Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Security Rounds, Marines Killing Wounded/Fallujah
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 1 of 34 (172672)
01-01-2005 2:51 AM


Since it appears that I've prematurely doomed myself to debate combat vs values, allow me to start another topic from a perspective the readers of CvE probably haven't seen before. This discussion is specifically about shooting wounded insurgents in Fallujah. The tone of this marine's write up will undoubtedly upset some people, but try to look past that to situation he is writing about.
They're Called Security Rounds
In response to the news blurb about the Marine who put two rounds in a wounded insurgent's head in Fallujah, here's a response from a Marine:
It's a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to [TOS Violation] around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org.
Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to spend one man minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist, its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.
By the way, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses.
UPDATE: Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers.
Here is your situation Marine. You just took fire from unlawful combatants shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there and find some tangos wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these kinds of idiots, and like taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fire team's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking english to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist that was just shooting at you from a mosque playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what. What about the Geneva Conventions and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand your first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this is a perpetual mindset that in reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary which is a double No No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same... Marines get hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission. If you are a veteran then everything I have just written is self evident, if you are not a veteran than at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is not easy, and if you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for war crimes. Be advised, I am not talking to my readers, but if this post gets linked up, I want regular folks to get this message loud and clear.
This message has been edited by Tal, 01-01-2005 02:52 AM

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 9:29 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-01-2005 1:14 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 12 by wj, posted 01-01-2005 4:25 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 15 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-01-2005 5:49 PM Tal has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 34 (172674)
01-01-2005 3:23 AM


We've already got one or two other threads dedicated to the obdurate soldier, I can't see why we need more of this right-wing dreck cluttering up the topics list.
This message has been edited by berberry, 01-01-2005 02:24 AM

Keep America Safe AND Free!

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 34 (172722)
01-01-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tal
01-01-2005 2:51 AM


Contrary to Berberry's statement I actually hadn't seen this before.
The writer is an ignoramus extaordinaire looking to rationalize his own behavior. I just love the statement that veterans will all agree with him, everyone else shut up.
Here is where I agree... Fighting insurgents and terrorist organizations are different than fighting opposing armies. They do not necessarily play by the same rules, and some rules do not necessarily apply to them. Wasting time and resources one does not have to secure a prisoner in the middle of a battle that is ongoing and would tie you down is ridiculous.
Thus shooting enemies that may or may not already be dead or dying as one sweeps through on an offensive and one does not have corpsman or extra soldiers to deal with is an unfortunate but practical reality.
However none of the above results in the rationalizations to cowardly acts which flow from that writer's hand.
While an enemy may be playing possum that is true everywhere and part of the risk of war. The rules were written even with that in mind.
The fact that he tried to kill you and is your enemy is not a reason for anything. Without that fact you would not be at war in the first place. The rules were written with that in mind.
A dead enemy is not always better or safer than a prisoner. They may have information which is infinitely valuable. Securing prisoners is extremely important and worth the risk. This is where insurgencies and terrorists differ from regular uniformed troops. You cannot know if this is a high or low level operative, and the amount of info they might have. Training for soldiers used to include this tidbit of info.
The rules of war cannot and should not be so easily discounted because a person is a coward, which is what this looks like to me. They were written for everyone's protection and by sticking to them set a precedent that they are important and expected. Even when one's enemy defies them that is a sign of why they are wrong, not a sign that these rules have no value.
What the hell happened to order and discipline and courage? I am getting more embarassed about our military by the minute. Please tell me some higher up stepped on this guy?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 2:51 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by berberry, posted 01-01-2005 5:26 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 4 of 34 (172723)
01-01-2005 9:37 AM


Thus shooting enemies that may or may not already be dead or dying as one sweeps through on an offensive and one does not have corpsman or extra soldiers to deal with is an unfortunate but practical reality.
The reason they do it is because the badguys still present a threat, and have shown a willingness to use possum tactics. They don't do it simply because they don't want to deal with the casualty.
The rules of war cannot and should not be so easily discounted because a person is a coward, which is what this looks like to me.
The rules have not been discounted. The fact that he tried to kill you is NOT a reason to double tap him. The fact that they continualy try to kill you after they are wounded using various possum tactics as an operational standard...is.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 10:03 AM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 34 (172732)
01-01-2005 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tal
01-01-2005 9:37 AM


The rules have not been discounted. The fact that he tried to kill you is NOT a reason to double tap him. The fact that they continualy try to kill you after they are wounded using various possum tactics as an operational standard...is.
I just gave reasons why that second "fact" does not matter.
Yes it is discounting the rules. Do you really believe that this is the first war where people played possum, even as a standard policy? The rules were written knowing that these kinds of things occur. To say they should not apply because one does not like having to face the risks others have faced before is discounting rules and doing so out of cowardice.
You skipped some very important points I made. What about the valuable info from prisoners?
Note that I am not criticizing the practice of killing an enemy who is presently just wounded in the middle of a battle. I am criticizing the championing of that practice as a routine and acceptable practice, especially where resources may be available.
His words form a very slippery slope for soldiers to follow. In future wars it may very well stand against us. The moral high ground is important.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 9:37 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 10:18 AM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 6 of 34 (172737)
01-01-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
01-01-2005 10:03 AM


