PDA

View Full Version : Is this a violation of ROE or not?



Culpeper
09-25-2007, 12:56 AM
U.S. Snipers Allegedly 'Baited' Iraqis (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070925/D8RS5G1O0.html)

In Vietnam our troops would lay down a rifle on a trail that was booby trapped to explode when someone fired it. I don't see a problem with snipers baiting targets with the right bait. I'm wondering how others feel about this type of inflicting casualties since we used these tactics in Vietnam and nobody seemed to think it was a problem as far as I know.

Shek
09-25-2007, 01:21 AM
My answer would depend on the details; however, since we don't have these details, anything would simply be speculation and best not to comment on (both because of the speculative nature and because of the OPSEC implications).

SWJED
09-25-2007, 01:35 AM
My answer would depend on the details; however, since we don't have these details, anything would simply be speculation and best not to comment on (both because of the speculative nature and because of the OPSEC implications).

Well said...

Rex Brynen
09-25-2007, 01:57 AM
Well said...

...although....

I would have thought that in an environment where looting and resale is commonplace, there's almost nothing one could leave around as "bait" that civilians wouldn't think of carting off (weapons, munitions, other equipment)--and where the local political ramifications of this were potentially rather negative were a non-combatant to be shot by a sniper in such a trap.

Culpeper
09-25-2007, 02:14 AM
I should have narrowed down the type of opinions I was seeking. I'm only seeking comments based on what is implicated or described in the article itself. We do a lot of speculation on these forums concerning tactics currently employed and mostly in the form of criticism with somewhat disregard to OPSEC. It almost can't be avoided. Personally, I think a tactic described in the article is perfectly fine under the right time and place and nobody should be under any type of investigation based on past tactics that were accepted and the press should be ashamed that they printed something that definitely has an OPSEC implication. I'm starting to notice a lot of slow news days out of Iraq lately and this is just a poor excuse to print something...anything. It is a little vacant to chill a thread because someone feels what is published in the press makes some people awkward discussing. If this held true throughout the forum than at least half these threads would be speculative in nature with OPSEC implications.

Rank amateur
09-25-2007, 02:34 AM
I would have thought that in an environment where looting and resale is commonplace, there's almost nothing one could leave around as "bait" that civilians wouldn't think of carting off

That's my concern and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of guys planting IEDs who unquestioningly deserve to be shot.

Hippasus
09-25-2007, 11:13 AM
"nobody seemed to think it was a problem as far as I know"

This seems to me to be exactly the problem. How on earth do we know why someone might be picking this stuff up? Are they simply some parent who doesn't want their kids finding it? Do they intend to turn it in to CF? Those scenarious are equally as valid as somone picking it up to make an IED. The simple fact is we don't know, so how do we justify killing them without any further information?

This is an example of a "type 1" or "false positive" error. If/when we make a mistake in this situation, we have set up a situation where we kill people innocent of any crime. The type 1 error is morally worse than the "type 2" or "false negative" error - which is why our entire justice system is based on the premise of "relasing 10 guilty men before 1 innocent man goes to jail."

Are Iraqi civilians worth less than this? Do we allow our fear of attacks on our soldiers to push us to create situations where we reduce risk to ourselves by accepting, if we're wrong about the intentions of those picking up the materials, the deaths of innocent people? That's not what I thought I the value of "courage" meant. And it's not "choosing the harder right." I hope we stop this, and soon.

goesh
09-25-2007, 11:27 AM
If one believes it is acceptable to kill those who would kill you, then it is likewise perfectly acceptable to want to continue living and lure such folks to a quick death. If one believes the US and coalition forces have no right being in Iraq, then little yellow sticky notes written in Arabic should be attached to the bait that read, "don't pick this item up or weapons will be discharged at you".

Danny
09-25-2007, 01:45 PM
I wrote a little piece on this late last night:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/09/25/the-end-of-snipers/

I think that the tactic is dubious, but there is something bigger at stake going on here. With the Afghanistan snipers up on charges, with these snipers up on charges, and with the defensive posture of the ROE (and sniping mainly being an offensive tactic to begin with), I believe we are witnessing the end of snipers.

Who would want to go into this line of work now? As for the OPSEC implications of this discussion thread, I don't think much more can be revealed than is already in the seed article at the Post.

Uboat509
09-25-2007, 02:53 PM
I don't really see the value in this. I doubt that you are going to get in leaders or any IED builders with this. That means you are either killing low level (expendable) nugs or guys who think that they can sell this stuff to the bad guys. I doubt that it is making a hell of a lot of difference.

