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.

[Poohbah]

Did it hold it in WWI or II?
Nope

Actually, it did, unless you are seriously arguing that the Waffen-SS held the moral high ground.

Did it hold it in Korea?
Nope

Actually, it did, unless you are seriously arguing that the NKPA held the moral high ground.

Did it hold it in Vietnam?
Nope

Actually, it did, unless you are seriously arguing that the Viet Cong and the PAVN held the moral high ground.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"Actually, it did, unless you are seriously arguing that the Waffen-SS held the moral high ground. "

When you gun down your opponents who are surrendering ala Malmedy, you have surrendered the Moral High Ground.

"Actually, it did, unless you are seriously arguing that the NKPA held the moral high ground"

When you use the same tactics against your enemies that they used against you, you are surrendering the moral high ground.

"Actually, it did, unless you are seriously arguing that the Viet Cong and the PAVN held the moral high ground. "

When you slaughter entire villages of VC Civilians, you are surrendering the moral high ground.

I am seriously arguing one thing. Do what is necessary to win the war. Worry about the aftermath later, if any. One of the German High Command (acting Fuhrer at the time, Karl Doenitz) was going to be taken up on charges before the Nuremburg Tribunal for his unrestricted Submarine Warfare against the Allies. These charges were dropped when the british and american admiralties both said that he should not be charged with that. Why? Because THEY had conducted the exact same type of warfare against the Axis forces.

Next?

[Poohbah]

When you gun down your opponents who are surrendering ala Malmedy, you have surrendered the Moral High Ground.

You mean that the Waffen-SS were the Good Guys until that moment? Wow, I didn't know that.

When you slaughter entire villages of VC Civilians, you are surrendering the moral high ground.

If they really are Viet Cong, they aren't civilians, are they?

[MPJackal]

I am afraid you are incorrect in many of you claims. I am especially disturbed by your comment the U.S did not hold the moral high ground in WWII and Korea. Who did then? Hitler and the Comunist Chineese?
Just to point out a couple flaws:
WWI: The U.S come in late in the war. It was vurtually over when we got there. There is no evidence to say we fought immorally.

WWII: I have been to Malmady where German troops executed a couple hundred Allied POWs. A few escaped and word spread to Bastogne. Part of the reason for the "Nuts" response to the German call to surender.

Mex-Am War. Daniel Boone and his men were captured alive and subsequently bayonet executed. After that atrocity many Mexican soldiers lost the will to fight. And many are said to have laid down there weapons in the face of attacking U.S. Forces and saying they had nothing to do with the Alamo.

History is full of stories and demoralized men rising up rather than face torture at the hands of the enemy. So go ahead and be like the Dems and give them more resolve. Lets torture more for info so as to create more fanatics that wish to die to rid Iraq of the immoral invaders.

I believe God favors those that hold true to him. 1LT Kelly (SP) was frustrated in Vietnam when he murdered those villagers? Where there VC in with them? Sure. Does it make it right? NO.

Although LTC West may have stopped that one event, he may have set in motion 100 more. Other steps could have been take to safe guard his Soldiers. He admits he knew he was violating the UCMJ.
I don't want the LTC to loose his retirement or even be court-martialed (sp). But the Army can not condone his actions. Think about the precedent it would set.

[nightdriver]

"The US military doesn't use weapons or intimated threats of death to extract information from prisoners."

I know. They seem to prefer losing American lives instead.

That's what we experienced in 'Nam too.

[FreedomPoster]

What makes you think this prisoner was wearing the uniform of our enemy when captured? If he was hiding in the civilian populace, he would be considered a spy / saboteur, and subject to summary execution.

[Mr. Lucky]

OK, let's look at precedent. At the Battle of the Bulge, a number of Germans donned American uniforms and sought thereby to spread confusion among allied forces. They were foiled largely by examples of American ingenuity such as call signs asking the name of Mickey Mouse' girlfriend, and the like.

Because the circumstances were exigent and because the Germans clothed in American uniforms were no longer protected by the rules of war, those who were captured were summarily executed.

The circumstances into which Lt. Col West was thrust were exigent, the Iraqi in question was an enemy combatant who donned the uniform of Iraqi forces allied to America. He was no longer protected by the rules of war.

In retrospect, maybe Col West did the right thing; maybe he did the wrong thing, but it is petty and obscene for those whose safety was bought and paid for by men like Col West to sit behind their computer screens and second guess him.

