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."

[AndyJackson]

Commissioned officers do not make political decisions in this country, unless I woke up this morning in Guate-f***ing-mala and some O-6 just stormed 1600 Pennsyvania to proclaim himself "President for Life."

You are the one who would undermine the Constitution by denying Congress its oversight role, not me. You are the one who suggests that constitutional officers stiff arm the Congress while leaving the military to operate on its own, unsupervised, not me. That the president is the commander in chief does not mean that decisions that commanders make are not political decisions, i.e. issues of policy that are ultimately subject to ratification by the voters through their elected officials. War is the continuation of politics thorugh other means and the actions of commanders must be understood in that light.

[Ispy4u]

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?

That choice would never have to be made if LTC West had simply done what he knew was right. Now thanks to his actions there will be some soldiers and officers who have to make a concious decision over something that should be automatic. The laws and rules have been taught to our troops from the day they raised their hand. Making them up as you go along is not an acceptable course of action, and they know that.

I think a few may take the tack you question(maybe .01%, but overwhelming majority will do what is expected of them, and that is not following the example of LTC West.

[Ispy4u]

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.

You are right. But NCO's and Officers in the modern military have already trained for "complex" warfare. They have been trained and know what the decision should be, that is what makes us the best in the world.

You (and we've been here before) fail to give any credit to the well trained and disciplined leaders of our military. In situations like this there are no questions that need to be asked, the situation (making quick tactical decisions) has been taught from the first leadership course to their current point in their careers. Poohbah is correct in his assessment that LTC West is either (intentionally) leaving out information, or is tactically incompetent.

What would LTC West have done if he had information of an impending ambush with no one to interrogate? That is the same thing he should have done if the detainee didn't give him any information.

[AndyJackson]

You are calling the kettle black and have tried to distract the debate onto irrelevancies. The issue raised by this article is whether it is proper for the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee to investigate the decisions of the military regarding the treatment of an officer, whose actions, as reported, a large fraction of Americans regard as heroic. This is an question of the fundamental policies of the United States government and the execution of those policies. The Congress has a right and duty to know. Congress certainly has a right to know whether the published accounts are wrong and there are other facts that the CG are not divulging.

You think that the administration and the generals can get out of this by running it through a JAG process. But it is not obviously an issue of military justice, like someone caught pilfering rations from the supply warehouse. It is an issue of the policies surrounding the conduct of this war.

Demanding answers to the questions raised have nothing to do with demanding instant gratification.

I think that the problem is that neither you nor Poobah understand the very awesuome and sobering duties that a wartime combat commander have. The Commander is not an administrator who shuflles the right papers into the right piles. He is personally responsible for every decision that gets made and personally involves himself in making every importatn decision. The decision to hold an Article 32 hearing is already a decision that in this case the Congress has decided to make him answer for

[AndyJackson]

LTC West is either (intentionally) leaving out information, or is tactically incompetent.

Again to save your argument you have shifted to argument to new grounds and thrown out a bunch of insupportable slander. YOU as an intelligence clerk have no business charging a decorated combat officer and one whose men are very much alive today because of his actions, it would seem, with tactical incompetence. YOU have no qualifications to make that judgment and for you to put forward a charge like this that even his combat commander has not made is the lowest form of slander and disrespect that I can imagine. Likewise, LTC West has not been charged with lying by his combat commander.

The charge as we all know failure to obey regulations regarding the treatment of a prisoner. That is the charge before the court and not some other charges that you have cooked up in your own perfervid imagination.

[Ispy4u]

Answer this:

If the congresscritters didn't want to influence the outcome of this, why did they make it publicly known that they were seeking information about it?

Anything congressmen do in public is about politics. I guess you guys should feel good about the fact that you have finally raised enough of a stink to poison the judicial proceedings.

BTW I totally understand the awesome responsibiltiy of a wartime commander, LTC West failed to live up to it in this case.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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.

OOO-RAH!

[AndyJackson]

What would LTC West have done if he had information of an impending ambush with no one to interrogate?

There are a lot of possibilities, most of which are likely to put innocent civilians at a higher risk than is necessary if he knew of the exact nature and source of the threat.

You and a lot of others are committing a counterfactual fallacy - trying to argue the case were circumstances different than they were. The facts are, apparently in this case, that the information was obtained, coconspirators were caught, and the ambush evaporated. The highes skill in war is to defeat the enemies plans, Sun Tzu tells us.

Again, LTC West is not charged with submitting false reports, so one is required to give LTC the benefit of the doubt and presume that the reports submitted were true and that what he is potentially guilty of was what he was charged with and not a lot of other things for which he was not charged.

