Posted on 12/09/2003 4:16:55 AM PST by Ispy4u
Under the strain of command in a dangerous situation, Lt. Col. Allen West committed a serious error in judgment. And in a military environment, such errors by a commanding officer cannot go unpunished.
Informed on Aug. 20 that an Iraqi policeman might have information about potential attacks on West and his troops, the colonel invited soldiers under his command to beat the suspect as West looked on. When that did not produce the desired effect, West threatened the prisoner, first firing a pistol into the air, then holding the pistol to the policeman's head and firing a shot into the ground nearby.
Not surprisingly, the terrified suspect then began babbling information. As is often the case when such crude techniques are used, it later proved impossible to verify whether that information was accurate or whether it had been invented by the suspect in a desperate attempt to save his life.
Nor was it clear that the suspect was guilty. As U.S. intelligence officers testified in a preliminary hearing in the case, Iraqis will often finger an innocent person to American troops as a way to wreak personal revenge on each other.
Unfortunately for West, there is no question whatsoever about his own behavior in the case, or that it violated U.S. Army regulations. After complaints were filed by other soldiers, the colonel was relieved of command and is awaiting word whether he will be court-martialed on charges of aggravated assault and communicating a threat. If found guilty, the well-respected officer could be sentenced to up to eight years in prison.
It is hard not to feel sympathy for West, and almost impossible to sit in judgment of him from afar. "If it's the lives of my men and their safety," he said in his preliminary hearing, "I'd go through hell with a gasoline can." His case has even drawn congressional interest, with two U.S. senators suggesting that West deserves to be commended for his actions, not prosecuted. And certainly, a prison term does seem an unduly harsh punishment.
It is even more difficult to condemn West for violating the standards of the Geneva Convention for warfare and occupation when more senior U.S. officials are themselves treating those rules as inconvenient guidelines that can be ignored at will. The hundreds of prisoners captured in Afghanistan and held under harsh conditions by the United States in Guantanamo Bay, for example, have been ruled ineligible for protection under the Geneva Convention because they are supposedly "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war.
That effort to redefine the problem calls to mind the argument used by the North Vietnamese more than 30 years ago to justify their cruel treatment of captured American aviators. John McCain and others in the Hanoi Hilton were not prisoners of war, we were told, but war criminals who deserved what they got. In other words, it is always easy to find a justification if you want one badly enough.
It is also true that in Iraq, we are engaged in a bitter struggle with people who do not recognize such distinctions. As the West case illustrates, it is tempting to then fight the battle on their terms, and in rare cases it may indeed be necessary to do so.
But those and other distinctions are part of why we're fighting. We believe such rules are important to civilized life; our opponents do not. In the eyes of the Iraqis, it is hard to distinguish ourselves from the previous regime if we ourselves do not attempt to live by the rules we claim to uphold. The suspect threatened by West, for example, was a policeman, and hundreds of U.S. personnel are trying hard every day to convince Iraqi policemen that such tactics are simply unacceptable.
For military reasons, punishing West in some way is mandatory. The tactics that he used that day contradict the values this country is supposed to be defending. Allowing an officer of his rank to evade consequences for such behavior would send an unmistakable signal up and down the ranks and greatly erode the discipline our soldiers rely upon in tough situations.
Certainly, the pressures of combat help explain his mistake. They do not excuse it.
Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.
I sincerely doubt that "Thousands of LTCs across Iraq" are faced with a time sensitive situation regarding an ambush on thier men the way LTC West was.
"Thousands of LTCs across Iraq" may have detainees that they believe to have information but I sincerely doubt the information 99.99% of the detainees have is time sensitive information of this nature.
they adjust the operations to mitigate the percieved risk and take actions to counter enemy operations.
And if we "adjust the operations to mitigate the perceived risk" enough we can give Iraq back to the forces of evil, namely Sadham and his men. We can just pull out and we won't lose one more person in Iraq. Is this the type of thing you would rather see?
Beating prisoners, mock executions, and torture haven't won our enemies any wars
Now you add in torture? Did LTC West beat the person? Did LTC West order his men to beat the person? Did LTC West see his men beating the person? Can you answer any of these questions with 100% accuracy?
Or did LTC West possibly save this person's life by pulling him out of a beating and firing a couple of shots?
I'm not saying this was the way it was, I'm just pointing out that unless you were there the only thing we can do is voice an opinion.
This WAS a battlefield operation, there WAS an ambush planned, the person that had these things done to him DID have information that allowed LTC West to avoid that ambush. Those are the pertinenet facts as I see them.
LTC West's actions may have not been entirely correct but, IMO, they were needed and the attention they have received is far out of keeping with the harm they caused.
Pull a rank, take pay, restriction, etc, but to CASHIER the man without his pension after serving his country for as long as he did? LTC West doesn't deserve that, IMHO.
But denial of his retirement is OK with you since "20 years does not mean 19.999"?
If you are ever in a firefight, we will arrange to put that on your tombstone. Me?
I prefer the words from a real warrior: You are not here to die for your country! You are here to see that the other sumabitch dies for his country! (or ideology or religion or whatever.)
General MacArthur's Thayer Award Speech -- Duty, Honor, Country (1962)
No human being could fail to be deeply moved by such a tribute as this [Thayer Award]. Coming from a profession I have served so long and a people I have loved so well, it fills me with an emotion I cannot express. But this award is not intended primarily to honor a personality, but to symbolize a great moral code-a code of conduct and chivalry of those who guard this beloved land of culture and ancient descent. For all hours and for all time, it is an expression of the ethics of the American soldier. That I should be integrated in this way with so noble an ideal arouses a sense of pride, and yet of humility, which will be with me always.
Duty, honor, country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn. ....
I don't buy it and I'm pointing it out to others so they can reach their own opinion.
If you have anything from the article 32 that is pertinent to anything I've said then post it in a reply. Then maybe I'll give it some thought.
BTW, the leanings, if not outright bias, of this author should tell you something.
That statement proved to me that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You sound like a democrat; "prove that going to Iraq was necessary."
LTC West uncovered a plan to attack Americans. He got the info by firing his pistol past the head of a conspirator. The conspirator should be happy that LTC West was interogating him. I would have shot him in the ass.
Pardon me for not reading the entire thread. You write as though you are on active duty in the service. Is that the case? If so, in what capacity?
So "roughing up" is now a life threatening "beating"?
I won't say it was right to stand by and do nothing. The punishment, even the one offered, is not in keeping with the mistake made.
As far as the rest, if you didn't know this well publicised statement, how much more time do I need to waste rehashing something you can go read for yourself.
Supply a link.
Errrrr, given those two options, I'd take the court martial, thank you.;-)
Nail on the head.
I think reasonable men will understand his action.
Conversely, if we take your point of view, we will be raised up in the eyes of the world if we condemn the action of this man? Please don't tell me that this is what you believe. That would one of the most naive points of view I have ever read.
Thanks for serving. Let me ask you; if you were certain that you could beat some info out of an enemy and it would same some of your troops lives, would you? If you say no, then I am glad your service came to a close.
This is so funny. You can kill them if they point a gun at you, but you must play nice if they drop the gun. They are still the enemy.
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.