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.
And we concur in this house with their sentiments!! We pray to God the charges will be totally dismissed for those exact reasons.
This is exactly the reason the LIBERALS want to see LTC West fry! (Not that I'm implying anything, mind you)
FRegards
"Btw, every single General and Colonel now working for FOX News as a military analyist (of which there are several) essentially has the same take on the matter -- that Colonel West acted as they themselves would've acted, and that court martialing him not only would play havoc with troop morale, but would also encourage the enemy."
Ispy4u, there are folks that I would like to have a drink with. Lt. Col. West is one. JoeSix is another. And I'm buying.
You didn't make my list.
Ispy4u, there are folks that I would like to have a drink with. Lt. Col. West is one. JoeSix is another. And I'm buying.
You didn't make my list.
No you are not wondering at all.
You know what is coming as well as I do, and you have been gracious not to let on through this incredibly stupid display of persons talking out of their asses.
The media by now is quite aware of the entire story surrounding Col. West, and they are not going to touch it. Only here, where the great masses of uniformed prognosticators feigning solidarity with Col. West when they have NO IDEA of the totality of his actions. They hear a story, and they hop to, without a second of perspective. They could ask the same questions as you did, but they wont. They don't even care why the Army, Rumsfeld and others would go so far in this action if the story we all heard from Col. West was the whole story.
I appreciate you sticking with it, but do me a favor and don't ping me to anymore of these Col. West threads. But, in a few short weeks, PLEASE ping me to the thread where Freepers go on and on about how they could have been so deceived, so wrong to take sides so quickly without hearing everything. You don't know how hard it is not to just spill it and watch the sparks fly.
I give it two or three short weeks before a lot of people are going to feel really stupid. I tried for weeks to get people to reserve judgment, now I don't care. Let them be wrong.
No, I believe each officer has a responsibility to protect his troops at all costs.
I don't think I was the one who said originally that the Army went PC. What rules did I operate under? Boy, that is easy: "save your ass and your buddies too". That was the rule I, and everyone else, operated under in my Armor unit. And I don't give a crap if you like that rule. We didn't lose one person in the Gulf after several enemy contacts. If they were wearing camoflague and weren't waving a friggin white flag, we killed them. I don't give a crap if you like that either. I am not going to get shot in the ass because some stupid bastard, not unlike yourself, thinks we need to treat enemy combatents like they are 15 year old kids getting pulled in for a shoplifting charge. If the tables would have been reversed, they would have killed me, beat me, or tortured me or one of my brothers. They never had a chance, because my unit didn't show the bastards any mercy. If you have issues with that, well, me and another 56 guys would like to tell you to go to hell.
I am sure LTC Crandall is a genius...
How about this: He saved one American life. That is good enough for me.
After his court martial proceedings, we will get more details.
Absolutely right. I would follow this man into combat. Now, these idiots that are saying he was wrong...they can go into combat without me. If I know they aren't putting my life first, then I am not going to return the favor.
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.