House Demands Report from Army on LTC West Investigation

HASC Press Release | 21 Nov 03

[O6ret]

PRESS RELEASE

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Armed Services

Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 21, 2003

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES LEADERS DEMAND INFORMATION CONCERNING LT. COLONEL WEST

Actions to Save Soldiers Were Proper Based on Available Information

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and John M. McHugh (R-NY)are calling on U.S. Army leadership to immediately provide a report on the investigation of Lt. Col. Allen West. West is charged with improperly interrogating an Iraqi prisoner.

Based on the information currently available to them, Hunter and McHugh believe that West's actions may well have been necessary to protect the lives and safety of his fellow soldiers and not the actions of a criminal, as he is charged. Hunter is Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and McHugh is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, which has jurisdiction over military personnel matters.

According to news accounts, the incident in question took place this pastAugust near Tikrit, Iraq, when guerrillas attacked U.S. soldiers underWest's command. An informant told U.S. authorities that a local policeman was involved. West ordered the policeman brought in, though he proveduncooperative. West has testified that he fired his pistol near the head ofthe Iraqi, threatening to kill him in an effort to obtain information to protect his troops. As a result of the tactic, the Iraqi provided information regarding a planned sniper attack on U.S. soldiers. Two insurgents were arrested, a third fled and there were no attacks in the area. West immediately informed his commanding officer of the incident. He is currently facing an inquiry to determine if there is cause for a court-martial.

"We are highly disturbed by media accounts that the Army is beginning criminal proceedings against Lt. Col. Allen B. West for taking actions in Iraq that he believed were necessary to protect the lives and safety of his men," stated the Congressmen in a letter to Les Brownlee, Acting Secretary of the Army. "To us, such actions if accurately reported do not appear to be those of a criminal," the letter continues.

In addition to the information previously requested, the Congressmen are asking to see a new report. "We are aware the Army has completed a preliminary inquiry regarding whether to proceed to a court martial and would like to review that report," said Hunter and McHugh in a joint statement. "Our interest is in justice. Based on what we know right now, it is more than reasonable to assume that Col. West acted in a manner proportionate to the threat against his soldiers."

[William Terrell]

After you perform a fake execution on that terrorist, he will understand that it is fake, and the next time will not work.

Another good question might be, if West gets burned, how many soldiers may die because the next commander who finds himself in this situation will be more interested in his career that his men?

Where soldiers lives are at risk all the time, it strikes me as a blow to the morale of those men and that weakens the cohesion of of a fighting unit. If moral is bad the unit does a bad job.

I think congress has a vested interest of behalf of the American people to see that the nation is successful in its military projects and as many soldiers as possible come home in one piece. One may agree or disagree with our presence in Iraq, but if the action is started and fails, that hurts us all.

[grunt03]

Been there and done that.

Just for us sitting on the sidelines, where was 'there' and what was it that you 'done'?

[AndyJackson]

"Life is unfair" does not excuse LTC West from having to obey the orders given him.

Muwiyah is wrong. You could never have been a senior officer, Poobah, not even in the Air Force. With your over-emphasis on obeying orders, and your lack of discussion about the other duties and responsibilities of an officer, you sure never served a day as a field grade officer, even running a mess.

The problem is that an officer has a lot of other duties in leading men besides just obeying regulations. And let us be clear - he did not violate a direct order of a superior officer in command on the battlefield. He violated a standing regulation written by someone a long time ago in a different place. That particular rule may or may not be important in this circumstance. Col. West was obliged to exercise the totality of his judgment over the totality of the situation and exercise his duties to country, men and mission, as best he could. Yes it is the role of others to decide whether his judgement was correct.

At least some Congressment just weighed in with their opinion. Since they right the laws, the certainly have a right to state their opinion about what they meant the law to mean, and they also have a right to call in the administration and inquire into the administrations execution of the laws. That is a right of oversight that the Congress, as the legislature, has always enjoyed. It is an ineherent power of the legislature.

