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.
"Pro or Con"
- Thread starter Marauder06
- Start date
metalmom
Verified Military
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!!!
That is the lamest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard in my life!!!! Nice way to rationalize-but unacceptable!!!
** 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.
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.
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.
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
Verified Military
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
if someone can lay down a quote that I dont agree with I feel I can attack the quote
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.
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
Verified Military
That is better said, than I could have said. I completely agree. Shit happens even when people do the right thing.
LibraryLady
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 5,071
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
Verified Military
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.
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.
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.
Spot on, RP!
BTW, Mara - great idea, this!
I'd give you rep, but you don't need it.......peace AND love.....brother.;)
LibraryLady
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 5,071
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.
Everybody needs more rep! And peace and love...
LL
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
The hair on the back of my neck is standing up.........because I agree with you. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
