Dan K. Thomasson: The price we pay

Naples Daily News ^ | December 5, 2003 | DAN K. THOMASSON

[Ispy4u]

WASHINGTON -- An investigation that is expected to result in criminal charges against a decorated Army battalion commander in Iraq has raised serious new questions about whether there is such a thing as ethical behavior in war and if there is, to what degree one should be held accountable for violating it.

On the surface, the case involving Lt. Col. Allen West seems trivial. He fired his pistol near the head of a detainee in an effort to elicit information about opposing forces. Before that, it is alleged, he did nothing to stop an interrogation that included beating the prisoner, who apparently was neither killed nor seriously injured. All this was done in the name of protecting American lives. The detainee was said to know about a planned sniper attack on West's troops.

But the recent revelations about American atrocities in Vietnam by an elite "tiger" group and the Pentagon's decision to sweep it into the underbrush two decades ago have intensified the U.S. military's concern about its image as a force that is held, or at least holds itself, to a higher standard. The question now is whether West should face a court martial and the possibility of a prison sentence or be given an administrative punishment that effectively would end his career.

Congressional leaders, like Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and his counterpart in the House, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., have expressed concern about the case. The Army rightfully has asked them politely to butt out.

Is there a responsibility by American forces to be more humane, if that is possible in war, than most of the armies of the globe? Or is this unrealistic given the life and death aspects and the constant pressures that generate normal fear and often anger in any combatant? It never has been an easy problem and it has been made more difficult by the insurgency nature of the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is grave danger that fear of this kind can be used to justify some of the worst atrocities. Certainly that excuse was used in Vietnam where death often came from the most innocent looking sources, little children with grenades and so forth. It was used to defend the My Lai massacre, for instance. Even in conventional war experiences, heroes often were propelled into extraordinary action by anger at losing a friend or comrade. The two most decorated soldiers of World Wars I and II, Sgt. Alvin York and Lt. Audie Murphy, explained their own heroism as reaction to this intense need to get even.

The West case, of course, focuses attention on a much larger issue of how far one should go in protecting one's own countrymen, military or otherwise, against the shadowy, elusive forces of terrorism. In other words, is torture a legitimate tool if it results in saving lives? Doesn't unconventional warfare require unconventional measures? The congressmen seem to think that it does, as long as it isn't all that severe. After all, the uncovering of a plot to destroy a dozen American airliners clearly came about when Philippine authorities used more than normal persuasion during an interrogation. In that case a huge number of lives were saved. Most Americans would support the use of torture if it would halt the horror of terrorist attacks.

The Army has a different problem, however. It deals with rules about war crime that have been designed through the ages to protect parties on both sides. When these have been violated to whatever degree, whether by the torturing of prisoners or in the sanctioned rape and murder of civilians that was so recently prevalent in Bosnia, there is an obligation to uncover and punish those who have done so. Unfortunately, at times we have been negligent in doing so. West's actions, while seemingly minor in comparison, nonetheless must result in some form of official sanction. Col. West is a good soldier and understands this. Sadly, he may have sacrificed his career to save his men and the Army should take that into consideration when deciding his fate.

As to whether this nation should hold itself to a higher standard, one would certainly hope so. There is nothing to be gained and plenty to lose in the long run by lowering the bar to the level of those elements we abhor. If we condone even the minor infractions, it can only result in more serious breaches of the ethical code we present to the rest of the world. If this makes us vulnerable, it is the price we pay for being who we claim to be.

Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service

[Ispy4u]

Another article about LTC West.

[Ispy4u]

ping

[BSunday]

No, Ispy4DU, I've already argued with you in the other thread. I am done.

[Ispy4u]

Then thanks for the bump. When are you getting out?

[BSunday]

You're welcome and here's another. 2007

[Dan from Michigan]

Thomasson is an uber leftist. I remember his work from before.

[caisson71]

Heck, why don't we just dress in red coats, white pants, wear colorful pointed hats and march in a straight line. If we do that, we would receive less criticism. Similarly, the "enemy" can hijack passenger planes, fly them into buildings, launch and fire offensive weapons in schools and hospitals and receive NO criticism. NUTS!! I don't buy this "higher standard" stuff. For sure, no dang reporter will tell me how I need to accomplish my mission and protect my men - been there, done that. I do not condone brutality or advocate violating the articles of the Geneva Convention. However, the lines are sometimes blurred in the heat of battle. My reference point would be the past history of the accused. In this case, it appears that LTC West has an excellent record and should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Ispy4u]

I belive you about his political leanings. Still he has written an opinion piece here with some very valid arguments.

