Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army Right To Punish Lt. Col. West
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 8 Dec 2003 | Jay Bookman

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alanbwest; allenwest; col; ltcwest; west
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-283 next last
To: raybbr
You are quite simply arguing out of both sides of your mouth. If the questionable actions of a soldier has the ability to bring on conemnation then how is that what you advocate isn't going to bring on praise from our detractors?

If you have to ask.....

It's quite simple, we are a tool, use us to fix something and the thing works, then great. Use us and we break something we shouldn't then we are a damn sorry tool.

161 posted on 12/09/2003 8:29:13 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Ispy4u
Maybe we try to hold a too lofty standard. One that actually puts each man in the position of "damned if you do and damned if you don't". I'm damned glad West did.

Of all the atrocities that occur in war, this was a situation where it would have been atrocious to have not gone over the top. I applaud West's actions, and if we are going to win this war against those who would ambush us, while we follow the rules, we will need to push the envelope of "what's moral in war".

What, when there is a WMD planted in your hometown, and you have the someone who knows something, will you not do to get him to talk? This goes beyond a set standard and requires a man with moral backbone to do the right thing. I ask you, is it moral to follow the rules and let numerous souls perish?
162 posted on 12/09/2003 8:34:43 AM PST by Godfollow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
Military discipline is the mother of zero tolerance.

Difference is we make the rules extremely clear from day one, as opposed to the zero tolerance to which you refer where they make them up as they go.
163 posted on 12/09/2003 8:35:06 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Ispy4u
Again, the punishment does not fit the situation.

Resign and no retirement? I wouldn't have taken it. Would you?

Non-judicial punishment, IMO, would have been the way to go.
It could have been more than an a$$ chewing and discipline would have been maintained.

164 posted on 12/09/2003 8:37:04 AM PST by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Ispy4u
Our soldiers do not have anything tied behind their back.

Prisoner handling may well be the most universally identical subject among our armed services. No one has an excuse for mistreating a prisoner.

If you don't want to handle prisoners properly, don't take them, there are multitudes of ways to conduct a legal military operation against enemies that will almost certainly result in their deaths.

I tried to skim through this without commenting because I knew I'd get worked up . . . but your "legalese" arguments for the hell that is war-time just wouldn't let me pass.

You said in an earlier post that you wanted someone to prove to you that West's actions "Saved American lives." Or something similar to that. I'll get to that in a minute . . . let me set the table first.

My nephew's on the front lines over there . . . in the middle of a vicious, violent, indescribable inferno that us debaters sitting safely and cozily on our tushes over here call simply WAR . . . where telling friend from foe is often-times only certain when they raise an AK-47 from under a hidden jacket or milliseconds before they push the button or pull the pin on an explosive charge.

Hidden bombs and car bombs and suicide bombs and thrown bombs and rocketed bombs can kill and maim at any time . . . and you want us to play nice?

Young children, geriatric, toothless grandmothers, and white-robed Mullah-wannabes have been known to kill and maim GI's without batting an eye . . . and you say we have no "excuse for mistreating ANY prisoner?"

What if I caught Saddam with an AK-47 in his hands, two pounds of C-4 in his back pockets, and wearing a string of GI dogtags as a necklace WHILE he was reading a map in ARABIC that even dumb 'ol me could tell was obviously an impending trap where my brother soldiers would be killed? Would you want me to offer him a cup of tea? Or a doughnut? Or call Johnny Cochran to come on over before I interrogated him to keep me from hurting his feelings?

I know, I know. We're better than they are. We have to set a standard. Bullshit! The ones who say that have nothing to lose. Let your son or daughter be exposed to those nasty sonsabitches, knowing your child has to play by Marquis of Queensbury Rules while they can and will behead you with a pocketknife and drag your lifeless body through the streets like it was a trophy awarded in Little League. You put something at risk . . . then come back here and if you still want to debate the finer points about tactics during peacetime and war, we can do it.

Do I think our soldiers should just slaughter every prisoner we capture? Of course not. But they're there, I'm not. I'm guessing them and I have the same belief system -- within reason anyway. Most Americans know it's not okey-doke to go out and slaughter people, okay? Whether they're innocent or not. Anyway, since they're there with access to current information and actions, since the American people have entrusted them to do a job -- to protect our asses, and since most Americans inherently know right from wrong . . . I don't have the right to second guess their tactics. And neither do you. Not in the heat of battle. Not from over here. Not filtering facts and suppositions through my safe-as-a-bug-in-a-rug filters while they're facing the harsh realities of warfare.

I'm old enough to remember how we lost the Vietnam War. I don't doubt your sincerity for a minute. But this is just how our defeat started then. We started second-guessing every move made by our soldiers. Then the media picked up the call. Then the politicians joined the band. Then the tree-huggers and Puff the Magic Dragon-ers and Free Lovers started toking and protesting and chanting Peace! Not War! when they could spell neither.

