SFC Taylor, the Fog of War and Army duplicity

[slapout9]

Second 1: A figure dressed in dark, bulky clothing emerges.

Second 2: The figure begins walking toward the trunk.

Second 3: Taylor, with five wounded comrades behind him, sees a thin trigger wire seeming to snake directly toward the black car. Could there be a second bomb in the trunk?
Second 4: Taylor squeezes the trigger on his M-4 carbine. The figure crumples to the dirt.


Copied from the original article posted in post #1. Pay attention to second #3Bold was added by me.


Sgt. Taylor should be given a medal and the REMF's that brought charges against him in the first place should be brought up on Treason charges . This is a classic case of Demoralization Propaganda being used by the enemy as was taught years ago as part of basic Commie Propaganda doctrine.

[Polarbear1605]

Does it need to?

Yes! and both tactically and strategically ... Viet Nam was a war the US won tactcally but lost strategically...history, I think, is mostly likely to say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Isn't it a display of civilisation and rule of law AT HOME to prosecute one's own criminals?

Absolutely, but this is war and it is insurgency war, and the rule of law does not exist on the battle field. In fact, the purpose of the bad guys being there is to demonistrate that the rule of law does not exist. My opinion is that, in general, the laws of war is the only law that exists on the battlefield and any attempt to mix them is a failure to properly set the strategic tapistry for success of the war.

[socal1200r]

Again, woulda, coulda, shoulda...did he, or did he not, violate the ROE's that were in effect at the time, yes or no? Can't make it any more black and white than that...I say "yes", others say "no", so it'll be up to which side has the better lawyers in the end...

[slapout9]

this is what Boyd meant about the Moral level of Warfare.


Listen to a former KGB propaganda and subversion expert explain what the enemy is doing to us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMWVU...eature=related

[Fuchs]

Absolutely, but this is war and it is insurgency war, and the rule of law does not exist on the battle field. In fact, the purpose of the bad guys being there is to demonistrate that the rule of law does not exist. My opinion is that, in general, the laws of war is the only law that exists on the battlefield and any attempt to mix them is a failure to properly set the strategic tapistry for success of the war

So you want to defeat the insurgents by proving they're right and not follow the law?

Besides, war ends sometime, criminals are leftovers. A civilised country with a rule of law at home treats them like criminals.

[Polarbear1605]

So you want to defeat the insurgents by proving they're right and not follow the law?

Besides, war ends sometime, criminals are leftovers. A civilised country with a rule of law at home treats them like criminals.

No...I want to prove the insurgents are wrong to use civilians as shields by following the laws of war and refuse the cover of the rule of law to the bad guys.

[Ken White]

Nor do I believe anyone else who was not can make that determination -- and that includes the members of the Court...

Again, woulda, coulda, shoulda...did he, or did he not, violate the ROE's that were in effect at the time, yes or no? Can't make it any more black and white than that...I say "yes", others say "no", so it'll be up to which side has the better lawyers in the end...

You may be correct in your final assessment, however, the real question is; Should it come to that point?

ROE are necessary but like all rules and regulations they are merely a guide. Human judgment has to be applied and sometimes those rules must -- I use that word advisedly -- be transgressed. Slavish adherence to rules is, simply, stupid because no rules can account for every situation. In war or combat, such adherence is not only potentially stupid, it is literally a killer (not least because it sets up mind numbing predictability, a tactical no-no for thousands of years...).

War requires a lot of judgement calls and entails taking risks -- anyone not willing to acknowledge and live with that ought to find another line of work. The 'safety' of adherence to rules is remarkably inimical to combat survival but it's great for job security in an Army at peace -- and make no mistake, the US Army as an institution is at peace and has been since 1945.

Slapout is right, we're being played for yo-yos. Our fetish for 'rules' and the 'better lawyer' syndrome are not helping.

[AdamG]

After a hearing in which military lawyers debated to what extent soldiers can be held accountable for split-second decisions in the heat of combat, a ruling on whether to court-martial a soldier who killed an unarmed physician in southern Afghanistan has been postponed until July 31.

The case of Army Sgt. 1st Class Walter Taylor, heard before a military court in Germany last month, now rests with Lt. Col. Alva Hart, investigating officer with the 16th Sustainment Brigade.

Hart will determine whether there are reasonable grounds to hold the 31-year-old veteran of four combat deployments for trial on charges of negligent homicide in the shooting of the civilian doctor. The shooting occurred at the end of a tense gunfight; the doctor’s car had raced into the middle of the battle, adding to the confusion.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,5325343.story

[slapout9]

Link to

"The Battle Hymn Of Lt. William Calley"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNsXIxBkqs

[Polarbear1605]

http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/201...oting/ak86n4b/

Looks like a decision about to proceed with a court martial will be July 31th also a little bit of additional information.

[TheCurmudgeon]

First, the question: Does anyone know who his BDE Commander is?

Second, the observation: I was stuck in Kuwait in 2004 ... Day trips and week-long boondoggles into Iraq ... but mostly stuck in Arifjan. Anyway, a guard at Camp Doha, where there was no action occurring, was confronted with a person trying to enter the post through the gate he was guarding. The soldier was not guarding an entry control point, just a usually unused logistical access point. The person was drunk and was not responding since he did not understand English. He continued to approach the gate. The ROE at that time basically said that if you were threatened you should engage the threat. Instead the Soldier fired a warning shot. He received an ART 15 for not following the ROE. If he had believed the individual was a threat he should have shot the individual.

My how things have changed.

[AdamG]

From ARMY TIMES Premium Content, full story for subscribers only -

Was SFC sold out to appease Afghans?
http://www.armytimes.com/prime/2012/...harges-071612/

[jmm99]

LA Times, Officer advises against court-martial in Afghanistan shooting death (3 Aug 2012; by Kim Murphy):

An Army sergeant facing a charge of negligent homicide in the fatal shooting of a popular Afghan physician should not have to face court-martial, a military hearing officer concluded Thursday.

In a strongly worded report, Lt. Col. Alva Hart found in favor of Sgt. 1st Class Walter Taylor on every point, saying there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against him. The shooting — following a confusing firefight in central Afghanistan — has raised questions about the strict rules of engagement to which U.S. soldiers are held in attempting to minimize civilian casualties.
...
Hart found no fault with the rules of engagement or with Taylor. He said the 31-year-old noncommissioned officer had complied with rules as well as could be expected.

Several members of the convoy had opened fire on Hikmat's car long before Taylor began approaching it, he noted, and at least one of them had positively identified it as hostile.

"By driving into the firefight, the vehicle operated in a manner inconsistent with the prior experience of any of the testifying members of the [platoon]. Due to its unusual behavior, the potential threat posed by the vehicle as a possible [vehicle-borne improvised explosive device] should have increased in the minds of [platoon] members," the officer found.

"Therefore, I find that a reasonable person, under these circumstances, with the training provided, and knowledge gained through daily operations, would determine that the vehicle's actions were the prelude to an imminent use of force against" the platoon, he said.

In any case, he added, positive identification of hostile combatants "is based on a reasonable certainty … not a 100% mathematical certainty, and … requires balancing the risk of collateral damage with mission objectives and force protection."

The Convening Authority could override the Article 32 officer; but that would be unusual.

Regards

Mike