SFC W

goesh
09-25-2007, 02:59 PM
I realize that in my time of military service we used flint and sticks and cultural sensitivity was something some men with certain sexual orientations engaged in, but never the less, I seriously doubt snipers will ever be phased out over perceptions of political correctness. If ol' Gunny Hatchcock were still alive and kicking, I would try to drag him into the discussion.

Danny
09-25-2007, 03:21 PM
Snipers won't be phased out ... they just won't be used. If you were a sniper in Afghanistan now and you saw two buddies taken up on charges of murder for a kill, what would you do?

Further, look for the defense of the two SF snipers in Afghanistan to sound something like this: "The target was agitated and dangerous, and the two local Afghans didn't have positive control over him, so the kill was justified." The defense WON'T be that the kill was justified because he was an enemy fighter.

Notice the important difference? And notice how important this is for future sniping operations?

Steve Blair
09-25-2007, 04:31 PM
There's usually a couple of things to keep in mind when discussing sniper operations: historically the US military has taken a dim view of snipers in general; and the myths that the media has spun up by attaching the tag "sniper" to any whackjob who uses something larger than a Glock when committing crimes.

Looking back at Vietnam and the diversity of sniping operations there is an interesting exercise in this case (and I'm also going there to avoid drawing conclusions on recent events). In some regions they were used in a counter-sniper or precision shooting role; coming into play when fire was being received (a defensive role in many ways), while in others they were used to watch trails and engage insurgents (an offensive role). The roles themselves are generally neutral - it's command emphasis that has a major impact. Look at the 9th ID under Ewell to see some possibly major abuses of snipers, ROE, and metrics in general.

Another area that can come into question is selection and training, especially if there's a big push to increase sniper numbers. Most people really don't know or understand how much screening comes into play when selecting snipers...and I suspect some just don't want to know.

I'm sure folks like slapout might have some input as well, especially regarding LE snipers and considerations from their realm that might prove useful for COIN.

Pragmatic Thinker
09-25-2007, 07:49 PM
This incident smells like a dead cat. Everything from "rushing the proceedings" to the snipers own actions of checking the dead guy?!? Why did they come down to "check out" the dead guy? Was this sniper team in support of a mission? Were they simply camped out in their hide site and decided to shoot someone? Who really knows but I am miffed as to why they came down out of their perch to check on the dead fellow and then take the time to supposedly plant wire on him? Again, this really smells suspicious... If I had mistakenly shot someone, I would probably come up with a better lie or cover-up, something like, "...after I dropped him his buddies came out and hauled off the 20 lbs. of SEMTEX and the bag of nails he was carrying, swear on my mother First Sergeant..." but I am not sure I would come down to the corpse and plant something?!?

I am sure more details will follow in the coming days and weeks.

Steve Blair
09-25-2007, 08:11 PM
Still....let's try to keep this one down to a discussion of the role of snipers in COIN/Small Wars and not engage in too much speculation. As mentioned before, sniping has come a long way in terms of acceptance and training, but there are still those who would prefer to see it go away.

Vietnam saw a great deal of experimentation in sniping; in areas ranging from equipment to tactics and training. What is the role of the sniper in Small Wars, and perhaps more to the point who should be establishing that role? If a small war is really an extension of law enforcement (or statecraft), does it rest with the military or elsewhere? And if the policy does go wrong or change, where does that dead cat land? In the lap of the shooter or in the office of those who make the policy?

Sniping by its nature can lend itself to abuse by those seeking metrics for things (like the body count). It is also by its nature easy to marginalize or discount by those who don't understand it or its application. It's the wider nature of the discussion that interests me...both on the military and LE sides of things.

TROUFION
09-25-2007, 08:47 PM
Snipers in the defense are highly effective, especially for counter sniper and overwatch operations. Though perhaps it is not the way we would prefer to utilize them.

I would venture that most Commanders, not being snipers, have a hard time figuring how to fit snipers into their plans, they also have a tough time designing ROE for the snipers. In particular the foot mobile and independent operations that are often undertaken by snipers don't fit with the motor/mechanized environment often being used.

I do not want to speculate, this is a generic statement, Commanders who do not understand sniper employment, and who are unwilling to run the risk of a questionable shooting should not employ them.

Steve Blair
09-25-2007, 08:52 PM
That's always been one of the big issues with sniping in general, and with the American experience in particular: educating commanders as to the proper use of snipers. Which of course leads to its own set of issues. Commanders who "get" sniper employment often find themselves with a very valuable force multiplier (both in intel and marksmanship terms), while as you suggest those who don't "get" sniper employment might be better off getting educated.

