• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A US Marine's Response to 'PC' ROEs

First off, if someone is going to comment on something like this, they would of had to live through the experience and see for themsleves what it would be like. Most of us can only imagine...

I've never experienced combat on this level, "UN tours don't count". So I can't comment on that side of the equation.

What most of will agree on though, is these terrorists don't follow any "Geneva convention" or any other western doctrine, they know only one thing and thats their fanatical twisted law of Jihad. They have no qualms about killing, women , children ,the elderly, Marines or Canadians. As long as they can become martyrs to the cause.

I think that most of them are so totally brainwashed that, even if we were to try and rehabilitate them, it would fail.
 
career_radio-checker said:
Here is your problem.

It is very easy to see the real message said marine is trying to convey "You aren't here fighting with us, you don't know what it's like so shut the *&$#* up". Sorry, I will not Marine. (Note: my response will be used in 2 person singular to address this marine for writting purposes)

You say that there is no yesterday or tomorrow only NOW. Perhaps, with the constant routine of eat-sleep-shoot, you have lost track of time, but I guarantee you -- unless the hand of God decides otherwise -- the sun will rise again for another day. Just like it did yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. Denying that there is a tomorrow just demonstrates an ignorance that you have decided to be complacent with, and with it, an inability or willing to understand the greater overall picture and objective. That objective is to bring peace and security to Fallujah and Iraq. Whether that peace comes in a few months or a few years who knows.

Your mentality is 'well that's one less terrorist to worry about,' but I don't have to tell you that there are many more willing to take that terrorist's place. Now, what if that terrorist had a night to ponder over his actions in  an American hospital, and was impressed by the care he received and was willing the next day to give information on weapons caches or terrorist locations potentially saving your fellow Marines lives without them knowing it. You laugh at such speculations as being 'a liberal bleeding heart' and perhaps it is wishful thinking, in which case he would have faced a judicial system which would have punished him accordingly. In either case, we will never know because you decided to make a financial decision on the battlefield. A very poor financial decision I might add because in order to have a big payoff you have to be willing to invest time and money and there isn't much you can do nowadays with only $.02.

Now, you are correct, these terrorists are 'illegal combatants', but I would ask you to look at your uniform -- that makes you a legal combatant. And as such you are subject to the rules of engagement and laws that come with the Genava conventions. You see these laws as ineffective and a hindrance when facing Today's enemy. But what about tomorrow's enemy? Oh that's right, there is no tomorrow. Well, let me explain that those pesty Geneva convention rules also afford you protection in the heat of battle. We don't know who we will fight tomorrow, perhaps the Chinese, or even the Russians, but at least they follow some kind of ROEs. God forbid you ever find yourself in a room, bleeding from somewhere on your body, begging an enemy soldier not to shoot you simply because he wants to "secure the area".

In closing, I want to tell you Marine, this is modern warfare -- the gun is a primitive weapon in today's standards. Today's wars in these so called 'failed states,' are won by winning the hearts and minds of the locals. Win them and your enemy will have no place to hide. To do so, we need soldiers who can think, follow rules, and think of the greater objective; you only thought about yourself, the men around you and the here and now. Your actions might have won the battle, but it did nothing to win the war. And because of those actions, more Marines are going to face many more battles.

Bullshit, eliminate the threat before it eliminates you or one of your buddies!
 
In response to career_radio-checker---

Your arguement might be good for the policy makers, but really doesn't apply to the soldiers on the ground.  The individual grunt isn't concerned with the greater reprecussions of his or her actions in the combat zone, only his or her own survival and the survival of his/her buddies and the completion of the mission.

Don't forget, soldiers don't make policy.  For the guy or gal slugging around with a rifle, his mission is clear- to kill the enemy.  Winning over hearts and minds are for the guys upstairs with the brass on their uniforms, not for the guys wearing stripes.

(forgive the amercian militarism, but I think you get the idea when I reference 'brass' and 'stripes'.
 
"The same argument for Gitmo. Alot of very serious bad guys there. If we put them back out on the street they will go back to their evil ways.Execution is really the best solution for most of these guys as opposed to indefinite imprisonment."

- The trouble with detainee status is that we are under pressure to charge them or let them go.  If we called them Prisoners Of War, then they get to go home when the war is over.  Since that might be in 60 or 70 years, problem solved.

Prisoners of war are taken when they put up their hands to surrender, or are physically bested.  If neither occurs, then the enemy will not survive the contact.  Simple, right?  So why is Gitmo full?