Yes it is discounting the rules.
Quote me what rule you are referring to please.
The moral high ground is indeed important.
I just gave reasons why that second "fact" does not matter.
It matters as the individual is still actively engaging you, albiet through deception.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 10:03 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 10:27 AM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 34 (172742)
01-01-2005 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tal
01-01-2005 10:18 AM


Quote me what rule you are referring to please.
Are you kidding me? Let me put it this way, if there was not the assumption much less the rule, then that essay would not have been necessary would it?
This is NOT the angle to take. You and I both know that wounded are to be treated with respect and in a certain way.
If wounded members of our military were killed outright instead of being taken prisoner in every engagement with an enemy force, what would be said about that enemy force?
It matters as the individual is still actively engaging you, albiet through deception.
I agreed with this. That is why I said it is understandable with corpsman and other security measures not available.
However, one cannot make this a hard rule. This cannot become the rule of engagement. It prevents acquisition of intelligence as well as endangering our own troops.
Would an enemy be right to kill US soldiers just to be safe, because US soldiers are likely to engage with the enemy even through deception? Whether they are more or less likely to do so than our current enemy is not relevant.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 10:18 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 10:45 AM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 8 of 34 (172747)
01-01-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Silent H
01-01-2005 10:27 AM


Are you kidding me? Let me put it this way, if there was not the assumption much less the rule, then that essay would not have been necessary would it?
This is NOT the angle to take. You and I both know that wounded are to be treated with respect and in a certain way.
There's a reason I want you to find and quote the rule. It is not because I'm not familiar with it.
However, one cannot make this a hard rule. This cannot become the rule of engagement. It prevents acquisition of intelligence as well as endangering our own troops.
We take prisoners everyday throughout Iraq. If we go into the hornet's nest though, that can most certainly be part of the ROE. During contacts throughout the country we capture and give aide to the wounded everyday. But the rules do change when the badguys are holed up at city X and intend on fighting to the death.
Would an enemy be right to kill US soldiers just to be safe, because US soldiers are likely to engage with the enemy even through deception? Whether they are more or less likely to do so than our current enemy is not relevant.
In a perfect world the badguys would take us as POWs, keep us until the war was over, then turn us over.
We would do the same to their POWs. However, it isn't a perfect world. But we still abide by the rules of capturing illegal enemy combatants (they are not a legal part of any military, thus not POWs), but we still give them food/water ect...

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 10:27 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by bob_gray, posted 01-01-2005 1:48 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 3:01 PM Tal has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 34 (172773)
01-01-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tal
01-01-2005 2:51 AM


Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to spend one man minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist, its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.
Utter, complete bullshit and of the same mentality as any terrorist.
Anyone harboring such thoughts is as great a a threat to the US as any terrorist.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 2:51 AM Tal has not replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 10 of 34 (172779)
01-01-2005 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tal
01-01-2005 10:45 AM


Thanks for the clarification.
We would do the same to their POWs. However, it isn't a perfect world. But we still abide by the rules of capturing illegal enemy combatants (they are not a legal part of any military, thus not POWs), but we still give them food/water ect...
I had been wondering about the "illegal enemy combatant" thing for a while and this makes it fairly clear what the US considers an "illegal enemy combatant". Just as a little bit of clarification: I was wondering if all guerrilla fighters are now considered illegal enemy combatants. It seems that the only two countries against which we might fight a protracted ground war with a well defined front and legal militaries would be Russia or China. If we ever get involved with a small country wouldn't that practically make anyone who fights for their home an illegal combatant? I can't think of a single other country that might be able to defend itself against the US in a war so by necessity all engagements would be of the nature of the ones in Iraq. I am wondering if we are on our way to simply bowing out of the Geneva Convention like we have bowed out of so many other treaties recently?
Also, I didn’t notice illegal enemy combatants in the Geneva Conventions. What are the rules of capturing illegal enemy combatants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 10:45 AM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 34 (172794)
01-01-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tal
01-01-2005 10:45 AM


