A War's Impossible Mission

[healerpoet]

A couple thoughts on the initial article on the Washington Post

1. This was not handled correctly from the get go. What I read wasn't Abu Ghraib, or COL Steele, or even LTC West. This was a case of underresourced soldiers in the middle of a complex ethical environment (See FM 3-24). Not every LOAC violation is a war crime. The lower level command amplified the threat that an incident like this posed by threatening GCM.

2. Striking detainees is against the rules. We play by the rules. On the other hand, it's unfair to throw soldiers under the bus when, at the highest levels of Government, officials and lawyers are saying that torture (and this is not even close to torture) is permissible. What do expect at the ground level when leadership is talking out of their ass.

3. We don't train for this, and we need to start familiarizing soldiers with the scenario where the interpreter turns out to be a bad guy. This should not be open to improvisation. Monday morning quarterback in me says if BN won't pick these guys up then keep holding them...ok, that a 96 hour violation but I don't think anyone is going to be talking anything worse than a counseling statement or a bad OER as a result.

4. I hear through the grapevine that the soldiers got dealt with a much lower level...Maybe someone at division or higher does understand military justice.

[Shek]

A couple thoughts on the initial article on the Washington Post

1. This was not handled correctly from the get go. What I read wasn't Abu Ghraib, or COL Steele, or even LTC West. This was a case of underresourced soldiers in the middle of a complex ethical environment (See FM 3-24). Not every LOAC violation is a war crime. The lower level command amplified the threat that an incident like this posed by threatening GCM.

2. Striking detainees is against the rules. We play by the rules. On the other hand, it's unfair to throw soldiers under the bus when, at the highest levels of Government, officials and lawyers are saying that torture (and this is not even close to torture) is permissible. What do expect at the ground level when leadership is talking out of their ass.

3. We don't train for this, and we need to start familiarizing soldiers with the scenario where the interpreter turns out to be a bad guy. This should not be open to improvisation. Monday morning quarterback in me says if BN won't pick these guys up then keep holding them...ok, that a 96 hour violation but I don't think anyone is going to be talking anything worse than a counseling statement or a bad OER as a result.

4. I hear through the grapevine that the soldiers got dealt with a much lower level...Maybe someone at division or higher does understand military justice.

1. Mock execution has been considered to be a war crime - our interrogation manual at the outset of OEF/OIF explicitly stated so (although that specific language was removed from the version just published). GCM is appropriate, and the extenuating circumstances should definitely come into play if and when soldiers are found guilty.

2. As a military, we control the application of UCMJ to those who serve under it. While I agree that there have been mixed signals, implied and/or explicit, from those who don't serve under UCMJ, that should not prevent us as a professional body from enforcing our own standards. Two wrongs don't make a right.

3. I'm very curious about the relationship between company and battalion in this situation. From the portrayal in the article, there seems to be a huge disconnect and it seems like this was a huge contributing factor. However, without more details, commenting specifically on this would simply be speculation. However, I think these are details that need to come out in some general form to mitigate the chance of an incident like this from occurring again.

4. While only a grapevine report, it sounds like the wheels of justice are being applied proportionately to the level of responsibility one holds. This is a good thing.

[screamingeagle506]

1. Mock execution has been considered to be a war crime

4. While only a grapevine report, it sounds like the wheels of justice are being applied proportionately to the level of responsibility one holds. This is a good thing.

The article incorrectly uses the term mock execution. It describes how Capt. Hill fired his pistol off in the distance and sombody ALLEGEDLY said 'you want to end up like your friend.' That is not a mock execution. A mock execution is holding a gun to somebody's head, pulling the trigger with no round in the chamber and then saying 'the next one will be real.' Or, standing the guy up on a stool and putting a noose around his neck. Yes, they broke some rules, which Hill freely admits, but I guess they just don't make war crimes like they used to.

Proportionately?--The batallion refused to support this undermanned company and arrest the terrorist detainees. The evidence against the detainees was "incontrovertible"--why wouldn't batallion take them? It's a pattern of neglect and incompetence. The leadership should be the ones investigated, not the brave soldiers.

But then again, we're talking about a company commander, his first sergeant and other lowly peons. If you don't have a bird or star on your shoulder who cares right?

[jkm_101_fso]

The article incorrectly uses the term mock execution. It describes how Capt. Hill fired his pistol off in the distance and sombody ALLEGEDLY said 'you want to end up like your friend.' That is not a mock execution. A mock execution is holding a gun to somebody's head, pulling the trigger with no round in the chamber and then saying 'the next one will be real.' Or, standing the guy up on a stool and putting a noose around his neck. Yes, they broke some rules, which Hill freely admits, but I guess they just don't make war crimes like they used to.

Proportionately?--The batallion refused to support this undermanned company and arrest the terrorist detainees. The evidence against the detainees was "incontrovertible"--why wouldn't batallion take them? It's a pattern of neglect and incompetence. The leadership should be the ones investigated, not the brave soldiers.

But then again, we're talking about a company commander, his first sergeant and other lowly peons. If you don't have a bird or star on your shoulder who cares right?

Curahee,
You are right, these are all allegations for now until the findings are complete. I think that it is unfortunate this situation was made public before everyone knew what really went down. Hopefully the initial report will be followed up with the results of any consequences/exonerations and what ACTUALLY happened.

I've already given my opinion on this situation, so I won't re-iterate it.

I've got some real good buddies in 506 with you right now. I pray that you guys make it home safe.

Air Assault, brother.

[h2harris]

(Opening Paragraphs)
"Hill is a U.S. Army officer in Afghanistan accused of detainee abuse, including a mock execution, war crimes, dereliction of duty and other serious charges stemming from an incident last August at a U.S. military base outside the capital city of Kabul. Members of his unit allegedly slapped Afghan detainees, and Hill himself is said to have fired his pistol into the ground near blindfolded Afghans to frighten them."

(Conclusion)
"But after exploring the personalities and circumstances involved in this case, it's hard for me to condemn Hill or his first sergeant, Tommy Scott, who has been charged with assaulting the detainees. Stuck in the deadly middle ground between all-out war and nation- building, these men lashed out to protect themselves. To me, their story encapsulates the impossible role we've asked U.S. soldiers to play in the reconstruction of this devastated country. They are part warrior, part general contractor, yet they are surrounded on all sides by a populace that wants nothing more than to kill or be rid of them."

"Watching the prosecution destroy the reputations of Scott and Hill was heartbreaking, tragic -- and deeply conflicting. As an American who fiercely believes in the rule of law and due process, I understand that the actions of D Company are inexcusable. A mock execution, under almost any circumstance, is antithetical to the ideals and standards our nation aspires to.'

"And perhaps Hill's superiors had good reason not to take these particular men into custody. Maybe they were on the radar of U.S. intelligence and taking them out of circulation might have meant losing valuable information.

But the soldiers of D Company felt that they were out of options.

I fear that this kind of story will repeat itself in other parts of Afghanistan again and again, if only because U.S. forces know that their enemy's mission is clearer than their own.

" 'They're Taliban,' one soldier said in response to a prosecutor's question at the hearing. That soldier is facing charges of repeatedly hitting a detainee who bit him as he tried to put a gag into the man's mouth. 'If it was us, they'd cut our heads off, videotape it and put it on al-Jazeera for our families to see.' "

(For the Rest of The Story)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

[ODB]

My thoughts revert back one of my other posts on here.
If only we had a few more of these and a lot less of what we have today.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...5&postcount=37