Posted on 11/19/2003 2:28:55 PM PST by kattracks
For your scenario "do as I say and not as I do" to work, the soldiers would have had to have been punished by the LTC for operating in the same set of curcumstances, doing the same thing the LTC did.
That is not the case.
The LTC used his discretion as the commander and made a judgement call in a time-critical, combat set of circumstances to extract information from a spy. He was willing to take responsibility for that action and reported himself to his superiors...and he obtained the necessary information in the process.
Did the soldiers you speak of do those same things? They did not, therefore the simplistic comparison you are trying to make does not fit...and most people know it.
As to the Colonel not willing to face the music...that is patently untrue. Just because he fights to retain his grade and retirement (which he is entitled and has a right to do through his defense) does not mean he is unwilling to face the fiddler. He reported himself, he has stated on a number of occassions that he realizes his career is over in the service, and he is in fact before the court now as we post.
You are entitled to your belief and opinion of the LTC. I am entitled to mine.
I have corresponded with the LTC directly and now to others on the ground over there, who are involved. They do not share your opinion.
Either way, it is before the military court now and all of the pertinent information will come out and a decision will be made.
Well, they were.
The LTC used his discretion as the commander and made a judgement call in a time-critical, combat set of circumstances to extract information from a spy.
So claimeth LTC West. Reality was apparently significantly less threatening.
Did the soldiers you speak of do those same things?
Yes, and for the same reason--to get information out of the prisoner.
And LTC West smacked 'em down for it.
He held his men to a standard of conduct he was unwilling to meet.
If he can't command himself, he has no business commanding others.
Kindly remember that the Army was investigating the guy already--apparently, more than one soldier tossed the BS flag on LTC West. Such investigations are not undertaken lightly in a combat zone.
No, they were not.
I will grant that the stories are conflicting on both sides. There are axes being ground.
After speaking with those over there...I continue to fall on the side of the LTC for the reasons I have stated...irrespective of your opinions to the contrary.
We shall see what the court indicates and will have to live with it either way.
I know this...West does take responsibility and accountability for his actions. I also know that he is the type of officer who was willing to put his own 19.5 year career on the line for those men.
Call it whatever you wish...but I would want my own sons serving under such an officer and I have spoken with literally scores of combat tested officers, NCO's and soldiers who agree...knowing about all of the circumstances that we have both been speaking of.
I don't believe we are going to change each other's mind (surprise, surprise). I've stated my beliefs and opinions of the matter and so have you. I am content to let it stand that way and let other readers make up their own minds.
Do you have valid sources for that?
I googled for a source and found two old Freep threads. One contains a comment by you indicating that you were not so sure. To wit, "It would be rather interesting if (1) LTC West encouraged them to beat the Iraqi, and (2) if he gave them an Article 15 over it."
So somewhere you learned definitively that he punished them. I could not find it. I did read that the Iraqi's interrogators were both female. I'd heard that before. I also heard that the Iraqi was a wise-ass greeting the colonel with, "I love you." If the interrogators were female I can only imagine what they had to put up with.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1014980/posts
The older I get the more I realize how lucky I was to have the "Greatest Generation" and men like Lt. Col West to protect our freedom. I saw what happens when they are thwarted and interferred with a generation ago. They won the battles over there and others lost the war here at home.
You make your pown position come across much worse when you do things like that...and that's the best advise I can give you about it, irrespective of whether it is deserved or not.
Like I said regarding the point at hand, I am willing for other reeaders to make theeir own judgements.
I do know this...in WW II, when our nation faced enemies of the same ilk as these Islamo-fascists, who want nothing more than to kill as many of us as they can and are willing to die doing so...those of that day understood situations like this and how to handle them. They did not glory in them, they did not enjoy it and they were not animals for doing so...they just understood that we were in a fight for our very lives and liberty and that that liberty and way of life were the most worthwhile way iof life and opportunity for freedom that existed on earth and worth preserving at all costs.
We could be headed for the same type of fight here on a larger scale. 911 made it clear we are already in it.
Anyhow, your last post makes it clear that further discussion with you along these line is pointless.
Out.
In your dreams! I never sulk. : )
Poohbah can't be right when he takes both positions in every debate or should I say 'Poohbah is always right because he incorporates both views in every argument?'. Well not really because sometimes both views are wrong.
It's the predictable outcome of the path you demand that we travel down, especially since the terrorists aren't stupid enough to hold big signs saying "I AM A TERRORIST, ARREST ME."
We are killing the terrorists. We are doing so in a fashion that leaves them isolated and alone, and shows that their sympathizers are weak and ineffective.
You can't kill or isolate what you can't identify. That reality hasn't changed since the dawn of time either.
I breathlessly await your next sophistic spin replete with extensive and imaginative revisions of my words and whole cloth assumptions.
We can identify them--by their actions (namely, when they actually shoot at Americans), or from tactical and operational warning (informants, whose word should, of course, be taken with a large grain of salt). The problem is that you demand that we make them fear us BEFORE they are identified in that fashion, which means terrorizing the civilian populace at large--and, incidentally, cutting us off from the most reliable source of operational and tactical warning.
I realize I'm overclocking your neuron with all these points of logic. So be it.
Translation: "Poohbah's unsubstantiated reality supercedes all other accounts."
So claimeth LTC West. Reality was apparently significantly less threatening.
Translation: "Poohbah can better assess battlefield conditions at his keyboard with history books at hand than the 'boots on the ground' can. (It's just easier that way.)"
Hey look at that! I can play this game of 'invent-the-opposition-position' too. (And better; IMNHO) The difference is it makes you squirm but it doesn't bother me at all. It truly shows. Take command of yourself. Deal with direct questions; document your assertions. Don't expect it of others until you can do it.
It was reports from those "boots on the ground" that prompted an IG investigation in the first place; said investigation resulted in the charges.
No it doesn't. What you envision me to have said is extensive but in one direction only. You have reached the limits of your imagination.
The problem is that you demand that we make them fear us BEFORE they are identified in that fashion. ...
No I didn't. You have made that up. My view is just the opposite. Once identified the opposition should be treated in the most austere fashion reasonable. If you envision that to mean beatings and electric shock that's your problem. We should be sweeping out in interlocking concentric circles expanding a perimeter of "cleansed" territory (cleansed of weapons) within Baghdad and other cities. Entry into the perimeter should be tightly controlled. Travel routes constantly monitored and scrutinized.
When resistance is met it should be overwhelmingly crushed. Non-combatants should know by experience that traveling with those who put up resistance can be lethal. They won't irrationally fear that they will respect it. Liking it is irrelevant. Iraq may be big but it's not that big. Most of it is uninhabited.
Logic built on an edifice of fantasy is taxing. Quite true. Other "boots on the ground" have praised his actions. It was first reported that the investigation was spawned by his own report so there seems to be some conflict as to how it came about. I don't have at hand support for that view; perhaps you can link to info. that supports yours.
It should be noted that I have as yet not commented on the correctness/incorrectness of Col. West's actions. You took me to task on my opinion that this war is being undercut by PC concerns and your percieved view of what I had in mind to correct that. It's your opinion vs. my opinion. Don't try to make your neuron leap that synapse.
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.