[Michael121]

He did what he did because of the lack of the Interrogators making any progress, HE DID IT FOR HIS MEN.

He should not be punished. When I was in damn few officers would take heat, this one did. Time to turn it off, and let him off the stove.

[Chief_Joe]

You also deserve a medal for stating the oblivious so clearly, cleverly, and succinctly. Thanks!!!

[Leatherneck_MT]

These are not claims, they are historical facts. Let me point out a few to you since you seem to have a number of historical innacuracies here.



In his book called "The Other Price of Hitler's War: German Military & Civilian Losses Resulting from WW 2," author Martin Sorge wrote the following regarding the events that took place after the massacre:


"It was in the wake of the Malmedy incident at Chegnogne that on New Year's Day 1945 some 60 German POWs were shot in cold blood by their American guards. The guilt went unpunished. It was felt that the basis for their action was orders that no prisoners were to be taken."

BTW, 45 escaped, not several hundred. 80 to 85 were gunned down in the field at the 5 corners south of Malmedy. The actual number of the Battery was 125 men.

The Mexican American war took place between 1846 and 1848. Daniel Boone died in his home September 26, 1820 at the age of 85.

I agree with you that the Lord favors those that hold true to him. But this is not about our personal relationsip with God. If you find it hard to do those things which you find to be despicable and dishonorable then I salute you. Don't ever change.

But the fact remains is that the Army of the United States in it's history, has consistantly done what was necessary to win battles and to win wars, regardless of some Rule or Law of war. History is replete with evidence of this, all you need to do is to look for it.

Semper Fi

[Chief_Joe]

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

I don't think so. Who the h*ll are you to try to micro manage this commander's decisions? Your posts seem to come from some bureaucrat in a cushy job far removed from the action, safely, and securely pontificating on this man's actions when he was faced with life and deaf decisions in regards to the troops he was commissioned to lead. Leadership in not being some autocrat. True leaders would commend this officer for his extraordinary effective efforts that prevented his troops from getting ambushed. If his superiors were true leaders, they would back him both implicitly and explicitly to show all the troops under their command they were going to be supported 100% in their efforts.

[Lancey Howard]

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.

That mouse Togo West was appointed by Scumbag, wasn't he? He's gone now, right?

Right?

[91B]

Bump-an interesting point and I'm curious to hear the reply.

[Lancey Howard]

If I was West I would hire the biggest big-mouth lawyer I could find and take this to television, radio, and every newspaper in the country. This is a disgrace.

[MPJackal]

Sorry I was busy when typing. Davy Crocket not DB. I guess I was thinking of Jim Bowe who was also there. And I did say a few escaped at Malmady, not 200. You are corret that Americans have been resposible for War crimes. Still does not make it right. Second. If you or anyone else disobeys orders you have committed a crime, dishonored yourself and your men. We work for the civilian government and laws and orders have been given to me and you. You have a duty to obey. If you do not, we have lost the discipline that makes our military great. How would you react if your troops did not obey your orders, The fact they don't agree is irrelevant. If you can't follow orders your in the wrong business.

[SJSAMPLE]

Who told you this?
We don't conduct summary executions, anymore.

[FreedomPoster]

O'Reilly is all over this story. That's a pretty loud mouth (and I mean that in a good way) on a pretty big soapbox.

[SJSAMPLE]

I hope that they find the LTC did nothing wrong. But, I'd also like to ensure that we're following the codes of conduct that have served us so well for the better part of a century.

There's a big difference between engaging the enemy in combat and the treatment of prisoners.

[FreedomPoster]

You're studiously ignoring the point. Under that scenario, under Geneva Conventions, that would not be a violation.

[91B]

Well, forgive me if my impression is incorrect, but isn't it true that guerillas and partisans are not afforded the same protections under the Geneva Convention as uniformed combatants? Isn't that why (our justification anyway) we are holding those caught with the Taliban in Afghanistan at Gitmo without affording them access to normal criminal (or even UCMJ) proceedings? In which case this guy-if caught out of uniform-would not be afforded the same protections as a regular combatant and there might be some question as to whether or not LTC West's actions are punishable or even actionable.

His status matters, and if he is a terrorist (since he was presumably acting against military, as opposed to civilian, targets I would prefer to say guerilla or partisan, but the administration has chosen its terms for the war and those we are fighting) then we are allowed considerable leeway in how to deal with him no?