SFC Taylor, the Fog of War and Army duplicity

[AdamG]

This will be worth following, because you can bet your butt Joe is watching.

A seasoned Army sergeant makes a split-second decision to stop a possible bombing. Now he's stunned to be charged with negligent homicide.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...049,full.story

The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently — like the effect of a fog or moonlight — gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance.

- Clauswitz

[stanleywinthrop]

If the news article is accurate in its description of events, this case is indeed troubling.

However, experience has taught me to never trust initial press reports as they are often wildly innacurate, one-sided, and leave out crucial details.

[Polarbear1605]

“Charged with negligent homicide and dereliction of duty, Taylor will face a hearing June 19 before a U.S. military judge in Germany to determine whether the case goes to a full court-martial, with the possibility of three years in prison…Hikmat's death put the Army on the defensive, with Afghan President Hamid Karzai calling for an investigation.” (From the LA Times article)

Since this is a hearing, I guess we will see if the US military has learned anything from the six year Haditha affair. (Oh ya…and there are many others). If Taylor perceived a threat, he is authorized to protect not only his life but the lives of his wound follow soldiers. Any ROE that does not give our Soldiers and Marines the benefit of the doubt is incorrect. It will be interesting to see what the results of the hearing will be…based on past performance I think the SFC is in for a court martial. If he is awarded a court martial we probably need to move this to the War Crimes stream.

[socal1200r]

Therein lies the rub...according to the article, he did not positively ID the victim as a threat, and did not positively ID this person's intent, before shooting her, which are both violations of the revised ROEs. If this is in fact what happened, then the Army has a case. Of course everyone has the inherent right to self defense, no ROE can take that away. But if his personal safety or the safety of those around him was not threatened by this person, then he's got an uphill battle on his hands. The days of "shoot first, ask questions later" are long gone. How many videos have you seen where the Apache pilot has to ask over and over again that he's cleared to engage against hostiles, just to be sure there are no ROE violations?

[Polarbear1605]

So the question is ....Exactly how is he supposed to establish positive ID? is it a matter of seeing a weapon in a suspects hand? is he suppose to walk up to the lady driving a suspected VBIED and ask? or do we say it was a military necessity to protect wounded? Is the purpose of positive ID, before engaging using the ROI, to protect Afghan citizens or to protect US service men. ROI's talk about a soldiers right to self defense...and any potential threat...are they saying that the ROI is there to protect host nation citizens at the expense of a soldiers right to self defense?? I think "he" did positive ID the person as a threat...hence the shooting. Personally, I think dogma has taken the place of doctrine at the expense of our warriors.

[davidbfpo]

I know it maybe difficult, but if this incident's key features happened in the USA (armed threat context, ambush, new suspects arrive and response) would there be a criminal trial?