# "Pro or Con"



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2010)

I had an idea I wanted to run by you guys.  

I'd like to try an experiment in critical thinking.  I will post a topic, and members of the board who choose to participate will choose "pro" or "con," and have to defend their point of view through logic, research, and rhetoric.  The topics will be from current headlines, and will be related to SOF, the military, terrorism, or law enforcement in some manner.  

Here's the catch:  you don't know what the topic is until you declare yourself "pro" or "con."  Potentially having to defned the opposite point of view on a topic is precisely the goal of the exercise.  This will force people to consider other points of view, and will help you "know the enemy" on contemporary topics.  

If we get a couple of folks interested I'll post the first topic and we'll see how it works out.  Consider it a mini-case study ;)

Anyone want to give it a shot?


----------



## ARS-031 (Feb 2, 2010)

Sounds like a good way to make an idiot of myself, sign me up eh :cool:


----------



## metalmom (Feb 2, 2010)

yep-sign me up.
your idea rocks!


----------



## Whiplash (Feb 2, 2010)

pro.....im in


----------



## car (Feb 2, 2010)

Did this same exercise in the last few weeks of language school - but there was an extra twist - we had to do it "in language."  Made us all better linguists IMO. 

So, hell yeah! I'm in, boss!

SS CJ2 SGM  :)


----------



## x SF med (Feb 2, 2010)

I'm still deciding...  I've seen your games, Sir... Twisted, evil games...

Give me a day or two to decide...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2010)

Yeah I am game!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2010)

x SF med said:


> I'm still deciding...  I've seen your games, Sir... Twisted, evil games...
> 
> Give me a day or two to decide...


 
Too late, we already have a "pro" so you're the first volunteer for "con."  Thanks for signing up!


----------



## x SF med (Feb 2, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> Too late, we already have a "pro" so you're the first volunteer for "con." Thanks for signing up!


 
Hey Copper, I ain't no con, y'hear?  Hey Bugsy, get the Copper...

Ok, I guess I have been Soviet Voluntold where I need to be....  I suppose the SGM will be proto and I will be anti.

What is the subject?  What are the parameters?


----------



## Muppet (Feb 2, 2010)

Sure, I am in.

F.M.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 2, 2010)

Ok, I'll play.

The SGM needs to be on the other side of the issue.  Formal Reasoning, and Formal logic rules to apply?  Ad-Hominem attacks are verboten, nichts wehr?  Points for GSP and use of archaic verbiage?

Set the Parameters and rules.  Set the subject.  Set the time frame for the initial argument to be submitted.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 2, 2010)

Hell if SF med's gotta be a con then I'll be right there with him. CON.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 2, 2010)

I'll bite.  Pro.


----------



## car (Feb 2, 2010)

x SF med said:


> Ok, I'll play.
> 
> The SGM needs to be on the other side of the issue.  Formal Reasoning, and Formal logic rules to apply?  Ad-Hominem attacks are verboten, nichts wehr?  Points for GSP and use of archaic verbiage?
> 
> Set the Parameters and rules.  Set the subject.  Set the time frame for the initial argument to be submitted.


 
Why do you SF Medic types always wanna oppose a SGM? Especially an MI SGM? You're at such an intellectual disadvantage that I would think, well, it does no good to tell you what I think.....:doh:

Oh, and....formal this and formal that be damned......it's about critical thinking.......generations, old Soldier, generations.........

BTW, I'm on the opposite side of the Troll, whatever side that may be. Pro, I think......

So......what's the subject, sir?


----------



## x SF med (Feb 2, 2010)

car said:


> Why do you SF Medic types always wanna oppose a SGM? Especially an MI SGM? You're at such an intellectual disadvantage that I would think, well, it does no good to tell you what I think.....:doh:
> 
> Oh, and....formal this and formal that be damned......it's about critical thinking.......generations, old Soldier, generations.........
> 
> ...




Truth trees and formal logic at 20 paces, you overeducated retired redneck.

Mara- you may post the subject at your leisure.


----------



## ARS-031 (Feb 2, 2010)

Ill jump on the Pro bandwagon... cause quite frankly, that's what I am gents


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2010)

Con side needs some help


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2010)

PRO  CON
ARS-031                    MetalMom
Whiplash                   CAR
X SF Med                  J.A.B.
Firemedic                  Ranger Psych
RacingKitty               Marauder06

Here's the assignment:  

1) view the 60 Minutes video posted here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6160161nhtm 
2)  if you are "pro," you are writing from a "pro-American" point of view.  Explain why the shooting in the video was justified.  If you are "con," you are writing from an anti-American point of view.  Explain why the shooting was not justified.

Remember that the assignment is to support the point of view you have been assigned, not to support your personal point of view on this subject.

I'm going to close this thread and reopen it tomorrow night. you can post your responses then.  

After the responses are posted, using your own powers of reason, critique the opposing points of view and attempt to poke holes in their logic.

Remember that this is an intellectual exercise, anyone with thin skin or who can't respect the point of view of others should probably not partake.

Good luck, should be fun!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 3, 2010)

Game on...


----------



## ARS-031 (Feb 3, 2010)

Way to go, let the Canuck take the first jump for the PRO side.

1.) Soldier followed NATO wide general checkpoint force escalation 

Warning Shots are standard operating procedure for any situation in an attempt to prevent an escalation of force as long as there is a percieved threat. A Truck loaded with of age appearing men, that is not slowing or stopping, is a percieved threat. Considerably more so for a 2 man team with a hasty vehicle check point, and, a small distant support net.

2.) The locals are well versed in vehicle checkpoint protocol

NATO/ISAF forces have been deployed to Afghanistan for almost a decade. All militaries use a similar warning system at vehicle check points. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect the locals know how to proceed when confronted with a situation such as the one presented. The driver of the vehicle reasonably should have known to slow down and come to a stop prior to the warning shots being fired. Having not stopped, the driver is the one responsible for initiating the warning shots.

3.) The SF soldier appears to have followed lawful Rules of Engagement for the situation

Almost all ROE's for vehicle checkpoint operations allow for a warning shot prior to force escalation. ROE's are passed down inevitably from the brass, and that being said, justify the shooters actions in the unfortunate event.


----------



## metalmom (Feb 3, 2010)

Success in Afghanistan does hinge on multiple factors, like it or not, one being the capability to win hearts and minds of the people. Shooting innocent children is not the way to go about doing that(even accidentally). He should have never taken that shot!

 Parwana,a 7 or 8 yr old little girl in Panjwaii, was killed in a similar situation, when a Canadian soldier fired a warning shot at a fast approaching motorbike. I venture to guess that there are countless other tragic stories like these. Children are not disposable. Children are not collateral damage!

 If we want to defeat the insurgents by winning local support-then maybe we need to rethink and be more disciplined about where we park that next round.
 Further investigations into these incidents, and a change of procedure should be implemented to ensure these senseless killings come to an end. The Coalition Forces are there to sacrifice their lives to liberate these children-not to take them down.
Was it criminally negligent? I believe so. Try to think in these terms-if a US soldier had been accidentally injured or killed by a stray bullet fired by an Afghan civilian-you dont think that person would be held accountable in one way or another??

 The team's safety must always be front and center , and I do not take issue with someone putting a round through the drivers head for refusal to stop, but we didnt make it to that scenario. I think we need to think on the warning shot practices to prevent useless injuries/death to the innocents.
Why not fire over their heads if you are out in the open, with no possibility of a riccochet? Maybe its just me, but a round flying close to my head would be a surefire warning to get the hell out of there. 
I think he was wrong,and that he did panic in the situation, and fired before thinking.You dont shoot from the hip and play "where do you think that bullet is gonna go?game." He is trained to think in a split second-and I believe he may have had 3 to 4 seconds of reaction time-that my friend, is a long time. 

 If you cant take a shot without endangering innocent lives, then get your fuckin hand off the trigger!!.

Sadly, I think 2 more enemies were created by 'the accident' that day.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 3, 2010)

rep to both of you... for being the first on each side to take a crack at the problem, and for making well-informed and well-reasoned arguments.


----------



## ARS-031 (Feb 3, 2010)

Did the soldier act within reason for the situation? Yes.
Is it reasonable to assume the locals knew how to respond to the soldier? Yes.
Is it likely the soldier followed his ROE's and orders? Yes.

So then, was the soldier justified in firing the warning shots? Yes.

It is an unfortunate event, with some bad ju ju thrown in the mix, but the warning shots were not unjustified.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 3, 2010)

This Sixty Minutes episode underscores the cowboy mentality of Western soliders, especially their special operations forces.  Shooting two children whose only crime was to be riding in the back of a pickup... and having been born Muslim.

This "elite soldier" fired two shots that just happened to hit two children... the excuse? The soldier on the ground perceived a threat and fired two "warning shots" that hit the children.  Couple of issues with that-

-this soldier was a member of the elite U.S. Special Forces... how many tens of thousands of dollars did they spend to train him how to shoot?  Two shots... two hits.  Fits with the mantra, "one shot, one kill."  He hit exactly what he was aiming at.  What kind of warning was he trying to give? "First shot is free, next one goes into your head instead of your leg?"

-how do you fire warning shots from a silenced weapon at a vehicle that's so far away it can barely been seen through the foliage?  How is the driver supposed to be warned?  If they can't see the impact of the bullets, and if they can't hear the noise of the shots, then what is the use of warning shots?

-if the vehicle was a threat, then it would have been facing the soldier, and the two warning shots would have gone into the cab of the vehicle.  The two shots went into the children in the back.  The only way that could have happened is if the vehicle was driving AWAY from the soldier.  Unless the vehicle was in reverse, it's hard to see how the vehicle (and the two children in back) constituted a threat.  



Maybe he should have stuck with parking cars, instead of shooting at them.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 3, 2010)

Mara-
A quick question - was I pro or con on this one? You originally told me con, then it looked like I was on the pro side. In order to form a cogent argument, I need to know which side I should take. 

Thanks.

Signed, A confused Troll

P.S.  You want maybe I should take the middle line on this, hey bubbala?  Oy, Vey, how meshuggah...


----------



## HOLLiS (Feb 4, 2010)

I don't trust CBS and especially 60 Minutes.  I saw that part and was not sure if what was presented was fact.  Truck was speeding in.   Kids where in back.  Shots was fired from the front and hit the kids in back.   Ok, I may have the facts wrong, but it seemed like a set up.
T-ban don't pay, we pay.   So who shot ya?  What appeared to be, was it?  

Long ago, I figured out if 60 minutes liked you, you were great.  If 60 minutes did not like you, you sucked big time.  60 minutes is yellow journalism in a refined format.  With the new Administration a positive anti-military presentation?


----------



## Whiplash (Feb 4, 2010)

In the 60 minutes episode the US SOF is purported as cowboys that have no boundaries and are just gun slingers, but this is not true 

I agree with all that ARS-031 said  so may sound some what familiar

The SF soldier is told to establish a checkpoint with just one Afghan Soldier and almost no back up,  He is responsible for his entire teams safety in an extremely volatile situation in a hostile environment, A truck full of military aged males are approaching him in a rapid manner, the SF soldier is trained to give warning shots he know that his silenced rifle would do the trick so he has to aim at an area of the truck that isn't going to cause harm and instead of the wind shield he picks the wood that is attached to the side of the bed of the pick up knowing it will make a loud noise.  Unfortunately he couldn't see what was in the back of the pick up and he hit two younger boys both of which still are military aged males. As he goes up to check the truck a motorcycle come along in the same manner but he notices a cry from the back of the truck with out hesitation he drops his guard and begins to tend to the aid of the younger boys knowing that the motorcycle that he was going to stop may be hostile.

