The US Army At Its Worst!

[SASless]

Tell me the Rules of Engagement and presence of JAG Lawyers in Combat Command HQ's is not a very dangerous combination for Troops engaged in Combat Operations in Afghanistan!

This is a tragedy of huge proportions!

It is time we bring the Troops Home!

If we are not only going to put them at great risk by the ROE's but then prosecute them for Murder when there was no Malice or Evil latent to violate or ignore the ROE's.....then we might as well pack up and go home because the Taliban will have won the War.


Seems a long time ago someone had something to say about situations like this.....

It really ain't the place nor time to reel off rhyming diction, but yet we'll write a final rhyme while waiting crucifixion. For we bequeath a parting tip of sound advice for such men who come in transport ships to polish off the Dutchman. If you encounter any Boers, you really must not loot 'em, and if you wish to leave these shores, for pity's sake, don't shoot 'em. Let's toss a bumper down our throat before we pass to Heaven, and toast a trim-set petticoat we leave behind in Devon.


US 1stLT Clint Lorance Gets 20 Years in Leavenworth for Ordering Attack on Taliban (http://dcxposed.com/2013/09/24/us-1stlt-clint-lorance-gets-20-years-in-leavenworth-for-ordering-attack-on-taliban/)

[500N]

Agree, not good at all.

[haughtney1]

This guy most likely has been made a scapegoat, the sad thing is, JSOC are quite happy to rain down hellfire's and blow mums and kids to pieces along with the various "teams" in country who when they make a mistake will quite happily dig bullets out of bodies in full view of the survivors..all in an ass covering effort.
This guy, most likely trying to do his job to the best of his ability....gets 20 year:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[swisherd78]

I agree, I mean I don't know the exact details of this incident but in general after 14 years of military/Army life...I've seen enough. You should see the aviation side of the house.

[thunderbird7]

Nice to see 'The Breaker' quoted on these pages ;)

[denachtenmai]

Spot on haughtney1, Shades of Vietnam?
I suggest that the JAG's reps be put in the front line, not in the HQ, just to see what it's like.
F**k it, put the JAG there as well, Army's first female TJAG takes the helm Wednesday - News - Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/news/army-s-first-female-tjag-takes-the-helm-wednesday-1.238965)
Regards,Den.

[500N]

thunderbird

Yes, I agree.

As least the Lt won't suffer the same fate.

But 20 years ?

What did the My Lai officer get ?

[dallas]

My Lai officer got Life and did 3.5 years. I expect something similar will happen to Lt Lorance, although as usual our 'advanced' civilisation demands men like Lorance go do their duty in situations that are not black and white, using its judicial arm and the luxury of time and hindsight to decide their actions did not meet the complex criteria imposed on them. That's not to say there shouldn't be rules, but clearly today's soldier needs to be decisive and legally astute, which is not an easy balancing act in situations that are normally less than textbook.

Where I think Lorance did go wrong - and I write this based on the account in the link that seems generally sympathetic, but also as someone who has had some training on RoE, albeit not in combat - is with the original 2 guys he ordered fire on. He seems to have balanced all probability that they were bad guys, based on descriptions and circumstance. Was that enough to get his sniper to take them out? My understanding of the rules is no. If they were aiming at someone; if they were planting a device; maybe even if they were just moving into position with weapons - but I gather all they were doing was sitting on a motorbike. Our rules say that's allowed, and we have to wait for them to choose to end their lives by taking up arms or endangering someone elses' life. 'Looking at us funny', irrespective of circumstance, can't be used as a defence for taking someone's life.

That said, I'm sure on one of these 'Ross goes to Afghan' type programmes, one episode shows the Brits engaging a 'dicker' - perhaps they had EW Int to confirm he was, without doubt, in the enemies kill chain?

This is only my opinion based on the narrative and I don't envy Lorance or any of the brave guys who don't have the luxury of the time I have to sit and decide what to do. I'm also sure that the guys they took out were undoubtedly Taliban and up to no good, but in which case we need to either change the rules to allow 'reasonable doubt' (which I don't actually think would be a good idea), or ensure that when they do get caught they're put out of action for a long time by jail, including de-radicalisation. All perfect world, of course!

[SASless]

as someone who has had some training on RoE, albeit not in combat

No personal insult meant.....but that alone disqualifies you from addressing this situation. Unless and until you have walked in those Boots....you just do not fully understand what it is all about. Classrooms are a far different situation than when you are nose to nose with the bad guys.

Re My Lai.....that was cold blooded murder of over 300 unarmed Men, Women, Children and Infants.

That is a far different thing than what we are talking about here.

That Lt. Calley only wound up serving Three plus years of House Arrest is a travesty....and that his superiors who were directly involved got off without any Prison time is a bigger travesty.....and worse of all....all those Senior Officers who covered it up did not go prison really stunk to high heavens.

You might recall Colin Powell as a Major was one of the Officers who covered it up....and look how he prospered over the Years.

