The Abandoning of Own

[BloodStripe]

http://www.breachbangclear.com/war-crimes-hard-choices-and-harder-consequences/

I had to read the book "Black Hearts" for a college course and it was really an eye opener. I was in Iraq at the time of the rape and murder and never really put much thought into it other than what they did was really fucked up but I'm glad a soldier had the balls to report it. This article provides a great background to it and really shows the lengths to which some will go to protect their own careers, thus abandoning our own. If anyone has not read that book, I really recommend it. If my MIL ever gets it back I'll even mail it to anyone for free. I didn't know f this is the right place but since it dealt with senior command, hopefully some more senior on this board would have some insight on how to better improve this and make sure it doesnt happen again.

 

[El Cid]

Powerful reading. Interesting to see if anything will happen in regards to COL Kunk. There is a very small, fine, gray line between being loyal to your people and being loyal to the service. Some people, Yribe in the articles, see the difference and choose loyalty to their people vice service. Is it bad or good, in this case it lead to more difficulty in already trying circumstances. The decision-making process was encumbered by lack of upper CoC support/situational awareness, exceptional battle field conditions and, IMO, an inability across all services to get rid of the ones who are deteriorating from mediocrity to dirtbaggery (we have mechanisms in place to get rid of dirtbags and promote superstars but the ones in the middle who slowly head down a predictably bad path, we can't get rid of until something ridiculous happens, this goes for officer and enlisted), especially when getting rid of that mediocrity means you become even more under-manned/mission stressed.

For COL Kunk, his situation reminds me of something I hear come up every once in awhile: People are promoted one level above their maximum level of competence, whatever that level is, that's where they stay and become mediocre and/or incompetent. There are the rare "Captain Kirk's" out there who do choose to stay because of their love of the job, but most don't do this purposely. I think COL Kunk's "careerism" not only 1-got Soldiers killed, but set the stage for 2-Soldiers to commit violent crimes, which under any other circumstances, they would not have done.

I believe Green and the others with him are fully responsible for what they did. COL Kunk's willful(?) ignorance of the plight of his people and oversight paved the road for their crimes and he also needs to be held accountable. In this case, their crimes are a direct reflection of his leadership. And I don't say that easily-- it is not always the case that individual crimes can be attributed to the CoC but in the case, definitely YES. And what the hell was the CSM doing in all this?? Severe Leadership Negligence from the top officer and top enlisted.

From the article:

"We understand when good guys do the right thing. We understand when bad guys do the wrong thing.
But we don’t understand when a good guy does the wrong thing.

Tony Yribe isn’t a bad guy. Based on what I’ve heard and read about him, I wouldn’t hesitate to leave the wire with him, and I’d feel perfectly fine inviting him into my home. I don’t think he would ever commit or condone rape or murder. I think he cared deeply about the soldiers in his platoon. He would, and did, risk death for them many times.

When it comes down to the kind of horrible, painful decisions Watt, Diem and Yribe had to make, the Army justifiably expects us to choose loyalty to principles over loyalty to people. If our best friend commits murder, we’re obligated to disregard emotional ties and immediately report him. Yet the Army also wants us to care about our troops, and some leaders even talk about loving the soldiers you serve with. We’re supposed to be loyal to them unto death, but turn that personal loyalty off if they commit a crime.

Tony Yribe couldn’t do it. He chose loyalty to an individual over loyalty to a principle."

 

[El Cid]

Filipino commander disobeyed a lawful order for the right reasons? Or did they abandon the Fijians? I think the commander chose loyalty to his people over loyalty to a principle (UN peacekeeping mission) and as a result(?) or second-order effect(?) or however you want to look at it, the Fijians are still hostages...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/filipino-force-defied-commander-golan-crisis-25201618

 

[Teufel]

How the hell did COL Kunk get promoted after all the terrible things that occured under his command?

 

[BloodStripe]

Filipino commander disobeyed a lawful order for the right reasons? Or did they abandon the Fijians? I think the commander chose loyalty to his people over loyalty to a principle (UN peacekeeping mission) and as a result(?) or second-order effect(?) or however you want to look at it, the Fijians are still hostages...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/filipino-force-defied-commander-golan-crisis-25201618

Great question. I think in the case of the Filipino UN forces, the UN commander who requested they surrender should be publicly hung for treason.

By asking them to surrender, he basically signed them to a death warrant for all intents and purposes based on various rebel groups executing "infidels". I think the Filipino Gen. Gregorio Pio Catapang was spot on by saying, "I told them not to follow the order because that is a violation of our regulation, that we do not surrender our firearms, and, at the same time, there is no assurance that you will be safe after you give your firearms." To do what the UN Commander requested, it would have made those men coward's in my book. As the old Greek saying goes, "Come home with your shield -- or on it."

 

[El Cid]

How the hell did COL Kunk get promoted after all the terrible things that occured under his command?

Careerism. By him and for him.

 

[El Cid]

"I told them not to follow the order because that is a violation of our regulation, that we do not surrender our firearms, and, at the same time, there is no assurance that you will be safe after you give your firearms."

Exact right time to disobey a lawful order...errr...suggestion by the UN....(methinks the reason for the UN having a reputation for being an underwhelming fighting force is in this story somewhere...)