Posted on 11/06/2003 4:44:20 AM PST by Jeff Head
The following is Lt. Col. Allen B. West's own candid comment regarding the situation he faced in Iraq, as reported by the Washington Dispatch on November 5, 2003:
"I have never denied what happened and have always been brutally honest," said Col. West. "I accept responsibility for the episode, but my intent was to scare this individual and keep my soldiers out of a potential ambush. There were no further attacks from that town. We ... apprehended two other conspirators (a third fled town) and found out one of the conspirators was the father of a man we had detained for his Saddam Fedeyeen affiliation. "Colonel West takes personal responsibility for his actions. He makes no bones about it, he threatened this Iraqi spy bodliy harm to get information from him. And that is what he was, a spy working within the Iraqi Police Force that has been established and supported by the coalition authority. As a spy, under the so-called rules of war, I believe he could have shot the man. Perhaps that is an angle that should be explored.
In either case, Colonel West's actions no doubt saved the lives of Americans...the lives he is principally responsible for...and that was his motivation.
He understood that while he may have violated the rules (and he admits to and takes responsibility for this as well)...he also understood he was going to do what had to be done, in a war zone, to save the lives of the men under his command.
The rules were written by men and women sitting in safe seats far away from combat and the brutal reality of the moment. For the most part they are good rules and should not be violated. But there are times when the SHTF that you have to do what you must to save the lives of those you are responsible for, American lives, and accomplish the mission. Colonel West knew his greater responsibility and he performed it, regardless of personal cost. The trait of a true leader in my book.
President Truman incinerated tens of thousands of Japanese to save hundreds of thousands of Americans...and in so doing he also saved millions of Japanese. In today's world and PC nomenclature this might be considered a war crime...a violation of the "rules". But back then it was heralded by the soldiers as a God-send...and by Americans back home as what had to be done to end the war. People who had seen for themsleves the cold reality of four years of World War.
That generation is dying out and it seems we have forgottent their experiences and the lessons.
The reality is, that by scaring this man in the fashion he did...West not only saved American lives...he saved the lives of Iraqis as well.
God bless you Colonel West...you've got my back any time!
Charlie Mike.
archy:
"Col. West's wife, Angela, who lives in Fort Hood, Texas, has retained an attorney in North Carolina." ~ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35345
Now if some caring FReepers, particularly those who are themselves military wives or have been there and done that, or those who care deeply about such things for other reasons, would invite Angela West to FReep, where she'd immediately gain a few thousand helpful FRiends....
allen.west@us.army.mil
Street intel should improve,,high probability of killing and capturing ring leaders..and scareing the Jihadi until they soil themselves.
But...Damn it Damn it...What about the Freaking Mosque and these Mullah F****!
Unless they can get Iraqi's to bump this lot off..they will have to go on them..and to Hell with Irans crying..U.N. and Saudi's.
These Arab and Muslim leaders..from Karzi to the Hoser Pharaoh of Egypt,
they can't stroll around the south forty..go for a walk in the market..
The streets of Islam are entirley opportunistic..and anyones head is big cash.
Its great and all that to have Vision...but reality has a way of trimming such back..they are either right "For the Time..or Fanatasy".
The talk..."We must Invite the Iraqi's"...?
Invite?
Somehow..Invite just seems surreal in view of whats occuring.
First question: Do you think the Iraqis are capable off carrying out such a pristine attack that only Col West would be assasinated? No, instead I think they would try to take out as many surrounding Col. West to insure that they get him. If this is correct, then others were at risk. (Have you read "The Oddysey"? You were not very lucky when you stood nexy to Odysseus.)
Second question: Do you think that stopping one attack was the ony objective for Col. West? I think that he wanted to round up as many involved as possible. Rather than postponing an attack (which is what changing routines, patrols does), he was planning to eliminate it entirely and perhaps others. Other spies (I agree with that designation) could be routed out and a domino effect has started.
