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.
Oh I think this is pretty close to over, including so over for at least one general officer's chances for his next star. If you have as many hours in high performance fighters as your website suggests, I am very surprised by your attitudes. I really am.
Beautiful speech. Pity you have no concept of duty or honor. By induction I also worry about your concept of country except as a collection of meter maids with ticket books ready to pounce on emergency responders who fail in their duty to obey the parking laws.
There are higher standards than the meagre one's you aspire to.
I don't know about your interlocutor, but officers don't swear to the UCMJ as I have told you. You can look up an officer's oath of office on the internet if you don't believe me.
Other than stating that you are right, you have made no arguments. It would appear, since the recommendation was to dispose of this case at an Article 15 hearing that EVEN the presiding JAG oficer does not agree with you.
The problem is that this is not a slap on the wrist kind of offense. Either in the exercise of his judgment and the discretion he has as the senior military officer present he acted in the line of duty or he did not. If he did not, the consequences ought to be severe - I will agree with that point. If he did - a position that I and many other combat officers hold - then the consequences ought to be a medal. Because of the furious debate between the combat officers on one side and the traffic cops (folks like you) on the other, the Army is having a hard time making this go away. They cannot appease both sides. The leadership needs to make up their minds and take a stand. Swatting him across the nose with a wet newspaper will just prove what whimps they are and make no point at all. And if any of the senior officers involved are recommended for another star, the Senate will get letters from those who won't forget.
Rational? I don't think so. Let's take a look at where the author is coming from.
Do a Google search on the author, Jay Bookman. Everything he has written has been anti-Iraqi Freedom and anti-Bush and has a flaming liberal leaning.
What kind of post is that? I hope you have medication for that rage. I do know something, in fact many things that you don't about this case. From the start, I have tried only to get people here to refrain from making a snap judgment PRECISELY because what is in the public domain is only a fraction of the facts. The facts will be known soon enough. Were I trying to 'self-agrandize' as you suggest, why would I not just tell what I know, prove that I am right, and move on?
I don't care what anyone thinks about this case, I just hate to see thousands of posts based on nothing but PR. I have not hinted that I know about this case at all. I have made it quite clear that I do. I've also made it clear that it is not my place to talk about it, in the same way that it was not Col. West's place to bring the story to the public either.
My opinion is based on what I know, and because it differs greatly from what YOU know, you want to blame me for not sharing with you what is really none of your business. It may not have been 'nice' to suggest that you are all going off a cliff in support of West, but I figured some bit of warning was proper, before you all give Democrats another reason to laugh at us.
I hope with that, you are done yelling at me.
In a few weeks, you may not feel that way. I tried to warn people, now I am going to just sit back and watch the train wreck that is to come.
You have warned us of nothing. You have insinuated that you are in possession of such private facts that anyone hearing them would shriek in horror. Well these private facts that would make us all shriek in horror were such that the Article 32 hearing officer recommended article 15 disposition with a letter of reprimand. Not a Court Martial, just an administrative action with a reprimand. Maybe they will also lock the Colonel in his room.
I hope I have made where I come from very clear. Nothing an officer does is justified if he does not do his duty. I expect every combat officer and soldier in our forces to do his duty. I hope one of these days you grow up and attain a man's estate and understand what that means. But if you continue your snippy little "Susie put bubblegum in Johnie's hair" approach to life I doubt you will live long enough.
The duty of an officer is to provide leadership, direction and make the hard choices in difficult positions. By law and custom that is a responsibility that an officer has that a soldier does not. However, some of the finest in this regard in my experience are not junior commissioned officers, but senior non-commissioned officers, so it is not class issue. It is an attitude issue. If in doing his duty he has to break some rules, I have never known an officer or NCO to have to make excuses or apologise. I have known a lot of cases where an officer has used the rules as an excuse for not doing his duty and been cashiered on the spot. This is something that an enlisted soldier or sailor does not normally have to fear.
