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.

[CWOJackson]

I happen to agree with what the man did, however, I also believe that the Army MUST let the process go through. If anyone intervenes before the process is completed it would be a disaster for him, the service and our efforts in Afganistan and Iraq.

Let the process go through first and let's see what happens.

[SJSAMPLE]

You can't both acknowlege that the laws of war exist and then try to ignore them because "dude, this is war!!" The rules were written, accepted and adopted EXACTLY for situations like this. They were written to apply to the tough decisions, so that officers like LTC West would know what he could and could not do. LTC West knew that when he brought that pistol into the interrogation room and he knew what he was doing when he fired the first round. To his credit, he realized his mistake and reported it himself. He should be given consideration for that.

The only thing LTC West proved is that we have a vested interest in observing the laws of war, even if we're the only ones who do. Don't use the excuse that we've done worse and failed to punish it. We're supposed to learn from these mistakes. The fact that he reported himself and that they investigated this case says that we've learned something.

And it's NOT a double-standard. NO WHERE in LTC West's training or orders was he instructed or authorized to do what he did. In fact, every bit of his training ran to the contrary. As an officer, he was trained and expected to enforce the laws of warfare for himself and every soldier under his command.

Finally, for everybody who throws the term around:
Obeying the laws of warfare is NOT being Politically Correct.

[SJSAMPLE]

That's one.
Then there's the fact that you're not allowed to use weapons to interrogate prisoners.

[SJSAMPLE]

I agree.
The only fair thing is to let the Army and LTC West (and his attorney) have this out, in preliminary hearings and in court.

I have no knowlege that he's anything other than a fine officer, and I wish the best for him and his family.

[Poohbah]

OK, so let's see if I have this straight.

You don't.

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?

He should be able impose force protection measures to improve his command's survivability WITHOUT precise information. You never have precise information of what the enemy's intent is; that's why it's called the "fog of war." He apparently is unable to operate in the absence of perfect information; therefore, he is not able to operate in any environment with a real, live enemy.

So, what happened to the Chinook pilot? What about all of the troops killed by IED's since we strode into Iraq?

I see your problem. You cannot deal with uncertainty and risk. Please quit following war news; you obviously lack the stomach for it.

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?

Suppose the commander used "unusual tactics" and was handed a poison pill of false info. You think his troops would appreciate getting sent right into an ambush because the CO got his precious information?

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.

Then you're saying that we can never deploy military forces in anything but the most permissive environments, such as Germany; the fog of war is, after all, endemic.

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.

And the bad guys now know that this guy's a pushover for information gathered in a particular fashion.

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.

You're making a leap beyond logic here.

I'm pointing out that the argument offered in support of this officer's actions is that without perfect information, his troops were going to die.

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.

If you can't fight without perfect information, then anything the enemy does to deny information to you gives them the initiative, and you will eventually lose.

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?

If you're conducting raids, you assume that the enemy is going to see you coming and that an ambush is possible anywhere along the raiders' ingress or egress routes. If he could not conduct a raid without perfect knowledge of the enemy's intentions, then he is unfit for command. Period.

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.

If there was an investigation underway, there was a lack of confidence in this guy's command and leadership abilities. The source of that lack of confidence is not relevant; the fact that there IS a lack of confidence

[MainFrame65]

My understanding is that under Col. West's orders, two earlier interrogators had manhandled the prisoner before the Col. approached. He then drew his weapon and fired it twice. Neither time was the pistol in close proximity to the prisoner, nor was either shot fired at or near him. Col. West reported all of this to his superiors, unprompted, along with the fact that he was aware of the rule that prohibited his actions.

But there is a larger topic here. We now think that Zacharias Moussawi knew details about the 09/11 attack, details that could have been used to thwart the hijackers plans. In the face of such horror, would we punish an agent that had uncovered this plot and saved thousands, no matter how one guilty prisoner were treated? If not, then we are only talking about balancing the scales.

I am not proposing discarding the rules, or even, as some say here, giving him a medal and a promotion. But I do think that this is a hard case, and hard cases make bad law. This failure of justice illuminates a weakness in the law, and a desparate attempt to deal with that weakness without sacrificing lives.

[SJSAMPLE]

Even if he didn't PHYSICALLY harm the prisoner, they held the prisoner's head down and (it appears) that the intent was to keep the prisoner from knowing that they weren't shooting at him. IMHO, this is the same as aiming a firearm with blanks at the prisoner and pulling the trigger. Again, I see this as a form of "mock" execution. I agree that West did the right thing by reporting this, and it should be noted to his credit.