Pragmatic Thinker
09-25-2007, 09:31 PM
Still....let's try to keep this one down to a discussion of the role of snipers in COIN/Small Wars and not engage in too much speculation. As mentioned before, sniping has come a long way in terms of acceptance and training, but there are still those who would prefer to see it go away.

Vietnam saw a great deal of experimentation in sniping; in areas ranging from equipment to tactics and training. What is the role of the sniper in Small Wars, and perhaps more to the point who should be establishing that role? If a small war is really an extension of law enforcement (or statecraft), does it rest with the military or elsewhere? And if the policy does go wrong or change, where does that dead cat land? In the lap of the shooter or in the office of those who make the policy?

Sniping by its nature can lend itself to abuse by those seeking metrics for things (like the body count). It is also by its nature easy to marginalize or discount by those who don't understand it or its application. It's the wider nature of the discussion that interests me...both on the military and LE sides of things.

Steve,

I think when we talk about sniper operations and their use on the battlefield there needs to be clear ROE, regardless of intensity of the combat. However, I think in this war much like in Vietnam there is a lot ambiguity to sift through at the SSG and below level. Not sure I buy into the account that this particular example was a "classified" operation to kill insurgents. Many times these programs remain inside SOF units and not the 25th ID, not too bag on my Tropic Lightning brothers since I am a former Golden Dragon but this sounds too "Apocalypse Now" to me.

Now ROE rests in the Commander's lane of responsibility, but each individual out there returning fire has the moral and legal obligation to be sure of their target before they squeeze the trigger. So it is two-fold, the Commander dictates the policy but the individual rifleman ensures he follows it.

More to your question of Small Wars/COIN, I think snipers have a vital role to play in this arena. Especially, when applied in the Scout Sniper role and doing RSTA as their primary mission and target interdiction as their supporting mission. In Iraq there have been numerous success stories of snipers interdicting IED emplacment teams along MSR's, and they routinely provide overwatch for the infantry maneuvering to and on the OBJ, so their roles are necessary and needed.

PT

SWJED
09-25-2007, 10:55 PM
... what goes around does not come around again. I think, slowly but surely, commanders and operational staffs are learning what a sniper can do and how best to utilize this "precision strike" and surveillance / reconnaissance capability.

We learned volumes about snipers in Vietnam. Yet, just several years later as a Scout Sniper Platoon commander (then called STA) I had to fight with company commanders that, when I sent them a scout / sniper team, preferred to utilize the team walking point or otherwise manning an OP or LP that had nothing to gain substituting this capability with a job that our well trained grunts can do.

My point is – we are learning the same lessons in Iraq and when this thing is done I sincerely wish that we don’t go back to “old school” utilization of scout / snipers as extra warm bodies to fill gaps in regular infantry skill sets.

RTK
09-25-2007, 11:29 PM
I don't really see the value in this. I doubt that you are going to get in leaders or any IED builders with this. That means you are either killing low level (expendable) nugs or guys who think that they can sell this stuff to the bad guys. I doubt that it is making a hell of a lot of difference.

SFC W

I agree. Use of snipers to overwatch NAIs identified in the IPB process tied to clearly defined PIRs is probably a better way.

This throwing stuff in the middle of the road trying to lure bad guys in seems like chumming when you're trolling for minnows.

Pragmatic Thinker
09-25-2007, 11:48 PM
... what goes around does not come around again. I think, slowly but surely, commanders and operational staffs are learning what a sniper can do and how best to utilize this "precision strike" and surveillance / reconnaissance capability.

We learned volumes about snipers in Vietnam. Yet, just several years later as a Scout Sniper Platoon commander (then called STA) I had to fight with company commanders that, when I sent them a scout / sniper team, preferred to utilize the team walking point or otherwise manning an OP or LP that had nothing to gain substituting this capability with a job that our well trained grunts can do.

My point is – we are learning the same lessons in Iraq and when this thing is done I sincerely wish that we don’t go back to “old school” utilization of scout / snipers as extra warm bodies to fill gaps in regular infantry skill sets.