There's a reason I want you to find and quote the rule. It is not because I'm not familiar with it.
Sorry, I don't fall for that. If you think you have something on me, you go right ahead and quote the rule and then explain why it doesn't fit.
My guess is you are going to go after practical concerns which can override in certain situations (this I already agreed to), or the nature of who counts based on signatories and or limits of conventions.
The fact is both are irrelevant to the discussion. You will remember that it was Rumsfeld himself, and then supported by lesser commanders, who said that no matter who engaged with US soldiers they were all expected to be treated according to rules of combat and geneva conventions. At the time this was before the invasion of Iraq (and I believe he had said such a thing before Afghanistan as well) and it was expected that there would be wounded prisoners.
When we began losing people, this point was reiterated. There was great concern for how our wounded were treated and it was stated that we would be treating wounded in the same way. Do you, or do you not remember this, or agree that this was what was expected?
If so, then whatever wiggle room you are about to try and escape from using the letter of the rules, you will be unable to escape from the spirit of them which was stated as our policy. I realize Rumsfeld and Co attempted to repeal this later as invasion turned to occupation, but that is just hypocrisy is it not?
But the rules do change when the badguys are holed up at city X and intend on fighting to the death.
We are the occupying force, that means our enemies usually are holed up and willing to fight to the death. Rules do not change because of this.
All it does mean is that any potential prisoner must be treated with a lot more care (for one's own safety) and that there may be more instances where one has to kill the enemy rather than stopping to attend wounded and take prisoners.
Now let's try a thought experiment for a second. Someone is fighting the US and becomes aware of that letter and thinks that is the policy of the US. Does that not increase the chances that all battles will be to the death and eliminate any chance at reasoning?
I mean if I knew the policy was essentially take no prisoners because all wounded must be treated as hostile and killed, I wouldn't be surrendering and I would even want to fight the soldiers where I might not have before. It is inhuman.
However, it isn't a perfect world. But we still abide by the rules of capturing illegal enemy combatants (they are not a legal part of any military, thus not POWs), but we still give them food/water ect...
That is a matter of EvC debate! My view of this is a bit complex to detail here and a bit besides the point.
You are right it is not a perfect world. If there was we would have no wars. But we can be a decent society when we go to war and obey the rules we demand of others, even if they continue not to. Again, to me that is what defines us from them.
I see within that essay a rationalization of past and future cowardice and inhumanity. I already said I understand killing in the midst of battle where one cannot get resources in to deal with wounded soldiers who may very well still be able to fight and kill. However that essay argues well beyond that in tone and scope.
What's funny is that some of my favorite old war flicks involve that very conundrum and the good guys showed that AMERICANS always took the risk because we were more humane.
I can't wait to see all the brilliant movies and quotes coming out of this war. Or maybe we can just rerelease Apocalypse Now and say it isn't an antiwar movie but a great testament to the new view of heroism.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 10:45 AM Tal has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 34 (172803)
01-01-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tal
01-01-2005 2:51 AM


Is there any evidence that the original missive is genuine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 2:51 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 4:48 PM wj has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 34 (172808)
01-01-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by wj
01-01-2005 4:25 PM


Is there any evidence that the original missive is genuine?
According to frontpagemag.com it was written by "a former marine and Navy SEAL, Matthew Heidt."
As far as I can tell he wasn't even there in Fallujah.
In any case his blog is reported to be at:
Dream Big Dream Often
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-01-2005 16:49 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by wj, posted 01-01-2005 4:25 PM wj has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 34 (172819)
01-01-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
01-01-2005 9:29 AM


holmes misapprehends:
quote:
Contrary to Berberry's statement I actually hadn't seen this before.
No, no, I didn't say I'd seen it before. I guess I didn't say quite enough, but I meant that we already had a thread on the theme of the obdurate soldier. The OP of this thread seems like a minor variation on the theme of the other. In other words, this OP would not (to me at least) have seemed off-topic in the earlier thread, so I thought it should've been posted there.
Nevermind, though; you're doing a fine job. You've brought up every point I would have wanted to make. Carry on.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 9:29 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 34 (172827)
01-01-2005 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tal
01-01-2005 2:51 AM


Fallujah eye witness report
On the topic of the US attack on Falluajah, I've just seen this article by an eye witness in Fallujah. It details how the attack on Fallujah was as deliberate and premeditated a war crime as the Serbian offensive against Srebineca or the Russian attack on Grozny. Excerpts:
Americans did not have interpreters with them, so they entered houses and killed people because they didn’t speak English! They entered the house where I was with 26 people and shot people because they didn’t obey their orders, even just because the people couldn’t understand a word of English. Ninety-five percent of the people killed in the houses that I saw were killed because they couldn’t speak English.
I saw cluster bombs everywhere, and so many bodies that were burned, dead with no bullets in them. So they definitely used fire weapons, especially in Julan District. I watched American snipers shoot civilians so many times. I saw an American sniper in a minaret of a mosque shooting everyone that moved.
He also witnessed something which many refugees from Fallujah have reported.
I saw civilians trying to swim the Euphrates to escape, and they were all shot by American snipers on the other side of the river.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tal, posted 01-01-2005 2:51 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 7:48 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024