Third question: How can you be certain that there was not a very short fuse on the plot? Expediency, as many pointed out, requires immediate actions at times.
What happens when the terroists find out that our men are punished for extracting information? I see the situation becoming as hopeless as when criminals here know that the police cannot go beyond a certain point or that the law will begin to protect the outlaws. To be brutally honest, I would rather see our guys protected than terrorist scum.
Couldn't agree more.
HUMAN EVENTS: Should Secretary Rumsfeld intervene to prevent a court-martial if West's action actually saved American lives?
SEN. CRAIG THOMAS (R.-WYO.): Well, I don't know. I'm not familiar with what you're saying. We do have rules for interrogation of people who are not involved in an act of violence. It's different if they're in an act of violence. But if they're interrogating someone, and using violence as a way of seeking to get information, I think that's not in keeping with our rules.
HUMAN EVENTS: Would you say it's better or worse that he did that, if it prevented an attack?
THOMAS: Well, what if it didn't? I mean, are you going to let the system work, regardless of whether you prevented anything or you didn't? I'm not sure that can be the criterion. I mean, I understand-you say it's a good thing he did it. But what about the five guys you do that to, for whom there is no saving grace?
HUMAN EVENTS: He didn't actually shoot the guy, he just shot his gun-
THOMAS: There are rules-I think you have to abide by the rules.
Rules? Rules? In a combat situation where hudreds of lives were saved by his action, where the enemy is a gaggle of suicidal islamic freaks, rules of common decency are out the window!
What a gutless senatorial majority!
And that you think that his is a particularly meaningful or cogent statement is why you are unfit for a command, which fortunately, you will never have. Battlefield commanders must make life-and-death decisions under great pressure and often with little time to reflect, with often arbitrary and conflicting rules and rules that do not clearly apply to the circumstances, always with mission accomplishment and safety of his forces foremost in his mind. You, in your barracks lawyer mentality put a value on neither lives of his men, nor mission accomplishment, which are among a commanders most sacred duties.
You are quite simply dead wrong about the bit about protecting the lives of the men under his command not being part of his duties. It is one of his foremost obligations, which, in your ignorance of command responsibility and the traditions of American military you overlook.
YOU and your pettyfogging military bureaucratic "the rules are the rules and orders are orders" kind think there is a dichotomy between mission accomplishment and protecting American lives, but that is based on pure unadulterated ignorance.
One of the things that I never do on this forum is assume that I have wisdom or knowledge superior to others on this forum, because there is always someone out there who turns out to be, quite legitimately, the world's leading authority on the case in question.
In your effort to stand up for the the rule of order and regs, you are standing up for something that you don't really understand, and in your inflated self-importance, you have taken on, as your interlocutors, a lot of retired senior military officers who frankly know a damn lot more about the intersection between mission and policy and regulation and getting the job done and protecting lives and expensive equipment than you ever dreamed of.
What you miss is that the charges brought against Col. West arise out of pure politics and the interference of politicians in the conduct of military operations. Those of us who have been there are going to scream like banshees until Bush and Rumsfeld put the 2* and 3* generals commanding the typing pool in their place and get them out of second guessing combat officers. If THEY, Bush and Rumsfeld, wanted things clean THEY should have stayed home. THEY didn't. THEY must understand the consequences - and not expect the needless sacrifice of lives that can be protected by appropriate actions of battlefield commanders, and not second guess the decisions of combat commanders who take steps to protect the lives of Americans.
Yes mission is important. But so are American lives. That is why we are a great country - because we protect our own, and risk American blood only for the most important of causes - and never ever ever sacrifice it needlessly with impunity. The two greatest American generals of modern history, MacArthur and Patton felt a sacred duty to keep combat casualties to the minimum. And they had nothing but derision for those who thoughtlessly threw away blood or treasure or equipment for no meaningful gain.
This was one of those times and Col. Wesy has been very stand up about his decision and accepting accountability for it.
I believe he will be exonerated too.
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.