[LibKill]

Well, I was just a Marine NCO.

But I knew what side I was on. (hint, I NEVER took the side of any enemy of the United States, unlike some here)

[Poohbah]

Where soldiers lives are at risk all the time, it strikes me as a blow to the morale of those men and that weakens the cohesion of of a fighting unit. If moral is bad the unit does a bad job.

Indiscipline in treatment of prisoners is usually the first sign of morale going to hell.

[Poohbah]

Well, that's the point. From the description of events given by LTC West, either (a) there's a bunch of stuff he's not telling us (likely), or (b) if the situation is as he describes it, then he should have been relieved for tactical incompetence.

[Poohbah]

But I knew what side I was on. (hint, I NEVER took the side of any enemy of the United States, unlike some here)

You're the one who wants to make sure al-Qaeda can always recruit more terrorists, not me.

[AndyJackson]

Well, I was just a Marine NCO.

You have my admiration. I just get tired of guys who think that all an officer, or an NCO does is go and obey a bunch of rules and follow orders. Modern combat is far too complex for a soldier to sit around and wait until he gets a direct order from a wet behind the ears officer to tell him what to do. There is no book of rules that tells you how to be an effective leader of men, or how to defend the constitution or protect the lives of men under your charge or a lot of other things that are fundamental duties of a combat leader. You know as well as I that the rules are just part of it.

[Poohbah]

Just for us sitting on the sidelines, where was 'there' and what was it that you 'done'?,

Beirut, and I came home alive and intact without shooting half of the population.

[AndyJackson]

You're the one who wants to make sure al-Qaeda can always recruit more terrorists, not me

Al-Qaeda is able to recruit terrorists because of social and economic conditions in the Middle East. This has nothing to do with how kind, sweet, and gentle an American Combat Officer is to a spy/terrorist/sabateur who has gotten inside his defense perimeter in the uniform of a police officer.

[Poohbah]

Al-Qaeda is able to recruit terrorists because of social and economic conditions in the Middle East. This has nothing to do with how kind, sweet, and gentle an American Combat Officer is to a spy/terrorist/sabateur who has gotten inside his defense perimeter in the uniform of a police officer.

Do we really know that for an absolute fact? Or was this a guy who was identified by a "confidential informant," who may have had his own agenda? Hell, if I were a Ba'athist, and I had reason to believe that LTC West was likely to do this sort of thing, I'd start dropping all kinds of hints, and I'd especially make sure West didn't trust the local cops.

All we really know is that LTC West used some of the standard techniques of the Ba'athists to interrogate this guy. Now, they were the milder ones--but there are reasons the US Army doesn't allow them to be used. The biggest one is that they seldom work.

When you do moick executions and the like, you will most likely get false confessions. Now, Saddam's people didn't care--they'd shoot you whether you were guilty or innocent. But we're supposed to be better than that.

Bottom line: a lot of people brought in for questioning will NOT be involved in any wrongdoing. You want them to have a reason to seek revenge?

[Bobibutu]

"(b) if the situation is as he describes it, then he should have been relieved for tactical incompetence."

I have been following your threads for days now - how specifically  was he possibly tactictal incompetent? How specifically was he strategically  
incompetent?

I really want to understand your thinking.

If we play by the "rules" (GC) troops die. AQ has no rules. What is your solution?

The world waits to know.

[AndyJackson]

The problem is that there are solid facts in this case. You do not have them and I don't have them. However, the local commander does. The facts may exculpate LTC West, and they may not. We don't know. What we do know is that a lot of flag officers will believe that the political process will requiredLCT West to be prosecuted. Unfortunately, in a very political trial, officers on the court martial board may feel that the political process expects him to be convicted.