This young Officer does not deserve such treatment. In Combat....the Tie must go to the Runner.....not to the Umpire!

[Mahogany_Bomber]

No more dickers, enemy scouts is the correct description these days.

[TomJoad]

No personal insult meant.....but that alone disqualifies you from addressing this situation. Unless and until you have walked in those Boots....you just do not fully understand what it is all about. Classrooms are a far different situation than when you are nose to nose with the bad guys.


With the caveat that we do not have all of the story here I must say I do feel that the 1st Lt has been dealt with harshly. However I do not agree with you SASless when you say "that alone disqualifies you from addressing this situation,,,,,nose to nose with the bad guys". By that very necessity the rules of war including specific ROE must be made by those not involved or nose to nose with the bad guys. What manner of carnage and depravity would we fall into if it were not such. The US Army like the British Army act at the direction of the civil populace not for themselves. They must be held accountable to the rules set by the civil body. Now, do not get me wrong on this, this outcome stinks to high heaven I agree and my heart goes out to this young man who must now feel utterly betrayed by his country. The British Army, with their long experience of policing insurgency in Northern Ireland know only too well the stress of working within what appears to be impossible ROEs. But it is a system that works and it keeps us true. From what I have read about the situation he endured and the decision he made, a similar outcome would have happened had it taken place during the conflict in NI. What I believe should happen now, is that the young man should be granted an immediate pardon and yes, I agree, it is long past time to get out and leave Afghanistan to Afghanistan. Being in command under such circumstances is not a responsibility I would welcome.

[Wensleydale]

I trust that this is a lesson learnt for those who contributed to an earlier thread who wanted to bomb the Serbs without UN approval at Srebrenica. No matter what you may think - not in ROE: don't do it.

[ludgar]

"Even though both men tested positive for gunshot residue and were acting suspiciously military intelligence released them back into the wild. The two aforementioned scouts were not confirmed as enemy fighters by that same exact military intelligence and the Army assumed Lorance guilty of random acts of murder ...."

Military Intelligence = Oxymoron

[NutLoose]

You'll never win a War when one side doesn't play to your rules, they will simply exploit the situation, and you will pay the price.

[Courtney Mil]

Well, all that is as may be. It matters not a jot who the enemy is or what war is being fought or what operation it is (even QRA against a airliner "not communicating"). In the subsequent "investigation" the man on the ground (or in the air on floating in his closed-up ship) is in a no-win situation.

He knows he is facing an enemy force that can cause his unit great harm. The two men in a Land Cruiser are armed, but not directly threatening him. But their radio report will alert the force the force they face to their presence and, possibly cost them their lives and a mission fail.

OPTION 1: He shoots the two men and engages the enemy iaw his orders and succeeds.

Years later he is found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison, life ruined for even for doing his duty and making the best decision he could in the heat of battle.

OPTION 2: He doesn't shoot the two men and they send his position and strength to the main force who immediately engage and inflict massive casualties on our man's force.

A while later, he faces charges of failing to take the correct action to protect his force and is found guilty of dereliction of duty or some such, court martialled, imprisoned and dismissed the service.

In my little ADUK world, ROE were there to stop us escalating a situation into WW3. Today, they are written by lawyers to give the courts the ammunition to hang the faithful.

Simplistic, I know, but that's how it feels.

[Ali Barber]

Never having been in that situation as I'm an airman rather than a grunt, but I've just finished reading "Outlaw Platoon"; an excellent book about a US Army platoon commander in Afghanistan. He describes an event that came close to becoming another My Lai but everyone held to their ROE. his description of the feelings they were going through was excellent writing. I recommend the book.

[NutLoose]

Well things never change, there is always someone at the rear pulling the strings with no comprehension of how it effects those at the front, same happened during the Gulf War, the A10 in European green scheme stood out like a sore thumb against the desert, so they painted them grey locally as per the rest of the aircraft operating out there, CENTAF sitting at the rear were not happy with this ordered them to repaint them European dark green and it is believed to have led to losses.

[Courtney Mil]

We'll said that man. Another non mil aviation thread from sasless.

Well, yeah. I can't argue that it is not, in its title, nor in its subject a Mil Av topic. However, this is an issue that applies equally to all mil personnel and I, for one, am glad to see the ROE/litigation conundrum raised here. ROE and the consequences of engagement or the decission not to engage is highly relevant to today's aircrew and it has never received enough open discussion for those that have to face similar choices.

As for "another" thread from SASless, I think he is a good contributor to the forum, even if you don't like his views. That's what discussion is about; engaging with people with different opinions.

Just my late night thoughts.

[TomJoad]

Hear hear CM, Jaw Jaw not War War:ok:

Actually having just been prompted by your post it struck me that the ROE conundrum must be even more testing for aircrew, especially against ground targets. Exactly how sure can you be of the intentions of the suspected insurgent on the ground when you are at whatever height and whatever knots you are doing! Nightmare, I take my hat off to those who do and do it so well.

