Steve Anderson Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 "If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can." Col. Allen West, answering whether he would use "such tactics" again. full story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Those are some lucky soldiers --- to have experienced him as a C.O.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 This may be somewhat controversial (spelling), but as someone who's entering the military soon (hopefully), part of me does not agree with the method in which the Colonel acquired the information. Now, let me say that I'm not above doing the same in his position. On the record, while it did save lives, if we are going into a region of the world and profess to be on the side of the morally correct, part of our responsibility must be to conduct ourselves in such a manner. If we have rules that we expect and hold other countries accountable too, for their own people as well as our own, and as such, we are accountable to those same rules. Off the record, the Colonel, did do what was necessary to save lives. And it's true that the end did justify the means. However, it was still Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and by the book may warrant a Court Marshall, but I know, I would be in favor of Administrative Punishment. Like I said, if I was in his position, I would probably do something similar if not worse. However, that doesn't make it the right thing to do, because at that time, you don't know if the ends will justify the means. Just my two Lincoln's. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redmist10 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 So let me get this right - he fired NEAR the guys head, made him crap his pants and got the information he needed to help us safe lives of Americans, et al... Uh, ok The big glaring difference between what he did and what the real bad guys would have done is that this guy still has his gooey filling whereas the guys we're trying to defeat would have created a gaping sunroof in that guys head and then obtained the information from the guys buddy that was crapping his pants and watching the whole episode. <pans to photo clip of the room full of executed American soldiers that were with J. Lynch - OR DID WE FORGET?> I long for the days when people had the balls to actually win a war. Thank goodness there are still people that put lives above "by the book" rules developed by people that don't have the salt to actually fight. <jumps off soapbox and kicks sand in the direction of the beach blanket whiners everywhere> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Wiping the sand from my eyes I reply - I must beg to differ.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 USCBIGDAWG If I ever got Court Marshalled, I want Catherine Bell to defend me, she might not be the lawyer Harm is but she has a certain amount of eye appeal he does not have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 If I ever got Court Marshalled, I want Catherine Bell to defend me, she might not be the lawyer Harm is but she has a certain amount of eye appeal he does not have... Yeah, and all of us little boys would love to be taken to the range for some shooting lessons from Ms Bell. At least I'd rather prefer that than flying an F-14 with Harm: he seems to be quite prone to flight accidents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus The Bum Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Sounds like the military is lacking guys of this caliber, these are the kind of soldiers I admire. Someone who isn't going to take any shizney from the enemy. Beat his a$$ and make him talk. Our military hirearchy is full of b.s. overeducated Generals who have NEVER seen battle, college educated kiss-assers who get put themselves in for a Silver Star for being within a hundred miles of a battle. I have seen it with my own 2 eyes. These idiots have NO idea what it is like to be someone who is fighting for his life day in day out, they only "perceive" a violation of the UCMJ. "Oh, he slapped a prisoner with the back of his hand because he was trying to get information that might save his soldiers life....You can't hit the enemy.....Lets Courts Martial him and end his career in order to protect the civil rights of a terrorist" End of Story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus The Bum Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Sorry....Got wound up.....Think Puppies, waterfalls, kittens and Prozac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Ahem. If we are to truly deserve the mantle of "good guys" then we must conduct ourselves as such. Do I think kicking off a round near a suspect who may have vital information constitutes abuse? In a police context, yes. In a military context, probably not. However, the UCMJ is what it is, and a Colonel is expected to know same. If he disagrees with it, he should lodge a protest upstairs. Then, change the patrol plans and increase firepower to overwhelm expected ambushes. And when "upstairs" asks him why he's patrolling with tactical nukes, ask them why they haven't gotten the info he needs out of the suspect he sent. As I recall, he interrogated the suspect without benefit of a trained and qualified interrogator. Again, a Colonel should know better. If what you want is to get info from an uncooperative suspect, there are other ways. How about this: You tell the suspect that you want the info he has. If he provides it, you will protect him and keep his name a secret. If he does not, you will loudly proclaim at a press conference that the suspect has given it all up: the names of the bad guys, their locations, their families, their plans. Based on the suspects info, (whose name you will loudly praise) you will soon be able to make arrests. You then tell the suspect that after naming him you'll send him home and make sure every patrol knows his house, and to avoid it. And after sending him home, you'll round up the bad guys you already know, just so they'll think he fingered them. Ask the suspect how long it will be before he gets a knock on the door in the night. Is he still interested in the first offer? As long as you were not so stupid as to turn on the tape recorder before the suspect starts spilling info, there is no way to prove any misconduct, unlike an errant shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Hi Patrick, Thanks for seeing my point. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 To quote Marcinko's final specwar commandment: "There are no rules - you shall win at all cost." In war you are not paid by your methods, just by your results. Just because you want to hold yourself to a higher standard does not in any way mean the enemy will. And quite frankly, you cannot win a battle against someone who is not governed by rules when you are. I'm with you Rufus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 "There are no rules - you shall win at all cost." "It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." ""We'll never get the hell out of this stupid village of Malmedy and on to our objective with all these prisoners. Shoot them." "God will know his 0wn. Kill them all." So, which quote did I make up? And are any of them defensible in war? Win at all costs? Are you going to laser-tag an orphanage for a 2,000 pound bomb to get the terrorist leader inside? I think a long jail sentence for both the commander who'd order it, and the subordinate who would carry it out is appropriate. At the least. There are costs that are unfortunate. Costs that are appropriate. Costs that are counter-productive, and cost that are criminal. One is not effete or ineffective to realize that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 You're right, I should clarify myself. It is NOT ok to nuke 10,000 innocents to get at 1 person. For example: Watching TV and seeing two people fighting. One loses his weapon and the other guy tosses his away and fights him hand-to-hand to be "honorable." That is something that has no place on the battlefield. IMHO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Your perceptions form your reality. My perceptions were formed in SE Asia in 1966. We could have won that war. All that needed to be done was to have a B52 fly over Hanoi carrying a nuke while a copter flew in low, and a guy leaned out the door with a bull horn and told them, "You got about 30 seconds to stop this crap..." You can't win a political war. If you want to win, then win doing whatever it takes. Don't be lollygagging and worrying about how this looks, etc. Fight to win... Sorry, my perceptions/reality from someone who was there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 You da man TL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now