You want to believe that we are learning, and in some places we are but there is also a price to pay for putting two to three men out in the middle of a potentially dangerous place. An example that I will share is a situation alongside the Afghan-Pakistan border in southern Khowst Province. It is 2004 and a lot of our troops are taking harassing rocket and mortar from POO's just across the border. Like any good analyst I sit down with the Recce Platoon Sgt and go over the terrain on both CIB1 and overhead imagery, long story short we plot three to four good positions with clear LOS into the POO's that we have good grids on from the Q-36 or 37 radar (I don't recall which one) and present this to the commander with the recommendation of putting two, three-man sniper teams on good high ground with clear LOS into the POO's. They have the ability to sustain themselves for about 72 hours max, so we do all the load planning and everything else. Bottom line, we were talking about six shooters (2 x 3 man teams) with .50 and .300 rifles and I think we included thermals and long range finders, so these guys were going to be effective at 500 meters and would still be well inside the Afghan border to get the job done. Well the commander wouldn't have it and started to complain that we would need 24 hr. PRED coverage to provide ISR "overwatch", and that would mean a platoon of riflemen on stand-by as QRF in case they were compromised to include a/c to lift them, so on and so on... Mission never happpened and we stopped planning them. My point? Sure we know how to employ snipers but we don't because we are too focused on Force Protection. The Recce Plt Sgt in this example was adamant that all he needed was a radio if he came into contact so he could call in CAS to cover his exfil and make to the LZ.... Anyone else out there ever run into this type of risk aversion when planning an op using snipers in either IZ or AF?

We talk about all these cool capabilities but in the end the bad guys tie us up worrying about Force Protection and we are too risk averse to put guys out there in a risky situation...

PT

Culpeper
09-25-2007, 11:54 PM
As long as one side uses snipers so will the other. Regardless of the type of war being fought. Also, sniping is just too valuable an asset in urban fighting. Keep in mind that with the ability and skill comes a sense of power. Power that can easily transcend into a war crime or at least an investigation. Snipers are only human and can make mistakes. Mistakes they are trained and advised that if they abuse they can personally be held accountable. A few snipers being under investigation comes with the territory no different than ROEs for the average rifleman. The UCMJ isn't like you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is a little tougher than that. Our guys aren't working in an office environment.

Culpeper
09-26-2007, 12:04 AM
There's usually a couple of things to keep in mind when discussing sniper operations: historically the US military has taken a dim view of snipers in general; and the myths that the media has spun up by attaching the tag "sniper" to any whackjob who uses something larger than a Glock when committing crimes.

Looking back at Vietnam and the diversity of sniping operations there is an interesting exercise in this case (and I'm also going there to avoid drawing conclusions on recent events). In some regions they were used in a counter-sniper or precision shooting role; coming into play when fire was being received (a defensive role in many ways), while in others they were used to watch trails and engage insurgents (an offensive role). The roles themselves are generally neutral - it's command emphasis that has a major impact. Look at the 9th ID under Ewell to see some possibly major abuses of snipers, ROE, and metrics in general.

Another area that can come into question is selection and training, especially if there's a big push to increase sniper numbers. Most people really don't know or understand how much screening comes into play when selecting snipers...and I suspect some just don't want to know.

I'm sure folks like slapout might have some input as well, especially regarding LE snipers and considerations from their realm that might prove useful for COIN.

Also, it is a tactic to win the hearts and minds of the population. We often sniped such targets in Vietnam as tax collectors and auditors. If some sniper took me out I don't think too many people are going to be very upset.

slapout9
09-26-2007, 12:07 AM
I'm sure folks like slapout might have some input as well, especially regarding LE snipers and considerations from their realm that might prove useful for COIN.


Hi Steve, I never did the sniper thing personally but they are heavily used in the ISR role often connected with counter-drug ops (especially in rural areas) usually with ROE of self defense only. When they are used with SWAT teams during hostage rescue is where you see them in the precision strike mode as Dave says.

Despite the TV Bulls.... about them being a bunch of wackos, my experience has been these guys are more like engineers up to and including doing some of their machine shop type stuff. These guys would measure and weigh everything :eek:Any symptom that you are somehow unstable and you would be off the team.

Uboat509
09-26-2007, 02:29 AM
Big Army absoutley has a problem with snipers but it is not a moral compunction but rather as Pragmatic Thinker notes an issue of force protection. Most of the big Army commanders that I have dealt with tend to think that performing combat operations with anything less than a platoon with up armored trucks armed with .50 cals and MK19s is just crazy talk. The thought sniper ops with a handfull of shooters/spotters and maybe a small security detail tends to cause them to develop a nervous tick. Snipers have a great utility and big Army will continue to use them but the inherrant risk in those types of operations will always limit their employment more than any moral issues.

SFC W

Ken White
09-26-2007, 03:12 AM
Slow news day is right.

Mark O'Neill
09-26-2007, 10:19 AM
I would not let any troops under my command do this.

By the way, I think snipers are excellent tool in small wars .

Steve Blair
09-26-2007, 01:21 PM
Hi Steve, I never did the sniper thing personally but they are heavily used in the ISR role often connected with counter-drug ops (especially in rural areas) usually with ROE of self defense only. When they are used with SWAT teams during hostage rescue is where you see them in the precision strike mode as Dave says.