The US and other country's Military is tasked to secure Afghanistan from any force that is willing to cause harm to the innocent people of Afghanistan, we have been in that country for 9 years now the locals know what to do when approached by the military if not there is a good chance you are going to have a bad day, and we all know that the word of military operations spreads like gossip in high school and I don't feel that that truck unknowingly was just traveling down the road, they where up to something and if they where just curious they where trying there luck and should have stayed away.  So the fault of the shooting of the younger males falls not on just the driver but all of them.
The SF soldier followed all ROE's and was acting in the up most professionalism and in full parameters of the Rules of Engagement for the safety of him, his team mates, the Afghan soldiers, TV crew, and EPW's that may have been taken.

-Whip


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 4, 2010)

x SF med said:


> Mara-
> A quick question - was I pro or con on this one? You originally told me con, then it looked like I was on the pro side. In order to form a cogent argument, I need to know which side I should take.
> 
> Thanks.
> ...



You're "pro," bro.

Any mistakes I may or may not have made in this thread prior to this posting, I blame on lack of NCO supervision :)


----------



## x SF med (Feb 4, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> You're "pro," bro.
> 
> Any mistakes I may or may not have made in this thread prior to this posting, I blame on lack of NCO supervision :)


 
Ah, the confusion is all car's fault...  gotcha, Sir, 5x

My response will be forthcoming - I have to be on the road today.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 4, 2010)

**Disclaimer** I by no means feel that this shooting is unjustified at the soldiers level, he was faced with a split second decision and acted in accordance with the ROE and common practices. It may have not been the best tactical option, but with out being there and knowing all the circumstances he was faced with, I cannot pass judgment on his actions.

I am going to explain this from two angles 1) a military standpoint and 2) a civilian standpoint.


*Military Standpoint*

Tactical: 

There are far better tactics used to control traffic such as concertina wire, traffic cones and barricades. There are levels of force to be used in the control of traffic such as, visual (sign, cones, wire), audible (yelling, bull horn) and physical (small arms fire to the tires, engine and driver).

Traffic control can be done by a two man team, but this is not optimal a squad size element is however optimal.

As the incident played out with the failures of preplanning and proper tactics, tools and manning. There was a massive tactical loss, when a two-man team shifted from performing security for an ongoing tactical operation to performing medical aid and requiring a MEDEVAC. The tactical commander is at fault here for not preventing this from happening with better planning. Tactically Unjustified.

Operational:

The operation was screwed from the get go, by having undermanned, under equipped and a bad tactical plan for the traffic control points. These failures resulted in the tactical operator having to make on the spot critical decisions (with less then a few seconds to choose) that would greatly affected the operational and strategic levels. It’s not ideal to have these critical decisions made by the tactical operator, with extreme time constraints that can over all affect the entire operation.

As the incident played out the operational success was a lost due to a shift in mission. Instead of conducting a raid the tactical unit has now had to shift to a medical evacuation mission, in order to safe the lives of innocent civilians. Regardless of if the unit captured or killed their target, the end result was developing future non-supporters of ISAF due to the kids being shot by an ISAF soldier. Operationally Unjustified.

Strategic:

The strategic objective is to kill or capture the enemy TB/AQ, restore security to the local and “win the hearts and minds” of the locals. Although one of these objectives may have been accomplished (capture or kill TB/AQ) the other two were not and more overly reversed. There is no way that an Afghan can feel secure when their children are being hit with bullets as they drive down a road. There is also no way to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan when the very people claiming to be protecting them shoot his children. This has a reverse affect on this Afghans family, friends and village, thus causing more dislike and otherwise combatant behavior towards ISAF. 

The strategic command must be able to ensure that the incidents do not take place, by having competent commanders that develop the plans to carry out the strategic objective. Strategically Unjustified.


*Civilian Standpoint*

Individual:

The individual civilians affected by this shooting will undoubtedly become anti ISAF and possibly become TB/AQ supporters. These civilians cannot see these soldiers, cannot hear them and could not hear the shots from that soldiers “suppressed weapon”. They were simply going down the road, to take care of their daily business and are stopped by gunfire and their children being “shot”. 

They do not understand the reasoning behind this soldier’s tactics, they do not understand why they cannot go down this road, they only know that their children were shot by the very person who claims to be protecting them. Individually  Unjustified.

Community:

The community will become afraid of ISAF and also become unwilling to help ISAF in there efforts to capture/kill TB/AQ. The community will view ISAF as liars when they come in to the community to say we are here to help you and protect you. As ISAF tries to rebuild this broken relationship by propaganda and civil assistance, TB/AQ will be doing the same. The only difference is that the TB/AQ will have rock solid proof that ISAF has gone against what they say and attacked their children…

This puts the community into a divide, some may agree with ISAF some may agree with TB/AQ. Some by virtue of the rumors and complexity will remain neutral and some may take up arms against both ISAF and TB/AQ. The major issue in all is that the community as a whole will not be able to understand why their children were shot by anyone. Community Unjustified.

Nation:

The Nation will continue to suffer and be divided due to issues of this nature. As each community has it’s own view of what ISAF is doing and what TB/AQ is doing. It has and will remain unable to unite with the understanding that TB/AQ is the enemy. Each time a ISAF soldier wounds or kills innocent civilians, the Nation become more and more divided, with each community becoming more divided and more individuals becoming combative towards ISAF. Nationally Unjustified.


----------



## metalmom (Feb 4, 2010)

good idea to add the disclaimer-i feel the same way as you


----------



## car (Feb 4, 2010)

x SF med said:


> Ah, the confusion is all car's fault...  gotcha, Sir, 5x
> 
> My response will be forthcoming - I have to be on the road today.


 
I think not. He's an officer. I can only do so much with the clay I'm given........now back to our prievious programming......we're figgering out.....sumptin!


----------



## x SF med (Feb 4, 2010)

Our SF Soldiers are faced with a difficult mission in Afghanistan, as they are everywhere else they are deployed. “Collateral” injuries and deaths are to be expected in war, and in an FID situation this can be compounded by the fact that only a small part of the force will be US SF Soldiers – sometimes as few as 12 SF men to 500 locals.