[Ispy4u]

What would LTC West have done if he had information of an impending ambush, but no prisoner to interrogate? The answer is exactly what he should have done if the prisoner did not give him information. His failure to tactically adjust to the situation is exactly why I said he may be tactically incompetent, or he is not publicly telling the full story.

I never said LTC West should be charged with lying, I mean that the only public information on the subject comes from him and his lawyer. The CG certainly has all the information and the SJA cannot make that info public. But you already knew that.

[AndyJackson]

If the congresscritters didn't want to influence the outcome of this ...

Ah but they did because they think it is a political determination and not a judicial one. LTC West did not overstay his welcome at a parking meter. He committed certain acts to protect the lives of his men. The decision about the propriety of those acts is political first, and only later judicial.

You fail to understand. LTC West is not the combat commander. That is the CG and his superiors in theater, and they are the ones who are the subject of Duncan Hunters inquiry.

[Ispy4u]

The highes[t] skill in war is to defeat the enemies plans, Sun Tzu tells us.

LTC West was taught the proper skill to defeat the enemies' plans without perfect information. He should have used it.

[Ispy4u]

...they think it is a political determination and not a judicial one

Then they are about to be made to look like fools.

[AndyJackson]

The CG certainly has all the information and the SJA cannot make that info public. But you already knew that.

You feel one way, and the Congress have used their powers of oversight to come to a different determination. That is their call. As I said, you argue that it is merely judicial. They have said that first it is political, i.e. a matter of establish what are the policies for the conduct of this operation. That is certainly their prerogative.

[AndyJackson]

...they think it is a political determination and not a judicial one ....Then they are about to be made to look like fools.

The problem is that you don't understand the words politics and policy. You think politics is picture of unclad women with Congressmen on the front page of your supermarket tabloid. What politics is is the determination of the policies of the united states government. That is what Congress and senior administration officials and the very top military leaders do for a living.

The Congress believes that the decision about the propriety of LTC West's actions must begin with a debate about what are the policies of the U.S. government in this matter. An order is not an act of congress. It is a piece of paper signed by a general that supposedly implements the policies of the U.S. Government. That there is an order that says thus and such is only relevant if that order reflects the policies of the U.S. government. If it doesn't, then the order has no import. NONE. Duncan Hunter is engaging the debate on the policies of the U.S. Government. It is only if LTC West has undermined U.S. Policy that a judicial proceeding is in order. The JAG core cannot adjudicate that issue. That is a debated between Rumsfeld, the President and the Congress, and Duncan Hunter just said that he is not letting everyone off the hook by turning top level policy over to a bunch of JAG officers.

[Neets]

Please ping me when you get an answer to that question.

He has about as much inside information as you and I do. He is just annother InnocentByStander. He knows I am on to him and that is why he never answers.

[verity]

First, there was already an adminstrative decision to take it to an Article 32 hearing and so the CG already ducked a decision to dismiss once

While I am reluctant to enter this fight which, if held in a bar, would result in a bloody brawl [grin], I must take exception to your characterization of the CG's action as ducking a decision. He made a decision! BTW, what has been the extent of your present or past military command positions?

[Pukin Dog]

I dont answer you because you are a blithering idiot, seemingly obsessed with someone. I wish I did know who this person is that you think I am, because they appear to be an obsession with you. If you need to know why you are ignored, now you do. I have had ample warning about you and your cronies, what this noise is all about, and I dont intend to play your game. You will get no further responses from me, because while you dont know who I am, I certainly know who you are. You havent the respect a knat around here.

[William Terrell]

The American's troops' moral (and opinions) is what mattered, not the moral of ARVNs or anyone else. I wan't in a unit that dealt with prisoners. My unit's moral was high because of the treatment of those prisoners. Stories, rumors and laughter, you know.

Why would you want troops' lives to be in any more danger that they have to be? Your "ethical" consideration are mighty thin. You can bet the other side doesn't worry about prissy rules when lives are in danger. And Congress has every right to worry about ours.

They represent the people and are directly elected by them according to the Constitution. There's a reason for that; soldiers don't renounce the Constitution when they join the service and the UCMJ is made uder autority of the Constitution.

Imagine you're a soldier and you hear that enemy collabarators can't be made to reveal known dangers to your life. You just have to suck it up and get hit by every planned ambush at any time.

[Ispy4u]

Then I guess we will see when the rest of the story comes to light.

[William Terrell]

Oh, I'm just sure that the troops in his unit murmmered among them selves, "How dare Col. West discover we're going to be hit and killed by that kind of beastly method!".