Many here, however, believe that if the facts are as they have been reported, then LTC West should be returned to his duties as a hero serving the United States, and we feel that the CG should look at the facts - which are well known to his staff - and decide for himself - doing the right thing, and not what might have been 7 years ago the politically correct thing. Justice never requires that a man believed innocent stand trial for offenses it is believed that he did not commit. Justice does not demand show trials. The Congress and we are sending a clear signal that prosecuting a hero is not a politically correct thing. LTC West has a right to trial by court martial, but there is only an obligation on the part of the convening authority to convene a court martial if the facts available would sustain a charge against him, and justice would require that he be charged and tried.

It could be that the facts are different than what have been reported. Someone could merely say so.

[Bobibutu]

Dude! - Right on!

[Poohbah]

I have been following your threads for days now - how specifically was he possibly tactictal incompetent?

He apparently had been informed that hostiles were planning to ambush his troops at some point in the future--days into the future as opposed to minutes.

However, to hear West tell the tale, if he did not get that information right then and there from that prisoner, his men were facing certain death.

If someone needs several days to get his head out of his a$$ after getting allegedly perfect information, then he's tactically incompetent.

How specifically was he strategically incompetent?

Any information that West didn't get on that pass was going to stay locked inside that guy's head forever after that. Interrogation specialists really dislike it when they find out that amateurs were playing bad cop/worse cop before they showed up, because the subject will most likely never talk again, or simply make up stuff that they think the interrogator wants to hear.

An interrogation is not a one-time event; you will frequently drag the subject back in for another session for a number of reasons.

If we play by the "rules" (GC) troops die. AQ has no rules. What is your solution?

If we throw away the rules, then troops still die--only we also help recruit a full-blown Stage I and Stage II insurgency movement to kill our troops even faster. What is your solution?

Thumping prisoners is an early warning sign of extremely poor discipline within a unit.

[Poohbah]

The problem is that there are solid facts in this case. You do not have them and I don't have them. However, the local commander does.

And it's the local commander who's convening the Article 32 hearing.

[William Terrell]

Indiscipline in treatment of prisoners is usually the first sign of morale going to hell.

Oh, no no. We treated prisoners very badly in South Viet Nam, especially when guided by the ARNVNs. Moral was very high. We carried shotguns on point and used beehive rounds in 105mm recoiless rifles.

Soldiers somehow get off on things that they consider to increase their safety and that makes them happy (relatively). They're weird like that.

[AndyJackson]

Under the law of war enemy agents spies and sabateurs have always had different treatment than enemy prisoners of war or civilians in occupied territory - and for a very good reason - they represent a very different kind of threat. The normal rules of civility cannot stand not knowing whether the person you are dealing with is a friend or an enemy combatant - distinguished clearly a the uniform of a recognized military organization.

Secondly, the conduct of a court martial is certainly judicial and it would be incorrect for anyone outside the process to interfere with the conduct of an ongoing trial. The decision whether to charge and hold a trial is administrative, however, and a decision that is certainly within the purview of the congress to review as it can review all adminstrative decisions of the executive branch. It would appear that in this case the Court Martial convening authority wans to evade his responsibility and determine whether or not charges are in order. Congress is asking the supevisors to stand up and take a stand as they are supposed to do, and they all want to provide themselves coverage and let a mindless process procede.

The problem is that a junior JAG officer appointed as the local prosecutor has no choice, really, but to prefer charges. Whether or not, under the circumstances, LTC West was acting in the line of duty is a decision first by a senior line officer, not a junior jag officer. Said officer needs to face up to his own responsibilities, review the facts and make a determination.

[Poohbah]

Oh, no no. We treated prisoners very badly in South Viet Nam, especially when guided by the ARNVNs.

Marvin the ARVN was pretty worthless at actually fighting, IIRC, and he could not be said to have high morale. And then you copied his treatment of prisoners.

Moral was very high.

You may think it was high. Go back to 'Nam and ask the NLF and NVA folks from your AO what they thought of your unit. You will probably not like the answer.

[AndyJackson]

Thumping prisoners

By all accounts he was an enemy agent, not a prisoner of war.