It would be disingenious for a soldier to risk his life and the lives of his comrades to go out of his way to physically best an enemy (when the enemy has no desire to surrender), then complain about 'soft' Laws Of Armed Conflict.

 
Bobby Rico said:
In response to career_radio-checker---

Your arguement might be good for the policy makers, but really doesn't apply to the soldiers on the ground.  The individual grunt isn't concerned with the greater reprecussions of his or her actions in the combat zone, only his or her own survival and the survival of his/her buddies and the completion of the mission.

Don't forget, soldiers don't make policy.  For the guy or gal slugging around with a rifle, his mission is clear- to kill the enemy.  Winning over hearts and minds are for the guys upstairs with the brass on their uniforms, not for the guys wearing stripes.

(forgive the amercian militarism, but I think you get the idea when I reference 'brass' and 'stripes'.

Not to pick on Bobby Rico but I can address everyone by referring to his post.

Ok, first off, you better learn to 'concern' yourself with the directives of the 'brass' because they are the ones who give you orders. And no, it is your job to win the hearts and minds of the locals since you are the one on the ground interacting with them.

Secondly, I'd like to restress my main point -- Your greater objective is to win the war.
It's not for the sake of a of a stinking terrorist I wrote my first post, but for the integrity of the mission and the military which said Marine represents. Again, I'll say this is modern warfare, you have to think. Think about your buddies; think about your surroundings; think about the TV camera and newsreporter who is 'embedded' with your unit. Even if they aren't in your unit there are dozens of news stations in theatre begging for a story. Don't give them one. Ever notice on TV how a firefight with the Taliban gets about 30 seconds of air time, while Canada's 'treatment of detainees' gets repeated coverage? I agree, you can never understand the situation unless 'you've been there,' and I highly respect those soldiers for being there.

But for John and Jane Doe citizen who has access to the media, they don't need to be there to form an opinion. Even more important than winning the hearts and minds of the locals, is winning the hearts and minds of people back home; for it's public support that will decide whether a mission continues or gets pulled. There is no doubt in my mind that the Americans (or any Western country) left to their own devices, could easily crush insurgencies. But we are democracies and our curse is that governments are voted in and out of power(remember the pull out of Vietnam and just picture what the main issue will be for the next presidential election in the US). Imagine what would happen if Canadian soldiers were involved in another documented 'torture' situation like Somalia. We've seen what can happen: support for the mission and the military plumits, we get spat on on every street corner and entire regiments can be disbanded. God forbid the NDP ever get in power.  :eek:
Granted my example might be observed differently had it been an American unit, but last time I checked support for the Iraq war in the US was at just above 30%.

I'm not saying you should put a terrorist's safety and wellfare above your buddy's, I'm saying we need to act like a professional military. And what separates us from these brigands, warlords, and terrorists, is that we are governed by discipline, and Rules of Engagement. Following those rules not only puts us on the moral highground but it  ensures support back home, and at least provides hope (not saying it's inevitable) for winning the hearts and minds of locals.



 
career_radio-checker said:
Not to pick on Bobby Rico but I can address everyone by referring to his post.

think about the TV camera and newsreporter who is 'embedded' with your unit. Even if they aren't in your unit there are dozens of news stations in theatre begging for a story. Don't give them one. Ever notice on TV how a firefight with the Taliban gets about 30 seconds of air time, while Canada's 'treatment of detainees' gets repeated coverage? I agree, you can never understand the situation unless 'you've been there,' and I highly respect those soldiers for being there.

Rather see that than one of my crewmembers face on CTV of 5 days until he is layed to rest.Did you ever think due to the high amounts of suicide bombers,the high use of opiates that keep these terrorist fighting till they are completely dead may have something to do with it?I have not been there so I'm merely speculating.Maybe I-6 can add more light as you seem to have political correct blinders on.

career_radio-checker said:
I'm not saying you should put a terrorist's safety and wellfare above your buddy's, I'm saying we need to act like a professional military. And what separates us from these brigands, warlords, and terrorists, is that we are governed by discipline, and Rules of Engagement. Following those rules not only puts us on the moral highground but it  ensures support back home, and at least provides hope (not saying it's inevitable) for winning the hearts and minds of locals.

Yes you are.Do you think these guys were doing it for fun?No it was for their protection.As for governed by ROE's have you ever read a ROE sheet?How about when your life is in danger,and until a possible suicide bomber is neutralised your life is in danger.

career_radio-checker said:
Not to pick on Bobby Rico but I can address everyone by referring to his post.

Ok, first off, you better learn to 'concern' yourself with the directives of the 'brass' because they are the ones who give you orders. And no, it is your job to win the hearts and minds of the locals since you are the one on the ground interacting with them.