This was a live training mission for the Afghan Commandos under the tutelage of an SF ODA, with real targets and real bullets.

In the instance reported by 60minutes, 2 young Afghan males were injured in what appears to be a reasonable reaction based on the situation. There were 2 security men for this operation, 1 US SF and 1 Afghani Commando in Training. The mission parameters were to secure the road, and follow the well known practice of stopping all vehicles – a wave down occurred, the driver did not stop, warning shots were fired, the vehicle stopped.

The vehicle had a full bed and the contents were not visible, yet military aged men could be seen in the bed – this is an immediate danger signal as: 1. VBIEDs will use this tactic 2. Transport of insurgents is accomplished in this method 3. transport of materiel to insurgents is accomplished in this manner. The driver did not heed the wave down of the security team, this justifies use of non-deadly force based on the ROE – a warning shot if required. A warning shot was fired. A ricochet occurred, children were injured due to that ricochet. The SF Soldier was following procedure set by the ROE and mission parameters. If blame is to be laid, it should be on the driver for not stopping when he was waved down by 2 armed soldiers.

The SF Soldier showed remorse for inadvertently injuring the children, but rendered aid and called for Medevac to obtain more advanced medical attention. 

General Curtis LeMay stated “There are no innocent civilians in war…” – my feeling affirms this – as innocence is lost during war – for the population of the area in conflict, and for the men fighting.

John Stuart Mill stated “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things…” this too is true, and proven by this, and also disproven – the soldier was a medic and went from security to medical mode quickly – offering the best of the FID mission in helping the once innocent.

An anonymous soldier once said “You can’t fix stupid” and the driver of the truck proved this axiom also.

This incident was a tragic byproduct of a training mission, exacerbated by the stupidity of the driver for failing to heed armed military men. Tragedy is part of war, and this tragedy was not the fault of the soldier who fired his weapon within the boundaries of his orders and mission parameters.


----------



## jtprgr375 (Feb 4, 2010)

I am down


----------



## x SF med (Feb 4, 2010)

JAB-
One quick comment - you stated, ..."there are better ways ...." in refernce to vehicle check point controls - it was clearly stated that a check point was being constructed - the SF Soldier was setting a cutting charge on the branch/trunk of a tree to create a field expedient 'gate' through the use of an abatis ambush, felling said tree across the road to create a choke point/ stop traffic - when the truck approached.  This operation was stopped due to the immediate danger presented by a vehicle full of military aged men.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 4, 2010)

Mara - you stated:


> -if the vehicle was a threat, then it would have been facing the soldier, and the two warning shots would have gone into the cab of the vehicle. The two shots went into the children in the back. The only way that could have happened is if the vehicle was driving AWAY from the soldier. Unless the vehicle was in reverse, it's hard to see how the vehicle (and the two children in back) constituted a threat.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he should have stuck with parking cars, instead of shooting at them.


 
The vehicle was broadside, coming around a hairpin turn, and the shots aimed at the cab may have not had the correct windage to stay at the front of the cab/wheels.

The children were not visible, but the military aged men were.

any vehicle that does not heed a wave down IS a threat in a combat zone.

Attacks on the Soldier are uncalled for, he was well within his Rules of Engagement for this incident.

the Afghani driver is more at fault for this tragedy than any other principle player - he failed to heed a warning.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 4, 2010)

x SF med said:


> Free - you stated:
> 
> 
> The vehicle was broadside, coming around a hairpin turn, and the shots aimed at the cab may have not had the correct windage to stay at the front of the cab/wheels.
> ...


 
Yeah Free, get your facts straight!  :)


----------



## x SF med (Feb 4, 2010)

^^fixed as noted above.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 4, 2010)

Roger

It's all good, I'm all about the blameshifting.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 4, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> Roger
> 
> It's all good, I'm all about the blameshifting.


 
Officers... they'll take credit and shift blame everytime.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 4, 2010)

OK everyone, get your posts in tonight; tomorrow I'm going to close this thread and then we're going to move into the last part of this exercise.


----------



## metalmom (Feb 4, 2010)

General Curtis LeMay stated “There are no innocent civilians in war…” – my feeling affirms this – as innocence is lost during war – for the population of the area in conflict, and for the men fighting.(not down with the quoting system yet)

That is the lamest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard in my life!!!! Nice way to rationalize-but unacceptable!!!


----------



## car (Feb 4, 2010)

*** Discalimer - this for argument's sake.....***

K gonna try this again. the previous two times I've tried to post, I've gotten the "white screen of death." Mara must've set me up for failure! :)

==============

The shooting was unwarranted. The QP's,......should've known better than any of us when to pull the trigger, or, more importantly, when not to. Robin Sage, and the rest of their training, teaches them to be more judgemental than normal human beings - that's why they get to wear that green rag on their heads, and that arrowhead on their shoulders.

FID is a core element of SF doctrine - never mind that it's not as sexy as DA. It's about knowing the element into which you are presenting yourself and your team. So when you wade into a "new situation," you'd better be ready for anything. Meaning -- situational awareness is _*paramount*_! It's why we let you go to Camp Mackall(sp?) in the first place - you're supposed to have your head about you. There's absolutely no excuse for kids being hit as collateral damage.

When you're training someone, anyone, to be better, then you had better have your shit together. How can you tell/train someone to do anything unless you are an expert at what you're trying to tell/teach them? Why, do you guess, that the majority of guys on an ODA are NCOs? Because we're experts. Otherwise, we don't deserve the stripes on our chest/shoulders.

The fact that those two kids got hit is absolutely inexcusable. Terms like "muzzle awareness" and "fire discipline" keep banging around in my head.......I know how it can get, but, ya have to have situational awareness......all the time. That's how you live to tell the stories.