As Lord Nelson instructed the forces at Trafalger - he expected each man to do his duty - not obey orders and fleet regulations - do his duty. This same Lord Nelson, who is the examplar in the Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy of doing one's duty famously "turned a blind eye" to orders, which if followed would have deterred him from destroying the French fleet, which he proceeded to do. His men did do their duty. They destroyed the French fleet at Trafalgar in one of the most famous Naval battles of all time. Lord Nelson lost his life in that battle.
Your other great paragon of duty, Gen. Macarthur was similarly famous for violating orders, rules and regulations every time it was necessary in order to acheive the higher duty of winning a battle. He did not lose his life.
Another recent example of an officer disobeying orders was the British Officer who declined Gen Clark's order to attack a Russian position. By declining the opportunity to start WWIII he did his duty. Far from being cashiered for disobeying a direct order of a superior, it was Clark who was ultimately dismissed. By the way, I am aware of no order that forbids an officer doing things to start WWIII except duty, honor and the traditions of his service. As a attack boat officer in the cold war, I/we had plenty of opportunities to create incidents to start a nuclear war. We knew, however, that our duty lay elsewhere.
Yes there are higher standards than just obeying regulations. Despite your assertions, I have never known a sailor to get very far by just obeying the rules. He got somewhere by showing hard work and initiative in assisting the outfit in accomplishing its mission. These higher standars you have already ennumberated - duty, honor, but also leadership, initiative, loyalty, etc. Often doing one's duty requires deciding to break a rule. Often to save one's ship one has to execute a maneuver or operate a piece of equipment out of conformance with SOP's. Often one has to do a midnight supply requisition in violation of every known rule and regulation. If it is for personal profit you go to jail. If it is to accomplish a mission you get a wink, a slap on the back, and sometimes a medal. You never have to make an excuse.
In combat there is no substitute for victory. None. U.S. law and international prestige can survive what LTCOL West did. In fact it is if anything bolstered by it. It cannot, however, survive so many casualties from terorist attacks that we are forced, under public pressure, to withdraw.
You seem to suggest that I have set up an arbitrary standard for officers to follow. Duty is not arbitrary and it is not capricious. It is an exacting standard - so exacting that you have no hope of understanding it, much less living up to it.
Your world could not exist if folks just followed the rules. A fireman would not be able to rescue and old lady from a burning building until he found a quarter for each of the parking meters. An ambulance would drive on the right side of the road, and stuck in traffic, get his heart attack victim to the hospital hours too late. There are plenty of rules to follow to defeat. There is only one to victory. That is to defeat the enemy.
And I'm telling you that the "public" can only make their judgement on what is IN THE PUBLIC ARENA. Also, the military has released what they deam is necessary and REASONABLE for the public to know. This matter is closed, the only comments that can come out now, will be from those involved, but only after they exit the military.
At this point it is a matter of "ethics". What is "ethical and good" for the military and for the troops. OR.. do YOU have an agenda? Is there someone out there that has a grudge, or an EGO that NEEDS more? If they do, they are unworthy of their uniform, because THEY cannot put their brothers and sisters in arms STILL serving, before themselves. This isn't a soap opera, and they need to MOVE ON! It's over, and we need to move past this one.
BTW, that which was meant to be made PUBLIC in this case, was already made PUBLIC. It is pretty audacious of YOU to think you are privleged to some great inside scoop. If there were "more" .. it would be out by now. And believe me.. the public is weary of this story. We have troops DYING for crying out loud. You served once, are you really this dense? Or have you never seen a dead soldier?
I meant what I said, there comes a point, where I would have to "question" the mental judgement of "anyone" trying to portray LTC West or this situation in any other light. It is OVER!! I might add, I noticed you were posting to threads for a long time after my response to you, yet it took you "several" days to respond to me. Do you always make it a habit to respond so late to a reply?
Lastly, I do not believe TYPED words can be "heard".
I realize that is computer language, but I use caps for emphasis.
END OF STORY!
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.