Lt. Col. Allen B. West

Washington Times ^ | November 6, 2003 | Stanley SrA. USAF 91-95

[Ispy4u]

It's rude to speak of someone and not ping them.

None of the four you named here have convicted him. And I believe all of us have stated that the maximum sentance would be too harsh. Simply, I think I speak for all four of us here, we want to see justice served, whether he's convicted or acquitted makes no difference to me, but he does have to face the music for his deed.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I did not intend to be rude to you since you haven't been rude to me.

A couple of the other's have stated that they hope he does time. Which using their own logic means they have convicted him.

[Ispy4u]

I guess I missed that.

[Jeff Head]

My thoughts on the matter...

Colonel West...you've got my back any time

[Conspiracy Guy]

The whole case has gotten too heated on this thread. I'm not coming back. I'll wait in peace on another thread. This one is getting repetitive.

[Jeff Head]

Colonel West violated the rules in a relatively minor way in a very time critical, combat set of conditions. In so doing he not only was able to accomplish his mission (securing and pacifying the area)...he was able to do so while minimizing the loss of American life. He displayed admirable qualitities of discretion, judgement and accountability in the circumstances he was presented with IMHO, and reported his ciolation personally, indicating he was willing to be accountable for them.

The very outcome he achieved demands a review of the rules in this case IMHO, because had he adhered, in all likelihood he would not have prevented or thwarted the attack (therefore not fulfilling his mission) and he would most likely have lost more lives than he did (which was zero for this particular set of circumstances).

So, while some verbal reminder to him of the importance of adhereing to the written rules may be in order...he should also be recognized and lauded for his willingness to put himself and his own career on the line in order to achieve the accomplishment of his mission with minimum US losses. Such wllingness to sacrifice and put himself at personal risk in order to accomplish the mission would, at another time, be called "service above and beyond the call of duty".

Had he failed...had he not thwarted the attack or found that there was not attack...then his actions would have potentially warranted a more severe reprimand and a mark on his military record...potentially even a justifiable court martial.

But that's not what happened. If everything is as it appears in all of the reports I have read about this, then he took the risk...and it was a personal one...it panned out and the mission was accomplished and lives were saved. That warrants our respect and our praise IMHO.

All of that pretty much some up my own thoughts on the matter.

Jeff

[Conspiracy Guy]

I'd like to second your feelings. Well said!

And thanks for spelling martial correctly. I have been writing marshall out of haste. I'm surprised the spelling and grammar cops haven't slapped a fine on me.

Once again thanks.

[r9etb]

Apparently you have no problem being spun by the supporters of a man whose actions were wrong, by his own admission. Remember: the only story we're getting is the one he and his supporters are feeding to friendly media outlets, and it's the best face they can put on it. Even then, the story is not very favorable.

As for me, I don't trust military officers who act like thugs, and I trust them even less when they fight their battles in the media.

[Jeff Head]

Thanks, we have had a very similar discussion on this thread:

Colonel West...You've got my back any time

[Conspiracy Guy]

I think we are all aware of your feelings and you have a right to them.

[GOPJ]

Sorry, this is the path Saddam took... It ends with nuts killing children in front of their parents. Great way to get information. And it works. It'll even become "fun" after a while. It's called the old "ends justify the means" method. Totally totalitarian. I would rather leave Iraq with shame than become like them. This man should be dumped as soon as possible, with pension. Next Saddam wannabe gets the boot, period.

"So he fired a weapon near his head and made a threat..."

Flame away...

[Jeff Head]

I will not flame you...and I will agree that we cannot become like them.

I just disagree that this instance comes anywhere close to us becoming like them.

See my post 238 on this thread for a summation of my own feelings on why I feel that way.

Best Fregards.

Jeff

[colorado tanker]

You might want to read the Manual for Courts Martial before lecturing me about military justice or the elements of the offense of aggravated assault.

[colorado tanker]

I'm mostly in agreement. From what I can piece together LTC West knowingly risked his career to save some of his soldiers. But the termination of a successful military career is not enough for the lynch mob that wants to send him to Leavenworth. Pretty shabby treatment for a guy who had to have something on the ball to get a battalion command in the 4th I.D.

[Jeff Head]

I don't believe hs should lose his career or got to Leavenworth. I hope the military proceedings result in his complete vindication and in a reveiw of the rules as they relate to this type of circumstance.

BTW, we have another good thread going on about this HERE.

I'll BUMP it to you.

[Dubya]

Very good way to be. Thanks.

[Dubya]

Very good thoughts Jeff. Thanks for sharing them with me.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I have to be some way so I may as well be that way.

[Dubya]

LOL. Thats true.

[Pukin Dog]

You are feeling lectured to? Not my intent.

I've said my piece, and I am willing to see how it all plays out. From persons I have spoken to about this, I have confidence in my opinion, but like I said before, we will see. It would nice if we could all discuss these things without so many noses getting out of joint.