What's the hurry? West didn't kill anyone. West didn't hurt anyone. Why can't we win this war, then prosecute the boogie men? There are so many of us who choose to believe our enemies before we believe our soldiers. I just don't understand that MO.

Wars aren't won by Marquis of Queensbury Rules. Legalese has never saved one soldier's life.

Can anyone prove that West's actions "Saved American Lives?" Maybe not. But can I prove that West's actions "POTENTIALLY Saved American Lives?" Yes! Absolutely! How? I'll ask Colonel West. He's a colonel in my Army. He's fighting and willing to die so that I might rest my head in tranquil peace tonight. I trust Colonel West. I believe in Colonel West.

And if he lies to me, there'll be hell to pay when the war is over. But not in the heat of battle. Not in the fog of war. He's there, I'm not. Go get 'em guys! Kick ass and take the names later!

165 posted on 12/09/2003 8:38:14 AM PST by geedee (I am opposed to millionaires, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Godfollow
You have placed faith in the unsupported assumption that there was an imminent danger to his troops. More factually there was a threat but likely no more than they regularly deal with and probably not quite as imminent it has been made to sound.

WMD placed among a civilian populace is not even in the same category, so the comparison doesn't hold water.
166 posted on 12/09/2003 8:43:15 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Ispy4u
I am in the military, and I have been in long enough to know the UCMJ is made to be interpreted by the powers that be, to accomplish whatever they please. Hence, the "general article". IMHO "military justice" is an oxy-moron.
167 posted on 12/09/2003 8:45:09 AM PST by BSunday (I'm not the bad guy. Hillary is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Given the severity of the charges, I'm not sure if NJP was an available option. That's why I'm not willing to attack the DIV CG or the JAG for their offer.
168 posted on 12/09/2003 8:45:09 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
You may wish to note, though I'm sure you will not, that I have said that I do not disagree with what he did. I do however understand that there is a punishment for breaking the UCMJ. Had some Nazi done this to us you would be screaming to hang him.

I have done many things in my life where I was prepared to take the consequences of my unlawful actions.

As for your "Spoken like a true Zero Tolerance disciple" you don't know a damn thing about me.

169 posted on 12/09/2003 8:49:04 AM PST by HoustonCurmudgeon (PEACE - Through Superior Firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
It is not interpreted to accomplish whatever they please.

You have fallen prey to the "urban legend" of the mystic "powers" of officers out to get you. You know for a fact that if you do as you are lawfully told to the best of your ability every single time without question that the "powers that be" will never have a reason to give you anything but praise. Now go do it right or leave.
170 posted on 12/09/2003 8:50:00 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Ispy4u
if you do as you are lawfully told to the best of your ability every single time without question that the "powers that be" will never have a reason to give you anything but praise.

Pure BS.

171 posted on 12/09/2003 8:57:21 AM PST by BSunday (I'm not the bad guy. Hillary is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
>>>There is a term called "Frag".<<<

There is no doubt that a Lt. Ispy4u would be fragged within a week of assuming command!

Personally, I think he ought to be "Zotted" forthwith. Oh, and perhaps sent to have a short dialogue with Lt Col West.

172 posted on 12/09/2003 8:59:07 AM PST by HardStarboard (Dump Wesley Clark.....he worries me as much as Hillary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ispy4u
t's quite simple, we are a tool, use us to fix something and the thing works, then great. Use us and we break something we shouldn't then we are a damn sorry tool.

More pointless hyperbole to cover up the fact that you can't answer the question.

It is clear to me that you are just a detractor. You claim to be in the service but I don't believe you. If, on the off chance that I am wrong, and you are actually in the service, please resign your commission. I don't want someone like you defending our nation with words rather than might. If you think your (dim)wit is so powerful use it somewhere else. It won't save the future of America and it won't stop bullets.

173 posted on 12/09/2003 8:59:33 AM PST by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
You are dismissed.
174 posted on 12/09/2003 9:00:45 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
I don't think you know what hyperbole means.
175 posted on 12/09/2003 9:01:23 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard
How's Sgt(incarcerated) Akbar? You two sound like drinking buddies.
176 posted on 12/09/2003 9:02:24 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Ispy4u
You are dismissed.

Wow. Good rebuttal. I'm certainly impressed.

177 posted on 12/09/2003 9:03:07 AM PST by BSunday (I'm not the bad guy. Hillary is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
This will help your (dim) wit.
hy·per·bo·le ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l)n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
178 posted on 12/09/2003 9:04:19 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
You should get out.
179 posted on 12/09/2003 9:05:08 AM PST by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Ispy4u
hyperbole

\Hy*per"bo*le\, n. [L., fr. Gr?, prop., an overshooting, excess, fr. Gr. ? to throw over or beyond; "ype`r over + ? to throw. See Hyper-, Parable, and cf. Hyperbola.] (Rhet.) A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.

Our common forms of compliment are almost all of them extravagant hyperboles. --Blair.

Your arguements come under the bold.

180 posted on 12/09/2003 9:09:05 AM PST by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-283 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson