PDA

View Full Version : Top General in Afghanistan Expels Marines



SWJED
03-23-2007, 07:00 PM
23 March Washington Examiner - Top General in Afghanistan Expels Marines (http://www.examiner.com/a-635169~Top_general_in_Afghanistan_expels_Marines.h tml) by Rowan Scarborough.


The top American general in Afghanistan has expelled a U.S. Marine special operations company for the way the men responded to an ambush March 4, Marine sources said.

Maj. Cliff Gilmore, a spokesman for Marine Special Operations Command, confirmed to The Examiner that the company of 120 Marines is redeploying.

He said the decision followed an ambush on the company's convoy by a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. A second Marine source said the Marines retaliated and some civilians were killed.

The action brought an abrupt end to what promised to be a historic deployment. The unit sailed in January from Camp Lejuene, N.C., as the first Marine Corps special operations company sent overseas. The Corps joined U.S. Special Operations Command a year ago.

The company is now redeploying to Kuwait after just a few weeks in Afghanistan in what was supposed to be a six-month tour.

A Marine officer assigned to special operations said Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the top U.S. commander, took the extraordinary step of expelling the unit after he consulted with Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai...

Bowman
03-24-2007, 03:43 PM
From the sparse info the Special Ops Company seems to have shot their way out of an ambush . Very curious .

Merv Benson
03-24-2007, 04:19 PM
To the extent non combatants were killed in the course of this ambush, the primary reason is the enemy's violations of the Geneva Conventions by failing to wear an identifying uniform. The Marines were facing a complex ambush by an enemy that camouflages himself as a civilian. Those who suggest that they should not defend themselves in those circumstances are asking something that goes against survival instincts and training.

On top of that there is no way of knowing who was responsible for the shots that killed the non combatants without forensic examination of the bodies.

I suspect that what is happening here is that removing the Marines solves a political problem for the command. I do wish that the commanders involved in this decision would at least explain the enemy war crime which caused the situation. Until we start hammering them on this they will continue to milk these situations for propaganda.

Bill Moore
03-24-2007, 04:35 PM
I concur, I wouldn't say the unit is necessarily a scapegoat, because removing them seemed to be a counter propaganda effort to counter AQ and/or Taliban propaganda. Apparently a political line of operation, but was it the right thing to do?

Of course from where I sit, I don't have a clue on the "rest" of the story, but it "seems" we may have set a bad precedent. Will the Taliban push to get every unit that accidently kills civilians removed from country? Talk about a potentially slippery slope! Where was the counter IO effort putting the blame on the ambushers who sprung an ambush in a populated area?

Sarajevo071
03-24-2007, 10:05 PM
I believe this is that incident:


US troops kill Afghan civilians
An incident described by US forces in Afghanistan as a "complex ambush" has left at least eight civilians dead.

The incident occurred on the road from the eastern city of Jalalabad to Pakistan when a suicide bomber targeted a convoy, sparking a fire fight.

US officials initially said 16 people had been killed. They did not explain the lower, revised death toll.

Thousands of local people took to the streets, accusing the Americans of deliberately firing on the civilians.
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/6416667.stm

And then this which looks way to much like the cover-up:


Journalists: U.S. military deleted photos of attack

Afghan journalists covering the aftermath of a suicide bomb attack and shooting in eastern Afghanistan Sunday said U.S. troops deleted their photos and video and warned them not to publish or air any images of U.S. troops or a car where three Afghans were shot to death.

Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road in Nangarhar province following a suicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said militants also fired on American forces during the attack.
...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/afghan.photos.ap/index.html



U.S. military claims deletion of AP footage at attack site in Afghanistan justified

The U.S. military asserted that an American soldier was justified in erasing journalists' footage of the aftermath of a suicide bombing and shooting in Afghanistan last week, saying publication could have compromised a military investigation and led to false public conclusions.

The comments came Friday in response to an Associated Press protest that a U.S. soldier had forced two freelance journalists working for the U.S.-based news agency to delete photos and video at the scene of violence March 4 in Barikaw, eastern Afghanistan. At least eight Afghans were killed and 34 wounded.
...
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/10/asia/AS-GEN-Afghan-US-Censorship.php

Uboat509
03-25-2007, 04:03 AM
I understand Pertenko's point and God knows that the AP has a really poor track record with photos (Lebenon anyone?) but this probably could have been handled a lot better. The AP, of course, only got part of the overall picture of the event and probably would have used that to paint a fairly poor picture of the Marines involved but now the myths and rumors built around what was deleted will probably be far worse than what was actually there. This is why I am actually in favor of the embed program. I know that puts me in the minority in the military but that is the way I feel. Embeds have gotten a bad wrap because of the actions of a few and the percieved actions of others but they have actually done a decent job. They provide a way to answer the freelancers who come in a portray an unbalenced picture of the military or more impertantly, the myths and rumors that bulild up where no information is coming.

SFC W

kaur
03-25-2007, 08:54 AM
What would be journalist's next step in this CNN war? I suppose that due to technological progress all the material will go directly to out of theatre of war servers.

How far that political correctness can go? Now the unit is rotated to Kuwait, that is firendly Arab state. If this trend continues, you have to rotate every unit that has done something not popular among middle-easterners, directly back to homeland. Al-Jazeera makes Middle-East uncomfortably small and there would be no OEF and OIF, but one big theatre of war where local population's awareness about foreign units that are working in their neighbourhood is very good. Here is list of peaceful things (but very uncomfortable) how locals can respond to this information - http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/198_methods-1.pdf

Good thing about this CNN war is that new news make us to forget earlier ones relatively soon :)

goesh
03-26-2007, 12:12 PM
My hunch is after the fire fight, taliban supporters removed the weapons from the dead bodies then went running to the reporters crying war crimes

tequila
03-26-2007, 12:41 PM
I think your faith in the competence of our adversaries is somewhat amusing.

Ironhorse
03-26-2007, 01:14 PM
I think your faith in the competence of our adversaries is somewhat amusing.
I would not put it that way. There is nothing amusing about their extreme competence, resilience, adaptability, and ruthlessness.

I do not immediately discount friendly actions, perceived to be somewhere on the over-reaction to atrocity scale, as innocent by default until proven guilty. There certainly are too many conspiracy theories inflating the enemies' all-pervasive cunningness. But there are also too many folks prone to knee-jerk condemn the man in the arena. Just about anything is possible these days, and one should not leap to conclusions.

tequila
03-26-2007, 01:46 PM
I certainly am not condemning the Marines in question. It wouldn't be the first time nor will it be the last that civilians are caught in the crossfire of an ambush, and there is certainly no evidence I am aware of that the Marines were even responsible for shooting any civilians at all --- as far as we know, which is not much, the Taliban shot the civilians in the ambush, not the Marines. The only way to know for sure is to autopsy the civs and determine whether they were killed by 5.56mm/7.62x51mm or 7.62x39mm --- that is, we will probably never know.

But to assume automatically that the Taliban were even capable of spiriting away the weaponry to achieve an IO victory, frankly, imputes a lot more competence to the enemy than I have seen evidence of.

Uboat509
03-26-2007, 03:18 PM
Certainly the enemy has smart guys who think like that but those guys tend not to be out there in the fight. They have footsoldiers for that and you don't become a footsoldier for these guys by having a brilliant mind.

SFC W

Sarajevo071
03-26-2007, 04:05 PM
Well, my question would be, if Marines are not responsible why taking away pictures and erasing the films and memory cards!?

Let’s just not forget all those cases and orders in Iraq and Afghanistan about opening fire 180 degrees in protection of troops, and all those, oh so much, examples of civilians killed shooting randomly or in retaliations or for being there, stuck in the middle.

I am not here to accuse any brave and honest solder but I wish to point on those cases of random killings of civilians in retaliation, in some cases all families, or just for being there or looking same. I don’t think that covering after act will help anyone.

Just because you can't identify enemy after they hit do that means to open fire around? How many more enemies do this incident, and all those like it, crated? That’s should be great concern.

tequila
03-26-2007, 04:10 PM
Well what appears to have happened here is the Marine convoy was hit with a suicide bomb on a highway. The Marines say that they were then hit with small arms fire, which they returned. The Afghans appear to say that there was no small arms fire and the Marines just opened fire on civilian vehicles, apparently because they feared another VBIED.

If the Marines did get hit with small arms fire, there's no way to know if the Afghan civs were killed by Taliban or Marine fire, except by autopsies that will likely never be conducted.

Likely the films and camera memory cards were confiscated on the call of the local unit commander on scene, probably in fear of nasty pictures of dead civilians ending up in the news. Again, no way to know if the Marines were actually guilty, but they knew they would be blamed automatically in many media outlets. A clumsy move probably by a junior leader.

goesh
03-26-2007, 04:57 PM
The unit gets hit, they shoot and scoot, regroup and return. Some the taliban fighters that were seen going down now have no weapons on or near them. Said weapons are now hidden or on their way to market or back to the taliban by the time the unit returns. The unit Commander is apprised that x number of taliban went down and now their weapons are gone and journalists are snapping pictures of their bodies. It was the right action and right order to confiscate. If it was a safe environment to spring an ambush it would be suitable too for some Afghans present to claim the KIAs were innocent civilians and quite possible for some to intentionally remove AKs, etc from the scene, for whatever purpose. I think Eikenberry is the one who acted irrationally here.

Old Eagle
03-26-2007, 05:59 PM
Just a coupla points.

1. NOBODY knows exactly what happened on the ground. In many ways what exactly happened is irrelavent, it's the message, as most of you in this forum know.

2. Eikenberry tends to be very measured in his actions, so I wonder what led him down this road.

3. Removing the SOF co. could both protect them from "honor" killings in the future while at the same time redressing local complaints. i.e. net "plus" for the strategy while accepting tactical defeat.

We'll probably never know the whole story regarding ANY of the points above.

Sarajevo071
03-26-2007, 08:45 PM
But that’s exactly the point. No pictures, no proof of wrongdoing, no accountability… Let’s not made A-Stan like Iraq where all those killings and abuses are discovered and some (those unlucky ones) end up being punished for rapes and murders.

If they kill one of us, let destroy all freaking country (no matter them being guilty or not) but who cares that they are dying like flies… They are just bunch of rugheads anyways. And, let’s not forget, they are guilty not accepting our will and orders.

Sorry, I belong to those that can’t accept things like that. On the end, those people, family members and friends will know and they will join or start supporting and hiding resistance even more now. And, we don’t want that, right?

And, yes Old Eagle, we'll probably never know the whole story. Definitely not now.

Uboat509
03-26-2007, 09:22 PM
Sarajevo you are make some very broad and wholey unsupportable claims here. Can you point to even a SHRED of evidence of the type of mass coverups that you are implying? Of course not, because there is none. Speaking as someone who has actually been to Iraq I can say that even the appearance of wrong doing can get you slammed never mind if you actually did something. IF all we were concerned about was imposing our "will and orders" we would simply flatten this country and be done with it. We would not have American sevice members dying nearly every day side by side with the IA and IPs trying to help this country. As for accountability comment, the pictures were not proof of anything. They were pictures of one small part of a larger event and lacked context. What exactly do pictures of a truck with some dead bodies in prove? It does not prove who shot them or why. Context is everything and some media outlets have proven themselves to masters at manipulating or ignoring the context.

SFC W

Sarajevo071
03-27-2007, 07:16 PM
I base my words on stuff I read and saw in many, many testimonies, articles, and movies by veterans themselves. You are asking for proofs... If we have "proof" there wouldn't be cover-ups. What I can tell you is to remind you how Military tried to cover other cases (you heard same stories like all of us) and you know how they tried or they did cover that up.

From damaging Babylon, theft of Iraqi gold and museum artifacts, to the Tillman case, British soldier and American pilots case, Haditha case, Abu Gharib case, Samara case... There is more and I think you heard about all those killings and rapes of civilians by "mistakes" or by orders of free fire. Contractors are without any control or blame, Military is free of responsibility to the International or Iraqi courts...

Regarding "we would simply flatten this country and be done with it" I firmly believe that decade long sanctions that killed 500,000 kids, OIF I and "Highway of Death", and now this coming in frame of "flattening country" but not so obvious so more people will not fight back and with preserving territorial integrity to preserve sucking the oil out.

I am finding very noble of you that you are not one of those soldiers (and I know there are minority) since U.S. Military have long and pretty much good history of noble causes, but this war is not one of them. I agree with you that you stand up for what you believe and I didn’t want to insult you or ANY other real and decent soldier. I was trying to point out some wrong steps that can (and they did) backfire on whole idea of bringing peace and democracy in that parts of Word.

My sensitivity on civilian deaths, rapes and maimed kids toke better of me. My bad. I will try to control my words.

120mm
03-28-2007, 10:34 AM
Sarajevo's comments are, regardless of the truth on the ground, representative of a large portion of World Opinion, and We, the US, must deal with it or not, depending on what We decide to do.

Interesting to hear and know, taken in that context.

kaur
03-28-2007, 02:16 PM
Thomas Rid covers media as force variable, quite well in his story "War 2.0"

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/5956806.html

SWJED
04-01-2007, 10:30 AM
30 March Army Times - Readiness of Ousted Spec Ops Unit Questioned (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_marsoc_expelled070330/) by Gidget Fuentes.


The recent expulsion from Afghanistan of the Marine Corps’ first special operations company did more than just put the relatively new leatherneck command in the spotlight. It has made many question whether the company was up to the task in the first place.

The removal of Marine Special Operations Company-Fox came sometime after a March 4 suicide attack and ambush on the Marines’ convoy in Afghanistan left at least eight Afghans dead and another 34 wounded along a highway, about a month after the company had arrived in the country.

The Marines’ response on that day is under scrutiny by at least one major investigation. The region’s top commander, Army Maj. Gen. Frank Kearney — head of U.S. Special Operations Command-Central Command — ordered the expulsion, citing concerns about the unit’s ability to conduct counterinsurgency in the area, a spokesman for Kearney said March 23.

The Army-led investigation into the incident is continuing, and officials were mum on details of the incident. A Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command spokesman said the company would rejoin the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit — with whom it deployed from the East Coast in January — and take on other spec-ops missions in the region as needed.

But conversations in some Marine circles — both active and retired — and on the Internet since the expulsion have stirred speculation about the company’s reassignment, and the Corps’ future in the world of spec ops...

Continued at the link...

TROUFION
04-01-2007, 10:53 PM
While I was not a big fan of the MARSOC stand up, as it was/ is draining manpower from the regular Battalions, the opportunity to be a part of SOCCOM is a big deal. I doubt that one screw up out the door will condemn the project. Some heads will roll and review will be done, MajGen Hejlik, a good man, will set it right. MARSOC will recover and excell.

SWJED
04-01-2007, 11:51 PM
While I was not a big fan of the MARSOC stand up, as it was/ is draining manpower from the regular Battalions, the opportunity to be a part of SOCCOM is a big deal. I doubt that one screw up out the door will condemn the project. Some heads will roll and review will be done, MajGen Hejlik, a good man, will set it right. MARSOC will recover and excell.

I think you pretty much got it right and I agree as someone who was not a big fan of our Corps joining up with SOCOM in the first place...

Bill Moore
04-02-2007, 12:27 AM
I remember our discussions earlier, and I was not a supporter of the Marines joining for several reasons. First they already bring a unique capability to our military. Second they're a relatively young force, and you cannot afford to remove several senior NCO leaders from the ranks and put them in one unit within the Corp.

I think there were several senior members within the Marines who didn't and still don't support the concept, so they could, in subtle ways, make it hard to get the new units off the ground. Furthermore the biggest supporter of it, former SECDEF Rumfield no longer has a vote.

Some commented that they were worried the Army would use this as an opportunity to poke the Marines in the eye over rice bowl issues (we have some who will), but I think there is an equal to greater concern that senior Marine leadership will use this incident as an excuse to get the Marines out of SOCOM.

Who knows a year from now this could be old news, and the Marines continue to build their special operations capability, or they announce that the experiment is over (not over the incident) and that they can better serve America's interest as Marines under the Marine Corp instead of as Marines under SOCOM.

Ender
04-07-2007, 06:03 AM
Well, my question would be, if Marines are not responsible why taking away pictures and erasing the films and memory cards!?

Let’s just not forget all those cases and orders in Iraq and Afghanistan about opening fire 180 degrees in protection of troops, and all those, oh so much, examples of civilians killed shooting randomly or in retaliations or for being there, stuck in the middle.

I am not here to accuse any brave and honest solder but I wish to point on those cases of random killings of civilians in retaliation, in some cases all families, or just for being there or looking same. I don’t think that covering after act will help anyone.

Just because you can't identify enemy after they hit do that means to open fire around? How many more enemies do this incident, and all those like it, crated? That’s should be great concern.

Sarajevo,
Respectfully: This is the first I have heard of this and I can promise you two things.

-The first is I probably know a large number of these guys you are referring to... personally.
-The second is that the guys I do know (if they are ummm.. these... cough) are not murderers and if they did anything in the course of that patrol, whether it be fire their rifles or erase "sensitive" material it is because they felt it was tactically the best thing for the mission. Pure and simple. You should look to the instigators and not the responders.

I can not speak on what happened after the patrol and am sure that whatever decision was made was done for appropriate reasons.

I don't know all of the specifics of this particular case but I have to admit my gut tells me when these guys say "complex ambush" they mean exactly what they are saying. If I were you I wouldn't ask why they erased the pictures, that is a no-brainer. Think about it. You are an operator and the enemy (I am presuming from the limited text out there) just sucker punched you with a suicide attack and follows it up in the middle of the populace. Why aren't you pissed that the attack occured at all? There are a number of reasons why I would erase pictures after something if I were them and the most important reason is that I would NOT want my FACE, and my GEAR, and my WEAPONS, and my BUDDIES all being beamed all over the fundamentalist websites of the otherwise peaceful Muslim nations. Who wants to become the next bounty for some murderous little punk with a beef against Allah knows what? That risk is what he faces by allowing the pictures and videos to stay in the hands of the very same people whose sole responsibility to film it in the first place. In today's game we all agree that camera is as deadly as a rifle.

I have to admit, you write of noble ideals and concepts and there is a part of me that wishes that the "enemy" were as you described him but I fear the people you are defending are not who you think they are. I know a large number of Sunni and Shi'a Iraqis who would categorically disagree with much of what you say. I hope for a better way as well but if we can not admit that a small portion of your Muslim brethren do not believe as you and that they are working to the detriment of all than we are going to have a very difficult time finding peace in all of this.

Ender

Ender
04-07-2007, 06:18 AM
From the link above from SWJED:

Maj. Cliff Gilmore, a spokesman for Marine Special Operations Command said
..."The unit responded to the ambush and the local population perceptions of that response have damaged the relationship between the local population and the Marine special operations company."My knee jerk response to that statement is if they knew they had dirt on these guys or suspected that they had dirt that the tone would be less about messed up relationships and more about investigations. I hope I am right and that "redeploying" them to Kuwait (and then Iraq?) was a diplomatic gesture or political maneuvering.

Sarajevo071
04-11-2007, 11:16 PM
Sarajevo,
Respectfully: This is the first I have heard of this and I can promise you two things.

-The first is I probably know a large number of these guys you are referring to... personally.
-The second is that the guys I do know (if they are ummm.. these... cough) are not murderers and if they did anything in the course of that patrol, whether it be fire their rifles or erase "sensitive" material it is because they felt it was tactically the best thing for the mission. Pure and simple. You should look to the instigators and not the responders.

I can not speak on what happened after the patrol and am sure that whatever decision was made was done for appropriate reasons.

Well, I hope you will understand why I didn't trust your words and stick with what I know... Even that I went silent giving up on proving all ready known truth, I still stayed on that case waiting for confirmations...

Here is something that you can find interesting:


Probe: Marines used excessive force

U.S. military commander has determined that Marines accused of killing civilians after a suicide bombing in Afghanistan last month used excessive force, and he has referred the case for possible criminal inquiry, The Associated Press has learned.

The initial investigation of the March 4 incident, in which up to a dozen Afghan civilians are reported to have died, concluded that the Marines' response was "out of proportion to the threat that was immediately there," a senior defense official said Wednesday.

....

The case has also been referred to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service for a broader criminal inquiry, the official said.

Another official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the initial military investigation concluded that there was a "reasonable suspicion" that the Marines violated the rules for the use of deadly force, and that crimes, possibly including homicide, may have been committed in the aftermath of the convoy being struck by a car bomb.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_afghanistan


Respectfully to you and your friends: I know what I’m talking about.

To me, this is "just" another Haditha (or any other massacre that was committed but shushed away, pictures/videos erased) and just proving my point that I tried to made in this tread. But, who knows... Maybe your friends will get slap on the wrist like many others in Iraq and Afghanistan and Marines will get to go home early. It’s just bunch of “head rugs” dead anyways… Maybe couple kids… Means nothing much anymore.

jcustis
04-12-2007, 12:47 AM
Gentlemen,

If this applies to you, take the admonishment on board.

We are not going to stick each other in the eye over who is more right than the other, especially on a situation that we only know 1/10th of a percent about.

I didn't catch any drama earlier in this thread, but it need not start now. Be forewarned.

EDITED TO ADD: I know we usually raise issues and debate them because we do think we are right, but the tone of the thread just took what I perceived to be a unecessarily personal tone. Continue to mill about smartly.

hostagecow
04-17-2007, 06:15 AM
I'm a former Marine officer and historian, have been following the Nangahar situation (some would call it Haditha 2.0 or My Lai 3.0, your pick) and was wondering what others thought...how much interservice rivalry was involved, whether Gen Kearney's decision to expel the MARSOC unit was an attempt at counter-propaganda. I was in Ramadi last summer and listened to a few Army officers complain about having to work alongside the criminal of Haditha, i.e. US Marines.

Obviously, it's a very complicated situation but one that seems to embody a lot of the issues that have come to define the SWJ community, i.e. the role of the media in the Long War, the uses and limitations of force, soft power, etc.

marct
04-17-2007, 11:54 AM
Hi Hostagecow,

We had some discussion of it here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2457), but I haven't heard much since then.

Marc

Xenophon
04-17-2007, 12:42 PM
But to assume automatically that the Taliban were even capable of spiriting away the weaponry to achieve an IO victory, frankly, imputes a lot more competence to the enemy than I have seen evidence of.

It imputes a lot more competence than the Taliban has to come up with the idea, but IO is well known and practiced by the various terrorist groups aligned with the Taliban. See Hezbollah's use of civilians as shields in Lebanon. I wouldn't put it past any of these to gather civilians at sites likely to be hit by American fires, like an ambush site, just so that the civilians will become casualties and bring an easy IO win. Once that idea gets handed down by upper AQ echelons or even simply copied by the Taliban, it wouldn't take a lot of competence to pull it off.

TROUFION
04-17-2007, 01:33 PM
Let's get this straight, no side in this or any conflict is above reproach. The baseline difference is that here-today the Coalition, NATO-US forces do not deliberatly target civilians as a means of terror based coercion. Those who have faced battle understand that 30 seconds of combat is a very long time, within that time frame hundreds of actions take place, far faster than the average human can think. Reaction: the time it takes to squeeze a trigger; the speed of the bullet once it is fired is far faster than the time it takes to discern the difference between a non-uniformed insurgent and a non-combatant civilian. Once fired the bullet cannot be pulled back. Psychology: there is a thing called emotional contagion and terrain amplification, these affect everyone particularly in combat. Emotional contagion is a generally unanticipated response to tone of voice, facial expression or body language that illicits an involuntary empathic reaction and Terrain Amplification is the use of terrain (human and physical) to mask or amplify the strength of a military force, generally causing it to seem larger and more effective than it actually is. The goal of any good ambush. IED attack or guerilla force action is to combine terrain amplification and emotional contagion to increase the shock of an ambush or percieved ambush causing a negative emotional response to the ambushee increasing fear and over-reaction. -TROUFION

AP Story on Human Rights Watch: Rights group: Taliban targets civilians (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4719260.html), By ALISA TANG, Associated
Press Writer

The Taliban and other militant groups are committing war crimes by targeting Afghan civilians, killing nearly 700 last year, according to a report issued Monday by Human Rights Watch that also pointed to dramatically escalating violence since 2005.

The death toll caused by the Islamic groups is more than three times the civilian deaths attributed to U.S. and NATO forces, which have been criticized for excessive use of force in civilian areas.

In the latest suicide attack against the Western-backed government, a bomber in the relatively stable north struck a crowd of police on Monday, killing 10 and wounding 32.

The New York-based rights group said the number of suicide attacks spiked to 136 last year from 21 the previous year as the Taliban turned to increasingly indiscriminate, Iraq-style tactics. The surge in violence made 2006 "the deadliest year for civilians in Afghanistan since 2001," the report said....
___

On the Net: Human Rights Watch (http://www.humanrightswatch.org/)

Stan
04-17-2007, 01:34 PM
Hi Sarajevo !

Please allow me to further explain herein:

I have two points and do not pretend to defend anyone with these, merely explain my thoughts and my thought process.

The Media, specifically Mr. ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

Do a quick 'dogpile' search and see what he's all about. Now that you generally know who he is, you can better assess the way he 'pens'. For example, in September of 2006 he wrote: "The Army is ending its best recruiting year since 1997" which created nothing more than Bravo Sierra everywhere. He even wrote about 'air samples being taken from a nuclear blast.

Hell, I don't know too many people (Marc is one of them) that can discuss nuclear fallout and insurgency all in one breath. :cool:

Fact is, these stories are barely true. They do however make for some good paper sales :D

The Military: It seems every time we hear CID or Criminal Investigation, we conclude immediate wrong doing. That's not at all the case. This is the CID's job, be it Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines. A military commander can only go so far. He or She then determines (and not all the time) whether such investigations should continue, or worse, He or She is not even capable of performing said.

Going to your link (allow me one more pathetic rant):


A U.S. military commander has determined that Marines accused of killing civilians after a suicide bombing in Afghanistan last month used excessive force, and he has referred the case for possible criminal inquiry, The Associated Press has learned.

"A US Military Commander and Associated Press has learned"
Is there any information there ? Which US Military Commander ? WTF does 'has learned mean' ? Where did this Bravo Sierra come from ?

Here's a better one:


The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe's results have not been released. The findings have been forwarded to Central Command, which has responsibility for U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

This Chicken Sierra wishes to spread Sierra but has no 'nuts'. Forwarding issues to the appropriate command is also a very appropriate and normal situation much like the CID.

I hope this helps just a tad, but more than happy to explain.

Regards, Stan

Sarajevo071
04-17-2007, 02:28 PM
Hi, Stan

This is the newest... Hope it helps explaining situation better. This is not first, not the least time, for some unit to open 360 degres fire on everyone in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I believe you know that.



No sign Marines were fired upon
by Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post, April 15, 2007

A preliminary US military investigation has found no evidence that Marines came under small-arms fire before they killed and wounded more than 40 Afghan civilians in a village near Jalalabad last month, the US commander who ordered the inquiry said yesterday.

Members of a Marine Special Operations platoon shot at scores of civilian vehicles on a highway after their convoy was attacked by a suicide bomber March 4.

Although the Marines reported taking enemy fire and seeing people with weapons, Major General Frank Kearney, head of Special Operations Command Central, said yesterday that there is no evidence the platoon came under small-arms fire after the bombing.

The troops continued shooting at perceived threats as they traveled miles from the site of the attack and hit several vehicles carrying civilians, he said.




http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/04/15/report_on_afghan_deaths_released/?p1=MEWell_Pos3

Stan
04-17-2007, 03:09 PM
Hi Sarajevo !
Sorry, took a while to go through the myriad of articles.
Most of all the hits are worded exactly like Ann Scott Tyson's and I wanted something different to view. Makes me wonder who is copying from whom anymore.

Again, I am not here to defend either side, but trying to provide an objective approach as a soldier and now civilian who has been to Afghanistan several times (with firearms and dead fear).

Strange, I found contradictory text at the Washington Post where Ann reportedly works:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041400603_pf.html


The six-Humvee convoy had stopped at another U.S. camp near the Pakistan border and was on its way back to Jalalabad when a Toyota van moved to the shoulder along with other oncoming traffic. The van suddenly swerved between the first and second Humvees, and the suicide bomber detonated the bomb, Kearney said.

Marines in the convoy believed that they were taking enemy fire from several locations along the sides of the road, Kearney said. They deemed vehicles along the road threats and shot at five or six of them -- one because it failed to respond to their direction, and another because it appeared to be trying to force them in a certain direction, Kearney said.

"They reported receiving enemy fire from a number of locations. . . . They believed they saw folks with weapons," he said.

I cannot comment on what they saw, only they can. I can however look at the circumstances that led up to the shootings and would only wonder what the service men were feeling. Certainly nothing good comes to mind. With that, the following shouldn't surprise anyone:


The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission released its report on the incident yesterday, along with a separate, more general report on violations of international humanitarian law across the country in recent months. The second study said actions by the Taliban, Afghan national forces and international forces regularly put civilian lives at risk.

What the General had to do was logical, but does not assume guilt:


"If we employed them and they had another engagement . . . they would never get a fair judgment regardless of what occurred," Kearney said. The Marines are easily distinguishable because they wear different uniforms from other U.S. forces.

Regards, Stan

Sarajevo071
04-17-2007, 05:41 PM
Stan,

I am failing to see (from that quote you provide for me) where is said that someone shoot at Marines? Reading like this, that Marines ”believed that they were taking enemy fire…” I see no contradictions with article I posted. And I posted that one only to show you particular names since you said last one was to vague and with no names or ranks.

Now, how some strangers who invade their country can order them how to drive, where and punish them (shoot at them, maim or kill them) if they fail to obey them or understand they foreign langue-is totally different issue. I do not raising those questions since this is not place for it but I think it should have some merit in making decisions to kill people.

On the end, you went there to “help” not to “conquer”. Right?


Regards,

tequila
04-17-2007, 05:46 PM
Stan,

On the end, you went there to “help” not to “conquer”. Right?



That is rather inflammatory. I doubt you can construct a genuine model whereby the U.S. is in Afghanistan for imperialistic reasons. We went to Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban, not for conquest or to help the Afghan people. Yet, despite incompetence and criminal under-funding and under-resourcing, the U.S. is trying to help the Afghan people set up a genuine representative government.

Despite this awful incident where innocents were killed, it is important to keep the bigger picture in mind before we resort to such anti-imperialist rhetoric. If you want to use such words, you must justify them.

Stan
04-17-2007, 05:57 PM
Glad to see you back, Sarajevo !


I am failing to see (from that quote you provide for me) where is said that someone shoot at Marines? Reading like this, that Marines ”believed that they were taking enemy fire…”

It is perception. I admit, hard to explain when you stuff yourself under the vehicle and huddle down. Perception then becomes everything.

I remember your PMs to me about your life in New York. A place I have visited only twice in 49 years. You think it's home, but for me it's a battle field. Perception my friend !

"Marines in the convoy believed that they were taking enemy fire from several locations along the sides of the road, Kearney said. They deemed vehicles along the road threats and shot at five or six of them -- one because it failed to respond to their direction, and another because it appeared to be trying to force them in a certain direction, Kearney said.


Now, how some strangers who invade their country can order them how to drive, where and punish them (shoot at them, maim or kill them) if they fail to obey them or understand they foreign langue-is totally different issue. I do not raising those questions since this is not place for it but I think it should have some merit in making decisions to kill people.

I don't know much about an invasion, I was invited there five times.
Yes, directing traffic in any foreign country without language and cultural background would be hard to do.

They had just survived an VBIED jammed between their convoy and following that, I think I would have a hard time with more vehicles, even if they didn't understand hand signals.

I understand your stance, but I am unwilling to convict those without the burden of proof.

Glass 3 miles later is not in my opinion proof of anything.

Take care, Stan

Sarajevo071
04-17-2007, 06:31 PM
I agree.

I understand everything what you said and I am humble with job that you did there... You will always have my deepest respect for that, Stan. Hope you will remember that.

Thank you for your input and conversation.

night

Stan
04-17-2007, 07:41 PM
Hi Sarajevo !
I am glad that you feel you understand a little more. I may later ask you to explain some things to me :) They will definitely be hard ones :D

Much like you and the fine folks herein, I also think that even one human loss is terrible, no matter how it happened.

Please continue to find those "difficult subjects" and post them for us.

Good night, Stan

Sarajevo071
04-17-2007, 09:17 PM
That is rather inflammatory. I doubt you can construct a genuine model whereby the U.S. is in Afghanistan for imperialistic reasons. We went to Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban, not for conquest or to help the Afghan people. Yet, despite incompetence and criminal under-funding and under-resourcing, the U.S. is trying to help the Afghan people set up a genuine representative government.

Despite this awful incident where innocents were killed, it is important to keep the bigger picture in mind before we resort to such anti-imperialist rhetoric. If you want to use such words, you must justify them.

My apologies tequila… I didn’t saw you post before.

First, thank you for your advices. Second... I don’t wish to be source of “inflammatory” posts and I will just say that what I learned in my humble lifetime, what I read and see, made me what I am today and what I believe and think now. There are many proofs and “proofs” and going thru them just to be shut down and never accepted since our perspectives and view are different, serve no purposes… I would have to say much about it but please, allow me stop here.

Sarajevo071
04-21-2007, 03:50 AM
Killings of Afghan Civilians Recall Haditha
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER

After it became clear last year that several marines had killed 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq, following an attack on their convoy of Humvees, the Marine Corps, which had initially played down the massacre, began an offensive of a different kind.

Last May, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the commandant of the Marine Corps at the time, went to Iraq to express deep concern to his marines and to reinforce what he called the “core values” that required them to respond to danger with thoughtful precision.

But almost a year later, marines killed at least 10 civilians in Afghanistan in an episode that bore some striking similarities to the Haditha killings and suggested that the lesson had not taken, even in a platoon of combat veterans wearing the badge of the elite new Marine Corps Special Operations forces.

Marine Corps officials said the unit, whose members undergo at least four months of specialized military training, did not receive specific values training addressing the lessons of Haditha. The actions of the 30 marines on patrol in Afghanistan appeared to contradict many of the edicts General Hagee had implored the marines to remember.

“We use lethal force only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful,” General Hagee declared in a series of talks he gave at Marine bases around the world. “We must regulate force and violence,” he added. “We protect the noncombatants we find on the battlefield.”

A preliminary military investigation found that the marines killed at least 10 civilians and wounded dozens along a stretch of road near Jalalabad on March 4, and no evidence that they were being fired upon.

....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/world/asia/20abuse.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

TROUFION
04-21-2007, 04:12 PM
I was rereading this thread and wondering what is the point?

What I see is this: a Marine unit on patrol is hit by an IED while traversing a village. Due the blast they became disoriented. One or more of them fired. Then the remainder followed the lead and joined the firing. It was an over-reaction. It was precisely what the enemy wanted. The unfortunate side is that civilians died.

In the aftermath the Marines in the patrol believe they had been fired upon. IED ambushes are disorienting as stated, they probably believed they had been fired on. The difference between incoming and outgoing fire is tough to discern in many cases.

Rumors spread and mistakes in the investigation(s) compound these rumors.

This does not excuse the Marines from a mistake. It does not excuse investigator mistakes. It does not excuse the deaths of civilians. Rest assured that the Marine Corps WILL investigate and WILL hold people accountable.

BUT lets not forget the people who planted the IED ina populated civilian area. Lets not forget about the double standard of attrocity and accountability. AND do not forget that in combat 30 seconds is a lifetime.

So I ask again what is the point? When US/coalition forces kill civilians it is accidental, when taliban do it it is intentional. WHO should be held to account more?
-T

TROUFION
04-24-2007, 07:24 PM
For those following this thread, here is the latest from the UNOFFICIAL Marine Corps Times:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/04/marine_marsoc_070420/

Bottom line, Commanding Officer and Senior Enlisted relieved of duty and sent home awaiting the results of the investigation (several other team members have also been sent home early). It would appear despite confusion around the initial reporting and chaos of the event that the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Laws of Land Warfare and U.S. Law will be fully engaged in this matter. This action is entirely in keeping with agreements between the U.S. Government and the Government of Afghanistan regarding status of forces.

It is important to remember that while the Marines in question are being investigated for a response to a suicide ambush that was initially investigated and deemed “out of proportion to the threat…” under the UCMJ, U.S. and International law there remains the Presumption of Innocence.

Further the incident took place on 4 March 2007. Today is 24 April 2007. This is a period of 50 DAYS not weeks or months. This is a speedy pursuit of truth and justice.

-T

tequila
05-08-2007, 06:06 PM
Army Colonel apologizes for alleged Marine shootings (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/military_afghanmarines_apology_070508w/).



An Army colonel in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday apologized and made condolence payments to families of civilians allegedly killed by special operations Marines after a suicide bomber struck the Marines’ vehicle convoy.

He said the killing and wounding of “innocent Afghans at the hands of Americans is a stain on our honor,” despite the fact that the criminal investigation into the incident has not been completed.

The March 4 incident in Nangarhar province left 19 civilians dead and 53 wounded, said Army Col. John Nicholson, commander of the 10th Mountain Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team, which is winding down its deployment following 16 months away from home. The number of dead is well beyond previous reports, which ranged from 10 to 12.

“We came here to help the Afghan people and the Afghan government, not to hurt you,” Nicholson said, re-reading for Pentagon reporters via satellite the statement he gave to the families of the victims. “So I stand before you today deeply, deeply ashamed, and terribly sorry, that Americans have killed and wounded innocent Afghan people.

“We are filled with grief and sadness at the death of any Afghan,” Nicholson continued. “But the death and wounding of innocent Afghans at the hand of Americans is a stain on our honor, and on the deaths of the many Americans who have died defending Afghanistan and the Afghan people.

“This was a terrible, terrible mistake,” Nicholson said. “And my nation grieves with you for your loss and suffering. We humbly and respectfully ask for your forgiveness.”

Nicholson said such events “do set us back with the population, and they have to be addressed very directly and forthrightly with the Afghan people.” The families’ response, he said, was “very positive. Showing them the appropriate respect is culturally significant. And seeing the genuine remorse we have for incidents such as this is important in terms of keeping them with us.”

Marine Maj. Cliff Gilmore, spokesman for Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command at Camp Lejeune, N.C., said his command is not characterizing the incident until the investigation has been completed.

“We regret the March 4 ambush of the Marine Special Operations Company in Afghanistan and offer our deepest sympathy to all of those involved,” Gilmore said. ”The events related to that ambush are currently under investigation. In the interest of preserving the presumption of innocence that all U.S. service members deserve when facing allegations of misconduct, we will not characterize the incident until we have all the facts.”

LawVol
05-08-2007, 09:12 PM
Hopefully these guys aren't now screwed. I find it surprising that a commander would comment prior to an investigation being completed. This only feeds into our nearly complete ineptitude when it comes to IO.

A great number of people will selectively digest information. We've seen it in this very thread. One member has permitted himself to believe one account by someone who was not there, but discount the statements of an attorney who heard it straight from the source. Additionally, he has automatically dismissed information provided by another member because it does not comport with what he already knows. I think its the whole cognitive-affective thinking model taken from psychology.

In any event, we've just handed the enemy a victory. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation (which will likely be covered on page 28 of the NY Times next to the newest fat-free recipe), the perception has been created and these two commanders have helped create it. Because of their statements, any investigation that unsubstantiates the allegations or any court-martial that renders an acquittal will be seen as a coverup. We really need to get better at this IO stuff.

Steve Blair
05-08-2007, 09:16 PM
It's a shame, and the military's track record here has never been very good (going all the way back to our earliest wars). I don't know if it's a lack of interest in the subject, a failure to see the need for a good IO strategy, or what. I suspect it's a combination of the above, with a certain level of disdain for "non-military" activities thrown in for good (or bad) measure.

jcustis
05-08-2007, 09:46 PM
A great number of people will selectively digest information. We've seen it in this very thread. One member has permitted himself to believe one account by someone who was not there, but discount the statements of an attorney who heard it straight from the source. Additionally, he has automatically dismissed information provided by another member because it does not comport with what he already knows. I think its the whole cognitive-affective thinking model taken from psychology.

Sounds like a perfect recipe for fratricide. Makes me think back a couple of months to the tape of the A-10 flight erroneously attacking the British Scimitars near Basra

goesh
05-09-2007, 01:29 PM
- politician disguised as a full-bird pees all over self while apologizing for Marines trying to stay alive in a fire fight, that's my take on it

SWCAdmin
05-09-2007, 02:17 PM
Let's not confuse lynching in the media with culturally appropriate expressions of remorse.

Many other threads here, and elsewhere, tout IO uber alles. On at least one level, this is what it looks like in practice.

I do not see anything in the quote above (post #46) that offends my US/first world sensibilities of "innocent until proven guilty" when balanced against an Afghan culturally sensitive and appropriate acknowledgement of involvement, which is undisputed. Actually a fairly well balanced statement, at least at the bumper sticker level - involvement but not guilt or justification. I don't go for the blood money concept, but they do. How would our IO campaign look with a "let's wait for the investigation" stance. When in Rome...

Perhaps those who are following this more thoroughly see lapses at other levels. No comment there, just at this drive-by level.

On a related note, the darn nuisance with COIN is that losing and winning look so annoyingly similar at the time.

LawVol
05-09-2007, 05:36 PM
I agree that the quotes from Colonel Nicholson are not an admission of guilt. However, perception is reality. It is this quote from the article that bothers me:


Nicholson’s comments mark the second time that a prominent Army official has publicly cast doubt on the Marines’ innocence

If this reporter can come to that conclusion others will do so as well. By the time these quotes make the rounds, guilt will be affixed and any official determination to the contrary will be seen as a coverup. I'm just waiting for John Murtha to condemn them as well...

SWCAdmin
05-10-2007, 03:33 AM
However, perception is reality.
Concur!

Problem is we have at least two, maybe more, extremely different realities, or at least perceptions, going on.

Actions that completely optimize the in-country issue management are almost the worst things that could be done with regard to the U.S. domestic political situation and/or the American system of justice for the accused. Yet if we try to please all, we do none effectively.

Would that we were only fighting on one front.

carl
05-16-2007, 04:17 PM
I agree entirely with SWCAdmin. If we care about what the Afghan villagers think, and we should, probably more than anything, Col. Nicholson's statement and the payments had to be made sooner rather than later.

It appears that the unit involved was not prepared for what they ran into. IED/VBIED attack accompanied by an ambush, or not, would seem llkely to a point approaching certainty for a unit deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. That the unit couldn't respond as they should have is the fault of the leadership. The commanding officer and the senior NCO were relieved so it seems the Marines agree.

Arctic Breaze
05-16-2007, 05:42 PM
Regardless of who is wrong or right this is an excellent event as it sets a precidence now for holding sub units accountable.

SWCAdmin
05-22-2007, 06:01 PM
In this post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=15482) (#51 this thread) I made a statement regarding a view through one specific soda straw. I still stand by that statement within the extremely narrow context that it was offered -- a sterile comment on the cross-cultural multi-audience issues raised by the excerpt of COL Nicholson's statement as it appeared in tequila's post #46.

However, now that I have peered through a few more soda straws and a little bit more at the events in general, I note that it must be next to impossible for anyone with more background on the incident in Jalalabad to separate that one straw from the many others that are on the camel's back and point to a breadth and depth of issues far beyond the one that I brought up.

The whole event is WAY complex and strikes to many many issues. In retrospect, for me to make have made such a comment on one sterile corner of the whole festering mess, as darn on target as the comment may have been :rolleyes:, was marginally ridiculous. For those who were able to join me in being so objective (or ill-informed :o), OK I guess, you needn't have read this. But for those who had some subjectivity due to a smidgeon of additional awareness, I now thoroughly appreciate how you might not have been able to accept that sterile comment and probably couldn't see straight for a while after reading it.

Might be some breaking news this week, and we'll see what it all brings. There will be much ado about rush to judgement, conviction in the press, service and cross-loyalties and/or their absence, etc.

BTW, in this recent story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-marines18may18,1,1540984.story?track=rss) Gen Conway criticizes the apology.