[Ispy4u]

But his decision was not made in the heat of battle. If he had reacted to an enemy attack with overwhelming force and a few civilians or policemen were killed, I'd have no problem with that, it happens. But when you take a prisoner you have entered into a different arena of warfare.

Fight to change the rules, until then LTC West was wrong.

[caisson71]

In a war with terrorists, your perception of "heat of battle" may be a Hollywood version. In real life, dealing with murders is a 24/7 affair. I don't think the rules need to be changed. The question really is the interpretation of the rules. As a combat veteran, I stand by West

[Ispy4u]

And as a combat veteran what West did was inexcusable. That he failed to set an example for his soldiers is reason enough to relieve him of command.

[caisson71]

What he did was everything he felt he needed to do under the circumstances. He is probably highly regarded by his troops but not regarded at all by the likes of you because of your misguided sense of fair play. There is no such thing as fair play in war.

[Ispy4u]

I don't play fair in combat either. This isn't about fair play.

If it's ok to threaten to kill a prisoner for information would it be ok to rape his wife to make him talk? I know you wouldn't agree with that because it crosses the line. The line for this scenario was drawn long before LTC West even imagined being in the Army. LTC West crossed it, he knew he crossed it and now it's time to pay the piper.

[caisson71]

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Ispy4u]

We'll see about that.

[jaykay]

"If it's ok to threaten to kill a prisoner for information would it be ok to rape his wife to make him talk?"

Wouldn't it? If you had heard that there was a rocket attack planned today to bring down a helicopter full of American soldiers, you had a man in custody who knew the details of the plan and if you could get him to talk you could avert the attack and save, say, a dozen lives, what line would you stop at? If raping the man's wife would somehow make him talk, wouldn't you do it to save the lives of 12 of your men? Or even just 1 man's life?

[Ispy4u]

No it wouldn't. And even contemplating that it would be shows you have a sickness that you should seek treatment for.

If one has information pertaining to the threat you mitigate the threat, you don't resort to barbarian techniques to get information, that would likely be a lie anyway. But hey, next time I have a tough question for you I'll ask you for your wife's or girlfriends name and address ok. Cause you think it's ok.

poohbah, pukin dog,

I know the LTC West thing is over now but you should at least see what this yahoo replied in post #16.

[Poohbah]

Well, we have ONE guy who cowboyed up for the question, "Where does it end?" His answer: it doesn't.

Everyone else ran away as fast as they could when asked. Nobody wanted to touch it. Gosh, I wonder why.

[jaykay]

Well, congrats, while you were "mitigating threats" and stroking your ponderous moral code, the chopper was rocketed and now 12 of you men are dead, but that's a small price to pay to maintain your sense of fair play. I'm sure their families are glad you have such character and integrity.

In the other Col. West thread, I asked you questions that you declined to answer:

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Army Right To Punish Lt. Col. West, jaykay wrote:

How many ambushes, rockets fired at helicopters, roadside bombs and other attacks on U.S. forces may have been averted if more officers had the onions that Col West has? How many who are dead would be alive? How many maimed would be whole?

Now that Col. West has been made an example of, how many commanders who would have taken a risk to protect their men will now decline to do so? How many will be killed and maimed in order to preserve this idiotic notion of playing nice at war?

I guess those questions are not so easy for you to answer so glibly. Maybe you can think of the answers while you help scrape up what's left of the 12 who died for your rulebook.

[Ispy4u]

I'll answer your questions you posed earlier.

Re: averted earlier - It is quite obvious that your contempt for honorable soldiers runs deep, I'll be happy to inform you that, with the exception of a very few, every soldier in Iraq right now has onions that make LTC Wests look tiny. I won't even bother to explain to a rape advocate why.

Re: taking risk to protect men - Our soldiers will do the things it takes to do to protect their fellow soldiers, within the law, and their lawful orders. Rape advocates need not apply.

Your made up scenario advocating rape to protect the pretend lives of 12 soldiers has no effect on me. If soldiers were to die because information was unobtainable by legitimate means then it would have been out of my hands and of no fault of my own. I would feel grief for the loss but no guilt because I stopped short of rape to get the info. You should seek help.