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.
What a jackass statement. In order for the Geneva convention to apply, the captured must at the least: A) Be uniformed so as to distinguish between from the civilian popuplation B) Be in service to a State C) Not operate deliberabtely amongst a civilian population. The captured a GITMO have no right to Geneva convention treatment because they first violate almost all the rules for being treated as prisoners of war unlike the American soldiers captured in Vietnam. To refer to the situations as analogous is loathesome. To refer to the US distinction as an "excuse" is ignorant. The Geneva convention is supposed to provide a motivation for soldiers not to descend into utter barbarism by providing the incentive of civilized treatment if captured if they have followed certain rules. If those who disregard those rules are treated exactly the same as those who don't, that incentive disappears.
The United States is thus actually giving meaning to the Geneva convection by making this distinction.
Excellent fornat for an article. The crux is right up front.
What an excellent illustration of a faulty premise leading to a significant saving in time not having to read the remainder of the article. The editor's assertion is an opinion, pure and simple. Where rules are concerned, there are those circumscribed by their intellect and imagination; brain-bound, so to speak, to the "following orders" mentality, the ends in itself.
I have no desire whatsoever to engage them in further debate about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of Col. West's actions. I still believe and hold that he did the right thing.
Isolated and chosen exceptions to rules are the hallmark of true leaders.
That I would fight alongside Col West is the best affirmation of putting my life where my mouth is.
Can't say that for the ding dongs who perpetually sit on their "rulebooks".
Sophistry had rotted our culture so thoroughly that many tend to accept it as "civilized" sophistication. Personally I can smell BS, still.
Those familiar with Winston Churchill's life are well aware of his unique position to comment on things both political and martial. One of his observations recurs in my mind as I see this continuing debate.
During the dark days of WWII, when things looked grimmest and hopeless, and unconventional warfare being fought (and criticized), he made his famous observation:
No "good" civilized society was ever saved from oblivion by the actions of girlie men. (Paraphrased) Or rule-book jockeys, I might add.
Nor was there time for a tribunal to determine that.
Colonel West made a battlefield decision.
West's critics are engaged in Monday morning quarterbacking of an unprecedented degree. Would you have all battlefield decisions revisited if it unduly "frightens" an enemy combattant?
You want to question the Administration and it's rationale? That's one thing. But when you begin to call battlefield decisions into question, simply because they offend sensibilities, you begin to undermine the entire code and concept of military justice.
Oh! I see......a better idea would have been to let his men walk into an ambush? Idiot.Was the wittle muslims self esteem hurt? Was the wittle mussy scared?
God bless Col. West!!
How about you proving if he hadn't acted that way he did that American would not have died.
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.