What are the directives from the Brass you seem to know so much about?Isn't the job of the military to defeat enemy combattans and win the hearts and minds of the LOCALS?Your job would be to act as a member of a section and neutralise enemy attacks,by doing so and making the place safer you inturn win hearts and minds.
 
Trip_Wire said:
In response to the news blurb about the Marine who
put two rounds in a wounded insurgent's head in
Fallujah, ....

Murder. Cold Cut Case.



 
You put up a good arguement career, but I'm wholly unconvinced.

Here are the facts---

You're in a combat zone, at the end of the day, it's you or them.  These people are trying to KILL YOU.  They don't give a damn about the news media, they don't care if the war is popular amongst your people or theirs, they have one thought on their minds- killing as many of you as they can however they can do it.  That is the nature of their game.  And sometimes the only way to beat an aggressor that ruthless, often times the good guys must be equally as ruthless or moreso (Hiroshima anyone?  Or did people just suddenly forget World War II?)

My personal opinion is this--- I could give a hoot in hell what the media puts on TV for the viewing public.  If they show me blowing someone's head off because I think he's a viable threat, and he's been engaged as such (and I'm not talking about just some dude on the street that gives me a dirty look, but someone packing a Kalishnikov who is openly hostile), and the media villifies me for it, well, guess what, I really don't care because I'm alive, and the bad guy isn't.  Even if the guy already has a bullet in his chest and he's dying, if we're in a hot zone and there are more combatants still in the area, guess what else- I'm not about to just leave the guy laying there either.  A 5.56 NATO round to the head goes if no other option is available (This is an absolute worst case scenario of course- I'm not suggesting it should be common practice)

Listen, this is war we're talking about.  In war, there really is no time to play nice.  It's a dirty, dirty, awful, disgusting and incredibly vile business.  Killing is the nature of war, and a soldier's trade is in killing.  Accept it.  And speaking as a Private-no-nuts-Bloggins, I can tell you right now that my mind isn't on the winning hearts and minds of people, or making the war 'popular' for the people at home, it's on staying alive (and I dare you to talk to any infanteer in the field and ask him if his personal survival or the survival of his comrades comes anywhere but first on the list)  Because my life is a hell of a lot more valuable than the guy who's trying to kill me, and it's sure a hell of a lot more important than making sure people 'like' the war in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter.  This is called human nature, it doesn't even have anything to do with being a soldier.  Human bloody nature.  Kill or be killed, simple as that.
 
career_radio-checker said:
I can address everyone by referring to his post


Well if you can find time to clime down from your Ivory Tower. Do three Combat Tours over in that Hell Hole, maybe, just maybe, I might give some credence to your arguments.



Edited to remove what I would really like to say.
 
According to the Geneva Convention shooting a wounded enemy is a war crime. On the other hand in WW2 there were instances where allied soldiers killed wounded Japanese and German soldiers and even enemy soldiers who had surrendered without punishment. The fighting in Falluja was brutal as most MOUT actions are. The enemy had no interest in surrendering only in killing americans.They booby trapped bodies which resulted in US deaths.You also have to remember that there was a threat of suicide bombers. A wounded tango might have a grenade or an explosive vest as you get close to render aid he blows himself up and you with him. Look at instances in Afghanistan where Canadian troops after a suicide bombing have shot civilians who they thought were a potential threat. No question the troops are on edge.No one wants to be a casualty and sometimes it comes down to him or me. If I wait a split second too long I or my mates might get killed.Its a tough call and an easy one sitting at home in front of our pc to second guess, but when its your life on the line with seconds to make a decision if it were me I would opt for the line I learned as a private "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

Background on Operation Phantom Fury/al-Fajr
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,79595,00.html
 
career_radio-checker,

Your right on the money. My hats off to you. For those of you jumping on board him, here is what your defending.
The killing of an unarmed prisoner, 24 hours after the firefight had ended.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6496898/

FALLUJAH, Iraq — The U.S. military is investigating the killing of a wounded and apparently unarmed Iraqi prisoner inside a mosque during combat operations here, the Defense Department told NBC News on Monday.

NBC’s Kevin Sites, who witnessed the incident Saturday while assigned to represent a pool of news organizations, reported Monday that the man was shot by a Marine who appeared to be unaware that the Iraqi was a wounded prisoner and did not pose a threat.

Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for the Defense Department, told NBC News that the military was investigating the incident observed by Sites. “We’re confident it will be a thorough investigation,” he said.