But, you can't let the result justify the actions. West may have saved some soldiers because of his actions, but that doesn't excuse his actions or offer any mitigation when it comes to his punishment.

Hard cases DO make bad law. But, in this case, the law was made DECADES before this incident. It wasn't made under the duress of a hard situation, it was made with deliberate thought to the future. The "hard case" would be to justify West's actions because we are in a time of war, even though the laws were written just for that circumstance.

I don't know what specific rule or law will be used against West. We do know that he violated several rules regarding interrogations. The real question is how his methods will be perceived. Many people here have claimed that his actions were definitely not torture, but I don't think they have a clue as to what torture constitutes. Not all torture involves physical pain. Not all torture leaves a mark. The Nazi's repeatedly subjected Jewish prisoners to mock executions. Back then, we DEFINITELY called it torture and condemned it vehemently. Why the change when our own guys might have done this?

I don't bring this up in attempt to pointedly decide that he definitely committed illegal acts or war crimes. I'm just astounded by the number of people who a) refuse to consider the fact that it might be illegal, and b) even if proven illegal, would refuse to acknowlege that it was wrong. I, personally, don't use this as an attack on West. I'm just trying to retain our concepts of legality and honor in warfare. For decades, we've set the standard for honorable conduct and we shouldn't abandon it now.

[Valin]

HEY HEY HEY now! That will be just about enough of that making sense! This sort of thing will NOT be tolerated.

[TexKat]

Wonderful thought and well said.

[DustyMoment]

My dad, a career officer, once asked me what my obligation as a serviceman was. My reply was (by rote) "to fight and die for my country!" "WRONG!!", he cried, "your job is to make the OTHER SOB fight and die for HIS!!"

LTC West was doing his job. The UCMJ is written for a perfect world which, as we all know, doesn't exist in war time. The fact is that, given the circumstances of this event, EVERY serviceman or woman who has or will fire a weapon during a time of war can be court-martialed for EXACTLY the same reason as LTC West - frightening the enemy and, by firing their weapon, apparently coerce the enemy into capitulating or revealing information that saves the lives of American and, possibly, hostile forces.

As a nation, we have always abhorred the unnecessary loss of life that occurs during war time and have always worked to minimize the unnecessary loss of civilian life. IMO, LTC West was taking the actions necessary to minimize the loss of innocent lives because none of us know the extent of the pending attack on his troops.

It is also important to note that LTC West DID NOT enter the interrogation room with a weapon, he had the Iraqi police officer brought to him in an area outside the interrogation room. Merely holding his head down to prevent him from seeing where he was is NOT a violation of his rights nor is it a violation of the UCMJ. While attending a service school on escape and evasion, I was BLINDFOLDED. If one is bad, the other is certainly worse and, yet, no one was court-martialed for blindfolding us in the school.

We can discuss this point forever and I don't believe that either of us will ever agree or change the other's opinion. That's why there are so many flavors of Ice cream. However, I do respect your opinions and support your obligation to express them. Healthy debate is essential if we are ever going to have excellent public policy is this nation.

[Littlejon]

I'm pointing out that the argument offered in support of this officer's actions is that without perfect information, his troops were going to die.

He should be able impose force protection measures to improve his command's survivability WITHOUT precise information. You never have precise information of what the enemy's intent is; that's why it's called the "fog of war." He apparently is unable to operate in the absence of perfect information; therefore, he is not able to operate in any environment with a real, live enemy.

I see your problem. You cannot deal with uncertainty and risk. Please quit following war news; you obviously lack the stomach for it.

First off, who said anything about "precise" information? What I know of this is that he had intel that said an attack was coming, as well as an assassination attempt on his life. They captured a local police officer, who had been behind several attacks, and interrogated him to extract more information in order to have better information about the upcoming attack. You seem to think that LTC West, because he tried to extract information that might help save lives, was derelict in his duty because he seems, to you (but no one else I have read on here), to have a need for “precise” details of the impending attack. Nothing in any story or any thread here indicates that this was the case, nor does anyone here indicate the need for “precise” information before engaging the enemy. Obviously, LTC West felt the need for more information regarding his particular situation than he had. What I have read indicates to me that word of the impending attack came in not long before it was to be carried out. If that is the case, then LTC West probably saw the need to find out as much information as possible in a short amount of time. Since those who have served with him feel he is an exemplary officer, a good and righteous man and was right in his actions, I lean towards trusting him in his decision here.

And, for your information, I am well aware of the risks involved in war and have more than enough “stomach” for it. It is YOU who seems to lose the stomach here. You seem to be incapable of understanding that people might have a different opinion than yours. You overstate the positions I take on this man's situation for the purpose of belittling them, thus elevating your opinions. (typical liberal mantra, BTW) Case in point: you assume I think he had to have the most precise information down to the minute in order to carry out his duties. That is beyond absurd. Even under the best conditions, wartime intelligence offers indication of possible scenarios, which is why officers try to get as much information as possible before they get into a situation. And I am well aware of the fact that you can NEVER get intelligence on what an enemy WILL do, only what they MIGHT do, and even that is sketchy at best in war. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of war or the military knows that. And before you insult my intelligence once again, I DO know quite a bit about both. Enough to know that, because of what I stated above, ALL good military leaders try to get as much information about their enemy as possible before they get into combat situations. IMHO, LTC West did that and saved lives. Perhaps his methods for extracting the information were not the best, but certainly not the worst I have heard of either, not by a long shot.

Then you're saying that we can never deploy military forces in anything but the most permissive environments, such as Germany; the fog of war is, after all, endemic.

No, and I never said anything close to that. You are twisting what I, and others have said, to try to prove your point. You remind me a lot of a liberal I debate with regularly on another board. Your sentance structure and propensity for twisting statements to fit your needs are identical. Show me one instance where someone said that PRECISE information in a wartime scenario was necessary to carry out successful military operations. I never said it because it is absurd. What I DID say was that the more information you have, the better chance you have of preventing losses and overcoming your enemy.

And the bad guys now know that this guy's a pushover for information gathered in a particular fashion.

How, exactly, are the bad guys going to know a particular officer is a pushover by virtue of him scaring the crap out of ONE prisoner, who likely will never be released? Sure, word COULD get out, but how? Assuming it did, then maybe, just MAYBE, instead of viewing LTC West as a pushover (why would ANYONE assume a military commander in LTC West’s position was a pushover?) they will know him to be a hard-nosed, balls-to-the-wall commander who has no problem taking them out to protect his men. Maybe they will assume, unlike Bill Clinton, that he might actually carry out the things he says he will do. Maybe they will see him as someone they shouldn’t mess with. Maybe, since they had an assassination plot out for him, they already knew what kind of man he was. Now, unless you assume the enemy saw fit to assassinate a complete moron, LTC West must have been doing something right.

Since there were trained interrogators who had been working the prisoner, why would we not assume these people would decide whether or not the information the prisoner gave was valid? Are we to assume (since there are no hard facts to back this up) that LTC West was going to just take whatever the prisoner said at face value and run with it? Don't you have a higher opinion of our military than to assume ANYONE that reckless would be elevated to a position of authority? Sure, some bad apples do get promoted, but most have their true colors come out in combat situations. Nothing indicates that LTC West had ever done anything to cause anyone to think he was anything other than a good military leader. It was not until several weeks after this incident took place that anyone said anything about it. Since the investigation came from the brass after the fact, that tells me that someone (who likely had no chance of ever seeing combat) stumbled on it and made issue of it. Nothing backs up your previous assertions that a subordinate felt he was incompetent and turned him in.

[Poohbah]

I just took your words at face value; you're the one who's going to wear out his bicycle's chain from all that backpedaling.

[Littlejon]

Whatever.

[Leatherneck_MT]

No he did not. He acted like any LEADER of men would have acted. He acted to save the lives of men in his unit.

Why in the hell don't civilians understand that in Warfare and in armed conflict, the only absolute rule is to WIN.

We cannot afford to lose. This is a war we are fighting for our very survival as a nation. If you do not understand that, then you NEED to do what is necessary TO understand that.

[SJSAMPLE]

1. No. Not every leader would have done this. I don't know where you get that idea, but you're about as wrong as you can be.

2. I spent 15 years in uniform. One of the most serious jobs of an officer is to learn the UCMJ and the laws of warfare. There are a lot of rules, and winning by any means necessary isn't one of them. Try GOOGLE-ing "Malmady", "Bataan" or "My Lai" before you start spouting that drivel. I know for a fact that the USMC doesn't teach Marines that the laws of war are "optional."