I keep going back to why those guys were there in the first place - to teach people how to be the best Soldiesr that they can. And if you hit a few civs along the way, what the hell?????  Wrong answer. You DON'T hit civs while conducting an op.....that's the point. Hit who you're supposed to, not just anyone in the AO.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 4, 2010)

x SF med said:


> JAB-
> One quick comment - you stated, ..."there are better ways ...." in refernce to vehicle check point controls - it was clearly stated that a check point was being constructed - the SF Soldier was setting a cutting charge on the branch/trunk of a tree to create a field expedient 'gate' through the use of an abatis ambush, felling said tree across the road to create a choke point/ stop traffic - when the truck approached.  This operation was stopped due to the immediate danger presented by a vehicle full of military aged men.


 
Where he was setting that charge was right directly on his cover position, which is not doctrine. Where he fired on the approaching truck is where he should have been placing the charge for a  roadblock (50 meters away from his cover) and then he should have retreated to his cover area.

Maybe a lack of speed and well thought out plan to establish security on that road. Or maybe he freaked being undermanned and feeling the pressure to keep him self and fellow team member safe while accomplishing his task. Either way it was not well planned and the lack of speed in setting up his TCP resulted in him having to fire on a truck full of “innocent military aged men”.

Again I do not fault him, I think the planning, manning and equipment failed and placed him in a bad position.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 5, 2010)

metalmom said:


> General Curtis LeMay stated “There are no innocent civilians in war…” – my feeling affirms this – as innocence is lost during war – for the population of the area in conflict, and for the men fighting.(not down with the quoting system yet)
> 
> That is the lamest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard in my life!!!! Nice way to rationalize-but unacceptable!!!


 
Metalmom - ad-hominem attacks were set as outside the acceptable parameters for this exercise, arguments to the point were the rule, not the players.  IMHO- Fail.


----------



## metalmom (Feb 5, 2010)

i wasnt attacking the player-at all
if someone can lay down a quote that I dont agree with I feel I can attack the quote


----------



## x SF med (Feb 5, 2010)

> Where he was setting that charge was right directly on his cover position, which is not doctrine. Where he fired on the approaching truck is where he should have been placing the charge for a roadblock (50 meters away from his cover) and then he should have retreated to his cover area.
> 
> Maybe a lack of speed and well thought out plan to establish security on that road. Or maybe he freaked being undermanned and feeling the pressure to keep him self and fellow team member safe while accomplishing his task. Either way it was not well planned and the lack of speed in setting up his TCP resulted in him having to fire on a truck full of “innocent military aged men”.
> 
> Again I do not fault him, I think the planning, manning and equipment failed and placed him in a bad position.


 
The mission was most probably based on real-time, short term intelligence on the location of a high value human target, and was due to that point, a very short fuse mission.   As stated in the 60 Minutes piece, the main force was to surround and capture a heavily guarded compound.  The road looked to to be the single high speed access point, and this was a daylight mission...  yes, there were planning issues - but at times the mission can't be held up or the target escapes.  Available assets were directed to non- target security as were available based on manning...  the time frame worked against the Team and their trainees...  

Concealment of the security team adds to their safety, and 'a gate was being set when the vehicle approached.  Had the truck full of men, stopped, and their innocence proven rather than "keeping on keeping on" this tragedy could have been avoided.  Had the SF soldier allowed them to pass, and they were insurgents - his Team and their trainees could all have been killed...  Foucault's Pendulum in action, or the paradox of the Heap...  Blame can be assigned by and against whomever one feels - the fact remains that this was a tragedy, and the soldier acted as his mission and situation allowed.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 5, 2010)

metalmom said:


> i wasnt attacking the player-at all
> if someone can lay down a quote that I dont agree with I feel I can attack the quote


 
I beg to differ based on your quote itself, but we'll move on.  In a straight text argument, what is written is what is perceived.


----------



## HOLLiS (Feb 5, 2010)

x SF med said:


> The mission was most probably based on real-time, short term intelligence on the location of a high value human target, and was due to that point, a very short fuse mission.   As stated in the 60 Minutes piece, the main force was to surround and capture a heavily guarded compound.  The road looked to to be the single high speed access point, and this was a daylight mission...  yes, there were planning issues - but at times the mission can't be held up or the target escapes.  Available assets were directed to non- target security as were available based on manning...  the time frame worked against the Team and their trainees...
> 
> Concealment of the security team adds to their safety, and 'a gate was being set when the vehicle approached.  Had the truck full of men, stopped, and their innocence proven rather than "keeping on keeping on" this tragedy could have been avoided.  Had the SF soldier allowed them to pass, and they were insurgents - his Team and their trainees could all have been killed...  Foucault's Pendulum in action, or the paradox of the Heap...  Blame can be assigned by and against whomever one feels - the fact remains that this was a tragedy, and the soldier acted as his mission and situation allowed.


 
That is better said, than I could have said.   I completely agree.   Shit happens even when people do the right thing.


----------



## LibraryLady (Feb 5, 2010)

J.A.B. said:


> ... Again I do not fault him, I think the planning, manning and equipment failed and placed him in a bad position.


 
I'd add the media presence and the media interpretation is 1) affecting his actions and 2) affecting our interpretation of the entire event.

I know I'm out of my lane, I didn't agree to be in the debate, but this aspect seemed to me a critical factor that no one was addressing.

LL


----------



## HOLLiS (Feb 5, 2010)

LibraryLady said:


> I'd add the media presence and the media interpretation is 1) affecting his actions and 2) affecting our interpretation of the entire event.
> 
> I know I'm out of my lane, I didn't agree to be in the debate, but this aspect seemed to me a critical factor that no one was addressing.
> 
> LL


 

Mam, Over here Mam,  I think I eluded to that;



HOLLiS said:


> I don't trust CBS and especially 60 Minutes.  I saw that part and was not sure if what was presented was fact.  Truck was speeding in.   Kids where in back.  Shots was fired from the front and hit the kids in back.   Ok, I may have the facts wrong, but it seemed like a set up.
> T-ban don't pay, we pay.   So who shot ya?  What appeared to be, was it?
> 
> Long ago, I figured out if 60 minutes liked you, you were great.  If 60 minutes did not like you, you sucked big time.  60 minutes is yellow journalism in a refined format.  With the new Administration a positive anti-military presentation?



