A convoy of Marines is going through Falujah. An IED goes off, killing 4 American Servicemen in a hummer. Their bodies are so mangled and blown apart, they are unrecognizable.
A Marine in a follow-on vehicle sees a late teen aged boy/man running from the scene. He recognizes the teen as being a 19 year old problem child who has been known to hang out with the wrong people and he has a propensity to be around trouble, but has not as of yet been directly tied into any of the bombings. The Marine raises his M16 and fires. Later on, once again no one could tie the youth into the latest incident.
Now what? Court Martial the Marine? There are a growing number of groups in the country who are forcing the hand of the Armed Forces to do just that in situations like this. Groups that are comprised of citizens who have no combat experience or understanding of the combat experience.
What do you do?....what do you do?
PS Any answer that goes down the "why we're there" road, will be deleted. The politics of this have no bearing on the circumstances or this particular question. Translation: Stay focused and on topic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
7 comments:
ooh, ooh, can i answer this question with a really long winded answer and include some gripes and complaints? as a warning though, it might not be the same answer you'd give.
Sean...I was waiting for your answer...and don't assume anything.
Ladies and gentlemen, the most authorative case matter expert on this I know of...
I give you, Sean...
Please sir...fire away..
first let me say that this is pretty easy to write sitting here on the couch. i know i'd feel differently if i was riding in the turret of a humvee and had just seen the humvee in front of me take an rpg round or an i.e.d. strike.
we're the military. to me, in the simplest form what that means is that we're a tool for the government to use to enforce policy, possibly through the use of controlled violence. of course that includes the security of the country and the protection of our interests. "controlled violence" is the key there. we're professionals. that's what seperates us from a street gang. we don't enjoy death or killing, many of us pray for a way to avoid it. but when we're ordered we follow through. yeah, we get some bad apples, but...
(i know you know all of this jl4, but i'm in an expansive mood). so if i were this guy's leader would i court martial him? most likely.
for a couple of reasons. no rules of engagement ever allow us to fire blindly at people who aren't immediate threats to us or people or equipment we're assigned to protect. at this stage of the conflict we're trying to improve the country and the quality of life for the citizens of iraq. part of this involves gaining their trust and reversing the negative images that they have of the U.S. this one incident ruined everything that they'd been striving to achieve in that one area. it's put all u.s. forces operating in that area in more danger, because now the locals are more likely to help anti-u.s. forces in the future. as this guy's leader he disobeyed me and my orders. before every military operation we have a pre-mission brief. we discuss the r.o.e. and what that means. quite possibly we cover very specific scenarios. we've probably done mission rehearsals and simulated different situations. part of being the guy in charge is enforcing those rules. and part of being a leader is sucking it up and doing things that are unpleasant. my guys have to toe the line. because of the nature of our job i can have no doubts that in times of stress my guys are going to do what they're supposed to. and right now the military can't have another scandal. we can't try to hide something like this and have it discovered later. we have to have the public trust as well. i can't tell you how often i feel the need to defend the bulk of servicemembers to others because of some of the bad things that pop up.
this would be such a big deal that with a court martial it wouldn't be in my hands as a company commander. but it'd be recommended higher, and then it'd happen more like a normal court procedure.
the gripes. this can and does happen. the military is a microcosm. we've got good and bad. we get some violent people. but i think we could do more to prevent that from happening. i think we could screen applicants better and more importantly do a better job of taking care of our people so that they stick around. and so the word gets out so we get a higher caliber of applicants and a bigger pool so we can be pickier and choosier. i wish we'd be honest with ourselves and really do a comparative study. sure there are imaginary numbers that we make up to say we have to have so many recruits. and so many soldiers at any given time. but in reality could we do more with less if the less were of higher quality?
training and war prep. we frequently talk in grandiose ways about killing the enemy. as leaders we need to realize who we're talking to and what the message is that we're sending. i realize we have to hype ourselves up for the difficult job ahead, but we have to temper that so that we're not setting our soldiers up for failure. you tell an 18 year old kid to kill-kill-kill and then set him out there with a loaded weapon, you can't be surprised when something bad happens. and i've heard a bunch of old time leaders telling their kids that. give them the big picture. we're not at war with iraq and afghanistan. we're at war with terrorists. with anti-iraqi forces. with the taliban. with radical muslims. but we're there to help the average iraqi. and stress that.
training is unrealistic. weapons stay locked up in arms rooms the majority of the time. guys aren't used to the idea of carrying them 24hrs a day. we've got a zero-tolerence mentality set up in the military now where we're terrified of an accidental death. that's not the way it should be. all of our training should be more difficult than anything we'll ever face on the battlefield.
okay. enough rambling. i now turn control of your blog back over to you.
holy smokes that was a long reply to a simple question. sorry!
OK...I have to say Sean, that once again I am proud and thankful for your service. To me (a non-military person), I could not have hoped for a better answer. I'm proud of our military and proud that there are intelligent folks like you who serve. Two statements you made jumped out at me..
1. We're professionals
2. Rules of engagement
These are to me the key factors and I suppose in a perfect world the military could be choosier about who they allow in. Actually though, In a perfect world there would be no need after-all, but I digress.
I myself would have to agree that the shooter should be court martialed. We MUST as Americans lead by example.
It's hard or me to wrap my mind around actually being in that circumstance, but I like to think I would do the right thing.
Your insight and experience inspire me once again.
~leelee~
Who am I to disagree with Sean? If I did disagree I would. However, I would like to expand on one point.
The court martial may or may not be appropriate, but it is not for the general public to make that determination. The military has processes set into place. In many ways military justice is significantly more stringent than "civilian" justice.And it is a system which works quite well. It should be allowed to work in the way in which it was designed, and run by those trained to operate within its confines. Military action should never be decided solely on public opinion.
As soon as the military begins taking directions from the civilian population based on public opinion the entirety of the operation is in jeopardy. Whether the court martial should happen should be determined by the proper chain of command. Not by Time magazine.
As I am not, nor have I ever been, in the proper chain of command - I'll defer to Sean.
The last person's post is a major part of the point I'm trying to get discussion about.
The Armed Forces should not have to glad-hand any citizens actions groups, since many of these groups are as two-faced as you can be. A good example would be the people out there who pushed mightily for more women in the service starting back in the early 80's, and now these same groups want to limit the amount of actual combat exposure our female service people have. It's drilling the well from opposite directions, and does nothing to help the cause of women in the service.
Sean's comments were eloquently stated, and I too find no reason to disagree. There are ROE's that must be adhered to, but it HAS to be the Military who cleans their own house.
Unless of course, you'd like to see Cindy Sheehan and Martin Sheen calling the shots....
Post a Comment