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.

[SJSAMPLE]

How, exactly?

1. He's accused of violating internal rules of the DOD (interrogation techniques).

2. There's a lot of room for interpretation under both Geneva and the Hague Accords. Depending on the true details of what happened, he could have done nothing wrong or something eggregious. Most people here don't want to know, either way.

How can I be ignoring the point? I'm one of the few here who isn't trying to throw out every convention and law and forget the whole thing. I believe he's entitled to a hearing and, if warranted, a fair trial.

[SJSAMPLE]

Like the Taliban fighters, these guys are classified as "Enemy Combatants" because they don't wear the uniform of a recognized country, as a regular army would.

They get the very same protections as POWs, as far as the military is concerned. However, they can be tried as terrorists (while uniformed soldiers cannot). The UCMJ only applies to American military personnel. Everybody else is covered by the appropriate US laws.

If they're attacking soldiers in the theatre, I'm not sure they can be classified as terrorists. If they're attacking civilians (schools, hospitals, et al) they could definitely be classified as terrorists. The press just uses one word (depending on their political bent) for nearly everybody.

Either way, there's nothing in our laws that allows us to mistreat them.

[FreedomPoster]

He's only fighting Marquis of Queensbury. Unfortunately, our opponents are street-fighting.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Must have misread that, I could have sworn you said several hundred, but be that as it may.

I expect to be charged and prosecuted (if appropriate) if disobey a LAWFUL order. However, you and I both know that not all orders are lawful.

However, I do not consider me sacrificing my men in a mission when I can prevent it by breaking some touchy feely, feel good Law of War a disobediance of an Order.

If I can accomplish the mission and preserve the law and bring my men back home, then I will do that.

If I can accomplish the mission and NOT preserve the law and bring my men back home, then I will do THAT.

If I can accomplish the mission and preserve the law and NOT bring my men back home, then I will REFUSE to do that.

2 things in combat are important. Your buddies are first and foremost. We don't fight for any other reason. We fight for the man next to us. 2nd is the Mission. The absolute last consideration is the law. Preserve it when you can, break it if you must, but not at the expense of your men or your friends.

Semper Fi

[MainFrame65]

Brownie points for self-reporting is just not enough. The proposed punishment is far too severe for this violation, in which the harm done to the prisoner is purely a technical violation. There needs to be some judgement here, which is a quality that too many judges lack. Zero tolerance is a synonym for zero intelligence, which is what the rule of law becomes without judging the totality of circumstances. If the law prescribes this punishment, the law needs to be changed, and the court needs to recognize the exceptional circumstances of this - or a similar - incident.

Imagine we had captured a similarly informed collaborator with information about the recent RPG attack on the helicopter. What initiative, what actions, would we want the local commander to have taken? And as the dozens of dead and wounded victims are collected, and the letters are written to their families, what should that commander say about sending his men into harm's way blind, all the while knowing that the information to save them was at hand?

if we should manage to deter such mildly agressive questioning for the future, who will bear the burden of the wounds - and lives - of the victims?

[91B]

It seems to me that the DOD wants it both ways here. When they take prisoners from Afghanistan to Gitmo they can tie them up, blindfold them, make them wear a big diaper, etc. (BTW I have no problem whatsoever with any of that, but I would be surprised to find any precedent in US military history of similar treatment of normal POWs) and hold them for an indeterminate period of time because they are "enemy combatants", but an officer in Iraq can't use questionable interrogation techniques.

If I were LTC West's advocate I would subpoanae (sp) the testimony of every soldier involved in interrogation of prisoners in Afghanistan to see if there are any similar incidents that went unpunished. The DOD just may be opening a can of worms that they don't want to deal with with this.

[91B]

LOL.

[SJSAMPLE]

Yeah. I want us to take it real easy on them.
It's really is amazing how many people have no clue about how US servicemen are expected to act in war.

We agree to specific rules of war, and then we want to ignore them because "we're at war!" Simply amazing.

[SJSAMPLE]

I'm not sure what you mean by "technical violation"?

If the officer accidentally walked into the room with his sidearm still on, I could understand.

If the officer took an approved action during questioning, but it unintentionally ventured into the prohibited areas, I could understand that.

But knowingly taking a prohibited course of action is NOT a "technical violation." I honestly hope it turns out to NOT be a violation of any kind. But wishing it away to the cornfield isn't gonna cut it. Nobody here is authorized to "forgive and forget" acts which might be criminal, even if everybody's blood is up.

[SJSAMPLE]

I agree. Some of our methods in either case are somewhat confusing, from a legal standpoint. Buy you, yourself, use the word "questionable" when referring to LTC West's actions. If they're truly "questionable", then we should question them and find out. I've never said they should hang him from a pike.

I think the LTC should do whatever he can to make his case, the same as I would suggest for anybody facing prosecution. He deserves the best defense he can get.

[EverOnward]

Standing ovation to you sir. Bravo!

[EverOnward]

"I spent 15 years in uniform."

How many of those years were spent in combat (or even outside your office)? Frankly, you sound like a pencil pusher. I've had the benefit of working with people in uniform -- the office variety (you sound like one) -- and the closest some of them have come to real war scenarios is watching footage on tv. (Some of them also have quite a know-it-all attitude, but faint when the weather gets a little too hot.)

[MainFrame65]

It was a technical violation in the sense that the prisoner suffered neither actual injury nor any direct threat of such injury, such as some other posts have suggested (pointing the gun at him, firing next to his ear, or barely missing him).

Another post here says that the prisoner was brought out to the colonel. If so, this incident occurred in a command location rather than in a prisoner venue, so being armed was likely not an issue. That might be enough to fit within one of the mitigating circumstances you advanced, based only on his actions. But he told the truth, and is being punished for that, too.

I contend that the proposed punishment is far too severe for the actual transgression, and that if the law fails to recognize that, it needs changing. A letter of reprimand - still a career ender - would be more suitable, although it would deprive us of the services of a truly dedicated, experienced, battle-tested leader of men in the field.

Personally, I would not trade one Col. West for half a hundred General Wesley Clarks, and I guarantee that every one of his men would echo that.

[Poohbah]

Who the h*ll are you to try to micro manage this commander's decisions?

Wow. Expecting commissioned officers to obey long-standing orders is micromanagement?

Just out of curiousity...who the h*ll do you think you are to try to micromanage Lon Horiuchi's decisions at Ruby Ridge, or Janet Reno's decisions at Waco?

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.

No, it's from the perspective of someone who has been one of those troops.

Leadership in not being some autocrat. True leaders would commend this officer for his extraordinary effective efforts that prevented his troops from getting ambushed.

Leadership is holding your people accountable for their actions.

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.

If they give him a pass on this...where does giving him a pass stop?

[SJSAMPLE]

Artillery, Lance missiles, guns, and then the MLRS/ATACMS system. I was a COMBAT ARMS officer for all 15 years.

It's typical that, when unable to develop a coherent argument, the attacks begin.

[SJSAMPLE]

I don't want to seem him destroyed, either. It would be devastating to morale in an already tense theater.

The issue, for me, isn't the specific actions of this officer. It's the general lack of understanding of the UCMJ and laws of warfare, and the willingness by many to throw them out the window without considering the consequences.

[SJSAMPLE]

You really don't have a clue, do you?

I love people who "work with" people in uniform. They make a lot or ridiculous suppositions without any true experience. You attacks are juvenile.