[Courtney Mil]

Totally agree, TJ. The ground attack ROE and target ID issue is a nightmare. Even with great kit and reliable intel. My worst nightmare was the post-911 scenario of having to shoot down or order the engagement of a (so called) rogue airliner. Another lose/lose situation with invenitable litigation no matter what decission one took.

I second the "I take my hat off to those who do and do it so well" :ok:

[SASless]

ROE's apply to everyone that carries a weapon or flies an Aircraft that is armed.

All of us who have or are going to use Deadly Force are at risk of violating some part of the ROE's no matter how carefully we weigh our options as we do not always have the leisure to spend hours, weeks, or months arguing the pro's and con's of our decisions when our lives and those of our Troops are at risk.

Sad some are incapable of seeing the connection....but then they perhaps are not at risk and thus should not be too quick to challenge the propriety of a discussion on this topic.

BGG.....you ever have to make a decision about shooting someone in combat?

Do tell us about your experience in such matters?

Then perhaps we can assess your knowledge of such business.

As your Bio states you are an Engineer....perhaps you are delving into areas of discussion that are not your usual area of expertise.

[hoofie]

I'm a civvie so cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of his actions.

However, 20 years in a Federal Prison seems manifestly out of proportion to the events that happened and the decisions he made.

It really smacks of "setting an example". As usual the poor bastards on the ground get stuck for it.

I would have thought the republicans and the media would be screaming from the rooftops about this but that doesn't seem to have happened.

[TomJoad]

While I disagree with some of SASLess points I think his original post is very topical and absolutely germane to this forum. An interest and understanding of ROEs apply to all in military service even non combatants. I go further, and this is where I disagree with SASLess on point, I believe an interest and understanding of ROEs is equally important of the civil body for whom the military act. So I would add to SASLess' view that "ROE's apply to everyone that carries a weapon or flies an Aircraft that is armed." The ROEs are set by the civil authorities so the ordinary Joe in the street should have an interest and say; after all, the acts are carried out on his behalf.

SASLess thanks for your posts - thought provoking indeed.

[NutLoose]

I suppose no matter what war you fight there are always going to ROE's that conflict with the aim of the War.
Wasn't it Vietnam that had the visual identification rule for air to air engagement that at a stroke negated the advantage of the Phantom and its at the time advanced Air to Air missile Sytems.
It also brought to the fore ( at the beginning ) that the Phantom wasn't armed with a gun, something previously considered outdated which was hastily rectified.

[Bill4a]

I have the greatest sympathy for the man, but no-one should be surprised that actions and decisions he made in maybe 5 seconds would be minutely dissected and analysed over several days or even weeks by people with no real knowledge of the circumstances and who have a black or white remit. I do however feel that the 'jury' should surely have had experience even in part. :ugh:
Great sadness for this officer and his family.

[SASless]

Yet more gross stupidity by the US Army Senior Leadership!

Understand something folks.....I am a Vietnam Combat Veteran.

I know how we were trained, how we thought about things, and this would never have happened.....NEVER!

When the guys on the Ground called for a medevac.....We Went!

We did not give a **** about Red Crosses on the side of the aircraft, we did not worry about Gunships, we did not worry about the Geneva Accords and the Senior Army Leadership philosophical sensitivities.

We did our best to get the wounded out no matter the risk.

We did not always succeed, we lost aircraft and crews, but we went.

Early in the War the "Dustoff" guys stuck to similar silly rules but over time they too embraced the Creed.

A young US Air Force PJ bleed to death waiting over nine hours for a Medevac Helicopter during the Robert's Ridge fight in Afghanistan....and it appears not much has changed in the way the Army does things.

The USAF and USMC arm their aircraft and go get the Wounded.....the Army for some unfathomable reason thinks doing the way this video shows it.....is the right way.....and brave young Soldiers are dying as a result.

Yes....this makes me angry.....our Soldiers deserve far better Leadership than this!

Did military rules cost a soldier his life? - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57362374/did-military-rules-cost-a-soldier-his-life/)

[500N]

SaSless

I saw that Video a while ago. Not good.

By coincidence, I happened to watch a video of Major Bruce Crandall
talking about Ia Drang Valley and another video where all three pilots
won DFC's even though they went against their superiors orders.
Both were inspiring videos.

[Tinman74]

I for one is pleased that our MERT birds are armed and always have escorts, I read that the USAF are looking at this practice.

[Wallah]

Having served on the Support Helicopter force (a long time ago) the consensus of opinion was they would much rather be armed than have a Red Cross. At least then you could shoot back...

[SASless]

A discussion of the problem.....and why the US Army Senior Leadership is so fecked up in their thinking!

13-military-pilots-rebuke-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/13-military-pilots-rebuke-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff.htm)


Pay particular attention to what the Dust Off Pilots have to say about the situation and compare that to the crap the JCS put out.