Despite the TV Bulls.... about them being a bunch of wackos, my experience has been these guys are more like engineers up to and including doing some of their machine shop type stuff. These guys would measure and weigh everything :eek:Any symptom that you are somehow unstable and you would be off the team.

Yeah...the mechanics of sniping are fascinating. The amount of math that goes into some of it sends my ol' history mind reeling off in search of a few good beers....:eek:

I knew LE used them quite a bit in an intel/surveillance mode for counter-drug ops, pointing out the great utility of a trained sniper in an intel role.

The force protection argument is interesting, but I also think it goes back to too many commanders not being fully aware of what a sniper can add to their unit aside from another warm body. Seems this is yet another of those small lessons that the institution condemns itself to relearn every time the shooting starts.

Ken White
09-26-2007, 03:37 PM
I would not let any troops under my command do this.

By the way, I think snipers are excellent tool in small wars .

Both; the former is evidenced by charges and a court martial and the latter by the large number we have.

skiguy
09-29-2007, 01:48 PM
MNF press release


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20070929-06
September 29, 2007

Court-martial results
Multi-National Division – Center PAO

BAGHDAD — A military panel found Sgt. Jorge Sandoval from Laredo, Texas, not guilty of murder Sept. 28.

Sandoval was found not guilty of murdering an unknown male April 27. He was also found not guilty of murdering an unknown male May 11; placing an AK-47 rifle on the body and failing to ensure humane treatment of the victim while he was being detained.

Sandoval was found guilty of placing command wire on the body of the male victim on April 27.

The military panel will reconvene Sept. 29 for Sandoval’s sentencing. He can face between six months to five years in prison.

Culpeper
09-29-2007, 06:44 PM
Spc. **************, 22, was acquitted of murder charges in the April and May deaths of two unidentified men. The panel decided he was guilty of a lesser charges of placing detonation wire on one of the bodies to make it look as if the man was an insurgent.

"I feel fortunate that I have been served this sentence," ******** said. "I'm grateful that I'm able to continue to be in the Army."

He got five months in jail. The press needs to realize that they should be more careful about printing the names of our snipers. That pisses me off more than what the young man apparently didn't need to do in the first place.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070929/D8RV6ILG0.html

Schuld
10-01-2007, 10:45 PM
An FYI for Army leaders:


Sniper Employment Leaders Course (SELC)

Purpose: The Sniper Employment Leaders Course is designed to target senior NCOs and Officers who are responsible for selecting, training, planning, and employing snipers in a combat environment. This course is designed for leaders to develop a better understanding for one of their Unit’s most effective combat support assets – the Sniper. This course is available for ranks from E-5 to O-5.

Soldiers can either attend this course in 1 or 2 methods. 1st option is here at Fort Benning, GA. 2nd option is it can executed as a MTT at the host unit station. The MTT MOI is attached to the Ft. Benning web site. The POC for this is the OIC for the USASS. This is not a ATRRS course so it is first come first serve basis and there are no prerequisites for this course.

Ken White
10-02-2007, 02:01 AM
the ANCOC and OAC courses???

SGTMILLS
10-24-2007, 01:20 PM
I don't really see the value in this. I doubt that you are going to get in leaders or any IED builders with this. That means you are either killing low level (expendable) nugs or guys who think that they can sell this stuff to the bad guys. I doubt that it is making a hell of a lot of difference.

SFC W

Since this tactic has been implemented, there has been a reduction in the number of IED's placed. You are on point with one statement, though... We are definately NOT going to get the IED builders with this approach. We will, however, psychologically affect all the emplacers and the collectors out there. Even IF we DIDN'T employ this tactic, just SAYING we use it causes a great psychological rift within the insurgency.
SGT Mills

Uboat509
10-24-2007, 02:57 PM
Since this tactic has been implemented, there has been a reduction in the number of IED's placed. You are on point with one statement, though... We are definately NOT going to get the IED builders with this approach. We will, however, psychologically affect all the emplacers and the collectors out there. Even IF we DIDN'T employ this tactic, just SAYING we use it causes a great psychological rift within the insurgency.
SGT Mills

To my knowledge, THIS technique has not been implimented anywhere in a large scale. This technique does not target the emplacers. That is a different TTP which I agree can result in a temporary reduction in IED emplacement in a specific area but it needs to be coupled with agressive targeting of the builders and facilitators. I won't say that going after the nugs is a waist of time, it isn't, but it should never be anywhere near the main focus. Believe me, we will run out of will to fight this thing long before they run out of guys to dig holes and put IEDs in them. Builders and facilitators are another story.

SFC W