About the only thing you're right on is that we need to WIN. We won't win if we lose the cooperation of the Iraqi people, and tales of prisoner abuse won't endear us one bit.

If you don't understand that we MUST obey the laws we agreed to, you need to do what's necessary before you ever pick up a rifle.

[SJSAMPLE]

You've made a lot of good points, but I want to clarify that treatment of prisoners is VERY different from treatment of the enemy.

During a combat engagement, there are very few limits on the amount of force a soldier can bring down upon the enemy in order to discomfort, scare or kill him. All of those methods are perfectly legal because of the enemy's status as a combatant. Wether the enemy suffers some physical or emotional discomfort isn't a concern, because they are, at that time, combatants.

When an individual becomes a PRISONER, however, a whole other set of rules apply. When you take a prisoner, you become RESPONSIBLE for the safety and security of that prisoner.

In the various SERE schools, they train you to deal with the actions of the enemy, where it is presumed that the enemy is not as willing to abide by the laws of land warfare. When they interrogate "prisoners", it's not meant to be an instruction on how to interrogate, but how to RESIST. Many of the methods used to instruct students are not meant to be used on the enemy.

Thanks for a solid debate. Many here don't want to even recognize the UCMJ or any other accords we've agreed to abide by. If LTC West is found not guilty (or the case is dismissed) because he didn't break any rules or laws, that would be fine by me. But I'd still like to see those rules given the respect they deserve.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Yeah, you are right there, not every leader would have. I should have said any REAL LEADER would have done this. The Lambs that populate our current military are killing the young Lions that are on the front line. Frankly I think the lambs should be lined up and shot down like dogs. They are as responsible for the deaths of our troops as if they had pulled the triggers themselves.

When my enemy is killing my troops without the encumbrance of law or rules, then there is no law and there is no rule.

Kill 'em all and let God sort them. The United States has always conducted itself fiercely in combat and magnanimously in peacetime. We will continue to do so. This crap about the laws and rules of warfare are a joke. I'm not attacking you so please do not misunderstand me. I'm attacking the idea of laws of warfare.

There is ONLY one law of warfare. Win by any means necessary. For if you follow that simple concept, then YOU make the laws. It is a harsh reality and a harsh truth, but it IS the truth and it IS the one our enemies are playing by.

Semper Fi

[MPJackal]

I have to throw my two cents in here. I am currently on active duty, U.S. Army. I have 21 years of active service. COL West was wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts. It was a violation of the UCMJ and he knew it. I understand his frustration, but it does not excuse a WAR CRIME. If the Iraqi had not talked after the second shot, what would have been next? A round on the hand, foot, knee? There has to be a line drawn somewhere and the U.S. Military drew it a long time ago. I am glad that a tragady was averted, but it does not make it right. And I for one take great pride in knowing the I and my fellow Soldiers hold the high ground on morality. I do not want to sink to the low levels of oue adversaries in Iraq.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Moral High Ground?

Did the US Army hold the High Ground in the Revolutionary war? Nope

Did it hold it in the war of 1812?
Nope

Did it hold it in the Civil War?
Nope

Did it hold it in WWI or II?
Nope

Did it hold it in Korea?
Nope

Did it hold it in Vietnam?
Nope

My point is, there are times when the rules must be ignored. The UCMJ is fine for peace time and when fighting a modern army against honorable foes. When the time comes to protect the lives of our soldiers against the spies of the enemy, then you do what is necessary to win that fight. Our Army and Marines overcame obstacles in combat throughout our history. They did it by doing what was necessary AT THE MOMENT to win that fight. If it was dirty, immoral, illegal, it didn't matter. We fought, and should STILL fight, to win. Even if that means fighting as dirty as our opponents do.

I forgot to mention the Indian Wars in the plains. They didn't hold the moral high ground there either. They did what was necessary to beat their opponents. If our army today wants to sit on the sideline and fight a Moral war, then they will die by the bushelfull on the moral high ground.

The morals will then be changed to whatever the victors say the new moral is.

[Rider on the Rain]

I understand your point, I respect you for it, and I thank you for your service to our country. I respectfully disagree with you, however, and I believe Lt. Col. West can take pride in his decision and be thankful he didn't have to write those letters to the family members of the men he saved from being KIA.

I am a veteran of 22 years military service myself, including 2 tours of wartime service in Southeast Asia. If I had to go back to a war zone, I would want to serve under Lt. Col. West or someone just like him, who puts the lives of his men above some chicken $hit rule about interrogation techniques.