I agree with you and no, IMHO, you are not out of your lane.   The media sets the how that one perceives the event.   It is that perception that we judge on.   Even if the current media did not show a bias, their general reporting skills, suck big time.  The preponderance of people who watched that show are clueless about anything military and goes double for anything SF/SPECOPS.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 5, 2010)

Only thing I can think of since I *never* had a ROE that included warning shots, if there was to be shooting there was to be killin' :

non-us view: If he's the best the military has, green beret special forces, and is shooting willy nilly kids in the back of trucks...  then what does the rest of the USA military do if they see a truck?

My personal take with my experience:

An integral part of any raid regardless of rapid action, is securing the objective so nothing can come in or out. There are so many methods that are available for use as a quick deterrent that are readily available in common military logistical trains, ie concertina and tanglefoot... cones, traffic barricade signs... and if they're going to be "warning shots" why not have them aimed at something that's going to do good, rims or block? Even if you don't effectively disable it with 2 shots, that radiator steam suddenly coming up or the fact that a tire just went flat will give you the needed time to see if they're dismounting with a purpose or just were bebopping through town like usual.


----------



## car (Feb 5, 2010)

Ranger Psych said:


> Only thing I can think of since I *never* had a ROE that included warning shots, if there was to be shooting there was to be killin' :
> 
> non-us view: If he's the best the military has, green beret special forces, and is shooting willy nilly kids in the back of trucks...  then what does the rest of the USA military do if they see a truck



Spot on, RP!

BTW, Mara - great idea, this!

I'd give you rep, but you don't need it.......peace AND love.....brother.;)


----------



## LibraryLady (Feb 5, 2010)

HOLLiS said:


> Mam, Over here Mam,  I think I eluded to that;
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you and no, IMHO, you are not out of your lane.   The media sets the how that one perceives the event.   It is that perception that we judge on.   Even if the current media did not show a bias, their general reporting skills, suck big time.  The preponderance of people who watched that show are clueless about anything military and goes double for anything SF/SPECOPS.



My mistake, Hollis.  I read the thread last night and formulated my response this morning.  Blame it on CRS - I'm sure you can relate.  



car said:


> ... I'd give you rep, but you don't need it.......peace AND love.....brother.;)



Everybody needs more rep!  And peace and love... 

LL


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 5, 2010)

x SF med said:


> The mission was most probably based on real-time, short term intelligence on the location of a high value human target, and was due to that point, a very short fuse mission.   As stated in the 60 Minutes piece, the main force was to surround and capture a heavily guarded compound.  The road looked to to be the single high speed access point, and this was a daylight mission...  yes, there were planning issues - but at times the mission can't be held up or the target escapes.  Available assets were directed to non- target security as were available based on manning...  the time frame worked against the Team and their trainees...
> 
> Concealment of the security team adds to their safety, and 'a gate was being set when the vehicle approached.  Had the truck full of men, stopped, and their innocence proven rather than "keeping on keeping on" this tragedy could have been avoided.  Had the SF soldier allowed them to pass, and they were insurgents - his Team and their trainees could all have been killed...  Foucault's Pendulum in action, or the paradox of the Heap...  Blame can be assigned by and against whomever one feels - the fact remains that this was a tragedy, and the soldier acted as his mission and situation allowed.


 
To add a twist to this, what if this was a “Robin Sage” type mission (something I know nothing about, so I am making this up) and this was a seasoned operator working with a new recruit. The same scenario but in an American city, with American children being shot. Would it be justified?

Your rebuttal would probably be that there would be a different ROE, right? This is part of my point that the “Strategic and Operational” levels have set the “operator” up for failure here.

The truth is no matter how you toss or turn this (accidental or tragedy) it is no way justified. The shooting of unarmed innocent children (10-12 years of age) is not right and it should not happen war zone or not. 

I have BTDT and have had the eyes of locals and commanders on me for my actions. My argument was always “Shit happens” what did you expect putting me here with this kind of mission, I am Infantry and I kill or break shit! WTF? This is mainly why I do not belief in COIN and almost entirely why I am against any “long-term occupations” b/c regardless what rules the upper level command comes up with (ROE) it will never work well at the soldier level…

We are not the "Police" we are the US "Military" we defeat the enemies of our nation, not protect and serve the people of another... IMHO


----------



## car (Feb 5, 2010)

J.A.B. said:


> To add a twist to this, what if this was a “Robin Sage” type mission (something I know nothing about, so I am making this up) and this was a seasoned operator working with a new recruit. The same scenario but in an American city, with American children being shot. Would it be justified?
> 
> Your rebuttal would probably be that there would be a different ROE, right? This is part of my point that the “Strategic and Operational” levels have set the “operator” up for failure here.
> 
> ...


 
The hair on the back of my neck is standing up.........because I agree with you.  ;)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 5, 2010)

car said:


> The hair on the back of my neck is standing up.........because I agree with you.  ;)


 
LMAO there is a first for everything!


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 5, 2010)

The warning shots were justified.  There are any number of reasons why the driver of that vehicle didn't stop initially for the roadblock.  Reasons that may, perhaps, be valid.  However, they are also the same "reasons" that the Taliban can hide behind if it is not in their best strategic interest to engage at that moment.  The enemy is not stupid.  It is a fatal error to assume that they are.  The Taliban know the Laws of War; they know that we, as soldiers of the greatest nation on Earth, adhere to those Laws.  They, however, do not adhere to the Laws of War, and make every effort to exploit that.  Who's to say that truck didn't have a few pounds of bang hidden inside some door panels, floorboards, or the bed in back?   

The Taliban have absolutely NO compunction whatsoever about sitting a couple of preteens on top of some 155's and HME.  To them, those kids just won the martyr lottery, and they didn't even know they had bought a ticket.  Without a spectrometer or some other means of detecting explosives, that QP would have had no way of knowing whether that truck was running loaded or not.  Even X Spray takes time (digging out the can, spray the dude, etc).

My concern goes farther than just the possibility of a VBIED. There could very well have been hidden weapons in that truck.  Had there been any AK's, PG-7's, RKG-3's, or whatever, that could've made for a fine ambush where the Americans were running their mission.  With the way the Taliban can brainwash their neighbors, especially the ones who are pretty sick of seeing Americans in their back yard, that 13-yo could very well have brandished a rifle as well.  The only reason people don't call the Taliban "cowboy" is because there were never real native cowboys in Afghanistan.

Regarding the execution of that roadblock.  Given the nature of their mission that day, it would have been great to have one or two more bodies on that checkpoint, but who would they have had to put out there?  The small size of the team is just as much - almost certainly more so - of an asset than a hindrance.  The absence of C-wire, orange cones, signage, etc. is a direct result of mission mandates.  To carry what would have been needed to execute a roadblock would've an unacceptable amount of time out of the mission (set up and tear down), as well as diverted valuable team members from other tasks at hand to establishing and/or taking down said checkpoint.  Every second counts.  Time on target is a major factor, and when dealing with only twelve Americans and a handful of Afghan soldiers with fledgling skills at best, the less time the better.  One American with more than one or two Afghans on that point would have resulted in his focusing more on those two, than on the road.  That would soundly defeat the purpose of having the roadblock to start with.

Low profile.  During daylight missions, those two words are a necessity if you want to live.  The locals will already have an inkling that the Americans are afoot.  Setting up an obvious roadblock would have signaled to everyone around that the Americans were at that location, and that whatever the Americans were doing must be pretty important, especially if there hasn't been a history of roadblocks or checkpoints at or near that location.  Those are the key ingredients for inviting an ambush in the immediate future.  That does not strike me as an acceptable risk.

In closing, I just want to remind everyone that the 5 S's of Escalation of Force allow for a warning shot.  Considering that had the American taken the next step in line - that being "Shove" - it would have been too damned late to stop anything that happened next had that truck been full of Taliban.  While it is highly unfortunate that the two preteens were injured as a result of the warning shots (or killing shots directed at the driver), one can only assess the risks inherent with such an operation and take the course of action that will ensure the minimization of those risks, resulting in the safety of the soldiers of both nations and the success of the mission.  While shooting a child of any age, even on accident and the child lives, is a humongous burden for any man to bear; it would be an even larger - and most likely unbearable - burden had he not fired those shots and his peers were hurt and killed as a result of his hesitation/inaction.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 5, 2010)

Very good post RK and an excellent explanation on justification at the soldiers level. But how would you justify it for the over all operation as you spelled it out? How is justified at the strategic level of winning the hearts and minds of the locals and keeping the Afghans safe? And more overly how is it justified to the civilians involved, the community views of ISAF and the over all nations perception of ISAF? 

I agree and understand what you posted, but looking at it out side the box of “soldier on the ground” are we helping these people become anti TB/AQ? Are we winning them over to our side? Are we improving the international view of the United States? 

There are many levels of justification and we as soldiers understand the tactical value or our actions and can always justify them between our selves. But as seen with the many soldiers brought up on charges for actions taken in combat, the rest of the planet does not see it our way and no matter how we try to explain it they will never see it as we do.

This brings me back to the upper level not being able to justify this shooting in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 5, 2010)

I would've had a harder time justifying it at the strategic level.  I'm not quite a pro at "hearts and minds", and sadly I wasn't able to make the time to educate myself better as to pursue a justification at that level.  Anything I would have posted would have been weak conjecture, and most likely I'd have devolved into one of my rants (which would be against the rules for this little outing).  You do make a good point, JAB.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 5, 2010)

OK, well done everyone. In a few minutes I'm locking this thread and will reopen it tomorrow for the final posts.

Here's the final exercise- for tomorrow (or whenever you post to this thread again), write a post on the OPPOSITE point of view from the one you posted earlier.  For example, if you wrote that you thought the shooting was justified, now write a post as to why it isn't.  This should be a little easier because you can get some good ideas from others' prior posts.

Remember this is an exercise is considering alternate points of view.  Good luck!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 6, 2010)

OK Thread's open to post the "opposite" point of view.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 6, 2010)

Oh, I feel so schizophrenic...  I need time to consult the voices in my head.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 6, 2010)

We are the occupying Army of Afghanistan, our soldier’s work to eradicate the TB/AQ something the Afghanis failed to do on their own. We are still eradicating the TB/AQ that there week Armies that we raise for them cannot. Who in the fuck are they to question what or how we do something?

Who cares what a poor Afghani thinks about this shooting, the operation in it’s self justifies the shooting. That Afghanis son’s will be fine and only have a scar at the end, but the true result is that another TB/AQ was captured and that is worth all of the scars in the world.

Who is the world to question what our brave men & women do? Where are there brave men & women? Germany? The world can suck our America dicks, we are keeping the world alive, we are keeping the word safe and we are killing the enemies of the world. Fuck you if you don’t like how we do it, at least you like the freedom of walking down the street safe.

It’s always easy to arm chair quarter back a soldiers actions, but where in the fuck were you as this soldier fired his weapon? On your computer, watching your TV, maybe shopping for your next meal? Instead of questioning him, how about get your ass up and join him. Then you can lead and set the example! Until then shut your fucking mouth!


----------



## metalmom (Feb 6, 2010)

The soldier followed the right course of action. The locals had prior knowledge of the repercussions they would face in regards to the the actions they took, and they chose to have 2 pre-teens sitting within their vehicle

. Warning shots were justified-and appropriately taken. Is it plausible the soldier followed his ROEs, and in doing so, kept his team safe? definately!

