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.
Yeah, that's exactly what we are saying. Now go get your baba and take a nap.
Me and my family are indepted to you. Good luck in Iraq, be safe, and please come back. I still disagree with you and I hope your CO does also.
Read this one.
Read my posts again.
The punishment doesn't fit the situation, I can't call it a crime.
BTW, that article doesn't have any information about the article 32 other than to say that LTC West is awaiting the outcome.
If you don't have any hard information why are you pretending you do?
Some offer. He made the right choice, but never should've been put in that position.
Yes 20 years does not mean 19.999. Never has never will.
Can't argue with your math skills there. Which is why I believe he should've been disciplined and allowed to serve out the additional .001 without being forced to "choose" a court martial in order to protect the 19.999 years of service he gave to this country.
If you know what you claim to know, you should at least be able to give us a rough estimate.
This information is from the Art. 32 hearing. You said he wasn't in the room the facts are that he was.
Isn't Cynthia Tucker the editor there? The Cynthia Tucker who hates with deep passion all African-Americans that disagree with herself? Maybe she fears a budding African-American politician who might not follow Plantation rules.
Do you believe that each officer should do as he pleases, regardless of the UCMJ?
BTW you did not answer what the rules were that you were taught. If you're going to give us that "Army went PC" crap, tell us what rules you operated under. As for you being glad I got out, my Battalion commander had my wife and me to his home for dinner trying to get me to stay but I'm sure you are smarter than LTC Crandall was.
No, I asked the question. I even put in writing a disclaimer.
And once again, "roughing up", or even, "and one of West's troops lost his temper and started slapping the man.", is now a life threatening beating?
The person was also examined by a doctor and the doctor found no evidence that the person was physically harmed in any lasting way.
His commanding officer didn't find anything wrong with the techniques. It was in a "rambling letter" that mentioned, in passing, something about what LTC West did that the PC lawyers decided they knew better than his commanding officer and his own staff.
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.