Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Is this a violation of ROE or not?

  1. #1
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default Is this a violation of ROE or not?

    U.S. Snipers Allegedly 'Baited' Iraqis

    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.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Just outside the Beltway
    Posts
    203

    Default

    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).

  3. #3
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shek View Post
    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...

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SWJED View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Culpeper; 09-25-2007 at 02:19 AM.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Council Member Hippasus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft Hood, TX
    Posts
    10

    Default An example of the "easier wrong"

    "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.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Reaching Out

    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".

  9. #9
    Council Member Danny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Posts
    141

    Default Tactic dubious, but ...

    I wrote a little piece on this late last night:

    http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/...nd-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.

  10. #10
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    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

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    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.

  12. #12
    Council Member Danny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Posts
    141

    Default Just not used

    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?

  13. #13
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    57

    Default Too few details to give an opinion but I will anyway...

    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.

  15. #15
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default Still....

    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.
    Last edited by Steve Blair; 09-25-2007 at 08:42 PM.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  16. #16
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default Defensive sniping

    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.

  17. #17
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    57

    Default Snipers are essential to COIN/Small Wars

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    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

  19. #19
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Hopefully...

    ... 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.

  20. #20
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    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.
    Example is better than precept.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •