Army Right To Punish Lt. Col. West

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 8 Dec 2003 | Jay Bookman

[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.

[BSunday]

I don't think you should be telling me to get out.

[Ispy4u]

If anything my statements were an over simplification of the complexities military members face relating to international incidents and national expectations.

But you knew that, you just don't know how to defend your position in light of my being right.

[Ispy4u]

Then you should take a long look at what you are expected to uphold and defend. Then wonder why you consider the mechanism that ensures your adherence to that oath "Pure BS."

Seems to me you don't respect your oath or the UCMJ, why do you want to subject yourself to either.

[TinCan]

Why are you giving ISPY 4DU the time of day. His point is lame in the face of war. The Atlanta Paper is nothing but a Liberal Rag.

[nightdriver]

"Personally I can smell BS....

I agree.

I think Ispy is just a disrupter who found a fellowtraveller in Mr. Bookman.

If burglers broke into Ispy4u's home and proceded to rob him at gunpoint, he sounds like he would limit his response to pulling out his rulebook and reading it to them.

[Ispy4u]

Then come on over and rob me.

Oh, you were just talking crap, I get it.

[BSunday]

Quit misquoting me. I said your reply was BS, Moron.

[berserker]

LTC West is a hero who should be decorated. The JAGS should be forced to watch films of AMERICANS jumping out of the burning WTC towers. [post 9]

I apparently missed something, was the Iraqi threatended by LTC West one of the people who attacked the WTC? Did any Iraqi have anything to do with that (the President says there is no evidence of any Iraqi connection)? There is a difference between Iraq and the people who attacked us.

I hope you aren't one of those people who, thinking they are all the same, goes around harassing Pakistanis and Indians, justifying it by saying "Remember 9-1-1!"

[Ispy4u]

Then you tell me, why it was BS.

If you have the desire to do your duty the way you should then my "BS Reply" wouldn't be "BS".

Would you tell your commander that it was BS if he said it?

I didn't think so.

[BSunday]

Would you tell your commander that it was BS if he said it?

Of course not. My previous replies should tell you why. Besides, I respect my superiors. Sometimes I just don't care for the system. BTW I am just guessing here you have never been in the military because you sound like you don't know jack about real military justice.

[BSunday]

I guess I'm a glutton for punishment some days. Maybe I should take early retirement from this thread.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[blackie]

Lt. Col. Allen West is a hero ~ Bump!

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

All anyone need do is click on ISpy4u's name, then click on "find in forum". You will see he has had an agenda against LTC West since the beginning. So much for innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Now he finds a liberal hit piece who feels like he does, and eagerly posts his opinion. Well gosh, and by golly, thats gonna change MY MIND!! LOL

Someone needs to tell ISpy4u that people who "experienced" war "still get it". And that even those who didn't, and are "cognitive" and care about our troops being ambushed and getting KILLED, get it!!

The charges against LTC West should be dismissed. PERIOD.

We're still hoping they will be. Because I promise you if they aren't, ALL HELL is gonna break lose in Iraq. Not by our troops, by our enemies. And our troops are gonna pay with their lives.

The enemy already knows they don't have to answer crap when questioned. Like I said in a previous post, and I ONLY mentioned our FEMALE POW's and KIA's. They would have LOVED to have been treated the way the prisoner in question was treated!!!!

ISpy4u needs to grow a set.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Sorry, I meant to ping you to 194 also.

FRegards, gotta run for a bit.

[Godfollow]

Oh, but it does (WMD)... the question is, what would you not do, to save the souls of those who are in your care when it is in your power to do? Whether it is a city or a platoon...

The question of eminence can be argued, but as we know, ownce you come face to face with eminent danger, the implication is, what recourse is left to you, if any, to avert destruction?

[Ispy4u]

speaking of growing a set...
You pinged everyone on the board except who you were talking about..

Good manners.

I've got no agenda, I just want to inform people that I think this is not the way to fight this war, and preserve as many articles as I can about this for posterity.

The proof of guilt, is his own admission. It's not like I'm making up things.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Opps, should have pinged you to 194.

Have a good day FRiend. FRegards.

PS. Thanks for your service! God Bless!

[BSunday]

that I think this is not the way to fight this war,

In the words of Patton: "War is Hell".

[Ispy4u]

The standards of performance for preserving lives of civilians, American civilians, and soldiers are vastly different.

In order to avert destruction of American civilians in the very limited scenario you describe where there is no time at all and the only hope in the world for those civilians is to torture the terrorist for information I would say yes. But I have serious doubts that it would work, I don't see how fear of death will motivate the virgin seeker to tell the truth.

It hasn't been proven that the informant or the policeman told the truth in the LTC West instance either. Thus the basis for my opposition to these tactics.