was emphasize his seriousness in interrogating this prisoner in order to prevent AMERICAN SOLDIERS from being killed or wounded in an attack the prisoner had details about.

Had LTC West pussy-ffoted around and let this prisoner clam up, resulting in more deaths of soldiers, he would have probably been criticized for not doing enough to ensure the safety of his troops. His actions were not normal, but the man is living in Iraq for goodness sake! He isn't living a normal life and desperate times call for desperate measures.

I say leave him the hell alone, give him his command back and let the man do what he was trained to do, and, as far as I can tell, DID - lead and protect his troops.

[SJSAMPLE]

I don't want to see ANY soldier tried and convicted of crimes. I really hope this works out in his favor. But I also don't want us to start down the slippery slope of excusing any form of unethical or illegal behavior just because it's a tough situation.

I spent 15 years in the Army myself, and as an officer I was rigorously instructed on the rules of land warfare and the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). History has absolutely proven that adherence to the agreed-upon principles and laws of warfare are INVALUABLE in ending conflicts and limiting human suffering. Nothing could be worse to our own troops morale than to begin deviating from those accepted standards.

Look at what happened to LT William Calley in Vietnam. He made an "exception", and that was a turning point where public sentiment turned against the US and the war. I believe that LTC West was an honorable officer who was faced with a tough decision. He certainly was no LT Calley, but we can't allow any "exceptions" to be made for expediency's sake, because the next exception will be even easier to make.

If we want to lose this war, then we should stop following the rules we all agreed upon long ago. We'll immediately lose the support of the American public and any sympathetic Iraqis (whom we depend upon for intel), and we'll gain a significant number of enemies.

[Ben Chad]

This is analagous to expelling a young middle school student for having a tweety bird chain attached to her purse, because a zero-tolerance rule bans chains in school. Our military recruits are subjected to much worse abuse in boot camp than this enemy combatant experienced in interrogation. To quote Cher: Have we lost our F'ing minds?

[SJSAMPLE]

No, it isn't:
1. This is not middle school.
2. A live, loaded weapon is not a key chain.

The rules of interrogation prevent the bringing of a weapon into the interrogation room or the use of a weapon as a means of interrogation. LTC West HIMSELF reported this violation to his commanding officer and his own lawyer admitted this on CNBC last week.

Too many people complain that "the prisoner wasn't harmed" and that "he didn't kill the guy". The fact is that LTC West may have violated DOD rules of interrogation and possibly the rules of land warfare that the US STRICTLY observes. The US military doesn't use weapons or intimated threats of death to extract information from prisoners. Don't think for a minute that LTC West was demonstrating the cyclic action of the M9 pistol so the prisoner could appreciate Beretta's fine workmanship. You can't wash it away that easily.

We have to think of the consequences that could result if we decide to abandon our principles of conduct. How will this make our forces any more approachable by possible informants? We absolutely depend on the Iraqis for intel, and turning them against us will cost us dearly.

If you think recruits are subjected to anything close to being threatened with a loaded weapon, you're grossly mistaken.

[headodenton]

My guess is that you are a lawyer?

[SJSAMPLE]

No.
But that guy better have a good one.

The US military doesn't depend on lawyers to enforce battlefield laws, it depends upon officers (like LTC West) to ensure that we're following the rules.

[MainFrame65]

With a few exceptions, most of us on FR can accept the fact that Col. West broke the rules, exactly as he reported to his superiors. But almost every one of us believe that the prescribed punishment is far out of proportion to the offense.

A letter of reprimand in his file would be far more appropriate than the forced resignation with complete loss of benefits. Such a letter would destroy any possibility of promotion, but would allow the army to retain the services of an excellent field commander and leader, and avoid this judicial malpractice in the service of political correctness.

I am a veteran, so I understand the imperative of obeying orders. But I also understand the duty of a commander to avoid exposing his men to unnecesssary danger. He had to balance competing imperatives, and he made a choice. That balancing of imperatives ought to figure in calibrating any punishment. Actual torture would be a far different circumstance.

If I an driving down the street, a car swerves into my lane, and I cross the center line to avoid a collision, should I be ticketed for my transgression? Unless I collide with another car, no. Exigent circumstances caused me to act as I did, and excuse the technical violation. The exigent circumstances of Col. West's situation greatly lessen the degree of his violation, and ought to similarly affect the level of punishment.

[DustyMoment]

BS!! The technique that LTC West employed goes back centuries. It works well as LTC West proved. The prisoner was not harmed and was not tortured. Get a grip, dude, this is war!! Which PR disaster do you prefer - the one arising from court-martialing this officer for protecting his troops and his command, or the one arising from more American soldiers needlessly coming home in body bags??

