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.
Goodbye.
Now, you've lost all coherence.
This effort to throw LTC West in Leavenworth is wrong, just plain wrong. I wouldn't think you'd want to be part of that lynch mob.
That it is.
Good thread here...I am glad that all of the various positions can air their feelings...but believe, despite it all, that what the Colonel did was not only correct and justafied...it is worthy of our praise. He performed an act, IMHO, truly above and beyond the call of duty in the best sense of the meaning of that phrase.
Somebody should have used their discretion not to throw this into the criminal justice system. But, it's very American to resolve difficult issues and scandals in court.
I agree 1000%. In fact, since subsequent events have proven his decision, judgement and risk to have been the correct thing to do as regardfs accomplishing his mission and minimizing US casualties, the powers that be should review the rules in question and then ensure that no taint or black mark against this fine man stands.
Agreed on both counts.
When my current book series is complete late next Spring...I intend to write a book about that experience in Klamath Falls, Oregon.
The faith and fortitude of those good all-American farmers and ranchers and what they were able to accomplish is a story that all Americans should hear about IMHO.
I will use my site and the material there:
as the source material for the novel.
Best Fregards.
I do appreciate the way you have carried yourself on this thread and the level headed and reasoned discussion you have presented in the points you have raised. Even though I disagree with some of them, all of us could use a lot more reasoned dialogue in discussing those differences.
Thanks again for that...and for your service.
In the end I believe we do agree that West should not go to jail or be ruined over this and that he is willing to accept accountability for his actions...and was from the beginning when he himself reported what he had done to his superiors.
I just happen to believe that his actions should be extolled and that the "rules" in this case, as a result of the experience, should be reviewed and modified so that such initiative, that does not physically harm the prisoner but proves to be correct judgement in helping successfully complete the mission while minimizing US casualties, can be encouraged.
If that initiative is then abused to either torture or inhumanely treat a captive under the new rules that came out of such a review, and does not prove to be correct by subsequent events...meaning the latitude was taken unnecessarily, then corrective action could be taken.
Just my opinion.
Fregards.
LOL! You funny.
You need to understand some things before concluding the man is guilty of assault. There are many different kinds of assault under the UCMJ involving different elements of proof. There is a detailed explanation in the Manual. To convict, ALL elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There are also affirmative defenses that a defendant may raise which would lead to acquittal even if the basic offense was proven. These include defense of a third person and duress (also known as the choice of evils defense) that are very much in play here. The legal picture is much more complex and LTC West has a lot more to talk about than has been portrayed here. He has an outstanding lawyer, so we'll see.
You also need to understand that prosecutors, including military prosecutors, have discretion in the decision to charge. Doubts about acheiving a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt should lead to a decision not to charge. I don't know what they've got other than West's own statement. If West prevails at the Art. 32, the charges probably shouldn't have been brought. We'll see.
It's a little hard to square your opinion that you would have brought the charges with the opinion that you don't want him to go to jail.
That's understandable. I would recommend those charges because LTC West as a commander admitted IMO to assault. We have had a discussion of aggravated vice simple and you have convinced me to rethink my support for aggravated. Therefore if an admission is made the JAG has a duty to recommend charges.
The Convening authority has the option to accept or decline, and even if accepted, and conviction is found the judge does not have to issue maximum sentance.
It's been established there are clearly mitigating circumstances here and I agree with that, just not as much as some others, those are what I hope will keep him out of jail. A better solution (barring more evidence we don't know about) would be allowing him to retire and make a large sum of money from his book (hey, if Je$$ica Lynch can why can't he).
And I agree more than a few would be interested in hearing his story. His weapon didn't jam and he remembers what happened, after all.
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.