There always have been and will contine to be casualties of any war. The soldier who took the shots was not out to wear the blood of two young pre-teens on his sleeve that day. Like any well trained soldier-he did what needed to be done.
.
Predicting the path of a spent round and how it may riccochet is not in the soldiers control.
Thankfully, the kids will live to breathe another day. 
Plain and simple-he made a call-and in my opinion, he made the right one.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 7, 2010)

_*** Disclaimer: I am looking at this as an outside observer - and being honest with my assessment - yet I believe that the SF Soldier himself was in the right in his actions***_

Lack of conventional support and a security team of 2 people was too small to prevent this tragedy. The SF Soldier should have had at least 2 other Afghani trainees with him to properly set up and secure the single access point to this area. This was a daylight mission, so security is actually harder - defensive positions can be seen more easily, yet, approach by your oppent can also be seen more easily.

A silenced weapon was a bad choice if protocol called for warning shots - a large caliber pistol would have been more appropriate - but that would have required more security at the site.

Since the bed of the vehicle had military aged civilains in it, why were the rounds impacting near that area - the threat was not fully established - it was still just a potential - poor judgement, planning and wrong equipment led to the two children being shot.

It was inevitable that a daylight raid where security for the access point was weak would lead to an incident such as this - a snap decision by the SF Soldier, with little back up and no reserve element at a time when traffic could be expected was an aggregious breach of proper control and planning.

This was a wholly preventable circumstance, and the command element of this mission should be held accountable for the lack of foresight that this was the weakest area of the plan.


----------



## car (Feb 8, 2010)

**Opposite Point of view from what I was assigned - same disclaimer, just making an argument** Dammit, Mara, you're making sound like a lawyer!

The threat  (no matter in which theater you're operating) surrounds you - 360 degress, in 3D. You all know the saying - "Head on a swivel." Whether you're a leader or a joe, you can't let your guard down for a second. The threat is as real as it gets. Hadji is gonna use whatever method he can come up with, to kill you. He'll send women and chidren at you, carrying their body weight in explosives, because he knows that "we" don't shoot women and children.

Why were those kids in the same truck with a bunch of MAMs? They were tools that Hadji intended to use against us. They had absolutely no control over their own destiny. When it comes to protecting yourself and whomever you may be responsible for, you don't get to be compassionate. You just do what you have to do to survive. and keep the folks around you alive.

Whether or not the kids should have been shot is irrelevant. The Soldier reacted, correctly. As to collateral damage -- it's a fact of war. We all know that. We can't control what the enemy does with its innocents. We can just hope that there are as few as possible, who get hit,  when the bullets start flying.

------------------------

BTW, J.A.B.,

Not to start a fight, but I don't think we're an occupying Army in the 'Stan, or anywhere else. Well, maybe we're still occupying Japan - they deserve it! ;)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 8, 2010)

What ever you want to call it, we run dah mothafucka andzzz wez be telin them foos wud up! 

Occupying, lending assistence, security forces or what ever we are calling it. We carry guns and tell them what to do...

Thanks for getting  me right SGM! ;)


----------



## Brando (Feb 9, 2010)

Awesome thread, I'd like to get in on the next go-round of this dance. 

Also, I've never considered ad-hom to be a fallacy, technically.  Ad-hom is only a fallacy when used on it's own, without a proper argument or support.  When used in conjunction with sound logical premises/conclusions, I consider it to be rhetorical support to the argument, and occasionally a valid conclusion itself!

Heh.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 9, 2010)

Brando said:


> Awesome thread, I'd like to get in on the next go-round of this dance.
> 
> Also, I've never considered ad-hom to be a fallacy, technically. Ad-hom is only a fallacy when used on it's own, without a proper argument or support. When used in conjunction with sound logical premises/conclusions, I consider it to be rhetorical support to the argument, and occasionally a valid conclusion itself!
> 
> Heh.


 
An argument ad-hominem is not always a fallacy, but is considered a weak argument in most cases - except where the character of the opponent and proven, substantial points of the argument can be tied to character thus refuting the argument of your opponent.  Calling your opponent a douchebag, with no proof, just to divert the argument would be a fallacious argument ad-hominem; whereas were you to call your oppenent a liar and cite examples of untruths uttered by him/her that would be a solid argument ad-hominem and support your bias on his/her argument.  An argument ad-hominem unless fully supported by Topic, premise, thesis, synthesis and truth progression where the conclusion is a statement ad-hominem - could not be a valid conclusion on its own.

In most formal debate and argument analysis, arguments ad-hominem are frowned upon, since they tend to be nothing more than polite name calling and aspersions on character to divert the audience/moderator from the weakness of one's own argument.


----------



## Brando (Feb 9, 2010)

x SF med said:


> An argument ad-hominem is not always a fallacy, but is considered a weak argument in most cases - except where the character of the opponent and proven, substantial points of the argument can be tied to character thus refuting the argument of your opponent.  Calling your opponent a douchebag, with no proof, just to divert the argument would be a fallacious argument ad-hominem; whereas were you to call your oppenent a liar and cite examples of untruths uttered by him/her that would be a solid argument ad-hominem and support your bias on his/her argument.  An argument ad-hominem unless fully supported by Topic, premise, thesis, synthesis and truth progression where the conclusion is a statement ad-hominem - could not be a valid conclusion on its own.
> 
> In most formal debate and argument analysis, arguments ad-hominem are frowned upon, since they tend to be nothing more than polite name calling and aspersions on character to divert the audience/moderator from the weakness of one's own argument.


 
Agree on all points.

I would only add that ad hominem is also extremely fun to do, and mighty entertaining to read/hear when done with wit or style.


----------



## metalmom (Feb 10, 2010)

I'd really be into discussing Canadian logic-from two POV's, the incident in Somalia, that ultimately got our Airbourne disbanded, I think its a great subject.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 10, 2010)

Canadian Logic?  What's that, "One beer is good, ten are better, Hey?"


----------



## metalmom (Feb 13, 2010)

lol-well at least we have  actual alcohol in our beer-unlike the stuff in the States:)


----------



## x SF med (Feb 13, 2010)

Bridoors...  'nuff said.  Carling Labatt used to get it flown in for parties at TCU...


----------