I agree that rules are needed to prevent us from becoming savages and barbarians and living down to the media's image of American forces. But, let's face some facts - If LTC West is successfully court-martialed and convicted for this "crime", who's to say that every American serviceman and woman currently on the ground in places like Afghanistan and Iraq isn't guilty of the same thing? Who's to say that Pres. Bush (C-in-C), Donald Rumsfeld, etal, aren't guilty of the same thing?

This is stupid and moronic in a time of war. Had LTC West done this to a soldier in his command to force the soldier to admit that he stole the last doughnut on the plate, I would agree with you. But that isn't what happened. LTC West's command was in jeopardy and the Iraqi policeman is an enemy combatant. There is a HUGE difference between what LTC West did and what interrogators in Vietnam did to force confessions from captured VC. Dropping one of the prisoners at random from a helicopter flying at 2,000 feet with no parachute in order to force confessions is probably a violation of the UCMJ. And, yet, NONE of the people invilved in those acts were charged, court-martialed or convicted.

This is a double-standard in the name of political correctness and LTC West did what he was trained to do: protect his troops and his command. Court-martialing him and drumming him out of the service is not justice, it is a huge miscarriage of justice.

[Poohbah]

OK, now suppose the prisoner LIES (gosh, whodathunkit?) and the unit gets ambushed, with significantly worse casualties...

Does the good colonel say, "Yo, not MY fault, that f***ing prisoner lied!" and everything's OK?

Note that the unit had an idea that there was going to be an ambush attempt. The good colonel was apparently unable to take proper countermeasures in the absence of precise knowledge of the attackers' location and scheme of maneuver.

This guy needs to be relieved; he is apparently unqualified for combat command.

[Poohbah]

Note: there's a reason you don't bring your sidearm into the interrogation room.

What if the prisoner grabs it?

[Littlejon]

That's a pretty astute assessment based on ..... what? He's incompetent to lead troops? I would love to see an anonymous poll of his troops on whether or not they wanted him to lead them into battle. I bet you not one would say they didn't want him leading them.

Sure, we don't want to have officers using phone cords and cattle prods to interrogate prisoners, but this is too much. West took the guy OUT of the interrogation room, held his head down so he couldn't see what was going on and fired two rounds, AWAY from the prisoner, into a weapons clearing barrel. The Iraqi policeman sang like a canary.

What I find interesting is a similar situation involving an interrogation of a prisoner which took place using MORE aggressive behaviour by the interrogator. He was promoted. Why isn't West?

Read for yourself:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35437

(For those too lazy to click on the link):

Americans rally behind officer who foiled plot,

Family shares stress of assault charges, girls hear at school: 'Your daddy is no hero'

By Art Moore

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A U.S. Army officer is facing assault charges for allegedly frightening an Iraqi into disclosing details of an impending ambush plot, but he's garnering support from Americans who regard him as a hero even while his daughters endure taunts from classmates.

Under threat of an attack, Lt. Col. Allen B. West, a battalion commander with the 4th Infantry Division, took charge of the interrogation of an Iraqi policeman, determined to flush out information as he warned subordinates "it could get ugly." Threatening to kill the Iraqi if he didn't talk, West fired a pistol near the policeman's head, prompting a flow of information that led to arrests and the probable foiling of a deadly attack.

In an interview with WorldNetDaily, West's attorney, retired Marine Corp Lt. Col. Neil Puckett, said he's received about 100 e-mails in support of his client, some from veterans who served in Korea and Vietnam.

"Nearly everyone says this guy is an American hero who should be commended rather than court martialed," Puckett said.

Army prosecutors believe, however, West's actions on Aug. 21 in the town of Saba al Boor, near Tikrit, violated the Uniform Military Code. He faces a wide range of possible outcomes from no disciplinary action to a sentence of up to eight years in prison.

Prosecutors gave West a choice – face charges or resign early, losing retirement benefits. The 19-year veteran was scheduled to reach his 20-year retirement last Saturday.

West chose to face the charges, but already he has been relieved of his position, effectively ending a decorated military career that included a bronze star and another medal for valor in combat.

"He's under a lot of stress and is not sleeping well," Puckett said. "His wife is the same."

West's two daughters, who are with his wife Angela in Fort Hood, Texas, also are feeling the pressure.

Puckett said that since parents at the girls' school caught wind of the news "Mr. West is in trouble," the daughters are enduring taunts from classmates.

