1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672Please. Even the US military recognized that the policy it was using in the first months of the war was causing unnecessary civilian deaths. In August of 2003 major changes were implemented:
I think you have to look at what the situation was on the ground over there. When Massey says that these guys were killing innocent civilians because of "rhetoric in intelligence" - that's an entirely improper use of the word rhetoric. It's entirely possible that every single car that does not follow instructions on how to approach a checkpoint wa ...[text shortened]... les of engagement, but I think that the ROE in place were entirely appropriate to the situation.
Dozens of innocents have died at U.S.-manned checkpoints because they didn't see or understand the warnings. Nearly two years ago following a series of accidental checkpoint shootings in Baghdad U.S. forces under the command of Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez adopted uniform procedures for traffic stops.
They were meant to give Iraqis who drive at high speeds in deference to the peril posed by bandits, carjackers and insurgents enough time to come to a slowdown for checkpoints.
They included lighted signs written in English and Arabic, lighted checkpoints and serpentine barriers that forced cars to slow to a crawl.
The particular problem checkpoints pose came into focus early in the occupation. At least three Iraqis were killed in western Baghdad's upscale Mansour district on July 27, 2003, when members of the U.S.-manned Task Force 20 opened fire on cars that drove through a military cordon.
The Iraqis drove into a supposedly secured site from an unblocked side street.
Sanchez told reporters in August 2003 the Mansour incident taught the military "our traffic control point procedures needed some improvement ... to make sure that we have the right equipment, to put markers out there that lets the people know that they're coming up on a checkpoint, in order for them to comply and stop."
"What you don't (want) is a vehicle that's coming up to the checkpoint has no idea that it's there, and the first time it knows that the checkpoint is there is when it starts getting warning shots. So that's what we're working," Sanchez said.
He directed that flares be put out on the road in enough time to alert drivers to the upcoming checkpoint and that stop signs be posted in both English and Arabic.
Another senior military official who served in Iraq said similar changes were made in the south and west.
"We had a requirement for lights, sign in Arabic (with a "stop or shoot" warning), use of flares, spike strips, etc.," he told United Press International in March. "We still had shootings, but we reduced them a lot."
The procedures offered protection to both the Americans and the Iraqis: Innocent drivers would not be mistaken for suicide bombers, and U.S. troops would have adequate time to stop an attack by firing on the car.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050502-063616-9116r.htm
Obviously the immediate short-term "safest" thing for a US soldier to do would be to shoot dead every Iraqi he sees because they might be a suicide bomber. Is that the policy you are suggesting? Soldiers have an obligation not to kill civilians if it can be reasonably avoided; and furthermore, Massey's thesis is that the long-term effect of these killings was greater risk to US troops because they aided the growth and strength of the insurgency. Thus, the policies were not only causing Iraqi civilians to be unnecessarily killed, but they were also militarily counterproductive.
Originally posted by sasquatch672In case you did not see my edit:
I agree with you - there were bad procedures in place in the early part of the invasion. Before I attribute it to negligence, I would attribute it to the chaos of a fast-moving military operation. Of course, ideally the situation Sanchez describes - a car being alerted to its proximity to a checkpoint by warning shots, or not warning shots - never hap ...[text shortened]... ituation on the ground, and an undistinguishable enemy. It's one of the many tragedies of war.
Obviously the immediate short-term "safest" thing for a US soldier to do would be to shoot dead every Iraqi he sees because they might be a suicide bomber. Is that the policy you are suggesting? Soldiers have an obligation not to kill civilians if it can be reasonably avoided; and furthermore, Massey's thesis is that the long-term effect of these killings was greater risk to US troops because they aided the growth and strength of the insurgency. Thus, the policies were not only causing Iraqi civilians to be unnecessarily killed, but they were also militarily counterproductive.
Calling a combat veteran "whiny" because he states that a policy later recognized as flawed caused innocent deaths seems inappropriate.
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672He should tell his story here
I didn't see your edit. Your first job in a combat zone is threat assessment. That job is hard enough when the bad guys are wearing uniforms. It becomes infinitely harder when combatants are driving civilian vehicles and wearing civilian clothes. So of course I don't advocate killing every single Iraqi you see. But when the danger signs are all t ...[text shortened]... detachment from war allows them to preserve their zeal for war. He should tell his story here.
He did from the first few months he left the Corps in interviews with his local newspapers and with a journalist who published it in the Sacramento Bee. As I've pointed out in my other posts, not a single major media outlet wanted to touch his story in an election year where both major parties were supporting the war. Is it surprising that no major American publisher wanted to touch a book that the knee jerk reaction of people here is to call the guy a "pussy" "psycho" and suggest he is a traitor? Corporate publishers aren't known for their bravery. Good for him if he can write a book about his experiences and make some cash - all the freaking generals do!
Originally posted by sasquatch672Thank you, and your post was well said....great point!!
Well done Chanc.
You said everything I would have said. I think the point is this - war isn't just "distasteful", it's a series of brutal, tragic events even when fought for the most noble of causes. Good, conscientious men - fathers, sons, brothers - do things that they would never otherwise believe themselves capable of.
My grandfather' ...[text shortened]... nsolation that those 200 men were trained to kill him and his company. War is a terrible thing.
Until Masey can substantiate the allegations he is making about other Marines,(Out of the other 35,000 or so Marines who have been in Iraq, surely there is at least one he can get to substantiate his comments) he will find little mainstream audience for them. As always, those who are seeking anything bad about the U.S. military or the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq will be receptive. He is singing to the choir — music to their ears.
Originally posted by xsDoesn't the fact that the US military changed the checkpoint policies within months after Massey's experiences because of the exact problem he identified strongly and independently confirm his statements? What part of his claims are factually disputed?
Until Masey can substantiate the allegations he is making about other Marines,(Out of the other 35,000 or so Marines who have been in Iraq, surely there is at least one he can get to substantiate his comments) he will find little mainstream audience for them. As always, those who are seeking anything bad about the U.S. military or the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq will be receptive. He is singing to the choir — music to their ears.
Originally posted by xsExactly!
Until Masey can substantiate the allegations he is making about other Marines,(Out of the other 35,000 or so Marines who have been in Iraq, surely there is at least one he can get to substantiate his comments) he will find little mainstream audience for them. As always, those who are seeking anything bad about the U.S. military or the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq will be receptive. He is singing to the choir — music to their ears.
He'll find a large audience with the USA/Bush haters, but that's about it.
The "rules of engagement" may change 3 times in the next 20 mins. and things happen fast. Don't forget these men are trained to be quite violent .. it's what they do.
This guy sounds to me like he served well for a number of years and finally reached his breaking point. Another case of PTSD.
It don't mean nothin'
Originally posted by sasquatch672Good post!
Did you bother to read what the guy said? They guy said that a) Marines followed their orders and acted within the rules of engagement they were given; b) that intelligence passed to company-level commanders indicated that all cars approaching checkpoints should be treated as suicide bombers; and c) that as a result of the tension of combat, a lack of ...[text shortened]... d the truth, and then lied about that? Was this the "moral" president that you had hoped for?