‘He's faking!’
The incident occurred as a Marine battalion was taking part in a U.S.-led counteroffensive intended to secure Fallujah so national elections can go ahead in January as scheduled. Col. Michael Regner, operations officer for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Fallujah, said Monday that the operation had secured control of the city.

Sites said the incident unfolded this way:

The Marine battalion stormed an unidentified mosque Saturday in southern Fallujah after taking casualties from heavy sniper fire and attacks with rocket-propelled grenades. Ten insurgents were killed and five others were wounded in the mosque and an adjacent building.

The Marines displayed a cache of rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 assault rifles that they said the men were holding. They said the arms were conclusive evidence that insurgents had been using mosques as fighting positions in Fallujah, which they said made the use of force appropriate.

When the Marines left to advance farther south, the five wounded Iraqis, none of whose injuries appeared to be life-threatening, were left behind in the mosque for other Marines to evacuate for treatment.

Saturday, however, reports surfaced that mosques in the region had been reoccupied, including the mosque the Marine battalion had stormed the day before.

Two units that were not involved in Friday’s fighting advanced on the mosque, one moving around the back and the second, accompanied by Sites, from the front. Sites said he could hear gunfire from inside.

Sites was present when a lieutenant from one of the units asked a Marine what had happened inside the mosque. The Marine replied that there were people inside.

“Did you shoot them?” the lieutenant asked.

“Roger that, sir,” the second Marine replied.

“Were they armed?” the lieutenant asked.

The second Marine shrugged in reply.


Sites saw the five wounded men left behind on Friday still in the mosque. Four of them had been shot again, apparently by members of the squad that entered the mosque moments earlier. One appeared to be dead, and the three others were severely wounded. The fifth man was lying under a blanket, apparently not having been shot a second time.

One of the Marines noticed that one of the severely wounded men was still breathing. He did not appear to be armed, Sites said.

The Marine could be heard insisting: “He’s f---ing faking he’s dead — he’s faking he’s f---ing dead.” Sites then watched as the Marine raised his rifle and fired into the man’s head from point-blank range.

“Well, he’s dead now,” another Marine said.

When told that the man he shot was a wounded prisoner, the Marine, who himself had been shot in the face the day before but had already returned to duty, told Sites: “I didn’t know, sir. I didn’t know.”

Self-defense could be accepted
The Marine who shot the man was removed from the field and returned to headquarters. The investigation will address why the wounded men were left behind for 24 hours, why four of them were shot Saturday and whether the killing observed by Sites was illegal.

At the same time the incident was taking place in the mosque, a U.S. Marine was killed and five others were wounded when the booby-trapped body of a dead insurgent exploded. The judge advocate general heading the investigation of the mosque incident, Lt. Col. Bob Miller, told NBC News that depending on the evidence, it could be reasonable to conclude that the Marine was acting in self-defense.

“The policy of the rules of engagement authorize the Marines to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent,” he said. “So they would have to be using force in self-defense, yes.”

But Miller added: “Enemy combatants — in this case, insurgents — who don’t pose a threat would not be considered a hostile.”

Bobby Rico:
Here are the facts---
You're in a combat zone, at the end of the day, it's you or them.  These people are trying to KILL YOU.

How about, your not in combat, it's a day later, they aren't trying to kill you, no weapons, and they are under your blanket?
I guess that fits your "viable threat" portion however.


Trip_Wire said:
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 expend one man-minute or a battle
dressing on a terrorist. Its much cheaper to just
spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

WOW !!  How wrong you are.
 
Just to be clear, with reference to being hors de combat due to wounds, AFAIK there is no mention in the Geneva Conventions of being a "threat," viable or otherwise.  The wording is "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities." (CI.CH1.A3.1)  In the Additional Protocols it was changed to "who refrain from any act of hostility" (API.PII.S1.A8).  INAL, but these both seem to be much more open to interpretation than the "threat" argument (it's kind of a red herring).

Moreover, it was Additional Protocols I & II that created most of the obligations to care for the enemy wounded and to determine priority of treatment solely by medical necessity (among other things). 

The United States has not ratified the (more restrictive) Additional Protocols: in some ways you guys are arguing apples and oranges.  As Canadians we are compelled to treat insurgent/terrorist/whatever combatants (and civilians) before our own, if their wounds have a higher medical priority: Americans are under no such obligation (wow those OPMEs are actually coming in handy - go figure).

Nonetheless, at the end of the day it is awfully difficult to disagree with the logic of:
tomahawk6 said:
"I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
  :eek:
 
new ROE

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2006/12/17
 
Back
Top