One of the daughters has started giving out a false last name to avoid kids making fun of her.

"The girls have been taught their daddy is a hero," Puckett said. "But now kids are coming up to them and saying, 'Your daddy is no hero.'"

Puckett said the family members are devout Christians, noting West is part of a Bible study.

Intervention?

The attorney plans to depart for Iraq Friday where he will conduct an Article 32 investigation – a procedure allowing him to present evidence supporting his argument charges should be dropped. The hearing is scheduled for Nov. 10, but Puckett has requested it be moved to Nov. 12 because he was appointed to the case late in the process.

Each individual command runs its own military justice system, he explained. After hearing the evidence and determining whether there is probable cause, the presiding colonel will make a recommendation to division commander Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who has the authority to implement the recommendation or do something completely different.

The options range from doing nothing to a general court martial, which is a felony prosecution.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has the power to intervene on West's behalf, "but he wouldn't normally do that," said Puckett.

More appropriate, he says, would be action by Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee.

"This all could be short-circuited by the secretary of the Army saying, 'Somebody get me [West's] retirement request and I will process it through right now,'" Puckett said.

Spokesmen at the Pentagon and the Army's 4th Infantry at Fort Hood said they could not comment on a pending case.

The Army is concerned about what it should do to dissuade others from transgressing, Puckett acknowledged.

But he insists it's not entirely clear West did anything wrong.

"We could have a spirited debate about whether he transgressed at all," Puckett said. "Is firing a pistol near [the Iraqi's] head, but not at him, aggravated assault? I don't know. He didn't kill anyone. He didn't torture anyone."

Puckett acknowledged West "certainly used a psychological ploy."

"The fact is," the attorney said, "two trained interrogators, both female, worked with [the Iraqi policeman] for hours and hours, and he wouldn't talk, so they called their commander."

West strode into the room, according to Puckett, and said to the Iraqi, "If you don't give us this information, I'm going to kill you."

The policeman, "as a demonstration of his seriousness," responded to West with a smile and said, "I love you."

West then took the Iraqi outside and, with the help of colleagues, forced his head down. With one hand on the man's head – to provide protection – and the other holding the pistol, West fired into a weapons-clearing barrel filled with sand.

"There was an immediate outpouring of information," Puckett said. The man told my client everything he wanted to know."

That same evening, West made a full report to his superior and did not hear anything for many weeks.

Aggresive interrogation

Puckett believes U.S. forces in an intense battle in the Sunni Triangle near Tikrit with Saddam Hussein loyalists need special consideration to help ensure their success.

"Maybe we should propose interrogating a little more aggressively, as long as we don't hurt anybody," he said.

In July, he noted, another officer in the 4th Infantry reportedly used unorthodox methods to persuade an Iraqi general to turn himself in. According to the Washington Post, Col. David Hogg ordered the Iraqi officer's family be rounded up and held hostage. Hogg then sent word to the general that if he wanted to see his family again, he needed to comply.

The tactic worked, and the Iraqi general appeared in front of the U.S. base and surrendered. Puckett said there is a report that Hogg has been promoted.

"Here we have a guy using what might be considered by touchy feely types to be a questionable tactic," Puckett said. "But, in the same way, my client never intended to carry out the threat."

In such situations, time is of the essence, he argues.

"The sooner he gets the information, the better the chance to foil the ambush," he said of West. "Nobody can prove what would have happened had he not done that."

Puckett said if citizens want to get involved, they can contact their Congress members in the House of Representatives and the Senate or the Army.

West can be contacted by e-mail and his wife has her own e-mail address.

Angela West also is in the process of setting up a legal fund for her husband.

Puckett said he welcomes communication with any experts in military law who might have ideas or information to pass on.

[Poohbah]

That's a pretty astute assessment based on ..... what?

LTC West, to hear folks like you tell it, could not assess the threat environment in the absence of precise data on the enemy force's location and intentions.

He's incompetent to lead troops?

If he needed precise information to undertake any force protection measures...yes.

I would love to see an anonymous poll of his troops on whether or not they wanted him to lead them into battle.

Considering that this tidbit came out in the course of what the Army calls a "command climate investigation," you might not like the results--somebody within the unit felt the need to contact the Inspector General's office before this mess ever happened.

I bet you not one would say they didn't want him leading them.

I'd take that bet.

[SJSAMPLE]

I don't know the exact nature of the offense.
Did he just bring it into the room?
Did he threaten the prisoner with it?
Did he fire the weapon as a "mock" execution?

