"Pro or Con"

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
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...
 
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?
 
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
 
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.

Signed, A confused Troll

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

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 :)
 
**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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah Free, get your facts straight! :)
 

Similar threads

Marauder06
War Books: Professional Writing and the Modern War Institute
Replies
2
Views
387
Marauder06
Marauder06
BlackSmokeRisinG
Major Heists, Murders, and Other Unsolved Crimes
Replies
3
Views
277
AWP
AWP
Marauder06
Thought Experiment: The Political/Media Complex
Replies
13
Views
957
ThunderHorse
ThunderHorse
Marauder06
ProDev: selective attention and the media
Replies
15
Views
803
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
Blizzard
New Officers: Are We Getting Our Best and Brightest?
Replies
9
Views
704
Devildoc
Devildoc
Back
Top