U.S. Troops Watch As Iraqi Soldiers Kill Iranian Exiles

[Schmedlap]

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the troops shirked their duty. I'm just a bit leery of the legal analysis in the article. I spent a fair amount of time in Iraq on multiple deployments that spanned from invasion/occupation to 2005 goat rodeo to pre-, during, and post-"surge" and encountered a slew of situations ranging from routine to WTF. I cannot imagine a situation where I would have observed noncombatants being seriously harmed or their lives put in danger and not being able to intervene to stop it. I suspect that perhaps the folks getting into the SUVs were not Soldiers, or perhaps they were not as close to the action as suggested, or perhaps some chronological error was made in the article, or something else. It just sounds a bit odd.

[jmm99]

your dogged persistence[*]; but, after re-reading the article (twice), it simply is not a basis for a reliable legal analysis (which it doesn't do - merely stating a few legal conclusions based on unidentified "agreements" and "orders").

The general rule in the SOFA is that detainees are turned over to the Iraqis. In effect, the MEK folks were in an Iraqi detention center under Iraqi authority. That's as far as I'm ready to go without access to original records.

[*] You must have been one hell of a bulldog as an infantry officer.

[Schmedlap]

... it simply is not a basis for a reliable legal analysis (which it doesn't do - merely stating a few legal conclusions based on unidentified "agreements" and "orders").

That was the issue that I saw. I guess I should have just summed up my prior two posts in one sentence: where are they getting these legal conclusions?

[jmm99]

and old friend, recently ...

"I haven't the foggiest f***ing idea."

Broke him up cuz he's used to getting polished "answers" from the high-priced corporate lawyers who represent his high-priced corp.

Same here.

[MikeF]

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the troops shirked their duty. I'm just a bit leery of the legal analysis in the article. I spent a fair amount of time in Iraq on multiple deployments that spanned from invasion/occupation to 2005 goat rodeo to pre-, during, and post-"surge" and encountered a slew of situations ranging from routine to WTF. I cannot imagine a situation where I would have observed noncombatants being seriously harmed or their lives put in danger and not being able to intervene to stop it. I suspect that perhaps the folks getting into the SUVs were not Soldiers, or perhaps they were not as close to the action as suggested, or perhaps some chronological error was made in the article, or something else. It just sounds a bit odd.

I'm not assuming anything, and I am skeptical of the reporting. I posted this piece b/c it highlights particular flashpoints for GPF soldiers as Iraq regains sovereignty. I'm not an expert on the current ROE or SOFA, but it seems that the rules are more akin to those in the Phillipines and Colombia rather than the Balkans. If that is the case, then this example is worthy of study.

It beckons discussion over SFA and the roles of regular Army soldiers in fragile, sovereign states where the use of force is strained and limited.

v/r

Mike