I don't want him to suffer a punishment out of proportion, but it appears as though this was far more than a breach of ettiquette and an unintentional violation, like crossing lanes.

[Littlejon]

OK, so let's see if I have this straight. He shouldn't need to know where an almost certain ambush/assasination attempt on his own life is going to take place because he should be trained well enough to protect himsefl and his troops against ANY attack, regardless of where it is, when it is and on whoever the assailants choose, without ANY intelligence on it? So, what happened to the Chinook pilot? What about all of the troops killed by IED's since we strode into Iraq? You think if any of those killed had found out about their attacks beforehand by virtue of a commander using "unusual" tactics to get a prisoner to talk, they would have called for the guy's head and proceeded on with their actions? I doubt it.

Acting without precise data in a semi-peaceful environment is one thing, but it is entirely another when you may not have enough data to know when and where an attack is coming in the heart of an area where you are despised and attacked on a daily basis. The more information you have on an attack, the better chance to prevent it. You can better prepare for it and better protect your troops from it with more information.

Using your logic, we shouldn't have needed troops or the French resistance to go ahead of the invasion force at Normandy to scout the area or set up beacons to guide pilots for the drops.

Using your logic, we should abandon GPS and satellite intelligence for advanced forces and just give them a boy scout compass and battle plan drawn up by suits in D.C. and turn them loose.

How do we know he was simply "protecting" the troops and not conducting raids on a daily basis and needed to know if he was going to walk into a trap? I guess he should have prepared for that contingency back in BT, right?

And I will gladly take that bet, because there is no indication that anyone under his command said anything to the brass about this and it only became an issue after another inquiry into the incident by Army brass started.

As for who DOES support him:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35437

Prison for officer's effort to foil attack?
Scared Iraqi into revealing details of plot but faces court martial

---

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A U.S. army colonel who allegedly frightened an Iraqi into disclosing details of an impending attack by firing a pistol near his head, faces up to eight years in prison on assault charges.

Army officials have given Lt. Col. Allen B. West of the Fourth Infantry Division a choice – a court martial or resign early, losing retirement benefits. The 19-year veteran says he will reach his 20-year retirement this Saturday.

The Army says West's aggressive interrogation method constitutes an assault under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

West's Army defenders say they are in an intense battle with Saddam Hussein loyalists in the Sunni Triangle near Tikrit where one false move could be their last.

The Aug. 21 incident came amid fears of an impending sniper attack on U.S. forces and reports of an assassination plot aimed at West, an artillery battalion commander.

West told the Washington Times in an e-mail he interrogated an Iraqi policeman who, according to an informer, was involved in attacks on U.S. forces. Fearing a new attack, West said he took charge of the interrogation, determined to pry information from the policeman and warning his subordinates "it could get ugly."

"I did not want to expose my soldiers to a possible attack," he said in the e-mail.

West said two of his soldiers did "physically aggress" the policeman but failed to get any information. Finally, he threatened the Iraqi with his 9 mm pistol, firing twice.

"Once I fired into the weapons clearing barrel outside the facility alone, and the next time I did it while having his head close to the barrel," West wrote. "I stood in between the firing and his person. I admit that what I did was not right, but it was done with the concern of the safety of my soldiers and myself."

After informing his superior officer of the incident, West said he heard nothing more until a broader inquiry was launched by army chiefs, the Times said.

The Washington paper reported today West's friends and colleagues are rallying around him.

"He's getting a bum rap," retired Army Col. Mike Kryschtal told the Times.

"Al West is an outstanding officer," said Kryschtal, who served with West in South Korea in 1995 and 1996. "His actions were consistent with his selfless dedication to duty and the welfare of his soldiers. The fact that he reported this incident speaks to his integrity. He should be commended, not persecuted, for saving the lives of our soldiers."

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who recently visited 4th Infantry soldiers in a tour of Iraq, told the Times he suspects West has a lot of sympathy from fellow combatants and among families of soldiers in the U.S.

"The difficulty that the 4th ID faces is that the enemy is wearing civilian clothes and hiding behind women and children," he said. "So when you ask a battalion and company commanders to stop the violence against the Iraqi people and against soldiers, the pressure to use aggressive interrogation techniques seems to be reasonable."

In an e-mail to the Times yesterday, West said, "I really wanted to stay hidden but that is no longer possible. I am now at a critical decision point to resign. I cannot afford to be sent to jail and my daughters never see their daddy again. My family is all I have now."

Col. West's wife, Angela, who lives in Fort Hood, Texas, has retained an attorney in North Carolina.

"This is very distressing," she told the London Telegraph.